BF2S Forums Real world Facts: F4B Phantom II

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

And the Eagle? You keep talking about how the F-4 was replaced by the Eagle...so why not compare it to that?

Besides that:
F-4 Combat Radius: 422 miles
F-16 Combat Radius: 340 miles

F-4 weapons payload: 18,650 lb
F-16 weapons payload: 17,000 lb

Wow they are so radically different. It's like one was an ancient design built like a flying anvil, and the other was a lightweight modern fighter design.

One designed in the 1950s with sliderules, one designed in the late 70s with computers. Comparing apples to chairs again, FM.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

But you don't know anyone who developed it.

No, but I do know one of the chief designers of the F-35 quite well. He's got a fairly decent handle on aircraft design in general, I'd say.

FM wrote:

I mean, no I don't know who you know, but I know bullshit when I smell it.

Do you know it when you type it?

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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

Still quite confident 'brick' would refer to it's flying ability rather than its aesthetics, should I ever hear someone use it in a similar manner again.

How about if they explain ad nauseum exactly how they meant it? Will you be quite so confident that they meant it exactly opposite of how they actually meant it simply because that's what's convenient for your argument?

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

maneuverability issues were resolved by 1967 with the E model.

How?

Leading-edge slats.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

It was not used according to its strengths and weaknesses in the air. Due to lack of training the craft wasn't used to take advantage of its speed and therefore altitude advantages.

You could certainly attribute the K change to the radical change in aircraft tactics compared to the sprightly Sabre used in Korea.

Of course the technology wouldn't have allowed them to make the F-15, that's just stupid. They wouldn't have changed ANYTHING else? Because that is just outright naive if you can't see any other flaws besides the lack of gun.

You haven't the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about, FM. Of course it was used according to its strengths and to minimize its weaknesses in the air. Without the gun, all they had was superior speed, radar, and missiles...all of which their training was focused on leveraging. However, with the poor missile performance of the day, that proved inadequate to the mission at hand, so improvements in both equipment (addition of the gun and leading-edge slats) and tactics/training (due to the addition of the gun) had to take place to accommodate.

What else would they have changed? Tell me that. What, in your vast aviation experience and depth of aerospace engineering knowledge, would you change about the design of the F-4--not knowing the conflict in Vietnam was coming, btw--to make it a better fighter? Better than it has already been assessed, which is the best of its time, btw.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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

People who shit in dirt holes don't buy fighter jets.

Still thoroughly unimpressed. Not countries known for their ridiculous military spending.

First, you're the one who equated countries that still operate the F-4 to those who "shit in dirt holes"...not me.

Second, what does level of military spending have to do with anything? That is irrelevant.

FM wrote:

Why you don't use only its American service record I don't understand. We built it, we discarded it after some time, other countries went through the garbage for our scraps. If you're going to use other air forces to extend its service record you have to try to keep a straight face in telling me their air force is at least as powerful as ours.

It's an important point to show that first-world countries still view it as a viable combat fighter fifty years after it hit the field. We retired it because we could, and that was only 14 years ago. It flew in active service with the USAF for nearly 40 years.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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).

F-15A/B: $27.9 million
F-16C/D: US$18.8 million

Both in 1998

And? The F-15A hit the street in 1975. The F-16A in 1976. What does 1998 have to do with anything?

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

Wow, really FEOS? It's also fucking small and light comparatively. Brilliant comparison.

Of course the Phatnom II has afterburner, why wouldn't it?

You're the one who made the point that the F-15 had an afterburner. As if it were something unique.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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

Absolute speed records can only be set by fighter aircraft?

Those records were for production fighter aircraft, I believe. Namely because they were intact until broken by the F-15 in 1975, when clearly the SR-71 had broken the speed records numerous times prior to that.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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."

Of course, the F-4 is mostly what they were fighting and the F-4's "advanced features" probably included missiles that in fact didn't work.

Well if that were the case, then it wouldn't have been much of a "grave threat" then, would it? So now you know more than the VPAF pilots who fought against it as well as those who flew it? Man, you are doing some serious learnin' in those college classes of yours...

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

"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.

That is your definition of engineering feats? You're the kind of guy that would give Obama and Al Gore a Nobel Prize huh?

Other aircraft (like the Blackbird) easily have lists of innovation as long as your arm. Maybe that impresses you, frankly that seems less-than-stellar considering they had a military budget to design cutting edge aircraft.

Military engineering is cool because it is the essence of engineering. Taking the bleeding edge of science and putting it into a usable, rugged package with essentially limitless upper bounds on performance. The F-4 was entirely meh. Again props to the people who made the engine, besides that the shell surrounding the engines was essentially a shell surrounding the engines.

So, the first production aircraft to make extensive use of titanium is "meh"?
First fighter with pulse doppler LD/SD capability is "meh"?
All those performance records are "meh"?
The proven ruggedness in combat is "meh"?
The fact that it was the most advanced fighter of its time is "meh"?

Seriously. You know the square root of fuckall about engineering if you truly think that.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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

Cluster bombs as well.

No. It can't. Jesus fuck, dude. Seriously. You need to stop embarrassing yourself.

FM wrote:

Why can't it already drop SDBs?

Because they haven't been integrated and tested yet. SDBs are still under development for the entire fleet, IIRC.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

Right.

We are fighting a different war. We don't need bunker busters. A swarm of F-22s could handle 99% of the missions we fly right now.

See comment above about needing to stop embarrassing yourself. Seriously. You know not what you are talking about. At fucking all.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

So how are they different?

lrn2wiki

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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

What was the Phantom II on the flight line for?

Not sure. I didn't ask base ops. All kinds of aircraft come through all the time.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

I don't equate turning to being a good fighter. You on the other hand think the F-4 was a maneuverable plane.

It was. I don't merely think it was. It was. If it weren't, it wouldn't have been the plane of choice for both the Navy and Air Force aerial demonstration squadrons.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

Okay, you do not get to talk about your Air Force career anymore if you're going to quote the Military Channel. One of the shittiest shows at that.

Also, notice how the only way non-Allied aircraft got on the list was by tying or being one of the first jet fighters ever?

I merely pointed out that the source that you seem to use for most of your information on the topic (TV) disagrees with you.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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?

The F-4 did nothing special. Advances were lukewarm. It went really fast. K.

What would it take to be considered "special" or more than "lukewarm" to you? Just what exactly are your standards, FM? You can't seem to apply your own criteria consistently when you state them, and you seem to think you could have designed a better aircraft at the time. Go ahead and show us all how you could've done better.

FEOS wrote:

One designed in the 1950s with sliderules, one designed in the late 70s with computers. Comparing apples to chairs again, FM.

Ohhhh no no no, you are the one that begged the comparison here.

"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."

