Jump to content

F-4 unusual load


Recommended Posts

On 10/19/2016 at 10:38 AM, Finn said:

Check the 5:11 mark of this video:

 

 

to see a F-4 with a load of LGBs on the i/b pylons and napalm on the c/l MER. The LGBs are normally dropped from high altitude while the nape is delivered much closer to the ground.

 

Jari

Hi. I bumped into this video a while ago. Not looking this was an old thread, but I want to react to this.

From Videoaviation there is a nice kit for a MJ-1 ammo loader. In the video a larger version, I thinks it's a MJ-4, is at duty with different loads. How does this MJ-4 compare to the MJ-1 in size. Want to build one using the MJ-1 for comparison as I have it on my desk. Anyone having more info on this vehicle? Google search I already did, but not very satisfying for building an accurate model.

 

Kind regards,

 

Robert Jan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Expected you to reply to this, onosendai.

Started with a scratch build this afternoon, Thai had a religious holiday, so factory closed. Did some shopping and had afternoon to get some hobby done.

Will show my progress on this project very soon. Used your MJ-1 kit for reference, as the back of the vehicle seems to be identical(almost).

 

Kind regards,

 

Robert Jan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Speedy said:

Hi Grey Ghost 531. I think it is, Google showed me that when I went for MJ-4. Might be a NAVY version?

 

Kind regards,

 

Robert Jan

We called it a SATS loader in the Marines. I'm not sure what SATS means but the aluminum runway plates used at expeditionary airstrips were called SATS mats so it may be "Short Airfield for Tactical Support" (picking from the list on "acronym finder") I think the bladder fueling system had "SATS" in the name too. 

 

A little googling shows the designation for "SATS loader" is A/S 32K-1A/1B/1C, the pictures look the same. I think "MJ-4" might be the old Air Force designation.

 

SATS loader

Edited by Grey Ghost 531
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hello again.

Bought a Wolfpack Design kit with 2 SUU 23/A Falcons. I wonder, is the SUU shown on this picture, with the rear in changed position (upwards) technically different from the one I get in a double pack from Wolfpack Design. Is it an aerodynamic feature? Building the set there are 2 version, one with 'rear dome', the other one is flat and shorter. Are they from the same operational time set, e.g. both used over Vietnam, or maybe on other F-4's like E's from a different theatre? Also, about the paint scheme, is this a typical example used over Vietnam?

 

Kind regards,

 

Robert Jan 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of that rear cover as an open radome. It is just open like that for clearance while being carried on the Loader. When it is lifted up onto the aircraft, that cover will be attached in line with the rest of the Gun Pod.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question, since this seems to be the go-to thread for Phantom armament questions...

 

Did US Navy Phantoms ever carry HARM or Shrike, or was that an Air Force only thing? I can't find any pictures on Google, the only thing that turns up are pictures of the F-4G, even if I specify F-4B, N, J or S. If they did, I'd be interested to know which squadrons might have done so operationally. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the 'go-to thread for Phantoms'. Guess there are a lot questions answered in other threads, but I still have the confusing matter of the BLU 27 with no fins. Have the kits from video aviation on my bench for a load out. All is inspired by the video shown in this thread.I want to make MER's prepared for missions. I have some Eduard sets to fill. To do it correct I need to know what to do with the caps. Are they 20º of - or not when building a Phantom F-4 D based in Thailand '68 / '72, Ubon or Udorn? There are more video's, like Noº 3, showing all MER's & TER's displayed. Great Diorama stuff. 

 

Kind regards,

 

Robert Jan

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SebastianP said:

Quick question, since this seems to be the go-to thread for Phantom armament questions...

 

Did US Navy Phantoms ever carry HARM or Shrike, or was that an Air Force only thing? I can't find any pictures on Google, the only thing that turns up are pictures of the F-4G, even if I specify F-4B, N, J or S. If they did, I'd be interested to know which squadrons might have done so operationally. 

Think this was "reserved" for the EA-6A/B's together with the A-7's

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20.3.2018 at 12:05 PM, Speedy said:

Hello again.

Bought a Wolfpack Design kit with 2 SUU 23/A Falcons. I wonder, is the SUU shown on this picture, with the rear in changed position (upwards) technically different from the one I get in a double pack from Wolfpack Design. Is it an aerodynamic feature? Building the set there are 2 version, one with 'rear dome', the other one is flat and shorter. Are they from the same operational time set, e.g. both used over Vietnam, or maybe on other F-4's like E's from a different theatre? Also, about the paint scheme, is this a typical example used over Vietnam?

 

Kind regards,

 

Robert Jan 

The short-end that comes with the Wolfpack and other SUU-23's are for when the gun pod was mounted on the inner pylons, as the long end would otherwise interfer with the main landing gear. But this doesn't mean that it was limited to mounting on this station - RAF Phantoms and ANG F-4C/D's carried the short-butt on any station 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sebastion, I would love to find a photo of a Naval Phantom with Shrikes or HARMs on the pylons, if they had operational tail codes.

 

I'd build one of those in a hearbeat.

 

Unfortunately, all I have ever seen are some test Shrikes on a Navy test Phantom, back in the early days when the weapons lists were being made by the branches of the service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, you are so right.

 

That leaves A-7, A-4 and A-6. (HARM on EA-6 being after the war, too) And the F-4 tests were before Vietnam, so my other idea doesn't count.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to backup what Rex and Niels have posted, Navy F-4's were never cleared (operationally) for the AGM-45 Shrike and AGM-88 HARM (which came out very late in the F-4's career). Though they may have been tested (fit check, flight tested), the Navy F-4's did not the avionics for anti-radiation missiles.

 

Also, the A-6B's were cleared for the AGM-78 Standard ARM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...