- Yes
- No
- 10.0
- 10.3
- 10.7
- None of the above (state alternate preferred BR in comments)
- I said no to first question
- Tech-tree
- Premium
- Event
- Squadron
- I said no to first question
- Yes
- No
Abstract
This proposal seeks the implementation of a F-4B Phantom dated to 1967 fitted with modifications from Project Shoehorn, which resulted in the inclusion of RWR and countermeasure dispensers unlike the F-4C. Its air-to-air armament consists of the AIM-9D, AIM-7E paired with the early AN/APQ-72 radar, and the Navy 20mm Mk 11 gunpod. Its air-to-ground armament consists of regular bombs and rockets. Due to being an early Phantom airframe (the first major production variant of the F-4) combined its limited air to air armaments, in the opinion of this writer the proposed aircraft should be placed at a BR of either 10.3 or 10.7.
Introduction
One thing I feel like is underrepresented from this game is low tier F-4 Phantoms. A majority of the Phantoms in-game sit at a relatively high BR of 11.0+ with only three exceptions; the F-4C, the F-4F, and the F-4F Early. The F-4C lack countermeasures and thus suffers greatly and while the F-4F is a perfectly playable aircraft, to my knowledge it’s a weird almost gimmicky aircraft being a sort of “dogfight” F-4 with the greater flight performance of the late Phantom airframes but lacking in radar missiles. Meanwhile both of those things apply to the F-4F Early. In addition, there is a strange lack of Navy Phantom representation at the low BRs which seems unjust considering that the F-4 was originally a Navy jet. A solution to both of these things would be the introduction of the F-4B.
This proposal specifically models a F-4B dated to around roughly the late 1960s, specifically the year 1967, modified under Project Shoehorn. The reason this specific time period and modification was chosen, as opposed to a F-4B from a later time period with more advanced equipment, was to fit into the aforementioned niche of a lower tier F-4 to provide Navy Phantom representation in that area while still giving the plane countermeasures unlike the F-4C. In addition it is very likely that the F-4B would not be a very competitive plane if it was given all the equipment/weapon systems it received in real life and moved to a higher BR, due to its still being an early Phantom airframe.
History
The F-4 Phantom needs no introduction so the history section is going to be rather short and specific. The F-4B (originally designated the F4H-1 [2]) was the first definitive service variant of the Phantom to be produced, with the earlier F-4A (F4H-1F [2]) being only built in a very limited amount. The F-4B was the workhorse of US Navy and Marines in the Vietnam War, especially prior to the entry of the F-4J into service. In response to experience facing Soviet air defence systems over North Vietnam the F-4Bs, along with other Navy aircraft [3], underwent a program called “Project Shoehorn” where the aircraft were fitted with defensive measures such as RWR, radar jammers, and probably most importantly of all (for War Thunder) countermeasure dispensers.
The earliest year I’ve found evidence of Shoehorn’ed F-4Bs existing is 1967 and this proposal seeks to represent the F-4B at this time. The reason for choosing 1967 specifically is that it is both a year which the Project Shoehorn modifications were present on F-4Bs while also predating the introduction of the AIM-9G and AIM-7E-2, meaning that the aircraft would be limited to older air to air weapons like the AIM-9D and AIM-7E. This allows the F-4B to fill the niche of a lower BR F-4.
Aircraft Description
I will now describe various aspects and attributes of the F-4B Shoehorn. As the F-4 Phantom is in no way a new or unfamiliar aircraft to War Thunder and the F-4B is mainly just a regular early F-4 airframe, I will try to limit it to things actually worth noting.
Project Shoehorn additions
The modifications relevant to the F-4B Shoehorn modification were the technical directives AFC 334, 339, 333, and 375.
The second of those two directives, AFC 333 and AFC 375, are by far the most important of the directives as these were the ones which resulted in the installation of countermeasure dispensers and the primary RWR systems. Specifically these directives added the AN/ALE-29, the AN/ALQ-51A/100, and the AN/APR-30 or APR-25 RWR depending on if it’s the AFC 333 or 375 respectively [4] [5]. The APR-25 is a pretty well established RWR in War Thunder but I have been able to find absolutely no information about the APR-30’s capabilities. From what I’ve heard the APR-30 was later system to the APR-25 and was meant to be more advanced/capable only to be abandoned soon after due to dissatisfaction with reliability or something, but again I have no evidence for this. I would be very pleased even if it was basically just an APR-25 which could also detect J band waves, closing that blind-spot from Mig 21 and 23 radars.
