BF2S Forums Real world Facts: F4B Phantom II

FYI - The U.S. REMF Think-Tank thought guided missiles were going to replace the gun. With a mixture of long and medium range missiles, pilots change engage any target past visual range before the enemy could use their guns. Since pilots can engage targets past visual range there was no need for a fighter plane to be maneuverable. The F-4 was a missile platform: It flies straight and able to carry a large variety of missiles.
It was a bold direction the REMFs envisioned but didn't work out to it's full potential.

If all of the missiles worked 100 out of 100, then the gun would of been a thing in the past for sure.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I was wondering if you were going to bring that up. Now you're looking at multi-role performance, not just dogfighting. You're changing the argument, and not in your favor. The F-4 was fucking exquisite as a bombing platform, particularly with the introduction of PGMs, since it had the backseater. In fact, the first use of the LGB was by the F-4 in Vietnam.

I know it is not in my favor, but the point is accuracy. Though I am not really changing the argument either, you are the one that implied I was only talking about its dogfighting ability because I was pointing out its flaws. No reason to mention something it did sufficiently.

Of course being a bombing platform isn't entirely difficult. You fly real fast, have the ability to be really heavy so you can carry lots of bombs, be able to be even heavier so you can carry two people instead of one...oh wait that's exactly what the Phantom does, at the expense of maneuverability.

Oh wait...the F-16 and F-15 are both excellent bombing platforms as well. Shit, so is the F-22. Aw, fuck. Your argument sucks.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It didn't fly like a brick.

It looked like a fucking brick. With wings. And big engines.

Aesthetics =/= performance.

Learn the difference.

I do not care at all about aesthetics. What I cannot possibly comprehend is the level of bullshit it takes to say aviators use the word "brick" to describe an ugly plane, not a plane with poor performance as it is used here in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Can you give me one other person that uses the term like that?

FFS, dude. I'm telling you the saying and its connotation among the crowd who developed it and flew the fucking jet. It really doesn't matter if you can comprehend it or not. It just is.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

OK. So it was "very communicative and easy to fly on the edge of its performance envelope" but "was subject to irrecoverable spins during aileron rolls" due to "adverse yaw during hard maneuvering". All of which the pilots would be trained to deal with when learning to fly and employ. And again, was not considered an issue if you look at the original employment concept for the F-4 for which it was designed, which was to take on large bomber formations.

The bolded part is why the F-4 was not a military engineering success. The role it was designed for was flawed, and made for severe miscalculations in the design requirements. The lack of an internal gun is just one example of such a flaw - that one was fairly easily rectified yes, but it demonstrates a mode of thinking that permeated the design of the airplane. It would be great if the primary use was for large bombing formations, with air to air encounters handled by tracking missiles that actually worked, but in practice those strengths were not as valuable as were first thought to be. The F-4 was essentially doomed from becoming anything more than sufficient from the start.

The failures of the F-4 have nothing to do with the failures of other aircraft. The aircraft was designed for a circumstance that didn't happen.

Yet it still succeeded greatly in missions for which it wasn't originally designed. That tells me (and pretty much everyone in the aviation community, btw) that it was a well-designed, all-around great aircraft. You throw out these platitudes that simply aren't backed up by data, FM. The facts are that the aircraft had a 2-3:1 air-to-air kill ratio, is an excellent bombing platform, excelled at the SEAD mission, is still in use by many AFs nearly 50 years later, and had to be replaced by at least two separate aircraft (F-14/15 and F-16/18) in each US service to get the same job(s) done. And you claim it was nothing more than "sufficient"?

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Did you have something to say about wing loading? Because if you did, you must've forgotten to post it.

You asked what I meant by "...the obvious emphasis even from just looking at the chassis of thrust over wing surface area that would have let it be a solid fighter...". I meant wing loading.

(in standard because we aren't dirty commies)
Wing loading of F-4: 78 lb/ft²
Wing loading of MiG-19: 61.6 lb/ft²

A huge contribution to why the F-4 wasn't anywhere near as agile as it's MiG counterparts. The 21 was heavier than the 19...but that's exactly why a lot of their pilots preferred the 19.

A lot of the commie pilots preferred the 17 as well, due to its higher maneuverability at low speed. But every fighter pilot will tell you "speed is life". Maneuverability is good, but speed = energy. Energy gives you options. Maneuvers bleed off energy. Power gives you energy back.