While inferring the F-4 was vastly superior in that aspect. I bring up evidence to the contrary, you say "apples to chairs".

FEOS wrote:

No, but I do know one of the chief designers of the F-35 quite well. He's got a fairly decent handle on aircraft design in general, I'd say.

Well that's relevant.

FEOS wrote:

How about if they explain ad nauseum exactly how they meant it? Will you be quite so confident that they meant it exactly opposite of how they actually meant it simply because that's what's convenient for your argument?

I would probably still not believe them, taking into consideration that while a brick is not ugly, seeing as buildings made of brick could even be considered desirable, while at the same time having precisely the opposite qualities of something one may describe as "aerodynamic", including extreme density and possessing flat sides perpendicular to the ground.

FEOS wrote:

Leading-edge slats.

Well that really only has to do with angling the nose up yes? The F-4 could already out-climb it's opponents, this just deepened that strength. An obvious choice to be sure, but it didn't really make the aircraft more maneuverable overall. Not like additional wing area would have.

FEOS wrote:

You haven't the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about, FM. Of course it was used according to its strengths and to minimize its weaknesses in the air. Without the gun, all they had was superior speed, radar, and missiles...all of which their training was focused on leveraging. However, with the poor missile performance of the day, that proved inadequate to the mission at hand, so improvements in both equipment (addition of the gun and leading-edge slats) and tactics/training (due to the addition of the gun) had to take place to accommodate.

No it wasn't, not until the pilots received the training necessary with the programs introduced as you have already stated, and even then they were mostly fighting similar craft to their own, not what the enemy was flying.

I mean the gun didn't change the way you dogfight very much, except now you don't have to run when you're out of missiles. It gives the Phatnom II the much needed ability to say fuck turning, lead the target in an attempt to strafe them with the gun, and then miss making the turn to stay in pursuit of the enemy by a mile, but really in broad terms the tactics are not all that different.

FEOS wrote:

What else would they have changed? Tell me that. What, in your vast aviation experience and depth of aerospace engineering knowledge, would you change about the design of the F-4--not knowing the conflict in Vietnam was coming, btw--to make it a better fighter? Better than it has already been assessed, which is the best of its time, btw.

Larger wing area along the lines of the F-15 and overall reduced weight, at the limited expense of top speed. Not to the degree of the F-15, because of the lack of tech in materials and engine design, but some sort of middle ground.

You have to be able to critique your wins as well as your losses. "Best of its time" has nothing to do with it.

FEOS wrote:

First, you're the one who equated countries that still operate the F-4 to those who "shit in dirt holes"...not me.

Try again.

Flaming_maniac wrote:

People still shit in dirt holes, and you're acting like it's amazing some are still using a jet powered warplane.

Clearly demonstrating the extreme range of the scale, not where along the line the F-4 and countries that use it sit on that scale.

FEOS wrote:

Second, what does level of military spending have to do with anything? That is irrelevant.

You don't spend very much, you don't get very much. You end up buying obsolete planes like the F-4.

FEOS wrote:

It's an important point to show that first-world countries still view it as a viable combat fighter fifty years after it hit the field. We retired it because we could, and that was only 14 years ago. It flew in active service with the USAF for nearly 40 years.

Viable so long as you're fighting other people with F-4s or worse. Otherwise, not really.

Also "only" 14 years ago, lol. Military jet powered flight has been taking place for what, 70 years?

FEOS wrote:

And? The F-15A hit the street in 1975. The F-16A in 1976. What does 1998 have to do with anything?

That was the cost of each in 1998, so a comparison could be made.

Now explain again why the F-16 wasn't developed alongside the F-15 because of cost factors?

FEOS wrote:

You're the one who made the point that the F-15 had an afterburner. As if it were something unique.

Only the fact that the Eagle had AB was important for the point I was making, it was a concession that while the F-15 has the ability to dump fuel for significant thrust increases for short durations for advantages in situations such as dog-fights, while you can't suddenly increase wing area in the same situation. So When balancing the craft between thrust/aerodynamics/weight you can weight it away from thrust with the understanding that afterburner exists. If there was no such thing, then perhaps the F-15 would have been weighted further towards thrust and less towards wing area.

Of course the F-4 had the same balancing act and it chose to say fuck it and dump all its points into thrust.

FEOS wrote:

Well if that were the case, then it wouldn't have been much of a "grave threat" then, would it? So now you know more than the VPAF pilots who fought against it as well as those who flew it? Man, you are doing some serious learnin' in those college classes of yours...

IEDs could easily be considered a grave threat. Feat of engineering?

Just because something is dangerous or even fearsome doesn't necessarily mean a lot of astounding thinking went into it.

FEOS wrote:

So, the first production aircraft to make extensive use of titanium is "meh"?
First fighter with pulse doppler LD/SD capability is "meh"?
All those performance records are "meh"?
The proven ruggedness in combat is "meh"?
The fact that it was the most advanced fighter of its time is "meh"?

Seriously. You know the square root of fuckall about engineering if you truly think that.

Titanium is pretty impressive. Of course it's not like they invented titanium or something, they just utilized one of the better materials around. Judging from your wording it wasn't even the first to do so. They weren't reinventing the wheel here.

Pulse doppler is pretty cool, but again a no-brainer. Radar was nothing new, it's a short step to go from constant radar to pinging at intervals to understand the rate. I would imagine the most difficult part was integrating the radar systems with everything else to make sure nothing was interfering.

Yeah the performance records are meh, already gone through that. Big fat engine, we got it.

Proven ruggedness? Where? The F-15 is rugged. The A-10 is super rugged. How exactly has the F-4 been proven rugged?

Again, you have to be able to critique your wins as well as your losses. "Best of its time" has nothing to do with it.

And really, that is all you can come up with? Surely you understand the number of man-hours that go into these things. Some level of innovation is expected, no required in designing front-line aircraft.

FEOS wrote:

No. It can't. Jesus fuck, dude. Seriously. You need to stop embarrassing yourself.

See reply to RAIMUS

FEOS wrote:

lrn2wiki

When I have an avionics expert specialized right in front of me? Not a chance.

FEOS wrote:

It was. I don't merely think it was. It was. If it weren't, it wouldn't have been the plane of choice for both the Navy and Air Force aerial demonstration squadrons.

Aerial demonstrations are about team cohesion, not individual maneuverability. So long as the performance is uniform it doesn't really matter what they use.

FEOS wrote:

I merely pointed out that the source that you seem to use for most of your information on the topic (TV) disagrees with you.

Dude it's not like this opinion was formed in a vacuum. There is no reason for me to dislike the craft if it was a brilliant plane. I distinctly remember watching veterans who flew the plane talking about their experience with it, namely how fast it was, how bulky it was, how heavy it was, how hard it was to land on a carrier, and how shit the missiles were.

