This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:16 pm

Warbird Kid wrote:Has there ever been any thought of trying to put together a flyby of all the F-4's?

The 3 or 4 USAF examples and the CF's one?

That would be one sweet flight!


Robin Olds memorial service at the AF Academy

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/ind ... pic=124511

Steve

Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:24 pm

The German F-4Fs that were at Reno did not go to the target range. The last 16 German jets at Holloman were flown to AMARC-Tucson in December 2005. They were deeded to USAF specifically for parts reclamation for the drone program. It was specifically written as a no fly DoG. Most of those jets had about 5300 hrs and you could eat off of them. Once they were in processed the landing gear was pulled out of most of them and they are sitting on those plywood stands that they use out there.

As a side note I got word today that they will be pulling RF-4C for drone conversion. Looks like they are running out of E models.

Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:29 pm

what a waste.
:cry:
B

Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:33 pm

I know that it would be awsome to save all of the F-4's, but the ones shot down, are training our forces, and helping develope weapons systems. I know that it would be cool to see more let go, but the USAF can't let go of something they are still using.

Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:50 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Luftwaffe traded in their last F-4's for Tornados, two years ago?

Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:55 pm

I'm not really educated on the subject, but I have to wonder out loud how good a remotely piloted R/C drone could be against someone in the cockpit with a 30 year more modern aircraft at their disposal. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that you'd get about as much excitement out of shooting wooden silouettes propped up in the desert.

Again, I could be wrong, and I'm happy to be enlightened/ educated.

B

Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:01 pm

Isn't there some way that a relatively inexpensive drone could be built specifically for target use, thus saving some of the more significant "real" airplanes like the F-4????

I remember when I was at the Montana Air Guard base in Helena......I think it was 1984 or 1985, and got a chance to inspect the BEAUTIFUL F-106's that were there at the time. When you inspected these birds closely...the gear wells, etc, those Delta Darts looked like they just came off the assembly line!!!

The officer that was escorting me around said they were transitioning to F-16's in a few months and that ALL the 106's were going south to be rigged as target drones to be blow up......what a darn waste!! He said that the city of Helena begged the Air Force to leave them ONE, SINGLE Delta Dart to put in a base museum to honor that wonderful warrior of the the Cold War Era.......but no, the As*holes at the Pentagon would not allow that to happen.....they all had to be destroyed. That kind of crap really makes me have a bad attitude towards certain facets of the U.S. military leadership!!!


Ted

Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:05 pm

Formation arrival at Nellis AFB last Thursday for the air show
Image

Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:09 pm

Roger, there was no transition from F-4s to Tornados. Seperate training programs. When the F-4s went to AMARC the 20th stood down. The Tornados are still out at Holloman. The transition is from F-4 to Eurofighter. As more Eurofighters come on line with the GAF, more F-4s will be retired.

Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:11 pm

RickH wrote:Roger, there was no transition from F-4s to Tornados. Seperate training programs. When the F-4s went to AMARC the 20th stood down. The Tornados are still out at Holloman. The transition is from F-4 to Eurofighter. As more Eurofighters come on line with the GAF, more F-4s will be retired.


Thanks.........

Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:11 pm

double post,...somehow ?
Last edited by RickH on Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:50 pm

Old SAR pilot wrote:Heard that the AF is studying the use of retired F-16A's as target replacements for the Rhino. Hopefully that'll be the case, and a few will be saved! :wink:


Last year when I flew with Tuna Hanline who was the F-4 Demo/Heritage pilot out of Holloman (and the Det commander) I was told that the Air Force plans to use F-4s in the drone program until 2012 and then they will transition to the F-16s as drone.

Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:00 pm

when I was ordering my Glacier Girl DVD from the History Channel website, I watched the clip about AMARC, and they showed the F4s undergoing complete restoration for the drone program. Its just like the Air Force to completely rebuild something just before sending it out to get blown out of the sky.

:roll:

and here they are today....

Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:57 pm

[quote="cg51"]Here are the F4's that were at Reno in 04}
Image

Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:27 pm

banndit wrote:I'm not really educated on the subject, but I have to wonder out loud how good a remotely piloted R/C drone could be against someone in the cockpit with a 30 year more modern aircraft at their disposal. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that you'd get about as much excitement out of shooting wooden silouettes propped up in the desert.

Again, I could be wrong, and I'm happy to be enlightened/ educated.

B


Happy that I can be of service. I'm one of probably only a few guys on this board who has actually shot down an F-4 (okay...tried to shoot it down, because mine missed)...Gunny Purdue posts here, a fellow F-15E guy, and I'm sure he's done it, too, so I'd like to see his thoughts.

Anyway, this is a post I made in '05 and have re-posted a number of times on this subject. I'm someone who has an immense sense of, and respect for, the history that these airframes have. However, I also have an equal need for me and my fellow fighter pilots to get the best possible training so as to provide the best possible military force for the United States.

In my book, one outweighs the other significantly.

Here's a repost of my thoughts on the subject.....

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... 02&start=0

As a fighter pilot, we train extensively for weapon employment using electronics and rules-of-thumb to "score" missile and gun hits. This is effective for teaching the mechanics of how to employ weapons against another aircraft, there is simply no substitute for seeing the whole process work in person. The drones are shot down during a program called "Combat Archer", which is designed to test many aspects of weapons, aircraft, and pilots. They take air-to-air missles which have reached the end of their shelf life and remove the actual warhead, replacing it with a telemetry package that transmits guidance and performance information back to a ground station.

Then, they invite front-line fighter units to Tyndall AFB, who bring combat operational aircraft and pilots to shoot the missiles. This exercises and tests the pilots' ability to operate the weapons systems. It exercises and tests the aircrafts' ability to carry, target, and shoot an actual missile. Finally it tests the missiles' ability to locate a target and track it to a 'kill'.

Three different types of drones are used at Combat Archer: the MQM-107 and Ryan Firebee subscale drones, and the F-4 "full scale" drone. Depending on the missile to be shot and what they are specifically trying to test determines what drone will be used.

In my case, I shot an AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guided missile at an F-4, and my missile shot was testing the ability to shoot when the target is performing a certain type of electronic jamming. Since the subscale drones could not carry this particular type of jammer (and since radar target size was a factor) we shot against an F-4.

I can't over-emphasize what a HUGE learning experience it was to shoot an actual missile against an actual target. One of the first things I learned was that, to use some idiomatic language, 'missiles are not laser guns'. What I mean is, shooting a missile does not instantly vaporize your opponent like if you were shooting a laser -- the engagement takes time, and lots of it! It was amazing how much time it took between when my thumb hit the pickle button and when the missile came off the rail (the longest 1.5 seconds ever!). Even more startling was how long a 30-second missile time-of-flight is when you can actually see the other aircraft flying toward you! This effect is even more pronounced for guys who shoot short-range missiles like the AIM-9, when they are actually engaged in a turning dogfight while they lock up and shoot the missile...then have to keep dogfighting as the missile tracks to the target.

Another huge lesson I learned is that missiles are machines and thus open to malfunction. Prior to participating in Combat Archer, I had this strange belief that every time I launched a missile that it would work flawlessly and hit the target. NOT TRUE! I witnessed all manner of malfunctions, from detonations 50 feet in front of the launch aircraft, to guidance fins coming off in flight, to just plain not tracking to the target. I hadn't really contemplated any of these scenarios until I saw them during the exercise. It is much better to experience these learning points under the controlled environment off the coast of the Florida panhandle than it would be in the hostile skies over badguy territory against an enemy that can shoot back.

Yes, it's tragic in a way to destroy warbirds like this...but the experience gained by those who are doing this is immeasurable. If there were an economical way to build a high-performance drone that mimiced the energy, turn rate, IR reflectivity, radar signature, etc, of an actual fighter, I agree that it would be better than shooting down a real warplane.

Unfortunately, it's not.


Here's the requisite photo of me hosing off my AIM-7...I'm the one in the background.

Image

And, for the record...shooting wooden silhouettes propped up in the desert ain't bad, either!
Post a reply