PDA

View Full Version : The F-4 Phantom



troung
18 Aug 03,, 05:18
The F-4 Phantom has seen more combat then most other fighters around.

I figure it desevres a thread.


It has fought all around the world.............

Indochina wars (1964-1973)
War of Attrition (1968-1971)
Yom Kipper/Ramhadon War (1973)
USN strikes on Cambodia (1975?)
Greek Turkish Conflicts (1970s-now)
Iranina ops in Oman (1976-1977)
Iranian ops versus Iraq (pre 1980)
Iranian ops versus Kurds (1979-1980)
Iran Iraq war (1980-1988)
Israel vs. Syria (1982)
Israeli ops vs. Hezbollah (1980s)
Operation Desert Storm (1991)
Iranian ops versus Taliban (late 1990s-2001)

Plus other smaller ones.........

Throught is history it has shot down many types of planes...

MiG-17F/PF/J-5 (USA/IDF)
MiG-19/J-6 (USA/IDF/IRIAF)
MiG-21F-13/PF/M/MF/bis (USA/IDF/IRIAF)
MiG-23MS/MF/ML/BN/BK (IRIAF)
Mirage F-1EQ (IRIAF)
MiG-25PD/RB (IRIAF)
Tu-16K (IRIAF)
Tu-22B (IRIAF)
SuE (IRIAF)
J-7B (IRIAF)
Hunter FGA-9 (IRIAF)
Su-7 (IDF/IRIAF)
Su-20/22M-3K/4K (IDF/IRIAF)
Su-25K (IRIAF)
Jaguar Gr.1 (RAF)
Mi-24/25 (IRIAF)
Mi-8/17 (IRIAF)
varouis transports (An-12, An-26)

I'll talk about its upgrades/weapons...........

Greek F-4E PI-2000
APG-65GY radar
AIM-120B/C-5
IRIS-T
AGM-130
AGM-88
AGM-65
AFDS
Laser Guided Bombs

Turkish F-4E 2020 Terminator
M-2032 radar
AIM-7F/M
AIM-9L/M
Popeye I/II
AGM-65
Laser Guided Bombs

Iranian F-4E
APQ-120 (upgraded for longer range)
AIM-7E-4
R-73E
Kh-58
Qadr
Zoobins
AGM-65
Laser Guided Bombs

Iranian F-4D
APQ-109
AIM-7E-4
R-73E
Kh-58
Qadr
Zoobins
AGM-65
Laser Guided Bombs

Japanese F-4EJ Kai
APG-66J
AIM-7F/M
AAM-3
ASM-2
IR Guided Bombs

Israeli F-4E 2000 Kurnass
APG-76
AIM-7F/M
Python 3/4
Popeye
Gabriel
AGM-88
AGM-65
Laser Guided Bombs
IR Guided Bombs

German F-4F
APG-65
AIM-120B
IRIS-T

South Korean F-4E
APQ-120
AIM-7F
AIM-9L/M
Popeye
AGM-65
Laser Guided Bombs


It's neat to note that only 4 nations have fully pulled the F-4 out of service and of those 3 bought (USA/UK/Spain) it and one had it leased (Australia).

Only two nations fly the F-4D (Korea and Iran), while most users fly the F-4E minus of course Germany who uses the F-4F.

bigross86
18 Aug 03,, 08:46
The Kurnass 2000 is currently being upgraded to carry the Python V AAM, though not many flights are going on due to the British embargo on F-4 ejection seats and other parts.

TheBigThug
20 Aug 03,, 07:47
UH oh better call UPCO!

bigross86
20 Aug 03,, 12:36
What's UPCO?

2DREZQ
26 Aug 03,, 06:25
The Phantom. Proving, once again, that Ugly works, too. (Just like the A-10!)

bigross86
26 Aug 03,, 11:17
Ugly just means more money to make it work, less money to make it pretty...

markaspen
26 Aug 03,, 16:25
In flight she isn't ugly. Got buzzed by some in Denver once, for such a large plane she was still graceful. One of my favorite photos is a head-on of two Phantoms landing at an Israeli base with 2-3 pilots holding helmets in the foreground.