The AFC 333 configuration only had a limited lifespan, as the aircraft fitted under that directive eventually underwent AFC 375 Part 1 which removed the APR-30 and replaced it with the APR-25 [5]. AFC 375 Part 2 was for fitting all three of the previously mentioned systems, including the APR-25 instead of the APR-30, onto the aircraft which had yet to undergo AFC 333 in the first place [5].
As for the other two systems present in those technical directives, the AN/ALE-29 is the same countermeasure dispenser system as on the F-4J and is mounted in the same manner so there isn’t really anything to talk about. Finally, the AN/ALQ-51A/100 is a jamming system [6] [7] which means that it is irrelevant to War Thunder, at least for now.
The other two directives, AFC 334 and AFC 339, were both for the installation of the AN/APR-27 and the AN/ALQ-91 [4] [5] (I don’t actually know what’s the difference between the two directives, they seem to just do the same thing). The APR-27 is another part of the F-4B’s RWR system and is already in the game on aircraft like the F-8E. The ALQ-91 is allegedly some kind of system related to IFF. Something worth noting is that in the tactical manual is says that the directives were for the APR-27 or ALQ-91 [5], while in the flight manual it says it’s for the 27 and 91 [4], so there is a possibility that the F-4B couldn’t carry both at the same time.
Proof of configuration existing in 1967
Attempts to find an official source outright stating when the Project Shoehorn modifications started to appear on the F-4B were unsuccessful so instead a bit of sleuthing was done in an attempt to gather evidence myself. In the end I have been able to find several photographs which should be an adequate amount of evidence of Shoehorn’ed F-4Bs existing by at least 1967.
This is a photograph, allegedly from Associated Press [8], of the USS Forrestal during the 1967 fire which shows a F-4B in the midground. To be honest it kind of feels like it’s a bit in poor taste to use this but the fire allows us to firmly date the photo to have been taken in 1967. The aircraft has the Bureau Number 153010 meaning that we know it is a F-4B [2] [4] [9].
Note the forward facing antenna fairing on the front of the vertical stabiliser tip which is allegedly for an AN/APR-30 antenna [10]. Although this claim seems to be accepted by the general internet discourse, attempts to find an official source stating that to be the case have been unsuccessful. There is some circumstantial evidence that is the case as for example, the F-4J was never officially fitted with the AN/APR-30 and I’m not aware of any F-4J which had this forward facing tip fairing.
Regardless, if the front facing antenna fairing on the vertical stabiliser tip is indeed for the APR-30, it would indicate the aircraft underwent the AFC 333 Technical directive. However it has been alleged that some of the F-4Bs which were never equipped with the APR-30, instead directly receiving the APR-25 as per AFC 375 Part 2, were still fitted with pre-existing stock of stabiliser tips with the APR-30 fairing during the modifications but I haven’t found any official sources for that either.
The countermeasure dispensers don’t seem to be visible in the photo but that’s probably a result of the image quality combined with the lack of a paint pattern for the dispenser door to contrast with as seen with one of the following photos.
On a completely different note, in this photo (and the other following photos) you can also just barely see the slotted horizontal stabilisers, like on the F-4J, that were installed on F-4Bs as a result of technical directive AFC 218 [4]. No idea if that would affect the in-game flight performance but it seemed like something worth noting.
This is a photo of the F-4B BuNo 153018, listed by the USN Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) as being taken on March 1968 [11]. Being from the VF-114 squadron on the USS Kitty Hawk [11] we know that this F-4 was part of the November 1967 to June 1968 deployment [2] and thus we can infer that this aircraft was already in this configuration in 1967. Note the open door for the starboard AN/ALE-29 countermeasure dispenser and the vertical stabiliser fin tip with the frontally mounted antenna fairing for the AN/APR-30 [10], meaning that again we know that the aircraft underwent AFC 333 and/or 375.
Side note, based on the photo it appears that they seem to have left that CM dispenser bay empty. I have no idea why, especially considering that this photo was taken during a combat mission over North Vietnam [11]. Maybe for some reason they decided to only mount countermeasures in the left bay for this mission? But why, surely they would want to make sure the Lieutenant Commander’s aircraft is properly equipped right? On the other hand I doubt that they left both bays empty otherwise there would be no point in opening them mid-flight and increase the aircraft’s drag.
