Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Phantom Weapon Load

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Phantom Weapon Load

Old 22nd Aug 2019, 15:15
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dublin
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Here is one example of a US Military F-4 weapons array.



A sign of changed times. I doubt a modern version of the picture would include the thermonuclear or chemical (sarin) options.

JAS
Just a spotter is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2019, 16:23
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 379
Originally Posted by Treble one View Post
Fascinating stuff. Just one question. Did we not have our own 'Special weapons' by the early 70's (was thinking Red Beard/ WE177 that would probably pair with a Phantom). Didn't the Buccaneer carry Red Beard prior to WE177 in the nuclear strike role in the 70's/80's?

Cheers TO
I think that the F4 in the ground attack and strike ( nuclear) role was only ever “interim” awaiting the arrival of the Jaguar +WE177 after which the F4 s all went air defence. That being the case it would not have been worth the considerable effort of integrating WE177 and the US kindly provided their weapons under, I presume, the same dual key procedures as the Canberras which preceded the F4s.
PS Would the US allow a Non US controlled nuclear weapon on a US built aircraft?

Last edited by Timelord; 22nd Aug 2019 at 16:43.
Timelord is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2019, 18:31
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 72
Posts: 1,013
Q on the FGR2 at Brueggen '70 to '73 was definitely the US-controlled device.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2019, 19:32
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Originally Posted by tartare View Post
What is the heaviest weapon load ever that an F-4 carried?
The aircraft became heavier as the years went by due to modifications, especially the FG1. We flew a trial to increase the max take-off weight from 58000lbs to 60000 lbs in ‘D’ fit (3 tanks) plus 4 Skyflash, 4 AIM9 and 4 1000 lb bombs. But that was not a war load in the late ‘80s when we did this. It was just a means of achieving the desired mass.

Edit: I have thought a bit more about this fit. We definitely had the 3 tanks and 4 x 1000 lb bombs but probably did not have the missiles, and if we did just the Skyflash. My logbook doesn't state the actual load so this is just from memory.

Last edited by LOMCEVAK; 26th Aug 2019 at 09:06.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 00:58
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,585
Jaysus.
That's 30 tons.
What a jet...
tartare is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 05:24
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 748
The US B43 special weapons provided under the dual key US/UK Project E dual-key arrangement for RAFG Phantom FGR2s had previously been used by the RAFG Canberra B(I)8s up until June 1972 until there were replaced by the Buccaneer with WE177.






RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 07:59
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 619
Thank you Timelord and RAFEng. I knew these weapons were used with the Canberra, but did not know about the Phantom.
Treble one is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 08:19
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,203
Originally Posted by Timelord View Post


I think that the F4 in the ground attack and strike ( nuclear) role was only ever “interim” awaiting the arrival of the Jaguar +WE177 after which the F4 s all went air defence. That being the case it would not have been worth the considerable effort of integrating WE177 and the US kindly provided their weapons under, I presume, the same dual key procedures as the Canberras which preceded the F4s.
PS Would the US allow a Non US controlled nuclear weapon on a US built aircraft?
We also didn't have enough WE177s at the time, as production was still underway (and warhead production had concentrated on the Polaris fleet initially.). The RAF's Red Beard stocks had been mainly held in Cyprus and Singapore
Davef68 is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 13:03
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 754
Originally Posted by Timelord View Post

PS Would the US allow a Non US controlled nuclear weapon on a US built aircraft?
"Allowing" is a difficult word, as I would imagine that certification to US standards would not be permitted. I can think of several US originated airframes that were, or likely were, nuclear capable with non-US weapons, UK Wessex (license built), UK Sea King (license built), Israeli F-16/15, Pakistan....

sandiego89 is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 18:03
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: adelaide australia
Posts: 269
Originally Posted by tartare View Post
What is the heaviest weapon load ever that an F-4 carried?