Wing loading of F-15: 73.1 lb/ft²
Wing loading of F-16: 88.3 lb/ft²
Wing loading of F-22: 77 lb/ft²
Wing loading of MiG-29: 90.5 lb/ft²
Wing loading of Su-27: 76 lb/ft²

Compare those numbers to your MiG-19 and try to tell me that its lower wing loading makes it a better fighter than any of those. It doesn't even make it more maneuverable. There is more than one characteristic to any given aircraft. They are called weapon systems for a reason.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

wikipedia wrote:

All in all, the Phantom set 16 world records. With the exception of Skyburner, all records were achieved in unmodified production aircraft. Five of the speed records remained unbeaten until the F-15 Eagle appeared in 1975.

Nope. I guess it didn't.

Ohhh wooooooow, it set 16 speed and altitude records. "That's a pretty impressive, kid" the SR-71 chuckles.

Seriously, Skunk Works made and introduced into service a fucking Blackbird 4 years after the F-4 did the same. Two different aircraft to be sure. The engineers at Skunk Works still make the people that designed the F-4 look like retards.

No doubt. But the SR-71 wasn't a front-line fighter built by the thousands. And I'm not going to knock the SR in any way. If you want to talk engineering marvel, that one is truly one, hands-down.

The point that you tried to dodge, however, is that the F-4 set key performance records that were in place until the F-15 broke them. But apparently, it was just a hunk of junk? Doesn't mesh.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No, it's not. It's saying you want the plane that's best for the job. That's saying you want the F-15E over the F-22. And maybe you DO want the F-16 over the F-22 for a given mission. There are plenty that the Raptor is not suited to.

I'm not saying the F-4 is the kind of kings today. Never even implied it. It is clearly obsolete today. You, however, said it was shit then. That is where you are wrong and where our opinions clearly differ. And where the facts leave you far, far behind.

If being not nearly expensive/numerous/expendable is a mission, sure. Or does the Air Force officer want to provide an example?

What, so was it an amazing craft then? King of kings? My first response to you sums it up best:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Considering the amount of money we have dumped into defense spending during and after WWII, it would be a travesty if it wasn't [better than just about everything else, for it's time].

I'm just saying this wasn't exactly our finest moment in engineering.

Your first response does sum up your lack of knowledge on the subject rather well, no doubt. Which has certainly been reinforced by your continued engagement throughout this thread. But we can keep doing this.

The F-22 is an air superiority fighter. That's what it was designed to do. Its air-ground capability is an add-on thing, not a core function. The only air-ground munition it can drop is a 1000-lb JDAM. Both the F-16 and F-15E can drop a wide variety of A-G ordnance, while carrying just as many air-to-air missiles as the Raptor. However, in a dense air threat environment, they would need something like the Raptor to escort them, as their maneuverability would be greatly decreased due to all the A-G ordnance they would be carrying. Bottomline: If you need to hit a ground target with something other than a 1000-lb JDAM, you need something other than a Raptor to do it. Hence, there are gobs of missions to which it is not suited--because it was not designed for that. QED. Next question.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Viper has less range, payload, avionics, one less crewmember to deal with the EW aspect, can't take the same amount of damage, isn't as fast...shall I continue?

Interesting that you--with all your aerospace engineering and aviation experience--think that. Perhaps you should submit a white paper or something.

Besides

FEOS wrote:

avionics

bullshit

The F-16 was designed to be a cheaper supplement to the Eagle yes?

Are you claiming the F-16 has as good/better avionics for the WW mission than the F-4G did? Seriously? I'll go with the guys who operated both aircraft over your opinion, mkay?

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That's pretty much what I've been doing the last several days. And it's getting kind of old, tbh.

Don't you have a philosophy class to get to? Because I have a USAF squadron to go direct the operations of.

Oh yes your squadron of Phatom IIs...oh wait no we haven't used those in 20 years.

I know it's kind of like an unwritten rule that you have to give a reach-around to past and present military hardware, but just ignoring the flaws is a bit silly.

Actually, they haven't been used in about...oh, wait, they are still used today. In fact, there was a QF-4 on the flight line not three weeks ago.

The bottomline of my comment was this: You know not of which you speak. I, on the other hand, do. I can go today and quiz half a dozen F-4 jockeys on any number of topics regarding their aircraft. Get information direct from the horse's mouth on how the aircrews that flew the thing felt about it. How about you? Get much opportunity to do that in philosophy class?