I don't base my opinions off teen magazine style top ten lists.

FEOS wrote:

What would it take to be considered "special" or more than "lukewarm" to you? Just what exactly are your standards, FM? You can't seem to apply your own criteria consistently when you state them, and you seem to think you could have designed a better aircraft at the time. Go ahead and show us all how you could've done better.

It's not about me, it's about what the American military industry has already done.

SR-71
F-14
F-15
F-16
F-18
F-22
F-35
P-51
C-130
B-2
F-117
F-80
B-17
B-29
A-10

off the top of my head, I'm sure there were more. All impressive craft, and those are just the fighter/bomber planes.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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.

Probably excluded because they haven't set up the F-22 to use them yet.
Kind of like advanced air to air missiles--sure the F-22 can use them, but only after you make required software updates and test to make sure it actually works.

It's not as simple as making sure the bomb fits the hardpoints.

No, but that is by far the most difficult part. In all likelihood the F-22 will never, ever carry a 15,000 pound bomb, that's just all there is too it. If it fits the hardpoints, as you said it is just a matter of software. Should the need arise I feel confident the military has the funding to get some lines of code written.

I mean you guys act like it's a travesty to its air-to-ground aspect that the F-22 only carries 1000 pound JDAMs. JDAMs are the bread and butter of our air-to-ground. Best thing since sliced bread.

1. So what do they do?

2. Pretty good analogy. But then, the majority of missions flown need a hammer. There aren't "gobs of missions" that need something other than a hammer. Putting a big boom exactly where you want it solves a lot of problems - and in the cases where it doesn't, it's unlikely that you want another plane designed to be an air superiority fighter (Eagle) to back you up, you probably want something more along the lines of an A-10 or an attack helo.

Uzique wrote:

i love the fact that this real world thread is allowed to stay open just because a moderator is having a dick-swinging contest in it

the official compiled thread is that way -->

quit yer clutter and stfu

Shhhhhh. This argument is getting good.

Really;

why isn't this consolidated into the official thread?

you shut-in's are just embarrassing yourselves.

FEOS wrote:

The Aussies are just now getting ready to retire their F-111s. You really need to get away from the "new toy" mentality and get an understanding of "meeting operational requirements".

Erm, we've been getting ready for a while now, problem is its hard to find something which equals the F111 for Australian requirements. (Primary requirement is to be able to set light to dumped fuel using the afterburner at motor races)

PS We don't want secondhand F4s, or F16s for that matter, however cool either is.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-26 06:44:27)

FEOS wrote:

Talking about two different things, FM: Aerodynamic design and actual mission employment.

Like I said: Apples to chairs.

How is the F-4 better than the F-16? In aerodynamic design or actual mission employment? Because I think it would be rather amusing for the F-4 to be better even for its time period aerodynamically, but the numbers I quoted show the two are very comparable despite your implications about the F-16s range and armament compared to the Phantom II.

FEOS wrote:

It's actually quite relevant. His first project when he went to work with LM was designing the conformal fuel tanks for the F-16. He knows quite a bit about aircraft design. Quite a bit more than either of us, to be frank.

If you can ask him to talk about the F-4s aircraft design, specifically it's aerodynamic design. I would thoroughly appreciate an explanation from him as to why the plane is a maneuverable craft, despite its high weight and somewhat small wing area.

I have no problems conceding my opinion if I can get a reason as to why I am wrong. See sig. I just feel that you aren't making even the most basic concessions to the failings of the craft and either don't know or are too lazy to give me a reason as to why the plane performs well. Instead you are giving me invalid numbers about air-to-air kill ratios that have a nauseating number of other variables involved. Surely you see where I'm coming from despite hostilities on other points?

FEOS wrote:

Of course you wouldn't believe them, because that wouldn't be convenient to your argument.

Are you just going to keep repeating that line, or give me a reason as to how the fuck brick means ugly and not heavy pos?

FEOS wrote:

Another point where you just need to stop talking.

They provide more maneuverability at low speed. High alpha (that would be angle of attack) maneuverability. They do that by providing additional wing area and changing how the air flows over the wings.

How many times you guys need to say something as ambiguous as "changing how the air flows over the wings" I do not understand.

They make the front end of the wing "bite" down more right? In order to increase the pressure under the wing more -> more lift. But that would only be particularly at low wing airspeed situations, general low speed or stall situations? But at high speeds (I assume > mach 1 would be high speed?) wouldn't it cause more instability than anything?

FEOS wrote:

Wrong. See above about stopping talking.

They were flying against smaller, more maneuverable aircraft such as F-5s to learn how to implement the necessary tactics. And it worked.

RAIMIUS wrote:

A big problem in Vietnam was the training our pilots recieved.  They trained for intercept missions, mostly.  If they did practice dogfighting, it was almost never against dissimilar aircraft.

I was going off that. I assume he has studied it academically. He could be wrong.

Also I noticed I have been spelling your name wrong RAIMIUS, sorry.

FEOS wrote:

Seriously. You have no clue what you are talking about (see highlighted portion). Leading the target is all about turning. You don't strafe (unless it's a ground target). And gun tactics are quite different than missile tactics...completely different, actually (lead vs lag).

You can set yourself up to take one leading pass at the enemy if you are already behind him without too much of an issue, the problem is staying behind him if you can't turn as well as he can to take more passes. There is only so much you can do to increase your flight time with large turns (don't remember what they are called) and still stay on target, eventually he is going to out-maneuver you.

They are similar in that you need to be behind them haha. For missiles that's all you need, the gun requires a little more handiwork on top of that.

FEOS wrote:

So...decreased wing loading? That's the best you've got? There's a 5lb/ft2 difference in wing loading between the Eagle and the Rhino, but a near twenty year difference in development time.

Go ahead and ignore all the other stuff about the F-4, ffs.

Wing loading and thrust/weight ratio, F-15: 1.12, F-4: 0.86 gg

These numbers have little to do with when they were made, they are basic design decisions. It's not that the decisions made about the F-4 are indefensible, but why the trend away from such decisions with later craft?

FEOS wrote:

No need to. You demonstrated it fairly well yourself...unless there was some other "jet powered warplane" that we were talking about?

dude


        |------------------------------|--------------------------------|
dirt holes                  people who buy the F-4                   people who buy the F-22

FEOS wrote:

No, you end up upgrading planes that still meet the need...like the F-4.

You buy what you can and then you work with what you have. What defines "the need" is entirely subjective, and can't always be met. Particularly when considering budgetary constraints.

FEOS wrote:

We weren't buying A models in 1998, so the comparison makes no sense.

It demonstrates the relative cost gap at a singular point in time so I don't have to do a bunch of inflation conversions. Unless the relative cost of the aircraft were radically different at some point in time the comparison demonstrates that point perfectly well.

