Phabulous Phantoms with serious pucker factor! - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
» Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > The Pub
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto Escrow

The Pub For General Discussion

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-17-2003, 04:46   #1 (permalink)
Ford Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: John Tates Brown Paper Bag
Age: 69
Posts: 276
cool Phabulous Phantoms with serious pucker factor!

I met some bloke who worked at Clark AB and Udorn back in 67 and the rumours were true! The 15 cannon Phantom does exist!!

For those not aeronautically minded the first run F-4 Phantoms the 'Nam workhorse were not fitted with a internal cannon and with some stuff called the ROE (rules of engagement) gave the yanks a very hard time fighting the NVAF as they could ot use their Sparrow radar guided AAMs in a dogfight and had to be in visual range to attack so the Phantoms lost their edge over the Migs and the better pilot was the winner and technology was made moot.

The newer F-4E model had the 20mm Vulcan in the snout. I originally worked at Nui Dat but later went over to Udorn in Thailand on exchange and learnt all about how to fix the big Phantoms as Australia was about to get them before we got the F-111 back in the late 60's. I got a spin in the backseat of a E model man they had serious balls (accellerating to Mach 1 2800ft climbing after finals !) shame I never got the chance of being a jet jockey.

Before the E model pod cannons were introduced early in 66 usually as a 20mm Gatling under the fuserlage. Some pilots really missed their cannons and some were reported to using 3 20mm in battle well sacrificing maneaverability obviously but you'd be sacred bejesus out of you were a mig pilot at 12 o'clock at the front of those mammas !

There were numerous rumours, mostly thought of as a prank of a particular ex WWII major named Olds who flew a Phantom once or twice with 15 7.62 mm cannons into action. That would have made mincemeat of anything in sight and would have shook the fuserlage half to bits as well.

I wreckon if this bird is at Davis Monothan in storage I wreckon we should put her back in service in a new mission the total destruction of all speed cameras from Perth to Sydney all at supersonic speed- give a bit of drag of all those guns of course and a few low level sweeps of HWP cars to good effect. FF-Forums strike fighters!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 15suu11s.jpg (42.5 KB, 95 views)
Ramrod429 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-17-2003, 04:56   #2 (permalink)
More horsepower required
 
Fordhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 45
Posts: 612
I suppose , if you are going to do it , go the full nato limit .
I mean , the aussies did with the SLR but 15 x 7.62mm cannons.. hahahahaha.
Just imagine the carnage
__________________
BA XR8 UTE, Blueprint , 330 Herrod kW's , and soon to be blown :fly:
Fordhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2003, 05:00   #3 (permalink)
Ford Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: John Tates Brown Paper Bag
Age: 69
Posts: 276
BTW these ain't standard 7.26 mm single barrel guns its 15 'Rotary' 7.62 cannons podded so they would fire at quite a horriffic rate X 15. One does feel sorry for the target! Makes me wish I could call a AS on a few places spring to mind...
Ramrod429 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2003, 05:38   #4 (permalink)
BOFH
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Giving the finger to speedcams
Age: 43
Posts: 7,777
I guess it would be a pretty effective crowd disperser. :)

Cheers,
__________________

Casper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2003, 04:18   #5 (permalink)
Veteran Ford Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In a Dark Cave
Posts: 5,316
Ye Olde Mini Guns make short work of most things.
The F4 was the epitome of the old saying " Even a brick will fly with enough power"

My dad spent a long time in the early 70's teaching the yanks how to dog fight again.. as ramrod429 states their reliance on technology let them down in a big way when they couldn't use it
xacoupe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 03:33   #6 (permalink)
How bloody Hot is it ??!!
 
Chaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane
Age: 42
Posts: 264
Re: Phabulous Phantoms with serious pucker factor!

and even now our FCI's (Fighter Combat Instructors) can kick the ass of a USF-15... long considered THE Air-to Air Superiority fighter..
__________________
Chaps...

Fal con (flk on, fl-, fkon) n.
characterized by their long wings and their method of hunting, which is to rise above and swoop down on their prey.
Chaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2003, 17:44   #7 (permalink)
Ford Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: John Tates Brown Paper Bag
Age: 69
Posts: 276
Re: Phabulous Phantoms with serious pucker factor!

