The F4 vs Modern Fighters
 

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).

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.

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...

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:)

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.

PN
 

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.

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$$.

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.

Phantom vs Herc?

Where the hell is the dining table in a fighter?

Pur-lese.

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".....

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

BigGreenGobble-de-gook

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

The B Word

BGG,

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

FB:)

Hey Gilbo

Is your picture amongst these?

http://thedesperateblogger.files.wor...vel-shirt.jpeg

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.

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

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?

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.

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.