Advanced Phantom Projects

[Kryptid]

98CP Phantom IIF, as above with J58 engines (1960)

Wow.

 

[AAAdrone]

98CP Phantom IIF, as above with J58 engines (1960)

Wow.

Indeed. I can't believe I missed that one. Now THAT would have been interesting.

 

[shockonlip]

98CP Phantom IIF, as above with J58 engines (1960)

Wow.

Indeed. I can't believe I missed that one. Now THAT would have been interesting.

J93's are no slouches either!

 

[OM]

Folks, the find is NOT overscan's. The McDonnell list was provided to overscan and myself (maybe some others too?) by another forum member a few months ago on condition that it remain unpublished until we had the go-ahead. I never published it myself, not having received the go-ahead. I believe overscan must have been allowed to link it at last.

...Well, frack all and that too. Thanks to *whoever* was responsible for making the information available to us!

Now, where's the specs on the Warp Drive version?

 

[hesham]

Hi,

here is a development from Boeing to Phantom;


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/773813.pdf

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

Lately I've been wondering what kind of improvements (if any) LERXs would've had for handling.

 

[Pioneer]

Hi,


here is a development from Boeing to Phantom;
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/773813.pdf

Very interesting article thanks hesham!!

I found it very interesting the point made about .....'Mission radius was increased from 16.2% for the [LTV] A-7 [Corsair] to 35.5% for the [McDonnell Douglas] F-4[J] [Phantom II], when carrying approx equal loads of Mk84 [bombs] on MER's [pylons/hardpoints] and 'Big Stick' on each aircraft'

It's a great pity that the pictures in this article are of such poor quality :'(




Conformal arrangement has always made complete sense to me!
I've always thought that this is the type of weapons carriage arrangement that the likes of the General Dynamics F-111 should have employed, freeing up the wing MER's (pylons) for either clean low drag configuration or the carriage of drop tanks! But unfortunately GD engineers & designers elected to inhibit the massive underfuselage area for a volumes and heavy main landing gear arrangement and a giant airbrake :

I would love to see a model of a F-111 and F-4 with this conformal weapons arrangement!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[RAP]

Hi- Here is some info on the F-4E(F). It was designed as an air superiority fighter for Germany in 1970. To reduce weight, the aft crew station was removed as well as all equipment related to the Sparrow missiles and the maneuvering slates. Weapons would be M61 and Sidewinders.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Thanks for interesting topic.
Was it planned to use as a single seater?

 

[RAP]

Yes, the rear seat and instrumentation would be removed. The empty bay could be used for electronic updrades or a smiplified cockpit for training purposes. Armament would consist of the M61 and 4 Sidewinders. With various items removed weight savings totaled 3500lbs. I'll post more pages from this document a little later.

 

[RAP]

Here is a copy of the cover of the report and a page with info on weight reduction.

 

[RAP]

Sorry about that, I meant external stores :

 

[Pioneer]

Hi- Here is some info on the F-4E(F). It was designed as an air superiority fighter for Germany in 1970. To reduce weight, the aft crew station was removed as well as all equipment related to the Sparrow missiles and the maneuvering slates. Weapons would be M61 and Sidewinders.

Interesting.........but that's still a whole lot of expensive plane for just 4 x Aim-9's and a 20mm cannon (granted the built in M61 was both sensible and long over neglected in the basic Phantom II concept!!)
I'm guessing the F-4E(F) would be not to much different to the McDonnell Douglas proposal to the International Fighter Aircraft (IFA) competition, which would be won by the Northrop F-5E Tiger II


Regards
Pioneer

 

[hesham]

Hi,


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a084870.pdf

 

[Jemiba]

Principally this is a standard F-4J, carrying an Aerojet two-stage solid propellant rocket.
The program called for the ability to carry and launch this rocket without the need to
modify the F-4.J

 

[ksimmelink]

Has anyone ever found any examples of the intake strakes above the intakes that wereproposed for the IAI "Kurnass 2000" or the "IAI Terminator 2020"? I have read several articles which mention them, and they don't sound like they are as big as the canards that were on the Fly-by-Wire demonstrator used at NASA. I have also read an article about the fact that IAI abandoned the idea of canards on the Kurnass 2000 but were still considering small strakes above the intakes to improve manuverability (Flight International 16 January 1988 p.15).
But I have never been able to find a picture or drawing showing these strakes and what they look like (obviously they were dropped from both upgrade programs when the actual conversions took place).

