Susaschka
-
Content Count
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Susaschka
-
-
On 5/20/2021 at 12:44 AM, Corey said:
I know this isn’t an E model nor the 52nd, but I always thought this load was cool. Wonder if it was flown or if it was an air show load?
The picture is a bit small, but it looks like a AIM-9 on the right side and 2 GBU-12's on the left and bottom station of the TER.
Similar to the picture from the Israeli F-4E posted by Finn below.
-
I also found this interesting article about accurate loadouts: http://thecombatworkshop.blogspot.com/2018/06/ensuring-your-aircrafts-loadout-is.html
The site is worth checking out.
-
I was able to find one of the updated manuals dated April 1990 and I attached it to this message.
It can be found here: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2015/05/f-4e-flight-manual-update.html
Like it says: It appears to be only a partial copy, with just the updates.
Hope this can help anybody.
-
5 minutes ago, Corey said:
the whole flight manual is listed here:http://www.f4phantom.com/docs/F4Manual-1979-T-O-1F-4E-1-Flight-Manual-USAF-Series-F-4E-Aircraft.pdf
the ordnance limitation pages (27 pages worth) are in the limitations chapter. Be advised, this is just one revision of this manual. Other revisions added and subtracted various types of ordnance and configurations.
Thank you!
-
17 hours ago, Finn said:
Here is an Israeli F-4E showing how close a M-117 750lb bomb was to the missile launcher:
so they would leave off the bomb in order to have an AIM-9:
Jari
Nice catch! To increase the load the Special Weapons Launcher was developed so an extra AIM-9 and bomb could be carried.
I also read somewehere that it was possible to carry 2 AIM-9's with a TER loaded with 3 bombs without an adapter, but in that case the AIM-9's could only be used after getting rid of the bombs.
According to the the serviceman I had contact with, they didn't use this configutation at Spangdahlem.
They chose to load one inner pylon with AIM-9's and the other with bombs/missile(s) in the case AIM-9's were needed.
AIM-9's weren't used very often anyway, because of the Air-to-Ground mission they were tasked with.
-
15 hours ago, Corey said:
The original poster had a question about 4 Shrikes:
Thanks Cory, this was indeed one of my original questions.
Is it possible to share the entire loadout list here?
-
The Navy and Marines also used an adapter between the pylon and TER, but it was a bit smaller and more elegant. 😇
-
Wow, That really is the first picture I've ever seen showing a Special Weapons Adapter, well done!
It's hard to see and looks similar, but it hasn't got the flat panel on top like the Lau-118.
I do have to say that I don't like the looks of this contraption at all: It looks out of proportions and the TER is placed way to low for my taste.
Very glad I didn't go for this configuration. 😎
-
Today I had the opportunity to get in touch with a former Spangdahlem serviceman which gave me the following information:
- Could a F-4E technically carry a TER or other air-to-ground weapons when AIM-9's are fitted on stations 2 and 8?
His answer: Yes, but only when a Special Weapons Adapter is used.
- Could Spangdahlem F-4E's be fitted with this loadout in the late eighties?
His answer: Technically yes, but because the Special Weapons Adapter wasn't available at Spangdahlem the answer is no.
- Did Spang F-4E's fly missions with 18 Mk.82's on TER's and MER's?
His answer: Yes, but only very rarely because of the high weight and drag. Lighter configurations were far more common as range was very poor in this configuration.
- Could AGM-45's be carried on the outer stations 1 and 9?
His answer: Technically yes, but this configuration was seldom used.
He added that Spangdahlem Phantoms were mostly configured in the air-to-ground (AG) role and were only rarely configured in the air-to-air (AA) role as this wasn't their mission.
Mixing AA and AG weapons was not frequently done, and this mostly meant only adding a Sidewinder (or two) on one of the inboard stations.
Sidewinder rails were sometimes carried on the inboard pylons while carrying AGM-45's, but no AIM-9's would be loaded on them.
If a mission did require a dedicated AA presence then F-4E's could be configured for the AA role, but they mostly relied on external fighter cover from for example Bitburg or Hahn.
He also confirmed that there was indeed a clearance issue between the centerline fuel tank and an AIM-7 being fired from one of the foreward stations 4 and 6.
For this to work the centerline fueltank needed to be jettisoned before a AIM-7 could be fired.
