Was the RF-4B Carrier Suitable?

[KJ_Lesnick]

It's pretty straightforward

 

[SOC]

Yes. The USMC deployed them on both Midway and Independence at various points.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I know this sounds silly, but why didn't the Navy just put a gun in the lengthened nose of the RF-4B? The USAF basically took the RF-4C, put a smaller radar in the nose (which worked evidently as good if not better; then installed an M-61 behind it)

 

[SOC]

I know this sounds silly, but why didn't the Navy just put a gun in the lengthened nose of the RF-4B? The USAF basically took the RF-4C, put a smaller radar in the nose (which worked evidently as good if not better; then installed an M-61 behind it)

They didn't want a gun at that point. According to Lake and Donald's F-4 book from Airtime, only the USAF and RAF F-4s (C/D/E/K-but only after transfer to the RAF/M) ever used gun pods. By the time the USN was really starting to get the point about an internal gun being a nice thing to have, the F-14, with its internal 20mm, was entering service anyway. So, no need for a USN gun-nosed Phantom. The first F-4J also flew about a year after the YF-4E, so the USN would've clearly been aware of the gun-nosed option. Something else to consider is that the USN may have had an operational requirement that necessitated having the larger diameter radar dishes. I'm wondering if the USN radars had better look-down performance over the water, better able to deal with surface clutter. It'd make a bit of sense, given that the RN's F-4K also had the large radome, the RAF's F-4M being explainable due to a desire for similarity between the variants, making spares and whatnot simpler. The AN/AWG-11 (F-4K) and AN/AWG-12 (F-4M) were basically license-built minor modifications of the USN's AN/AWG-10. The radar bit is just pure speculation on my part, though.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

I know this sounds silly, but why didn't the Navy just put a gun in the lengthened nose of the RF-4B? The USAF basically took the RF-4C, put a smaller radar in the nose (which worked evidently as good if not better; then installed an M-61 behind it)

I was told, can't remember where, that it was a forward cg problem. The slotted stabilator provided enough control power for the E's more forward cg, which being operated from runways did not need the low-speed capability of the carrier-based Phantoms. Instead, the Navy bought the gun pod option.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was told, can't remember where, that it was a forward cg problem.

I thought that's why they added extra fuel tankage in the back on the F4E

The slotted stabilator provided enough control power for the E's more forward cg, which being operated from runways did not need the low-speed capability of the carrier-based Phantoms.

So there wasn't enough pitch control for carrier landing speeds?