Rodolfo Casamiquela was a paleontologist, archaeologist, Doctor of Science, researcher, teacher, historian and writer. He left around twenty books and 400 research papers. He dedicated his life to the study of the origins of Patagonia. He was born in Ingeniero Jacobacci (province of Río Negro) in 1932 and died in Cipolletti in 2008. He was the author of numerous publications on the origins of human settlement in Patagonia and promoted the recognition of the Tehuelche ethnic group as a native people of the northern part of the Patagonia region.
The historian Rodolfo Casamiquela was harsh with the Mapuches, who "scratched" him several times. He says that "they have no real interest in safeguarding indigenous culture, but are rather 'piqueteros'." He spoke of fighting to rescue the language of the Tehuelche people from oblivion. And that worried him much more than the insults he receives when he wants to talk about the story. "If they define themselves as Mapuches, they are Chileans and if they are Chileans they have no right to the land of Argentina," said Casamiquela.
He graduated as a National Mining Expert, while continuing his training in Patagonian topics in the library of the Ethnographic Museum. A scholarship took him to Belgium and, upon his return, he decided to pursue a career in Paleontology at the University of La Plata. He worked for Conicet until the military coup of 1966. He decided to settle in Chile, where he graduated with a doctorate in Biology at the end of the 60s. He returned to Río Negro, where he created the Río Negro Scientific Research Center, based in Viedma.
In 1978, Casamiquela created the Ameghino Foundation in Viedma to promote regional research and the study of agriculture, geology, mining, fishing and biology. His research works include iconological and ethnological studies of Patagonia, rock art and Tehuelche grammar,
In 1965 he received the first National Prize for Anthropology and the third for Biology from the Undersecretary of Culture of the Nation. He served as a professor at different universities and academic institutions in Chile and Argentina. He was an emeritus professor at the National University of Southern Patagonia and nominated for an honorary doctorate.
“Casamiquela had different episodes where he was harshly criticized for investigations in which he maintained that the Tehuelches were the true original settlers of Chubut and northern Patagonia. His studies led him to affirm that the Mapuches crossed the border and invaded the Tehuelches in the 17th century, a people whom he considered practically extinct.
“This position earned him severe criticism from aboriginalists from Argentina and Chile, who on several occasions prevented the researcher from completing his dissertations in universities and institutions. The root of the discussion is that Casamiquela considered the Mapuches, Chileans, when it comes to “pre-existing” peoples that inhabited the mountain range before the political geographical delimitations that we currently know. However, it was a basis that served judicially to evict several indigenous communities. Beyond the controversies over this extreme position, his contributions to the knowledge of Patagonia acquire special relevance; which is expressed in a work of great extension and depth.”
His opinion expressed almost 10 years after his death
-What led you to study about this?
– My concern for indigenous things began when I was 14 years old. I went to study in Buenos Aires and one day, in the National Library, I started reading Mapuche, without knowing that in my town (Ingeniero Jacobacci) half of the kids my age spoke that language, because then they hid their origin. Not even the teachers knew. So, when I returned, it was a pleasant surprise to discover that the laborers who baled the wool in a commercial house where my father worked were of indigenous origin. I had a fantastic summer with them, because I began to write down the first things about their language. At the age of 16, always accompanied by the indigenous people, he was already building the first museum referring to his history.
-What have you been able to learn about them?
– I have met hundreds of indigenous people and all the Tehuelche speakers in Patagonia. I studied and learned that first came the Paleolithic Tehuelche world, very ancient. The ancestors of their ancestors date back to 10,000 or 12,000 years ago and evolved in Patagonia. Long after the arrival of the Spanish, around 1600, the horse allowed the Tehuelches to dominate the entire Pampas and Neuquén area. At that same time Mapuchization began. There are differences between them.
The Patagonian giants are not a fantasy, but rather the Tehuelches, who reached almost two meters in height and weighed 150 kilos, with dark complexions and Asian eyes, who lived by hunting and dressed in skins. The Araucanos or Mapuches, however, are a race of medium height, cultivators of Andean culture, who had houses made of wood and straw and worked wonderfully with weaving and silversmithing; They had a superior cultural trajectory, which the Tehuelches imitated.
-What was happening with the language?
– With the arrival of religion and name days, a transformation takes place in it. Then, the Tehuelche men, especially the caciques, in northern Patagonia, began to be bilingual. But the women continued speaking Tehuelche, some families even switched from Tehuelche to Spanish, without going through Mapuche. There was a religious syncretism and the Tehuelche became Mapuchized. But the Mapuche as a people were on the other side of the Cordillera.
-Do the descendants preserve the indigenous language?
– Today there are living descendants of great Tehuelche chiefs. There are only a few families, the others are descendants of Mapuches. The Ñanco, for example, are descendants of Sacamata, one of the most serious chiefs of northern Patagonia, born between 1870 and 1880. One of my teachers was the one who saved the Tehuelche language, since he was the last one who spoke it. His name was José María Cual (which in Tehuelche means neck). He died in 1960, aged 90. When I met him, I was a boy and he was blind. For many years we dedicated ourselves to the Tehuelche language and for this I want to pay the greatest tribute to this people, descendants of the oldest inhabitants of all of America.
-How?
– One day I swore to pay tribute to this unique town, saving everything I could from its history. Unfortunately I'm alone in all this. Descendants do not study their ancestors, because that means reading white people and there is a kind of rejection, a denial that is like cheating in life's solitaire. You can't move forward. So I am a plum teacher, that is, a scientist, who tells the story as it is told by science, anthropology. I do not make demagogic concessions. Therefore, if I say that there were no Mapuche here in 1865 and that they only arrived in 1890, I am saying what history is, I am not inventing it. Only others don't say it or say it differently. So I'm the bad guy.
-Is that why they give you escraches?
– Yes. But these people are not indigenous in the cultural sense, they are in the piquetero sense. They are politicians.
-What are they questioning you about?
– There are no questions. That's a pretext. You have to think about what they are looking for. If they define themselves as Mapuches they are Chileans and if they are Chileans they have no right to the land of Argentina. This is the key. So, as I explain that they are Chileans, I am the enemy. Any Chilean knows that the Mapuches are Chileans. Leaders know it too. But not youth. 99 percent of those who define themselves as Mapuche are of Tehuelche origin. But there have been many confusions due to language or surname. This is how identity is lost.
-Why would they have the need to feel like Mapuches if they are not?
– Because the word Mapuche is very attractive. It means people of the earth. If it is used as a symbol it is correct. I am also people of the earth. In 1960, as a tribute, the First Congress of the Araucanian Area of Argentina proposed that the Araucanians be called Mapuche as in Chile.
-What would be the answer if someone asked who the originators were?
– It would be necessary to see with respect to what. Upon the arrival of the Spanish it is one thing. The constitution of the Argentine State is another. Because in 1816 there were no Mapuches in Argentina. The first settled in the center of La Pampa in 1820 and in 1890, south of Limay Negro, the first settlers of Chilean origin were the Mapuches and the Chilotes. You have to distinguish this whole thing very subtly.
-Why do you mention the loss of identity?
– That is the most terrible thing. The grandchildren of my teachers, who knew what they were, today are all Mapuche. That is, the grandfather is pure Tehuelche, but the grandson is Mapuche. Then Patagonia lost its identity. This is a land of floods, because people arrive from other places every day. So, the teachers are not from here and it is very difficult to recreate that wonderful identity that - until 30 years ago - was the word, the open house, the hospitality, the security and the indigenous base, now faded by all this confusion that there is with the Mapuches. But until a few years ago the story was clear.
-What happens with the Tehuelche language?
– It is a dead language. He died in 1960. And there are no people interested in learning it. I did it because I was aware that my teacher, José María Cual, was one of the last to speak it. He communicated with me in Spanish and we could make translations from Mapuche to Tehuelche, review them for several years and pass them clean. He was aware that he was the only one left to speak that language. But he died before seeing the grammar. Today culture is lost. The descendants, for the most part, do not maintain the language. Even the names that are here, in the shops, are false. The vocabulary is wrong and that is my suffering. This worries me much more than the escraches. Indigenous people have to improve and professionalize themselves without losing their language of origin. In Argentina, the indigenous language has one generation left and no one cares about recovering it.
-What do you feel every time you say you are alone in this?
– You feel helplessness, because it is difficult to reach teaching and those who have political decision over it. When I go to teach at schools, the kids and teachers are amazed. At the end of the talks, the boys who have indigenous surnames who were shy come forward and feel good, because they are descendants of the great chiefs. The same thing happens when they know what the meanings of their names are in Mapuche, because the Tehuelches have no meanings. All of this can be done, but who bells the cat.
The Argentine FARA 83/FAA 81 assault rifle was only produced in about 1,200 examples before lack of funds forced its termination.
Origin: Argentina Year: 1981 Manufacturer: Fabrica Militar de Armas Portatiles Domingo Matheu - Argentina Operadores: Argentina
Specifications
Common measurements, and their respective conversions, are shown where possible. Calibers listed may be model/camera dependent.
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO Length (overall): 1,000 millimeters (39.37 inches) Length (barrel): 452 millimeters (17.80 inches) Weight (unloaded): 8.71 pounds (3.95 kilograms) Sights: Adjustable iron Muzzle speed: 980 meters per second Firing rate: 750 rounds per minute Range (effective): 1,312 feet (400 meters; 437 yards)
Variants
Series Model Variants • FARA 83 - Basic series designation
• FAA 81 ("Fusil Automatico Republica Argentina") - Official designation
History
For decades, the Argentine military, along with numerous other militaries worldwide, has utilized the highly regarded Belgian Fabrique Nationale FN FAL automatic rifle, which is chambered for the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. Over 2,000,000 units of this rifle have been produced, with more than 90 countries adopting some version of the weapon, and many still keeping it in active service. Production of the FN FAL began in 1947 and continues to this day (as of 2012). The FN FAL has undeniably experienced extensive combat use across the globe.