 

[flateric]

from

McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies
by Jon Lake, David Donald

 

[hesham]

from

McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies
by Jon Lake, David Donald

Excellent my dear Flateric.

 

[starviking]

from

McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies
by Jon Lake, David Donald

Yes, very nice. Is this the Spey or J-79 version of the VG Phantom?

 

[Sundog]

Yes, very nice. Is this the Spey or J-79 version of the VG Phantom?

The line drawing looks like the Spey version, based on the nozzles.

 

[charleybarley]

Not sure if this Mach3 one has been mentioned.
http://aviationtrivia.blogspot.ca/2012/07/the-mach-3-phantom.html

 

[Arjen]

F-4E(S) & F-4X have a separate topic here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1394.msg11506.html#msg11506

 

[hesham]

Hi,


you feel that drawing to F-4 FVS is different.


Samoloty O Zmiennej Geometrii Skrztdel

 

[Delta Force]

What kind of changes would have been included on the variable geometry F-4 Phantom models, besides the wing modifications? One of the images in this thread mentions that there was some expectation that the modification could be performed with existing aircraft.

Also, what kind of role was intended for the variable geometry Phantom? Was it just an interception role similar to the F-111, and if so would the Phantom have performed well given its low range and fuel hungry turbojets?

 

[Michel Van]

No, McDonnell-Douglas was aiming for US Navy
offer them a Phantom with better low-speed handling characteristics.

But in end the US Navy took the F-14
main reason for that was the F-4(FVS) design could not handle the Phoenix missiles, the F-14 well.

 

[Delta Force]

Were the wings intended to help with takeoff and landing, or more for increasing loiter time?

 

[Motocar]

Post # 210 the Artwork thread "Motocar's Cutaway drawings". Boeing Super Phantom II cutaway, author Mike Badrocke and modified by Motocar

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=23005.0;attach=519090;image

 

[sferrin]

Would have liked to have seen an 1120-powered Phantom.

"Two PW1120 powerplants were installed in the same F-4E and it was flown for the first time on 24 April 1987. This proved very successful, allowing the Kurnass 2000 to exceed Mach 1 without the afterburners, and endowing a combat thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.04 (17 per cent better than the F-4E). This improved the sustained turn rate by 15 per cent, the climb rate by 36 per cent, medium-level acceleration by 27 per cent and low-level speed with 18 bombs from 1,046 km/h to 1,120 km/h (654 - 700 mph or 565 kts to 605 kts). It was demonstrated at the Paris Air Show in 1987."

 

[GTX]

Would have liked to have seen an 1120-powered Phantom.

"Two PW1120 powerplants were installed in the same F-4E and it was flown for the first time on 24 April 1987. This proved very successful, allowing the Kurnass 2000 to exceed Mach 1 without the afterburners, and endowing a combat thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.04 (17 per cent better than the F-4E). This improved the sustained turn rate by 15 per cent, the climb rate by 36 per cent, medium-level acceleration by 27 per cent and low-level speed with 18 bombs from 1,046 km/h to 1,120 km/h (654 - 700 mph or 565 kts to 605 kts). It was demonstrated at the Paris Air Show in 1987."

 

[RAP]

AWST Swing wing F4

 

[taildragger]

So how did Grumman get involved in the in the F-4 (FV)S? (See Circle-5's model above). I'd be surprised if, at any point in the F-111B/F-14 evolution, they became so discouraged that they'd seek to remanufacture Phantoms. Once the TFX award went to GD/Grumman, I'd think that McDonnell would have been the natural source of any Phantom-based proposals.