Not as graceful as a Mirage, but still pretty.

bigross86
27 Aug 03,, 08:32
About two months ago I saw two F-4's buzz over my house in fingertip formation. They were flying so low I could read the words Kurnass 2000 in Hebrew.

TheBigThug
29 Aug 03,, 17:55
UPCO, makes the aces2 ejection seats. Far superior to Martin bakers...

bigross86
30 Aug 03,, 21:25
Funny, I could've sworn the ACES II was made by Martin-Baker. Live and Learn. On the Martin-Baker website there is a little meter that says

Lives saved to date: 7009
Lives saved this year: 36

TopHatter
11 Sep 03,, 22:29
My uncle was a plane captain on USS Franklin D. Roosevelt for the F-4 Phantoms, VF-14 "The Tophatters"...hence my WAB handle :)

Hawg166
12 Sep 03,, 03:22
As a former AME in the Navy ( VF14 by the way) and an egress augmentee in my A10 unit I have worked with both the Aces II and the Martin Baker seats. I think you are way off base by saying the Aces II is a far better seat. I think the fact that the F35 JSF is gonna be fitted with Martin baker seats says it all. Yeah the older martin bakers like the GRU models in the F4, F14, A6, EA6B dont have the different ejection modes, but their numbers speak for themselves. With the exception of the Escapac in the S3 I believe the Navy is all Martin Baker.
However having said all that, the best bang seat is actually a Russian seat that is soon to be manufactured here in the god 'ol USA. It is capable of Mach number ejections with a shield for the pilot. I believe it was in competition to be put in the JSF.
Let me do some diggin and I will try and find more details.

Bill
12 Sep 03,, 06:40
Hey Hawg166!!!

Good to see you made it over here.

A troop with your sort of experience and knowledge is a great addition indeed to this board.

Thanx for the details bro.

Hawg166
12 Sep 03,, 13:58
A god short article about the K36 seat from Russsia can be found at www.aeronautics.ru/k36d.htm

It is pretty impressive. By the way Hello to all here.

bigross86
13 Sep 03,, 18:06
I like the F-111's escape pod. Only problem is they're cnnon fodder in a heavy SAM/AAA area

Bill
15 Sep 03,, 20:27
No more than a Tornado or F-15E.

TopHatter
15 Sep 03,, 22:03
I think he meant the escape pod :unsure

Bill
15 Sep 03,, 22:30
LOL, oh.....

Ironduke
22 Sep 03,, 00:08
How maneuverable was the F-4? Was it mainly an interceptor or was it a good dogfighter?

Hawg166
22 Sep 03,, 01:32
Wow that is a good question and I dont know that as a crew chief I could give you a pilots answer. I dont think the F4 was an interceptor, at least not a long range fleet air defense type interceptor. I am sure it played an interceptors role though. It wasnt a particilarly good dogfighter either to my knowledge. I believe pilot training and superior US made missles were its assett. From what i understand the US actually had a pretty bad kill to loss ration in Vietnam. I dont know how many birds were lost in actuall air to air combat versus the number lost to enemy air defenses. However i believe the number lost to AAA would be greater considering the awesome amount of AAA encountered by our pilots. The Phantom played a big ground attack role though. Curiously enough, it was actually the F-100 Super Sabre that flew more missions in Vietnam than any aircraft bar none.

Bill
22 Sep 03,, 08:00
The USAF had a 3:1 kill ratio. By the end of the war, the USN had a better than 10:1 kill ratio(Top gun was institued because of the poor early showing of USN pilots).

TopHatter
22 Sep 03,, 18:48
Speaking as a uneducated civ, I'll throw in my 2 cents uninvited (as usual).
From what I am given to understand, the F-4 is not really a pure dogfighter like the F-15. The Phantom gives up a lot to it's air-to-ground capabilities. This is not to say that the F-4 is not a fearsome air-to-air machine, both in it's day and today. OK, it's no F-15 or Su-27 but neither is it something to be dismissed out of hand either. It's certainly in the twilight of it's career, hanging on with other air forces that have upgraded it's various systems.

bigross86
22 Sep 03,, 19:26
It's almost as cool as the Hawg!

