The Fighter That MELTED An Aircraft Carrier
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- In 1963, as Soviet Tu-95 bombers pushed NATO response times to mere minutes, Britain faced a critical defense gap. Budget constraints left the Royal Navy without a modern fighter capable of intercepting threats at supersonic speeds. Facing being outdone by the Soviets, a desperate Britain did the unthinkable: they turned to a foreign warplane for a solution.
The American McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II caught their eye. A Vietnam veteran boasting Mach 2.2 speed, cutting-edge avionics, and staggering 18,000-pound payload capacity. But for the nation that had produced the Spitfire and Harrier, simply adopting the Phantom wasn't enough - they aimed to perfect it.
The F-4K Phantom FG.1 was born, a distinctly British interpretation of American muscle. At its core roared all-new Rolls-Royce Spey Turbofans with 30% more thrust. But this power came at a price. During trials aboard HMS Ark Royal, a pilot spooled up his engine for takeoff, unleashing exhaust 150 degrees Celsius hotter than expected. Steel warped, paint bubbled, and to the shock of all present, the flight deck of Britain's mightiest carrier began to melt…
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. - Авто та транспорт
I am grateful for channels like these ! I love this stuff ! Happy Thanksgiving to all !!!
!!!!!!🦃🦃🦃🦃💙💙💙
Phantastic plane... legend 👍✈️
Interservice rivalry has doomed more promising aviation projects than any enemy.
I'm positive the TSR 2 would have been a fantastic successor to the awesome Canberra. I've seen it I the flesh and its a stunner too.
I'll never forget around age 8-9, being on a Tiger Cruise of the forementioned "USS Saratoga, AKA CV60. AKA "Super Sara", or in some personal cases "Super Sarie". It was amazing seeing the Phantoms, Intruders(My Fav at the time), and the Tomcats touch and Go, as we watched from the deck of Ole Sarie. I wonder if they even allow that in 2024?? Are families of the enlisted allowed to occupy the deck of an ACC while Fighter Jets T&Go? I also remember watching them destroy targets in the water, not far from the deck. Oh, and one more thought, the waterspouts!!! Pretty awesome. Thank you USN for the experience of a lifetime that I have trouble trying to explain to regulars... LoL, Love you Dad!
Back in the day we used the F4 on the Lexington (CVT-16) which had a wooden deck. She would smolder a bit after heavy flight ops.
One big correction to this video - top-end speed. Though the Spey provided greater thrust for takeoffs, the GE J79 Phantoms still had higher top-end speed.
They modified the bottom fusolage in order to accommodate the Sprey engine that has greater thrust but different dimension. However the modification resulted in increased drag and therefore lower max speed despite bigger thrust
top-end CLEAN speed
vs
getting off the deck faster/faster climb
and more grunt to turn and burn/in the merge
30% more range/persistence
in than trade you'd take the Speys
(and the World land speed record)
Top speed and high altitude performance was pretty much irrelevant for the Phantom, but the Spey engined Phantoms were superior in almost all other aspects. I am not even discussing the leading edge slats installed from 1972 onwards (S/E and F models), wich restricted CLEAN Phantoms to Mach 1.6-1.8 anyways.
Turbojet vs. Turbofan. It's a thing.
@@xyzaeroThe GEJ79 version was superior to the Spey version, this is fact that cannot be denied
When all was done, the SPEY powered F-4's had a lower combat radius, lower top speed and higher fuel usage rates at combat ratings than the turbojet powered F-4's. Installations effects (inlet and exhaust throttle dependent aerodynamic effects and higher fuel flow rates at combat power were significant contributors. Some of this led to more focus on aircraft-engine integration engineering in the late 60's and early 70's.
Was on the USS Independence 1971/2, cross decked with the Ark Royal, and saw the difference in J79 F4Js and British Navy Spey engined FG1s. Extreme nose gear extension for launch was also very noticeable. Only looks made them family😊
892NAS FG1's (or F-4JK's to use their American name) were first deployed on the USS Saratoga during her Mediterranean deployment in 1969 prior to the Ark's recommissioning
The British carriers were smaller which explains the extended nose landing gear. The RR Spey engines did incur a drag penalty and did not perform as well at high altitude but they had better fuel economy and low speed performance due to higher mass flow rate (being low bypass turbofans where as the j79s were pure turbojets). The Spey was also used on the Buccaneer so that helped reduce costs too. Pity the supersonic Harrier was cancelled as that would have been a truly great aircraft and changed air warfare for ever. The F35B with the lift fan is really a lemon compared to what a vectored thrust supersonic jet could achieve.