 

[circle-5]

Here's a Boeing display model of their Conformal Weapons Carriage for the McDonnell F-4. A variety of other types of bombs and munitions could be carried.

 

[aim9xray]

Oh, that's funny. It looks like the Boeing in-house model shop went out to the local five-and-dime store and bought an Aurora F4H model kit in 1/48th scale (well, more or less). Which makes sense, as there was only the Fujimi 1/48th F-4E available (and the Marusan 1/50th F-4B - if you could find it in Kansas).

 

[circle-5]

Oh, that's funny. It looks like the Boeing in-house model shop went out to the local five-and-dime store and bought an Aurora F4H model kit in 1/48th scale (well, more or less). Which makes sense, as there was only the Fujimi 1/48th F-4E available (and the Marusan 1/50th F-4B - if you could find it in Kansas).

That's exactly what they did at the Boeing shop. It must be nice to get paid at defense contractor union rates, just to build model kits! To be fair, this Phantom II is very well built and weighted. The Conformal Weapons Carriage and the ordnance packs are 100% Boeing and attach with a clever system of magnets and plates.

 

[hesham]

Here's a Boeing display model of their Conformal Weapons Carriage for the McDonnell F-4. A variety of other types of bombs and munitions could be carried.

Wow,nice find my dear Circle-5.

 

[Motocar]

Cutaway Boeing Super Phantom, modified by Motocar in free interpretation from Mike Badrocke cut drawing

 

[Pioneer]

In relation to the the Boeing Conformal Weapons Carriage / F-4 Phantom II configuration, I stumbled across the following interesting website:

http://phantomphacts.blogspot.com/2017/11/conformal-weapons-carriage-and-f-4.html?m=1

Notable for me is the great profiling artwork (including the 'Bluff Bomb' concept)!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[circle-5]

Notable for me is the great profiling artwork!!

Indeed. Plus the artist / blogger is friends with SPF forum member Aim9xray. Small world.

 

[r16]

one can not share the blogger's view that Boeing's "whale" was intented for weapons carriage . ı have seen only two Sparrows added in place of the covered rear-stations . In any case Boeing -before acquiring McDD- was only interested in fighter business to maintain a basis of capability . Not to win contracts but staying abreast ; for which you can blame McNamara for . Hence , various Mirages "as is" like F-1 with a J-79 engine . The boldest move might have been the "supermodel thin F-16" . Loss of which no doubt inspired Boeing to work with the Swedes on the Viggen . This last from the US exchange student ı was in the same class in high school ; his father worked in some capacity . An available for 1990s Phantom with extensive bombloads might have cost in F-16 sales to Turkey , as an example and would have caused extra strife in DC.

 

[r16]

Anthony Thornborough in USAF Phantoms of 1988.


"a proposal was made in the early 1980s to adapt the system to the F-4, which was assuming the Strategic Air Defense mission. If the proposal proved to be feasible, a total of about 180 F-4Ds would be retrofitted... F-4D 64-0945 was selected for the flight test which was conducted by the 119th FIG, North Dakota ANG, at Fargo. The flight test period began on June 29th 1985, and ended 32 sorties later the following October.


The IRSTS was successful in that it proved that the ‘off- the-shelf seeker heads could be installed and integrated with the F 4D radar system [for under $140,000 per aircraft - cheaper than a modern air-to-air missile round.

Also just in view is the F~15- type Hughes APG-63 pulse-doppler radar, which would offer the F-4D a true clutter-free, look-down capability with clear, combined IRSTS and radar target symbology on the cockpit ’scopes. If the IRSTS retrofit goes ahead, the sensor will be located under the nose to reduce the slightly higher cockpit noise generated by the blister, and to enhance the IRSTS’s FOV.


... on offer is a 1,100 US gallon Conformal Fuel Tank (CFT) which can be bolted on the F-4’s belly. This is proven technology. In 1970, after some four years of privately funded studies by BMAC, the USAF/USN awarded a joint-service development contract to Boeing to design and supply such a pallet. Flight trials commenced in August 1972 on an F-4B at China Lake, California. Before the test data had been fully processed the following summer, it was clear that the performance gains were remarkable.