FEOS wrote:

Two separate contracts, two separate sets of requirements.

Yeah, I know, I just implied that. Was the main point of having two contracts in the first place not cost reduction? The F-16 being "filler" craft for the fleet?

FEOS wrote:

Um...what? That rant made no sense whatsoever. By that "logic", the F-16 did the same thing, since its wing loading is even less than the F-4's. As pointed out above, the F-4's wing loading is only 5lb/ft2 less than the F-15's. So now the designers are idiots because they put the best engine they could into the F-4? I suppose the F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35 designers must be morons, as well, all focused on power and thrust and whatnot.

lol rant? I was explaining the logic.

I don't know why you are so obsessed with wing loading, it doesn't mean a lot unless also compared with thrust/weight. If you have low wing loading and low thrust/weight, you're like glider. If you have high wing loading and low thrust/weight, you're a flying anvil.

FEOS wrote:

Actually, many of the IEDs that we are seeing today are quite ingenious little feats of engineering...and I'm not even talking about the anti-armor ones.

And generally, when something works well, it's because it's engineered well.

We must have radically different standards then, that is all there is to it. These days wiring things that were meant to explode together to make them explode is not amazing. I mean what isn't a feat of engineering by your standards?

FEOS wrote:

"the first production aircraft to make extensive use of titanium" Go ahead and read that again.

Titanium is ridiculously difficult to work with. It was one of the primary engineering challenges for the SR-71.

Extensive being the key word. Not the first altogether. I already said it was pretty impressive. It doesn't get an A+ just for titanium.

FEOS wrote:

You have to have the computer power on board to do the radar processing for one. But the PD isn't the big deal on that. The big deal is the part you didn't have the understanding to recognize: look down/shoot down. Developing the algorithms and processing power then putting it on the bird and integrating it in the avionics to enable that is huge. Many other western aircraft didn't get that until the 80s-90s. It's difficult because you have to have coherent clutter rejection from a moving reference point, while picking out moving targets from what is essentially moving clutter. It's not a trivial matter. Certainly not a "no brainer." We can go here, if you want. It's been a while, but I spent the first four years of my career as a radar engineer...I think I can cover it.

Yeah, but that isn't what the F-4 could do. Due to a fault either in the plane itself or in the ordinance, the missiles weren't effective. You have said this yourself. Somewhere along the line the signal processing just wasn't up to snuff. It was a good start to a tough problem, but you don't get very many points unless you actually solve it.

FEOS wrote:

Yeah, meh. Nothing else could do it at the time. It was about more than the engines. When are you going to get that?

Which of those records had more to do with just the engines?

FEOS wrote:

Didn't realize the F-15 and the A-10 were Vietnam peers of the F-4. You're really jumping around here.

Proven ruggedness? If you even have to ask that question, you haven't read anything about the F-4. You're clearly just spouting off shit just to spout off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardo%27s_Push

Just one legendary example. Read moar.

Spectacular piloting...don't see what the plane has to do with it. Not like losing a wing or counting bullet holes.

I really have no problems calling the F-4 rugged by the way, I just don't know either way.

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

Again, you have to be able to critique your wins as well as your losses. "Best of its time" has nothing to do with it.

Actually, I thought that was the crux of the entire debate.

Then that explains why you've been debating the wrong thing.  There is clearly a gap in the definition of terms as to "feat of engineering".

FEOS wrote:

And it's there. You're just dismissing it because you don't understand what you're talking about.

lol now it's just ad hominem every other quote. I mean explaining the signal filtering necessary for high performance radar is nice, but the explanations are becoming more and more infrequent.

FEOS wrote:

You do? Who would that be? Your roommate? If you're talking about me (in a snide way), I'm not going to spoonfeed you things. Adult learning experiences ftw. Isn't that what college is about?

You keep going on about the college shit like I think it's worth something. Nice straw man. What I don't appreciate is you apparently have the knowledge to explain to me what is what and the time to reply, but would rather insult my ignorance than rectify it. Especially when you bring up a new point that I obviously have no way of knowing anything about. Something that I would have never refuted in the first place had you just posted the new information in the first place.

FEOS wrote:

Because they don't have opposing solos, do they?

Seriously.

Again, what does it matter how tightly you can turn? It is all relative, and relative to an empathetic crowd that just wants to see an air show. It doesn't matter how fast the plane can turn, it's just about watching the neat-o fighters roar overhead.

FEOS wrote:

That top ten list is just as valid of a source as the TV show upon which you seem to have based your position.

Again, the missiles weren't the F-4. The missiles were the missiles, and they were employed off of multiple airframes. If you're continuing to ding the F-4 for the missiles' performance, you're clueless.

What, veterans are bad sources? I thought they were your sources too.

I'm not. I listed all the issues the pilots had that I remember.

FEOS wrote:

The majority were all post-F-4, and those that weren't were not fighters. You didn't have a single contemporary with the F-4 (when it was fielded) in that list. And you didn't list a single attribute that you could've done better, btw.

So? The number of technical advances are becoming far more numerous as time goes on. The number of different advances that goes into every new plane is ridiculous these days. These are just planes that for one reason or another seem to be feats of engineering. I didn't restrict myself to fighters, or to the Vietnam era, and I don't know why you pretend those restrictions apply.

The first line in this response was "It's not about me, it's about what the American military industry has already done."

FEOS wrote:

Hardpoint fit/function depends on whether you're talking internal or external. That's actually fairly trivial. It likely interfaces just fine with the 1553 bus, a new OFP would have to be written to incorporate the munition settings. That OFP would have to be tested to ensure no other functionality is affected by the changes to incorporate the WCMD. Airworthiness testing would have to be done to ensure release at varying altitudes and airspeeds would be effective and wouldn't endanger the aircraft. It's a hell of a lot more than just "writing some lines of code".

It was more about absolute limitations, as I said the F-22 is probably never going to drop a 15,000 pound bomb. It has nothing to do with the hard points, it's just too big. The most difficult step is just finding a bomb that is approximately the right size.

If it's about the right size everything else is simple. Not necessarily easy or cheap, but straightforward. Make bomb go on, make bomb talk to plane, make bomb fall off, make bomb hit target. Again with the budget of the DoD, I feel like American ingenuity can take care of it without too much trouble.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Talking about two different things, FM: Aerodynamic design and actual mission employment.

Like I said: Apples to chairs.

How is the F-4 better than the F-16? In aerodynamic design or actual mission employment? Because I think it would be rather amusing for the F-4 to be better even for its time period aerodynamically, but the numbers I quoted show the two are very comparable despite your implications about the F-16s range and armament compared to the Phantom II.

I was talking specifically about the WW mission. I made that perfectly clear.

