Fastest real fighter

[421dog]

After extensive discussion with multiple FJ types, (and with a lot of hours, but no FJ Cred at all personally)
i’m given to understand that the F4 was the fastest and most capable platform ever in the usaf/nato inventory. Interested in opinions with legitimate information.
Asking for a high-time aviation organization....

[Gordon Brown]

Yep. That's why it's still on the Front Line.

[Ascend Charlie]

Most capable? It didn't even have a gun when it was designed.

[421dog]

Just asking, burro.

[421dog]

I can land a 402 full of cancelled checks with 1550# of ice, but Ivan in a MiG Trainer or even an upset YAK is gonna ruin my day at this point. I’m just looking for actual guidance.

[MAINJAFAD]

After extensive discussion with multiple FJ types, (and with a lot of hours, but no FJ Cred at all personally)
i’m given to understand that the F4 was the fastest and most capable platform ever in the usaf/nato inventory. Interested in opinions with legitimate information.
Asking for a high-time aviation organization....

Pilot Notes for the USAF F-4C / F-4D / F-4F are on the internet if you care to look for them. They show the various external stores fits and their airspeed / "G" limits that they impose on the aircraft for both carriage and release / jettersion. The Top Trumps figures compared with other aircraft of its era are impressive (find pilots notes for the other aircraft from its era for valid figures for comparison), but take into account things like ease of maintenance, ease of operation and reliability of weapon systems (which for the early Sparrow and Sidewinders was not good). The Reliability of the later AIM-7E and AIM-9G/L in firing trials can be found in RAF Central Tactics and Trials Organisation files on the subject found in the UK National Archives.

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=phantom+reports&_ps=60&_p=1950&_hb=tna&_srt=4&_d=DEFE&_d=AIR&_d=AVIA&_d=ADM&_d=DSIR

Unfortunately thanks to Covid, they are shut at the minute.

USAF pilot notes below.

https://www.usaf-sig.org/index.php/references/downloads/category/51-f-4-phantom-ii-mcdonnell-douglas?download=225:t-o-1f-4c-1-flight-manual-f-4c-f-4d-f-4e-01-10-1970

[4runner]

It could land on an aircraft carrier too. The Brits begrudgingly took some and it’s still in use today.

[Bob Viking]

Are you asking if the F4 was the best aircraft of it’s era or if it is the best aircraft to have ever served?

If it is the latter then ask yourself this. Why was it taken out of service with the USAF several decades ago?

Take any metric you like and you will likely find that the F4 does not beat any of the modern USAF inventory. Maybe it can sneak the F16 on payload or range (I haven’t checked) but the F16 will destroy it in BFM (there’s a great picture of an F16 vs F4 in a rate fight with smoke trails to illustrate the point).

BV

[gums]

Salute!

Actchally my dear Royalists, I think you will find the colonist's F-106 was likely fastest fighter, and I do not count the YF-12 vehicles, as nothing has come close to them since 1967 b. ut they couldn't "fight".

The Six could turn with the best of them and if chasing down a Bison could get to M2.5 The Zipper, aka 104, was about the same and we have war stories of them cruising at 70K from here to Homestead. Personal contacts upon request.

The Zipper was a rocket, but couldn't turn well once slow. The Six could turn like anything in the air, but lost energy a bit more than you want. It was still the best Air Defense Command close fighter that existed in my days back then ( 66 to 70's). The Duece could also do the "bat turn", but didn't have the big motor like the Six to regain energy. Trust me, nose-pointing capability is great. You just have to trade off with the energy game.

For flat out speed nowadays I would take the F-22 at 60K.

Gums opines....

[421dog]

Truthfully the issue came up as a squid question, and I was tasked with providing some actual data. From some literature provided by an associate, the F-4 was promulgated as having a higher sustainable Mach speed than any comparable craft with a similar air to air, or air to mud weapon capacity.
Again, I’m on the outside looking in, and a bunch of these guys flew under Jesus nuts.
I really appreciate the perspective being provided. Thank you all.

[ORAC]

the F-4 was promulgated as having a higher sustainable Mach speed than any comparable craft with a similar air to air, or air to mud weapon capacity.
That makes it a debate rather than a question answerable by data - I could claim the B-52 as the winner. Also state the height.

In Vietnam the Thud had the reputation as the rocket ship whilst carrying a payload. The F-4 isn’t that fast once you hang a couple of tanks, pylons and weapons on it. In UK AD, in usual configuration, I doubt I ever saw one go much over 600kts.

At low level I’ve controlled F-3s chasing down F-111s and B-1s well in excess of 700kts - to the shock of the bomber crews as they rocketed past...

At altitude I’ve seen a Lightning chase down a Mirage-IV which was doing M2+. But the Lightning could only hack it for a few minutes for the intercept, whilst the Mirage was cruising. And I doubt they had the throttle to the firewall.

[galaxy flyer]

A friend used to tell of coming off a target in NVN, now clean in a F-4D, doing about 720 KIAS, engine HI TEMP lights on, and a Thud joins up with the speed brakes out.