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ever? Or during a given era?

The era of jet-powered flight. Judged against the scientific advances of the time (but not necessarily against other craft of the time).

Why would we start using that criteria? You certainly haven't applied that WRT the F-4.

FEOS wrote:

Oh wait...the F-16 and F-15 are both excellent bombing platforms as well. Shit, so is the F-22. Aw, fuck. Your argument sucks.

They aren't as good of bombing platforms as they could be if they were essentially dedicated bombers, designed with the goals the F-4 was designed for.

See that's the thing, in the generations after the F-4 we had the technology and engineering capability to make multi-role aircraft that did both more than sufficiently. They can carry the munitions to make them effective at the ground attack missions the military needs them to fulfill, and they can do more than hold their own against other fighters in the air.

At the time of designing the F-4 we could do one or the other, and we picked wrong. It could have done better the other way around.

FEOS wrote:

FFS, dude. I'm telling you the saying and its connotation among the crowd who developed it and flew the fucking jet. It really doesn't matter if you can comprehend it or not. It just is.

You don't know anyone who developed it.

Frankly I think you used the term as it makes sense for it to be used in the first place, and now you're just turning back on it. Had we not delved into this so deeply I never would have had the slightest idea as to what you really meant by what you said. What I had already quoted had the line "triumph of thrust over aerodynamics" and you said "Proof that with large enough engines, even a brick can fly." Christ how could you expect anyone to know those statements are not equivalent? At the very least a gross misuse of jargon on an internet forum where clearly no one would know what you are trying to say.

FEOS wrote:

Yet it still succeeded greatly in missions for which it wasn't originally designed. That tells me (and pretty much everyone in the aviation community, btw) that it was a well-designed, all-around great aircraft. You throw out these platitudes that simply aren't backed up by data, FM. The facts are that the aircraft had a 2-3:1 air-to-air kill ratio, is an excellent bombing platform, excelled at the SEAD mission, is still in use by many AFs nearly 50 years later, and had to be replaced by at least two separate aircraft (F-14/15 and F-16/18) in each US service to get the same job(s) done. And you claim it was nothing more than "sufficient"?

What, compared to the 10.1:1 RAIMUS claimed for Korea? It was designed without any of the usual provisions for dog fighting except raw power, and as a result it was misused by our pilots in those situations. Are you saying that if they had known the outcome 20 years later, they would have designed the same craft (albeit with an internal gun put in up front)?

I don't know why you keep bringing up how it is used by other nations. People still shit in dirt holes, and you're acting like it's amazing some are still using a jet powered warplane.

You know damn well the F-4 was replaced by pairs of aircraft so they could fulfill different roles - cheaper interceptors and bigger air superiority/ground attack platforms.

FEOS wrote:

A lot of the commie pilots preferred the 17 as well, due to its higher maneuverability at low speed. But every fighter pilot will tell you "speed is life". Maneuverability is good, but speed = energy. Energy gives you options. Maneuvers bleed off energy. Power gives you energy back.

Wing loading of F-15: 73.1 lb/ft²
Wing loading of F-16: 88.3 lb/ft²
Wing loading of F-22: 77 lb/ft²
Wing loading of MiG-29: 90.5 lb/ft²
Wing loading of Su-27: 76 lb/ft²

Compare those numbers to your MiG-19 and try to tell me that its lower wing loading makes it a better fighter than any of those. It doesn't even make it more maneuverable. There is more than one characteristic to any given aircraft. They are called weapon systems for a reason.

Speed is very important. Of course, there is a reason pilots fly planes and not rockets.

Let's look at the F-15, essentially the fighter that replaced the F-4. You can see the difference in surface area.





The aircraft are essentially the same length, and have comparable thrust.

The F-4 empty weighs 30,328 lb, with a wing area of 530 square feet.

The F-15 empty weighs 28,000 lb, with a wing area of 608 square feet.

Why would they have done this? The F-15 has afterburner granted, but why would they have made it lighter and even more wing area if the F-4 was already a maneuverable plane? Those aspects could have been reduced to make the plane even faster.

Engineering is about trade-offs. The F-4 is way at one end of the scale.

