F-4 w/AIM-9 and bombs carriage question

Buzzer wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:19:28 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Yeah, Bob, but that's a post-Vietnam mod; the F-4C (including
Olds' 64-0829) could never carry AIM-9s and TERs/bombs during its
service in Vietnam, as they used the AIM-9 rack which Ed
mentioned, the one hung from the MAU-12. I can't find any photos
of any USAF F-4s in SEA up through 1972 with AIM-9s plus any
other ordnance on the I/Bs, with one exception. The 432nd
carried AIM-9s and pods on the I/B on their F-4Ds starting at
some point in 1972, so maybe they got the AIM-9 shoulder mount
mod before everyone else. Walt thinks the 366th may have had
them as well; the only shots I have of 366th a/c in 1972 show
F-4Es with pure A/G or pure A/A loads, so that's no help.

"The armament loaded on this F-4C (as displayed) consists of four
AIM-7E and four AIM-9B air-to-air missiles, and eight 750 lb. Mk 117
bombs. The aircraft is also carrying two external 370 gallon fuel
tanks on the outboard pylons and one ALQ-87 electronic countermeasures
(ECM) pod on the right inboard pylon. This was one of the typical
armament configurations for the F-4C during the Vietnam War in the
summer of 1967."

So this isn't accurate?G

Nope, it's not*. Reminds me of a friend who visited the Museum some years
back, and was delighted to note that the F-15 display claimed that the a/c
had a top speed of M2.5 at SEA LEVEL;-) Museum displays are often, IME,
wrong. About 15 years ago the Castle AFB museum used to have an F-105,
which the placard said was a D-model; I pointed out to someone who worked
there that the serial number, position of the cannon and small radome,
Tacan aerial in the canopy, etc. clearly identified it as a B-model. I
wonder if they ever changed that sign;-)

Just thinking when they went to the inboard pod they lost the ability
to carry four AIM-9 from what mid 1967 to 1972?

Now there's the odd thing -- they could carry a pod plus AIM-9s.
Discussing this with Ed some time back, we concluded that the problem with
carrying two different types of fireable ordnance on the pylon
simultaneously was most likely due to a lack of firing circuits in the
pylon, rather than a lack of electric power (of course, the early pods had
RATs). I should have remembered that the AIM-9 launcher then in use did
allow the carriage of AIM-9s plus a pod on the parent rack, although I'm
not sure how they did it if the dual AIM-9 rack used the MAU-12 hooks.

Maybe the Israelis figured two Aim-9 were better than one Sparrow?

Definitely. Once the Python 3 arrived, they essentially stopped carrying
AIM-7s on their F-4s, and left them to the F-15s; admittedly, that had a
lot to do with their F-4s being tasked almost purely A/G while the F-15s
and F-16s took over the A/A role.

Guy

In article ,
Guy Alcala wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala wrote:

snip

OTOH, I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of F-4s with TERs, AIM-9
launchers _and_ ALE-40s on the I/Bs (the AIM-9 launch shoes
definitely clear the dispenser; I assume the missile tail fins would
also), so it appears that the problem isn't physical clearance,
although I suppose there might be safety limits due to the proximity
of the missile(s) motor nozzle to the pyrotechnics in the ALE-40.

The casing of the ALE-40 was streamlined, far enough back, and thick
enough that a second of flame from a rocket motor shouldn't have caused
any issues, especially since the Sidewinders were further out than the
dispensers. The box was only a foot or so tall, about six inches
through, tapered, and the carts were pretty nicely sealed (and
electrically fired).

Here's a couple of pics of the master dispenser on the left side with a
flare adapter mounted:

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Phantom/1340.html
http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Phantom/1341.html

Thanks for the links. The only photos I have of ALE-40s on a/c lack the
slanted fairing at the aft end (I assume this is the flare adapter you refer
to). I have one shot from the rear side of the pylon where you can see the
aft end (I/B side dispenser) tilted down with what's clearly the 15
compartment flare interior (the O/B side dispenser has the 30 compartment
chaff setup, and comes back level), but the cover plate bolts and aft side
don't look the same as the one in the photo. Probably just a slightly
different model of ALE-40.

In the "1341" photo above, the wedge-shaped part with "LH" on it is the
left hand flare adapter (from the rear of the pylon). There was a
right-hand adapter for the right side of the pylon (we always loaded
chaff outboard and flares inboard on the George AFB F-4s), and we only
put them on the dispensers when specifically requested to. The wedge
was to make sure the flares went down and away from the speed brakes
(although there was a switch that was supposed to prevent firing when
the speed brakes were extended). The chaff didn't need an adapter,
since the cartridges were smaller and didn't have much solid stuff in
them. When installing the wedge adapters, you had to flip the "F-C"
switch on the side (at the little aluminum square with "F" and "C" just
aft of "2771"), which made the box "think" it had chaff or flares.

The dispenser itself only goes back to the four Phillips screws running
vertically in the 1341 shot. The inboard slave dispenser was even
smaller, and was about 1/3 the volume of the master.

What good would a chaff/flare system be if you could only use it if you
gave up your short-range missiles?

Beats not having them at all, I guess, especially if the main threat
was SA systems and you were going to use the decoys on every mission
but might never need the AIM-9s (and then most likely on egress), but
I agree it would be less than ideal. If push came to shove, I'm sure
the pilot would say 'screw it' and fire anyway, if their were no
interlocks which prevented that.

The only interlock on the ALE-40 was the speed brake switch (with the
safety pin on the master dispenser itself). You could (and people did)
accidentally fire them on the ground. There was *no* direct tie between
the ALE-40 and the rest of the active systems on the plane, the
dispenser control panel just went straight to the ALE-40 (although a mod
to allow the ALR-69 to fire the chaff was possible, we didn't have
that).

When we did tests of the system, we just slapped a power unit on the
plane, fired everything up, turned the ALE-40 on, and used a tester to
see if the individual cart pins were getting firing voltages (through
the high-tech method of looking at a bunch of light bulbs on a box and
counting them as they lit when we pressed the button).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.