Question about F-4 loadouts

[mppd 16]

Hmmm...I did some serious searching this morning, and darned if I can't find an F-4 with AIM-9 rails AND a TER loaded at the same time. I poked thru the Dash 34 I have and cannot find a specific prohibition against it either though. Lots of photos of AIM-4D Falcon rails on inboards along with TERs, but no AIM-9 rails!!

 

Check out this photo though...AIM-9s one side, TER with 750 lb M117s on the other at Ubon in 1967.

 

Thanks for the insight, learn something new every day.

Mike D.

[+ST0RM 145]

Thanks for the insight, learn something new every day.

 

That's why I love this forum.

[+331Killerbee 840]

AAD-National Archive SEADB 01 Jun 72 - 30 Jun 72

 

F-4E 4th TFS 366th TFW. Tailcode LA Callsign "Pistol 3" 2 June 1972 Takhli RTFB

 

Pilot Capt White and Capt Bettine WSO

 

Shot down a Mig-21 with a AIM-7 Shot.

 

Loadout as follows:

 

1 600 gal Tank

4 AIM-7

4 AIM-9

12 Mk 82 with FE on TERS

 

*** Never say "Never".....

Edited May 22, 2009 by 331Killerbee

[+malibu43 142]

Well, it seems like it's safe to say that the default Strike/Attack/SEAD/Anti-ship loadouts for USAF F-4's probably wouldn't have IR missiles loaded if a TER is being used on that station. Just change the loadout.ini and leave the data.ini alone and you can always add them in the loadout screen if you have a feeling the mission will turn into a furball.

 

Or then again, it's just a game and maybe we should all just cram as much ordanace on our virtual aircraft as we can so we can rack up as many kills as we can!

Edited May 22, 2009 by malibu43

[+Major Bloodnok 463]

flipping the attachment angles on the existing winder stations might not be such a good idea...even though the AIM-9s are cylinders, it may change where the fins sit, in relation to the TER, wings and other items (birds, bugs, etc)

 

Best way would be to duplicate those stations, rename, and add the new sytems to the 'effected' wings, and change the attachment angle. WHICH number to change I can't renember --- try the last one first. Some experimentation will be required. I KNOW for a fact, with judicious tweeking of the numbers, you flip things 180 in any direction.

 

Also, don't forget to add them to the loadout ini, and make the Sidewinder stations either disappeared, or have a load of 0.

 

by duplictae the station, I mean copy/past the existing, and renumber but keeping the same GroupID #

Something like this:

 

 

 

note: i've turned the brackets backwards, so the Board software don't have a cow or 3. Don't forget to turn them back around when adding to the data ini

 

the SystemName[xxx]= of couse would have to match

 

for the rightwing

 

SystemName]013[=RPStation2

SystemName]014[=RPStation4

 

left wing:

 

SystemName]013[=RPStation1

SystemName]014[=RPStation3

 

the loadout ini would need editing to something like this:

 

 

 

you'll also need to "regroup" the Sparrow stations, if you want to put the jammer pod in the left forward bay. Change the GroupID on SparrowStation1 to 5, leaving SparrowStation2 as Group 4

 

It's pretty easy; the hardest part is figuring out the attachment angle for a verticle mountd dual Zuni launcher

 

wrench

kevin stein

 

btw: the credit goes to TMF for the 'duplicate' station trick

 

Thanks for the info.

[+331Killerbee 840]

Well, My Vote is for cramming the Ordnance....

[+Sundowner 4,647]

If I could have one thing in this sim it would be the ability to choose an individual loudout for the mission in mind [one that loads the whole filght at once] rather than the individual setup as we have it now.

With the right rack setups etc, just about any combination is possible...

 

 

 

[Viper6 3]

Well, My Vote is for cramming the Ordnance....

