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

I've been looking through Shlomo Aloni's Osprey book on
Israeli F-4 Phantom aces, and I note that around the time of
the '73 war when they want to carry AIM-9s, they either

1. don't carry any A/G stores on that pylon (when carrying
two AIM-9D/Gs on the shoulder mounts), or

2. only carry a single AIM-9D/G on one shoulder mount and
delete the store carried on the same side (i.e., either the
I/B or O/B side) station of the TER.

Because they seem to have valued the AIM-9 far more than the
AIM-7 for their strikers, the Israelis were often flying
with a highly assymetric load, i.e. 5 M117s on the C/L, 3
M117s on the right I/B, and two AIM-9s on the left I/B, plus
two tanks. I know that USAF F-4s were only able to fire
AIM-9s OR drop bombs on a single mission prior to 1973 or so
owing to wiring limitations (which is probably represented
by condition 1 above), but condition 2 above implies that
there's a clearance problem even after the wiring was
changed. The Israelis later went so far as to develop an
adapter for the forward right Sparrow well that allowed an
IRM to be carried there, which allowed them to carry two
bombs plus one AIM-9/Python 3 on the left I/B, decreasing
the assymetry to almost nothing and increasing the bombload
while still carrying a pair of IRMs. Can any of our
resident F-4 types comment as to whether there were such
clearance restrictions for simultaneous AIM-9/bomb carriage?

TIA,

Guy

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:02:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

I've been looking through Shlomo Aloni's Osprey book on
Israeli F-4 Phantom aces, and I note that around the time of
the '73 war when they want to carry AIM-9s, they either

1. don't carry any A/G stores on that pylon (when carrying
two AIM-9D/Gs on the shoulder mounts), or

2. only carry a single AIM-9D/G on one shoulder mount and
delete the store carried on the same side (i.e., either the
I/B or O/B side) station of the TER.

Because they seem to have valued the AIM-9 far more than the
AIM-7 for their strikers, the Israelis were often flying
with a highly assymetric load, i.e. 5 M117s on the C/L, 3
M117s on the right I/B, and two AIM-9s on the left I/B, plus
two tanks. I know that USAF F-4s were only able to fire
AIM-9s OR drop bombs on a single mission prior to 1973 or so
owing to wiring limitations (which is probably represented
by condition 1 above), but condition 2 above implies that
there's a clearance problem even after the wiring was
changed. The Israelis later went so far as to develop an
adapter for the forward right Sparrow well that allowed an
IRM to be carried there, which allowed them to carry two
bombs plus one AIM-9/Python 3 on the left I/B, decreasing
the assymetry to almost nothing and increasing the bombload
while still carrying a pair of IRMs. Can any of our
resident F-4 types comment as to whether there were such
clearance restrictions for simultaneous AIM-9/bomb carriage?

TIA,

Guy

I'm not able to comment on what the IAF was doing, but can make a
couple of observations about the USAF aircraft at the time. The AIM-9
was carried on a "T" launcher suspended from the 14" suspension points
on the MAU-12 adapter on the I/B pylons. Two missiles could be carried
on each I/B station. No other equipment could be carried on the pylon.
Typical A/A configured flights carried 4xAIM-9, 3xAIM-7, an ECM pod in
a forward Sparrow well and three tanks.

By 1974 a mod had been designed for the pylon that allowed for
shoulder carriage of the AIM-9. These bolt-on stations were on either
side of the pylon and allowed for the IR missiles to be carried and
fired with any other normally suspended store on the usual gear.

(I've got to opine that the problem of firing missiles from the
station with ordnance seems moot--if you engage enemy aircraft, step
one is dump the iron.)

It is possible that the IAF were also carrying ALE-40 or similar
locally produced chaff/flare dispensers. The ALE-40 blisters on the
trailing edge of the side of the pylon might have been the problem for
the shoulder mounted AIM-9s.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:02:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Can any of our
resident F-4 types comment as to whether there were such
clearance restrictions for simultaneous AIM-9/bomb carriage?

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf47.jpg

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:02:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

SNIP:
By 1974 a mod had been designed for the pylon that allowed for
shoulder carriage of the AIM-9. These bolt-on stations were on either
side of the pylon and allowed for the IR missiles to be carried and
fired with any other normally suspended store on the usual gear.
Ed Rasimus

SNIP

It's been a long time since I was there but I seem to remember we had
the shoulder-mounted AIM9 rails in the 366th TFW at Da Nang in 72. I
do know mounting them there was essentially no big deal, involving
spacers and some rewiring. Our normal load back then was 2 AIM7,
2AIM9B, a C/L tank, an ECM pod in the RF Sparrow well and whatever
air-to-ground ordnance was needed for the mission, usually but
certainly not limited to 12xMk82 slicks (sometimes 18). Other items
were CBU24/52, Mk36 cluster, Mk36 destructor (MK82 mine-fuzed),
Mk82/84 fuze-extended, BLU-1B + Mk82HD.
Walt BJ

Ed Rasimus wrote in
news
It is possible that the IAF were also carrying ALE-40 or similar
locally produced chaff/flare dispensers. The ALE-40 blisters on the
trailing edge of the side of the pylon might have been the problem for
the shoulder mounted AIM-9s.