@@martinbayliss3868 What would vectored thrust do for the F-35B? Its fighting doctrine is to engage before being seen during air-to-air encounters.
@@VisibilityFoggy For a combat jet performance is key. Stealth is a nice to have. Radar and more importantly the processing power and algorithms that go with it mean that a small radar signature is increasingly irrelevant. Therefore, about now up against the best radars of today a F35B has no stealth advantage over a 4th gen jet from a stealth point of view and is lumbered with the extra weight, drag and lost internal volume of the idiotic lift fan where as a vectored thrust combat jet uses all of its engine in all of its flight regime. The f35b is a total lemon. A supersonic triposter vectored thrust combat jet, small like the Harrier, would be an absolute game changer. I'm afraid the Yanks simply went for the lift fan and ruined decades of British know how. I hope the UK scraps the appalling f35b totally.
Why would the use of an American fighter be unthinkable? Britain has used aircraft from other countries from the beginning. The P-51 was originally developed for the RAF.
Yes. But the original engine was horrible.
The original P51 was designed as a medium altitude aircraft. It was developed into a high altitude fighter with the RR Merlin.@@briancooper2112
@@briancooper2112 wasn't Hortons, it just wasn't supercharged. On the deck it was a great performer, that's why the US used it for ground attack. But yes, at altitude it was gasping for breath.
Meant horrible, damn phone
The same attitude that hindered development of the Merlin/P51
5:00, that was some impressive footage. The F4 Phantom has always been one of my favorite fighter jets.
It's like a race car: "It needs to be fast". How fast do you want to go? "How much will it cost"? Depends. "On what"? How fast you want to go.
"Speed is just a question of money. "
I wasn’t expecting disco music under the narration, but God it was good!
I was lucky enough to be a plane captain on a F4 aboard the USS Ranger CVA 61 69/70 in the Tonkin Gulf.
I guess that would have been F-4J'S? Interestingly the Brit's also bought those too to make up the numbers following Phantom deployments to the South Atlantic in the wake of the Falklands
A good friend of mine worked on the British F4s (RAF not FAA). He rightly holds a strong love of them.
It always seems as if any time a government or business tries to save Money, they just wind up $pending more....
Very interesting! So much collaboration.
ANOTHER INFORMATIVE AND EXCELLENT VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Love the F4, beautiful birds
Right? It's always been one of my favorite fighter jets. I can't believe some people say it's ugly.
@@old_dan oh yes. As a kid I loved seeing them from the roof of my house coming in for a landing at Kirtland AFB and then when I was stationed in Germany seeing the Wild Weasels. was incredible
@@benfoot4212 You're so lucky. I never got to see one taking off.
The elevated nose gear also contributed to the extra heat on the flight deck by pointing the exhaust more directly toward the flight deck.
For some reason, i always liked the F4. I never knew the British made something better of it. Hell Yeah!
The British version was slower... not better..
"Stop burning holes in my ship!"
We always have the ability to take something that works perfectly well and fk it up.
Britain knows how to build amazing motors. Such a great lineage and track record for power and reliability.
Unfortunately, they made terrible jet aircraft... which is why the UK no longer makes any jet aircraft today.
Looked like a great airplane.
I remember that the American engines on the Phantom were Smokey.
Some engines, particularly older ones are smokey
Man, she was a gorgeous aircraft.
You mentioned the RAF Phantom being the FGR.2, but in reality that one came even later. The earlier ones were the FGR.1 (*correction: FG.1 (thanks Keith)) that my father flew. That trend carried onwards in the family and led me to the Typhoon FGR.4.