Photo of the same F-4B as before also listed by the NHHC as taken on Mar 1968, also during a combat mission over North Vietnam [12]. Combined with the fact that the plane appears to be carrying the same loadout and it is possible that both photos were taken on the same flight. The starboard countermeasure dispenser door is closed but you can see the shape of it interrupting the plane’s paintjob. Had the previously mentioned F-4B on the USS Forrestal been giving a similar paintjob it would had made it much easier to look for the presence of a dispenser door.
Photo F-4B BuNo 153006, taken on Feb 1968 according to the NHHC [13]. Being part of VF-154 on USS Ranger [13] means that this photo was taken during the Nov 1967 to May 1968 deployment [2], which again indicates that this plane was in this configuration in 1967. The front facing antenna fairing on the vertical stabiliser tip is visible, again indicating the plane was Shoehorn’ed and underwent AFC 333 and/or 375 [10]. The countermeasure dispenser doors don’t seem to be visible in the photo unfortunately.
Photo allegedly of a F-4B from 1967 [14]. We can tell from the photograph that the aircraft has a Bureau Number of 150449 confirming it as a F-4B [2] [4] [9]. I couldn’t confirm the date of the photo itself but this specific aircraft was lost in December 1967 [9] so we at least know that the photo is from the year 1967 at the latest. The forward fairing on the vertical stabiliser tip is visible in the image which again indicates AFC 333 and/or 375 [10].
In addition to the above there are several photographs I have found which appear to be of F-4B Shoehorns which are claimed to be from 1967 but unlike the other photos above I haven’t been able to verify them.
Weaponry
This section will only be talking about the F-4B’s air to air weapons as to my knowledge there isn’t anything special worth noting about its air to ground weapons, it’s just the regular rockets and bombs like on the other in-game Navy Phantoms.
The year 1967 to my knowledge predates the introduction of the AIM-9G and the AIM-7E-2 into US Navy service. I’ve had difficulties determining the year of entry of those missiles, especially the 9G, but the earliest dates I’ve found for their years of introduction are 1968 [15] [16] and 1969 [15] respectively. As a result of this it was decided to have this F-4B proposal represent a 1967 configuration specifically to be completely sure that the best AAMs it can use are the AIM-9D and AIM-7E. If the F-4B was given those more advanced missiles it would likely result in the aircraft being placed at a higher BR which would both make the aircraft less competitive (it’s still an early Phantom airframe) and ruin the whole reason for creating this proposal, which was to add more Phantoms with a lower BR into the game.
Another bit of evidence that the F-4B Shoehorn modifications predated the more modern missiles is by looking at the technical directive numbering. The F-4B received the ability to use the Sidewinder expanded acquisition mode (SEAM) in directive AFC 500 [5]. This system was bundled with the AIM-9G and is what allows the missile to operate its uncaged seeker [5]. If the 9G/H was mounted onto a Phantom without SEAM the missile would be operated in the same way as the 9D [5]. The fact that AFC 500 is numbered significantly higher than AFC 334, 339, 333, and 375 does imply that the F-4B received AFC 500 after those directives, meaning that at some point in time there were Shoehorned F-4Bs without SEAM.
For other air to air missiles, unless Gaijin is feeling merciful, there is obviously going to be the AIM-9B and 7D as well to grind through.
Being a Navy Phantom, the F-4B can mount additional Sparrows on its wings at the cost of two Sidewinders each in the same manner as on the F-4J [4] [5] [17]. You probably don’t want to do that however considering the much lower performance of the missile and radar compared to what the F-4J has.
Also as a result of being a Navy Phantom, the F-4B has no integrated gun and instead was equipped with the Mk 4 gun-pod like the other in-game US Navy Phantoms such as the F-4J. Officially this gun-pod was only carried on the centreline pylon [4] [5]. I know people are going to mention the USMC F-4Bs which were able to carry three Mk 4 gun-pods but, to my knowledge, that was only an ad hoc modification conducted on aircraft in VMFA-122 and I feel like trying to determine if any of that squadron’s aircraft were both modified for three gun-pods and Project Shoehorn within 1967 would be an exercise in madness.