Ed, the Luftwaffe use shoulder pylons and ALE-40 on their F-4Fs seemingly
without issue FWIW. . .

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:02:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

I've been looking through Shlomo Aloni's Osprey book on
Israeli F-4 Phantom aces, and I note that around the time of
the '73 war when they want to carry AIM-9s, they either

1. don't carry any A/G stores on that pylon (when carrying
two AIM-9D/Gs on the shoulder mounts), or

2. only carry a single AIM-9D/G on one shoulder mount and
delete the store carried on the same side (i.e., either the
I/B or O/B side) station of the TER.

Because they seem to have valued the AIM-9 far more than the
AIM-7 for their strikers, the Israelis were often flying
with a highly assymetric load, i.e. 5 M117s on the C/L, 3
M117s on the right I/B, and two AIM-9s on the left I/B, plus
two tanks. I know that USAF F-4s were only able to fire
AIM-9s OR drop bombs on a single mission prior to 1973 or so
owing to wiring limitations (which is probably represented
by condition 1 above), but condition 2 above implies that
there's a clearance problem even after the wiring was
changed. The Israelis later went so far as to develop an
adapter for the forward right Sparrow well that allowed an
IRM to be carried there, which allowed them to carry two
bombs plus one AIM-9/Python 3 on the left I/B, decreasing
the assymetry to almost nothing and increasing the bombload
while still carrying a pair of IRMs. Can any of our
resident F-4 types comment as to whether there were such
clearance restrictions for simultaneous AIM-9/bomb carriage?

TIA,

Guy

I'm not able to comment on what the IAF was doing, but can make a
couple of observations about the USAF aircraft at the time. The AIM-9
was carried on a "T" launcher suspended from the 14" suspension points
on the MAU-12 adapter on the I/B pylons. Two missiles could be carried
on each I/B station. No other equipment could be carried on the pylon.
Typical A/A configured flights carried 4xAIM-9, 3xAIM-7, an ECM pod in
a forward Sparrow well and three tanks.

By 1974 a mod had been designed for the pylon that allowed for
shoulder carriage of the AIM-9. These bolt-on stations were on either
side of the pylon and allowed for the IR missiles to be carried and
fired with any other normally suspended store on the usual gear.

And the IAF aircraft have both AIM-9 shoes and TERs simultaneously on the
I/B pylons, but they don't load AIM-9s and bombs on the same side of the
pylon.

(I've got to opine that the problem of firing missiles from the
station with ordnance seems moot--if you engage enemy aircraft, step
one is dump the iron.)

While they often had to hit the panic button and clean the a/c up, there
are at least a few accounts in the book where bombs were retained and an
AIM-9 shot was taken. The primary mission was bombs on target, and every
load jettisoned was a victory for the Egyptian/Syrian Migs. The other
thing that occurs to me is that dropping/jettisoning a bomb on the same
side of the pylon as an AIM-9 might hit the missile tail fins, i.e. there
could be clearance problems both ways.


It is possible that the IAF were also carrying ALE-40 or similar

locally produced chaff/flare dispensers. The ALE-40 blisters on the
trailing edge of the side of the pylon might have been the problem for
the shoulder mounted AIM-9s.

I thought of that, but it's impossible to tell from the available photos
if ALE-40s were present -- you need an almost head-on shot of an I/B
pylon, or else no tanks/ordnance on the O/B pylons if the photo is from
the side. They definitely had pods available at the time, ALQ-87s (maybe
even some ALQ-71s) up through ALQ-101(V)4 or so.

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. However, ISTR that such shots tend to be of
the airshow/museum "everything we might ever _think_ of putting on an a/c"
variety, so I don't know if such photos represent an operationally allowed
loadout. Anyone know if AIM-9s were allowed to be fired if you had
chaff/flares in the ALE-40s?

Guy

Buzzer wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:02:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Can any of our
resident F-4 types comment as to whether there were such
clearance restrictions for simultaneous AIM-9/bomb carriage?