I remember reading a paperback some years back I believe was called "Phantom over Vietnam"? Anyway, it was written by a Marine F-4 pilot about his experiences and he mentioned a configuration he called "Super Bomber". You took one F-4, put a MER on the centerline and both outer pylons, a TER on both inner pylons, loaded them all up with MK82 slicks for a total of 24 bombs, and prayed she'd get off the ground! Supposedly only REALLY experienced pilots were allowed to fly the airplane configured like that cuz they were an absolute beast to fly.
gileraguy is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 23:44
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,310
A Wessex or Sea King?

I pray it was a teeny weeny very extremely low yield device....as otherwise the Pilot and Crew would have to be wearing white head bands as they committed ritual suicide!
SASless is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2019, 23:49
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,203
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
A Wessex?

I pray it was a teeny weeny very extremely low yield device....as otherwise the Pilot would have to be wearing a white head band as he committed ritual suicide!
Plain old WE177A




They fitted one to a Wasp too....






Davef68 is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 06:11
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: cardiff
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by tartare View Post
Jaysus.
That's 30 tons.
What a jet...
Buccaneer was 63,000LB if memory serves me right.

Ttfn
ivor toolbox is online now  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 06:17
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: cardiff
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by Chris Kebab View Post
....flown by equally remarkable chaps
and maintained by equally remarkable chaps (and chapesses) too....

Ttfn
ivor toolbox is online now  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 08:47
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 379
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
A Wessex or Sea King?

I pray it was a teeny weeny very extremely low yield device....as otherwise the Pilot and Crew would have to be wearing white head bands as they committed ritual suicide!
But the plain old WE177 did have a teeny weeny option for that role.
Timelord is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 14:05
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BOQ
Age: 75
Posts: 480
Buccaneer was 63,000LB if memory serves me right.
A-5 Vigilante max TO wt was slightly over 63,000 lbs. F-105 was somewhat heavyish also.

Re: USMC F-4 (3MERs, 2 TERs config).......A manual bomber in an F-4 with 24 MK-82s actually had a chance of hitting something for a change.

(The USAF in VN had a 3 or 5 SUU-23 config on some F-4Ds. Now that's a gunfighter.)



Last edited by OK465; 24th Aug 2019 at 14:53.
OK465 is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 15:12
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 960
I met an RAF pilot who flew, in the USA, with 5 suu. He told me that it was heavy and when he fired all 5 at once it nearly stopped.
Some may remember Black Fergie 😁
beardy is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 17:53
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BOQ
Age: 75
Posts: 480
The jury-rigged wiring for that 5 SUU config was left somewhat less than fully documented and mysterious. We got one of those aircraft handed down to the Reserves. I believe the wing guns went thru the DCU wiring for the nuke.

I fired the center-line SUU-23 on the range one day and a LAU-88 w TGM from an inboard station jettisoned at the same time. First thing I asked was, "How many hits?" primarily to substantiate for the record that I had only the CL gun selected and correctly so. Range officer said "45 hits......plus one skip hit".

(I should clarify the F-105 comment. It only maxed out around 54,000 lbs.....but handled like it weighed 70,000)
OK465 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2019, 12:43
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,056
Originally Posted by Davef68 View Post
One of the underwing tanks could be the modified version used to carry photoflash for night time operations. Not sure how widespread that was, but you can see it on this pic of XV406 (which was the Recce trials aircraft, so carries the pod and modified tank in spite of being with 111 at the time)


Photo flash?? Thought that was 1940s era not 70s/80s....and use likes of LLTV and Infra Red as the US applied widely during Vietnam conflict ...

Cheers
chopper2004 is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2019, 14:21
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,129
Originally Posted by chopper2004 View Post
Photo flash?? Thought that was 1940s era not 70s/80s....and use likes of LLTV and Infra Red as the US applied widely during Vietnam conflict ...

Cheers
The US also used photo-flash cartridges (post 1940s) on the RF-4B and C, right through Vietnam and up until the Recce Phantoms eventual retirement in the 90s. LLTV and IR aren't always the only answer...

-RP
Rhino power is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.