FEOS wrote:

No doubt. But the SR-71 wasn't a front-line fighter built by the thousands. And I'm not going to knock the SR in any way. If you want to talk engineering marvel, that one is truly one, hands-down.

The point that you tried to dodge, however, is that the F-4 set key performance records that were in place until the F-15 broke them. But apparently, it was just a hunk of junk? Doesn't mesh.

A small note about what I was saying about SR-71, it could have beat those speed records with one hand behind it's back well before the F-15 did. I assume it didn't for secrecy reasons. But I don't want to soil the Blackbird with this discussion either so I'll leave it at that.

The F-4 set go really fast records. I dunno if they have turning radius records, but I don't think the F-4 would have won any of those.

I am not disputing that the F-4 went really fast. My issue is unless you are making something that is going absolutely insane speeds, it's not a feat of engineering unless it has the whole package.

FEOS wrote:

Your first response does sum up your lack of knowledge on the subject rather well, no doubt. Which has certainly been reinforced by your continued engagement throughout this thread. But we can keep doing this.

The F-22 is an air superiority fighter. That's what it was designed to do. Its air-ground capability is an add-on thing, not a core function. The only air-ground munition it can drop is a 1000-lb JDAM. Both the F-16 and F-15E can drop a wide variety of A-G ordnance, while carrying just as many air-to-air missiles as the Raptor. However, in a dense air threat environment, they would need something like the Raptor to escort them, as their maneuverability would be greatly decreased due to all the A-G ordnance they would be carrying. Bottomline: If you need to hit a ground target with something other than a 1000-lb JDAM, you need something other than a Raptor to do it. Hence, there are gobs of missions to which it is not suited--because it was not designed for that. QED. Next question.

Of course, it can drop other things too. But whatever.

I included numbers in my list. Why send an Eagle when you could send 10 Raptors? If cost was no object there is little reason to. No the F-22 can't drop a daisy cutter, but then how many times do we actually need one of those these days? JDAMs are the best thing since sliced bread for the type of war we're fighting today. Now it doesn't carry a 2000 pound JDAM, but I would imagine they would configure the hard points to carry that should the need arise.

FEOS wrote:

Are you claiming the F-16 has as good/better avionics for the WW mission than the F-4G did? Seriously? I'll go with the guys who operated both aircraft over your opinion, mkay?

Oh now it's a F-4G lol. Well sure if you stick the most modern avionics in a Phantom then it is has better avionics than what went into the F-16 the day it was made. How that has anything to do with what a marvel the F-4 was back in the day, I have no idea.

You ignored:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The F-16 was designed to be a cheaper supplement to the Eagle yes?

FEOS wrote:

Actually, they haven't been used in about...oh, wait, they are still used today. In fact, there was a QF-4 on the flight line not three weeks ago.

What for?

FEOS wrote:

The bottomline of my comment was this: You know not of which you speak. I, on the other hand, do. I can go today and quiz half a dozen F-4 jockeys on any number of topics regarding their aircraft. Get information direct from the horse's mouth on how the aircrews that flew the thing felt about it. How about you? Get much opportunity to do that in philosophy class?

Go ask those F-4 jockeys to out-turn something. Stick a skilled pilot in a MiG-19 and one in an era F-4 and see what happens. Much less the aircraft of today that you keep claiming it stands up against so well.

FEOS wrote:

Why would we start using that criteria? You certainly haven't applied that WRT the F-4.

That is exactly the kind of criteria I use to define a feat of engineering.

Why is this so hard? Just do it.

This is so sad.

a 15 year old know-it-all versus an ex Air Force pilot...

Yeah FM I don't know if you realize this but the whole forum is laughing at you for being a wanabe Air Force General. We expect this copy+paste, wiki source behavior from War Man/Shifty/Ioan92. You disappoint me son.

lol

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Oh wait...the F-16 and F-15 are both excellent bombing platforms as well. Shit, so is the F-22. Aw, fuck. Your argument sucks.

They aren't as good of bombing platforms as they could be if they were essentially dedicated bombers, designed with the goals the F-4 was designed for.

See that's the thing, in the generations after the F-4 we had the technology and engineering capability to make multi-role aircraft that did both more than sufficiently. They can carry the munitions to make them effective at the ground attack missions the military needs them to fulfill, and they can do more than hold their own against other fighters in the air.

At the time of designing the F-4 we could do one or the other, and we picked wrong. It could have done better the other way around.

