The F4 vs Modern Fighters

[flash8]

Having always been an admirer of the F4 I have often wondered how it would compare in aerial combat against modern fighter jets.

Would it be at an incredible disadvantage all other things being equal?

Many thanks, and I do hope I have posted in the appropriate forum, as you guys are the ones that would know all (apologies if this has been asked before).

[LOAgent]

That would depend on what your definition of a 'modern fighter' is! Airframe vs airframe it would certainly struggle against most fighter aircraft brought into service in the last 10 years. I suspect it would also struggle 1 v 1 with many fighters of the 4th gen era that may not be considered modern anymore. However in the right hands and with the right weapons and avionics fit no aircraft is ever at an incredible disadvantage.

The Phantom was an awesome platform in its day. It still looks mean to this day even on sticks.

[LowObservable]

The accurate if unexciting answer is "it depends".

With modern sensors, cockpit and weapons, the F-4's ability to carry six-to-eight missiles and still go fast could be valuable in the long-range fight, particularly against less heavily armed adversaries.

On the other hand, if it turns into a close-range turn-and-burn fight - well, there is a reason the F-15 and F-16 were developed in the first place.

Back in the 1980s there was a serious plan to fit the F-4 with the PW1120 engine from the Israeli Lavi. That would have been quite the aircraft...

[fantom]

My last-ditch plan was to ram them...

[Finningley Boy]

My last-ditch plan was to ram them...


I trust Fantom, you and your Navigator had every intention of vacating the premises prior to the point of no return!:ok:

I understand Phantom crews felt their charge to be a superior mount to the Tornado F3?

Mind you, Lightning Pilots felt their machine compared quite favourably to the Phantom!?!? I trust we're not going to have ex F3 crews making similar claims over the Tiffy!? Or would it be that the best thing to do would be to go back to Sopwith Camels or something!?:confused:

FB:)

[Pontius Navigator]

In a turning and burning fight an F4 was no match for a Vulcan, that was back in the early 60s just before we got them. After getting sucked in to a furball the F4 rolled out, opened to 20, reversed, and waxed us while we were still in the turn.

The answer therefore is get your Fox 1 in first.

[Brian 48nav]

Crikey! That sounds horrific - I'm so glad I was on the Herc. Any driver pulled more than 30degrees of bank and out came the old straight-edge - if the Flt Eng hadn't cuffed him first.

No 1 son gave me a ride in a Jag once and was under strict instructions not to frighten his Pa - or his share of the will would be in peril.

[BEagle]

In a turning and burning fight an F4 was no match for a Vulcan, that was back in the early 60s just before we got them. After getting sucked in to a furball the F4 rolled out, opened to 20, reversed, and waxed us while we were still in the turn.

That's what we used to like to think on Vulcans. The reality was that we did no study whatsoever on AAM engagament parameters or lag pursuit techniques, had little idea about AIM9 launch ranges and absolutely no idea at all about AIM7EIII parameters. We didn't even know that search firings were even possible... It was only when I re-roled from Vulcan to F-4 that I learned that most of our so-called tactics on the Vulcan would have been utterly useless against an F-4 and I was stunned at how ignorant we'd been. There was no need to 'open to 20 miles' to take a BVR AIM7EIII Sparrow shot as other options were possible. Beam look-up shots - what were they? Even the Vulcan's so-called I-band 'jammer' was a superb Sparrow magnet for any F-4 crew well-versed in HOJ attacks...

We were naive but confident on the Vulcan. What might have worked against the Firestreak-equipped Lightning was useless against the Phantom's MCS. Anyone stupid enough to mix it and try for a SUU kill against a Vulcan would probably lose - but a sneaky search missile firing was a piece of pi$$.

[Flap62]

I reckon it would fair very poorly indeed.

As part of my combat ready work up on the puffer jet I did a 1v1 30 mile splits over the sea against an F4. 40 minutes later I had 2 fox2s and a guns. Not saying I was special but F4 had very limited (if powerful radar) and suffered against a modern accurate RWR. To be fair the chaps I was against tried to make a fight of it. I suppose if they'd wanted to they would have blown through at M1+ as soon as they lost the picture so fair do's that they had a crack.
Against a modern jet with big missiles, big engines and big wing they wouldn't have a snowballs.

[Willard Whyte]

Phantom vs Herc?

Where the hell is the dining table in a fighter?

Pur-lese.

[wiggy]

Against a modern jet with big missiles, big engines and big wing they wouldn't have a snowballs.

Sad to say but agreed. But in it's time a great aircraft, and as BEagle has said it was interesting how many of it's RAF/NATO "adversaries" were unaware of/conveniently downplayed/choose to ignore the "Fox 1".....

[Lima Juliet]

BGG

You're at it again! Read what PN is saying - the Vulcan could outturn the F4 at height but the AIM-7 (Fox 1) would "wax them". BEagle has just added an extra (correct IMHO) two-penneth to amplify and add to PN's post.

Have you been boozing too much tonight?

LJ

[The B Word]

BigGreenGobble-de-gook

Sorry, but PN is no Walt. I know him and his background is as it appears. :=

The B Word

[Finningley Boy]

not at all LJ. Fully understood both PN and Beagle's posts. Check out a few other threads, there's a theme. The guy PN is a Walt. I'm sure he's done some of what he claims, but most of it is recycled..........


BGG,

If you're only ten you're one hell of a guy!

FB:)

[iRaven]

Hey Gilbo

Is your picture amongst these?

http://thedesperateblogger.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/drivel-shirt.jpeg

[soddim]

Guess you have to take it as a given that today's F4 would have enjoyed some upgrades like bigger engines, better RHWR, better ECM, better radar and, not least, ASRAAM and AMRAAM.

If one accepts that premise, the old bird would do quite well and take a few scalps at long range but the crew would have to very careful to run away bravely before taking incoming.

One advantage it would have over many modern fighters is two crew members.

[iRaven]

Also, the Tomb was pretty unforgiving at high alpha compared to today's more care-free jets. A real man's jet but terribly unforgiving!

iRaven

[hanoijane]

May I respectfully add my two 'pennorth to this engrossing f4 / Walt / bull**** debate?

I dunno about contemporary aircraft, but back in the day the f4 was nothing but an over-engineered techno truck which - when pilot skill levels were evened out - fared very badly against its more 'agricultural' contemporaries flown from this fair land. Why you view it with misty-eyed reverence I shall never understand. Mass myopia perhaps?

Now, what's your Walt / bull**** meter reading on the above?

[orca]

Something not insignificant was (at least when fighting the luftwaffe F4s) their absolutely massive smoke signature. The chances of getting into a merge unseen in that diesel burner were, almost exactly, nil. I don't know if the same could be said with other marks/ engines.