Sparky
22 Sep 03,, 21:19
I used to work Comm/Nav systems on the F-4D for the Guard. They used to say the F4 was proof that if you put enough power behind it even a brick can fly! It had good power from the engines and could carry a decent weapons load for its day. It also had a tough airframe compared to some other fighters of its era.

Bill
22 Sep 03,, 21:25
The F-4 was "The classic boom and zoom airframe", in the words of Mr Mudd.

It was concieved when everything needed to go mach 2, and everything needed to deliver tactical nukes against WP forces.

It should come as no shock then, that it is not exactly optimized as a dog fighter.

Mr Mudd states the turning radius of an F-4 is about twice the radius of an F-16.

TopHatter
22 Sep 03,, 21:34
Eh, pardon my ignorance, but who is Mr. Mudd? I like the way he talks :)

Hawg166
22 Sep 03,, 21:36
Mr Mudd is pilar of that glorious kingdom we call 'HAWGDOM'

TopHatter
22 Sep 03,, 21:45
SIGH The A-10 Hawg...how do I love thee?
I take that everybody has read that book on the Hog during Desert Storm? After hearing for years about those pointy-nosed fighters that go Mach-snot, I practically salivated over that book.

Bill
23 Sep 03,, 02:37
Mr Mudd is a former F-16 jockey, and weapons school instructor.

And a good guy to boot.

bigross86
23 Sep 03,, 06:47
We don't hold his being a lawndart pilot against him. Which Hawg book are you talking about TopHatter?

TopHatter
23 Sep 03,, 15:37
Warthog: Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War by William L. Smallwood. I guess it's out of print but if I really wanted it, I'd order it on Alibris.com, used. It was a great read, loved every minute of it.

The Chap
02 Sep 04,, 05:31
Eh, pardon my ignorance, but who is Mr. Mudd? I like the way he talks :)

Ditto! :cool:
And how bloody stealthy is an A-10 by the way? :tongue:
No attempt to do anything other than kill. They can see it comming? They generally run. Saves DU rounds as well. And resulting lawsuits from Vets.

Before any one gets cross, I know that was in poor taste. :redface:

Se7eN
02 Sep 04,, 15:53
The F-4 is still a might in the sky. Right now my dad, who retired AF after 24 years, is working as a civ contractor in South Korea helping train the SKAF with the F-4 and the AMG-142 missile system.

I asked him why they still use F-4's and he said with the new avionics they are still a very formidable aircraft.

Fury
03 Sep 04,, 10:14
If Im not terribly mistaken, the F-4 was used by argentinians during the Falkland war in 1982 I think. I once saw a document on TV where four argentinian F-4 phantoms disabled or destroyed two british battleships. The argentinian fighters were already in 1982 using outdated weapons and electronics still fighting against british battleships who had state of the art technology.

The Chap
03 Sep 04,, 22:12
If Im not terribly mistaken, the F-4 was used by argentinians during the Falkland war in 1982 I think. I once saw a document on TV where four argentinian F-4 phantoms disabled or destroyed two british battleships. The argentinian fighters were already in 1982 using outdated weapons and electronics still fighting against british battleships who had state of the art technology.

No Phantoms. All french kit; various Mirage marques. Also there were no British battleships present because the Brits hadn't had any for a long time before that!
The Argentinians had one. For a brief while. :tongue:

Bluesman
09 Mar 07,, 18:23
No Phantoms. All french kit; various Mirage marques. Also there were no British battleships present because the Brits hadn't had any for a long time before that!
The Argentinians had one. For a brief while. :tongue:

You're BOTH wrong. He meant to say A-4, NOT F-4. But even A-4s are American-made.

bfng3569
09 Mar 07,, 18:56
this thread is worthless with out pictures!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;)

Dreadnought
09 Mar 07,, 19:07
One of my most favorite planes the F4.:cool:

omon
09 Mar 07,, 19:07
who are you calling ugly, f4?? i think f4 is the best looking fighter, only f22 beats it in looks, but that just me.

gunnut
10 Mar 07,, 00:01
F-4 is one of the ugliest fighter ever to be mass produced. Its ugliness is only surpassed by the X-32 Monica.

Jimmy
10 Mar 07,, 01:30
F-4 is one of the ugliest fighter ever to be mass produced. Its ugliness is only surpassed by the X-32 Monica.