Radar
The F-4B uses the AN/APQ-72 radar [5] [17] which isn’t on any preexisting aircraft in War Thunder, though it is in the in-game files. From those files it appears to be a complete stat-clone of the AN/APQ-100 on the F-4C. No idea if this is an accurate representation of the APQ-72 or if Gaijin just left it as a copy-paste of the APQ-100 as a placeholder due to the fact that no in-game vehicle uses it. In terms of the radar’s performance from real life sources, the only relevant information I’ve been able to find about the APQ-72 are its ranges, search sweep angles, and ACM mode details.
I have some uncertainty over those values I found however. The tactical manual I sourced this information from does also cover the F-4J and its radar but there are some discrepancies between the values listed in the manual and in War Thunder and I do not know why. Perhaps the F-4J’s radar in-game is a different variant/configuration than the one in the manual, which does mention the F-4J’s radar having different configurations over time. Perhaps Gaijin has modelled parts of the radar incorrectly, either because they made a mistake or deliberately changed things for gameplay purposes. Or possibly I’m just incorrectly reading and interpreting the information in the manual. For the rest of this section I will be working under the assumption that the information in the manual for the APQ-72 can be taken verbatim and directly translated into the game.
It is worth mentioning that, unlike for the F-4J, there is no mention in the manual of different variants/configurations of the F-4B’s radar so even though the manual I’m using is dated 1972 it is probably still applicable for the 1967 F-4B’s radar.
AN/APQ-72 stats [5]:
• Horizontal sweep angles: 60°, 120°
• Vertical sweep angles: 2.8°, 4.8°, 12.3°
• Ranges: 5 miles*, 10 miles, 25 miles, 50 miles, 100 miles
*PLM mode only
The manual doesn’t seem to specify which type of mile has been used but I assume it to be nautical miles as opposed to statue miles (ie the regular miles that most US people use in day to day life). This was assumed because, if this is the case, the range values given by the manual for the F-4J’s radar matches extremely closely with the in-game F-4J’s radar range values. In addition it would make sense for the manual of a naval fighter to be use nautical miles.
The Pilot Lockon Modification (PLM) appears to be the only “ACM mode” mentioned in the manual for the APQ-72. PLM is listed as having a range of only 5 miles for both the F-4B and F-4J [5], which is one of the previously mentioned discrepancies as the 4J’s in-game ACM mode range is 10 miles. I’ve seen people claim that the F-4J’s in-game ACM mode range is ahistorical, which does make sense as it is kind of weird for the USN to randomly downgrade to an ACM mode range of 5 miles for the F-14’s radar. The manual does not seem to state the size of the PLM scan area but, considering that the manual describes it in a very similar manner as with the F-4J’s PLM, it wouldn’t be surprising if it was the same as that.
There is one concerning thing related to PLM however. As the name suggests, it was a modification to the F-4B and not something the fighter had right from the start. The issue is that the technical directive that installed PLM into the F-4B, AFC 424 [4] [5], is sequenced after the Project Shoehorn directives i.e. AFC 333 to 375. As a result there is a non-zero chance that the modification was installed after AFC 333 and 375 and thus possibly after 1967, which in this case would mean that if the F-4B was configured in-game to be historically accurate to 1967 it would not have an ACM mode for its radar. I haven’t found anything that could potentially date when AFC 424 happened so I have no way to confirm nor deny if a 1967 F-4B could have PLM but this ambiguity is worrying. At least the PLM’s directive number is still much lower than the SEAM’s directive number of 500.
As for the other unknown attributes of the radar, they likely would had been comparable with the APQ-100. Had it been otherwise, meaning that there was a significant performance gap between the APQ-72 and 100, it seems likely that the Navy would had switched the APQ-72 out during refits of the F-4B fleet. I’ve seen people online claim that the APQ-100 and APQ-72 radars were effectively identical in performance.
Engines
The F-4B is powered by two J79-GE-8 turbojet engines [4] [17] [18]. According to official documents, at static sea level conditions the engine produces a maximum non-afterburning thrust of 10,900lbf (4,944kgf) [17] [18] and a max afterburning thrust of 17,000lbf (7,711kgf) [17] [18]. These values are pretty confusing as they are higher that what the F-4C’s J79-GE-15 engines produce in-game, being listed in the wiki as 4,910kgf max non-afterburning and 7,561kgf afterburning under those same conditions. In the game itself the max afterburning thrust of the engine is listed as 7560kgf though without mention of the specific conditions.