Additionally, when it comes to CAS, the Viper simply doesn't have the staying power (gas or munitions) that other platforms--like the Rhino--do/did.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's actually quite relevant. His first project when he went to work with LM was designing the conformal fuel tanks for the F-16. He knows quite a bit about aircraft design. Quite a bit more than either of us, to be frank.

If you can ask him to talk about the F-4s aircraft design, specifically it's aerodynamic design. I would thoroughly appreciate an explanation from him as to why the plane is a maneuverable craft, despite its high weight and somewhat small wing area.

Did you notice that the F-16s wing loading is more than the F-4s? That means that it has more weight per wing area than the F-4. Think about that and what you just said for a second.

FM wrote:

I have no problems conceding my opinion if I can get a reason as to why I am wrong. See sig. I just feel that you aren't making even the most basic concessions to the failings of the craft and either don't know or are too lazy to give me a reason as to why the plane performs well. Instead you are giving me invalid numbers about air-to-air kill ratios that have a nauseating number of other variables involved. Surely you see where I'm coming from despite hostilities on other points?

I've given you innumerable reasons why your position is wrong. From performance to the advanced avionics to the ruggedness to the testimonials of the aircrews that flew it to the air-to-air kill ratios of the jet (3:1 isn't 10:1, but it's nothing to sneeze at, particularly when you look at missile performance of the time). Your argument has been focused like a laser on turning performance. That argument has been debunked. No, it didn't turn as well as the MiGs of the time, but neither does the F-15 of today. Are you saying the F-15 is a lesser aircraft because of it? Of course you wouldn't say that, because that would be asinine. I makes up for that with more advanced radar, avionics, speed, weaponry, etc....just like the F-4 did. And that's not to say the F-4 wasn't maneuverable in its own right...just not as maneuverable as a MiG-21 or -19.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Of course you wouldn't believe them, because that wouldn't be convenient to your argument.

Are you just going to keep repeating that line, or give me a reason as to how the fuck brick means ugly and not heavy pos?

I already did. Multiple times. You choose to keep ignoring it.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Another point where you just need to stop talking.

They provide more maneuverability at low speed. High alpha (that would be angle of attack) maneuverability. They do that by providing additional wing area and changing how the air flows over the wings.

How many times you guys need to say something as ambiguous as "changing how the air flows over the wings" I do not understand.

They make the front end of the wing "bite" down more right? In order to increase the pressure under the wing more -> more lift. But that would only be particularly at low wing airspeed situations, general low speed or stall situations? But at high speeds (I assume > mach 1 would be high speed?) wouldn't it cause more instability than anything?

No. They increase the wing area and reduce turbulence in airflow over the wing at high alpha, thus increasing lift at low speeds. As I stated initially.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Wrong. See above about stopping talking.

They were flying against smaller, more maneuverable aircraft such as F-5s to learn how to implement the necessary tactics. And it worked.

RAIMIUS wrote:

A big problem in Vietnam was the training our pilots recieved.  They trained for intercept missions, mostly.  If they did practice dogfighting, it was almost never against dissimilar aircraft.

I was going off that. I assume he has studied it academically. He could be wrong.

Also I noticed I have been spelling your name wrong RAIMIUS, sorry.

That was the genesis of RED FLAG (look up Moody Suter). All of which was brought up in earlier posts in this thread WRT initial design, doctrine, employment concepts and reality of war employment.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Seriously. You have no clue what you are talking about (see highlighted portion). Leading the target is all about turning. You don't strafe (unless it's a ground target). And gun tactics are quite different than missile tactics...completely different, actually (lead vs lag).

You can set yourself up to take one leading pass at the enemy if you are already behind him without too much of an issue, the problem is staying behind him if you can't turn as well as he can to take more passes. There is only so much you can do to increase your flight time with large turns (don't remember what they are called) and still stay on target, eventually he is going to out-maneuver you.

They are similar in that you need to be behind them haha. For missiles that's all you need, the gun requires a little more handiwork on top of that.

You don't "stay behind him" in that situation. If you are engaged with a more maneuverable aircraft, you employ other tactics to take away the turning advantage, such as yo-yos...taking the fight into the vertical. If you get behind him long enough to get a missile shot off, you take it, but you're talking about seconds, not prolonged periods of time.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So...decreased wing loading? That's the best you've got? There's a 5lb/ft2 difference in wing loading between the Eagle and the Rhino, but a near twenty year difference in development time.

Go ahead and ignore all the other stuff about the F-4, ffs.

Wing loading and thrust/weight ratio, F-15: 1.12, F-4: 0.86 gg

These numbers have little to do with when they were made, they are basic design decisions. It's not that the decisions made about the F-4 are indefensible, but why the trend away from such decisions with later craft?

Because technology advances allowed for it. When the F-15 was built, it had the lowest wing loading ever for a fighter. That was a huge thing for its time. But it was also called the "flying tennis court" because of it. Engine advances allowed for a thrust/weight ratio greater than 1...another huge advance seen in the Eagle.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No need to. You demonstrated it fairly well yourself...unless there was some other "jet powered warplane" that we were talking about?

dude


        |------------------------------|--------------------------------|
dirt holes                  people who buy the F-4                   people who buy the F-22

Dude. Thread context. Outside of your mind. <== Realize most of us operate there.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No, you end up upgrading planes that still meet the need...like the F-4.

You buy what you can and then you work with what you have. What defines "the need" is entirely subjective, and can't always be met. Particularly when considering budgetary constraints.

Actually, what defines the need is entirely objective. What meets the need is what is subjective and bound by budgetary constraints, but if something like the F-4 does in fact meet the need, why buy something else?

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

We weren't buying A models in 1998, so the comparison makes no sense.

It demonstrates the relative cost gap at a singular point in time so I don't have to do a bunch of inflation conversions. Unless the relative cost of the aircraft were radically different at some point in time the comparison demonstrates that point perfectly well.

Your comparison doesn't show anything, as you don't show the 1998 (or any other year) dollar cost of an F-4 compared to an F-15+an F-16. That's why the comparison is irrelevant.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Two separate contracts, two separate sets of requirements.

Yeah, I know, I just implied that. Was the main point of having two contracts in the first place not cost reduction? The F-16 being "filler" craft for the fleet?

No. Cost reduction had nothing to do with it.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Um...what? That rant made no sense whatsoever. By that "logic", the F-16 did the same thing, since its wing loading is even less than the F-4's. As pointed out above, the F-4's wing loading is only 5lb/ft2 less than the F-15's. So now the designers are idiots because they put the best engine they could into the F-4? I suppose the F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35 designers must be morons, as well, all focused on power and thrust and whatnot.

lol rant? I was explaining the logic.