So ugly its gorgeous, you mean.

I loved watching them fly at Tyndall. It was mildly sad to know that there was a decent chance it would die over the Gulf of Mexico in the HUD of an Eagle, though.

Edit: VVV I meant the F-4.

gunnut
10 Mar 07,, 02:38
So ugly its gorgeous, you mean.

No way. Monica was bad. Huge gaping mouth. Fat torso. Thin spindly legs. What the hell was Billy...I mean Boeing, thinking?


I loved watching them fly at Tyndall. It was mildly sad to know that there was a decent chance it would die over the Gulf of Mexico in the HUD of an Eagle, though.

Oh you mean the Phantom. No, it was just ugly. It had droopy tail, bent wings, saggy nose, crooked pipes...etc.

But it sure did perform though. It was a fine plane. Just ugly...

Maxor
10 Mar 07,, 02:45
It was a fairly ugly fighter large ungainly and oddly proportioned.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-4_45.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-4-upclose.jpg

Finally the worlds ugliest example the the f-4 wall video YouTube - F4 Phantom Vs. Wall (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8)

nutter
11 Mar 07,, 17:59
Heh i never found the F4 to be that ugly :D

One of my fave aircraft actually, though it *is* definitely from the school of "brute force and ignorance" type flight. Pretty sure it's kill ratio improved with the top gun stuff when pilots learned to fly the energy fight with it rather than try and make it turn :D

Back in it's day, it actually held a few time to climb and speed records for a while if i remember properly?

Bluesman
11 Mar 07,, 20:51
Heh i never found the F4 to be that ugly :D

One of my fave aircraft actually, though it *is* definitely from the school of "brute force and ignorance" type flight. Pretty sure it's kill ratio improved with the top gun stuff when pilots learned to fly the energy fight with it rather than try and make it turn :D

Back in it's day, it actually held a few time to climb and speed records for a while if i remember properly?

Its kill ratio went up as a consequence of it getting a gun, as well as better air-to-air skills for its crews.

Missiles just weren't very good back then, and putting an energy fighter like the F-4 with missiles-only armament up against angles fighters like various MiGs with guns and missiles was asking for a hard lesson. Our other, more sensibly-armed fighters were doing better BECAUSE they carried guns.

Once the F-4Ds started showing up with gun pods, and the F-4Es with the internal gun came on line...watch out, Charlie.

glyn
11 Mar 07,, 21:58
Its kill ratio went up as a consequence of it getting a gun, as well as better air-to-air skills for its crews.

Missiles just weren't very good back then, and putting an energy fighter like the F-4 with missiles-only armament up against angles fighters like various MiGs with guns and missiles was asking for a hard lesson. Our other, more sensibly-armed fighters were doing better BECAUSE they carried guns.

Once the F-4Ds started showing up with gun pods, and the F-4Es with the internal gun came on line...watch out, Charlie.

Time after time the value of the gun has been demonstrated due to the flexibility it gives to the pilot in so many situations, and yet there are those (who should know better) who try to insist that an all-missile armament is the one that ticks all the boxes. Eurofighter Typhoon was designed with the Mauser cannon as an integral element of the concept, but idiots wanted the gun removed. The good news is they are having to keep the gun installed for CG reasons.

BD1
11 Mar 07,, 22:05
I heard that Germans proudly say ´´Our Phantoms still smoke´´ or something like that . Can anybody enlighten me , what it stands for?

aktarian
08 May 07,, 09:53
F-4, proving that if you strap a big enough engine on them bricks can fly too. :tongue:

Of course it's also the largest MiG parts distributor in the world. :tongue:

Stan
08 May 07,, 12:02
wasnt the F4 in service with the Royal Navy also?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/17_HMS_Ark_Royal_North_Atlantic_July_76.jpg

wabpilot
16 May 07,, 22:00
I heard that Germans proudly say ´´Our Phantoms still smoke´´ or something like that . Can anybody enlighten me , what it stands for?No smokeless engine kits. For that matter, by moving the thrust levers to zone one, the afterburners took care of the smoke problem even without the kits. The standard drill was to go to zone one just as we began to ingress the target. Otherwise, we were a very easy target for the Mark 1 eyeball sight.

wabpilot
16 May 07,, 22:02
wasnt the F4 in service with the Royal Navy also?

