McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II Ideas and Inspiration

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^^
I do love those intakes too.    :) . In fact, this new design with bigger engines would need bigger intakes. 

[Volkodav]

How about Indonesia takes over the F-4Es Australia leased pending the delivery of the F-111?  They would have served into the 90s easily meaning lots of different schemes over the years.

[The Big Gimper]

RAF F-4M-GA PHANTOM FG.3

Spinner's Notes: An exciting new release today - a single seat Spey Phantom! This was created by 'Sundowner' who, apart from being a superb skinner, has also done a Spey F-4E and a Spey RF-4. No input from me here - just the screenshots.

Source: Spinner's Strike Fighters

[GTX_Admin]

Interesting photo showing a RAAF F-4E with what appears to be 6 AIM-7 missiles:

[kitnut617]

Random thought: in a whiff world where New Zealand is willing and able to spend more money on defence, how about they take the Aussie Phantoms as their whole air force when the RAAF get their F-111s? Either they never buy the Skyhawks and Strikemasters in the first place or they buy the former but then sell them on.

Not quite J-79 Phantoms but close enough:



Something that Richard and I collaborated upon a while back.  More here

I built this one many years ago, never got around to the decals but you've given me some ideas

[KiwiZac]

And not long ago I built one myself based on that profile:

[GTX_Admin]

Random idea:  Italian F-4E in this scheme:

[GTX_Admin]

Interesting info and lots of photos of RAAF F-4Es

[Rickshaw]

Interesting info and lots of photos of RAAF F-4Es

Nice!

[Volkodav]

Very nice thankyou.

Phantoms really were a missed opportunity, proposed as replacement for the Sabre, Canberra, for the RAN FAA, before finally being acquired as an interim solution prior to the delivery of the F-111 but then being returned even though there was provision to keep them.  The reason given was the expense of buying the required support equipment and the fact that the F-111 was entering service would require the disbandment of one of the Mirage squadrons to provide the necessary manpower.  Ironically No.76 Sqn was disbanded two months after the last Phantoms returned to the US demonstrating that the real reason was entirely financial.

As far as whiffs go there are so many believable ways to get various version of the Phantom into ADF service the most obvious being retaining the leased aircraft after the delivery of the F-111.  The question is what role, strike, as they had been employed, but progressively moving into multirole, or as fighters, bolstering the Mirage force.  What would be interesting is if, following the cancellation of the RF-111, the RAAF was able to convince the government to acquire RF-4C or E, perhaps to re-equip No.2 Sqn.  A further move could be to convert some of the retained F-4Es into Gs or buy and get the RAAF into SEAD role in the 70s / 80s.

To me the ultimate progression would have been, retain the Phantoms, perhaps re-equipping on of the Mirage squadrons, then acquiring RF-4C and F-4G to replace No.2 Sqn Canberras in the late 70s, forming them into a Phantom wing that could have provided useful service into the 90s, perhaps even into the early 2000s.  This Phantom force could have permitted the Mirage replacement to be slowed and other options to be considered, i.e. if the Phantoms were strike roled then a more air superiority oriented option could have been considered, but if the Phantoms had taken a more long range BVR air defence role then the new fighter could even have been a light weight or tactical fighter type.

Without a doubt retaining the Phantoms would have transformed the RAAF for a generation (and just think of the low vis schemes of the 90s)

[elmayerle]

If you're buying F-4E and F-4G aircraft, you'd probably also be buying RF-4E aircraft and having lots of common equipment.  If you're wanting to upgrade in the 1990s, I could see following the original Israeli idea of using PW1120's or you could go with F404's (makes later F-18 or Gripen purchase easier if you're already using the engines).

[GTX_Admin]

and just think of the low vis schemes of the 90s

You were saying...



and if the RAN got in on it (with a new carrier to match), perhaps we could see this:



And let's not forget the classic:



All from here.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Interesting photo showing a RAAF F-4E with what appears to be 6 AIM-7 missiles:

The original F-4E prototype was based on the RF-4C which might explain the Navy style missile launch pylons for the AIM-7 Sparrow on this aircraft. 






*edit for grammatical error.

[Volkodav]

If you're buying F-4E and F-4G aircraft, you'd probably also be buying RF-4E aircraft and having lots of common equipment.  If you're wanting to upgrade in the 1990s, I could see following the original Israeli idea of using PW1120's or you could go with F404's (makes later F-18 or Gripen purchase easier if you're already using the engines).