Argentina adopted the FN FAL into frontline service in 1955, with the first units arriving in 1958. In Argentine service, these rifles were designated as FSL-FAL, where the Belgian "FAL" (Fusil Automatique Léger) was adapted to the Argentine "Fusil 'Lightweight Automatic'". Licensed production was granted in 1960, firmly establishing the Belgian design as the standard-issue battle rifle in the Argentine military. In the early 1980s, Argentina sought to modernize its arsenal, resulting in the development of the "FARA 83" or "FAA 81" (Fusil Automático Argentino). The FARA 83 was a blend of various components from other tested designs, including the FN FAL. It bore a striking resemblance to the Israeli IMI "Galil" assault rifle, itself an evolution of the Soviet-era AK-47 through the Finnish RK 62, which is believed to have influenced Argentine development.
The FARA 83 was a conventional assault rifle with tried-and-true design features, resulting in a highly functional weapon system. Its rectangular receiver housed the ejection port and an HK-style charging handle on the right side. The pistol grip, positioned just behind the trigger unit, was well-angled and ergonomically designed. The firing system allowed for both semi-automatic and fully automatic fire. The magazine feed, located just forward of the trigger group, accepted curved, spring-loaded magazine boxes. The semi-skeletal stock hinged to fold over the right side of the receiver, creating a more compact design suitable for vehicle crews or paratroopers who required smaller weapons. The front of the weapon featured a horizontally ribbed gas cylinder and barrel assembly, with the gas cylinder positioned above the barrel and capped with a front iron sight. Another iron sight was fitted at the extreme rear of the receiver. The barrel protruded slightly from the weapon and was capped with a distinctive grooved muzzle brake.
The FARA 83 measured 40 inches in length with the stock fully extended, which reduced to a compact 30 inches when the stock was collapsed. The barrel was 18 inches long. The unloaded weight was nearly 9 pounds. The rifle was designed to fire 5.56x45mm cartridges from 30-round detachable box magazines. It had a cyclic rate of fire of approximately 750 rounds per minute, and a muzzle velocity of 3,166 feet per second.
As its alternative designation suggests, the FAA 81/FARA 83 rifle appeared in 1981, with production starting in 1984 under the direction of Fabrica Militar de Armas Portatiles Domingo Matheu in Rosario, Argentina. Despite its potential, the Argentine military faced financial difficulties during this period. Consequently, production of the FARA 83 was limited, resulting in only 1,193 units entering service with the Argentine Army. Production ceased in 1986 due to lack of funds, making the FARA 83 a brief and fleeting success. Limited production is believed to have resumed around 1990, but the manufacturing totals for this secondary effort remain unknown.
Beagle Crisis: Analysis of the Scenario of Local Response
Updated Analysis of Scenario: Argentina Took the Islands and Chile Responded in the Area
Given the updated information about the deployment and conditions of the forces involved, we can refine the analysis of the conflict scenario where Argentina seizes Picton, Lennox, and Nueva islands, and Chile responds directly in the area.
Initial Argentine Assault on the Islands
Argentine Forces Deployment:
Naval Forces: The Argentine navy would use its surface fleet, including the Veinticinco de Mayo air carrier destroyers, frigates, and corvettes, to establish naval superiority in the Beagle Channel.
Naval Aviation: Argentine aircraft such as the T-28 Fennec, Turbo Mentors, and Aermacchi MB 326 light-attack trainers, based at the Rio Grande naval station, would provide air support for the operation.
Ground Forces: Amphibious forces, including marine infantry, would be deployed to assault the islands. The objective would be to quickly secure the islands, especially Nueva island, where Chilean marines are fortified.
Updated Operational Plan
Naval Bombardment and Blockade:
Argentine naval forces would begin with a coordinated bombardment of Chilean positions on Nueva island to soften defenses.
Surface ships would establish a blockade around the islands to prevent Chilean reinforcements from arriving by sea.
Air Superiority and Support:
Argentine T-28 Fennecs, Turbo Mentors, and Aermacchi MB 326s would conduct air strikes on Chilean fortifications and provide close air support for the landing forces.
A-4Q Skyhawk were deployed in the Veinticinco de Mayo air carrier.
Efforts would focus on maintaining air superiority over the channel, leveraging the compromised state of Chilean submarines and the absence of significant Chilean air assets in the immediate area.
Amphibious Assault:
Argentine marine infantry would land on Picton and Lennox islands first, securing them quickly due to the lack of significant Chilean presence.
The main effort would then focus on Nueva island, where 150 Chilean marines are entrenched. The initial bombardment and air strikes would aim to weaken Chilean defenses, followed by a multi-pronged amphibious assault to overwhelm the defenders.
Defensive Preparations:
Once the islands are secured, Argentine forces would establish fortified positions and prepare for a potential Chilean counteroffensive.
The Argentine navy would maintain the blockade and continue patrolling the area to detect and deter any Chilean naval movements.
Río Grande Naval Station (BARG) (SAWE)
Chilean Response in the Area
Chilean Forces Deployment:
Naval Forces: With the submarine Simpson compromised, Chile's surface fleet would have to engage the Argentine navy directly. This includes deploying destroyers and frigates to challenge the blockade and attempt to retake the islands.
Air Force: With F-5Es concentrated in Santiago, Chile's immediate air response would be limited. They would need to mobilize whatever air assets were available in the south, possibly using older aircraft or redeploying F-5Es, though this would take time.
Ground Forces: Chilean marines on Nueva island would be the first line of defense. Any reinforcements would likely come from nearby bases but would face significant logistical challenges due to the Argentine blockade.
Potential Course of Action and Engagements
Chilean Naval Response:
Immediate Naval Engagement: Chile would mobilize its surface fleet to engage the Argentine navy in the Beagle Channel. The objective would be to break the blockade and provide support for the marines on Nueva island.
Tactical Challenges: The compromised state of the submarine Simpson would limit Chile's underwater capabilities, making the naval engagement primarily a surface battle. Argentine submarines Santiago del Estero and Salta, aware of Simpson's issues, would likely play a significant role in disrupting Chilean naval movements.
Air Engagements:
Initial Air Strikes: Argentine air assets would continue to provide close air support and target any Chilean reinforcements attempting to reach the islands.
Chilean Air Mobilization: Chile might redeploy F-5Es from Santiago, but this would take time. In the short term, they would rely on whatever air assets are available in the region, potentially utilizing older aircraft for immediate support.
Ground Counteroffensive:
Defense of Nueva Island: The 150 Chilean marines on Nueva island would mount a determined defense. However, they would face overwhelming Argentine firepower from both naval and air strikes.
Reinforcement Efforts: Chile would attempt to send reinforcements by sea, but the Argentine blockade and naval presence would make this difficult. Small-scale infiltration and supply missions might be attempted, but larger reinforcements would be unlikely to succeed without breaking the blockade.
A-4Qs participated in Operation "Defense and Affirmation of Sovereignty" in 1978, during the border conflict with Chile over the Lennox, Picton, and Nueva Islands (Beagle Channel crisis) deployed aboard the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, from where they carried out air patrols of armed combat, intercepting Chilean aircraft.
Outcome and Strategic Implications
Short-Term Outcome:
Argentine Success: Given the overwhelming firepower and logistical advantages, Argentina is likely to succeed in securing the islands initially. The compromised state of Chilean submarine assets and the limited immediate air response from Chile would contribute to this success.
High Casualties: The battle for Nueva island, in particular, would be intense and result in high casualties on both sides, especially among the entrenched Chilean marines.
Long-Term Strategic Implications:
Prolonged Conflict: Even if Argentina secures the islands, the conflict would not necessarily end there. Chile would likely continue to seek ways to retake the islands or open new fronts elsewhere.
Regional Tensions: The conflict would significantly heighten regional tensions, drawing in international attention and potentially involving other countries diplomatically or militarily.
Military Readiness: Both nations would continue to mobilize and prepare for extended engagements, potentially escalating the conflict into a broader war involving multiple fronts.
In conclusion, the updated scenario analysis indicates that Argentina, leveraging its superior naval and air power and the compromised state of Chilean submarine assets, would likely succeed in its initial objective of securing the islands. However, the conflict would likely escalate, leading to prolonged engagements and heightened regional tensions. Two aspects to be taken into account: Argentine developed a complex military industry, so ammunition and small arms can be guaranteed to be provided to troops jointly with food and clothes. Chile, empoverished through decades of economical mismanagement especially during Allende's administration, was far to even compared to its neighbor.
A proposal for the COAN: An F-16 for long-range maritime attack
Introduction
The Argentine Air Force (FAA) has acquired 24 F-16 MLU from Denmark. The Argentine Naval Aviation (COAN) is evaluating what to do with its 16 AMD Super Etendard in inventory (including the 11 older Super Etendard and the 5 newer Super Etendard Modernizé). However, since the FAA will acquire the F-16, a proposal could be thought of to the COAN so that, instead of insisting on continuing with the Super Etendard, why not try to buy some new F-16 B50/52+ well-profiled with full and long-range anti-ship attack capability? It results in an aircraft with enormous attack capacity, with extended range, compatible in many aspects with the aircraft that the Air Force will have in inventory, among many benefits. Let's explore this idea. The line of reasoning follows the following assumptions:
The Super Etendard only operates from ground bases, limiting its ability to approach the target autonomously unless it is refueled in flight by KC-130s, as was the case during the attack on HMS Invincible.
The actual costs to obtain spare parts and perform maintenance in the future tend to be extremely high if not impossible.
The F-16, already acquired by the Argentine Air Force (FAA) and expected to complete more squadrons in the future, will help standardize maintenance and training between both forces, similar to what happened previously with the A-4 Skyhawks.