This is the main reason why (most of the time) only an AN/ALQ-131 was carried on station 4 and station 6 was left empty if a centerline fuel tank was present.
Lastly he mentioned that the 3TFW based at Clark AFB was the only unit that had the Special Weapons Adapter available.
However, they didn't use them very often and if they used them it was mostly just one combined with a TER.
I did ask him if he had any pictures from a Special Weapons Adapter fitted on a F-4E or a loadoud with four AGM-45's, but unfortunately he didn't have any.
Anyway I'm very happy with the information I received and all my questions have been answered satisfactorily.
For my Spangdahlem F-4E from 1987 I have now chosen the four AGM-45's, two/three AIM-7E's, centerline tank and AN/ALQ-131 as my planned loadout.
Not sure when I will start though 🙂
-
1 hour ago, Niels said:
Seek, and you shall find;
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI'm sorry, but this is not the configuration we are looking for.
It doesn't have the loadout of AIM-9's and bombs on stations 2 and 8, just two TER's with 3 Mk.82's each on them. 😉
-
4 hours ago, Niels said:
Yes, this config goes back to ~1967 and Col Robin Olds who where one of the first to pioner this solution. There is plenty of pictures online showing it.
For Dessert Storm, the 3TFW usually basd at Clark AFB, Philippines, arrived late to the party, and they used in addition a special adaptor to increase the distance between the TER with bombs and the missile rails. But this was special for this unit as far as I know.Then you are doing a lot better then me, because I can't find a single operational picture of a F-4E loaded with AIM-9's and bombs on stations 2 + 8.
All I can find are Navy, Marines, museum, digital (pc) and plastic models using this configuration.
I also read that only Clark F-4E's were apparently using this adapter to carry a TER underneath the AIM-9's, but again I'm unable to find any photographic proof.
4 hours ago, Niels said:You should also give Google a try - plenty of info available online
F-4E Weapons load photos – Google SøkTrust me, I really did. 😎
Lets leave it here, because my initial questions have been answered and I have enough info to figure out which loadout I'm going to use.
If anyone does manage to find any pictures of operational F-4E's with this config (AIM-9's and bombs on stations 2+8) , please post them here as I would really want to see these.
Thanks to all that helped me figure this out. It is much appriciated!
-
On 5/18/2021 at 7:46 AM, Niels said:
Its a bit confusing - are you looking to load her up with a possible but seldom used load or are you looking for a training load or something else?
Weapons loads are subject to the same principle whatever unit whener in time: What and where is the target and what is your objective?Full load of 18x MK 82 causes a lot of drag and reduce your range, while a lighter load gives you a longer reach. Still there is A2A refueling, which supports the mission along the way.
Both of the loads you have listed above is both possible and have been used in the past, although the full load of Mk 82's have seldom been seen after the VietNam war?
On this page you will find the actual loads carried by the 52TFW during Dessert Storm, it should give you the real deal F-4E/G and RF-4C "Phantom II" (dstorm.eu)
Sorry for the confusion, I just like my F-4E to have an interesting loadout with live weapons that could actually be possible. For me it's a model and it should look as nice/interesting as possibe. 😎
Thanks for the link to the website showing actual loads carried by the 52TFW during Desert Storm.
In the F-4E configuration I see that CBU-87's are fitted below a pair of AIM-9's on station 2. Am I interpreting this correctly?
A few days ago I've read a story about a somebody that was trying to find out if USAF F-4's ever used AIM-9's and bombs at the same time on stations 2 and/or 8 just like the Navy and Marines F-4's did.
Besides some pictures of USAF F-4's in museums, he wasn't able to find any photographic proof of operational USAF F-4's that used this loadout, so I'm uncertain if this configuration was ever used like this.
Have you seen any pictures of F-4E's carrying this loadout?
-
8 hours ago, BillS said:
I was never stationed at Spang but had a close friend who flew weasles there. To be authentic, training sorties would most likely be a single captive carry AGM-88 and or AGM-65. Mavs might not be your fav but they were probably one of the most common weapons carried. A captive carry AIM-9 would be appropriate as would the ALQ-131. Tank configuration would most typically be 2x370s. Three tanks were as rare as hen’s teeth due to the drag which used up the fuel in the third tank.
Thanks for the info, I didn't know that 3 fueltanks would cause so much drag and that carrying 3 tanks was so rare.