For anyone wishing to fly fast jets, work hard for it and you won’t regret it. They are devilishly fun. When it comes to young kids today, I truly hope such an opportunity will still be available to them and that everything won’t have shifted to one fighter manned from a virtual cockpit on the ground with a bunch of AI flown loyal wingmen. It’s understandable that such things will happen since it’s lower risk and training costs, but it would be a shame if kids of today don’t get to grow up to fly whatever awesome fighter jets there may be by that time. For those of you on that path, I wish you the best of luck.
F4K, FG1
@ Sorry, my phone auto-incorrect likes to assume I’m going to write FGR the minute I put the first two letters. I guess it did that here too. Recently it’s been making really odd corrections to other parts of the sentences as well. I really. Need to get into the habit of checking what it is that comes out rather than just staring at the keyboard as I write. I’d love to fly the Phantom just for the experience of it. There’s not too many left now though.
@@thegreyarea-WPP I was in two minds to post anyway, you know your stuff. I worked on the simulators for F4K and F4M before moving on to Tornado IDS. Have a great day ;)
When I was in High School, I had an aviation and technology class that actually would take us to Naval Air Station North Island to work on planes! I think it was in 1984 or 5 that I was there and worked on some Phantoms that where destined for the Royal Navy. They had been modified with the landing gear and some of the avionics there and I believe the rest was to be done in Britain.
Those would be the F-4J's destined for the RAF as the RN had already retired her Phantoms by that point
That BAC TSR2 looks suspiciously like the North American RA-5 Vigilante. Just sayin'
The A-5 was 6 years earlier than the TSR-2... and it was retired as a Nuclear first strike aircraft before the TSR-2 would have entered service... the cancelation of TSR.2 was inevitable.
that beat slaps at 12:00
During the trials, USN Phantom crews “zapped” the RN F-4’s that were on board the Saratoga. The Navy crews painted “Colonial Navy” on them and put WW2 style American roundels on them too.
That wasn't during the 69 trials but later in the 70's whilst 'cross decking'
@ ahh. Ok. Thanks for clarifying
Any pictures???
😂
@ralfhinkemeyer
Google 'colonial navy' phantom
@@ralfhinkemeyer8513 yeah. Google colonial Navy Phantom . I had posted two links to the one that the US Navy zapped the Royal Navy phantoms and one of the marine F4 having the tail flash of the ark royal on it. Apparently UA-cam doesn’t like having links attached to replies.
8:08 The picture is incorrectly labeled.
What is depicted is a prototype with the IFF interrogator dipoles installed (around 1970/72). The fleet modification employed blade type antennae and a solid reflector.
The 4A1 and 4A3 units are thransponsed, the 4A1 being at the bottom. The chassis was incorporated into the LRU 7 (the wrings assembly) so only sub-units could be exchanged. The 4A3 could be replaced as a unit. The 4A3 was the Pulse Doppler tracker and the 4A1 the intermediate frequency receiver.
Argentine here: 1- It was fortunate for us that the Royal Navy did not have the Phantoms in 1982, not only would they be a greater threat to our fighter planes, since with their greater range they would also have intercepted our tankers.
2- I understand that the Phantoms that went to Mount Pleasant were ex-US Marines and therefore with j-79 engines, please correct me if I am wrong on the latter.
No the RAF Phantoms sent south were all F-4M's (air force variant, without tailhook) with the reason being to plug the gap in NATO defence caused by the loss of a sqn deployed to the South Atlantic
@@stephenchappell7512 Thanks for the data!
@@bulukacarlos4751
My own opinion is that the Falklands/Malvinas War wouldn't have happened if the RN had still operated large deck carriers as they would have provided more of a deterrent
Btw if you Google 'US Navy Phantom Duxford' you'll see that one of the surviving F-4J's has been restored to its original colours
The F4 was a flying Brick 🧱!
The F4 was an Area Rule design with very sophisticated aerodynamic technology and very good handling characteristics for a fixed geometry Mach 2+ aircraft.
The British modifications destroyed the aerodynamic performance which caused a dramatic increase in drag and overall performance
The use of afterburners must have been an issue on U.S. carriers even with the U.S. variant of the F-4, let alone the more powerful F-18. Anything close (let alone touching) two 20 foot long supersonic flame fronts will be scorched Heck, even the STOVL F-35B, which does not use afterburners on takeoff, requires deck modifications to handle the heat from the downwards directed jet wash.