[MTOW]

hanoijane isn't alone in his (her?) low opinion of the F4 when compared with the Soviet fighters of the same era. John ("forty second*") Boyd, the USAF pilot who was without peer in his day - (look him up on Wikipedia; an entertaining read, where the "forty second" nick name will be explained) - using computer modelling, proved it was a dog against the MiG21, with it only maybe anywhere near equal to it below 15,000', and the majority of USAF and USN crews who defeated the MiG in the F4 did so using tactics devised very, very scientifically by Boyd using Pentagon computers - unofficially (and much against the wishes of his superiors, to the point where he was court-martialled for stealing over $1 million of computer time devising tactics that saved the lives of many, many American pilots).

The poor bastards sent into North Vietnam in the F105 were literally dicing with certain death against the MiGs (even the earlier -17s and -19s), for the Thud couldn't even outrun the -21, and the few who survived a one on one with a MiG did so using a last ditch 'flat plate' manoeuvre, again devised by Boyd, where they threw everything out and killed most of their energy in an attempt to make the MiG overshoot them. (Yeah, I know... if the MiG had a wingman, the Thud driver was then in a not-nice-place, which all too often resulted in a long stay for the Thud driver in the Hanoi Hilton.)

And as orca says, the J-79s and their massive black smoke trail (along with the F-4's massive size) was a dead giveaway during ACM. Another huge problem (until the 'E'), was the lack of a gun and the fact that the AIM7 and 9 were both very unreliable.

[ORAC]

Phantom vs Herc? I do remember the police called us at Staxton Wold just after we controlled an affil in the Vale of York.

A little old lady had phoned to complain that a great big aeroplane was picking on a little one.......

[wiggy]

proved it was a dog against the MiG21

I think Boyd's point was more along the lines that if you fought the Mig ( or F-5 ) on it's terms you'd be screwed...a prinicple that goes right back to the dawn of air combat.

[Wiley]

It wasn't quite as simple as that, wiggy. I've just finished reading Boyd's book (which I'd highly recommend, BTW), and, as MTOW said, the MiG 21, properly handled, (as it usually was by the North Vietnamese), was superior to the F4 in just about any regime or circumstance you'd care to name.

From Boyd's book:If there was a turning point, a time when even the most jingoistic Air Force general at last understood that Communist forces could build fighter aircraft superior to anything that America put in the air, it was Vietnam in 1967, the worst year of the war for the Air Force. It finally sank in that, as Boyd had said for years, the Air Force had no true air-to-air fighter. It is said that combat is the ultimate and unkindest judge of fighter aircraft. That was certainly true in Vietnam. The long-boasted-about ten-to-one exchange ratio from Korea sank close to parity in North Vietnam; at one time it even favored the North Vietnamese. When the war finally ended, one Air Force pilot would be an ace. North Vietnam would have sixteen.
At the time, the North Vietnamese Air Force was shredding the ranks of F-105 drivers. So many F-105s were shot down along a mountain range near Hanoi that the pilots called it "Thud Ridge."

[just another jocky]

I recall trying to climb down the cockpit steps of a C-130 whilst they were dogfighting over N Scotland with an F-4....not easy at a couple of g! And I couldn't believe they had guys sat in the open doors at the rear as lookouts! :eek:

Anyhoo, isn't the OPs question a little daft (no offence)? It's almost the same as asking how would the Wright Flyer cope against an F-22....pointless question. Still, doesn't stop opinions being given and brings back some fond and fun memories. The F4 certainly used to smoke, which made them much easier to spot when they were CAP'ing over the Peheim (sp?) Mast. :ok:

[just another jocky]

GPWP! :ok:

So BVR it'll be ok, maybe parity, but in a dogfight......:yuk:

[Pontius Navigator]

BEages, you are correct however the case I relate was an E and it was the first time they had been doing PIs with a manoeuverable target like the Vulcan. The problem with mutuals means you learn how to kill your buddy but have no idea how to handle a dissimilar type hence the development of aggressors and Top Gun.

The Mig 21 was half the size of the F4, had a fraction of the range, minimal kill shots and poor visiblity, but that did not make it an easy kill.

Digrssing from the F4 v to another tale of Lightning v F16.

The Lightning driver related how pleased he was with the F6 performance against the F16 in a burning and turning furball with the pair almost equally matched. Then the F16 used his burned and waxed him.

[dagenham]

We should ask our Turkish colleagues

Read in this months afM the chinese sent two j11 ( su27 copies) to an exercise in turkey

Uncle sam threw his toys out of the pram and would not let the turks use their f16s in case of tech transfer issues so they had to use the f4s

Interesting to see the results

Ps they staged through Iran so that could also be interesting for future politics in that region

Re mig 21 it is worth reading red eagles the story of the mig in us airforce service I was very surprised at how agile they claim the 21 is at extreme alpha

Their stories of fighting the eagle and how not one sided it was is very intersting. The best bit is the 23 and the stories of how it was a dragsters and that if you closed the noise stick to quickly at Mach silly it would self diassemble. Apparently this was the cause of the crash with the usmc general on a last service flight and brought the programme out of the black

[hanoijane]

The reason Thud Ridge claimed so many American airframes wasn't due to it being a location for air-to-air combat, 'cos in the main it wasn't. What it possessed was a rather nice multi layered air defence system, and an adversary who didn't appear to appreciate this fact.

GCI generally orbited the 17's and 21's to the north west and south east of Thud Ridge, not near the ridge itself. The Americans normally exited towards the sea.

I think using the term 'agility' in respect of a 70's era '21 is overstating things a little, but it is a very *comfortable* aeroplane to fly and it's surprisingly easy to get it to do what you want it to do when you ask it to do it. Not a trait I've noted in some products of the west.

And as for the view... well call me mr-cowardy-custard, but I'd much prefer to fly into scary situations hunkered down in a snug metal cockpit with mirrors to cover my six than sat in a little glass bubble perched on the airframe with a super view of something hot and angry heading my way.

But back to the f4...

[LowObservable]

Drat, I forgot that they actually got two PW1120s in that F-4 testbed. Suspect that it was overshadowed at the time by the Lavi's impending cancellation.

[Art Field]

Do not know about combat performance but having, many times, been there to provide fuel for F4s on Bear chasing sorties around the UK, it did seem as though the Phantom was very difficult to keep serviceable both on startup and during the mission. On several occasions ended up playing the role of fighter in our Victor.

[fleigle]

Art
If they were RAF Phantoms then of course they were lumbered by having been Spey-ed.
A great read is "Phantom over Vietnam", good details of the reality of dealing with this complex 'plane in war conditions. Written by a Marine pilot.
One of the nuggets is about dealing with the smoke, especially when heading into a target area, they would snick it in afterburner and pop the air brakes out, this took care of the visible smoke.
I lived for a while under the approach into an Air National Guard base which had Phantoms at the time, I loved the eerie noise as the inlet ramps were working on finals.
f

[SCAFITE]

Use google and look up US air losses during the Vietnam War truly shocking. 3500 fixed wing aircraft with the top of the pops being F4's with just short of 800 followed by the F105. losses including 160 transport aircraft such as C130 and Providers. Mr McD and Mr Republic must have been rubbing their hands. This doe not include thousands of Helicopters which I think was thick end of 5000.