 

Second that! You can never have too much Ordance

[+331Killerbee 840]

I'll give Yall' alittle Quiz, since I actually loaded the Phantom......I was on a Missile Shoot at Cubi Point with VMFA-235. They had F-4J's at the time. The Centerline Pylon had a 600 gal Tank. The Outboard Pylons were "Slick". Nothing on them. But the Loadouts were 4 AIM-7 and 6 AIM-9's........How was this done?

[+Crusader 2,078]

AAD-National Archive SEADB 01 Jun 72 - 30 Jun 72

 

F-4E 4th TFS 366th TFW. Tailcode LA Callsign "Pistol 3" 2 June 1972 Takhli RTFB

 

Pilot Capt White and Capt Bettine WSO

 

Shot down a Mig-21 with a AIM-7 Shot.

 

Loadout as follows:

 

1 600 gal Tank

4 AIM-7

4 AIM-9

12 Mk 82 with FE on TERS

 

*** Never say "Never".....

 

 

Super rare loadout ... if it was real... but I think its not. I've seen lots of nonsense in official papers, wrong abbreviations, etc etc.

Btw, White/Bettine killed their MiG on 19 August '72 , on a Chaff Escort mission .. armed with 4 winders, 2 AIM-7, 2 ECM pods and 3 tanks

 

But right.. never say "never" .. ;)

[+331Killerbee 840]

I don't see how You can call the "Offical" After Action Reports sent to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as Nonesence. BTW, All Elements of "Pistol" Flight had the Loadout as I described. Also, 24 other Missions for the Month of June 72' had similar Loadouts. But You are right on one thing......They were listed all F-4E's.......

 

BTW....Take Me up on the Quiz.....Explain to Me the 6 AIM-9's......

Edited May 23, 2009 by 331Killerbee

[+Crusader 2,078]

I'll give Yall' alittle Quiz, since I actually loaded the Phantom......I was on a Missile Shoot at Cubi Point with VMFA-235. They had F-4J's at the time. The Centerline Pylon had a 600 gal Tank. The Outboard Pylons were "Slick". Nothing on them. But the Loadouts were 4 AIM-7 and 6 AIM-9's........How was this done?

 

Improvise, adapt, overcome .... eh :D

guess they mounted extra LAU-7 on station 2 and 8 .. on the underside.. making a triple AIM-9 pack on each side.. very cool looks ;)

 

edit : spal1!ng

Edited May 23, 2009 by Crusader

[+Crusader 2,078]

I don't see how You can call the "Offical" After Action Reports sent to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as Nonesence. BTW, All Elements of "Pistol" Flight had the Loadout as I described. Also, 24 other Missions for the Month of June 72' had similar Loadouts. But You are right on one thing......They were listed all F-4E's.......

 

"Official" doesnt mean that they got it right.

But in this case,

since the loadout was used several times, seems like some squadrons or the Wing got the spacers for the rails... and the right leaders who were ready to go new ways.

[+331Killerbee 840]

You're a winner! We used ADU-299's on station 2 and 8 with the LAU-7's attached. It gave Us 6 AIM-9's to help Trainning the Crews just in case of a return to Vietnam......Which never took place.

[+331Killerbee 840]

"Official" doesnt mean that they got it right.

But in this case,

since the loadout was used several times, seems like some squadrons or the Wing got the spacers for the rails... and the right leaders who were ready to go new ways.

 

After reading the AAR's, That was My thinking too...... :yes:

[+331Killerbee 840]

Funny Story about LAU-7 Spacers. I had a GySgt that was My NCOIC at 235. We used LAU-7 Spacers all the time. The Spacer were Blocks of Aluminum with a Hole in the center. 3in in length. This required our IMD Unit to supply extra long Bolts with the LAU's. The LAU-7 Bolted to the Parent Station with a Hex headed Bolt that had to be accessed through sliding Access Doors on the Rail Face with the Nitrogen Bottles removed. Since the IMD supplied the Bolts, sometimes the Bolts would bottom out and the LAU's still wouldn't be snug enough. This would lead to a Rattle of the LAU's that would drive the Crews crazy and complain. NavAir stated We could not alter the Bolt what so ever. Even after My Gunny had summited for Changes and Field Mod Request were turned down. Still, Crews were complaining of rattling.

