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.

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!