[fleigle]

Well, the RAF lost a hell of a lot of Meteors WITHOUT being in a war !!!!
but we digress!
f

[Min Decent Ht]

To return to topic...
I've flown against German F4s many times. In a visual fight I always came back with a guns kill or 2. And that was in an F3!
The F4 is a powerful beast. With a tendancy to hit the merge at high ish speed and have a county wide turning circle. Visually impressive, however...

[Pontius Navigator]

top of the pops being F4's with just short of 800 followed by the F105.

The early F4 had a fatal combat design weakness. The PFCs were controlled by single jacks fed by two separate hydraulic systems. Given the failure on one system then all controls remained operable - at least that was the theory.

In practice a hit on a jack meant loss of all flying control hydraulics and the aircraft developing the characteristics of a powered brick. The hydraulics were then reconfigured to feed utilities to the jacks and split the flying control hydraulics. This are a great improvement and it became possible to fly the beast but it still was more like a brick.

[soddim]

Can't remember meeting many of the 'we piss*d all over the F4' brigade going through the Friday Blakeney Point CAPs and can't remember any of them turning up at night at low level out over the North Sea either.

Talk is cheap - the F4s I flew did the best multirole job in the world in their day and, operated as a fighter, were more than a match for everything else in service at the time.

Want to hear about the fox 2s against a pair of Eagles with a dart streamed behind?

Anybody can get lucky.

[Widger]

Bit of a silly debate really. Avionics upgrades can always be a leveller and don't forget about the person holding the stick. Tactics can do a lot. Not wanting to hijack the thread but the little puffer jet with Blue Fox, used to regularly wax technically superior opposition, using tactics. Once it got the Blue Vixen and AMRAAM, everyone wanted to play. The F4 could go supersonic, fly higher than the Tonka and get there quicker and you could put a hook on it, fly it off a ship and take it world wide and it could drop bombs.

So ....not a dig at any other platform but just emphasising what a good airframe it was and that upgrades could have made it something special even now in multi-role. There comes a point though where it is cheaper to just start new rather than trying to upgrade a 1950s design.......oh......that's what we did with the MRA4!!!! Oh.....................

[BEagle]

Going to min A/B was certainly conducive to reducing the Spey smoke - which was never as bad as the J-79, I gather.

Although head sector BVR firings would usually take out a Vulcan quite easily, if the ROE required a positive ident before shoot and dumb tactics lead to a stern SW shot, then a well-fought Vulcan might have some chance. For example, I recall when fighting against a CF-101 from CFB Chatham NB, after he'd fired his simulated Genie and vapourised about a hundred cubic miles of sky as a result, things became a lot more balanced after the merge. I can still remember their tape..."Where'd he go? Ah, damn - he's behind us! How did you let something that big get into our six?" But that was mainly due to ROE in our favour....unlike the screech debrief later that night :\

There wasn't much to go wrong on an F-4 Q-launch if the engines started OK. No 'computer says no' electric jet problems. Start the left, start strapping in, 7 sec after starting the left, start the right, then continue strapping in whilst the jet winds up. When both gennies are OK, get rid of external power, then wait until the nav is happy with the IN, wait for the well-practised groundcrew to finish buttoning up the left start door and their OK to go thumbs up, then give the guys a wave and roar off down the Q-access track....

Mixed fighter farce was just that. Stagger out to the area with the poor little jet trainer valiantly trying to keep up; on the initial engagement, we'd fire a head sector Fox 1 then, after his one magic hard turn into a stern SW shot, he'd be home on fumes and we'd go back to CAP.

[Pontius Navigator]

wait until the nav is happy with the IN,.

Wasn't that an advantage limited to the F4M and not the K?

[BEagle]

The F-4M (or rather the FGR Mk 2) was equipped with a Ferranti INS (developed for the TSR2) whereas the F-4K (the FG Mk 1) wasn't.

F-4 with Blue Vixen and AMRAAM would have been pretty potent!

[wiggy]

I think we can argue the toss on this all night/week/year long...One of the joys of my current job is that I have been able to talk with ex-Mig 21 drivers of various nations who all held the F-4 in very high regard and they all regarded it as a very potent adversary. Yes it suffered badly early on in Vietnam due to a lack of understanding of the MiG-21's capabilities and restrictive ROE but due to Boyd (yes, I've read his book, also one or two other folders with funny coloured covers :oh:) and others the natural order was restored to some degree.

I think those of us facing the small airframe, low wing loader threat ( ring any bells?) down at Stanley from late 82 onwards with the F-4M, kitted out with various radar upgrades, 8 AAMs, plus the gun, plus chaff, plus flares had a high degree of confidence in the beast.......

However would I want to fly it now, in 2010, against the current generation of fighters?......No.

Oh BTW soddim,

Can't remember meeting many of the 'we piss*d all over the F4' brigade going through the Friday Blakeney Point CAPs and can't remember any of them turning up at night at low level out over the North Sea either.
...:ok: :ok: :ok:
(with the honorable exception of the F-111 guys - subject of another debate?)

[glad rag]

Start the left, start strapping in, 7 sec after starting the left, start the right, then continue strapping in whilst the jet winds up.Oops. A. Daisy.

Had a future 51 CO do just that to me 5AM in the tin shed at LEU. Fact was he'd already (self) ****** up his straps then lost the plot totally.
Que shouting match from all concerned, but we still got them off in time.

Don't start me on Mr (slap the sides) Pastry;) OR blast charging the pneumatics from a bottle trolley during Q launch strap in.
At times like that it is imperative that the man with his finger on the switch fully understands what you are doing next to the GTS exhaust!!

GR

[soddim]

I would certainly agree with wiggy that at Stanley post 82 we had every confidence that we would kick the proverbial out of the Argies if they came back and we had a lot of great affil with some very bold and skilful Herc pilots at heights that must have scared the pax at least a bit.

The F111 over the North Sea was a difficult problem - the F3 was a bit better if it was a case of chasing it down.

However, there are fighters and targets - you have to be one or the other and the F4 was very certainly one of the former and the best in its' day.

[XV410]

BEagle, sorry to be a bit picky, it was the right hand door

wait for the well-practised groundcrew to finish buttoning up the left start door

As for which is the best, the F4 got me to FL540 and M1.1 at 500' over the North Sea on my back seat trips. Damn impressive having spent 6.5 years on 56(F).

