USN F-4 MER/TER MOPIX/STILPIX Camera Installation

[Peter Greengrass]

For those looking for something different and somewhat unique for their Navy F-4Bs, and noting the discussion of USAF MER/TERs, I thought the following might be of interest to some.

 

During CVW-9/USS Enterprise’s November 1966 to July 1967 combat cruise, the only means of obtaining combat photography available to the F-4Bs of VF-92 and VF-96 was the PMR/AFH-15 Camera Pod (developed by VX-4 and the Pacific Missile Range at Point Mugu). However, VF-92 found that there were some downsides to this pod, described within their Command History Report (CHR) for 1967: “Under the demanding conditions of sustained combat, this pod required additional loading operations, increased weight, increased drag, and degraded the overall capability of the aircraft. It also required the use of a valuable ordnance station, and for these reasons proved to be operationally unsatisfactory.”

 

The PMR/AFH-15 pod being carried by a VF-92 F-4B during the 1966-67 cruise.

 

 

VF-92 decided to take matters into their own hands and explored the possibility of using the available space within the nose of Multiple and Triple Ejector Racks (MER/TER). This proved possible, therefore a standard MER nose cone was slightly modified to accept the 16mm DB4 motion camera used in the PMR/AFH-15 pod. Results were found to be acceptable but the conclusion was that further development was needed “to improve its limited capability”.

 

So far I’ve failed to locate a photo of this modification but, considering that only “slight modifications” were undertaken, I would presume this was simply done by drilling a suitably sized hole in the front of the nose cone and some wiring modifications.

 

After the squadron returned to Miramar in July 1967, and in association with the resident Pacific Fleet Naval Air System Command Representative, the ideas, design, and modified nose cone were sent over to NARF North Island with the request for them to design and manufacture one prototype. Funding for this was provided by CVW-9.

 

North Island went one better and provided two prototypes in time for VF-92 to evaluate them during their October conventional weapons deployment to MCAS Yuma. Fortunately, Stephen Miller was on hand to photograph a VF-92 F-4 equipped with one of these two prototypes (described as Mod. 2). 

 

 

During the two-week deployment the squadron “flight-tested them under all aspects of a simulated combat environment” and found them to be “highly acceptable for any type of flight photography.” A few discrepancies were found and minor problems encountered but they were solved and new ideas developed. A KB-10A still picture camera ‘’borrowed’ from an RF-8A was installed and a means of adjusting camera sight angle was developed. This was all forwarded back to NARF North Island, who made the necessary modifications and delivered two reworked nose cone assemblies (Mod. 3) prior to VF-92’s deployment aboard USS Enterprise for the November Operational Readiness Inspection and Weapons Training Exercise (Operation BLUE LOTUS). 

 

The following two photos, from VF-92s CHR, show the Mod. 3 nose cone installed on a squadron aircraft aboard Enterprise during the ORI.

 

 

An inflight photo dated November 67

 

 

The camera mount was flown on 30 missions primarily equipped with a 16mm MOPIX camera and was thoroughly carrier tested, subjected to supersonic flight, high G manoeuvres, and routine carrier operations including catapult shots and arrested landings, and came through with flying colours. Both air-to-air and air-to-ground photography results, including photography obtained during 500-pound bomb ejection sequence from MER, were described as “excellent”. 

 

By this time ‘higher management’, CVW-9, USS Enterprise and Commander Naval Air Forces Pacific Fleet (COMNAVAIRPAC) were all on board. In a message to Commander-In-Chief Pacific Fleet (CINCPACFLT), dated December 27th, COMVAVAIRPAC submitted the following: 

 

“Prototype installation discussed in ref B [the Mod. 3 mount] has subsequently been refined/redesigned to permit installation of numerous types Navy inventory MOPIX/STILLPIX cameras. Modified camera pod installations can be installed on either MER or TER rack (not interchangeable) by removing and replacing rack fairing. This design offers many advantages heretofore unavailable to A-7, A-6, F-8, and F-4 aircraft. Recommend that CNO and NAVAIRSYSCOM be requested to provide funds and authorisation for production, installation and SEASIA evaluation [of] new CVW-9 MER/TER Strike MOPIX/STILLPIX installations. Approximately 30,500 dollars required by NARF NORIS to fabricate sixty new MER/TER photo installations. This compares very favourably with the LB-18A A-4 NIPPI pod, which cost 1107 dollars each, and offers greatly increased operational strike photographic capabilities at reduced costs for other aircraft models.”