 

So, One Day, The Gunny had enough of the complaining. He stormed off from Maintence Control cussing under His Breath. He was gone for a couple of Hours. When he returned, He had cut Spacers made of Square Stock that were 3 1/4 inches Long. He made 50 of them. Told Us, "You Boys use these from now on. If anybody says anything, Say the Gunny said to use them."

 

 

Needless to say, We never had a Complaint about rattlling LAU-7's anymore.......

[MigBuster 2,876]

haha Gotta respect people who sort out problems like that KB!

[MigBuster 2,876]

Actually - I have a couple of photos of a very weird USAF F-4D Loadout - (well to me)

 

 

Inner wing pylons both have TERs and a single AIM-4D on each inner rail

 

on each TER there is:

 

2 x MK82

1 x ALQ-87 on the bottom rail

 

 

also

6 x MK82s on centerline MER

2 x AIM-7s in Bays

2x 370 tanks

 

 

If i get access to a scanner will put em up

[SuperB60ce 0]

I'll give Yall' alittle Quiz, since I actually loaded the Phantom......I was on a Missile Shoot at Cubi Point with VMFA-235. They had F-4J's at the time. The Centerline Pylon had a 600 gal Tank. The Outboard Pylons were "Slick". Nothing on them. But the Loadouts were 4 AIM-7 and 6 AIM-9's........How was this done?

 

 

Easy, you put an Aero launcher in the Mau-12 at the inboards....allowing for 3 Aim-9 per inboard station...oh never mind, somebody else answered it...

Edited May 23, 2009 by SuperB60ce

[+malibu43 142]

Wow - talk about digging up an old thread!

 

First of all, thanks for all the great answers to my original questions. All this info went into creating the F-4 loadouts in the SF2V Air and Ground Expansion Pack!

 

I have a new question(s). Technically it's an SF2 question, but I think it applies to both so I'll still ask in this thread. This is a question about F-4 drop tanks. I know that USN F-4's normally carried centerline tanks (due to issues with carrier landings) and that USAF F-4's seemed to use wing tanks more. I'm creating some F-4 loadouts that are for use in stock SF2 and SF2E. Since these are fictional theaters/conflicts, the loadouts can be fictional as well and don't need to be totally realistic. I'm working through the "Attack" loadouts and have lot's of options. Whether the tanks go on the wings or centerline can have a big impact on (or be impacted by) the loadout. So:

 

1. Were centerline tanks or wing tanks preferred if landing on carriers wasn't an issue? For what reason? Or is it just dictated by range of the mission and what other munitions are being used?

 

2. What about F-4F's and F-4M's? I can't find much info on their loadouts at all, let alone what tanks they used.

 

3. What do you think an F-4 would be loaded with if tasked with taking out an advancing soviet tank column during a full blown war in Europe? Lot's of mavericks? What about pre-maverick? Were LAU-3's useful against tanks or would CBU's/Rockeyes be better?

 

Thanks!

Edited October 24, 2011 by malibu43

[+malibu43 142]

And, no, Dave, "nuke" is not the answer i'm looking for for #3! :D

[+malibu43 142]

Common' people!!! With all the phantom fans that frequent this site, I thought I'd have pages of responses by now!

 

Wow - talk about digging up an old thread!

 

First of all, thanks for all the great answers to my original questions. All this info went into creating the F-4 loadouts in the SF2V Air and Ground Expansion Pack!