[Dominator2]

The Tornado F3 could make 800kts IAS at low level prior to limitations being introduced! Possibly the fastest, however not a "real fighter".

BV, For your interest the F4 could compete for many years against many newer fighters.

In the early F4 days I saw 790kts in a F4M at low level. 750kts was the limit with wing tanks but luckily they stayed on. A typical JP error when being over enthusiastic!
In later years in RAF service the engines were detuned and thrust decreased by up to 15%!!

At Seymour Johnson in 1984 they had the Block 48 upgraded F4s to ARN-101 standards, the ASN-63 inertial navigation system, the ASQ-91 weapons release computer, and the ASN-46A analog navigation computer set were deleted. The ASG-26 lead computing optical gunsight was improved and made easier to use, with weapons control switches and displays made easier to read. Basically as a "bomb truck" a 2 seat F16 with far better range and load capability.

[OK465]

GF,

The F-105 speedbrakes were two of the AB nozzle petals and you had to be out of AB to use 'em. So if you did run down an F-4D at 720k, when you put out the 'boards' you could be sure you weren't going to stay with him very much longer. OTOH....

....In the waning days of the F-105, just for old times grins, we TIK guys in our F-4Ds did a couple of weekend days of rat-racing with the FWH F-105s at low altitude on the Hill ranges. I could pass an F-105 head on, make the turn and run him down in the Phantom. However to be fair, we were clean and they had a CL fuel tank and were the hump-back LORAN birds.

F-4 max Q was 750, F-105 was 800, and I think F-111 was even higher. Have seen 750 in an F-4, never saw 800 in an F-105, best I recall was around 650. However, they were old and tired then. If you count the MiG-23 as a USAF aircraft :}, evidently they were pretty quick.

[Big Pistons Forever]

In terms of pure straight line speed, I think the high water mark is still the 104

[gums]

Salute!

Good times, back then, Okie!

Our Thud buddies at Hill musta had the faster birds, as we had one guy try to run one down and he gave up after getting to 740 KIAS and that big beast was still moving out. We always liked their quotes in a mission briefing - "we like to go in at 600 knots and then come out fast!"

I always thot my trusty VooDoo was 800 KIAS placard, but docs show 700 KIAS. All I know is the thing accelerated better than the Viper going thru the mach. AB climb schedule was .85M or so until 20K, then bunt over and get to 1.3M and on up to 50,000 feet. We would never get to level before getting supersonic and then to 1.3M, and then up we went with the rate of climb meter pegged. 2 minutes from a standing start. My God, I was just a 23 yr old nugget. Our rule of thumb was mil power takeoff once the calculated burner roll was under 2,000 feet!!!! Grand Forks got really cold, so our density altitude was quite low, and they picked that place for the Streak Eagle climb records years later.

Gums recalls.....

[ex-fast-jets]

No fighter could go backwards faster than a Harrier.............

[OK465]

No fighter could go backwards faster than a Harrier.............

That's not what the F-8 guys say. :}

Tail slides and various departures probably beat the Harrier.....but not as a desirable option, and only temporarily if one was lucky.

[BVRAAM]

Haha, well played for saying "real fighter" to cut the Tornado F3 out of the discussion.

I'm going to sit in a corner and cry.

Coolest jet ever. :cool:

[tdracer]

Salute!

Actchally my dear Royalists, I think you will find the colonist's F-106 was likely fastest fighter, and I do not count the YF-12 vehicles, as nothing has come close to them since 1967 b. ut they couldn't "fight".


Gums, my understanding (according to an Air Force guy I went to college with) was that the YF-12 was originally envisioned as an interceptor/fighter. However it quickly became apparent that - as an interceptor - it really wasn't practical since you need to get the bad guy on the first pass or it would take two states to turn around and make another go, buy which time they'd probably have already hit the target and were on their way home...

[MAINJAFAD]

In terms of pure straight line speed, I think the high water mark is still the 104

750 KIAS or Mach 2 or Engine Compressor Inlet Temperature of 121 Degrees C up to 35,000 feet (whichever is first) according to the Flight Manual for the F-104S

At 45000 feet, Mach 2.2 or CIT of 153 Degrees C (whichever is reach first) as long as CIT is not above 121 Degrees for more than 5 minutes in any one flight.

This is for an aircraft clean of external stores.

The figures for the F-4D were about the same for a Clean aircraft plus 4 Sparrow up to 30,000 feet, but the Mach number could reach 2.3 for 5 minutes with the Hi temp light lit in any one flight.above 30,000 feet.

The 1972 edition of the F-106 manual states airspeed limits of Mach 2 / 752 KIAS / Maximum Stagnation Temperature of 249 F (which I assume is the same as CIT), with drop tanks.

[etudiant]

Has speed ever been a critical element in practice for these aircraft? Apart from the F-106, there has been considerable combat experience for most of these, so perhaps someone could enlighten us.

[gums]

Salute!