It seems unlikely that the Navy was simply rounding up the J79-GE-8’s thrust numbers because the documentation found on the F-4J’s J79-GE-10 engines have much more significant figures for its thrust values [19] [20] (11,870lbf and 17,589lbf respectively, which actually somewhat differs from the F-4J’s listed in-game thrust) so the idea that they randomly rounded just the GE-8’s thrust seems strange.
To further complicate things, the USAF’s flight manual on the F-4C actually lists its GE-15 engines as having the exact same thrust values as the GE-8 i.e. 10,900lbf and 17,000lbf at static sea level [21]. All this implies that either Gaijin made a mistake when setting the F-4C’s thrust values, the devs deliberately measured/implemented in-game thrust differently, or the in-game thrust of the F-4C actually is correct but is just listed incorrectly in the Wiki and game UI. If it’s the first or third situation then we can assume that the F-4B would get the documented values for engine thrust and if it’s the second situation then it will probably get the same lower listed thrust as the F-4C.
In-game balancing
In my opinion the F-4B under this proposal should sit at a BR of either 10.3 or 10.7. Putting it at 10.0 would probably be too low considering its improved armament of AIM-9Ds and AIM-7Es over the F-4C, while on the other hand if it was placed at 11.0 the plane would basically be unplayable. To illustrate the second point let’s compare the F-4B with the F-4EJ, the only F-4 in the game which has AIM-7Es as its best radar missiles. The F-4EJ to my knowledge is already considered by the player-base to be a very sad plane at 11.0 but even it would basically be a direct upgrade over the F-4B:
• Better engine (J79-GE-17 with 8,008kgf vs J79-GE-8 with 7,711kgf or less)
• Better IR missile (AIM-9P vs AIM-9D)
• Better gun arrangement (internal 20mm M61A1 vs gun-pod 20mm Mk 11)
• Better radar (AN/APQ-120 vs AN/APQ-72)
• Better countermeasures (90 under wing vs 60 over fuselage)
• Better airframe in general (F-4E minus Agile Eagle vs F-4B)
Just about the only thing the F-4B would have over the F-4EJ is the previously mentioned ability to mount Sparrows instead of Sidewinders on the wing pylons but I don’t even think this would count as an advantage due to the fact that, as previously stated, the F-4B would not be able to rely on the Sparrow as its primary armament.
Whether the F-4B should go in 10.3 or 10.7 would likely depend on the radar missile performance as without Sparrows the plane would basically just be a faster but ponderous F-8E/F8U-2. In my opinion it’s not inconceivable that AN/APQ-72’s performance is poor enough that, even when paired with the AIM-7E, the F-4B would be balanced sitting at a 10.3 BR. In addition, if the F-4B doesn’t get an ACM radar mode then a BR of 10.3 should definitely be considered.
I know that the F-4B at 10.3 is probably going to absolutely annihilate 9.3 aircraft in a down-tier but that is true for most, if not all 10.3 fighters. It’s more of an issue of BR compression as opposed to anything to do with the F-4B itself. In addition the plane is probably going to get absolutely annihilated by 11.3 aircraft in an up-tier as well.
If for whatever reason people want a F-4B at a higher tier with all the weapons and equipment the aircraft eventually received, a better option would be to add the F-4N to that role. The F-4N is a refurbished and improved F-4B (though I’m not sure if any of the improvements would actually have an in-game effect) from the 1970s and thus would be great for representing a late “end of service life” F-4B. It could be given the more modern equipment such as AIM-7E-2s or 7Fs, AIM-9G/Hs or 9Ls, and VTAS. As mentioned before I’m not really sure if this would be a good idea however, it seems like it would be hard to balance. Even with 9Ls it would still be too weak for 11.3 (compare it with the Tornado ADV) but a 11.0 fighter with 9Ls sounds like power-creep, though the F-4N without 9Ls at 11.0 would be too weak as well.
As a final note and tangent, Gaijin please add the wing mounted drop tanks to F-4 Phantoms in general. The current centreline tank is basically useless for half of the in-game F-4s as they would have to give up their gun for it.