It was. The RN had them aboard HMS Ark Royal. About half of the Royal Navy's origninal order of F-4Ks got diverted to the RAF. Sadly, after 1978 all the RN F-4Ks fell into the air force's grubby paws.

wabpilot
16 May 07,, 22:06
Time after time the value of the gun has been demonstrated due to the flexibility it gives to the pilot in so many situations, .... We got all our F-4 kills with missiles. Although that record had a lot more to do with training than the technology. The one thing I really thought we did wrong with the F-4J was not add the gun. I really liked having that option with the F-14.

wabpilot
16 May 07,, 22:24
How maneuverable was the F-4? Was it mainly an interceptor or was it a good dogfighter?The F-4 was excellent at ACM, in the hands of a skilled pilot and NFO. The F-4 had superior vertical penetration when compared with all contemporary adversaries. In any fight, we always moved to the vertical. That left Mr. MiG with two options, die or turn and run. Even the MiG-21 could not climb with the F-4. For that matter, it wasn't until the F-15 that anything could really climb with us. The key then in any engagement was to get a look early at the enemy and get some altitude. With our AWG-10, getting an early look was usually a given. The Sovs just did not have the radar back then.

In the navy we had two A2A weapons on our F-4s. The AIM-7 and AIM-9. They required very different approaches. With the AIM-7, you had to maintain radar lock to get a kill. So, the drill was to pick a target, shoot, and then keep your nose on him until he either died or ran away. The AIM-7 was, if everything worked right, almost impossible to evade. The problem was keeping radar lock and getting the 95 different interactions needed to launch the thing to work. If all 95 worked in sequence you pretty much had a collection of MiG parts that were in not so close formation.

The AIM-9 was a very different weapon. A heat seeker, early versions were rear aspect only. This was not a weapon that was optimized for the F-4's strengths. It was, early on, a last resort weapon. We would use it only if the AIM-7 did not get a kill, or if there was a leaker. To use the AIM-9 it required a hard turn into the enemy's rear quadrant. The best way to do this was by utilizing the vertical rolling scisors maneuver. When successfully executed, it would put a MiG-21 or 23 in front of us in about two turns. This consumed a fearsome amount of fuel, so it was usually a last ditch maneuver, or reserved for times when we were defending close to the boat. Because a tanking had to happen very soon after killing the MiG. Later versions of the AIM-9 were all aspect. But the all aspect AIM-9s entered service long after I had moved on to the F-14. I am sure the F-4S and F-4N guys loved them though.

leib10
17 May 07,, 01:59
The F-4 was a pure energy fighter, using its superior thrust to get above and behind the more nimble MiGs. Kill ratios went up drastically as the result of the introduction of gun pods (internal guns on later models) and better training in ACM (Top Gun).

@WABPilot

I've read reports that the F-14 was superior to the F-4 in the turning fight. Is this true? And also, how did it compare on the vertical plane?

wabpilot
17 May 07,, 02:21
The F-4 was a pure energy fighter, using its superior thrust to get above and behind the more nimble MiGs. Kill ratios went up drastically as the result of the introduction of gun pods (internal guns on later models) and better training in ACM (Top Gun).

@WABPilot

I've read reports that the F-14 was superior to the F-4 in the turning fight. Is this true? And also, how did it compare on the vertical plane?In the navy, we never had the gun pods, and none of our kills were with guns. The Marines had the gun pod, but it was not accurate enough for air to air gunnery. They used it for strafing and their scores were horrible. The thing danced all over the place and rarely hit the target. In 1968 LCR John Nichols had to finish off a MiG with guns from his F-8 after damaging it with a 'winder. If memory serves me, that was the last USN gun kill.