Ask the Thud drivers I flew with up north 50 years ago about speed. Only time I had to go fast in my VooDoo was chasing down a B-58 one night during a big ADC/SAC exercise.. Sucker was zipping along at approx 0.95M at 35 or 40 K and I had to go supersonic to close for my shot. ORAC can tell you about a poor intercept geometry. I don't think the controller realized how fast the Hustler was going or we would have had a beam shot versus classic stern with 50 kt overtake.

Secondly, the Double Uglies burned gas like you would not believe. They even had something called "abort fuel" if there was a delay getting off the ground. They had to get gas going in and coming out and had very little play time if other folks were in the tgt area on our CAS and direct support missions for the grunts.

Gums sends...

[A_Van]

.....If you count the MiG-23 as a USAF aircraft :}, evidently they were pretty quick.

You probably meant MiG-25, not -23, didn't you?
25 had max speed of about 3000 km/hr (2.83 M), while 23 had 2500 only (2.35M).

As for MiG-23 in US, about a dozen of them came from Egypt and AFAIK they were used by 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron (Red Eagles) in 80's.

[OK465]

It was just an offhanded comment about the 23s you mention. :)

USAF never got any MiG-25s, at least not for keeps.....just one pilot.

And realistically of course, those high Machs achievable by a number of fighters at high altitude have limited practical use. After a long fuel burning climb, the run from 1.1 or so to 2.0 in a clean F-4 took somewhere around roughly 5-6 minutes in AB on a good day, and 100+ miles of non-maneuvering flight, and resulted in about half the fuel remaining that you started the run with. With this amount of fuel left you'd better be reasonably close to an airfield....or a tanker.

[Stuff]

USAF never got any MiG-25s, at least not for keeps.....just one pilot.

They got most of one!

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196331/mikoyan-gurevich-mig-25/

[ORAC]

Estonia has got one in their aviation museum, along with an F-4, F-104, Mig-23 etc etc.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1258x839/img00211_46a42f1cea581bfb08e6e9aad0dba42f78bd806d.jpghttps://www.sightraider.com/the-estonian-aviation-museum/#jp-carousel-9552

[sandiego89]

Truthfully the issue came up as a squid question, and I was tasked with providing some actual data. From some literature provided by an associate, the F-4 was promulgated as having a higher sustainable Mach speed than any comparable craft with a similar air to air, or air to mud weapon capacity.
Again, I’m on the outside looking in, and a bunch of these guys flew under Jesus nuts.
I really appreciate the perspective being provided. Thank you all.

As "best" can usually never be resolved in any debate with lots of opinions, a perspective you might want to consider is what was a particular airframe good at? Think poor, average, good enough, great, and excellent when thinking about different qualities of fighters and interceptors. What did they excel at? Speed, maneuverability (dogfighting), payload, sensors, weapons systems, range, adaptability (multi-use) etc. Stealth as a new wrinkle. Few are excellent at everything, some are excellent at only one thig....Lets try a few:

F-104: blistering speed, average to poor at everything else. A point based interceptor. MiG-21, MiG-23 similar.
EE Lightning: excellent top speed and climb. Maneuverable. Awful range/endurance. Missiles/systems sub par. a "one trick pony" (standing by for incoming)
Mirage III: great performance, limited payload, limited avionics.
F-105: Excellent top speed, especially down low. Excellent payload. Capable enough as a fighter but really a penetrator (designed for nuclear delivery)
F-106: high speed (single engine record.) Good enough maneuverability. Falcon missiles sub-par.
MiG-25: excellent top speed. Not a dog fighter.
F-4: high speed (especially clean), perhaps not excellent at anything, but definitely good enough at about anything else (and great in a few like payload) Very versatile and "good enough" interceptor, fighter, bomb truck, carrier capable in some versions, recce...)
F-22: Excellent in many categories. Very expensive.
F-35: perhaps the next "good enough" aircraft?
F-5: great (visual) dog fighter, average otherwise.
F-14: great in a few categories, and matured. Very capable avionics/weapons for the day. Early engine problems, big, expensive.
F-16: great in a few categories, and vastly matured with avionic upgrades and versatility.
Tornado ADV: Acceptable performance (and fine for a bomber interceptor) . Good avionics/weapons. Boring

etc etc.

[unmanned_droid]

The Su-15 might well have been up there. But, as a fighter or interceptor I'd say the MiG-31 takes the prize.

[ORAC]

S89,

I note you omitted the F15C and F-15E from your list.

p.s. For its day the Lightning AI-23 was far above average. 60nm mile range and a HOJ mode.

[ancientaviator62]

ORAC,
but the Lightning had a very poor weapons load and the ones I worked on (92) were a nightmare to keep serviceable.

[57mm]

At Deci, we cranked up our F4M to 810KCAS at 5000ft in order to successfully outrun an Aggressor F5 engaging us. The F5 driver went by the name of Dil Deaux......

[421dog]

Dil Deuex....
precious.
thank you guys for your ongoing input, it is invaluable.

[OK465]

Why would anyone run from a good fight with an F-5?

[Evalu8ter]

‘Why would anyone run from a good fight with an F-5?” - Getting ready to convert to the F3?