US Marines Phantom and the AGM-12 Bullpup

[cold0]

Hi everybody,

I have a doubt concerning the use of the AGM-12 Bullpup and the US Marines Corps Phantom.  From what I know, the US Navy F-4J "was equipped with the AN/AJB bombing system which gave better ground attack capability and allowed the use of the Bullpup ASM (The Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club - Osprey 2021)." Thus, I can deduce that the earlier F-4B can't use the AGM-12 Bullpup; the question is if the rebuilt F-4N were wired to carry the AGM-12 and if the US Marines Corps ever carry this weapon before it was phased out in the late '70s. The idea is to build a US Marines F-4N armed with the AGM-12C, if it's realistic. 

[Jens]

I have never ever seen a USN/USMC F-4 with AGM-12. I really doubt it's realistic.

 

Jens

[cold0]

12 minutes ago, Jens said:

I have never ever seen a USN/USMC F-4 with AGM-12. I really doubt it's realistic.

 

Jens

It is even my idea, as I don't remember to ever have seen a F-4B/J/N armed with a AGM-12 (except for the Nichimo Phantom in 1/300 scale, that I have always thought as inaccurate); I even ignored that the US Navy F-4J were wired to use the Bullpup. Only after readind the TGYC, I'm puzzled if the Phantom/Bullpup is feasible.

[f111guru]

@cold0USAF did at one time fly the AGM-12. This picture was provided by Don Jay USAF retired from the f-4 phantom group. January 1969 Da Nang Vietnam.

Also remember loading a pair in September 1972 RTAFB Udorn Thailand. The strike flight was reassigned and the missiles were downloaded and sent back to storage. That flight left with 12 mk-82's, 3 AIM-7E and a ECM pod on the forward right missile cavity. Never loaded another Bullpup after that. A good friend of mine was a VMFA-531 Marine armorer and the AGM-12 was not in their inventory. This time frame was 1970 to 1975. So unless there are photos out in internet land or books your subject may be mute. I have lots of phantom book and such but have not researched squadrons or wings.

 

All The Best,

Ron VanDerwarker

[exdraken]

USAF, thereisd also this photo:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-4C_Phantom_with_AGM-12_Bullpups.jpg

 

https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/61/2a/c1/612ac168161e81b1e98ec3e4d45d8ac9.jpg

[cold0]

59 minutes ago, f111guru said:

@cold0USAF did at one time fly the AGM-12. This picture was provided by Don Jay USAF retired from the f-4 phantom group. January 1969 Da Nang Vietnam.

Also remember loading a pair in September 1972 RTAFB Udorn Thailand. The strike flight was reassigned and the missiles were downloaded and sent back to storage. That flight left with 12 mk-82's, 3 AIM-7E and a ECM pod on the forward right missile cavity. Never loaded another Bullpup after that. A good friend of mine was a VMFA-531 Marine armorer and the AGM-12 was not in their inventory. This time frame was 1970 to 1975. So unless there are photos out in internet land or books your subject may be mute. I have lots of phantom book and such but have not researched squadrons or wings.

 

All The Best,

Ron VanDerwarker

Hi Ron,

 

thank you for your feedback. Yes, it matches what I have found (or better, not have found): There isn't any reference to the Bullpup tested, deployed or used by the Marines Phantoms. So, it is almost certain that the Bullpup wasn't in their inventory.

[Finn]

As mentioned the Marines didn't use the Bullpup on their F-4s, A-4s and A-6s along with Navy A-7s and A-6s did. However the USAF did use them as here are a couple of pics of the 1,000th AGM-12C being built up:

 

 

 

Jari

[tempestfan]

15 hours ago, exdraken said:

USAF, thereisd also this photo:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-4C_Phantom_with_AGM-12_Bullpups.jpg

 

https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/61/2a/c1/612ac168161e81b1e98ec3e4d45d8ac9.jpg

This is F-4C #5, if I'm not mistaken. Andrade is not particularly clear here - IIRC all the B's lent to the AF did retain their BuAer #, and it is my understanding only actual C's received AF serials. What a pity, as if this was actually a lent B, it would demonstrate this one at least was (re-)wired for the Bullpup. And also IIRC, the original Hase F-4"J" from the stone age included Bullpups, but then the kit wasn't particularly accurate in other areas either.

[Pigpen]

15 hours ago, Finn said:

 

Does the guy standing to the right with his back to the  camera and his fingers in his ears know something the others don't?

Edited December 9, 2021 by Pigpen

[Duncan B]

17 hours ago, tempestfan said:

 What a pity, as if this was actually a lent B, it would demonstrate this one at least was (re-)wired for the Bullpup. 

Well not necessarily, it would only prove that it was capable of carrying it (unless there are other photos of it actually firing it off).

 

Duncan B

[Rob de Bie]

On 12/8/2021 at 11:33 PM, f111guru said:

@cold0USAF did at one time fly the AGM-12. This picture was provided by Don Jay USAF retired from the f-4 phantom group. January 1969 Da Nang Vietnam.