The F-16, equipped with conformal fuel tanks (CFT), can control much of the Argentine Sea, as currently recognized by the UN (see details below).
The costs of acquiring a squadron of F-16s, speculatively, average around $1 billion through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program (see details below).
F-16s as Naval Attackers
Several countries use the F-16 platform in roles that include air-sea attack capabilities, utilizing laser-guided bombs (LGBs) and anti-ship missiles (AShMs) as part of their standard armament. Here are some notable examples:
1. United States
Weapons: The U.S. Air Force uses F-16s capable of carrying LGBs and various AShMs like the AGM-84 Harpoon.
Role: While primarily used in multi-role capacities, including air superiority and ground attack, the F-16s are equipped and trained for maritime strike missions.
2. Israel
Weapons: The Israeli Air Force equips its F-16s with a variety of precision-guided munitions, including LGBs and indigenous anti-ship missiles like the Gabriel.
Role: Israel uses F-16s in a multi-role capacity, including significant emphasis on maritime strike due to the strategic importance of the Mediterranean Sea.
3. Turkey
Weapons: Turkish F-16s are equipped with LGBs and Harpoon missiles for maritime operations.
Role: Turkey uses F-16s for a range of missions, including maritime strike, given its extensive coastline and strategic maritime interests in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas.
4. Greece
Weapons: Greek F-16s can carry LGBs and Harpoon missiles, emphasizing their capability to conduct maritime strike missions.
Role: Greece’s F-16 fleet is tasked with various roles, including maritime interdiction and defense, due to the country’s geographical layout with numerous islands and significant maritime borders.
5. Singapore
Weapons: The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) equips its F-16s with LGBs and Harpoon missiles.
Role: Singapore, as a small island nation with significant maritime interests, uses F-16s for both air defense and maritime strike missions to protect its waters and shipping lanes.
6. South Korea
Weapons: The Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) uses F-16s with LGBs and Harpoon missiles for maritime strike roles.
Role: South Korea's strategic position and maritime threats from neighboring North Korea necessitate a robust maritime strike capability.
7. Egypt
Weapons: Egyptian F-16s are equipped with LGBs and Harpoon missiles for maritime strike missions.
Role: Egypt uses F-16s for various roles, including defending its extensive coastlines along the Mediterranean and Red Seas.
8. Taiwan
Weapons: Taiwanese F-16s are equipped with LGBs and Harpoon missiles for maritime strike missions.
Role: Taiwan uses F-16s for various roles, including defending its extensive coastlines along the Taiwan Strait and the recurrent Chinese incursions.
These countries have integrated their F-16 platforms with a range of weaponry that allows them to perform maritime strike missions effectively. The flexibility and adaptability of the F-16 platform make it suitable for a variety of roles, including those requiring precision engagement of sea-based targets.
Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) on F-16s
The use of Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) on F-16s for the air-sea attack role varies by country and specific mission requirements. CFTs increase the aircraft's fuel capacity without occupying underwing hardpoints, which can be used for additional weapons and sensors. Here is an overview of how some of these countries utilize CFTs for maritime strike roles:
1. United States
CFT Usage: U.S. F-16s are generally not equipped with CFTs, as the primary users (Air National Guard units and Active Duty squadrons) prioritize flexibility and performance over extended range. However, some specialized roles might consider CFTs if extended range is crucial.
Role: The primary mission sets are generally accomplished without CFTs, relying on external fuel tanks if needed for extended operations.
2. Israel
CFT Usage: Israeli F-16I "Sufa" fighters are equipped with CFTs. The IAF uses CFTs to extend the operational range of their F-16s, which is crucial for missions over the Mediterranean and potential operations beyond their immediate borders.
Role: CFTs allow Israeli F-16s to carry more weapons and sensors by freeing up underwing hardpoints, which is advantageous for extended maritime strike missions.
3. Turkey
CFT Usage: Turkish F-16s do not commonly use CFTs. They typically rely on external fuel tanks for extended range.
Role: While Turkey has significant maritime interests, the flexibility and performance advantages without CFTs are often preferred.
4. Greece
CFT Usage: Greek F-16s, specifically the F-16 Block 52+ and Block 70/72 Viper, are equipped with CFTs.
Role: CFTs are used to extend the range and endurance of Greek F-16s, which is beneficial for maritime patrol and strike missions across the Aegean Sea and beyond.
5. Singapore
CFT Usage: The Republic of Singapore Air Force equips its F-16s with CFTs to enhance their range and payload capacity.
Role: CFTs are particularly useful for Singapore's F-16s due to the need for extended range operations in the region, enhancing their maritime strike capabilities.
6. South Korea
CFT Usage: South Korean F-16s, particularly the F-16 Block 52 and Block 70/72, can be equipped with CFTs.
Role: The use of CFTs extends the operational range and endurance of ROKAF F-16s, which is critical given the maritime threats and the need for extensive patrol and strike capabilities around the Korean Peninsula.
7. Egypt
CFT Usage: Egyptian F-16 Block 52s are equipped with CFTs.
Role: The CFTs provide extended range and endurance, allowing Egyptian F-16s to perform long-duration maritime strike missions over the Mediterranean and Red Seas.
The use of CFTs on F-16s for maritime strike roles is more prevalent among countries that require extended range and endurance for their operations. CFTs allow these aircraft to carry additional fuel without sacrificing weapon capacity, making them well-suited for long-range missions over water. Countries like Israel, Greece, Singapore, South Korea, and Egypt leverage the benefits of CFTs to enhance their maritime operational capabilities.
Which Batches Can Use CFT?
Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) were introduced with the F-16 Block 50/52 and later variants. Here is a more detailed breakdown:
F-16 Blocks Capable of Using CFTs
F-16 Block 50/52+
Introduction: These blocks introduced the capability to carry CFTs.
Features: These variants come with improved avionics, radar systems (such as the AN/APG-68(V)9 radar), and the option to mount CFTs.
Users: Countries like Greece and Turkey have F-16 Block 50/52+ aircraft with CFTs.
F-16 Block 60
Introduction: This advanced variant, developed for the United Arab Emirates, includes CFTs as part of its standard configuration.
Features: The Block 60 includes an AN/APG-80 AESA radar, advanced avionics, and other enhancements.
F-16 Block 70/72 (Viper)
Introduction: The newest and most advanced version of the F-16, also known as the F-16V (Viper), includes CFT capability.
Features: This variant features an AN/APG-83 AESA radar, upgraded avionics, and is optimized for modern warfare requirements.
Users: Countries like Bahrain, Bulgaria, and Slovakia are acquiring or have acquired F-16 Block 70/72 aircraft.
CFTs became an option starting with the F-16 Block 50/52+ and have been included in subsequent advanced blocks such as the Block 60 and Block 70/72. These blocks enhance the F-16's range and payload capabilities, making them suitable for extended missions, including maritime strike roles.
F-16s Naval Attacker with CFT in Argentina: Extended Capabilities
Estimating the increment in range for F-16s equipped with Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) involves several factors, including mission profile, payload, and fuel capacity. Here’s a general overview:
Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs)
Capacity: Each CFT on an F-16 can hold approximately 450 gallons (1,700 liters) of fuel, adding a total of 900 gallons (3,400 liters) when both tanks are used.
Increment in Range: The additional fuel provided by CFTs typically increases the range by about 20-30%, depending on the aircraft's configuration and mission profile.
Baseline Range Estimates
Without CFTs: The baseline combat radius of an F-16 without CFTs, carrying a typical load of weapons and fuel, is approximately 500 nautical miles (nm) for a strike mission.
With CFTs: Adding CFTs increases this radius by 20-30%, resulting in an estimated range of 600-650 nm for a strike mission.
Scenario Analysis
Fully Loaded with Weapons (Strike Mission)
Assumptions: The F-16 is carrying a full load of air-to-sea weapons, including AShMs and LGBs.
Range: With CFTs, the strike radius would be approximately 600-650 nm from the base.
Filled Only with Fuel (Reconnaissance Mission)
Assumptions: The F-16 is configured for a reconnaissance mission, carrying minimal external stores and maximizing internal and CFT fuel capacity.
Range: The maximum ferry range for an F-16 with CFTs and external drop tanks can exceed 2,000 nm. For a typical reconnaissance mission with some reserve fuel, an estimated operational radius would be around 1,000 nm.
Operating Bases and Potential Reach
Puerto Belgrano Naval Base
Strike Mission: 600-650 nm
Potential reach: Across the central and northern Argentine coast, reaching the southern parts of Brazil and the open South Atlantic.
Reconnaissance Mission: Up to 1,000 nm
Potential reach: Much of the South Atlantic, including far into the Southern Ocean.
Almirante Zar Naval Base
Strike Mission: 600-650 nm
Potential reach: Covering a significant portion of the Patagonian coast, including the Falkland Islands.
Reconnaissance Mission: Up to 1,000 nm
Potential reach: Extending deep into the South Atlantic and covering the entirety of the Falkland Islands and beyond.
Rio Grande Base
Strike Mission: 600-650 nm
Potential reach: Covering the southern Patagonian coast, the Falkland Islands, and reaching towards the Antarctic Peninsula.
Reconnaissance Mission: Up to 1,000 nm
Potential reach: Extending far into the South Atlantic, covering the entire Falkland Islands region, and towards the Antarctic convergence zone.
With CFTs, the F-16’s range and operational flexibility are significantly enhanced, making it a formidable platform for both strike and reconnaissance missions from Argentina’s key naval bases. This extended range allows for greater coverage of the South Atlantic, critical maritime zones, and even potential operations near the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.
If you have specific operational parameters or need more detailed calculations, such as fuel consumption rates or specific payload configurations, I can provide more precise estimates.