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

The F-16 gets scoffed at by everyone except the F-16 community when anyone says it performs CAS. It has neither the range nor the payload to perform the function adequately in comparison to any other platform...to include the F-4 when it was still in service. The Viper is good for one pass, but then it's winchester or bingo or both. Any other platform has the legs and ammo to stick around.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FFS, dude. I'm telling you the saying and its connotation among the crowd who developed it and flew the fucking jet. It really doesn't matter if you can comprehend it or not. It just is.

You don't know anyone who developed it.

You have no idea who I know or don't know, FM. The saying originated in the Vietnam-era Phantom aviator community. I know--and interact daily with--plenty of those guys.

FM wrote:

Frankly I think you used the term as it makes sense for it to be used in the first place, and now you're just turning back on it. Had we not delved into this so deeply I never would have had the slightest idea as to what you really meant by what you said. What I had already quoted had the line "triumph of thrust over aerodynamics" and you said "Proof that with large enough engines, even a brick can fly." Christ how could you expect anyone to know those statements are not equivalent? At the very least a gross misuse of jargon on an internet forum where clearly no one would know what you are trying to say.

Now you know better. Doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside?

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yet it still succeeded greatly in missions for which it wasn't originally designed. That tells me (and pretty much everyone in the aviation community, btw) that it was a well-designed, all-around great aircraft. You throw out these platitudes that simply aren't backed up by data, FM. The facts are that the aircraft had a 2-3:1 air-to-air kill ratio, is an excellent bombing platform, excelled at the SEAD mission, is still in use by many AFs nearly 50 years later, and had to be replaced by at least two separate aircraft (F-14/15 and F-16/18) in each US service to get the same job(s) done. And you claim it was nothing more than "sufficient"?

What, compared to the 10.1:1 RAIMUS claimed for Korea? It was designed without any of the usual provisions for dog fighting except raw power, and as a result it was misused by our pilots in those situations. Are you saying that if they had known the outcome 20 years later, they would have designed the same craft (albeit with an internal gun put in up front)?

/facedesk.

This is getting sooo fucking old.

F-4 made its combat debut in 1964. Its gun and low speed maneuverability issues were resolved by 1967 with the E model. That's 3 years. An eternity in combat, but pretty damn fast in aircraft acquisition timelines.

You say "misused". It wasn't "misused". It was used according to its strengths and to minimize its weaknesses. The high KDR in Korea is also attributed to the fact that many of those US pilots had high levels of combat time from WW2, whereas the nK pilots they were flying against did not. That was not the case in Vietnam. You're comparing apples to chairs in that regard.

If everyone had known the outcome, would they have designed the same plane? Probably not. They probably would've designed the F-15E, if the technology of the time would've allowed it. Not sure that it would have. In fact, the F-4 may very well have been the F-15E of its time. But we'll get to that.

FM wrote:

I don't know why you keep bringing up how it is used by other nations. People still shit in dirt holes, and you're acting like it's amazing some are still using a jet powered warplane.

Last time I checked, Germany, Turkey, Egypt, Greece, South Korea, and Japan didn't regularly "shit in dirt holes".

FM wrote:

You know damn well the F-4 was replaced by pairs of aircraft so they could fulfill different roles - cheaper interceptors and bigger air superiority/ground attack platforms.

I know damn well it had to be replaced by two different aircraft to meet the same mission requirements. It certainly wasn't a cheaper solution to replace one plane with two (or four).

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

A lot of the commie pilots preferred the 17 as well, due to its higher maneuverability at low speed. But every fighter pilot will tell you "speed is life". Maneuverability is good, but speed = energy. Energy gives you options. Maneuvers bleed off energy. Power gives you energy back.

Wing loading of F-15: 73.1 lb/ft²
Wing loading of F-16: 88.3 lb/ft²
Wing loading of F-22: 77 lb/ft²
Wing loading of MiG-29: 90.5 lb/ft²
Wing loading of Su-27: 76 lb/ft²

Compare those numbers to your MiG-19 and try to tell me that its lower wing loading makes it a better fighter than any of those. It doesn't even make it more maneuverable. There is more than one characteristic to any given aircraft. They are called weapon systems for a reason.

Speed is very important. Of course, there is a reason pilots fly planes and not rockets.