 

I have a new question(s). Technically it's an SF2 question, but I think it applies to both so I'll still ask in this thread. This is a question about F-4 drop tanks. I know that USN F-4's normally carried centerline tanks (due to issues with carrier landings) and that USAF F-4's seemed to use wing tanks more. I'm creating some F-4 loadouts that are for use in stock SF2 and SF2E. Since these are fictional theaters/conflicts, the loadouts can be fictional as well and don't need to be totally realistic. I'm working through the "Attack" loadouts and have lot's of options. Whether the tanks go on the wings or centerline can have a big impact on (or be impacted by) the loadout. So:

 

1. Were centerline tanks or wing tanks preferred if landing on carriers wasn't an issue? For what reason? Or is it just dictated by range of the mission and what other munitions are being used?

 

2. What about F-4F's and F-4M's? I can't find much info on their loadouts at all, let alone what tanks they used.

 

3. What do you think an F-4 would be loaded with if tasked with taking out an advancing soviet tank column during a full blown war in Europe? Lot's of mavericks? What about pre-maverick? Were LAU-3's useful against tanks or would CBU's/Rockeyes be better?

 

Thanks!

[+daddyairplanes 9,475]

oh you would ask this well i am away from home and my books! i am workin from memory here but recall seein that the navy preferred the centerline due to flying characteriscs and the fact that their airbase could get closer to the fight. the air force usually seems to prefer the 2 wing tanks (740 gal vs 600 gal). however in the early days of LGBs one wing and and the centerline would be carried with a Pave Knife pod on the other wingtank station.

 

as for the brits, no gunpod before the 80s on F-4K (in RN or RAF service) and mostly brit munitions, GP bomb and RP. on loadout i have seen in photos alot is on the inboard, 2x AIM-9, TER with two Matra pods and one 540 GP bomb. and thats RN! three bags of gas for that loadout. after the jaguar came into service the FG1,FGR2 and F-4J(UK) were all tasked air defense with full load of missles 2 tanks and SUU-23.

 

and finally, go 4 mavericks (payload vs drag/wieght considerations). pre maverick go CBUs. yer not up armored like a Hog, one pass and get the hell outta Dodge!

hope this helps, thos like i said im not at home so cant double check me facts or photos. good thing its only my short term memory thats messed up!

[Spinners 15,984]

Yes I don't think the SUU-23/A ever saw service on the F-4K's with the Royal Navy but the F-4K's that were later transferred to the RAF were definitely modified to carry it but I'm not too sure about the F-4K's that went straight to RAF No.43 Squadron at Leuchars. The RAF's F-4M certainly carried the SUU-23/A when in the Strike/Attack role with RAF Germany and No.38 Group and also when tasked with Air Defense.

[+malibu43 142]

Thanks for the help. I have removed the gunpods from the F-4M loadouts prior to 1978 (a little artistic license to make the jets a little more lethal in the 1978 Red Lightning campaign). I am going to go with wing tanks wherever possible instead of the center line tank (F-4's look way cooler with wing tanks anyway).

 

One thing I'm struggling with is what to do with AIM-9's and the use of TER's for all the non-navy F-4' (I know it's already been discussed in this thread). Based on different sources on the web, I get a lot of different answers about when the USAF would have been able to load AIM-9's with TER's on the same pylon. According to crusader's post earlier in this thread, it should be in the late 70's or early 80's, if ever. I saw a post by Ed Rasimus himself that claimed the USAF had the spacer to do it by 1973. So, for USAF and IAF F-4's I'm leaning toward adding AIM-9's with TER's in the standard loadouts around 1975 (a compromise). This brings up 2 more questions:

 

1. Were these "spacers" really that hard to come by that all allied F-4's wouldn't be able to get their hands on them pretty quickly in the case of an all-out, Cold-War-Gone-Hot scenario? If the USAF really needed them in Vietnam, maybe they would have gotten their hands on them a little quicker...?

 

2. What about F-4F's and M's? Did the RAF and German F-4's get the spacers as well? Without sparrow capability, a German F-4F would be pretty defensless with no AIM-9's and just the gun...

Edited October 24, 2011 by malibu43