I also read that sometimes the front two stations 4 and 6 would be empty or carry ECM pods as there was a clearance issue between the Sparrow rear fins and the centre fueltank.
Apparently this meant the centerline tank required jettisoning before the front missiles could be launched?
Does anyone know if this is really the case?
As for the weapons loadout: I like mine to have an interesting, full live weapons loadout that could actually be possible. It doesn't have to be 100% authentic for day to day sorties, but must at least be possible. 🙂
At the moment I've narrowed my choices down to the two options below.
-
1 hour ago, Niels said:
Yes, they can carry 4x AGM-45
McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II Loading Reference (cybermodeler.com)Thank you so much!
I found a lot of different weapon configuration charts browsing the Internet, but I didn'd find this one. 🙂 🙂
Very happy, so now I only have do decide if I will go for the Mk.82's or Shrike's.
-
22 hours ago, Niels said:
The F-4G carried 4x AGM-88 during Dessert Storm 1991 on missions over Kuwait. For longer missions, 2x AGM-88 and fuel tanks was the norm. AGM-45 was used aswell in this period, expending the last stock of that missile.
In general, there is nothing preventing the F-4E from carrying and firing the AGM-45/AGM-88, however only the F-4G has the tracking required to make the most of them.
Yes you are right that F-4E's can fire the AGM-45's when targetting is provided by a F-4G, but can it carry four of them is the answer I'm looking for. 🙂
42 minutes ago, ST0RM said:That's what I was thinking as well. Given that the E's worked with the G, AGM-65s would be the suitable weapon for the follow-on DEAD role.
Indeed AGM-65's can be carried on F-4E's but in my opinion the AGM-65 is not a very pretty missile as it is quite bulky.
HARM's and Shrike's are much sleeker and nicer to look at, so that's why I'm not considering them. 🙂
-
5 minutes ago, Stefan buysse said:
Hi, Erwin.
I can not say that with 100% certainty, but I do believe that the AGM-45 could be carried on stations 1 and 9 of the F-4E.
After Desert Storm, I talked about ordnance with an F-4G pilot.
He said: "AGM-78?!? Ancient history! Never in DS. Mostly AGM-88, but a couple of AGM-45's were still around. We didn't really want them. Once I was given an F-4G loaded with 4 of them and they said: just go out and don't come back with them".
So, that was an F-4G, but I do not see any reason why F-4E outer pylons could not do the same.
Cheers, Stefan.
Hi Stefan,
There are some differences between the F-4E and F-4G's, like (as far as I know) the fact that the F-4E wasn't able to use the AGM-78 and AGM-88 missiles.
It seems logical that if a F-4e can carry AGM-45's on the inboard stations they also could be carried on the outboard stations, but I'm looking for confirmation.
Erwin
-
2 minutes ago, ElectroSoldier said:
Did the "SP" F-4E jets never use the AGM-65 on a SEAD mission?
Hi Electrosoldier,
I really don't know if the F-4E's based at Spangdahlem ever used the AGM-65 and since I've never seen a picture of a AGM-65 loaded one them, I've never considered them.
Erwin
-
8 hours ago, achterkirch said:
That’s a G but I have seen a few pic of E’s from spang that had captive AGM-45’s.
Hi Achterkirch,
I did find this picture online from a Spangdahlem F-4E with two AGM-45's that I really like and I just hope I can find out if they could also be carried on stations 1 and 9.
-
7 hours ago, falcon91352 said:
As one of the very few Spangdahlem aviation spotters of the second half of the 80's (fence guests normally were sent away from the base Security Forces or German Polizei and Spangdahlem and Bitburg), I can tell you, that the captive ordnance shown on the above official USAFE pictures is only posed for propaganda purposes and have nothing to do with the daily training routine at the 52nd TFW of this time.
The every day loadout of a Spangdahlem F-4 was an AN/ALQ-131 on station 4, two underwing 370gal. fuel tanks on 1 and 9 and a 600gal. F-15 style centerline fuel tank on 5. The origial 500gal. centerlines were randomly seen until Fall 1985 on af few planes. Sometimes, an AIM-9J was carried on underwing station 2 on a F-4E and -G, but rarely each one on both stations 2 and 8. An occasional loadout on a F-4G was a dummy AGM-45 body (without stabs) on station 2 or 8, as well as a TER with one AGM-88 on these stations, too.