Proposal for Argentine Naval Aviation: Transition to F-16 Block 50/52+ for Enhanced Maritime Capabilities
Objective:
To present a strategic, operational, and financial rationale for the Argentine Naval Aviation (ANA) to transition from the aging AMD Super Étendard fleet to the modern F-16 Block 50/52+ platform with Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs), emphasizing the superior air-sea attack capabilities and extended operational range.
Strategic Benefits
Enhanced Capabilities:
Modern Avionics and Systems: The F-16 Block 50/52+ is equipped with advanced avionics, radar systems (AN/APG-68(V)9), and electronic warfare suites, providing superior situational awareness and combat effectiveness.
Multi-role Flexibility: Unlike the Super Étendard, the F-16 can seamlessly transition between air-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-sea missions, enhancing operational flexibility.
Longer Operational Range:
Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs): CFTs significantly extend the operational range of the F-16 without occupying underwing hardpoints, allowing the aircraft to carry additional weapons and sensors essential for long-range maritime strike missions.
Standardization with the Air Force:
Interoperability: Acquiring F-16s for both the AAF and ANA ensures interoperability, facilitating joint operations, shared maintenance infrastructure, training programs, and logistics support.
Common Training and Tactics: Pilots and ground crews can benefit from a unified training program, enhancing proficiency and reducing the time and cost associated with training on different platforms.
Operational Advantages
Superior Maritime Strike Capability:
Advanced Weapons Integration: The F-16 Block 50/52+ can carry a wide array of modern anti-ship missiles (AShMs) such as the AGM-84 Harpoon, as well as laser-guided bombs (LGBs) for precision strikes against maritime targets.
Survivability and Effectiveness: Equipped with cutting-edge countermeasure systems and stealth capabilities, the F-16 offers greater survivability in contested environments compared to the Super Étendard.
Increased Payload Capacity:
Armament Flexibility: With more hardpoints and greater payload capacity, the F-16 can carry a combination of missiles, bombs, and fuel tanks, providing mission planners with more options and capabilities for complex operations.
Maintenance and Reliability:
Proven Track Record: The F-16 platform has a proven track record of reliability and ease of maintenance, supported by a global supply chain and extensive user base, ensuring sustained operational readiness.
Financial and Logistical Considerations
Cost-Effectiveness:
Reduced Training and Maintenance Costs: Standardizing the fleet with the AAF's F-16s can lead to significant savings in training, maintenance, and logistics by leveraging economies of scale.
Modernization and Lifecycle: Investing in new F-16 Block 50/52+ aircraft provides a longer operational lifecycle and future-proofing against obsolescence, reducing the need for frequent upgrades and overhauls.
Economic and Strategic Partnerships:
Foreign Military Sales (FMS): Acquiring F-16s through the U.S. FMS program can provide favorable financing terms, access to the latest technology, and long-term support agreements.
Regional Influence: Modernizing the ANA with F-16s enhances Argentina's regional defense posture and demonstrates a commitment to maintaining a capable and modern naval aviation force.
Transitioning to the F-16 Block 50/52+ represents a strategic, operational, and financially sound decision for the Argentine Naval Aviation. The advanced capabilities, extended range, and interoperability with the Air Force provide a comprehensive solution to enhance Argentina's maritime defense capabilities. By adopting the F-16 platform, the ANA will not only modernize its fleet but also ensure long-term operational effectiveness and readiness in a rapidly evolving strategic environment.
Next Steps:
Detailed Feasibility Study: Conduct a comprehensive study on the feasibility and costs associated with transitioning to the F-16 Block 50/52+.
Stakeholder Engagement: Engage with key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Defense, to discuss the strategic advantages and secure the necessary approvals and funding.
Partnership Negotiations: Initiate discussions with the U.S. government and Lockheed Martin for potential purchase agreements, training programs, and support packages.
By presenting this proposal, the Argentine Naval Aviation can take a significant step towards achieving a modern, capable, and flexible maritime strike force.
Acquisition Costs
Acquiring a squadron of F-16 Block 50/52+ aircraft with full air-sea attack capabilities, including Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs), involves multiple cost considerations. Here's a comprehensive assessment of the costs:
1. Aircraft Acquisition Costs
The unit cost of an F-16 Block 50/52+ varies based on configuration, additional equipment, and market conditions. However, an average unit cost can be estimated as follows:
Unit Cost: Approximately $50-60 million per aircraft, including airframe, engines, avionics, and standard equipment.
For a squadron (typically 12 aircraft):
Total Aircraft Cost: $50 million x 12 = $600 million (lower end)
Total Aircraft Cost: $60 million x 12 = $720 million (upper end)
2. Weapon Systems and Equipment
Equipping the aircraft with necessary weapons and systems for air-sea attack capabilities:
Air-to-Sea Missiles (e.g., AGM-84 Harpoon): $1.2 million per missile.
Laser-Guided Bombs (LGBs): Approximately $100,000 per bomb.
Electronic Warfare and Countermeasure Systems: Approximately $5 million per aircraft.
Estimated cost for a squadron:
Missiles: 24 missiles x $1.2 million = $28.8 million
LGBs: 48 bombs x $100,000 = $4.8 million
EW Systems: 12 x $5 million = $60 million
3. Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs)
CFTs add to the overall cost but are crucial for extended range missions:
Cost per aircraft: Approximately $2-3 million.
Total CFT Cost for 12 Aircraft: 12 x $2.5 million (average) = $30 million
4. Training and Infrastructure
Training pilots and ground crews, as well as setting up necessary infrastructure:
Pilot Training: Approximately $1-2 million per pilot.
Ground Crew Training: Approximately $0.5 million per technician.
Infrastructure and Simulators: $50 million
Comandante Espora Naval Station: $ 30 million (Minimum)
For a squadron:
Pilot Training (24 pilots): 24 x $1.5 million (average) = $36 million
Ground Crew Training (36 technicians): 36 x $0.5 million = $18 million
Infrastructure: $50 million
5. Maintenance and Support
Initial maintenance setup and spares:
Initial Spares and Logistics Support: Approximately $50-100 million.
Maintenance Contracts (first few years): $20 million per year.
6. Miscellaneous Costs
Additional costs that might arise include logistics, transportation, and administrative expenses:
Estimated Miscellaneous Costs: $20-30 million.
Summary of Estimated Costs
Aircraft Acquisition: $600-720 million
Weapons and Equipment: $93.6 million
CFTs: $30 million
Training and Infrastructure: $134 million
Maintenance and Support: $70-100 million (first few years)
Miscellaneous Costs: $20-30 million
Total Estimated Cost:
Lower End: $947.6 million
Upper End: $1.077 billion
Acquiring a squadron of F-16 Block 50/52+ aircraft with full air-to-sea attack capability and CFT for the Argentine Naval Aviation is a significant investment, estimated at approximately $917.6 million to $1.047 billion. This investment covers the aircraft, weaponry, training, infrastructure, initial maintenance, and other associated costs. This estimate provides a comprehensive understanding for decision-makers to assess the feasibility and strategic benefits of such an acquisition.
Obviously, the geostrategic implications of such a purchase, in the context of its necessary approval by the U.S. Congress, are not being discussed. That is a much more complex discussion, beyond the scope of this contribution.
A more realistic analysis should consider the use of armed variants of the P-3 Orion as more economical and natural options for naval warfare environments. With expanded budgets, the best option worldwide for this role is the P-8 Poseidon.
René Lavand, the great Argentine magician of the ancients, of those who did magic with cards, of those who dressed as a casino dealer in Las Vegas and of those who were clear that the smallest thing about magic is the technique and the greatest It is the story that surrounds it and makes it unique. Between passes and illusions with his cards he tells stories and one of those stories is titled “I knew you were going to come” and he explained it at the beginning of his shows adding that it was “a short story, and dramatic, because a drama is also beauty”: "The war was over... Surrender was a fact It was when the soldier told his captain
-Permission my captain, I want his authorization to return to the battlefield to look for my friend. - Negative soldier. It's useless since he's dead.
But the soldier resisted the refusal of his superior and disobeyed him and went to the battlefield. After a while he returns with the body of his friend in his arms... dead The defiant captain tells him
-He has disobeyed an order and for what?? See??..It was useless..He's dead -My captain was not useless... When he arrived he was still alive. But before he died he told me: “I KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO COME…”
They were gendarmes from the Alacrán group. The injured man was Rufino Guerrero, who later died. Those who help him are Commander San Emeterio and Sergeant Pepe.
The first British Phantom (XT595) lands at the McDonnell plant in St Louis, Missouri in 1966.
The United Kingdom operated the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II as one of its main fighter aircraft from 1968 to 1992. The United Kingdom was the first export customer for the Phantom, which was ordered against the backdrop of political and economic difficulties in around British designs for the roles he eventually took on. The Phantom was acquired to serve with both the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm (FAA) and the Royal Air Force in various roles including air defence, close air support, low-level attack and tactical reconnaissance.
Although assembled in the United States, the UK's first Phantoms were a special batch built separately with a significant amount of British technology as a means of relieving pressure on the domestic aerospace industry in the wake of major project cancellations. Two variants were initially built for the United Kingdom: the F-4K variant was designed from the beginning as an air defense interceptor to be operated by the Fleet Air Arm (FAA) from Royal Navy aircraft carriers, and the F-version 4M was acquired for the RAF to serve. in tactical attack and reconnaissance roles. In the mid-1980s, a third Phantom variant was obtained when 15 second-hand F-4J aircraft were purchased to augment the United Kingdom's air defenses after the Malvinas War.
The Phantom entered service with both the FAA and RAF in 1969. In FAA service, it had a secondary attack role, while in the RAF it was soon replaced in the attack role by other aircraft designed specifically for attack. and close air support. By the mid-1970s the Phantom had become the UK's main interceptor, a role in which it continued until the early 1990s.