 

CINCPACFLT, after having a few queries answered, submitted the request in January 1968 to Chief Naval Operations (CNO) with the following recommendation: “In view of the fact that an acceptable strike photo capability does not exist in PACFLT A-6, A-7, F-4 and F-8 aircraft, and since the proposed MER/TER universal installation provides a quick remedy for this strike photo deficiency, it is strongly recommended that the MER/TER strike photo program be authorized and funding provided to support an initial production quantity of 60 camera pods.”

 

Sadly this is the last message included in VF-92s CHR, so whether the program was approved and entered service is unknown to me. However, the following photo was taken in August 1968 and shows an TER camera installation on a VF-92 F-4B (with a ‘borrowed’ VF-121 travel pod). This appears slightly different to the Mod. 3 version, so could quite possibly be a production version, or maybe one of the NARF NORIS refined versions mentioned in the COMNAVAIRPAC message.

 

 

I would be very interested If anyone comes across any other photos showing these MER/TER camera installations on other aircraft.

 

Hope I haven’t bored everybody but thought the history of this would be of interest.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Peter Greengrass
typo

[easixpedro]

Thanks for sharing Peter!  (A shame that we lost the large Phantom thread...)  

 

I think we all take our space capabilities for granted nowadays (from GPS for navigation and timing to the fact that we have real time photos of almost anywhere on earth). The USN tried mightily to reduce the load on Recce pilots by adopting this and the strike camera used on the centerline station on Scooters. I can't imagine being an RF-8 or RA-5 pilot zorching over a just bombed target to get the BDA pics... Those dudes had large ones.

 

-Peter

 

 

[John1]

Great info!   Thanks for taking the time to pull this all together, that's a fascinating and very well detailed story.     

 

Hey  - is it me or is that VF-121 travel pod mounted backwards?

[Oldbaldguy]

Yet another great, common sense idea coming out of the field where the rubber meets the road but, as usual, I’m a little confused.  If the main objective to this brilliantly executed idea was BDA or something similar, then why was the camera installed looking forward and not aft at the fruits of their labors after the drop?  I assume the answer will be that not every airplane in the strike carried the camera, with that part of the mission being left to the last guy over the target?

[easixpedro]

1 minute ago, Oldbaldguy said:

Yet another great, common sense idea coming out of the field where the rubber meets the road but, as usual, I’m a little confused.  If the main objective to this brilliantly executed idea was BDA or something similar, then why was the camera installed looking forward and not aft at the fruits of their labors after the drop?  I assume the answer will be that not every airplane in the strike carried the camera, with that part of the mission being left to the last guy over the target?

From what I've seen with the light attack community, it was literally get any photos you could. So if the a/c was in the later sections rolling in on the target, it would at least get some pictures for the photo interpreters to work with. Some targets were too hot or in the restricted areas (Hanoi/Haiphong) and flights weren't approved before or after.  Crazy as it sounds, that's how the ROE drove things and why these cameras became super important.  

[Finn]

Interesting concept, not to hijack the thread but Peter do you have any info on the pod that was on A-7s during the war:

 

 

It is shown in this video at the 26:31 mark:

 

 

and the 4:02 mark in this video:

 

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/86778

 

Jari

[Peter Greengrass]

37 minutes ago, Finn said:

Interesting concept, not to hijack the thread but Peter do you have any info on the pod that was on A-7s during the war:

 

I'm very much an F-4 and F-4 only guy, so I'm not going to be very useful! I did have a browse thru CVW-14s Cruise Report for 1968-69 and the only thing that I can't find anything on is the North American NAMAR photo pod that was used by the A-7As in that air wing. Googling that turns up zero hits. Of course, that might not even be that.

[Finn]

Thanks anyway, here is the back part of the pod:

 

 

and i'm guessing the view from the camera end:

 

 

Jari