I don't know why you are so obsessed with wing loading, it doesn't mean a lot unless also compared with thrust/weight. If you have low wing loading and low thrust/weight, you're like glider. If you have high wing loading and low thrust/weight, you're a flying anvil.

I'm not the one obsessed with wing loading. You're the one who brought it up as the ultimate measure of worth. I've repeatedly stated there's far more to an aircraft than a single measure. There's more than just thrust/weight, as well. If you've got great aerodynamics and shitty controls, you become a very aerodynamic uncontrollable coffin. If you don't have good avionics, you can't do anything with your aerodynamic wonder. If you can't carry enough fuel, you can't go anywhere to do anything with your aerodynamic wonder. If you can't carry enough munitions, you can't do anything once you get where you need to go with your aerodynamic wonder.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Actually, many of the IEDs that we are seeing today are quite ingenious little feats of engineering...and I'm not even talking about the anti-armor ones.

And generally, when something works well, it's because it's engineered well.

We must have radically different standards then, that is all there is to it. These days wiring things that were meant to explode together to make them explode is not amazing. I mean what isn't a feat of engineering by your standards?

We don't have radically different standards. You just aren't privy to the same info I am. It's a lot more than just "wiring things that were meant to explode together to make them explode". You simplify things that you simply do not understand because you do not understand them.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

"the first production aircraft to make extensive use of titanium" Go ahead and read that again.

Titanium is ridiculously difficult to work with. It was one of the primary engineering challenges for the SR-71.

Extensive being the key word. Not the first altogether. I already said it was pretty impressive. It doesn't get an A+ just for titanium.

Scale is a key factor. If they just used it in one or two places, it wouldn't be an engineering feat. When you make large design pieces out of titanium, you are dealing with engineering problems that are non-trivial.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You have to have the computer power on board to do the radar processing for one. But the PD isn't the big deal on that. The big deal is the part you didn't have the understanding to recognize: look down/shoot down. Developing the algorithms and processing power then putting it on the bird and integrating it in the avionics to enable that is huge. Many other western aircraft didn't get that until the 80s-90s. It's difficult because you have to have coherent clutter rejection from a moving reference point, while picking out moving targets from what is essentially moving clutter. It's not a trivial matter. Certainly not a "no brainer." We can go here, if you want. It's been a while, but I spent the first four years of my career as a radar engineer...I think I can cover it.

Yeah, but that isn't what the F-4 could do. Due to a fault either in the plane itself or in the ordinance, the missiles weren't effective. You have said this yourself. Somewhere along the line the signal processing just wasn't up to snuff. It was a good start to a tough problem, but you don't get very many points unless you actually solve it.

Again. Stop talking about things you know nothing about.

You are blathering about missiles. I was talking about radar. Two different things. The radar worked fine. The missiles didn't.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yeah, meh. Nothing else could do it at the time. It was about more than the engines. When are you going to get that?

Which of those records had more to do with just the engines?

All of them. The airframe is a critical piece in getting the engines to the altitude. The airframe has to handle the pounding at low altitude and high speed. The airframe has to handle the heat and pounding at altitude at high speed as well. Again...more than just the engines.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Didn't realize the F-15 and the A-10 were Vietnam peers of the F-4. You're really jumping around here.

Proven ruggedness? If you even have to ask that question, you haven't read anything about the F-4. You're clearly just spouting off shit just to spout off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardo%27s_Push

Just one legendary example. Read moar.

Spectacular piloting...don't see what the plane has to do with it. Not like losing a wing or counting bullet holes.

I really have no problems calling the F-4 rugged by the way, I just don't know either way.

One plane took enough damage that engines stopped working. The other one pushed it home. That is a rugged aircraft. There are plenty of other stories out there from pilots in blogs and whatnot about damage they took, photos of pieces of wings missing. Perhaps you could be bothered to educate yourself?

Probably not.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FM wrote:

Again, you have to be able to critique your wins as well as your losses. "Best of its time" has nothing to do with it.

Actually, I thought that was the crux of the entire debate.

Then that explains why you've been debating the wrong thing.  There is clearly a gap in the definition of terms as to "feat of engineering".

That explains why you're jumping around, constantly changing the argument. Must be convenient.

"'Best of its time' has nothing to do with it" when talking about whether or not a plane was a feat of engineering. seriously.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And it's there. You're just dismissing it because you don't understand what you're talking about.

lol now it's just ad hominem every other quote. I mean explaining the signal filtering necessary for high performance radar is nice, but the explanations are becoming more and more infrequent.

Because your ignorance is becoming more an more exposed. And constantly having to repeatedly explain the most simplistic concepts is becoming more and more tiresome.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You do? Who would that be? Your roommate? If you're talking about me (in a snide way), I'm not going to spoonfeed you things. Adult learning experiences ftw. Isn't that what college is about?

You keep going on about the college shit like I think it's worth something. Nice straw man. What I don't appreciate is you apparently have the knowledge to explain to me what is what and the time to reply, but would rather insult my ignorance than rectify it. Especially when you bring up a new point that I obviously have no way of knowing anything about. Something that I would have never refuted in the first place had you just posted the new information in the first place.

I have rectified your ignorance. Multiple times. You are just either too dense or too full of yourself to realize it. Every position you have thrown out in this debate has been proven incorrect and you just keep throwing it out there, as if in the process of doing it, it will somehow become less incorrect. Won't happen. I keep pointing out the college thing in the hopes that you will do some introspection and realize that you do not know as much about this subject as you think. That there are some others in this world who know more about some topics than you do. That you may just have an opportunity to learn from them if you would go into fucking receive mode and listen to understand instead of listen to respond. But that would be adult learning.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Because they don't have opposing solos, do they?

Seriously.

Again, what does it matter how tightly you can turn? It is all relative, and relative to an empathetic crowd that just wants to see an air show. It doesn't matter how fast the plane can turn, it's just about watching the neat-o fighters roar overhead.

Go watch a Blue Angels or a Thunderbirds show.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That top ten list is just as valid of a source as the TV show upon which you seem to have based your position.

Again, the missiles weren't the F-4. The missiles were the missiles, and they were employed off of multiple airframes. If you're continuing to ding the F-4 for the missiles' performance, you're clueless.

What, veterans are bad sources? I thought they were your sources too.

I'm not. I listed all the issues the pilots had that I remember.

You said you saw a TV show. I provided a TV show as a source as well. I'm not disparaging your source. You did disparage mine, however. Of course, I can't disparage yours (not that I would), as you didn't actually cite one.

FM wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The majority were all post-F-4, and those that weren't were not fighters. You didn't have a single contemporary with the F-4 (when it was fielded) in that list. And you didn't list a single attribute that you could've done better, btw.

So? The number of technical advances are becoming far more numerous as time goes on. The number of different advances that goes into every new plane is ridiculous these days. These are just planes that for one reason or another seem to be feats of engineering. I didn't restrict myself to fighters, or to the Vietnam era, and I don't know why you pretend those restrictions apply.