[BEagle]

XV410, having just found my old 'Buzzy's Guide to QRA', I concur - we indeed started the right engine first. In my defence it was all nearly 30 years ago though...and I only had a less than distinguished 488 hrs on the beast. But thanks for the correction!

glad rag, there was also a note stating that:During scramble starts the pilot is to signal the groundcrew and obtain clearance before starting each engine.So there shouldn't have been anything happening during scramble starts without the groundcrews' knowledge.

I also found my old Coningsby Div Card. It lists 43 aerodromes - of which around 24 are now either disused, pongoed or no longer available. To which perhaps Cottesmore, Kinloss, Leeming, Leuchars, Lossiemouth, Lyneham or Wittering might soon be added....:mad:

[Lima Juliet]

XV410

As for which is the best, the F4 got me to FL540 and M1.1 at 500' over the North Sea on my back seat trips.

I've had 1.3M at 250ft in an F3 and that was with 2x SKF and 2x 9L fitted - she wanted to go faster, but we didn't!

Soddim

The F111 over the North Sea was a difficult problem - the F3 was a bit better if it was a case of chasing it down.

That is one of the biggest understatements ever. The F3 was, and still is, one of the fastest jets at low level. It does exactly what was asked for in being able to chase down Fencers, BlackJacks and BackFires in the Iceland-Faroes Gap. I saw many a surprised "pig" and "BOne" driver learning that charging about at 700kts+ on the deck would not save them whilst on Red Flag, etc...

All said though, the F4 was, is, better than F3 at medium to high level - especially the J79 engined ones. It also has that Gene Hunt thing about it "Drop your weapons! You are surrounded by armed b@st@rds!!" - memories from another time that are long lost. :E

LJ

[Tourist]

http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp121/Tourist_photos/SaundersIsland.jpg

Soddim

Just after such an affil event.
Seemed to go on for a long time, and they never got behind him! Amazing how low the Herc was comfortable at.

[alfakilo]

Cheers to all...

Interesting posts!

Whenever these kinds of questions come up, I'm encouraged to make the observation that pilots win engagements, not aircraft. And to put it more to the point, engagements are more likely lost than won, with somebody capitalizing on the mistakes of somebody else.

F-4 engine smoke was an issue, depending on observation angle and background lighting conditions. We would go into min burner when still far out...this would reduce the signature and not cost that much in gas.

No argument about number of losses in NVN...but Thud Ridge got its name from being used as a geographical feature used for ingress into the target areas.

As for Boyd, his EM work was invaluable. His "40 sec" maneuver, however, was only good when 1v1 and then only good when used against someone who was clueless. Anyone who was forewarned would simply yo-yo off and re-engage having never given up the 3/9 line.

The USAF hands on experience against Soviet aircraft was also invaluable but needed to be understood for what it was...experience against early model MiG-21s and export model MiG-23s.

USAF training philosophy back in the 60s was to discourage or even ban dissimilar air combat training. Formations and tactics tended to be stuck in Korean War concepts. It took the bitter lessons of the VN war and finally someone at flag rank listening to and understanding what the USN was doing at TOPGUN (and other places) that finally moved us forward.

[soddim]

And what a forward move it was! I enjoyed the aggressors every six weeks and watched in envy as a succession of really manoeuverable fighters replaced the F4.

Meanwhile, back in Blighty, we had to make do with a converted bomber.

[GeeRam]

Probably been posted before....but, judging by the roundal type, this information film about the RAF F-4 must be some 40 odd years old.......anyone on here preserved for posterity :)

YouTube - R.A.F. F-4 Phantoms in the 70s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_ws8jBgSrU)

[RAFEngO74to09]

Anyone who served at HQ STC (as was) in the mid-90s and attended or watched the CinC's Friday Brief on CCTV will remember this video which was often broadcast beforehand. A few of us with fond memories of the good times had with this aircraft were close to tears at the sight of the Phantastic Phantom on the scrap heap.

YouTube - F-4 Phantoms in Cyprus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsBNPx-Aexw)

[soddim]

GeeRam's post brought back some familiar faces - Bob Rogers and Terry Bollans starring as leaders and a very young looking Ray Horwood, Jack Stone, Paul L-P and others.

Bet Horace was driving the coach - he should have starred too.

The budget obviously didn't run to a continuity man - tanks on and off, 64 Sqn then 6 Sqn, 'clear start left' and started right. Guess leaving the tank and aux air door locks in place was OK for a documentary. Bit pickky but if you're going to do it, get it right!

Nostalgic though! Real trip down memory lane - need a drink at happy hour now!

[glad rag]

That video was rather good and brought back some happy memories, the line of tails at the beginning however just emphasises just what has been lost.:(

[RAFEngO74to09]

A bit of a thread drift here but there was a time when all the chips fell into place to give us a first rate capability for a while.

I was the JEngO on one of the Phantom sqns at Wildenrath in the late-1970s. The sqn had only been formed a few months when I arrived. The crew ratio at the time was 2:1 and we had the use of an In Use Reserve aircraft in addition to our established strength. Almost all the pilots were ex-Phantom mud movers or ex-Lightning, quite a few with 1000+ hours on those types. Initially, to keep experience levels up in the demanding low-level role, only one first tourist pilot and nav per sqn were allowed. I well remember the outcry in the crewroom when it became known that we were to get another first tour pilot and two retread navs - one from the Vulcan and one from the Shackleton AEW2. Cries of "crew experience dilution" and warnings of dire consequences were heard but of course nothing untoward actually happened (not attributable to those individuals anyway !). In fact the pilot went on to do an exchange tour with the USN on the F-14 and subsequently commanded a Tornado F3 sqn so he obviously was no slouch.

At the time, apart from the USAF F-15s at Bitburg, just about everybody else in NATO in that part of the world was still flying the F-104G with just 2 x early model Sidewinder and the M-61 20 mm gun. By contrast, our Phantoms carried 4 x Skyflash (just introduced), 4 x AIM-9G Sidewinder and the SUU-23A 20mm gun pod, and the MCS radar was the subject of numerous ongoing updates. In the hands of an experienced crew who knew how to exploit the advantages of the weapon system, it was a formidable beast in it's day and even managed to defeat a few F-15s on Sqn Exchange through the use of superior tactics.

Aircraft on "Battle Flight" [QRA(I)] were held in HASs at RS05 with crews out of the cockpit in adjacent living accommodation. Frequent practice scrambles were mounted which I never got tired of watching. Ideally, if everyone was on the ball (bearing in mind they might have been asleep seconds earlier), both aircrew would be in the cockpit, both engines would be started and, if the hydraulic reservoir did not need topping up, the aircraft would be ready to taxy even before the pre-heated INAS had aligned (which took 108 seconds IIRC). Hooter to airborne in well under 3 minutes was frequently achieved. On occasion, we would deploy forward to RAF Gutersloh and occupy the former Lightning QRA sheds there. Being so close to the ADIZ, INAS alignment could be dispensed with and the best time achieved from hooter to commencing takeoff roll was 75 seconds !