Configured with full internal fuselage and CFT fuel (thereby deleting the requirement for the ‘draggy’ external tanks), the F-4B was rigged to carry a number of munitions in a low-drag conformal mode under the pallet; these weapons loads included up to twelve 5001b or 7501b bombs, of five different types. Compared to a comparatively crude TER/MER ejection rack-toting bomber, the CFT F-4B provided significant improvements - 75 per cent less drag, 43 per cent more range, an increased loiter capability and, very importantly, a safe higher-speed weapons separation capability, turning the F-4 into a true supersonic bomber. Normal TER/MER ‘iron’ bomb equipped Phantoms are limited to Mach 1, but the CFT F-4B performed safe weapons release at speeds ranging between Mach 1.25 at 10,000ft and Mach 1.8 at 30,000ft. Most remarkable of all was the test data that showed that even when weighed down with the bombs the CFT Phantom actually performed better than a ‘clean’ F-4! Flight-test crews at China Lake anticipated that they could perform SAM avoidance manoeuvres without having to jettison their external loads. With such positive results, it seems absurd that no CFTs were deployed on operational Phantoms, but there were some policy hiccups in the project. First, the USAF were anxious to replace their Phantoms with the undoubtedly higher performance F-15. Money was short, and TAC HQ’s initial plans were to withdraw most F-4s from front-line service by 1980. For the short lifetime expected for the CFT, the pay-off was considered too marginal. The second factor was that the CFT blocked off the F-4’s Sparrow missile wells, thereby confining the aircraft to guns and Sidewinder missiles for air combat. Pending the introduction of the sophisticated AIM-7F Sparrow, the F-4s were required to hold the air defence fort as the F-15s were suffering from some very complex interface problems with the Sparrow models then in service. By the time the F-15 achieved IOC with the AIM-7F the F-4 would be due for retirement, and the high cost of the pallets could not be justified. The possibility of extending the service life of the F-4 well into the 1990s and beyond as a pure strike or interceptor machine has now given much new impetus to the BMAC pallet concept. Furthermore, as an added bonus, Boeing has redesigned a slimmer CFT compatible with a great number of Weasel and recce stores, bombs, AGMs, LGBs and AIMs, including a full complement of Sparrow or AMRAAM missiles.


Within the USAF, where a potential upgrade market for up to 1,000 [out of 1400 then in service] Phantoms exists, the views remain split. Some within the Air Force see the upgrade as an opportunity to provide highly capable, modestly priced jets for use by the reservists into the early twenty-first century. Others are fiercely opposed, saying that the programme would eat deeply into the budgets of LANTIRN and similar systems: even if such projects are not affected, this lobby argues, sales of reworked surplus F-4s overseas would reduce sales of newer F-16s and other American fighters, subsequently causing USAF unit prices to escalate. Besides, they claim, the Phantom is simply too long in the tooth to justify a total refit.


The USAF stand is further complicated by another controversy. In recent moves, Congress mandated that the USAF evaluate the General Dynamics F-16 and Northrop F-20 in a competitive fly-off with a view to procuring some 270 of one type to replace all air defence-assigned F-4C/Ds by 1991. The F-16 was declared the winner in November 1986, and selected Block 15 aircraft will receive an air defence kit while undergoing scheduled PDM at Ogden, giving them Sparrow/AMRAAM capability. However, there are opponents: commanders, test pilots and weapons and tactics officers, all experienced men, have publicly stated that the F-16 is the ‘least desirable’ of all available options or, more bluntly, ‘the wrong choice for the strategic defence mission’, unable to engage cruise missiles and limited in air-to-air ordnance capacity. Given the realities of budget restraints, and the consequent lack of funds for F-15 Eagles for the job, many in this school firmly believe that the North Dakota ANG’s proposal for Hughes to refit 180 selected F-4Ds with IRSTS, the APG-63 (F-15) radar, and possibly a BMAC pallet for around $3.5 million a copy is the right choice. The lobby is gathering momentum. "