Interesting during the years 1985-87 was the mix of different camouflage schemes. Since late Summer 1983 the Euro-One scheme was introduced with the 52nd TFW and progressively replaced the SEA schemes, either the one with light grey belly or the wrap-around. However, at least one F-4E at Spangdahlem never got the Euro One. It was F-4E 72-407 from 23rd TFW, which I have photographed in the SEA scheme (with grey belly) in late April 1987, shortly it was replaced by the F-16C Block 30.
Hopefully, these informations are quite helpful. I am eagerly waiting for the Z-M F-4G and late -E in 1:48 to model my memories from the most exciting times at Spangdahlem AB.
Hi Falcon91352,
Thanks for your reply and information.
I will indeed use either the two wingtanks or the centerline tank on my F-4E and use the rest of the stations for armament.
At the moment I'm leaning towards the 18 Mk.82's on 2 MER's and 2 TER's, but I will consider four AGM-45 Shrikes when I know for sure they could be loaded on stations 1 and 9.
My F-4E will wear the European One camo and I will use the Hasegawa PT-8 F-4E with Eduard armament.
Besides this F-4E, I will also be building a Spangdahlem F-4G from the early nineties in a Hill Grey camo armed with four AGM-88 HARM's.
Erwin
-
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for your reply.
I'm also leaning towards the 18x Mk.82 loadout, but 4x AGM-45 also sounds very nice.
However, since I'm not sure if F-4E's could carry AGM-45's on the outboard pylons and, I won't choose this option unless I can get confirmation.
Hopefully somebody here knows the answer to this question.
Funny detail: The F-4E 74-0642/SP at Kleine-Brogel in 1987 you mention is exactly the one I was talking about.
For me it also has been the only operatioal Spang F-4E I've ever seen and it will be this exact example that I'm going to build.
Enclosed my only (crappy) shot I have of this beautiful bird.
Erwin
-
Hi all,
I'm new here and I hope that this is the place to post a question I have:
For one of my 1:48 projects, I'm planning to build a 81TFS Spangdahlem F-4E that I've seen in 1987.
All my models are wheels up builds and I do like interesting but realistic loadouts underneath my planes.
Searching the Internet I found several weapon loadouts for Spangdahlem F-4E's, but I'm wondering if other more interesting looking loadouts are possible.
I've enclosed a picture of several SEAD loadouts that I could find (green) and included the ones that I possibly would like to use (red).
Is there anybody here that can tell me if the loadouts in red are possible on a SEAD Spangdahlem F-4E in the late eighties?
Thanks in advance for any reply.
Erwin
Spangdahlem F-105 Thunderchief questions
in Jet Modeling
Posted
Hi all,
For my Spangdahlem Heritage project I'm also planning to build a F-105F (and maybe a F-105D) next in addition to the F-4E, F-4G, A-10A, F-15C and F-16CJ.
After a very long search decals have been located and obtained, so now I can focus on the kits and their configurations. 🙂
I will build a bare metal or Aluminium F-105F, as these are the decals for that I've found and it will most likely be a Monogram or Revell kit.
Now I only need to look for an interesting loadout.
Can anybody help me with the following questions:
1: Were any of the Spangdahlem based F-105F's upgraded to Weasel standard during 1966-1967 with self-protection kits and equipment needed to fire AGM-45's by installing a pair of external blister fairings on the lower central fuselage?
2: What colors were the F-105's in during their stay in Spangdahlem? I'm only able to find photo's and drawings of silver and aluminium F-105's.
This topic (https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235053309-the-thud-over-germany-f-105s-of-usafe/) states the following about the paintjobs:
- They were bare metal before the ‘Look Alike’ upgrades that started in 1962;
- They were painted aluminium after the ‘Look Alike’ upgrades;
- They were painted SEA camo after mainenance from 1965 and apparently lose all of their squadron markings. Unfortunately no photographic confirmation is shown.
The F-105G at Spangdahlem's gate in SEA camo (my picture) was most definitely not based there, as F-105F's only started to be upgraded to F-105G standards from 1968.
According to the info I found online, Spangdahlem switched to F-4C's in 1967-1968 and the 49TFW was relocated to Holloman 1 July 1968.
If that is the case then this (or any) F-105G couldn't be based at Spangdahlem.
I therefore assume the SP markings on this F-105G are completely fictional and for display purposes only.
Thanks in advance for any help and/or corrections.