Introduction
Hawker Hunter de Havilland Sea Vixen
In the late 1950s, the British government began the process of replacing its first second-generation jet fighter aircraft in service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Fleet Air Arm (FAA). At the time, the British aerospace industry was still the main supplier of aircraft to the British armed forces and designs from several companies were in service. The 1957 Defense White Paper precipitated significant change in the industry when the Government forced major aerospace manufacturers to merge using new aircraft contracts as an incentive. As a result, two large groups emerged; The British Aircraft Corporation was formed by the merger of English Electric, Vickers-Armstrongs, Bristol and Hunting, and Hawker Siddeley was formed by the merger of Hawker Siddeley Aviation, Folland, de Havilland and Blackburn.
At this time, the RAF wished to replace the English Electric Canberra light bomber in the long-range interdictor role, and the Hawker Hunter in the close air support role, while the Royal Navy sought an aircraft to take on the air defense role. of the de Havilland Sea Vixen fleet. BAC, through its subsidiary English Electric, had begun developing a new high-performance attack aircraft, the TSR-2, which was intended for long-range, low-level strike missions with conventional and tactical nuclear weapons, as well as tactical reconnaissance. Hawker Siddeley was also developing the P.1154, a proposed supersonic version of its P.1127 V/STOL demonstrator, which could be marketed to both the RAF and Royal Navy to fulfill a number of roles: close air support, air superiority and fleet. air defense.
Plans for the single-seat RAF and two-seat RN variants of the P.1154.
In the early 1960s, aircraft development became increasingly expensive, causing large projects to often become mired in political and economic concerns. The TSR-2 project experienced increasing cost overruns. The P.1154 was subject to the ongoing inter-service rivalry between the Royal Navy and the RAF, which led to two wildly different specifications being submitted for the aircraft that were impossible to meet with a single airframe.
In February 1964, the Royal Navy withdrew from project P.1154 and moved to acquire a new fleet air defense interceptor. He eventually selected the McDonnell F-4 Phantom, then in service with the United States Navy (USN) as his primary air defense aircraft, intended to be operated from both existing and planned aircraft carriers. This suited the Royal Navy better, as the Phantom had two engines (providing redundancy in the event of engine failure), was cheaper than the P.1154, and was readily available. In October of the same year, a general election returned the Labor Party to power. The new government carried out a defense review, which led to the publication in February 1966 of a white paper that canceled several projects, including P.1154 and TSR-2. As a consequence, the government had to find alternatives to replace Canberra and Hunter with the RAF. To replace the Canberra in the long-range role (which was intended for the TSR-2), the F-111 was selected, with plans for a redesigned variant, while the roles assumed by the Hunter (for which P.1154 was acquired) would be carried out through an additional purchase of F-4 Phantom.
The Royal Navy was pleased with the choice of the aircraft as its Sea Vixen replacement, given that the type had been operational in the fleet air defense role with the USN since 1961. The US aircraft had also performed touch-and-landing -go successfully on both HMS Hermes and HMS Victorious. The RAF was less enthusiastic, as the Phantom was not optimized for the close air support role, and had been selected as its Hunter replacement more as a way to lower the unit cost of the overall UK order.
A trio of British aircraft carriers; Their small size meant that the Phantom would need major modifications to operate from them.
Partly as a means of maintaining employment in the British aerospace industry, an agreement was reached that the bulk of the UK's Phantoms would be built in the country. Hawker Siddeley Aviation was appointed McDonnell's principal UK partner in January 1965, to be responsible for repair, maintenance, design and modification work on Phantoms for the RAF and RN at Brough airfield. Additional work was delegated to both BAC, at its Warton facility, and Short Brothers in Belfast.
The F-4J variant, then the main version in service with the USN, was taken as the basis for the UK aircraft, subject to a major redesign. The most significant change was the use of the larger, more powerful Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan instead of the GE J79 turbojet to allow operations from smaller Royal Navy aircraft carriers. To accommodate the larger engines, BAC redesigned and rebuilt the entire rear fuselage section. The Westinghouse AN/AWG-10 radar carried by the F-4J was to be acquired and built under license by Ferranti as AN/AWG-11 for FAA aircraft and AN/AWG-12 for RAF ones. In total, about half of the UK Phantoms' airframe and equipment were produced by British manufacturers, and all components were sent for assembly by McDonnell in St. Louis. Changes to the aircraft led to the two variants receiving their own separate serial letters, with the FAA version designated as the F-4K and the RAF version as the F-4M.
Initially, there was the intention to acquire up to 400 aircraft for the Royal Navy and RAF, but the development cost of changes to accommodate the new engines meant that the unit price eventually ended up three times the price of an F-4J. Due to government policy, the budget for the acquisition of the Phantom was fixed, therefore these costs could not be offset by large production and only 170 were ordered.
Variants
A pre-production F-4K (XT597) from A&AEE
Prototypes
The British government ordered four prototypes (two F-4K and two F-4M), along with a pair of pre-production F-4K aircraft. The first UK Phantom, an F-4K prototype (designated YF-4K), first flew on June 27, 1966 at the McDonnell plant in St. Louis. The second made its first flight on August 30, 1966. The two pre-production F-4K aircraft were built alongside the prototypes and were initially used for fit testing of the various systems that would be installed. The first was used for catapult/lightning rod and deck landing tests, and the second was primarily for testing the radar and missile systems. All four were delivered to the United Kingdom from 1969 to 1970 for ongoing test work by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE), the MoD Acquisition Executive, Rolls-Royce and BAC (and later its successor , British Aerospace). The first F-4M prototype (designated YF-4M) first flew on 17 February 1967 and was also used for tuning checks prior to delivery to the United Kingdom.
F-4K Phantom FG.1
Royal Navy
In 1964, the FAA Phantom was ordered to serve as the Royal Navy's main fleet air defense aircraft, with a secondary attack capability. These aircraft were intended to operate from the decks of four aircraft carriers; Eagle and Ark Royal, which would be rebuilt to allow aircraft operation, and two new ships planned.
Un Phantom of 892 NAS on HMS Ark Royal in 1972. The tail fin symbol Omega (O) referenced the perception that 892 NAS would be the FAA's last carrier-based fixed-wing squadron.
British Fleet in the 1960s
Ship
Displacement
Length
Beam
Nr. aircraft
Notes
Ark Royal
54,000 tn
244.9 m
52 m
50
Eagle
55,000 tn
247.3 m
52 m
45
Major reconstruction in 1959–64
Victorious
36,100 tn
238 m
48 m
36
Major reconstruction in 1950–58 to allow operation of modern aircraft
Hermes
29,200 tn
227 m
44.0 m
28
Centaur
27,000 tn
225 m
37 m
26
Primarily used during the absence of other ships due to reconstruction
A US Navy Phantom performs a touch landing aboard HMS Hermes. Only the Eagle and Ark Royal were large enough to operate the Phantom successfully.
The heat from the Spey's afterburners required the installation of special water-cooled jet blast deflectors aboard Ark Royal to prevent major damage to the flight deck.
Requirements for the planned four-carrier force meant that five squadrons of Phantoms would be needed. However, in its 1966 Defense White Paper, the Government decided to cancel the two new carriers, leading to a reduction in the total order from 140 to just 48, with options for a further seven. The intention was to form a pair of frontline squadrons, each of twelve aircraft, which would operate from the remaining two heavily modernized aircraft carriers. The remaining 24 aircraft would be used to form a training unit and to provide a reserve group in case of aircraft losses.
The Royal Navy received its first F-4K Phantoms, carrying the British designation FG.1, in April 1968. They were assigned to 700P Naval Air Squadron (NAS), which would serve as the Intensive Flight Test Unit. Upon completion of successful flight tests, Naval Air Squadron 767 was commissioned in January 1969 as an FAA training squadron. This was followed in late March 1969 by 892 Naval Air Squadron, which was commissioned as the Royal Navy's first operational Phantom unit. During the initial work of 892 NAS, three of its aircraft took part in the Daily Mail Trans-Atlantic Air Race, a competition to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first transatlantic flight. One plane set a record of four hours and 46 minutes for the west-to-east crossing between Floyd Bennett Field in New York City and Wisley Airfield outside London, a record that stood for five years.
At the same time as the FAA was receiving its first aircraft, the A&AEE sent three FG.1s to its 'C' Squadron for flight deck testing aboard Eagle. Two series of trials were successfully carried out in March and June 1969; the first comprised touch-and-go approaches and landings, while the second group of trials involved full catapult launch and arrested recovery. As a result of the Spey turbofans overheating, the ship's jet blast deflectors (JBD) were not used; Instead, a steel plate was attached to the deck to absorb heat from the engines being built for launch, and fire hoses were used after each launch to prevent them from melting.
The Ark Royal had been refitted to accommodate the Phantom in 1967; This involved a major rebuild, which included several elements to allow the ship to operate the aircraft: the flight deck area was increased and fully tilted to 8½°, the arresting mechanism was replaced with a new water spray system to accommodate the Phantom's increased weight and landing speed, and water-cooled flange receivers [iv] and JBD [v] were installed on the catapults. Once this work was completed, Eagle was scheduled to undergo a similar modernization. However, the planned phasing out of fixed-wing aviation in the Royal Navy led to the cancellation of the planned refit of the Eagle, and options for seven additional FG.1s were not taken up. As a result, it was decided to further reduce the FAA's Phantom fleet to just 28 aircraft.
In 1970, Ark Royal embarked 892 NAS as part of its air group for the first time, totaling 12 aircraft. The first operational use of Royal Navy Phantoms came in 1969, when 892 NAS embarked for training with the American aircraft carrier USS Saratoga in the Mediterranean and undertook air defense missions alongside the ship's own F-4Js. This deployment showed the need for the modifications installed on Ark Royal. During the initial Saratoga launches, the heat from the afterburners, combined with the increased angle of attack resulting from the extendable nose wheel, caused the deck plates to warp, causing subsequent catapult launches to be carried out. out with a reduced weight without the use of reheating.