Chaps mate the F-15 pilot is to blame here not the jet which is superb more capable* than our F-18s. In my opinion the Isrealis fly the F-15 the best and we'd be up with them if we got the jet instead of the F-18 but thats history.

The F-15 is still the best ASF In the world still well until the F-22's bugs are all ironed out whenever that will be - 2012?

1975-2012- That will make the F-15 longest serving big gun than the Phantom was 1963-1996.

I was part of the avoinics reaseach team back in 1984 that was going to select the best jet to replace our tinker toy Mirages.

They were the following-

1. Mirage 2000- more of the same no thanks.
4/10. the french can stick it
where the sun don't shine.

2. F-16- excellent dogfighter, average payload,
and only ONE engine. Don't like combat
if you get hit bad in battle. FBW limits
true close in dogfight capability in the
ability to over-G and fully push the jet to
its limits.
5/10

F-14- excellent range but too big, poor
manuaverability, too air-to air
based. and structural limitations.
5.5/10

Tornado F.3- still being introduced at the time
too many bugs with the Foxhunter
radar at the time.Good MRM nealy as
F-15. More maneauverable
and mech reliable than F-14 though..
No real ground based setup they
wanted us to buy IDS variants for that.
7/10

F-18- the best of both worlds. Non FBW designs
permits excellent low speed dogfight
capability, far better range than Mirages and
old F-4's. Reliable rugged design with
excellent electronic upgradabiliy. Great MRM
ability at the time not as good as F-15
though with more capable radar. Intel reports
which were true stated that the F-18 would
be more than a match for the vaunted Mig29.
Sophisticated smart weapons delivery
options. Fairly afforable but engines could
be inproved in top-end performance*
8/10

F-15- the best of the best. One F-15C from
Missawa a US base in Japan and provided us
with a good airshow in NT. It performed
such manueavers I think no other fighter
currently could emulate. It Fire-control
system was superb as well as the layout for
the pilot. It could be modified easily to take
on the AG role without much fuss and with its
excellent range and performance was deemed
the best of the best and got a 9.5/10 the
only downside being the electronics
contractors were very hessitant in us
optioning up the Eagles in the future to best
serve our needs locally as they wanted it for
themselves. Remember that saying in the X-Files
Mulder saying to Scully in replying to what was that noise
he replied to her "its a F-15 you don't see it you HEAR IT".

Due to bearacracy and corporate infighting we never got the F-15 supposedly due to it costing more and being heavier on maintenance. The F-18 however was the second pick and it meeted every current need and surpassed it though 7/9 our our team picked the F-15 as by far better for its capabilities and potential optioning in the future.

Last edited by Ramrod429; 06-20-2003 at 18:01.
Ramrod429 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2003, 10:17   #8 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mallee
Age: 54
Posts: 115
Re: Phabulous Phantoms with serious pucker factor!

At the time the RAAF (really those penny pinching, short sighted bastards who use up far too much oxygen down at the Treasury) decided the F-15 was going to be to costly, to complex, to big, to maintenance intensive and more likely than not, have a short production life.
Well they got it a bit wrong, didn't they.
Three decades after it first flew, it's still in production, still has awsome capability, is still at the top of the tree (and will remain there until the F22 enters service) and the cost per unit is way way down. In fact it's so attractive an option, it's been touted as an intrem replacement (Leasing arrangment with Boeing.... It won't happen) for the F/A18.
And what's happening now?
Exactly the same thing. The Hornets need replacing within the next decade and yet again the RAAF looks like it's going to have to put up with second best. The F-35 is being proposed as the RAAF's next generation fighter and it'll be tasked to fulfill a multitude of different rolls. Unfortunately, it's performance in some areas will be lacking, for the simple fact that the physical size of the airframe will be to small to competently carry out some of the tasking required of it. If you need a heavy load of ordanance delivered on some poor souls front doorstep, don't bother calling up the F-35. You'll need something bigger with two engines to deliver the appropriate sized package.
The F-22 will be the F-15 of the 21st century and that's what the RAAF needs. It's going to be such an incredibly competent aircraft, that it will set the standard for decades to come. No other country on the planet has the funds available to develop a competitor, so it will have a long production life, just like the F-15.
Any fudge-puncher that comes a lookin' and likes what we've got here, needs to have it clear in their mind, that if they come back for an extended tour of the local real-estate, one of the last things that goes through there mind is the 30mm shell from the multi-barrel rotating canon, not to mention the brace of AAM's that follow right along behind.
Talk softly, but carry a big stick (Truman).
Don't give the pricks a second chance!
flagship042 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2003, 02:22   #9 (permalink)
Ford Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: John Tates Brown Paper Bag
Age: 69
Posts: 276
Re: Phabulous Phantoms with serious pucker factor!