P.S. Thumbs up for an interesting article. One request though .... please turn down the volume on the music. It's loud enough to be a distraction.
I flew the Fokker 100, that had Spay engines, I never knew they were in a Phantom!
It wasn't all plain sailing, though. One of the test pilots said that when they first installed the Spey, it was pushing flames out of both ends!
That must have been an eye-opener! Have a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year
What a fantastic aircraft!!
Just a suggestion, maybe one regular size carrier would be a win win, save on r&d, on plane and ship, endless mods and bonus a real carrier 😊 Justin case u need it?
The Phantom was a bad MF to start with. I bet those rr engined planes were incredible. Not the prettiest plane but rugged and menacing looking for aure.
A marvel of engineering. Then there's the Harrier
very interesting video, i assumed the british pantom was a lightly modified variant of the US aircraft but it's clearly not. thanks!
As a young Airman in the RAF in the 1980's, I was told how to identify the difference between our Phantoms and the American ones , was to look for the smoke belching from the rear of the Yank ones. 😂
The Americans were also faster than the British version... that no one else wanted..
The sad thing was had Britain just bought US F-4 with J79. They would have saved a lot of money and could have bought more numbers or funded F-111K. But once again British Pride killed this and their military.
It's explained on the video. They couldn't use the J79 version because the deck on the UK carrier was shorter, so they needed something with more power and lift.
As @old_dan said. The J79 WAS NOT powerful enough the ensure successful launch on the smaller British carriers. Plus Britain never wanted the F-111. The TSR 2 was planned to be sold overseas to at least Australia but brown envelopes and political pressure on the new limp wristed Labour government (both from the USA) meant the TSR 2 was financially unviable anymore.
The F-4 was a flying shovel
As Ella Fitzgerald would say about the British Phantom - Too Darn Hot!
There's a big energy and temperature difference between warping steel and actually melting it. The latter would take much more heat to accomplish.
So the caption of this video should be The Fighter That WARPED An Aircraft Carrier DECK
(but of course that sounds less intriguing than melt).
This came at a cost though The British F-4's had more drag resulting in lower top speed at altitude. And inferior engine performance as well. This resulted in an old joke from the Americans: "What happens when you Spey a bitch? She becomes fat and slow!"
It was mentioned in the first minute that the Spey had 30% more power. Were you not paying attention?
@@adampolson6938does that negate the performance characteristics at altitude? “But muh video said🥴🥴” takeoff performance does not equal performance at altitude
@@adampolson6938 WhT was mentioned? The higher power, yes. The increased drag, no. Hence the fact that although more powerful, British Phantoms were slower than the standard J79 powered models and were less responsive at higher altitudes. Perhaps you should listen to RAF pilots who flew both types.
Top speed and high altitude performance was pretty much irrelevant for the Phantom, but the Spey engined Phantoms were superior in almost all other aspects. I am not even discussing the leading edge slats installed from 1972 onwards (S/E and F models), wich restricted CLEAN Phantoms to Mach 1.6-1.8 anyways.
2:59 Damn I wonder if the RAF had any plans to replace the TF30’s on the F-111’s with Speys
I forgot how cool they looked! It shows what a false economy cost reductions can be. I wonder how the cost of a new fighter would have compared to the phantom + aircraft carrier upgrades. Plus I wonder if it would have been cheaper to have kept the big carriers, phantoms and buccaneers and not had to fight the Falklands war??? (assuming it would have been enough to dissuade Argentina from invading in the first place). What was it they used to use as an awacs/ radar jamming plane??? Fairey Gannet??
From other comments about performance at altitude being less with the British engines; makes me giggle. Just the opposite of what the Merlin did for the Mustang
The Packard was an American engine...although based on the Merlin it was a completely redesigned and vastly superior engine to the Rolls-Royce version.
Does anybody know, what's the background music? Shazam can't cope with it....
There you go, full size in the Falklands probably would have made a HUGE difference so far from home 😔
id never heard this story. way to go brits.
10:02 That's a Buccaneer.
Looks like a drag car. Wow
Sure does!!
Yes it was and they changed the p 51 as well
3:55 looks suspiciously like British Aerospace Kingston Upon Thames… I worked their in the late 80s on the Harrier assembly line…
You're probably correct
Friend of mine was a Marine F4 pilot. He said they landed on a USAF base’s asphalt runway and when they took off, they also melted the runway. He said fleet F4’s engines were angled downward vs Air Force F4’s…
F3D Skynights were not very popular as their jet flow melted asphalt.
That’s not true !!!
ALL J79 engined F-4s had their engines installed with the shaft/thrust line tilted 5° downward, no matter if an A, D, S or even EJ model. The Spey engined Phantoms required to tilt the engine 7.5° down to clear the wing main spar (larger fan diameter).
Don’t believe everything old fighter jockeys tell you about their glory days, but rather consult manuals and subject matter press/books!
@ LOL! Gonna be hard to question him since it was in 1974 that he told me the story! He also said he was greeted as a VIP (navy captain vs marine captain). The pickup was irritated when they learned he wasn’t a Navy captain…of course he also told me he was so thankful for the marines teaching him to fly that he signed up for a 2nd tour in Vietnam…
It's about about the Phantom, yet you show a Buccaneer taking off...
1:11 ?
@@Bakaat777 Yupp. That's a Buccaneer. And if you watch closely, you'll see that it's not the only occasion they appear...
@@CaptainQuark9 Ah! Spoiler Alert! LOL I haven't finished watching yet.
@@Bakaat777 Oooops! Sorry 😁
Any excuse to show a Bucc is fine by me 🙃
Americans : Put a jet engine on a brick
British : Put industrial steel blast furnace on a brick
True, the R-R engines were too big, the airframe had to be enlarged and the resulting increase in drag caused the British version to be slower than the superior American version.
This why Britain no longer makes any jet aircraft..
It's odd they would be surprised at the exhaust gas temperature. They should have known that when they designed the engine. They'd have known it again when they tested the engine. They couldn't ignore this at every day stage of the development cycle, and then get surprised when they flew it. Sounds like some departments aren't communicating to others.
Increasing takeoff pitch also "helped".
Immagine the Carnage the British Phantom would have done to American thinner decks, All British Carriers ahve armoured decks. Nimitz Decks are only 2.5 Inches thick, whilst the deck of the Ark Royal was 3.5 inches thick. Apparently it did happen in exercise Ocean safari in 1975, and melted the US carrier's deck as well. Thus there was only one instance ever of a British Phantom F4-K usng an American carrier. Too much damage was done!
Not true as 'cross decking' was a regular occurrence throughout the 70's
Any Phantoms @ Faulklands war?
No. By that time the carriers which could field them had been scrapped. The aircraft carrier that went to the Falklands was HMS Hermes which carried Harriers. They did most of the aerial work. There was also one famous long-distance bombing run by Avro Vulcans from Ascension Island.
@@zh84 - Not forgetting HMS Invincible, the other albeit smaller aircraft carrier deployed by the RN to the South Atlantic.
Just the Argentinian ones that sunk a ship?. (Something like that).
They had been scrapped in the late 70s defence review as they were astronomically expensive to run.
The Phantoms were sent down to guard the Falklands after the end of the conflict. 1435 flt took over QRA, initially from Stanley, then moving to the current RAF Mount Pleasant.
❤❤❤
The music in background is loud crappy and distracted
As always Dark Skies makes a mountain out of a molehill and misrepresents what actually happened. It was HMS Eagle that had the problem with the Phantom FG1 overheating the deck. This was alleviated by bolting a plate over the location on the deck where the exhaust hit. The steel plates were kept abord Eagle just incase she needed to operate Phantoms in an emergency. HMS Ark Royal was fitted with water cooled Jet Blast Defectors as part of a planned refit to make her suitable to operate Phantoms. They were not rushed into service.
This channel is full of shit.
2:03 F4-afterburner (original audio)
Hey dark, you edited it out! Nobody knows but I do! Never forget!
Didn't a F4K also blow away one of the older US carriers wooden decks when on trials?
I want to get with mcdonnell Douglas and design a third bent wing bird. This time with two stabilizers slanted away from each other front wings swept back but bent the same as the wings on the corsair and same color blue just like the corsair. It'll look like the child of the f4f phantom and sukoih su-57 and the corsair is the grandfather of it. Also just like the phantom the two smaller wings behind the front wings on the side will be pointing down diagonally but this time with two scram jet engines. I'll call it the f4c poltergeist.
I was not a fan of the F-4 Phantom, trying to save money it was a Jack-of-all-trades while not being superior in any category except time to altitude. those variety of twist, bending & various funny looking notches in the Aircraft are all there to solve some kind of Problem, one of the F-4's more famous issues was during a battle it would occasionally swap ends, the Drogue chute was employed to help correct the wildly oscillating Jet
Britain had absolutely nothing comparable to the Phantom... the UK only ever produced a single supersonic aircraft on its own,, RAF pilots called it the "Aluminium Death Tube"..
Wait, the British used to have angled decks and catapults, what happened to make them go backwards with the QE carriers?
Money. Maintenance of the cats is expensive,and the catobar aircraft are also more expensive. They decided that going with the F-35B only will be cheaper in the long run.
We'll see. Or maybe not, it will be kept secret for decades.
cover image in a nice frame sells for 1 million dollars somewhere
A beast to hot for its own nest .....luv it.
your video may be interesting, but because of mid roll ads, I con not continue to watch.
Why not just build bigger aircraft carriers?
They were going to, but they were also cancelled.
TU95 German Bomber and Engine did in USSR by German engineer - speed less then 900KMH
Complimentary algorithm enhancement type of a comment!😊
The entire fuselage from the air intakes all the way to the tail section of the plane was widened, not just parts of it!
This design broke the area rule (coke bottle) and created more drag, limiting the max speed.
What car @3:00
1967 Chevrolet Chevelles SS396 a real beaut
@@pwilson-bs1ec Thank You. Miss those cars of the 60's
@@lynnwood7205 no problem Chevelles have been obsession of mine since childhood
No, the new fighters are too expensive.
I know, lets order off the shelf fighters.
Oh no they don't work on our carriers.
lets modify the planes we bought.
While we are modifying the planes lets completely re-build them.
Oh no the cheaper planes cost more than the ones we cancelled.
The UK government at work.
Canadian government. “Hold my beer, I can beat that”
@ronkennedy213 Yep,your government came up with the ultimate shortsighted approach when they cancelled the magnificent,decades ahead of it's time, Avro Arrow.
The UK aircraft industry was already in collapse and no longer able to build supersonic jets.
@darkknight1340 The Arrow was doomed, it was a plane no one wanted to buy and Canada couldn't afford pay for.
@@sandervanderkammen9230
But they ended up paying more for less good planes
the Royal Navy should never have switched from CATOBAR aircraft carriers to STOVL carriers . . . inspite of knowing fully well that a STOVL carrier by design, has limited capabilities & unable to project power . . . guess the switch to STOVL was dictated by the type of carrier borne fighter the navy was planning to operate & low cost . . . and that new fighter jet was none other than the navalized carrier borne Hawker Sea Harrier VTOL FA.2 multi role all weather interceptor . . .
The change was forced on the navy due to both the governments of the day not being willing to fund the replacement for Ark Royal and Eagle
Only 2 bot accounts in the comments before I made my comment.
😂 social media has more bots than it does actual humans im convinced
What happened to the British Tornado 🌪?!
It's been replaced by
Typhoon's and F-35's
They’ll regret that
@@budwhite9591 Why? Both are far more capable than the Tornado.
The Tornado was not British, Panavia is a German company based in Munich Germany
@@sandervanderkammen9230 The Tornado was a joint venture developed by Britain, Germany and Italy. Panavia was formed to manufacture it and headquartered in Germany. It was however owned by all thee nations.
And all this fuss for only 24 F-4Ks ever delivered to the FAA for carrier operations 😂. The other 24 F-4Ks went straight to the RAF wich actually did not require any of these modifications and could have bought standard F-4Ds or Es for a 3rd of the price 😂
After the Falkland conflict, the RAF were bit short of aircraft so we bought squadron of standard US F4-Js (F4-s).
Oh for the love of God *pls don't change the thumbnail*
British just love putting Rolls Royces propulsion equipment in American planes
Especially now that britain no longer makes any planes....