Let's look at the F-15, essentially the fighter that replaced the F-4. You can see the difference in surface area.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g44/F … TOM_II.png

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g44/F … rawing.png

The aircraft are essentially the same length, and have comparable thrust.

The F-4 empty weighs 30,328 lb, with a wing area of 530 square feet.

The F-15 empty weighs 28,000 lb, with a wing area of 608 square feet.

Why would they have done this? The F-15 has afterburner granted, but why would they have made it lighter and even more wing area if the F-4 was already a maneuverable plane? Those aspects could have been reduced to make the plane even faster.

The F-16 is more manueverable than the F-15, FM. It has less wing area than the Eagle. And the F-4 has AB, as well.

You need to just stop.

Seriously.

FM wrote:

Engineering is about trade-offs. The F-4 is way at one end of the scale.

Now you're going to tell me about engineering? That's cute, too. I'll go dust off my bachelor and master's degrees in engineering to remind me what engineering's about. I must've forgotten.

We'll get to where the F-4 actually lies on the engineering scale in a minute, though.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No doubt. But the SR-71 wasn't a front-line fighter built by the thousands. And I'm not going to knock the SR in any way. If you want to talk engineering marvel, that one is truly one, hands-down.

The point that you tried to dodge, however, is that the F-4 set key performance records that were in place until the F-15 broke them. But apparently, it was just a hunk of junk? Doesn't mesh.

A small note about what I was saying about SR-71, it could have beat those speed records with one hand behind it's back well before the F-15 did. I assume it didn't for secrecy reasons. But I don't want to soil the Blackbird with this discussion either so I'll leave it at that.

The F-4 set go really fast records. I dunno if they have turning radius records, but I don't think the F-4 would have won any of those.

I am not disputing that the F-4 went really fast. My issue is unless you are making something that is going absolutely insane speeds, it's not a feat of engineering unless it has the whole package.

It wouldn't have beaten those speed records. Ever. Because those speed records were for fighter aircraft, which the SR-71 wasn't.

From VPAF ace: "Our training included a lot of discussion about fighting the F-4," he remembered, "which was considered the gravest threat due to its advanced features."

"advanced features"...hmmm. That would imply some sort of feats of engineering, wouldn't it?

As to engineering feats (SOURCE):

- First production aircraft to make extensive use of titanium
  -- Next production aircraft to make extensive use of titanium was the SR-71 (which you stated was an engineering marvel, and rightly so)
- First fighter with pulse Doppler radar with look-down and shoot-down capability

Those are in addition to the speed, altitude, and speed-to-altitude records that it held (which, btw, are a result of engineering feats, as well) until
surpassed by the F-15 in 1975--as already pointed out.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your first response does sum up your lack of knowledge on the subject rather well, no doubt. Which has certainly been reinforced by your continued engagement throughout this thread. But we can keep doing this.

The F-22 is an air superiority fighter. That's what it was designed to do. Its air-ground capability is an add-on thing, not a core function. The only air-ground munition it can drop is a 1000-lb JDAM. Both the F-16 and F-15E can drop a wide variety of A-G ordnance, while carrying just as many air-to-air missiles as the Raptor. However, in a dense air threat environment, they would need something like the Raptor to escort them, as their maneuverability would be greatly decreased due to all the A-G ordnance they would be carrying. Bottomline: If you need to hit a ground target with something other than a 1000-lb JDAM, you need something other than a Raptor to do it. Hence, there are gobs of missions to which it is not suited--because it was not designed for that. QED. Next question.

Of course, it can drop other things too. But whatever.

No, FM. It can't. Eventually, it will drop the SDB. Right now, it's the 1000lb JDAM. That's it.

FM wrote:

I included numbers in my list. Why send an Eagle when you could send 10 Raptors? If cost was no object there is little reason to. No the F-22 can't drop a daisy cutter, but then how many times do we actually need one of those these days? JDAMs are the best thing since sliced bread for the type of war we're fighting today. Now it doesn't carry a 2000 pound JDAM, but I would imagine they would configure the hard points to carry that should the need arise.

It's really just not that simple, FM, and it would take far more space and time than it's worth to educate you on the topic.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Are you claiming the F-16 has as good/better avionics for the WW mission than the F-4G did? Seriously? I'll go with the guys who operated both aircraft over your opinion, mkay?

Oh now it's a F-4G lol. Well sure if you stick the most modern avionics in a Phantom then it is has better avionics than what went into the F-16 the day it was made. How that has anything to do with what a marvel the F-4 was back in the day, I have no idea.