During Ark Royal's first three-year commission, 892 NAS, which had initially used RNAS Yeovilton in Somerset as its base of operations, moved to RAF Leuchars in Fife where, during non-embarked periods, it undertook War Alert. Rapid Reaction (QRA). duties alongside 43 Squadron RAF. At the same time, 767 NAS was disbanded as a Royal Navy Phantom training unit; the squadron had been the joint training unit for the FAA and RAF in the use of the FG.1. In its place, an RAF-operated Phantom training flight was established at RAF Leuchars in August 1972.
The Phantom served with the FAA until 1978, when the Ark Royal was withdrawn from service, leaving no ships in the Royal Navy capable of operating the type. The final catapult launch from Ark Royal was a Phantom of 892 NAS on 27 November 1978 during the air group landing; The squadron's aircraft were delivered to RAF St Athan in Wales, where they were handed over to the RAF. During the type's service with the Royal Navy, 10 of the FAA's total fleet of 28 were lost in accidents.
Royal Air Force
Lightning F.6
Phantom FG.1
The Phantom had significant advantages over the Lightning as an interceptor in terms of range, avionics and weapons fit.
Following the cancellation of the planned refit of HMS Eagle to allow it to operate the Phantom, a total of 20 airframes that had originally been ordered for the FAA were diverted to the RAF to serve in the air defense role. At the time, the RAF's primary interceptor was the English Electric Lightning, which had relatively poor range, idle time and weapons tuning. These limitations hampered its effectiveness, especially in prolonged interceptions of Soviet Air Forces and Soviet Naval Aviation bombers and reconnaissance aircraft over the North Sea and North Atlantic. A new Phantom squadron was formed at RAF Leuchars, the UK's northernmost air defense base at the time, to take advantage of the improvements the Phantom provided over the Lightning: it could carry more fuel and consequently had better range and endurance. ; It was equipped with a more powerful radar; and could carry more missiles (up to 8, compared to 2 for the Lightning). On 1 September 1969, 43 Squadron was formed at Leuchars, operating as part of the UK's northern QRA zone alongside the Lightnings of 11 Squadron and 23 Squadron. In 1972, when 11 Squadron was reassigned to joining 5 Squadron at RAF Binbrook, it was replaced at Leuchars by the Royal Navy Phantoms of 892 NAS.
Following the withdrawal of HMS Ark Royal in 1978, the FAA Phantoms were handed over to the RAF and used to form a second squadron at Leuchars. At the time, 111 Squadron was stationed there operating the FGR.2 version of the Phantom, having been there since 1975. In 1979, to save costs resulting from the differences between the FG.1 and the FGR.2, the squadron became The ex-Navy aircraft and FGR.2 fuselages were distributed to other Phantom units. Following the conversion of 111 Squadron to FG.1, Phantom Training Flight, which had resided at Leuchars since 1972, was disbanded and responsibility for all Phantom conversion training passed to 228 Operational Conversion Unit.
Both 43 and 111 Squadrons retained the FG.1 until 1989, when they converted to the new Tornado F.3. Following the withdrawal of the two operational squadrons and the final withdrawal of the type from service, most of the RAF's FG.1 Phantoms were scrapped. The RAF lost eight of its FG.1s in accidents during the type's twenty years of service.
Operators (FG.1)
United Kingdom Experimental establishment of aircraft and weapons Royal Navy Naval Air Squadron 700P 767 Naval Air Squadron 892 Naval Air Squadron Royal Air Force No. 43 Squadron No. 64 (R) Squadron No. 111 Squadron Phantom training flight
F-4M Phantom FGR.2
A Phantom FGR.2 of 92 Squadron of the Royal Air Force in 1990.
Roles
Air defense interceptor
Low level attack
Close air support
National origin United States Manufacturer McDonnell Douglas First flight February 17, 1967 Introduction August 23, 1968 Retired November 1, 1992 Status retired Primary User Royal Air Force Produced from 1966 to 1969 Number built 118 (incl. 2 prototypes) Career XT852 - XT853 Series XT891 - XT914 XV393 - XV442 XV460 - XV501 XV520 – XV551 (cancelled)
Close air support
Following the cancellation of the TSR-2 and P.1154 programmes, the RAF was still left with a requirement for aircraft in long-range attack, close air support and reconnaissance roles. This resulted in orders for two types of aircraft, the General Dynamics F-111K, intended for the long-range interdiction role, and the F-4M Phantom, which would be used for close air support; both aircraft were to be equipped for reconnaissance. The F-111K was canceled within a year of being ordered, but the order for 150 Phantoms went ahead along with the Phantom order for the Royal Navy; the final 32 units of the RAF order were eventually cancelled. The RAF Phantom, which received the designation FGR.2, was very similar to the naval version, with some minor variations in terms of engines, avionics and airframe, related to its use as a land-based, rather than ground-based, aircraft. on aircraft carriers.
The first RAF Phantom unit was 228 Operational Conversion Unit, which was raised in August 1968. The Phantom entered operational service as part of Strike Command in May 1969, when 6 Squadron was formed at RAF Coningsby in the tactical attack role. 54 Squadron was formed in September of the same year, followed by 41 Squadron in 1972 as a tactical reconnaissance unit. Four other squadrons were formed under RAF Germany in 1970 and 1971: Squadrons 2, 14, 17 and 31, all at RAF Brüggen.
In addition to their conventional strike role, SACEUR assigned Squadrons 14, 17 and 31 a tactical nuclear strike role, using weapons supplied by the United States. After initial work, 2 Squadron operated from RAF Laarbruch in the tactical reconnaissance role. The aircraft assigned to the two tactical reconnaissance units was equipped with a capsule containing four optical cameras, an infrared line scan, and a side-looking radar. [67]
During the 1970s, France and the United Kingdom were developing a new aircraft that could fulfill the RAF's tactical strike and reconnaissance missions: the SEPECAT Jaguar was introduced into service in 1974 and led to a reconsideration of the Phantom's role as At the same time, over time, the Lightning's limitations as an interceptor were becoming more apparent. The conversion of the RAF's FGR.2 squadrons to operate the Jaguar, combined with the use of the Blackburn Buccaneer, meant that it was possible to begin transferring Phantoms to operate purely as interceptors in the air defense role.
Air defense
In October 1974, 111 Squadron converted from the Lightning to the Phantom FGR.2, becoming the first unit to operate the type in the air defense role (despite 43 Squadron, which had used the FG.1 version since 1969). ). As more Jaguars were delivered, more Phantoms were launched allowing existing Lightning squadrons to be converted; 19 Squadron and 92 Squadron, the air defense units deployed in Germany, converted in 1976 and 1977 respectively, at the same time as they moved from RAF Gütersloh, which was the RAF base closest to the East German border, to RAF Wildenrath, taking advantage of the Phantom's superior range over the Lightning. Three other UK-based squadrons, 23, 29 and 56, were also converted between 1974 and 1976. 111 Squadron, which had been the first unit to use the FGR.2 as an interceptor, was converted to the FG.1 version in 1979 after the transfer of the remaining Royal Navy airframes to the RAF. The Phantom subsequently served as the RAF's primary interceptor for over a decade until the introduction of the Panavia Tornado F.3 into service in 1987.
Initially issued to air defense units in grey-green camouflage (above), the RAF later adopted a pale gray color scheme for its Phantoms (below).
When the Phantoms were first issued to interceptor squadrons, they remained in the gray-green camouflage color scheme most associated with the attack and close air support missions they had undertaken. In the late 1970s the RAF began experimenting with new colors for its air defense units, with 56 Squadron tasked with testing the proposed new schemes. In October 1978, a Phantom FGR.2 of 56 Squadron became the first to be painted in the new air superiority gray colour, combined with small roundabouts and low visibility markings. However, although the roundel remained in low-visibility colors, the individual squadron markings eventually returned to more observable sizes and colors.
In May 1982, three Phantoms from 29 Squadron deployed to RAF Wideawake on Ascension Island to provide air cover for RAF operations during the Falklands War, replacing Harriers from 1 Squadron, which were in transit to the war zone. In October 1982, following the end of the conflict and the reconstruction of the runway, 29 Squadron detached nine of its aircraft to RAF Stanley to provide air defense to the Falkland Islands. In March 1983, 23 Squadron took over, remaining stationed there until October 1988, when they were replaced by 1435 Flight. To compensate for the loss of a full UK Air Defense Region squadron, the RAF acquired 15 ex-USN F-4J Phantoms. These aircraft were operated by 74 Squadron from 1984 until 1991, when they were replaced by FGR.2 Phantoms that had been released by other squadrons following their conversion to the Tornado.
Initially, Phantoms and Tornados were intended to serve side by side. A total of 152 Tornado F.3s were ordered for the RAF, enough to convert four squadrons of Phantoms and two of Lightning, but insufficient to fully convert all air defense squadrons. Squadrons 23 and 29 were converted from the Phantom FGR.2 to the Tornado between 1987 and 1988, along with the conversion of the last two remaining Lightning squadrons. The intention was to retain a pair of UK-based Phantom squadrons at RAF Wattisham, along with a pair of Tornado units at RAF Coningsby to provide air defense cover for the southern half of the UK Air Defense Region. Two other squadrons would also remain stationed in Germany.
However, the end of the Cold War saw the Phantom withdrawn from service according to the Options for Change defense review. This saw the disbandment of Operational Conversion Unit 228 in January 1991, with Phantom Training Flight, which had previously operated FG.1 training between 1972 and 1978, re-established for twelve months to conduct refresher courses on the type. As part of the gradual decline of the RAF presence in Germany, the two forward-based units were to be disbanded, while there would also be a reduction in the number of air defense squadrons leading to the disbandment of the two units. based in the United Kingdom in late 1992.
