Jump to content

Spangdahlem loadouts F-4E's in the late 1980's


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Niels said:

 

I'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. 😉 

 

F-4E_52TFW_SEAD_Loadouts8.JPG

F-4E_52TFW_SEAD_Loadouts7.JPG

Edited by Susaschka
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is 2 elements here as I see it: 
1) Can you carry the AIM-9 with full load of TER's on the inboard pylons? 

2) Was such a load used on Spang F-4E's in the mid-80's. 

 

Answer to 1) is clearly yes, no doubt about it. All the F-4 models can carry this combination irrespective of USAF/USN or other nations using the jet.  

Answer to 2) is likely no. The reason is the mission set of the 52TFW at this time, flying mixed F-4E/G flights as hunter-killer teams. In these teams the F-4E acted as "shotgun" for the F-4G, but also carrying extra AGM-45 missiles as needed. If carrying AGM-45 on the inner pylons, the fins of the AGM-45 would interfere with the AIM-9, hence precluded the carrige of both at the same time. If the AGM-45 was carried on the outer pylons, well that's a different story but not what you're asking for. 

  
Yes they trained with full load of 2xTER's and MER's with MK82 but it was not their primary mission set, hence for these misions they were merely bomb trucks. Fighter cover would have been either provided by others (F-15's?) or other F-4E's in the squadron or wing depending. Self defence was then left to the internal gun plus likely 2xAIM-7F's in the rear wells, as this would avoid any launch issues when carrying the centerline tank. 

 

Your question is hence a little futile as you will likely never get the answer you want for your model. And here we are with the heart of the issue - you can load your model any d**n way you want, it is your model. Go and do it! The loads are good, viable and allowed. And you have been given the information to back it up. 

The choice is yours.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 🙂 

 

Edited by Susaschka
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 😎 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is actually a little strange that they need this adaptor?

 

The original inner pylon had the rails close to the pylon. When Col Olds and his peers wanted to increase the load capacity, they introduced spacers which moved the rails out from the pylon by ~4" (don't hold me to the distance) which allowed carriage of both AIM-9's and a TER with bombs. This is the basis for the existing rails on the F-4E. If this solution works as advertised there shouldn't be any need for the special adaptor? Unless it still required jetison of the bombs (but retaining the TER) if the AIM-9's was needed to be used? 

 

We wonder... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Finn said:

Here is an Israeli F-4E showing how close a M-117 750lb bomb was to the missile launcher:

 

76425452.jpg

 

so they would leave off the bomb in order to have an AIM-9:

 

70411658.jpg

 

Jari


 

it’s interesting that they have loaded a jamming pod on station 6.  I thought stations 2, 4 and 8 were pod stations?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Corey said:


 

it’s interesting that they have loaded a jamming pod on station 6.  I thought stations 2, 4 and 8 were pod stations?


Allow me to answer my own question:

 

 

 

 

1F0B0184-1BB8-49DD-BEFD-C3EBD61FE044.jpeg

Edited by Corey
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Corey said:

The original poster had a question about 4 Shrikes:

 

 

CF7216F1-0382-4D53-87E4-7630FDC0D046.jpeg

 

Thanks Cory, this was indeed one of my original questions.

Is it possible to share the entire loadout list here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Finn said:

Here is an Israeli F-4E showing how close a M-117 750lb bomb was to the missile launcher:

 

76425452.jpg

 

so they would leave off the bomb in order to have an AIM-9:

 

70411658.jpg

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Susaschka said:

 

Thanks Cory, this was indeed one of my original questions.

Is it possible to share the entire loadout list here?


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, beginning at page 199 of the PDF.  Be advised, this is just one revision of this manual.  Other revisions added and subtracted various types of ordnance and configurations.

Edited by Corey
Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1699092047_F-4EFlightManual.pdf

Edited by Susaschka
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

868FDA50-1DBC-4FF6-A1A2-2B25C5DB36B8.jpeg

 

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.

 

70411658.jpg

Edited by Susaschka
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Susaschka changed the title to Spangdahlem loadouts F-4E's in the late 1980's
  • 2 months later...
On 5/19/2021 at 5:39 PM, Susaschka said:

 

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.

 

 

Small update after receiving more information about the F-4E mission at Spangdahlem (SAM killing): I've decided to change the loadout to six Mk.20s on two TER's, two/three AIM-7E's, two droptanks, possibly a centerline tank and AN/ALQ-131.

The weapons in this loadout (all are white) will have a great contrast with the European One color scheme! 🙂

Edited by Susaschka
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...