Navy F-4E

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was thinking about the F-4E and the fact that it was based on the RF-4C, which in turn was based on the F-4C, which in turn was based on the F-4B which also had a recon variant (used by the USMC) which was carrier suitable.

That being said... why didn't the US Navy simply build a gun-equipped F-4 with the longer nose of the RF-4B, use the radar the USAF was using for it's F-4E and put a gun behind the nose?

[PR19_Kit]

Probably because they had the F-14 waiting in the wings that was a whole generation better than any F-4?

[pyro-manic]

Someone (on here, actually) said that the USN didn't want a gun in the nose as the deck crew would have to walk in front of the muzzle when readying the aircraft for launch, and that was an unacceptable hazard. To me it seems like a ridiculous basis for rejection, but apparently that was the case.

[Weaver]

I always thought it was because the Navy saw the F-4's primary role as a fleet air-defence patrol interceptor whose primary purpose was stuffing Sparrows into Russian bombers in BVR engagements, and they wern't prepared to accept the reduction in radar range and sophistication that was the trade-off for having the gun. The RAF/RN took the same view. With the USAF forbidden from doing BVR in Vietnam, and their F-4s thus being forced into visual range combat, the F-4E made perfect sense.

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

Probably because they had the F-14 waiting in the wings that was a whole generation better than any F-4?

While that is correct, the F-4's were having problems at the time and that was a solution that would fix things quicker than the F-14 would...


Pyro-Manic

Someone (on here, actually) said that the USN didn't want a gun in the nose as the deck crew would have to walk in front of the muzzle when readying the aircraft for launch, and that was an unacceptable hazard.

What about the F-8 and A-4?  They had guns in the nose...

To me it seems like a ridiculous basis for rejection

Because it almost certainly is -- it's an excuse of some sort.  The question is why?


Weaver

I always thought it was because the Navy saw the F-4's primary role as a fleet air-defence patrol interceptor whose primary purpose was stuffing Sparrows into Russian bombers in BVR engagements, and they wern't prepared to accept the reduction in radar range and sophistication that was the trade-off for having the gun.

Actually, the F-4E's radar was as good or better than the earlier APG-72...

With the USAF forbidden from doing BVR in Vietnam, and their F-4s thus being forced into visual range combat, the F-4E made perfect sense.

The USN had the same RoE right?

[tahsin]

Must be mostly related to the F-14. Wasting scarce dollars in type testing new systems for carrier compatibility, when everybody was aware Vietnam was a sideshow that just wouldn't die. USN reformed tactics and trained hard and their kill ratio jumped to a reported 12 to 1, while F-4E or not USAF performed at the same level, even going down.

[Weaver]

With the USAF forbidden from doing BVR in Vietnam, and their F-4s thus being forced into visual range combat, the F-4E made perfect sense.

The USN had the same RoE right?

Yes, but the USAF had aircraft to spare, so they could afford to convert them to suite the Vietnam "sideshow". The Navy couldn't: their carriers might have to go straight from fighting the North Vietnamese air force to fighting Soviet naval aviation, without time to swap "Vietnam-optimised" Phantoms for "WWIII-optimised" Phantoms. Furthermore, the Air Force's F-4s had been bought as tactical fighter-bombers, not, primarily, patrol interceptors: the Air Force's primary intercept job was defending the continental USA and that's what the F-106 was for.

[tahsin]

F-4E was capable enough for the WW III as well, even if this post is only intented to offer the complete picture as far as I can see. Added with that camera system on the wing, it was almost superior to the big dish variants. But simply the Tomcat was better, just like the Eagle was better.