However, just before the final retirement of the Phantom, it was operationally recalled as a result of Operation Granby, the United Kingdom's involvement in the First Gulf War, when aircraft from 19 and 92 Squadrons to provide air defense cover in the RAF. Akrotiri; this was to replace the Tornados that had originally been deployed there on exercise and were subsequently deployed to the Gulf region. Following its final withdrawal from service, with a few exceptions, most of the RAF's FGR.2 fleet was scrapped. During its service life, 37 FGR.2s were lost in accidents.
Operators (FGR.2)
Royal Air Force
Close air support/tactical strike
No. 6 Squadron (attack command)
No. 14 Squadron (RAF Germany)
No. 17 Squadron (RAF Germany)
No. 31 Squadron (RAF Germany)
Squadron No. 54 (Attack Command)
Tactical reconnaissance
No. 2 Squadron (AC) (RAF Germany)
No. 41 Squadron (Attack Command)
Air defense
No. 19 Squadron (RAF Germany)
Squadron No. 23 (Attack Command)
No. 29 Squadron (Attack Command)
Squadron No. 56 (Attack Command)
No. 74 Squadron (Attack Command)
No. 92 Squadron (RAF Germany)
No. 111 Squadron (Attack Command)
Flight No. 1435 (British Forces Falkland Islands)
Training
No. 64 (R) Squadron (Operational Conversion Unit)
Phantom training flight (training unit)
F-4J (UK) Phantom F.3
F-4J (UK) Phantom F.3 A Phantom F.3 of 74 Squadron of the Royal Air Force in 1984.
Role: Air defense interceptor National origin: United States Manufacturer: McDonnell Douglas First flight: August 10, 1984 Introduction: October 19, 1984 Retired: January 31, 1991 Status: retired Primary User: Royal Air Force Produced: in 1984 Number built: 15 Career: ZE350 Series - ZE364
After the Malvinas War, the United Kingdom government began to improve the defenses of the Malvinas Islands to protect against any further recapture attempts by Argentina. One of the measures taken was the deployment of 9 FGR2s from 29 Squadron to RAF Stanley in October 1982, 23 Squadron took over the aircraft in March 1983. The move of a squadron of Phantoms to the Falkland Islands left a void in the UK air defenses and nothing immediately available to fill it. As a result, the UK government decided to purchase another squadron of Phantoms.
Because the aircraft in RAF service was a special production batch built to UK specifications, it would not be possible to obtain identical aircraft, so 15 airframes were acquired from among the best ex-USN F-4Js stored in Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration. Center at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona. The F-4J was chosen because it was the variant from which the RAF's F-4K and F-4M were developed and was therefore the closest available to the British aircraft. The 15 that were selected were extensively refurbished at the Naval Air Repair Facility at NAS North Island and brought to a nearly equivalent standard to the F-4S, which was the last variant in service with the USN, the only differences being the absence of leaders - edge slats and a helmet gun sight.
The main difference between the F-4J and the British Phantoms was the absence of the Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan, the former equipped with the General Electric J79-10B turbojet. This produced less power than the British engine, but had a faster afterburning light, giving it better performance at high altitude, at the expense of slightly poorer acceleration at low level. High altitude performance was aided by the reduced drag of its smaller air intakes. Initially capable of carrying the AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles (AAM), they were soon made compatible with the Skyflash and SUU-23A weapons pod, bringing them in line with the rest of the RAF Phantoms. . . Despite modifications to allow them to operate with the rest of the fleet, the F-4Js retained most of the equipment they were originally equipped with, even requiring their crews to wear American flight helmets.
Although the new Phantoms were assigned a British designation as F.3, they were generally known as F-4J (UK). They were assigned to 74 Squadron at RAF Wattisham, which was raised in October 1984, two months after the first flight. The aircraft remained in service during the transition to the Tornado, which began entering service in 1987. In 1990, thanks to the conversion of F-4M squadrons to the Tornado, the RAF was able to transfer the best of its remaining FGR.2s to 74 Squadron, which meant that the F.3 could be retired in January 1991. With a couple of exceptions, all RAF F-4Js were scrapped. One of the 15 fuselages was lost in a crash in 1987, killing both crew members.
Users (F.3)
Role: Air defense interceptor National origin: United States Manufacturer: McDonnell Douglas First flight: August 10, 1984 Introduction: October 19, 1984 Retired: January 31, 1991 Status: retired Primary User: Royal Air Force Produced: in 1984 Number built: 15 Career: ZE350 Series - ZE364
No. 74 Squadron
Variations
FG.1 y FGR.2
RAF Phantom FG.1 with SUU-23/A gun pod
The Phantom FG.1 and FGR.2, as built, were similar, and were equipped with the same engines and avionics, although there were minor differences. The FG.1 was initially fitted with the Mark 201 version of the Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan, while the FGR.2 had the Mark 202; The Mark 201 had a degree of lag between throttle selection and engine response, which was corrected in the 202. The 201 was eventually upgraded to the Mark 203 version, which had a modified control system for the afterburner, which It allowed it to ignite faster and allow it to be applied quickly in the event of a bolter on the small decks of the Royal Navy aircraft carriers. Both variants were equipped with a license-built version of the Westinghouse AN/AWG-10 avionics package; the FG.1 was equipped with the AN/AWG-11, which differed primarily by having a nose cupola that was hinged and could be folded back against the aircraft's fuselage to allow storage in an aircraft carrier hangar; The system was designed to integrate with both the AGM-12 Bullpup missile and the WE.177 free-fall nuclear weapon as needed. The AN/AWG-12 fitted to the FGR.2 was non-foldable and featured a better ground mapping mode, to take into account the attack role for which the type was originally acquired; Allied to this was a Ferranti inertial attack/navigation system (removed when the type was converted to air defense role). It was also configured to be able to control the SUU-23/A weapons module; The FG.1s used by the RAF could also use the weapons pod, but the Royal Navy's FG.1s lacked this capability.
British Phantoms and other Phantoms
F-4K alongside a US Navy F-4J. This shows the extended nose wheel oil of the British aircraft, fitted to increase take-off attitude for operation on Royal Navy aircraft carriers.
Although there were minor differences between the two types of Phantoms built for the United Kingdom, there were many significant differences between the British Phantoms and those built for the United States. The most obvious was the replacement of the Rolls-Royce Spey turbojet with the General Electric J79 turbojet. The Spey was shorter but wider than the J79, which meant that the intakes of the British Phantoms had to be redesigned for higher airflow, making them 20% larger (with a consequent increase in aerodynamic drag) , while the fuselage was widened by 152 mm. The position of the afterburner also meant that the rear of the fuselage had to be made deeper. Auxiliary intake doors were installed in the rear fuselage.
Performance estimates of the British Phantom compared to its American equivalent indicated that the former had a 30% shorter takeoff distance, 20% faster climb to altitude, higher top speed, and longer range. The Spey was more efficient at lower altitudes and had better low-speed acceleration, giving the British Phantoms better range and acceleration, as demonstrated during the 892 NAS' deployment to the Mediterranean aboard USS Saratoga in 1969, when the F-4K was repeatedly faster on deck than the F-4J used by the Americans. It was less efficient at higher altitudes, the British Phantoms lacking speed compared to the J79-powered versions due to the increased drag of the redesigned fuselage. This discrepancy became apparent when the UK obtained the F-4J in 1984; It was considered the best of the three variants to serve in the RAF.
The small size of the Eagle and Ark Royal aircraft carriers, from which the Royal Navy Phantoms were intended to operate, compared to the USN aircraft carriers of the time, meant that the F-4K version required significant structural changes compared to the F-4J. from which he descended and which played a similar role. In addition to the folding nose radome to allow storage in the smaller hangars of British ships, it had to have significantly reinforced landing gear to account for the increased landing weight (British policy was to bring back unused ammunition ). The F-4J featured a nose wheel oleo that extended 51 centimeters (20 in) to provide the correct position for launch from American catapults. The F-4K's nose wheel oleo was extended by 100 centimeters (40 in) to increase takeoff attitude (the nose wheel extension placed the Phantom in a 9° attitude) due to the shorter British catapults. and less powerful. She was also fitted with droopy ailerons, enlarged leading edge flaps and a slotted tailplane, and an increased flap and leading edge blowout, all to improve the lift and operating handling characteristics of the much smaller aircraft carriers. of the Royal Navy.
As the Phantom continued in service, other changes were made, most notably Marconi's ARI.18228 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) installed on top of the vertical stabilizer of the Phantom FG.1 and FGR.2. in the mid-1970s, but not for the F.
Comparison of aircraft produced in the UK
FG.1; 100 centimeters (40 in) telescopic nose wheel oil; hinged tip radome; wider and shorter engine exhausts; larger air intakes; deeper rear fuselage; Installing RWR on tailfin
FGR.2; without telescopic nose wheel; fixed nose radome; wider and shorter engine exhausts; larger air intakes; deeper rear fuselage; Installing RWR on the tail wing
F.3; 51-centimeter (20-inch) telescoping nosewheel oleo; fixed nose radome; narrower and longer exhausts; narrower air intakes; shallower rear fuselage; no RWR installation in queue
Aircraft production
The first batch of Phantoms produced for the UK received series in the XT range, with a total of 44 production models (20 FG.1 and 24 FGR.2), as well as the four prototypes and two pre-production models being delivered. XT. serial numbers. Most of the UK's purpose-built Phantoms were delivered with series XV. Hand examples (15 F.3) obtained in 1984 received serial publications in the ZE range. Phantom Locations
The RAF operated the Phantom from several bases in the United Kingdom, Germany and the Falkland Islands during its operational service, while the Royal Navy initially based its Phantom units at its main air station at Yeovilton; Following the dissolution of the FAA's dedicated training squadron, its only operational Phantom squadron subsequently moved to be based at the RAF base at Leuchars.