General Specifications
Airframe [17]
- Empty weight (likely from before Shoehorn modifications): 27,897lb
- Length: 58.2ft
- Wingspan: 38.4ft
- Height: 16.3ft
- Engines: J79-GE-8
Armament/payload
- Air to Air Missiles
- AIM-9B and AIM-9D
- AIM-7D and AIM-7E
- Guns
- Mk 4 gun-pod
- Rockets
- Bombs
- Drop tanks
- 600 gal centreline
- 370 gal wing mounted
Electronics and Countermeasures
- Radar: AN/APQ-72
- RWR: AN/APR-27 plus either AN/APR-25 or AN/APR-30
- Jammer: AN/ALQ-51/100
- Countermeasure Dispenser: AN/ALE-29
References
| [1] | S. Joiner, “What Couldn’t the F-4 Phantom Do?,” Smithsonian Magazine, March 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/what-couldnt-f-4-phantom-do-180953944/. [Accessed 3 December 2023]. |
|---|---|
| [2] | R. A. Grossnick, United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Washington D.C.: Naval Historical Center, 1997. |
| [3] | NATOPS, NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F-8D, F-8E AIRCRAFT, US Navy, 1967. |
| [4] | Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization, NAVAIR 01-245FDB-1 NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model F-4B and F-4N Aircraft, US Navy, 1985. |
| [5] | Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization, NAVAIR 01-245FDB-1T Tactical Manual Navy Model F-4B, F-4J, and F-4N Aircraft (U), US Navy, 1972. |
| [6] | J. R. Dickson, “ELECTRONIC WARFARE IN VIETNAM: DID WE LEARN OUR LESSONS?,” May 1987. [Online]. Available: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA186626.pdf. [Accessed 20 November 2023]. |
| [7] | Department of the Air Force, “AF PAMPHLET 51-45 ELECTRONIC COMBAT PRINCIPLES,” 15 September 1987. [Online]. Available: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA320035.pdf. [Accessed 20 November 2023]. |
| [8] | D. Kiner, “‘Flames raced across the flight deck’: Disaster aboard the USS Forrestal in 1967,” Penn Live, 29 July 2020. [Online]. Available: ‘Flames raced across the flight deck’: Disaster aboard the USS Forrestal in 1967 - pennlive.com. [Accessed 20 November 2023]. |
| [9] | W. R. Peake, F-4 Phantom II Production and Operational Data, Hinckley: Midland Publishing, 2004. |
| [10] | L. Davis, F-4 Phantom II in action, Carrollton: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1984. |
| [11] | Naval History and Heritage Command, “USN 1130692 F-4B Phantom Fighter-Bomber,” US Navy, [Online]. Available: USN 1130692 F-4B Phantom Fighter-Bomber. [Accessed 20 November 2023]. |
| [12] | Naval History and Heritage Command, “USN 1130691 F-4B Phantom II,” US Navy, [Online]. Available: USN 1130691 F-4B Phantom II. [Accessed 20 November 2023]. |
| [13] | Naval History and Heritage Command, “USN 1117963 McDonnell F-4B Phantom Fighter (Bu# 153006),” US Navy, [Online]. Available: USN 1117963 McDonnell F-4B Phantom Fighter (Bu# 153006). [Accessed 20 November 2023]. |
| [14] | US Navy, “File:F-4B Phantom II of VF-161 landing on USS Coral Sea (CVA-43) in 1967.jpg,” Wikipedia, 11 February 2008. [Online]. Available: File:F-4B Phantom II of VF-161 landing on USS Coral Sea (CVA-43) in 1967.jpg - Wikipedia. [Accessed 20 November 2023]. |
| [15] | A. H. Shaw, “PAST TRENDS IN PROCUREMENT OF AIR INTERCEPT MISSILES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ADVANCED MEDIUM-RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE PROGRAM (AMRAAM),” Congressional Budget Office, 1982. |
| [16] | R. Kistler and R. Glen, “Notable Achievements of the Naval Weapons Center,” Naval Weapons Center, 1990. |
| [17] | US Navy, “NAVAIR 00-110AF4-1 Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model F-4B Aircraft,” 1967. |
| [18] | US Navy, “Aircraft Engine Characteristics Summary Turboject J79-GE-8, -8A, -8B, -8C,” 1966. |
| [19] | US Navy, “Aircraft Engine Characteristics Summary Turboject J79-GE-10,” 1967. |
| [20] | US Navy, “NAVAIR 00-110AF4-3 Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model F-4J Aircraft,” 1973. |
| [21] | US Air Force, T.O. 1F-AC-1 Flight Manual USAF Series F-4C, F-4D, And F-4E Aircraft, 1970. |