We were talking about the WW mission, yes? The F-16CJ (Block 50) replaced the F-4G in the WW mission. I was talking about those two, not comparing the F-16A and the F-4G.

And you're right. You clearly have no idea.

FM wrote:

You ignored:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The F-16 was designed to be a cheaper supplement to the Eagle yes?

FEOS wrote:

Actually, they haven't been used in about...oh, wait, they are still used today. In fact, there was a QF-4 on the flight line not three weeks ago.

What for?

What do you mean? Was there something to address there? Other than you misplacing my response?

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The bottomline of my comment was this: You know not of which you speak. I, on the other hand, do. I can go today and quiz half a dozen F-4 jockeys on any number of topics regarding their aircraft. Get information direct from the horse's mouth on how the aircrews that flew the thing felt about it. How about you? Get much opportunity to do that in philosophy class?

Go ask those F-4 jockeys to out-turn something. Stick a skilled pilot in a MiG-19 and one in an era F-4 and see what happens. Much less the aircraft of today that you keep claiming it stands up against so well.

Why is this so hard? Just do it.

I'd rather ask them what they had to do to shoot down a MiG-19. Not get into a turning fight with one. That's just stupid. Even F-15 pilots don't like to get into turning fights with other planes. It simply removes too many advantages. The fact that you boil down "what is good in a fighter" to how well it performs in a turning fight shows just how little you really understand about what makes a good/great fighter.

The F-4 is the #3 fighter of all time, behind F-15 and P-51. All time. Not just jets. Notice the fighters that supposedly outclassed it according to you aren't even on the list. So, looking at the timeframe in which it operated, that would make it #1 for its time.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Why would we start using that criteria? You certainly haven't applied that WRT the F-4.

That is exactly the kind of criteria I use to define a feat of engineering.

You forgot this little tidbit, which is the part I asked the question about, and you still haven't responded to:

FM wrote:

Judged against the scientific advances of the time (but not necessarily against other craft of the time).

Judged against the scientific advances of the time (see the "firsts" above), and even against the other craft of the time, the F-4 meets your criteria. Yet you still claim it doesn't. So you're not applying your own criteria to this particular case. Why not?

Earlier you asked for an assessment of the worst jet fighters. Here's a list, from my perspective:

Worst (fielded) jet fighters:

FH Phantom

F-84 Thunderjet

F3H Demon

F7U Cutlass

The F7U is probably the worst one on the list.

No offense, but at the time, if they didn't send F-4's into battle, and just stuck with the old Sabre's or something...

The Mig's wouldv'e crushed them. It didn't do anything special... it just allowed America to hold its own in the Air war.

In fact, America could've even been pushed out of 'Nam, because the without the F-4 gurading their carrier's and bases in the south... disaster would've happened.

It was important.

Last edited by pace51 (2010-04-23 09:49:21)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

America did more than hold its own in the air. It's just that as a craft, it wasn't spectacular. FEOS doesn't understand the difference between better than everything else and great.

No offence, but 2 pages ago I barely new what you too were arguing about.
Yes Feos, it was very important at the time, and will go down into history as a record breaker. Also, yes, it was definitely the best aircraft at the time. That is something special, I would think.
Yes FM, it suited its role and it usefulness pretty much ended with the Vietnam War. Now, it looks a little brick-like and had many problems, although a great many of them were due to weapon problems, and not the actual plane.

SonderKommando wrote:

I just think these two should just fuck already.  They so gay for each other its making my head hurt.

actually, i think it's just FM.

Feos is like the guy trying to get all the little school girls to stop following him.

sweet can i argue over planes ive only ever flown in my backgarden in 1:50 scale plastic replicas here too?

Who gives a shit?

It doesn't matter. They are flying Eurofighters, F-15s, etc. and we are flying raptors. We aren't still using the Phantom II for a reason, to pretend that it isn't because they are using it is ridiculous.

A 30 year service record is nothing to scoff at. To try to extend that service record using other air forces is laughable and insulting to the craft. She had a good run, be happy with it.

---

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/wcmd.html

Practically identical to a JDAM as far as size and weight, and also in that it is a guidance system fitted onto existing munitions. The only real difference is JDAM goes BOOM, WCMD goes boom boom boom.

Probably excluded for political purposes.