Bases used by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Phantom Squadrons
Although the Phantom was ordered in 1966, the variants that were eventually built were not the first to be offered to the UK. McDonnell Aircraft had been conducting studies into the possibility of the Royal Navy using the Phantom on its aircraft carriers since 1959.
Other Spey-powered Phantoms
McDonnell concluded that more power than the J79 turbojet could provide was needed to operate from the smaller decks of the British carriers and, as a result, consulted Rolls-Royce as to whether the RB-168 Spey turbofan, then under development for its use on the Blackburn Buccaneer, could be installed on the aircraft. In 1960, McDonnell approached the RAF with its model number 98CJ, which was an F4H-1 (later F-4B) with various modifications, including the installation of the Spey Mk.101 turbofan. McDonnell continued studies, proposing afterburning Mk.101 engines in 1962, while tests of an F-4B fitted with an extendable nose wheel took place aboard USS Forrestal in 1963. In 1964, the company proposed the model 98FC, which was identical to the F Variant -4D but would have been equipped with the RB.168-25R.
RF-4M
A further proposal came after the F-4M order was finalised, and was a result of the UK's need for an aircraft to perform the tactical reconnaissance role. To do this, McDonnell offered two options:
The standard F-4M fitted with a reconnaissance pod in place of the centerline fuel tank
A modified fuselage, designated RF-4M, with reconnaissance equipment carried internally
Although the RF-4M would have had some advantages, it was discarded since the cost would have been higher, with the consequent purchase of fewer aircraft, while only those that had been modified would have been able to carry out the reconnaissance mission. Ultimately the RAF chose the standard F-4M and external pod, allowing all of its aircraft to perform all designated functions.
F-4 (HL)
Another McDonnell proposal was a variation of the carrier-based Phantom, aiming to improve catapult performance and reduce approach speeds. The F-4 (HL), also known as the Model 98HL, was planned as a Spey-powered aircraft with a longer fuselage and wingspan, less sweep, stabilizers with larger area, and air intakes with auxiliary doors to increase airflow. air at low speeds. This proposal was not carried forward.
Replacement
McDonnell Douglas proposed a variable geometry version of the Phantom, which was offered as a possible replacement for the Phantom.
In the early 1970s the RAF issued an Air Personnel Requirement for the development of a new interceptor intended to replace both the Phantom and Lightning. One of the first proposals was McDonnell Douglas' plan for a Phantom with a variable geometry wing. This was rejected by the RAF due to the fact that there appeared to be little improvement in performance over the existing Phantom, and that it could affect the development of the "multi-role combat aircraft" (MRCA). An alternative idea was to take the MRCA, which became the Panavia Tornado, and develop an interceptor version. The UK partners in the MRCA project showed no enthusiasm for this air defense version of the Tornado, so only the UK began the process, and authorization for what became known as the Tornado Air Defense Variant (ADV). ) aired in March 1976. The initial plan was for the Tornado to replace the two remaining Lightning squadrons, as well as the seven Phantoms squadrons.
While the Tornado was in development, the RAF considered interim measures to replace the Phantom, which had been in service for over a decade by 1980 and was beginning to suffer from fatigue; one proposal was the leasing or purchase of F-15 Eagles to re-equip the 19th and 92nd Squadrons, the units stationed in Germany. Other suggestions were that up to 80 F-15s be acquired, to replace the Phantom and Lightning squadrons that were in service, or even cancel the Tornado entirely and purchase the F-15 with UK adaptations (specifically for the AI.24 developed the Foxhunter radar for the Tornado and the Skyflash air-to-air missile).
The Phantom was replaced in its air defense roles by the Tornado (above) and the Sea Harrier (below).
Ultimately, the F-15 option was not seriously considered, as it was felt that there would be no time or cost savings over the Tornado ADV. It was later decided that the Tornado, once it entered service, would only re-equip three of the Phantom squadrons; two Phantom units would remain in the United Kingdom and two in Germany. Ultimately, the Tornado replaced the Phantom in four squadrons: the two FG.1 units at RAF Leuchars (43 and 111 Squadrons), plus two FGR.2 units (23 and 29 Squadrons), while 56 and 74 Squadrons, and the two Germany based units (19 and 92 Squadrons) retained the Phantom.
In 1963, the Hawker Siddeley P.1127 short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) prototype made initial landings aboard the Ark Royal, while three years later the pre-production Hawker Siddeley Kestrel (which later became the Harrier), carried carried out a series of extensive tests of HMS Bulwark, which demonstrated the concept of using vertical landing aircraft aboard aircraft carriers. At the same time, the 1966 Defense White Paper had set out plans to withdraw all conventional aircraft carriers from the Royal Navy, which would end the FAA's operation of fixed-wing aircraft from ships at sea, becoming instead in an organization with rotating wings. Because 892 Naval Air Squadron was believed to be the last carrier-based fixed-wing squadron to be commissioned into the FAA, its Phantoms each had a capital letter Omega (O) on their tail fins, intended to symbolizing its place at the end of the Royal Navy's era of fixed-wing aviation.
However, in the 1970s the Royal Navy was developing what was known as the "Through Deck Cruiser", a 20,000 ton ship with a full-length flight deck intended to embark a squadron of large anti-submarine warfare helicopters. Almost as soon as the first ship, HMS Invincible, was ordered, another specification was added to the design: in addition to the helicopters, a small squadron of STOVL aircraft would form part of the air group to act as a long-range deterrent. reconnaissance aircraft. To this end, a navalized version of the Harrier was developed. During the life of the design process, the Sea Harrier's air defense role was augmented with responsibility for maritime reconnaissance and strike missions. In March 1980, 14 months after 892 Naval Air Squadron was decommissioned and its Phantoms handed over to the RAF, 800 Naval Air Squadron was formed as the first operational Sea Harrier squadron.
Aircraft replaced and replaced by the Phantom
Sir Sydney Camm, Hawker's chief designer for many years, once said that no British aircraft could be considered a success until it was able to match the capabilities of the Phantom. In the RAF and Royal Navy, it was the direct replacement in squadron service for a total of four different aircraft types, comprising nine separate variants. In turn, the Phantom was replaced in squadron service by three different aircraft (see table):
The following list details aircraft that were displayed after service with the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy. The remaining aircraft were lost in accidents or scrapped after retirement.
YF-4K (prototipo)
XT596 Fleet Air Arm Museum, RNAS Yeovilton, Somerset, Inglaterra.
F-4K
XT597 Bentwaters Cold War Museum, Woodbridge, Suffolk, England, not in display. XT864 Ulster Aviation Society, Maze-Long Kesh, Lisburn, Northern Ireland. XV582 South Wales Aviation Museum, St Athan, Wales. XV586 RNAS Yeovilton, Somerset, England – stored, not on display.
F-4M
XT891 RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire, England. XT889 Kbely Museum, Czech Republic. Bentwaters Cold War Museum XT905, Woodbridge, Suffolk, England, not on public display. XT914 Wattisham Airfield, Suffolk, England. XV401 Bentwaters Cold War Museum, Woodbridge, Suffolk, England. XV406 Solway Aviation Museum, Carlisle Airport, Cumbria, England. XV408 Tangmere Military Aviation Museum, West Sussex, England. XV411 Defense Fire Training and Development Centre, Manston Airport, Kent, England, not on public display. XV415 RAF Boulmer, Alnwick, Northumberland, England. XV424 Royal Air Force Museum London, Hendon, London, England. XV470 RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus - stored and not on public display. XV474 Imperial War Museum Duxford, Cambridgeshire, England. XV497 Bentwaters Cold War Museum, Woodbridge, Suffolk, England, England.
F-4J (Reino Unido) ZE359 American Air Museum, Duxford Airfield, Cambridgeshire, England. Painted with USN markings. ZE360 Defense Firefighter Training and Development Centre, Manston Airport, Kent, England, not on public display.
Future preservation
In October 2019, the British Phantom Aviation Group announced plans to restore two of the remaining Phantoms that are not on public display, with the aim of finding display locations for them. In association with the 74 Squadron Association, the BPAG obtained ZE360, a Phantom F.3 stored at Manston in Kent, and one of two remaining examples, with the ultimate aim of displaying it in its original RAF markings. The other planned restoration is of XT597, one of two pre-production FG.1 aircraft that were used throughout their career by A&AEE. Once restored, this will be part of the BPAG collection.
Specifications (F-4K)
Royal Navy aircraft data since 1945
General characteristics
Crew: 2 Length: 17.55 m (57 ft 7 in) Wingspan: 38 ft 4.5 in (11.7 m) Height: 4.9 m (16 ft 1 in) Empty weight: 31,000 lb (14,061 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 56,000 lb (25,402 kg) Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce Spey 203 low-bypass turbofan, 12,140 lbf dry thrust (54 kN), 20,500 lbf afterburner (91.2 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.9 (2,231 km/h (1,386 mph)) at 12,190 m (40,000 ft) Ferry range: 2,816 km Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,300 m)
Armament
Air defense 4 × AIM-7 Sparrow or Skyflash in the fuselage gaps plus 4 × AIM-9 Sidewinders and 2 × Sparrow/Skyflash in the wing pylons SUU-23/A weapons pod on center pylon (RAF aircraft only) Strike Up to 180 68mm SNEB unguided rockets; Mix of 500 lb, 750 lb and 1000 lb delayed or free fall bombs Tactical nuclear weapons B28/B43/B57
Avionics
Ferranti AN/AWG-11 multimode radar
Marconi ARI18228 Radar Warning Receiver
Marconi AN/ASN-39A Computer
AN/ARN-91 TACAN distance/bearing navigation system
Cossor IFF
STR-70P radio altimeter
The F.3 retained a high degree of American equipment and was longer, lighter and faster at altitude. The FG.1 and FGR.2 were virtually identical, with the only significant difference, apart from those already mentioned, being the FGR.2's ability to carry the dedicated reconnaissance capsule built by EMI and containing the following:
