The Fighter That MELTED An Aircraft Carrier



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.

source

23 thoughts on “The Fighter That MELTED An Aircraft Carrier”

  1. 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).

    Reply
  2. 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.

    Reply
  3. Has Britain ever not been desperate when it came to funding defense capabilities? You seriously could put 1964 with 2024 and Nothing has changed in the British defense industry. They are still underfunded, clueless and rely on America to come save them in any war scenario.

    Reply
  4. 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.

    Reply
  5. 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.

    Reply
  6. 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 😂

    Reply
  7. 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.

    Reply
  8. 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??

    Reply

Leave a Comment