 

What a great photo! I did a lot of research on the subject of aircraft shelters in Vietnam (see:  https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/tabvee.htm ) but I had not seen the use of a section of Wonder arch as exhasut gas deflector.

Rob

[Finn]

Here is a F-4E with Bullpup:

 

 

and a deflector for Rob. 🙂

 

Jari

[Finn]

Speaking of Bullpup, here is a video of A-4s  being loaded with it:

 

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/85871

 

note the Skyhawk has the early dedicated pylon for the AGM-12.

 

Jari

[Rob de Bie]

28 minutes ago, Finn said:

And a deflector for Rob. 🙂

 

Jari

 

Thanks! You already made me very happy with that photo of ground crew painting '1000' on the Bullpup. They seem to use Reese 'lockedge' stencils, and I had never seen those 'in action' in the USAF. I spent many an hour trying to find the stencil type that was used on AQM-34 Firebees, yet another research and modeling favorite of mine. Here's an example:

 

 

Rob

 

 

[RAGATIGER]

On 12/10/2021 at 6:13 PM, Rob de Bie said:

 

Thanks! You already made me very happy with that photo of ground crew painting '1000' on the Bullpup. They seem to use Reese 'lockedge' stencils, and I had never seen those 'in action' in the USAF. I spent many an hour trying to find the stencil type that was used on AQM-34 Firebees, yet another research and modeling favorite of mine. Here's an example:

 

 

Rob

 

 

Hi there Rob

You know that because of you I got the other day a Blackdog Fire Drone, yes my mistake as I want one for mine Vietnam War models collection

This one

 https://www.scalemates.com/kits/black-dog-a72058-aqm-34-firebee--1214914

 

Mayor influence from this kit

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/dml-2513-jian-ji5--1189217

 

Regards

 

Armando

[Rob de Bie]

1 hour ago, RAGATIGER said:

Hi there Rob

You know that because of you I got the other day a Blackdog Fire Drone, yes my mistake as I want one for mine Vietnam War models collection

This one

 https://www.scalemates.com/kits/black-dog-a72058-aqm-34-firebee--1214914

 

Oh dear... I'm working on a review of the old Italeri, and new Black Box and PlusModel BQM-34A kits, and the Black Box version is by far the worst. The fuselage is far off the published dimensions and looks way too fat. It is possible that my idea of the Firebee's shape was ingrained by playing with the Italeri model for many years, but the dimensions don't lie. If I was you, I would not spend a minute on the Black Box kit.

 

Rob

[Rob de Bie]

Deleted - Link

[Don]

On 12/10/2021 at 4:38 PM, Finn said:

Here is a F-4E with Bullpup:

 

 

and a deflector for Rob. 🙂

 

Jari

Great pic and it's got the brain going for an unusual load-out for an F-4E.   Anyone know what the tail number and letters were on this particular machine?

[Slater]

There was apparently an AGM-12D Nuclear Bullpup. Kind of wonder how that would have been employed.

[exdraken]

5 hours ago, Slater said:

There was apparently an AGM-12D Nuclear Bullpup. Kind of wonder how that would have been employed.

Maybe against hardened , command infrastructure? Or simply to get some more sistance?

Not more dangerous to employ than free fall stuff...

Just close your eyes before impact...

Was the Genie  fire and forget, by the way or needed continous guidance?

 

[Hook]

2 hours ago, exdraken said:

Was the Genie  fire and forget, by the way or needed continous guidance?

The Genie had no guidance whatsoever - just lob it in the general direction of the incoming Soviet bomber waves, make a hard 180 and get the hell out of Dodge!

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

I would imagine Soviet bombers would probably attack singly or in pairs. Also, Genie was basically a neutron bomb, designed to stabilise nuclear explosive in warheads with flow of neutrons, its blast effect being secondary and pretty mild (0,5 kt IIRC). Still, I agree with you: every pilot would try to get as far as possible from nuclear explosion, no matter how mild it may have been. Cheers

Jure

[Murph]

10 hours ago, exdraken said:

Was the Genie  fire and forget, by the way or needed continous guidance?

 

 

The Genie was an unguided rocket.  At the end of a preset time limit the warhead detonated, which meant the rocket had to be fired at a range from the target which would match the time of flight.  In the "Six" the pilot would depress and hold the trigger and the computer decided when to actually fire the rocket based on time of flight.  This meant the detonation range of the rocket from the launch aircraft varied considerably depending on altitude, and at low altitude (given the very high speed of the Genie and the thicker air down low) the launch aircraft would not be very far away at all when the Genie detonated.

The other nuclear option in this arena was the AIM-26A, which was carried by the F-102.  It was semi-active radar guided, which in a sense was worse, since the launch aircraft had to keep pointing at the target and an impending nuclear detonation.  In the world of nuclear warfare, survival of the launch aircraft whether launching a missile or dropping a bomb was a secondary consideration. 

 

Regards,

Murph

Edited January 17, 2022 by Murph