The first line in this response was "It's not about me, it's about what the American military industry has already done."

And you missed a huge one: the B-52. Why wasn't that on your list?

You seem to have no sense of relativism or understanding of what was groundbreaking at the time. You are measuring everything against today's standards, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

Wow, just wow.

This is almost as big as my "weapon profiles" article. This needs to be stopped. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!

YOUVE ALREADY EARNED THE "QUARREL OF THE YEAR"AWARD FOR THE NEXT 7 YEARS OR SO...

FM wrote:

They make the front end of the wing "bite" down more right? In order to increase the pressure under the wing more -> more lift. But that would only be particularly at low wing airspeed situations, general low speed or stall situations? But at high speeds (I assume > mach 1 would be high speed?) wouldn't it cause more instability than anything?

FEOS wrote:

No. They increase the wing area and reduce turbulence in airflow over the wing at high alpha, thus increasing lift at low speeds. As I stated initially.

WIKI wrote:

F-4E
USAF version with an integral M61 Vulcan cannon in the elongated RF-4C nose, AN/APQ-120 radar with smaller cross-section to accommodate the cannon, J79-GE-17 engines with 17,900 lbf (79.379 kN) of afterburner thrust each. Late-series aircraft equipped with leading-edge slats to improve maneuverability at the expense of top speed under the Agile Eagle program. Starting with Block 53, aircraft added AGM-65 Maverick capability and smokeless J79-GE-17C or -17E engines. First flight 7 August 1965. The most numerous Phantom variant; 1,370 built.

Slats also delay onset of stall, which can happen at high speed/high alpha in the wrong circumstances.
Pretty unusual for a supersonic aircraft, were they really slats or a drooping leading edge? (which can also be a slat I know...)

FEOS wrote:

I was talking specifically about the WW mission. I made that perfectly clear.

Additionally, when it comes to CAS, the Viper simply doesn't have the staying power (gas or munitions) that other platforms--like the Rhino--do/did.

How does it not have the staying power, when its numbers are so close to the F-4? Does less than a ton of munitions make that much difference?

FEOS wrote:

Did you notice that the F-16s wing loading is more than the F-4s? That means that it has more weight per wing area than the F-4. Think about that and what you just said for a second.

The F-16 is a much small plane that also has dramatically lower weight and therefore much higher thrust/weight ratio than the F-4. I know you know that is important, but you keep harping on only the wing loading.

FEOS wrote:

I've given you innumerable reasons why your position is wrong. From performance to the advanced avionics to the ruggedness to the testimonials of the aircrews that flew it to the air-to-air kill ratios of the jet (3:1 isn't 10:1, but it's nothing to sneeze at, particularly when you look at missile performance of the time). Your argument has been focused like a laser on turning performance. That argument has been debunked. No, it didn't turn as well as the MiGs of the time, but neither does the F-15 of today. Are you saying the F-15 is a lesser aircraft because of it? Of course you wouldn't say that, because that would be asinine. I makes up for that with more advanced radar, avionics, speed, weaponry, etc....just like the F-4 did. And that's not to say the F-4 wasn't maneuverable in its own right...just not as maneuverable as a MiG-21 or -19.

"Instead you are giving me invalid numbers about air-to-air kill ratios that have a nauseating number of other variables involved. "

Do you just ignore lines like this?

I've been trying to get the most basic concession out of you, that something that weighs about 3/4s of a shit-ton that doesn't have the wing area to back it up isn't exactly light on its feet. To me, that marks you as someone who can't make a solid judgment about the plane, as I think you have yet to say a single bad thing about the plane. More on this later.

FEOS wrote:

No. They increase the wing area and reduce turbulence in airflow over the wing at high alpha, thus increasing lift at low speeds. As I stated initially.

Oh yeah I guess that's what I meant to say, oh wait

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

In order to increase the pressure under the wing more -> more lift. But that would only be particularly at low wing airspeed situations

The latter part is what I wanted more information about. Essentially why I have only seen slats on commercial airliners and not other fighter aircraft. Lucky for you Dilbert_X wanted to know too.

FEOS wrote:

You don't "stay behind him" in that situation. If you are engaged with a more maneuverable aircraft, you employ other tactics to take away the turning advantage, such as yo-yos...taking the fight into the vertical. If you get behind him long enough to get a missile shot off, you take it, but you're talking about seconds, not prolonged periods of time.

Yes obviously you use your altitude gaining advantage, but at some point you actually have to get behind them.

A plane like the F-4 lets you enter and leave the fight more or less as you please, but in a death match type of situation it has to be a pain to actually get a shot off. You have to be sure about making the shots you do get to take, because there aren't going to be as many of them relatively.

FEOS wrote:

Because technology advances allowed for it. When the F-15 was built, it had the lowest wing loading ever for a fighter. That was a huge thing for its time. But it was also called the "flying tennis court" because of it. Engine advances allowed for a thrust/weight ratio greater than 1...another huge advance seen in the Eagle.

But the thing is, you don't have the engine technology, you don't build such a heavy plane. Yes I understand that to some degree absolute speed trumps relative thrust:weight ratios depending on your level of technology, but not necessarily to the degree of the Phantom.

FEOS wrote:

Dude. Thread context. Outside of your mind. <== Realize most of us operate there.

It is not difficult to understand the difference between marking the extremes and associating the F-4 with those extremes.

In some countries the majority of the people are subsistence farmers, and so some countries buying a fighter jet despite its relative age says nothing about the quality of the jet.

FEOS wrote:

Actually, what defines the need is entirely objective. What meets the need is what is subjective and bound by budgetary constraints, but if something like the F-4 does in fact meet the need, why buy something else?

The need could be what do I need to take over the world, what do I need to take over the guy to my left, what do I need to defend myself, etc. And the people in one country could have many different opinions. There are many opinions as to whether we even need the Raptor.

Anyways if the F-4 does in fact meet the need then you should buy the F-4. But then if the F-4 meets the need, the need clearly isn't air superiority against a first world nation these days. Not with the Phantom anyways.

FEOS wrote:

Your comparison doesn't show anything, as you don't show the 1998 (or any other year) dollar cost of an F-4 compared to an F-15+an F-16. That's why the comparison is irrelevant.

Because I wasn't comparing it to the F-4. I said I was demonstrating the difference between the two, because the reason the F-4 role was split into two craft was for budgetary not tactical reasons.

FEOS wrote:

No. Cost reduction had nothing to do with it.

Why?