My understanding was later RF-4Cs were actually F-4Es completed with all the latest USAF spec RF-4 gear, not all of which was made available in the export oriented RF-4E.  I could be wrong but I definitely recall reading something along those lines, the reason I was suggesting the C for Australia is I envisaged it at being bought straight off the line from USAF slots.

[Weaver]

Here's one to fool the JMNs: paint up an F-4K in this 'zapped' scheme and wait for somebody to object...

After a visit at the NAS Oceana, the Phantoms of the 892 NAS Ark Royal got new livery inluding the VF-171 Aces emblem as well as the inscription Colonial NAVY.

From here: https://www.facebook.com/SIERRA-HOTEL-AERONAUTICS-196749240390199/?fref=nf

[GTX_Admin]

You can actually get decals for that one in both 1/72 and 1/48 - they come from Model Alliance:

[Weaver]

Oh nice one! If you had a spare set of tail markings left over from the kit decal sheet, you could use one of the spare Omega flashes to make the retaliation bird:



Hmmm: make an F-4K and an F-4J that are both physical whiffs, use those markings, then watch everybody assume that the markings are the whiff.....

[GTX_Admin]

I don't think those has been posted so far:

[Weaver]

Seems an odd sort of thing to do. Size/weight wise, an F-4 could carry a Phoenix on any of it's wing pylons.

That'd be an interesting whiff: F-14 gets cancelled and the F-4 is upgraded to carry AIM-54 and AWG-9. You might imagine them getting the extra power to carry all that by fitting TF-30s in a similar installation to the F-4K/M's Speys.

[GTX_Admin]

I think it might take a bit to fit a TF30 into the F-4

[elmayerle]

I think it might take a bit to fit a TF30 into the F-4

Yeah, like a new center and aft fuselage to take the rather larger engine.  Look up the differences in diameter between the TF30, the J79, and the Spey variant in the F-4K/M.  I could see P&W and GE vying to provide a more powerful and efficient replacement for the J79 that was interchangeable in fit and form (an enlarged YJ101 (basically a F404) from GE and a low-bypass turbofan/leaky turbojet version of the JTF22 core (basically the PW1120) from P&W would be likely candidates as well as P&W developing their earlier JTF16 technology demonstrator engine that paved the way for the JTF20 (P&W's B-1 engine entry) and JTF22 (F100 and F401 engines).

[ChernayaAkula]

AIM-54s on a Phantom.... How about using the conformal fuel tank suggested below with some recesses for semi-conformal carriage of a pair of Phoenixes under the belly. Less draggy and still carrying a decent amount of fuel.

I believe it was for fuel only...specifically 1,100 US gal (4,230 L).

I'm fairly sure I've seen a pic of a bomb pallete carried under a Phantom's belly in trials at China Lake, but I can't find it at the moment.
EDIT: It's on chinalakealumni.org (LINK!), about twenty pics or so down. Caption reads: NAF "China Lake F-4B Phantom II BuNo 148393, with nine Mk 117 750 lb. bombs, China Lake, circa 1974. Testing supersonic bomb delivery from Boeing's Conformal Carriage low drag interior bomb racks. Photo from Charlie Souza."

[Weaver]

I think it might take a bit to fit a TF30 into the F-4

Okay then, fit it with an afterburning TF-41. The point is to leverage the work done on the UK F-4s to get a quick'n'dirty Phantom with more power. If the F-14 had been cancelled in about 1970, then most of the other options wouldn't have been mature enough.

[Volkodav]

What about the Avon sized engine proposed for a non rocket SR.177 for the Luftwaffe, the RR RB-133, as described at Secret Projects.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1186.0/all.html

[elmayerle]

I think it might take a bit to fit a TF30 into the F-4

Okay then, fit it with an afterburning TF-41. The point is to leverage the work done on the UK F-4s to get a quick'n'dirty Phantom with more power. If the F-14 had been cancelled in about 1970, then most of the other options wouldn't have been mature enough.

Thing is, while the TF41 is a variant of the Spey, it's a different model than that used for RAF/FAA usages and has a diameter similar to the TF30.  Now, an afterburning TF41, based on 1967 testing as reported in AW&ST would give you 27,000 lbt per engine in full burner; two of those could make for quite a hot bird.

I will note that the JTF16 engine was running in 1966 and could have been used as the basis for a new Phantom engine.