DOUGLAS F-4J PHANTOM AWG-10 GUIDED MISSILE TRIALS PT. MUGU, CALIFORNIA 80254
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 07. 2019
- F4J BIS Guided Missile Trials is a short technical film report from the Naval Air Systems Command in Point Mugu, CA on the March 1967 BIS trials of the AWG-10 Missile Control System and related components on a McDonnell Douglas F4J Phantom II. The BIS (Board of Inspection and Survey) trials were divided into five categories: ground tests, captive flights, launch flights, serviceability, and human factors tests. The film opens with an F4J being towed on a runway; the aircraft carries four AIM-7D or 7E Sparrow III missiles on Arrow 7-A launchers; in some of the tests, the aircraft also carries Sidewinder missiles. Pilots climb into the cockpit of the ship. An F4J takes off from a runway. Technicians pull out the AWG-10 Missile Control System from the nose of the aircraft (02:05). A radar dish extends from the AWG-10 and scans back and forth. Graphics are used to show how the AWG-10 system works. An F4J flies over Point Mugu armed with missiles (04:47). The film shows the instrumentation pod used to record data from the guided missile system test trials (05:20). An F4J is backed over a drop area to test missile launch ability (06:30); missiles are released and fall into the opening. Men measure the hazard area of the AWG-10 system. Three men test serviceability by loading missiles onto the aircraft (08:10). A BIS official times the loading of the missiles. An F4J goes into an environmental laboratory building (09:20) where the aircraft is tested against hot and cold temperatures and heavy water exposure. Men examine where water leaked into the system and the plane (10:00), then reseal and test again. The missile service crew loads missiles under simulated day and night conditions. They load an AIM-9B Sidewinder, an AIM-7 Sparrow III, and load another Sparrow III using an Arrow 52-A hoist cart. Several men give the plane and missile system a complete electrical checkout back in the hanger (11:36). Prior to the captive test flight, missiles are loaded onto the F4J (13:10). Officials go over the pre-flight checkout. The lead test conductor gives a pre-flight briefing in a room. The F4J taxis for takeoff; the test conductor and others monitor the tests from a control center (14:26). Other BIS members observe results from the data center. Engineers and analysists review the data gathered from the operation (15:54). The pilot gives a debriefing to the people involved in the tests. The F4J flies through the air at high altitudes (16:58); then the film shows two F4Js flying side-by-side. One of the planes launches a missile during the trials-likely an AIM-7E (17:31). Illustrations show the results of the first several launches of AIM-7E missiles, showing the range and the speeds of the F4J and the target. Men attach several Sidewinder AIM-9B missiles to the F4J to test missile compatibility (21:10). A man sits at a BIT system for testing the AWG-10 (21:41). An F4J taxis into a parked position and the pilots climb out of the aircraft, concluding the film.
The McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II is a tandem two-seat, twin-engine, all-weather, long-range supersonic jet interceptor and fighter-bomber originally developed for the United States Navy by McDonnell Aircraft. It first entered service in 1960 with the U.S. Navy. Proving highly adaptable, it was also adopted by the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Air Force, and by the mid-1960s had become a major part of their air arms.
The AN/APQ-120 was an aircraft fire control radar (FCR) manufactured by Westinghouse for the McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II. AN/AWG is defined by the Joint Electronics Type Designation System (JETDS) and stands for (A/N) Army/Navy (A) Piloted Aircraft (W) Armament (G) Fire Control. AN/APG-59 was the first FCR integrated into AN/AWG-10, which developed into two more versions, A and B. The original AN/AWG-10 can detect an aerial target with 5 square meters radar cross section more than 100 kilometers away. AN/AWG-10A is a development of the original AN/AWG-10, with great improvement in reliability and maintainability by replacing the original transmitter in AN/AWG-10 by a solid state unit whose only tube was a klystron power amplifier.
We encourage viewers to add comments and, especially, to provide additional information about our videos by adding a comment! See something interesting? Tell people what it is and what they can see by writing something for example: "01:00:12:00 -- President Roosevelt is seen meeting with Winston Churchill at the Quebec Conference."
This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD, 2k and 4k. For more information visit www.PeriscopeFilm.com
I love how the guy at 1:24 was at home that morning trying to decide what to wear to work, and then he remembered oh shucks. Today I got to load missiles on an F4 out of Point Mugu so I better wear a sport jacket lol.
It's really crazy to me that there was a time when guided missiles and radar systems that could track multiple targets and films with soundtracks like this existed at the same time. It's pretty crazy to think how advanced they got radar in such a short time. And just how good it must be today, all these years later!
My uncle Jack flew the F4 phantom in Vietnam in late 60's early 70's, I was in awe as a kid.
Todays jets are much better
Hand load a 400lb. AIM-7? Are you kidding??? I worked F-4E radar for almost 13 years. I did a lot of AIM-7 launcher checkout since the AIM-7 was radar guided and had to operate for the checkout. Wow, the memories!
And???!!!was a guided missile tech,test, inventory, build, load, update and worked on the Hawg 10, scarey and bite you if you get careless, nutate you hawg nutate
@@kennethhamilton5633 fairs
Todays radars are better….
God bless Michael!
The AWG 10 system was well advanced in its day! I worked in AIMD At NAS Oceana . Also IMD on the USS Independence. 69-72. We repaired the modules down to the individual Components. Had a Test Stand on the carrier to Troubleshoot. My favorite piece to work on was the self Diagnostic Bitbox. We had to have a Top Secret Clearance Back then. This is a Very good Video of its History! Thanks for Shareing!
John, which parts of the radar required the TS clearance?
@John Patterson Jr Sounds like excelent maintenance capablity for a "on point" - front line deployment. You're talking about diagnosig, repairing and checking at component level (C-Check / D-Check) on a carrier. That has a huge mpact on operational availability. Impressive.
IAF Structural tech. / Aviation fitter.
@@10percenttrue As this was cutting edge at the time, I would presume anything to do with the Phantoms radar system was highly sensitive and subject to high security clearance.
same
@@jonny_codphilo7809 thanks for the Video link on the Awg 10.. It brings back lots of memorys. On My second med cruise I got to work up in the bow on the indy In IMD department. The test stand in the video was first gen cause I dont remember it looking like that when I worked on them. I could sweep the dish and activate the dipole. We could even test transmitter Magy trons Pumping into a Dummy Load ! The Maggy was the Heart of the system ! I also worked on the bit boxes. They were tape driven. Pretty smart little report box.. Could also simulate 10 Tagets to Lock on to. High tech in 1970!
Watching this video has brought back memories of my time working at Westinghouse as a product reliability tech from 1967 til 1970. I aligned the resolvers and servos on the antennas and performed many other tests on these systems.
No cigarettes were spared in the making of this film.
Adam E. I’m pretty sure even the equipment smoked back then.
Haha
You're brilliant!
The good ole days..you could smoke in public...lol
@@humbleone6405 remember when you could smoke in airplanes and hospitals?
First I have seen any of this. I was AWG-10 Instructor At McDonnell Field service Dept. When we did not get Training contract from Navy , I was sent to George AFB Calif as F-4C Avionics Tech Rep. Happy to get back with USAF as I was VooDoo Radar tech in Fifties while enlisted.
That's some good job security when all three services are flying the system you're certified on.
From Pordenone (Italy), 20 km from Aviano AFB: I am 57. All my childhood long and more, my father took me "to see the Phantoms".
Every time it was amazing.
It's Magic, how they struggled for landing in windy/bad weather. All mobile parts of the airplane were moving. It was a fight between man&machine Vs Mother Nature.
And men always won that battle.
They used to salute during approach by swinging wings.
F-4 Phantom is the most fascinating airplane of all times.
It stood in my heart when I was a child, it stands there even now.
Once, people were allowed to stay and see all kind of military flying object taking off and landing. It was my favorite show, better than going to cinema.
I will always remember one night of heavy rain on Pordenone, the town I live in.
I was been woken up by a thunder in the middle of the night.
I was maybe fourteen. I went to the window, to see that big rain falling.
We lived at the top floor of a six floors building.
In a second, an incredible roar, and a flash of blinding lights at thirty feet from my head. It was a C-130. It was badly wrong in altitude and course, because military airplanes were not allowed to fly ON Pordenone, and they NEVER could ever fly so very LOW!
That night we were all very close to a disaster.
To see a C-130 at your twelve, coming in at ten meters higher than you... It's terrifying.
Now, you can't even stop for a second at the head or at the end of the Aviano AFB runway. And no more Phantoms, no more Magic, no more J-79 hauling that way...
F-16...they can do many things, very close turns and so on, but the Magic has gone when Phantoms went away from here.
Right on, brother! I am your age and I too grew up watching the Phantoms when I was very young. They were an amazingly effective and versatile product of their timeand, although completely overshadowed by the 4th Generation fighters of the last 45 years, what they did when they did it made them amazing testimonies to the talent and design expertise of
McDonnell Douglas.
@@TheJKCrawford I know it's true but I cannot accept this idea
@@TheJKCrawford MCDD: they are GREAT!
(Mc Donnell Douglas...)
That’s a beautiful story!
Considering the fact we had only recently figured out solid state electronics the technology of this weapons system is impressive
I love these old technical films.
Very informative. The F-4J was the world´s first fighter with a real look-down/shoot-down capability thanks to the AN/AWG-10 fire control system and its associated radar, the AN/APG-59. This is the first video I have ever seen showing the LRUs in such a great detail.
It was a great fighter for its time however what I don't understand is why didn't the F-4J have an internal cannon like the F-4E did? They were developed at the same time and the E-model had a built M-61 as a result of lessons learned from the Vietnam war.
@@nicholasmaude6906 By 1967, the Navy was already anticipating the AFX, F-111B as the follow on fighter. So, the F-4 was already a dead end plane for the Navy. The Navy did not have near the missile and weapon system failures the USAF suffered with their F-4 and Falcon missiles, so a gun was less of a priority. I believe adding the gun required removing the television camera recognition system, which would be an advantage at sea where silly visual ROE requirement didn't exist. Bottom line: USN vs. USAF different mission, requirments and priorities.
Nicholas Maude because the F-4 was never a fighter...
@@nicholasmaude6906 the radar and the cannon not only competed for room inside the nose of the phantom, which required a smaller less capable radar in the air force phantom, but also the vibration from the rotary 20mm autocannon firing was detrimental to the operation of the radar. the navy prioritized having the radar and sparrow combination working, a look-down shoot-down beyond-visual-range formula. because if truly necessary they would also have F-8 crusaders in the air with four onboard cannon in the event guns were necessary
Russia stole the tech from a downed F4
That is so cool to see the way the radar moves and scans while on the ground, this video is amazing
Loaded a lot of bombs and rockets on these birds and 9 out 10 were on target. Those F-4s came back with mind blowing number of bullet holes in them too. Parts dangling and a lot of them you could see right through to the other side. They also sucked up so much fuel. People don't realize just how much these things weigh. Phantom is an amazing aircraft.
Craig Pennington sat in one once, an ANG aircraft....never has an airplane so big been built with so little room in the cockpit! Can’t imagine a long flight in a g suit with helmet, oxygen mask, maps, knee board etc. don’t know how they could even use the relief tube...
It always boggles my mind too 25 tons for that aircraft? I thought airplanes were supposed to be lightweight? Haha
I thought the sparrow was 9 out of 10 missed
@@thetreblerebel It all has to do with the right situation. So many variables. The ones I've seen fired hit the target.
Did you guys call them a 'truck'?
Very advanced analog stuff! Masterpiece
That old phantom sure had a rugged good looking profile.
This looks high tech even today. Analog was crazy stuff
I wonder if the tropical simulated environment tests also included ocean salt water sprays. Not simply salt water but ocean water as is, particulates and all. Cycles of lashing with salt spray, then fresh water rain spray, drying, repeating, leaves this gritty black residue that has to be cleaned.
Crazy how analogue was still the main tech back then and would be for many years
Wow...I separated from the Navy almost 30yrs ago........I feel so "Squared Away " now.....lol
The F4J. A pivitol fighter in the development of modern fighters. This was the last Century fighter in essence. Culmination of the technology learned during the 1950s and early 60s. Up to the Wild Weasel variant used in Desert Storm. Germany, Britain, and many more used the F4 as their frontline fighter for many years
THE transitional fighter in going from dogfighting to BVR shootdowns. Unfortunately planners thought they were getting that plane with the F-4B, when it wasn't until the F-4E that that really became the case, both thanks to the AN/APQ-120 and improvements to the Sparrow (and parallel upgrades to the Sidewinder that were even more profound). And ironically that's when it finally got the gun it originally needed.
of course this pops up on my recommended lol War Thunder moment
same bruh
I love how honest these old films are about everything. I wish i knew what the intended purpose of these was. I can't imagine they just wanted to document all this for posterity, and it's clearly not technical enough to be for the technicians and scientists. Is it to show to any politicians who come asking questions about funding, or for the company execs who want to know whats going on in the company?
That's a great question. I was wondering the same while watching.
Spectacularly great and informative
I worked in 630 IMA Radar HMS-24. I used to hear stories of the original tape driven BIT but I worked on A's and B's and BIT was all digital and non volatile by then.
Да прикольно наблюдать, съемки 60-х годов. Все эти счетно-решающие устройства, аналоговые. Я понял прорыв в электронике у американцев произошел в 80-х годах прошлого столетия. Да рлс на фантоме ,была отличная, наши были не чета, их рлс.
I love these old American military training videos. I don't know if any other country made such good training material back in the day. One can only imagine the quality of training material today.
This isn't even a training film - it's a documentary/report on the BIS trials. As far as I've seen, reports like this today are now just a long document.
Thank you #PeriscopeFilms this was awesome!
Our pleasure! Love our channel? Help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
Mind blowing attention to details
It is amazing the amount of obscure crap that all came back after not giving it a thought for 35 years. The names of all the support equip and LRU's and where you gave the 6A1 a smack if you had a twitchy scan. If you were an AQ and wanted to learn electronics you went to a Phantom squadron.
Bender good comment! Not sure what else you could share but there are a few of us extreme Phantom nerds who would like to know what the LRUs were and what the 6A1 was and did. That's real operational knowledge not book learning, the kind of thing that can only be learned from someone who has been there and done that.
Always check the LRU-8 first (always blowing fuses)! Don't forget to button up door 19! Plane captains miss that every now and again!
Or an Intruder squadron as they too had some serious electronic whiz-bang in it’s digital nav-attack system.
Used the side of a 3/8" ratchet wrench many a time to smack the 6A1 LRU back into reality. And never ever raise that 4 pallet without checking the cables first. You'll pay by having to lower it again and again. LOL
Fascinating video. The flight trails weren't exactly hard, nor realistic, were they? Relatively short ranges against slow, non-maneuvering drones in a clean non-ECMed environment in clear weather. If I recall correctly, the LD/SD capability would only work effectively in good weather, head-on engagements & was so prone to locking on to false targets, it was often disabled in service. Same story for the F4E's AN/APQ-120. An effective LD/SD system didn't come about until the advent of the Hughes AWG-9 for the F14A with its all-digital signal processing. Didn't stop the RN from adopting the AWG-10 for the F4K, though.
Good comment. The AWG-10 was limited in look down/shoot down and was not a true doppler set. However I believe the -10B version in the upgraded F-4S actually did wind up having a pretty fair capability in that regard, in addition to better ECCM and overall reliability. I would love to hear from any who flew the F-4J/N/S to give their impression. A former Navy fighter pilot who flew all (USN) models of the Phantom from B to S said the S was by far the most capable air combat variant of the Phantom he flew and, amazingly, was in a few regimes superior to the F-14A Tomcat (but not the B or D, and he flew both). AWG-10B with solid state electronics gave the S a light nose and said the final radar was actually quite capable but nothing like the AWG-9. See The Fighter Pilot Podcast channel.
@@hckyplyr9285 Thanks for the heads up!
MB: No, we were shown only one example for each type of approach. But in any case, the intention is not to find the extreme limits, but rather to test for reliability, consistency, etc. Remember this is only one phase of a several year series.
@@hckyplyr9285 I can't for the love of God see how any F-4 model might have outperformed an F-14A in any meaningful category.
I can, however, see the F-4 not suffering from frequent compressor stalls and other issues like the necessary rudder/stick coordination which gave the F-14 such a huge flight manual.
Other than that, the Big Cat was light years ahead of the F-4 in regards to sheer performance as a fighter/interceptor.
@@svenschwingel8632 You basically hit the nail on the head with the corner cases where an F-14A could be flown into a position where a later model F-4 would have an advantage. Basically have to put the Tomcat in a position where the engines don't want to be engines. That's pretty much just how air combat works: if you force a fight where your plane has an advantage, you stand to win the fight. If you get dragged into a position where your plane struggles, a better pilot will absolutely kill you.
The F-4 was a McDonnell design, (from the 1950's) not a Douglas design. McDonnell and Douglas merged in 1967. It would be appreciated if you might consider changing the title of your posting and giving credit where credit is due. Thank you.
Okay "Richard"
@@SortaProfessional89 If Boeing merged with AirBus would U call a 747 an "AirBus 747"? When Ford merged with Jaguar did U call an XKE a "Ford XKE"? Same principle.
@@richardgerlach5156 Just be happy that they didn't list it as a "Boeing F-4 Phantom II" as they are the current legal copyright holder, "Richard".
@@richardgerlach5156 The names would be combined...Richard...
@@thomass4471 No one calls a Phantom a "Douglas F-4".
8:22 and that’s how you get chronic lower back pain.
I'd love to see some old films dealing with the servicing and maintenance of the AIM-7C/D/E Sparrow-III and AIM-9B/D/G/H Sidewinder GCUs.
F4J BIS Guided Missile Trials is a short technical film report from the Naval Air Systems Command in Point Mugu, CA on the March 1967 BIS trials of the AWG-10 Missile Control System and related components on a McDonnell Douglas F4J Phantom II. The BIS (Board of Inspection and Survey) trials were divided into five categories: ground tests, captive flights, launch flights, serviceability, and human factors tests.
I was 3 months old living 25 miles away when this took place.
Amazing technology for it's day..
The good old days
I'd love to watch a film about the servicing of AIM-7D/E GCUs.
I knew a guy who was stationed at Pt Mugu and he told me he watched them chop up a bunch of F4s in 04 or 05 ,I always thought they should take old fighters etc to schools or parks ,I know in the 50s they put one in a SoCal park for kids to play on .
In mesa az a park had a F9F Panther to play with for decades.
Cool plane.. legend! 👍
at about 2 mins 30 seconds or so the guy in the cockpit fixing the radar looks like tom cruise.... din't know maverik went all the way back to the f4 days :D
Tests and results described in knots, meters, and feet :D Kind of funny, but I'm used to all of them, so it took a few tests for me to go "Wait.... meters and feet?"
Saw the Guard Horn.........taught and tested 1966-1970
Extraordinary ingeniería 🤩👍💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎👌
Damn nice jet !
if i remember right this testing was performed because of the total failure of the US Air Force air to air missles in Vietnam.
The day's before powerpoint. @ 12:30 you think it's chock. But it's not. "Presentations make me nervous. I better have a cigarette. It settles my nerves".
its almost 4 am for me and im looking a f4 phantom lore
With these Bis trials I can certainly see why the failure of electronic stability functions were lost with a B2 stealth bomber that crashed and was destroyed in Guam shortly after my son left that base.
We no longer need guns on airplanes.
"A few influential engineers & politicians“
"Back in the days“
CaseinNitrat JR it was mainly a bunch of generals and admirals, but the pilots had to deal with the consequences of such short sightedness.
Everyone wanted a part of the "nuclear" and "computer" budget in those days. How do you ensure that Congress and the American public will buy your crap? Tell everyone you have the fastest and most complicated nuclear and whizbang missile weapons delivery platform. The military industrial companies and generals did the same thing in the 80s-90s ( "If it ain't stealth, it ain't shit"). They also pulled the same thing in the 2000s-10s, ("Drones or Bust"). Now it's "AI".
It's about using whiz-bang technological buzz words and business speak of the era so contractors can sell their goods to the government, senior officials can justify getting bigger shares of the budget (or justify their jobs), and ranking military and civilian bueracrats can get awards, promotions, or retirement packages.
@@ironroad18 You need to eat your conspiracy theories. It was not unreasonable to think that missiles could and still can outperform a manned aircraft. Keep in mind the Navy F4J (not the dash-J) was designed as a fleet interceptor anti-bomber/anti-cruise missile secondarily as anti-air, but not air-supremacy fighter. Only the ROE of Vietnam requiring visual ID negated the long distance advantage of the F4's radar and long range missiles. Silly rules can't be anticipated by any aircraft designer.
@@KB4QAA Wow a man who knows whereof he speaks. AWG -10 Instructor at McDonnell Field Service. 1965/66
Something like all of 7 air kills out of hundreds/thousands of air kills made by phantoms were gun kills
So ye guns are nice but like, really didn't make a difference in air to air combat
i think it is safe to tell, that the license built F-4J Phantom II are truly the superior and the highly improve variant among all the variants of this type of combat aircraft. were probably the F-4E, would be the only strong rival to its superior capability.
The Phantom F-4J was the one Air Force fighter jet that was tested with "Spring" Bombs??
The opening theme song makes me feel like I'm about to watch a Tom and Jerry cartoon. 😳
I've always wondered how safe or dangerous standing too close to the radome, and other avionics like powerful radars is to service personnel.
This is the first time I've ever heard sny of this kind of data before...
Yet, I'm a civilian.
It IS and it also ISN'T safe, I think ! A mistake they make all the time In movies, if you're seeing the RIO'S radar in topgun for example go 360, that is just wrong and would be cancer inducing for the pilot's and that's the reason why radar is sent in a cone away from the pilots, but my knowledge about the subject is minimal so take it with a grain of salt. Radar-radiation-that could give you cancer right? Is my thinking of why it's bad IF YOU'RE STANDING CLOSE TO IT just when it's SENDING RADIATION OUT TO YOU (not protected) , and it isn't GOING AWAY FROM YOU. It also depends on how strong the signal is, a signal that the F-14 radar would sent out is way strong and would give you cancer probably IF YOU STAND INFRONT OF IT FOR AN HOUR OR SO MAYBE? Radars us civies will come about are NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. It's all about the signal strength, where you are and what you're wearing or what's in front of you or around you. phew this became way bigger than I wanted too but I guess i'm a nut for anything that has to do with military aviation.
@@deetwodcs4683 well, I appreciate your reply... indeed any radiation is almost always not a good or beneficial thing.
Be well, keep learning, and especially sharing your knowledge of all things.
☀️😎🇺🇸☀️
@@d.cypher2920 You're being really nice about it, thanks! I love sharing information even if I don't really know 100%/everything about what I'm talking about. I've always been that way, but have been careful with it recently because some people take it as me being a "know-it-all" or me trying to sound smarter than I really am.
Greetings from, not that sunny,
Belgium!
(I love your guitar skills btw!)
@@deetwodcs4683 that's quite kind.
Actually, no it at least to me, appears to be pertinent information.
I believe the guy who invented or at minimum discovered the microwave apparatus for cooking, actually realized that it was cooking a chocolate bar in his pocket. I believe I've read somewhere
That even cellphone signals are enough to change a human's behavior.
I'm just an average person, no expert...
Thanks for the kind words.
Be well, safe healthy and most obviously happy.
☀️🇺🇸😎☀️
Slava goroverim, Slava Goroverim!!
I pray peace prevails in that place.
Amen
😔🙏
@@d.cypher2920 Percy Spencer walked in front of a magnetron tube and realized soon after, the chocolate bar he had in his pocket had become hot and melted. Later, he put some popcorn kernels in a paper bag and put them in front of a mag tube and they popped. He then tried the same thing with an egg and it exploded (mostly cooked), and thus the idea to use the energy for cooking was born.
I and another Crew Chief walked through an area where radar set was being worked on by the WCS shop on the flight line. Since they were not "transmitting" (so then thought, but failed to pull certain circuit breakers), no warning cones were set out in front of the jet, and we saw nothing out of norm (people always doing something on aircraft on the flight line). And we got "radiated", there was something that "alerted" folks on the flight line that they were transmitting radar energy, and all a "call to report" was generated by Flight/Ground Safety office, and we had to go to the hospital for checkup. Nothing found.
Later, I had a two daughters. Neither glow in the dark or have super powers, so I guess maybe we walked through when they were between energy states...
It was a fun run, and to think, we got paid to play with all sorts of cool aircraft over the years all around the world and never lit off the nukes!
I love the F-4, but these guys did all this work and expended all of this energy& we still got (barely) a 1:1 kill ratio against NVAF MiGs. Our ordinance only worked 2/3 of the time, missiles would just track the sun or motors failed to ignite, etc. I would have been even worse if we were fighting the Soviets.
Your gripes have nothing to do with the F-4 as a weapons platform.
@@ti1ion really? When the Sparrow & Sidewinders we used in Vietnam just didn’t work because the F-4 was pulling more than 1G, that speaks to its efficacy as a weapons platform. I get the phantom wasn’t designed for turning fights but then neither was its ordinance. It’s a wonder our kill ratio against migs wasn’t worse.
@@thomasfx3190 Trying to discuss the challenges of Vietnam in a CZcams comment is bound to result in failure. Still, whether the missiles malfunctioned due to excessive G-load, or for other reasons, that is not the fault of the Phantom, unless you are saying it should have been made incapable of pulling 1+ G so the missiles would work better. Other reasons for missile problems included the hot, humid climate that the missiles were not designed for; the lack of timely maintenance of the missiles; and the abuse the missiles suffered from rough handling and repeated forces applied to them during takeoffs and landings. Again, this is not the fault of the F-4. Additionally, it is something that needed to be learned by the manufacturers and the maintainers. Your original comment about how it would have been worse if the fight was with the Soviets was completely unnecessary and pointless. Do you think the Soviets had a magic wand that made their weapons work better than American weapons? Here is a clue: their weapons sucked and they still do.
Further, and this will have to be rather brief and lacking in detail, but in the 50s, American pilots were killing themselves and crashing their jets as they looped around the sky in mock dogfights. The government accountants demanded a stop to it and since the Air Force was being run by SAC and all planning was towards a nuclear war and interception of Russian bombers before they reached weapon release territory, it was easy to ban dogfighting. Read the autobiography of Robin Olds to hear his take on it. Read Topgun: An American Story, by Dan Pedersen (Google has a preview so go to Chapter 4: Fight Club) to understand that the Navy was headed there, too. When pilots were sent to Vietnam, the young guys did not have years of dogfighting training and that meant that a fight against an inferior opponent could be lost if one did not know how to take advantage of one's aircraft. The F-4 had power. Lots of it. But if the untrained pilot saw a MiG and decided to slow down to turn with it then he would likely lose the fight. The way to fight the MiGs was with speed and altitude and the F-4 was an excellent dogfighter in those regimes (for its time) as graduates of the later weapons schools proved.
Then there were the rules of engagement (ROE). I expect you already know that North Vietnamese airfields were off limits to US forces, as were many other installations. The reason was political, as there was a fear that the killing of Russian or Chinese advisers might cause those countries to enter the conflict. If the US military could have attacked those airfields then there would have been no MiGs around to challenge US forces and your statements about missiles and kill:loss ratios would not even be relevant. Think about that. And the F-4 could do both the job of destroying the airfields and destroying the MiGs (in the air).
@@ti1ion I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here, in fact it’s very well put. I agree about the maintenance & the humid environment, perhaps I was just lamenting about how few thing went right in Vietnam. I love the F-4, we built models of it as a kid, my first full size GI Joe was an F-4 pilot in a parachute. My mom lost a high school classmate over Xepon alongside the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos to a radar guided 37mm emplacement (Gary Fors). However, I’m still glad and I think we were fortunate to be dealing with the MiG 17 / 19 threat with a relatively inexperienced pilot cadre. Later on the MiG 21 made that even more clear, the VPAF got better fast and they had a Mach 2 jet. If we were flying against Soviet pilots (like in Korea) I’m afraid things would have been far worse than a rough 2:1 parity. By 1969 the Soviets were building large numbers of MiG-23s with BVR weapons & look-down shoot-down radar. Everyone should be glad that Moscow supplied their client with their relatively older platforms. We had the best of intentions, but talent, courage & heroics aside, we had the wrong airplane in the CAP role, or at least the wrong mix. I think the F-5 was only used during Vietnam in a ground attack role by the RVNAF, but a few squadrons of those with USAF red flag pilots may have helped even the score against the MiG-21.
@@thomasfx3190 I also built many models years back, and the F-4 was my favorite.
I can't say I see how an F-5 (and this would be the A/B model) would have been a suitable fighter for the job. It was underpowered; it had no radar and very limited avionics of any kind; it was very short ranged and it was limited in how much ordnance it could carry.
10:11 "I thought you guys said business casual!"
On the rage trail and system results?
The wiring compatibility issue should have brought the trials to a screaming halt and the whole project changed from missile trial to aircraft evaluation. Gods, the Phantom was a bastard to keep operational.
Yep! 🫡
To save some people time: there are no KABOOMs in this video
White short sleeve shirt, black tie...that's your usual business attire for the day...
Is the single AWG-10 better than the AWG-9 and AN/APG-71 radar the F-14 had? My thinking is, no. It's a bit newer as well, so why wouldn't it be better.
Oh hell, no!
The AWG-9 was WAY more powerful and had more search volume than the AWG-10! The AWG-10 sounds like it's newer and came a bit later -- which is true to an extent -- but the AWG-9 was constantly worked on and improved as much as funding allowed. The APG-71 was originally called AWG-9 (Ver 5) but it was given a new designation because it was felt it was new enough (60% reworked and mostly digital versus the mostly analog AWG-9/Ver 4) and incorporated tech from the F-15E Strike Eagle to allow the APG-71 to evolve organically (ie, new programs with plenty of hardware memory) instead of having to have hardware redesigned every 5 years. The solid-state systems (digital) have proven to be more reliable in the field and require less maintenance than analog. They're also a hell of a lot expensive to procure, too, and they only bought 50-some APG-71's for the F-14 fleet. The APG-71 really came too late in the F-14 program and by then the Bush Admin/Ver 1 decided to cancel the F-14 project and funnel naval aviation funds towards enlarging the F-18 Hornet into the Super Hornet. That's a whole political ball of wax so I won't waste more breath on that!
**
I think the AWG-9 had at least 5 times the range (close to 200mi versus around 40mi? The AWG-10 search range wasn't anywhere near the AWG-9's) of the AWG-10. I can't imagine the difference in search volume was less than 4-5 times more the AWG-10!
The AWG-10 was fielded in the F-4J and upgraded F-4S (J-model rebuilds) as well as the British F-4 Phantom variants (K and M export models; the British have their own designations for their Phantoms but they're nonsensical and hard for me to remember!). The British felt the radar system was good enough into the mid-1980s and kept their Phantoms in service until 1992.
**
The AWG-9 evolved from a radar-missile concept that started in the late 1950s. The Defense Dept felt the Soviet bombers were a real threat. They felt that in a few years, the Soviets might be able to field vast fleets of supersonic bombers that would threaten both the US West coast and the carrier task forces of the US Navy.
[The Soviet bomber threat never really came. The USSR was too poor in money and natural resources to support long-ranged bomber operations in any meaningful numbers. They didn't field a true jet strategic bomber until the late 1980s. They were stuck using a turboprop plane derived from the B-29 as their strategic bomber because none of their existing jet bombers had the range to strike the US and return to their bases!]
Both the US Navy and US Air Force worked on separate projects to develop long-range, high-speed interceptors with powerful enough radar and long-range missiles to strike down multiple incoming strategic bombers at ranges of at least 100 miles away from targets. As these programs came and went -- they mostly failed in development with airframes or it was too expensive to go on with impractical technologies --, they passed the prototype radar and missile concept between contractors! That's virtually unheard of but they felt the development of a high-speed, long range interceptor with a good long-range missile was that important.
The USAF at the time was obsessed with Mach 3 planes but only one became a practical operational plane (the A-12/SR-71 Blackbird series) and the other was relegated to an experimental project later used to develop technologies for a hypothetical SST (the XB-70 Valkyrie). They NEVER fielded a Mach 3 interceptor but DID test 3 modified Blackbirds with radar and missile like the later F-14's systems. Mach 3 planes are impractical to field in large numbers (only 49 unique Blackbirds were built and one wreck was recycled to become the 50th plane; that's how expensive they were!). They consume so much fuel and because of the heat at sustained Mach 3 speed everything about the airframe had to reinvented and take into consideration the consequences of high-temp stresses! The Blackbird was a pain in the ass to develop and field and wasn't really debugged until about 20 years after the first flight!
The Navy had its own airframe issues (failed but unbuilt Douglas F6D Missileer and the didn't quite satisfy requirements F-111B) but eventually after 2 tries the radar and missile project that began in the late 1950s ended up in the F-14.
@@AvengerII This was an interesting post you made with lots of information & insights on aircraft & weapons development. Thanks.
I wonder why the Navy never used Hughes Falcon AA missiles.
I think I can tell you:
The AIM-4 Falcon was intended to be used on anti-bomber (i.e. strategic UNmaneuvering) aircraft missions and so it was designed to be fast and lightweight and would sacrifice maneuverability in order to achieve those goals optimally. Because of that focus, the Air Force never really improved the Falcon to a significant dog fighting ability. In fact, the USAF was very unimpressed with the Falcon's performance against North Vietnamese fighter (i.e. maneuvering tactical) aircraft when they deployed them to Vietnam in the later 1960's.
By comparison, the Navy always considered the Sidewinder's use to be primarily against tactical aircraft. Therefore, the Navy did not adopt the Falcon because they were cognizant of the difference in intended targets and therefore in design parameters. Again, the air Force's experience with the Falcon in Vietnam proved the Navy to be correct in its choice not to adopt the Falcon and to stick with the Sidewinder.
TLDR: The Falcon missiles didn’t work very well and the Navy already had their own project, the Sidewinder.
On that F-4 on its tail it has NMC. Naval Marine Corps
No. It stands for Naval Missile Center. In other words, Pt. Mugu.
@@PeriscopeFilm thank you,interesting.
So this F-4JNMC was a test weapons platform?
The F-4 phantom is one of my favorite Fighters of all time,ever since I was a child,I remember looking at my dad's old Vietnam books,an others research materials,ect... An just realy being drawn to its design,Along with the F-104 thunderchief(Thud). Awsome aircraft from US 🇺🇸.
Highly advanced fighter for it's era! Look Down-Shoot Down Radar was revolutionary for acquiring targets below . Granted the Sparrow was NOT reliable, but from this we got better and more accurate Air to Air Missiles. But the F4 had no gun lol. They tested the Sparrow too! Didn't they see it's failures, or was it polished to get it rushed to production? I dunno
As far as I know, lots of advancements were made to the Sparrow in Vietnam, starting with the AIM-7D and ending the war with AIM-7E-4 (DF)'s becoming introduced as standard.
I believe within a decade after our withdrawal from Vietnam, the AIM-7F would also enter service which would drastically increase its range to rival early AMRAAMs, even.
I see f8 crusaders in tge back ground
the dish looks so odd on that plane. like something out of thunderbirds
I want to buy my own F-4, just have to come up with the cash.
That's a good one! Unfortunately, any phantoms not in Davis-Monthan were 'demilitarized', i think. We used to get regular Gov. auction stuff, and the process of demilitarization was pretty drastic.
@@todd3205 Collings Foundation has one flying, but it literally took an act of Congress for them to get it. There is another one out there in restoration to flight, that one was made from parts.
@@aurktman1106 It would probably be easier to get one from one of the other operators, like Egypt.
Our air wing called them " double barrelled shitcans"
Heated the plane to 150 degrees F for 24 hrs??!!
Testing expansion joints for leaks.
Monogram 1/48
Try Zoukei-Mura 1/48
Juan Castilla I would love to get my hands on one of those kits, but for a beginner, the Monogram or Revell-Germany kits are not that bad. I like the Hasagawa kits because there’s still plenty of aftermarket resin for them.
This versatile plane was NEVER the "Douglas" F-4J. ALWAYS McDonnell-Douglas. Tough, thirsty bird.
And now 2020 no more f4 in the American wings
10:36 Those plaid shorts military issue? 😂😂
Pay close attention and coordinate video and audio and you will discover that he was an evaluator. I worked with many civilian types over the years and can spot them every time. lol 🫡
much later fashion
Great airplane. Crummy missiles. 82% failure rate in Nam.
1:41
You mean nukes ??!!@
Где интересно все африканцы, самые умные люди в США
Testing Americas handguns in street combat situations. Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia...
La, NYC, Miami.
Oh they are also testing the Dracula ak47
Soy el único qué habla un lenguaje Salvadoreño.
It’s McDonnell Douglas
@2:34.....When I see a blonde.
Big deal! They shot a drone aircraft which flew at a stated mach .5. That works out as about 320 knots: hardly comparable to a mig 21, much less a mig 29 both of which fly more than Mach 2.
@@guyintenn Thanks for the information.
McDonnell - Banshee, Phantom, Phantom ll, Gemini Spacecraft.
Douglas - DC-3, Skystreak, Skyraider
Periscope - reprints publicly owned media
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
Most of modern technology is due to men with crewcuts, heavy frame glasses, and short sleeved shirts with ties.
The outcome was that missiles did a poor job in air to air combat. Guns were better.
Courtesy of Half Vast Flying
I feel like it mostly just showed flaws with american missiles, which got then fixed. Also pilots not being trained enough to understnd what the missiles could and not could.
Early sidewinders also kinda worked like guns, you had to get behind the enemy for a good shot. Which is probably why F-4A-Ds had a lot of trouble using them, with the lack of agility.
You watch military education videos because you are interested in history. I watch military education videos to get better at war thunder.
*we are not the same*
I wonder if the Navy, or the Air Force, learned anything from the results of actually going to war with a weapons system that wasn't designed for what it tried to end up doing.
I wonder what they would have thought if you could go back in time and say 'Hey, we need this to work in a dogfight scenario, not just an interceptor scenario.'
Probably get laughed at.
Do they ever really learn?
Good grief, billions of dollars and millions of man hours went into doing exactly that, designing a new generation of combat aircraft to incorporate the hard lessons of Vietnam and Yom Kippur. That generation of aircraft, the teen series, has been unprecedentedly successful in all aspects of air combat. You seem to have missed out on about the last 50 years of military aircraft design and development.
@@hckyplyr9285 No, I didn't miss out, and the Teen series are great aircraft, as are the F-22 and even the F-35. We have learned, for the time being. The question wasn't meant so much for the current crop, but for a lot of things in general in the military. Slow implementation of things that could radically increase the warfighter's chances of survival and victory, but for one reason or another aren't adopted. The F4 wasn't a particularly bad plane, but is was originally short sighted. It got fixed in later versions.
@@GaryMCurran Great, sorry for my understanding, and thanks for your patient reply. I love the Phantom, and it was limited to a certain degree by not having a gun, but other factors were much larger reasons for the trouble the US and allies had in prosecuting the air war in SEA and the Mideast. Even the F-8 and the F-4E got the vast majority of their kills in Vietnam with missiles, not the gun.
Addressing your broader point, yes, I think some of that forgetting to remember has been much more prevalent in the US military over the past 10-15 years than it was in the aftermath of Vietnam.
@@hckyplyr9285 In the late 1940s, we had the bomb. Then Russia got the bomb. The mindset was that there was never going to be another 'conventional' war. So, the weapon systems were designed to fight the 'big war.' Interceptors, like the F-106, which I worked on in the Air Force weren't designed as fighters, and also didn't have a gun, but did carry nuclear missiles (until they were replaced with a gun). The Phantom, a Fleet Interceptor as designed. The Crusader, a great airplane, WAS a dogfighter, but from an earlier age than the Phantom.
Not until the F-15 and F-14 did the Air Force and Navy really come to grasp the idea that 'conventional wars' were going to continue, and both sides weren't going to get into a nuclear war.
It took them a long time to figure that out, and designs because of it were limited to certain duties.
Today, in my opinion, the F15, F16, F18 are probably the best fighters for all-around use in both U.S. Services, even though the F-22 and F-35 are out there. Too expensive, too hard to maintain, and not too much out there to challenge them. BUT, we DO have that capability if needed, and we need to nurture and support it.
That's why, I believe, Top Gun was created two years afer this video was made. Navy Phantoms scored 26 MiG kills in about a year, from January 1972 to January 1973 compared to only 13 MiGs and a couple of Antonov biplane transports destroyed in 43 months, during Rolling Thunder.
missile perfomance satisfactory? they had a poor perfomance in Vietnam... Sales strategy?
Climate, rules of engagement, terrain, there are many more factors than the missile alone
Including the way they were handled by service personnel which led to numerous failure rates in the Vietnam War...
NO......GUN
Try telling the Navy pilots to mount gun pods on the F-4 and they will just flat out reject its usage...
missiles were poor performers in vietnam.
Henceforth, the improved versions of the rear-aspect AIM-9s and AIM-7s, the AIM-9D, E, G, H, J and the AIM-7E-2...
@@theorganizer1273 Post Vietnam models improved - all the same are no magic bullet.
@@TheKeithvidz Most kills over Vietnam were missile ones, lol
@@shirtler7928 Missiles failed most times.
@@TheKeithvidz Missiles killed more times, lol. Gun kills weren’t the majority
Our missiles sucked!