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.......

MTOW
 

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.

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:

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:

GPWP! :ok:

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

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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

US Air Losses over the Nam
 

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.....................

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.

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

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!