The F-14 was much better in a turning fight than the F-4. In the vertical it was better too. But not so much better that you would want to risk getting into a vertical with a good F-4 stick. He could make you pay if you didn't know the F-14 well.

leib10
17 May 07,, 05:37
Thanks for the info. :)

hello
18 May 07,, 19:43
The F-4 was excellent at ACM, in the hands of a skilled pilot and NFO. The F-4 had superior vertical penetration when compared with all contemporary adversaries. In any fight, we always moved to the vertical. That left Mr. MiG with two options, die or turn and run. Even the MiG-21 could not climb with the F-4. For that matter, it wasn't until the F-15 that anything could really climb with us. The key then in any engagement was to get a look early at the enemy and get some altitude. With our AWG-10, getting an early look was usually a given. The Sovs just did not have the radar back then.

In the navy we had two A2A weapons on our F-4s. The AIM-7 and AIM-9. They required very different approaches. With the AIM-7, you had to maintain radar lock to get a kill. So, the drill was to pick a target, shoot, and then keep your nose on him until he either died or ran away. The AIM-7 was, if everything worked right, almost impossible to evade. The problem was keeping radar lock and getting the 95 different interactions needed to launch the thing to work. If all 95 worked in sequence you pretty much had a collection of MiG parts that were in not so close formation.

The AIM-9 was a very different weapon. A heat seeker, early versions were rear aspect only. This was not a weapon that was optimized for the F-4's strengths. It was, early on, a last resort weapon. We would use it only if the AIM-7 did not get a kill, or if there was a leaker. To use the AIM-9 it required a hard turn into the enemy's rear quadrant. The best way to do this was by utilizing the vertical rolling scisors maneuver. When successfully executed, it would put a MiG-21 or 23 in front of us in about two turns. This consumed a fearsome amount of fuel, so it was usually a last ditch maneuver, or reserved for times when we were defending close to the boat. Because a tanking had to happen very soon after killing the MiG. Later versions of the AIM-9 were all aspect. But the all aspect AIM-9s entered service long after I had moved on to the F-14. I am sure the F-4S and F-4N guys loved them though.

I've seen both the Rolling Scissors maneuvers and Phantom barrel roll on TV. In the horizontal Scissors, both planes cross each other and keep turning into each other until the tighter turner gets an attacking position. This wouldn't be good for a Phantom. The verticle version has both planes turning into each other at the top and bottom of an afterburner-powered climb/dive sequence. Eventually the less powerful plane drops away or stalls, and the more powerful plane comes over and is above and behind it going into a dive. The Phantom barrel roll involves the Phantom popping up above the turning target it's pursuing, then rolling to the outside of the turn and coming down behind the target without losing much speed.

I've heard that sometimes, AIM-7 missiles never came off the plane, and sometimes, they just fell away without firing. Other times they fired but just flew straight without guiding, and if closing speeds were too high, it would pass by the target harmlessly. It obviously must have been quite a handful to get 95 factors to work!

How was the F-4 compared to the second-gen F-106 Delta Dart, the USAF's second most powerful fighter? It obviously out-turned it, but how was the verticle performance? Also, how did it compare with the MiG-23?

I don't think that the F-4 was the best climber until the F-15, that probably goes to the MiG-25 Foxbat missile-truck.

wabpilot
19 May 07,, 02:10
I've heard that sometimes, AIM-7 missiles never came off the plane, and sometimes, they just fell away without firing. Other times they fired but just flew straight without guiding, and if closing speeds were too high, it would pass by the target harmlessly. It obviously must have been quite a handful to get 95 factors to work! Any one of the interactions could cause the missile to fail. That, more than anything, lead to the early AIM-7's less than stellar reputation. However, most of the problems were worked out and it really turned out to be a very good weapon.


How was the F-4 compared to the second-gen F-106 Delta Dart, the USAF's second most powerful fighter? Like all contemporary delta wing fighters, the F-106 built up drag in a turn. It was one of the few aircraft the F-4 could engage in a turning fight and win. Thus, whenever we had the opportunity to do so, we did.


Also, how did it compare with the MiG-23? That depends on which one you are talking about. The early ones were not all that nimble, especially when compared with the MiG-21. The early aircraft were heavy and underpowered. Further, their avionics were cludgy by Soviet standards. The GCI people had a tough time with them. The lightweight redesign that came along in the mid-70's was a much better machine. It finally had the power and agility one usually associates with MiG machines.