During Station MINEVALs, HQ RAFG MAXEVALs and NATO TACEVALs (something every month), well-trained and regularly practiced groundcrew routinely performed Operational Turn Rounds in 15-20 minutes (from engine shutdown pushed back in a HAS to aircraft on state again) in full NBC IPE and the Wildenrath Wing earned the best possible TACEVAL result at the first attempt (a feat totally unachievable by anyone in NATO now).

Like everyone before us, then and since, we claimed to be short of resources - too few personnel to man all the HASs and do force protection even when working 16-hour days, too few aircraft spares, too few vehicles, not enough GSE and so on. However, looking back it was a golden age before all the Health and Safety, Equal Opportunities, Management Plan, Performance Indicators and similar bolleux was invented and took away all the fun (or made it more difficult to have anyway).

[RAFEngO74to09]

Seen at my "local" airshow at Nellis AFB two weeks ago. QF-4E drone still in use by the USAF with 82 ATRS at Holloman AFB. It can also be flown from the cockpit and performed as part of the USAF Air Combat Command Heritage Display.

Press thumbnail for a larger view.


http://thumb17.webshots.net/t/87/87/3/21/40/2136321400106891617ygjqgp_th.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2136321400106891617ygjqgp) http://thumb17.webshots.net/t/71/171/0/8/52/2527008520106891617wjuoZQ_th.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2527008520106891617wjuoZQ)

[27mm]

RAFEngO74to09,
Concur with your post re F4 at Wilders - towards the end of my tour there we took off the fletchers, making the beast even more fun: airborne by the approach end cable, transonic LL performance in dry power, a match for any jet in theatre (including F-15, F-16 and F-18). Halcyon days.....

[Dr Jekyll]

Do the Iranians still have any in service?

[RAFEngO74to09]

Dr Jekyll,

According to a report by the US Defense Intelligence Agency to the Senate Armed Services Committee in April 2010 - yes, but no quantity was mentioned.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Who remembers the RAFG tradition of ultra low level "last flights" over the parent sqn HAS site by pilots leaving the sqn or the RAF - everyone rushing outside to stand on a revetment to make the aircraft seem even lower ?

Seeing a Buccaneer below the level of the top of a Bloodhound radar (on stilts) and a Phantom below the top of the stadium lights at Akrotiri was just fantastic.

Here's a more recent clip of a "last flight" by a Gerrman AF pilot in a F-4F.

YouTube - Phantom F-4 - Low Pass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6LXQQKN0hQ)

[RAFEngO74to09]

More great footage found on You Tube - this time of a US ANG RF-4C.

YouTube - RF4 RightNow NOISE! RF-4 F4 Phantom F-4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmXvQqEcJZ8&feature=related)

I grew up near a USAF base in the UK at a time when the USAF had around 600 F-4C/D/E and RF-4C in USAFE alone with 72-aircraft wings at Alconbury, Bentwaters / Woodbridge, Lakenheath, Bitburg, Hahn, Spangdahlem, Torrejon and Zweibrucken, and a 24-aircraft squadron at Soesterberg. Every weekend almost every USAF F-4 unit in Germany and Spain sent landaway aircraft to the UK - unbelievable activity levels by todays standards and a great J-79 "sound of freedom" over my house.

[glad rag]

RAFENG, perhaps THE most memorial last flight I witnessed was carried out by a pilot who overflew the groundcrew soft/HPS at the northern has site leu 86-88ish.
Nothing remarkable you might think, but the rest of the days sorties had been cancelled due to the low cloudbase/clag setteling in, nothing new there you also might think, but the aircraft landed with a number of us pneumatic flight instruments and we all felt rather than heard the shock wave as it just cleared the top of the hps in the clag, going like the hounds of hell were at it's jet pipes!

The pilot was always a true gent to us groundcrew, he was of asian origin.

[Geehovah]

I'm late to this one but I'll add my "two pennorth"

The F4 isn't and never was a "dogfighter" - BCM, ACM, WIVR; call it what you will. It can cope in those environments but it depended on good front seaters and, equally good back seaters to play with the kit.

What it comes down to is how good was the weapons system at each stage of its development. My time was great. I flew the aircraft at its peak. It had been introduced to service, the engines were by then working and a few people actually knew how to fight the jet properly. The MCS serviceability was terrible until the reliability package arrived in the early 80s but that was another issue.

The key to all tactics is having a bigger "stick". If your Sparrow is longer range than your opponents Atoll and it works, you win. End of story. No fighter pilot enters a close engagement through choice - F22, F15, Su27 F3, F4.....

So lets look at maturity

Mid to late 70s. A multi role aircraft with a PD radar that gave true look down-shoot down against opponents such as the Mig 21, Mig 23 and soviet bombers. It was training against USAF F4Es, F104s and F5s. Even the USAF didn't have a PD equipped fighter and anyone who's used a pulse set at low level knows how much of a challenged that is; MTI or no. At the time the Fox 1 was discounted so the F4, despite the fact it may have already achieved a "kill", was sucked into an environment it didn't enjoy. The bad news was that despite the head-on option, quite often, ROE meant that the head on shot could not be employed so a visual ident sucked you into a turning fight. Bad news.

Early 80s. The advent of Mig 29 and Su27 (and F15/F16 as blue opponents) in RAFG meant the jet was out-performed but not necessarily out-ranged. Given decent ROE, the jet would have coped. Trouble was the lack of positive identification from the ground meant that the VID was king. VID equalled "eyeballs on" so turning fights were the order of the day. That made the Wildenrath Wing operate at 250ft every day of the week. No one was better down low - so tactics made up for ROE. If the bad guys came in higher we had the look up shot. Come up in height and the scales balanced. Come up to medium level and the fight was lost as airframe deficiencies outweighed pilot/navigator skills. Ok so I discounted the "M1.3 guns a blazin" through the fight option.

Late 80s. The jet wasn't upgraded. Sparrow was too short in range, Skyflash was better but out ranged by later "soviet" missiles. Endex. The myth that the F4 was better than the F3 was just that until the advent of medium level ops. SA was just a quantum leap forward in the F3. An art became a science.

The German F4F with APG65 and AMRAAM was an improvement but never quite matched AI24 and AMRAAM/JTIDS although J79 at height was way better than RB199.

The F3 was great once it was developed to the point when the radar did what it was supposed to do and the weapons (AMRAAM and ASRAAM) allowed JTIDS to get the aircraft into a firing position. Up to that point it was only gaining a reputation that it never really deserved given its role. It never had the charisma of the F4 though.

In short, the airframe is never the driver although F22 and Typhoon go a long way to fixing most of the problems I lived with.

[Geehovah]

And forget the detail it was just a great jet:

UK Tornado F3 Videos :: 56Handover.mp4 video by DeeGee - Photobucket (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v221/DeeGee/Aircraft/UK%20Tornado%20F3%20Videos/?action=view&current=56Handover.mp4)

[TEEEJ]

Dr Jekyll wrote,

Do the Iranians still have any in service?

Photos: McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4E/1611565/L/)

Photos: McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4E/1663533/L/)

Photos: McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4E/1775289/L/)

Photos: McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4E/1763862/L/)

Nearly 1,000 images of the Iranian air arms at the following.

Photo Search Results | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?airlinesearch=Iran%20-%20Air%20Force&distinct_entry=true)

TJ

[donk_Unregistered]

Forgive the tangent, came across this fascinating shot on airliners.net. Its almost like a parrallel universe.

Iranian 747 tanker (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Boeing-747-131(SF)/1585240/&sid=11a73ad7373d4c911988b233f1860a81)

Right, back to lurking.

[laidback]

Geehovah : I concur, this is a pretty comprehensive and accurate summation. I would add, in regard to 2 guys in an airframe such as F4 v single seat, information overload pre-merge could really screw up the single seat guys. Such a study was done at Deci mid-80s vs F15s with behavioral psychologists or similar , and F4s (F4Js)came out of different scenarios quite well, and certainly way better than the 'book' capabilities then predicted.

[ARXW]

Great thread. Found this late but...for my two pennies worth..

reg. Boyd: he hated the Phantom (" with enough power a plane may even fly sideways" etc).

Somehow he wasn't in harmony with some of the top folks at USN. He himself WAS an FWS instructor at Nellis who wrote the book (on air combat) and apparently he was considered unbeatable. A USMC Capt (Hal Vincent) is said to have fought him to a draw but not many others.

Still he got into a shouting match with Phantom God, Lt Mel Holmes (the 1st Topgun instructor who also wrote the first book on Phantom fighting in '69), as the latter thought that EM was great but it all basically boiled down to the pilot. And Holmes.. was one of those who could bend that phantom against a glider it seems...using spins to turn quicker in a slow fight etc...

Still a number of people have said that the Mig-21 was preferable and indeed a yardstick for that is in Steve Davies' book where the exceptional 4477th Red Eagle pilots would typically beat all comers on Day 1, be they F-14s, F-15s etc..All the hotshotS that have flown the Phantom said that it was at least the equal of the Mig-21 (even if some of them would have preferred the Mig-21!). Depends on version as well, as when the americans got hold of the F-4S version with the slats, that took some of the magic out of fighting the Phantom and turned it a bit more into a dogfighter...

[Mike7777777]

Why would a Phantom get into a dogfight against an agile thing? I doubt if an F16 or an F3 could catch the thing in a straight line .... could they? Provided that declining combat is regarded as a draw then the result is by no means certain, IMHO.

[frodo_monkey]

An F16 no, but an F3 I think could - although only one of those is an agile aeroplane...

[Pontius Navigator]

50k overtake is perfectly adequate provided the F4 didn't go in to the vertical.

[Geehovah]

The F4 was a bit of a rhino at 750 kts at low level. With a low wing loading, the F16 would be even worse. One thing the F3 did well was go very quickly in a straight line. With the wings back 850 kts at low level was no problem. On delivery flights from the factory (under AWFL) most of us checked out the "clean wing performance". And very impressive it was too. In contrast, the F4 broke your false teeth and made you deaf at that speed!

[just another jocky]

I suspect the F3 is quicker Block 1 & 2, but probably not 3 (unsure about that one). I once had a race with a German F4 low level over the sea whilst on TLP. He had me initially, but I overtook as we got....err....quite quick. As the F3 is faster than the GR1 (as it was then), I guess it's faster than the F4. Not that it matters.

[Canadian Break]

Ask Mr Chan!

[ARXW]

Clean F-16C: 840+ kts
Clean F-14A+/B/D: possible more
F-111 great but not sure how great, and..
they say the MIG-23 (ot sure of versions) could probably do 900kts :ok: (there wasn't much else it could do well apparently).

[LowObservable]

900 kts in a MiG-23?

Dammit, have that tickle in nose.... ah ah ah CHOO PITCH ROLL TUMBLE FIRE FIRE FIRE....

[Piggies]

Teej's fourth picture...

What's that round thing sticking out the front of the leading edge?

[Sgt.Slabber]

TISEO - Target Identification System, Electro-Optical? Was fitted on USAF and a number of export customer jets but probably something else on this operators a/c.

[AR1]

I recall a conversation with one of the Phantom crew down south, front or back seat, I can't remember, but we discussed the requirement for visual ID negating the F4's combat advantage, and it seems there was a cunning plan.

Ignore it.

[soddim]

There was a cunning plan - a telescope was mounted on the side of the fuselage but it didn't work well at all in the dark or in cloud!

[BEagle]

That was TESS - brain child of 56(F)'s very talented QWI(N). An ex-Chieftain tank (I understand) telescopic sight system fitted to the left front of the navigator's canopy structure (not the foldy-uppy bit):

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/TESS.jpg

I gather it worked well within its daylight / clear of cloud limitations and was vastly cheaper than TISEO.

[Geehovah]

The thing on the side of the Iranian F4 in TEEJ's 4th picture was just the rearview mirror. The Iranians mounted them 10 o clock and 2 o clock. We just had a single mirror at the 12 o clock.

TESS was different and was introduced by CTTO and I flew the evaluation sorties in RAFG in April 81 with a certain GC in the front. the Trial was called "Eagle Eye" - I wonder why!!!!

As you rightly say Beagle, the prototype was a chopped down tank sight and it was mounted on a metal panel which replaced the clear panel. The prototype was actually mounted on the right hand side of the aircraft. Can't recall why it was switched over to the other side. It may have been something to do with the fact the probe was on that side or it may have been my moaning about getting the nav hand controller up my nostril under G.

TESS was boresighted down the weapons line so when you put the sidewinder dot in the middle the target was in the scope. It had about 7 degrees field of view I seem to remember but memories are vague now! I recall that it was difficult ergonomically to lean over the navs hand controller with it on the right. I also remember that I spent a lot of time during those sorties in LFA3 in Germany peering down the shuftie scope. We were asked to determine detection ranges and positive ident ranges at low level overland. Closing from 20 miles into a standard hook attack, eye glued to the TESS with the world revolving in mono was an experience I didn't repeat. Somehow the F4 air conditioning couldn't quite offer enough cold air to compensate for the beads of sweat. The "bag" was close by just in case. Tactics evolved to a quick peek at the right moment.

All that said, the concept was a masterpiece of ingenuity.

[Geehovah]

Having discussed the Mig 23 handling characteristics with a test pilot who flew many hours on the jet, I can safely say that no Flogger pilot would have risked anything remotely close to 900 kts at low level. His words were he spent most of his time on the aircraft trying to prevent it from killing him. The aircraft had some very nasty handling characteristics.

Ironic as we were all paranoid about its capabilities when it sat over the border from us during the Cold War. If only we'd known.

[ARXW]

Apologies. I was wrong. From the horses mouth (one of the spooks who flew it):
If you planned to turn the plane at all, the wings were probably at 45. 72 degrees was the "go fast" position. It's top speed in knots was not all that high (730 in training, 780 in combat if needed -- again as I recall) but it could get from 500 kts to that 730 kts very quickly. (The mach limit at 72 degrees was 2.35.) With the wings at 72 degrees, the plane had very little drag. 16 degree was not very stable and we did not maneuver near the AOA limit at all. 45 degrees was better but it would depart controlled flight on you (and spin) if you exceeded the AOA limit (as I unfortunately apparently did twice on one mission). 72 degrees was pretty stable and it was almost impossible to depart in that configuration. You could bring the stick back to right around 32 units (or a little beyond) and it would just sit there and wing rock up to 20-30 degrees bank and slow down moderately quickly. I think we had about a 400 kts and 3 G limit at 16 degrees , and around 6.5 G (maybe 7 G if it was light) at 45 and 72.

Pertaining to a "what if":

It was obvious to us that the MiG-23BN was not designed with turning in mind. Most (but not all) of our OOC (Out of Control) events were in the "BN".

MiG-23 MS and Hard-wing versions of the AF F-4 (F-4C, F-4D, and F-4E) had about the same turn performance as I recall. The F-4E LES (Leading Edge Slats) had better turn performance but bled airspeed at a higher rate. All models of the F-4 gave more warning of impending loss of control (more buffet and wing rock) and the F-4 OOC usually did NOT result in spin whereas almost all MiG-23 OOC resulted in spin.

We knew that the MiG-23 MS and especially the BN were not great "dogfighters" but they were all we had. Our job was to expose the Tactical Air Forces of our Armed Services to the "then current" threat as best we could represent it in a worst case scenario. We did not try to emulate Soviet tactics but rather to show our pilots what the planes we had could do in the hands of a well trained, aggressive pilot who was very familiar with both their tactics and their planes capabilities. (We could sometimes hold our own against an F-4, but we routinely got out butts kicked by almost everything else.) We would have loved to have had the ML to fly but we didn't (we would have especially have liked to have had the High Lark radar). We would have loved to be able to fly only the MS in the air-to-air role but we didn't have enough of them to do that and generate the number of sorties we wanted to fly. So we flew both the MS and the BN air-to air

over from Steve Davies' site

[ARXW]

hold on. It seems I don't ever forget a lil' detail. Top Anorak or what! Again from the Horse's mouth:

You'll have to forgive me for not having read Steve's other books but whenever I hear about a MiG-23 being "run down", I always have to ask myself "Did he know he was being chased, or was he just crusing along at 500-600 KCAS or so with his wings swept at 45 degrees when his airplane blew up?". I know for a fact that a MiG-23MS will do in excess of 900 KCAS. That is above the published airspeed limit but that is a difference between their planes and ours. Their's will usually exceed their published airspeed limits where ours usually will not. I know of no US fighter that can run down a plane going 900 KCAS (or even 800).

[hanoijane]

I know for a fact that a MiG-23MS will do in excess of 900 KCAS.

I'm not giving anything away when I say I can confirm that statement

(we would have especially have liked to have had the High Lark radar)

If you had, plus the IRST fit, your overall opinion of the '23 may have been of a different hue...

The '23 was a capable aircraft with robust and well-integrated systems. However, it was no '21 in a turning fight.

Anyone claiming to have flown both the '21 and the F4 and claiming they'd prefer to fight even in a late model F4 is either a liar or a fool. Or an overly-optimistic American.

[Geehovah]

Anyone claiming to have flown both the '21 and the F4 and claiming they'd prefer to fight even in a late model F4 is either a liar or a fool. Or an overly-optimistic American.

Never flew in the Mig 21 but I guess the Hawk/F5 are quite similar. I'm afraid I must be in one of those categories. I would never have wanted to go to war without a head on shot available. Not wanting to get into a tadger tamping contest but we all know that what a jet is capable of doing is not necessarily what you would want to do for real. Equally, some limits are overly restrictive. The 750 kt service limit for the F3 vs the 850 kt AWFL limit is a good example.

[soddim]

Don't remember the Israelis having much of a problem with F4 v Mig 21.

In my experience the avionics in the F4 gave it such a technology edge that it more than made up for size and turning deficiencies. Add the capability of a face shot that the Mig did not have and the advantages were overwhelming. Nevertheless, any crew stupid enough to turn and burn deserved to lose - unless they knew their adversary pilot was equally inept.

[ARXW]

Anyone claiming to have flown both the '21 and the F4 and claiming they'd prefer to fight even in a late model F4 is either a liar or a fool. Or an overly-optimistic American.
John Nash (1st topgun instructor) had said that he'd have loved to take the Mig-21 to war put a tailhook on and use it in combat. But effectively it was a sports car not a great fighting machine. And he was the person evaluating it and he loved but....

a Red Eagle (few years after Smash Nash) , Paco Geisler, with 500 Mig-21 sorties (almost wall-to-wall ACM) loved the plane, defeated all teen jets with it and went out stating: "I wouldn't want myself anywhere near that thing in combat!"

You draw you own conclusion.*

The Phantom was vastly superior. OK not vastly but decisively. The Israelis in fact took the F-4 1v1 in a low speed rolling scissors, more than once against the Mig-21 defeated it...in fact they killed the Mig-21 by just flying it into the ground in an environment where the latter was supposed to be significantly superior...or not quite? Anyway, you get the point....

To go 1v1 slow against the 21, well I'd say they were either inept or supremely confident in both their abilities and in knowing/quickly assessing their enemy...;)

*The Lightning was in many respects a great MiG-21, but still a MiG-21. You'd rather go to war in the F-4. As much as I love the Lightning over and above the other 2 a/c...

[soddim]

Yes, the Israeli experience was that they could beat the Mig 21 in a low speed fight. But, when I talked to them they agreed that the Mig 21 should have fared better but was flown by inferior pilots.

[Bevo]

Having logged 1850 hrs. in the Phantom (178 combat missions in SEA from Korat Thailand and a tour at RAF Lakenheath) as well as having been operational in the F-14, F-15, and F/A-18 (Navy exchange tour with VX-4) and flight time in “other” aircraft I would like to add my bit to this discussion.

First as has been pointed out the F-4 was not designed as a fighter but rather a fleet air defense aircraft. As such its primary mission was intercepting in-bound bombers. Having said that, it did a remarkable job in the fighter role given its original design requirements. Two things relative to its performance against the Mig-21: it could indeed turn with a Mig-21 at low speeds if approach flaps deployed (a trick not normally taught or condoned at the time). The Mig-21 could not accelerate out of the slow speed situation and it was possible to actually turn in front but above the Mig-21 in a turning fight with ½ flaps as he could not get the nose up to get a shot. Secondly if you could kept the Mig-21 a bay for any length of time you would run it out of gas. There were many times when we would log only 20 minute flights if afterburner was used extensively. The other issue is the pilots that were flying the F-4 over the course of the war. With one tour of duty being the norm, some of my squadron mates in SEA were newly minted F-4 drivers coming from bombers or transports. I takes more than a 3 month course to become truly proficient as a fighter pilot. In addition, as has been mentioned also, we were unable to use the one advantage we had which was better avionics and missiles (from the fleet defense mission) because of the requirement to visually identify the target. This generally put us into a dog fight position at the start. And yes IMHO the Mig-23 was not as much of a threat as the Mig-21. Interestingly you could not move the Mig-23 wings when maneuvering above 3 g, unlike the F-14 which automatically scheduled the movement based on air data inputs and at any loading. It was fast however and could run down a B-1 doing low level ingress at 550 kts. thinking they were untouchable. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

As technology progressed the F-15 enjoyed both an aerodynamic and avionics advantage. The F-4 is close to neutrally stable at 400-500 kts. (a real credit to the demonstration teams who flew the F-4) and had a tendency to depart at high angles of attack if not handled with care. It was very interesting to see the members of USAF test pilot school classes after mine enter the school with only time in the F-15 or F-16 get into the F-4 and attempt to fly it with precision. I vividly remember my first flight in the F-15 when I was demonstrated a tail slide in the aircraft. The ease of flying the F-15 was one of the keys to allowing single pilot operation as you could concentrate on running the avionics since the aircraft was so easy to fly. In addition regardless of what some folks have said being in a Mig-21 (or F-4 for that matter) “snug in the metal cockpit with mirrors to cover six” is not preferable to the visibility and panoramic view from the F-15 or F/A-18 when the enemy is within visual range. And the 1/8 inch metal isn’t going to stop any projectile.

Combat tactics moved on as the F-15 entered service. Although we still enjoyed doing one-v-one dog fighting it became obvious, as Red Flag pointed out, that “shooting the boggy in the face” was the best approach to arriving home alive. The focus became using the avionics (and other systems) to obtain an ID on the boggy. The whole idea was not to get into a turning engagement as this tended to attract unwanted attention like flies to s__t.

Now on to the F-22 and the next technology, stealth. Without getting into this area too deeply it is the next evolution in shooting the boggy in the face. It becomes dueling radars and dueling missiles - who can get situational awareness first and who can get off the first effective shot at the longest range. Sensor integration is the name of the game. The number of missiles matters as quantity has a quality of its own. And an IRST is of great value for that additional passive information it provides. It is still tremendously maneuverable if it has to but that is not the preferred method of employment.

Next up - high power lasers and unmanned fighters but that’s for another thread.

So even if you could afford to upgrade an F-4 with modern avionics you still would have the aerodynamics of the basic platform and the visibility of the basic platform. In addition, you would have to up-grade the ECS and other system to provide the liquid cooling and electrical power required for the avionics and you would still have the maintenance issues (believe me the F-4 was not designed to be nearly as supportable as current fighters). I enjoyed flying the Phantom but if I had to go to war today please put me in an F-15 or F-22 regardless of what avionics you put in the F-4

[RetiredF4]

Bevo
Excellent post and summery!

i logged over 3.000 hours in the Phantom, 1.100 in the F4F and the rest in the RF-4E. I enjoyed every second of them.

Until 1983 flown by a well trained crew and using fluid two tactics we could score against far better single piloted fighters also in a dog fight. The internal M-61 cannon was very helpful. If a tracking solution could not be acchieved, a high deflection gunshot had to do. If we knew the capabilities of our potential adversaries, we used applicable tactics against them.

During NATO Tac-Eval in 1981 we got 3 kills out of a fourship F15, who had been waiting on us in the target area, without taking one single shot on my fourship. During debrief a frustrated LtCol told the audience, that he couldn´t understand, how it happened.

franzl

[Geehovah]

Good summaries but it might be timely to remind everyone that not all F4s were equal in the air to air arena.

In the 70s, the F4Es (USAF main fighter at the time) had pulse radars. Only the USN F4J had the pulse doppler radar (PD) and most guys who flew it admitted that it was U/S more than it was S. Only the UK versions had genuine working PD AWG 10/12s at the time which gave a viable look down shoot down, particularly below 5000 ft. Even then the serviceability was dreadful until the transmitter mods.

Only later when the F4F received the APG 65 and AMRAAM was the jet able to match the 3rd gen fighters but by then the UK jets had all but retired.

[hanoijane]

To use non-technical expressions for all the aeromodelers on here claiming to be pilots, the Hawk is smooth, lovely and swoopy. The '21 is rough, pointy and bumpy. As for the F5, it's an interesting design, beautifully finished and very neat internally. But in the air it lacks something. I think it's called 'balls'.

Like all highly capable aeroplanes, the '21 is very difficult to fly excellently, hence its shocking record in the hands of our cousins in the Middle East. Sadly, they couldn't even use the systems properly, far less fly the thing. The places where a '21 really excels are on the outer edges of its flight envelope and that's where it will live in the hands of a half decent pilot.

No-one thinks a thin aluminium skin going to protect them from nasty flying objects. It's a psychological issue; about where you feel you belong; about having the aeroplane wrapped around you While I think (though can't confirm) that the view from the cockpit of an F15, 16, et al., must be just glorious as you swan around the sunny skies of Nevada, it's not where I'd want to put myself when things get iffy.

Having enjoyed a ride in an F4 I can honestly say I like the giant lump. It seems like a honest machine. I'm certainly not qualified to offer an opinion on its systems, but they too appeared 'competent'. However, as so many others have pointed out, it's not a fighter in the strictest sense of the word and it never was a true competitor for the Mig 21. But an early '80's '21 vs an early '80's Lightning? Golly, that would have been a giggle....

Anyway, we're all old now and arguing pointlessly over things past. As we're a few days into - for us - the Year of the Cat, I'd like to wish you all 'Chuc mung nam moi!' Happy New Year!

[Bevo]

During the early1970s I, while stationed at RAF Lakenheath flying Phantoms, I got the opportunity for one flight in the Lightning at RAF Coltishall. This was of course a two seat version and unfortunately I don’t remember the assigned squadron. The thing I remember most was the excellent handling qualities of the aircraft compared to the Phantom especially in pitch. A very shot legged aircraft, however, and it seemed like we were out of gas just after we got airborne. This led to the reputation that Coltishall had among our pilots as a great place to divert to when the weather was really nasty as the GCA lads there were outstanding in their craft. We assumed that was because the Lightings were always short on fuel and couldn’t make very many missed approaches.