Were F-4e's Carrier Capable?

[nev]

Just curious.

[Nigel Bunker]

Nev

First thing, F-4Es had no attachment points under the wings for the strop to be fitted.

I believe also that the nose was heavier due to the gun fitted, which might also have led to CofG problems.

Doubtless Evan can elucidate on these points.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

The F-4E was designed and build only for land purpose. It has no carrier capacity at all: the structure of the airframe can't bear the stress of carrier landing and catapult-launchings, as Nigel said, it didn't have the launch system and the main and front gear just can't support the landing.

[ysi_maniac]

However IIRC the recce Marine's version (RF-4B) whose external look was similar, was carrier capable.  

[nev]

A supplemental question - which carrier variant (B/N/J/S) was most similar to the E?

[jcf]

A supplemental question - which carrier variant (B/N/J/S) was most similar to the E?

The JMN answer is 'none of the above'.

However the 'J' had the enlarged main wheels and 'thick' wings as used on the USAF aircraft, like the 'E' it also had the slotted stabilators.

A further tidbit, an 'N' is a SLEP rebuilt 'B', and an 'S' is a SLEP rebuilt 'J'.

Cheers, Jon    

[jcf]

Nev

First thing, F-4Es had no attachment points under the wings for the strop to be fitted.

I believe also that the nose was heavier due to the gun fitted, which might also have led to CofG problems.

Doubtless Evan can elucidate on these points.

A fuel tank was added to the rear fuselage to balance the gun and ammo drum installation.

Cheers, Jon

[Radish]

The "J" didn't have the slatted wing, the "S" did.

So?
Fit an "E" nose on a "J" body/wing?

[Jennings]

It has no carrier capacity at all: the structure of the airframe can't bear the stress of carrier landing and catapult-launchings

Actually, the E was structurally capable of carrier landings, but the gun changed the CG so much that it was unsafe to even attempt carrier landings with it.  You can bet the Navy would loved to have had a gun capable F-4, just not doable with the design.

The RF-4B was indeed carrier capable, but it didn't have a big old heavy gun up front.

J

[Jennings]

Fit an "E" nose on a "J" body/wing?

And you'd basically have an early E.  No USAF E's up until around 1971 had slats.  All in service were eventually retrofitted with them.

J

[elmayerle]

According to the records (as published in the Aerofax Minigraph on the F-4E), McAir did study F-4B and F-4J conversions to the gun nose and while it was feasible, it added considerably to the gross takeoff weight of the aircraft.  There does appear, though, to be another proposal to fit some 20mm single-barrel cannons to a basically the contours of an RF-4 nose and fit the same radar as the F-4E carries.  Lastly, there does appear to be a land-based only study for the USMC for converting some of their F-4Js into gun-nosed variants.

What might have worked better on the F-4B/J/N/S would be the original gun pod looked at for mounting on the starboard rear Sparrow well.  It would be more solid a mounting than the standard gun pod but more or less a minimal overall change to the aircraft.

[elmayerle]

It might not since the radar will weigh less.  Really, I suspect an enlarged wing would likely cope with the weight/CG issues.

[Shasper]

What might have worked better on the F-4B/J/N/S would be the original gun pod looked at for mounting on the starboard rear Sparrow well.  It would be more solid a mounting than the standard gun pod but more or less a minimal overall change to the aircraft.

I've given thought to doing an upgraded F-4S, which would include a pair of Aden-style pods in the fwd sparrow recesses.


Shas B)

[anthonyp]

I've often thought about putting some sort of single barrel guns in the electronics blisters above the air intakes on the N/S models.

Nothing really serious, just thinking how it might look.