Phictional Phalklands…

[rkk01]

(I know…. groan)

OK, so the UK never operated the E model

- but we do have RAF Mount Pleasant for some entertaining “what if” scenarios in the stormy South Atlantic 

Edited November 1, 2023 by rkk01

[bfr]

It would be very 'what if' as the airfield at Mount Pleasant didn't exist until a few years after the war.  Although I think UK Phantoms were able to use the runway at Stanley post-war as a stop-gap.

[Bremspropeller]

3 hours ago, rkk01 said:

OK, so the UK never operated the E model

The RAAF did, though. What-if history galore.

[Gunfreak]

I thought F4s were stationed on the Falklands and one of the reasons Argentina thought the islands vulnerable was the British removal of F4s from the islands?

[Bremspropeller]

31 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

I thought F4s were stationed on the Falklands and one of the reasons Argentina thought the islands vulnerable was the British removal of F4s from the islands?

The FAA (Fleet Air Arm) stopped operating the HMS Ark Royal (the Audacious Class boat)in 1978 and hence lost it's long range strike capability (Phantom FG.1 and Buccaneer S.2). This most probably opened the door to the eventual war.

The Phantoms only came to the Falklands after the war. First on an improvised aluminium-plank runway-retrofit at Port Stanley, later on the actual fast jet capable airfield at Mount Pleasant.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Bremspropeller

[andrewd251]

17 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

I thought F4s were stationed on the Falklands and one of the reasons Argentina thought the islands vulnerable was the British removal of F4s from the islands?

Post Falkland conflict the f4 was stationed on the islands. Good video below.

 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=qwS8ObTd1a0&feature=shared

[rkk01]

My suggestion for a fictional F-4 campaign would be post-1982…

RAF Mount Pleasant as a base for both air defense and strike ops

[Gunfreak]

One theoretical what if is a beagle war scenario, Chile supported by British F4s(can be stationed on the Falklands or use Chilean main land strips) against Argentina.

But I think it would be rather one sided.

Maybe if only a small force of F4s were involved to support the Chilean F5s.

[rkk01]

Am I right in thinking it was only FGR.2 models that were based at Stanley / Mount Pleasant?

[G.J.S]

6 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Am I right in thinking it was only FGR.2 models that were based at Stanley / Mount Pleasant?

Pretty certain only FGR2 went south. 

[Pajeka]

Yes only FGR2 (ex techie 23 Sqn ‘WIMPDET’ RAFStanley 1985)

[DmitriKozlowsky]

On 11/1/2023 at 1:10 PM, Bremspropeller said:

The FAA (Fleet Air Arm) stopped operating the HMS Ark Royal (the Audacious Class boat)in 1978 and hence lost it's long range strike capability (Phantom FG.1 and Buccaneer S.2). This most probably opened the door to the eventual war.

The Phantoms only came to the Falklands after the war. First on an improvised aluminium-plank runway-retrofit at Port Stanley, later on the actual fast jet capable airfield at Mount Pleasant.

 

RnFAA operated F-4K. I guess those were British versions of F-4J but with R&R Spey plants. As A-4E, carrier variants of F-4 used bridal launch sytem and not strut extentions. DCS: Carrier does not suppourt bridal, AFAIK. Maybe they will add it to older Forestall class CVs in DCS. I beleive A-7 was the first to use strut extention to hookup to catapult.

[Stackup]

58 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

RnFAA operated F-4K. I guess those were British versions of F-4J but with R&R Spey plants. As A-4E, carrier variants of F-4 used bridal launch sytem and not strut extentions. DCS: Carrier does not suppourt bridal, AFAIK. Maybe they will add it to older Forestall class CVs in DCS. I beleive A-7 was the first to use strut extention to hookup to catapult.

The F-4K is the FG.1, British designations are different from the US.  Same as how the F-4M is the FGR.2 and the F-4J(UK) is the F.3.  The FG.1 and FGR.2 had RR Speys while the F.3 kept the P&W J-79s. 

