nutter

Seems we've had just about everything else....

As I understand it, the F4 was a decent energy fighter, the F5 was designed more for turning.

I hear both airframes were upgraded significantly in terms of avionics during service, so lets say... F4E vs F5E, in a 1 on 1 dogfight, head on from 20nm?

JG73

F-5 was developed as a cheaper fighter for the US allies who can't pay F-4s

__________________
>Facit Omnia Voluntas<

-{SpoonmaN}-

Yeah I'd have to go for the F-4 on this one, it was designed as a twin seat air superiority bird, the F-5 was more of a cheap multi-role bomb truck. The Phantom had longer engagement ranges, superior avionics, a WSO to focus on killing the target and a Pilot to focus on not getting killed as opposed to one person having to do both, the Phantom was faster and from what I understand pretty durable.
An interesting one would be an F-4A vs F-5A at 5km, what with the whole no guns for the Phantom thing.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

leib10

Assuming a gun pod wasn't attached.

__________________
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

TopHatter

And it's using the same lousy Sparrows and Falcons that an F-4E would historically be stuck with....

gunnut

They were both excellent fighters designed for different roles and different customers with different budgets.

F-4: hugely powerful long range interceptor/fighter that excelled as a strike bomber

F-5: cheap, easy to maintain, no frills no thrills jet for export

They fulfilled their designed roles beyond anyone's wildest dreams, and then some.

A 1v1 dogfight at low speed, I would pick the F-5, if the rules of engagement limit the F-4 so it couldn't just accelerate away, then re-engage at high speed.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

SRB

In close range F-5 but in whole aspect of air war F-4.

SnowLeopard

Think a primary point is being missed here. The F-4 is an offensive aircraft. the F-5 is a defensive aircraft. It depends on what you want to do with it and that what you want to do is the proper use of it.
--------------------------------------------------------
("The F-5 is a nice aircraft. We can sell it to our allies so they can defend themselves but it lacks the range or carrying capacity for them to attack their neighbors with it."--(wtte), MAG General)

avon1944

No, the F-5 was designed to counter the MiG.-21's and to prevent an arms race or escalation. Defensively, the F-5 is a good match against the MiG.-21 but, it is not capable of exporting an aerial offensive.
The performance of the F-5 is so close to the MiG.-21 is the many reason Top Gun, Red Flag and, other agressor programs that use it to simulate the MiG.-21.
An arms esculation would happen in some parts of the world if the F-4 was given to the US ally. This exactly was the reason South Viet Nam was given the F-5 to counter the North Viet Nam's MiG.-21's.


What most people don't realize is that the F-4 could match the F-5/MiG.-21 in the horizontal plane, turning below ten thousand feet at speeds below 400mph (640Km)! The F-4 was used as top cover much of its tactical combat career. (John Boyd showed the F-105 to be a better fighter and the F-4 a better bomber)
The F-4 was far better than the MiG.-21 in the vertical plane at any altitude while the MiG.-21 was better in the horizontal plane. This is what was found out in Top Gun and what the Navy pilots discovered.
When they returned to combat after the bombing halt, Top Gun graduates earned a 13:1 kill ratio.

If the two aircraft approached each other head-on, not having a gun the F-4. The F-4 should 'extend', blast through the area, gain some altitude and, return so it could use its missiles. Having ID'd the opponent, using his missiles is the F-4's only real option.

When Lt Cmd Duke Cunningham shot down Col. Tomb, twice they both extended to gain separation and airspeed so they could return to the fight under more favorable conditions. (True, Col. Tomb was flying a MiG.-17 the day he died.)


Dis-engaging and re-engaging is a tactic. So within about 1,200 feet (400m), the F-4 has no weapons that function. Gaining separation is the only way the F-4 could compete in this situation.

The F-4 was designed to be defensive, a carrier born interceptor. The power of its engines and the massive fuel load, allowed it to do many task very well.

The winner of this battle will be the pilot who is able to bring the dogfight around to his aircraft's strengths.

Adrian