I don't think that the F-4 was the best climber until the F-15, that probably goes to the MiG-25 Foxbat missile-truck. I do. The MiG-25 was a fine recon bird, but then so too was the A-5.

Big K
19 May 07,, 11:09
was the F-14 far better than F-4?

hello
19 May 07,, 18:03
Of course the F-14 was better than the F-4. It had the AWG-9 and AIM-54, and a 20mm cannon, along with AIM-7s and AIM-9s.


Like all contemporary delta wing fighters, the F-106 built up drag in a turn. It was one of the few aircraft the F-4 could engage in a turning fight and win. Thus, whenever we had the opportunity to do so, we did.

The MiG-21 was a delta-wing fighter, although with small delta wings. I'm asking how the F-106 performed in the verticle. It had a nuclear a2a rocket and a big target like the F-4...

Also, how was the Phantom vs the tiny, nimble F-104 Starfighter?


That depends on which one you are talking about. The early ones were not all that nimble, especially when compared with the MiG-21. The early aircraft were heavy and underpowered. Further, their avionics were cludgy by Soviet standards. The GCI people had a tough time with them. The lightweight redesign that came along in the mid-70's was a much better machine. It finally had the power and agility one usually associates with MiG machines.

By the mid 1970s, the F-14 and F-15 were around. The MiG-23 would be pointless by then anyway.


I do. The MiG-25 was a fine recon bird, but then so too was the A-5.

I'm asking if the MiG-25 outclimbed the Phantom. If it's a Mach 2.8 aircraft, surely it should be able to outclimb the Phantom, but I don't know for sure.

nutter
19 May 07,, 18:11
If it's a Mach 2.8 aircraft, surely it should be able to outclimb the Phantom,

Well that all depends doesn't it.

Climb rate is more dependent on power:weight than aerodynamic drag - as is the case in a top speed shootout.

Not 100% sure, but i don't think the mig-25's power:weight is *that* impressive.

hello
19 May 07,, 18:33
Climb rate is more dependent on power:weight than aerodynamic drag - as is the case in a top speed shootout.

Here's what globalsecurity.org has to say:


Given the NATO reporting name 'Foxbat', the MiG-25 was designed to intercept the US B-70 bomber that was to have been capable of Mach 3. The B-70 was never built, however, so the Soviets were left with a long-range interceptor capable of astonishing speed and a phenomenal rate of climb. A MiG-25 can take off and climb to an altitude of 35,000 meters (114,000 ft) in a little over four minutes.

According to Globalsecurity, the F-4s climb rate (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-4-specs.htm) is 49,000ft/min but has a ceiling of 60,000ft.

wabpilot
19 May 07,, 20:47
It had a nuclear a2a rocket and a big target like the F-4... It was useless against a maneuverable target like the F-4.


Also, how was the Phantom vs the tiny, nimble F-104 Starfighter? Better in every regard. The F-104 was not particularly nimble, nor did it carry a big load, nor did it have long legs. And, the F-104 was difficult to fly and more difficult to land.


I'm asking if the MiG-25 outclimbed the Phantom. If it's a Mach 2.8 aircraft, surely it should be able to outclimb the Phantom, but I don't know for sure. It cannot, at least from the ground to about FL 500 +/-.

Bowman
23 May 07,, 03:07
F-4 is one of the ugliest fighter ever to be mass produced. Its ugliness is only surpassed by the X-32 Monica.

Monica is a little heavy, but she's not ugly.

JAD_333
23 May 07,, 03:36
When deployed to Gitmo with my P2V squadron during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we were damned glad for the F-4s, what with Russian ships trying to get thru the Windward Passage and Raul Casto's troops dug in just beyond the fenceline.

From our mess hall we could see the runway and watch the F-4s coming and going, and the going was usually vertical. Felt like a boom box at full blast when they released for their run. Silverware rattled on the tables. Someone said they were ugly; they looked muscular to me.

killabee
08 Jun 07,, 19:55
Here's what globalsecurity.org has to say:



According to Globalsecurity, the F-4s climb rate (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-4-specs.htm) is 49,000ft/min but has a ceiling of 60,000ft.

u are confusing INTIAL climb speed with Time TO altitude...:rolleyes:

killabee
08 Jun 07,, 20:12
see project high jump...........