You are correct about the Naval F-4's using the bridle system to launch however you have confused the nose gear systems in your words if not your mind.  All carrier operated F-4's used extendable nose struts, this is most visible on the UK Phantoms as theirs was more exagerated.  The system you are describing for the A-7 is called a launch bar.  Very big difference as even the F-5 has an extendable nose strut and that was never a carrier aircraft.

USN F-4S extended nose strut

British FGR.2 extended nose strut

A-7 launch bar

Edited November 4, 2023 by Stackup
it was an F-4S not an F-4J

[Bremspropeller]

28 minutes ago, Stackup said:

USN F-4J extended nose strut

Ackshually, that's an F-4S. Also note the AIM-9L.

Here's the extended nose-strut of the FG.1 next to the extended strut of the F-4J*

*The FG.1's nose strut is an extension of the hydraulically extendable strut of the vanilla Navy-variants. I'm not sure if the strut of the vanilla naval birds is longer than those of the AF models, but I think the AF models have the same strut-length, but theirs just isn't hydraulically extendable.

1 hour ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

I beleive A-7 was the first to use strut extention to hookup to catapult.

I think the A-6 was first.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Bremspropeller

[Stackup]

14 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Ackshually, that's an F-4S. Also note the AIM-9L.

Here's the extended nose-strut uf the FG.1 next to the extended strut of the F-4J*

Thanks for the correction, of course now I see the slats too.

[Biggus]

I don't even bother looking for the slats, I look for the slime lights for an S.  Took a bit of time for the early S birds to receive their slats, but every S will have formation lights as part of the rebuild.  You won't see them on Js.  The S birds that hadn't yet received the slats were referred to as J/S and aren't to be confused with the Super J, which was an update to around 28 Js where they received the AWG-10A and a few other goodies in 1975.  These ones are harder to differentiate.  The giveaway is that the port side ECS scoop has a splitter.  And before these birds, you have the Js that received the DECM gear between 1972 and around 1975.  I don't recall the name of this mod though!  Hope this helps.

[rkk01]

Interesting…

.…. just read that the post 1982 lengthening  of the Port Stanley runway included the fitting of arrestor wires to allow Phantom operation

Does anyone on here (e.g. @G.J.S) know whether the RAF Phantom detachment at Stanley used their hooks for arrested landings??

[G.J.S]

2 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Interesting…

.…. just read that the post 1982 lengthening  of the Port Stanley runway included the fitting of arrestor wires to allow Phantom operation

Does anyone on here (e.g. @G.J.S) know whether the RAF Phantom detachment at Stanley used their hooks for arrested landings??

I personally never went south, but yes, there were frequent arrested landings with the Phantoms stationed there. 
 

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by G.J.S

[rkk01]

That must have been quite something for the RAF crews…!

 

[upyr1]

On 11/1/2023 at 6:19 AM, rkk01 said:

(I know…. groan)

OK, so the UK never operated the E model

- but we do have RAF Mount Pleasant for some entertaining “what if” scenarios in the stormy South Atlantic 

 

When I saw this I thought it was a wish for the Royal Phantoms 

[G.J.S]

On 11/3/2023 at 9:32 PM, Pajeka said:

Yes only FGR2 (ex techie 23 Sqn ‘WIMPDET’ RAFStanley 1985)

Rah, rah, rah. 

[rkk01]

Just need ED to implement arrestor wires in the core game, and Razbam to fix them in place

[Pajeka]

On 11/29/2023 at 12:53 AM, G.J.S said:

Rah, rah, rah. 

You Dah man!  

[Voyager]

I wonder if one could use the F-4E with an air-start as a placeholder for Naval versions in a Falklands what if? Then update with a carrier capable version whenever one comes out? 

[Duck21]

On 11/29/2023 at 7:26 AM, rkk01 said:

Just need ED to implement arrestor wires in the core game, and Razbam to fix them in place

With arrestor wires already being functional as part of the Super Carrier module, I hope it won't take too long for ED to port them over to the base game and enable them on runways. The Phantom with its wear & tear simulation certainly needs them for when things fail...