The F-35 would not suit Australian conditions due to the following.

1) It will also replace the poor old F-111's. The
F-35 has nowhere near the range nor bombload
to hack it. Single engine does not help combat
survivability.

2) For Australia to have a force equiverlent to
1 F111 they would need 1.7 F35's to do it.
In laymans terms in a combat mission two
F-35 would need to be refuelled twice as much
as a long range F111 would and a bit less than
half the payload. So it will cost more to buy
F-35s than one F-22 with a lesser bombload
but it has the range which is very important
especially since Australia is a bloody big country
and overseas postings often demmand refuel.

3) Dogfight Performance- in my opinion FBW is just
like cars having traction control- useless. A soon
as a pilot over-Gs the airframe in a particular
AOE it will kick in and make low speed fighting
more annoying and requires a ajustments in
tactics too. A single engine F-35 has hardly more
grunt than a F-18 if indications are true. For
a FBW airfcraft to make up for it needs more
Power to Weight to make up for losing in a tight
turn fight to get out of trouble. Despite the
advance of Medium Range Missiles such as the
Slammer- AMRAAM. Protocol in some wars will
still recquire recognition thus dogfights are far
from dead.

aside from the point what I think is wierd about Australias selection of the F-35 is the following

LMTAS and Boeing begging for sponsors to keep
F-35 costs down and somehow Australia has been
convinced its the best solution. Funny you know two years ago we were all sold on the Equally useless Eurofighter- well atleast it had two engine but bugger all range. Too much politics what is OZ going to order next SU-35's? That would be a turn up for the books. Probably better than a F35 anyday.

Reliance on Stealth Technology- stealth is great but it can only help so much in combat. What some do not realise is that a aircraft can still be detected that something is there just not clearly vectored. With advancements in foreign radars-
eg- Mig31 at Paris Airshow last year with passive array like radar on F-22?) means that there is only a edge for so long then everyone will have stealth detecting technology. In a bad combat scenario
where visual identification can only be used MRM attacks by stealths will be moot and we'll have a good old Vietnam scenario all over again. Did somebody mention North Korea? The next step in stealth technology is complete visual invisibility though electronic invisiblity is a long long way off
and would be far more valuable.
Ramrod429 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2003, 07:28   #10 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mallee
Age: 54
Posts: 115
Re: Phabulous Phantoms with serious pucker factor!

Yep, the F35's just won't make the cut. And the Su-35's? If the airframe was married to an appropriate fire control/avionics package and engines (both sourced from the US of A) it would indeed, be an extremely potent aircraft at probably about 25-30% the cost of an F22. Would an F22 be 3 or 4 times a better aircraft? I don't think so.
A very interesting idea that will never see the light of day.
FBW? The driver wouldn't have a hope of keeping the pointy end pointing forward without it, although I understand what your saying.
flagship042 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > The Pub



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EL Fairmont Ghia - Serious power gains fidel03 General Tech 8 04-27-2003 07:45
Serious Problems With EA please help me keysersozeEA E-Series Falcons 6 03-18-2003 11:16
"Road Safety"...great joke if it wasnt so serious rsgerry The Pub 13 03-28-2002 15:50
Serious warning for drivers TeeHee The Pub 21 03-19-2002 18:23
What serious car accidents have you survived? EA S The Pub 52 12-13-2001 20:36

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 15:17.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.