Didn't that happen only twice?
You are talking about problems with the phantoms in RAF service where as a lot of visions are in fact buccaneers.If you wish to give us interested persons an insight to history at least get the visual footage correct please.
Perfect it? LOL.
The British F4 phantom had much less range than the US phantom you consume way more fuel with their engine you gotta feed the ponies
melting a deck isnt melting an entire aircraft carrier. civilians arent experts on military shit they READ
The British took the F-4 and made it their own just like the U.S. took the Harrier and made it their own. The 2 countries who were once fierce enemies working together to better each other. Great tech comes from the U.S. and great tech comes from British however more often the best tech comes when we have worked together.
They weren't as fierce enemies as the two sides in the homegrown civil war a century and a half earlier, with that being fought between kin too
@ Never compared them to anyone else. They were however still fierce enemies with a lot of unfortunate loss on both sides. It’s just more proof that two different countries or a divided country can come together to make each other better and stronger.
The story is more complicated than that, considering that Britain was defeated by Germany and forced to surrender to the Americans.. the Tizzard Mission was a shameful and humiliating chapter in British history that many British historians refuse to accept ever happened, also the humiliating terms of the Anglo-American Bailout Loan Agreement are also whitewashed by British historian's the UK becoming a U.S territory and possession from 1946 to 2006 is a national embarrassment... 20,000 American troops still occupy the UK..
@ I can honestly say that I don’t know anything about that part of British history as it was never taught. I wouldn’t necessarily say the UK was owned by the U.S. or became U.S. territory as the British continued to maintain control over their own interests and traditions which is a good thing. I believe the troops being there is mostly a good thing as we the UK and US are partners in keeping the area safe and the British leaders know that the money that the U.S. spends on its military is more than most nations combined each year. As far as the loans I can’t speak to that either other than I believe the U.S. has gotten use to going into battle and then sending billions of dollars each year to those countries. Also the U.S. sent billions of dollars worth of equipment overseas during WW2 making sure the other allied nations had the equipment they needed to continue the fight. Either way I’m glad the U.S. and England have become such great allies and continue to work together. It would be nice if the citizens of the two countries could set their egos aside and realize it’s for the best and we make each other better.
@@P-J-W-777 You should check out the BBC documentary "Mortgaged to the Yanks"
Not everyone in the UK is denialist. there are some bits of accurate British history out there.
British dominance and air power? They weren’t even smart enough to use it in the only conflict they ever had. The falklands
By 1982 the RN carriers had been decommissioned and the F-4Ks passed to the RAF.
More cliches, very strange vocal patterns
Dislike for clickbait titles.
a British Spook
👀👍🇮🇪⚓
If Range Rover and Jaguar are any indication of the finest of British engineering, then I wonder how much better the British F4 was over the American..
Air suspension failure. Please visit service center.
Back when the US and UK were an unstoppable force.
I think you UK is mow a fourth rate force almost as much of a joke as the Belgian military after all the cutbacks in defence spending these last ten years. I would sooner have Poland at my back if I went to war , their military especially army and airforce is soon going to be larger and more modern than the British
Not the woke mess they be now in my humble opinion.
Oh that's cute
Do you not remember Vietnam?
Now the US military can be brought down just by telling them whoever moves first will be called pronouns they don’t want to be called lmao
Hey everyone Jesus saves accept him as your savior today and repent if you haven’t already he’s coming back soon be ready. Jesus Christ is Lord🎉🎉❤❤✝️
10,000$ says the spay engine was the orenda engine ......holy grails never disappear 😐
Orenda was General Electric of Canada... not Rolls-Royce
@sandervanderkammen9230 ssso ....the engine was is England ( may still ) reverse engineer and you have your own ...duh
@@scottsuttan2123 Orenda made General Electric jet engines under license in Canada, it was not affiliated with Rolls-Royce or manufactured any Rolls-Royce engines under license that I'm aware during this time frame
@sandervanderkammen9230 again sooo
If you're talking about the PS.13, it never disappeared. It was in England, and returned to Canada years ago. Also, PS.13 was bigger and heavier than Spey, and had a higher SFC at military power. Also, Spey is a turbofan, not a turbojet.