FEOS wrote:

I'm not the one obsessed with wing loading. You're the one who brought it up as the ultimate measure of worth. I've repeatedly stated there's far more to an aircraft than a single measure. There's more than just thrust/weight, as well. If you've got great aerodynamics and shitty controls, you become a very aerodynamic uncontrollable coffin. If you don't have good avionics, you can't do anything with your aerodynamic wonder. If you can't carry enough fuel, you can't go anywhere to do anything with your aerodynamic wonder. If you can't carry enough munitions, you can't do anything once you get where you need to go with your aerodynamic wonder.

Very true. But, the DoD can easily measure most of those other aspects of the airplane and tell the manufacturer to fuck off if they aren't anywhere near what we need. Something like agility, you don't really get to know the ins and outs of the craft until after a few years or more of service. Something like combat radius can easily be objectively put on a piece of paper.

FEOS wrote:

We don't have radically different standards. You just aren't privy to the same info I am. It's a lot more than just "wiring things that were meant to explode together to make them explode". You simplify things that you simply do not understand because you do not understand them.

lol I don't know how much there is to understand about artillery shells wired to explode.

Bomb making can be very complex. Considering the number of IEDs and the resources of the people making them, I fail to see how the complexity could exceed something a middle school kid could make with a set of directions. They are improvised - perhaps some of the bombs that get lumped in under that name deserve more engineering kudos than that name implies, but the majority fall into that category for a reason.

FEOS wrote:

Scale is a key factor. If they just used it in one or two places, it wouldn't be an engineering feat. When you make large design pieces out of titanium, you are dealing with engineering problems that are non-trivial.

Non-trivial yes. A+ is outstanding not non-trivial. Engineers are meant to overcome problems. Doing your job isn't outstanding.

FEOS wrote:

Again. Stop talking about things you know nothing about.

You are blathering about missiles. I was talking about radar. Two different things. The radar worked fine. The missiles didn't.

Do you have any way of knowing the doppler was excellent and the fault was completely the missiles? Many of the missiles didn't even track did they? Giving the information the radar has to the missiles is important as well.

FEOS wrote:

All of them. The airframe is a critical piece in getting the engines to the altitude. The airframe has to handle the pounding at low altitude and high speed. The airframe has to handle the heat and pounding at altitude at high speed as well. Again...more than just the engines.

I feel confident the US could have built an airframe capable of taking the beating before the Phantom. Especially when you apparently have a blank check on weight.

The engine was the innovation that brought it to those records.

FEOS wrote:

One plane took enough damage that engines stopped working. The other one pushed it home. That is a rugged aircraft. There are plenty of other stories out there from pilots in blogs and whatnot about damage they took, photos of pieces of wings missing. Perhaps you could be bothered to educate yourself?

Probably not.

What kind of stresses did the push really put on the airframe though? As you already said, airplanes are designed to handle a lot of stress and strain. That is not limited to military aircraft. I mean, the tail hook didn't break off and the windshield didn't crack. Apart from that it was brilliant thinking and flying on the pilots part, but I'm sure the stresses on the airframe itself could have been handled by any number of aircraft.

"educate yourself"

It's amazing how you can make such a stupid phrase sound as if there is some comprehensive big book of knowledge that I can stroll up to and wish it to take me to what I want to know, managing to put the blame of my ignorance on my lack of effort and not a lack of resources on a topic as wide as the edge of a knife or worse, from your laziness.

I can't will knowledge into existence. If I knew where to look I would. I am not even claiming a position either way, and you are still blatantly hostile about your failure to sufficiently back up an entirely subjective claim.

FEOS wrote:

That explains why you're jumping around, constantly changing the argument. Must be convenient.

"'Best of its time' has nothing to do with it" when talking about whether or not a plane was a feat of engineering. seriously.

Bullshit. It was my post that you responded to, I used the term feat of engineering. If you didn't bother to ask me to define the terms that is on you buddy. You picked the argument you wanted to have, not the one opposed to what I was saying.

FEOS wrote:

I have rectified your ignorance. Multiple times. You are just either too dense or too full of yourself to realize it. Every position you have thrown out in this debate has been proven incorrect and you just keep throwing it out there, as if in the process of doing it, it will somehow become less incorrect. Won't happen. I keep pointing out the college thing in the hopes that you will do some introspection and realize that you do not know as much about this subject as you think. That there are some others in this world who know more about some topics than you do. That you may just have an opportunity to learn from them if you would go into fucking receive mode and listen to understand instead of listen to respond. But that would be adult learning.

Proven incorrect? The fuck do you think you have actually proven?

Proving that it was a "feat of engineering", despite not knowing how I used the term in the first place?

Proving it was a solid dogfighter, despite quoting ridiculous air-to-air numbers as if that is some sort of proof? Do you even consider situations where missiles shot down an F-4 where otherwise a MiG would have? A difference numbers in engagement?

Proving that it outclasses the aircraft that replaced it? Jesus stop making me laugh.

I have no idea what is going on in your head, because I have fuck all clue what you think you have proved. I'm not putting myself into "receive" mode until you show me you are a credible source of information, a source of information that is truthful in its own right. Everybody is biased. An indication of a worthwhile source is an accurate description of the good and the bad. Repeatedly ignoring any flaws whatsoever is absolutely ridiculous and generally discredits you.

FEOS wrote:

Go watch a Blue Angels or a Thunderbirds show

Are you incapable of understanding the difference between an absolute and relative measures? Unless the Blue Angels performed in F-4s and then performed in F-18s it is positively meaningless.

FEOS wrote:

And you missed a huge one: the B-52. Why wasn't that on your list?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

off the top of my head, I'm sure there were more.

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't you?

FEOS wrote:

You seem to have no sense of relativism or understanding of what was groundbreaking at the time. You are measuring everything against today's standards, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

Groundbreaking is not necessarily amazing. I'm not measuring jack shit against today's standards, I'm measuring against a high standard. Apparently you are unable to do so when it comes to the machines near and dear to your heart.

---

What Dilbert posted about the leading edge slats makes a lot of sense and aligns with my previous understanding well. It did have problems with maneuverability, loss of control leading to a spin, and landing on aircraft carriers. But, with the addition of the slats, all those problems were minimized. I'm still curious as to why all fighters don't have slats for the same reason, but I would guess that just has to do with a more sleek frame for a higher max top speed, with the advantages of the slats taken care of by overall reduced weight and increased wing area.

With that in mind I would change my first post in the thread to something more like:

The plane as it was introduced in 1960 was dick. Pilots didn't know how to use it, it wasn't maneuverable, the missiles didn't work, it didn't even have an internal gun. With introduction of leading edge slats and other modifications 12 years later in 1972, along with programs like TOP GUN (1969) and RED FLAG (1975) its performance was adjusted to US front line fighter standards. Still heavy and generally deserving of the nick name "Lead Sled", it wasn't a feat of engineering but it was certainly worthy of being a front line fighter.

I love you FM