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf47.jpg

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 thing that tends to convince me there was a clearance problem
of some kind is that I can't see the Israelis (or anyone else)
wasting all the time and effort to develop an AIM-9 adapter for
the forward right Sparrow bay, if they could have just as easily
carried dual AIM-9s plus TER/bombs on the I/B pylon -- that would
be (Vulcan arched eyebrow) highly illogical. That, and the fact
that a cursory search has failed to turn up a single photo of a
USAF F-4 in flight carrying AIM-9s and anything more threatening
than an ECM or travel pod on the same I/B pylon, although again
Walt thinks the 366th may have carried bombs/missiles on the same
pylon at Danang (but he's not absolutely certain). Ah well, USAF
F-4s in Vietnam may just have been a bit too early to show the
mod in use.

Guy

In article ,
Guy Alcala wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

It is possible that the IAF were also carrying ALE-40 or similar
locally produced chaff/flare dispensers. The ALE-40 blisters on the
trailing edge of the side of the pylon might have been the problem for
the shoulder mounted AIM-9s.

We didn't have to remove the ALE-40s from the pylons when they loaded
Sidewinders (early 1980s).

I thought of that, but it's impossible to tell from the available photos
if ALE-40s were present -- you need an almost head-on shot of an I/B
pylon, or else no tanks/ordnance on the O/B pylons if the photo is from
the side.

If you can get a ground shot, you could usually tell if there was chaff
on the plane from the safety pin ribbons hanging down at the back of the
pylon - nothing else on the pylons was that far back that needed pins.

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

Here's one of an F-4F, with live Sidewinders (but no flares loaded):

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Phantom/2992.html

You can tell there's no flares on the dispenser because the flare
adapter is visible between the top two rear fins on the closer AIM-9
(and no safety pin, either).

However, ISTR that such shots tend to be of the airshow/museum
"everything we might ever _think_ of putting on an a/c" variety, so I
don't know if such photos represent an operationally allowed loadout.
Anyone know if AIM-9s were allowed to be fired if you had
chaff/flares in the ALE-40s?

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

I'm pretty sure the times we took the dispensers off were for carrying
missiles with really large tail fins, or for long-distance flights to
clean up the airframe a bit. We didn't remove them that often, and we
flew Sidewinders (or at least training AIM-9) all of the time.

Well, that's not *exactly* right - for a while, the Powers That Be
decided to yank the dispensers off of the planes whenever they didn't
"need" them, and put them back when they were firing chaff or practicing
using the system (the stepper motors/switches were inside of the
outboard dispenser boxes, controlled from the panel in the cockpit, and
the system wouldn't work at *all* if the pylon units weren't on the
plane). After a lot of overtime for the sheet metal guys (those
interior pylon nutplates were *not* designed for regular
removal/replacement and were a stone cold pain to replace), they decided
the dispensers could stay on the planes until otherwise needed.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

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

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

The thing that tends to convince me there was a clearance problem
of some kind is that I can't see the Israelis (or anyone else)
wasting all the time and effort to develop an AIM-9 adapter for
the forward right Sparrow bay, if they could have just as easily
carried dual AIM-9s plus TER/bombs on the I/B pylon -- that would
be (Vulcan arched eyebrow) highly illogical. That, and the fact
that a cursory search has failed to turn up a single photo of a
USAF F-4 in flight carrying AIM-9s and anything more threatening
than an ECM or travel pod on the same I/B pylon, although again
Walt thinks the 366th may have carried bombs/missiles on the same
pylon at Danang (but he's not absolutely certain). Ah well, USAF
F-4s in Vietnam may just have been a bit too early to show the
mod in use.

Guy

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.

Here's one of an F-4F, with live Sidewinders (but no flares loaded):

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Phantom/2992.html

You can tell there's no flares on the dispenser because the flare
adapter is visible between the top two rear fins on the closer AIM-9
(and no safety pin, either).

However, ISTR that such shots tend to be of the airshow/museum
"everything we might ever _think_ of putting on an a/c" variety, so I
don't know if such photos represent an operationally allowed loadout.
Anyone know if AIM-9s were allowed to be fired if you had
chaff/flares in the ALE-40s?

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.

As it was, the USAF fought most or all the Vietnam War with F-4s that couldn't
carry bombs and AIM-9s at the same time, leaving the strikers to rely on
(typically) a pair of AIM-7s (and a gun if E models) if they got jumped. That
seems pretty dumb too, but we did it.

I'm pretty sure the times we took the dispensers off were for carrying

missiles with really large tail fins,

snip

Yeah, they seem to be missing when carrying GBU-15s or Walleyes, and I'm not
sure about Standards or Paveway I (non-folding fin) Mk.84s.

Guy