glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

braindead

I heard that Germans proudly say ´´Our Phantoms still smoke´´ or something like that . Can anybody enlighten me , what it stands for?

__________________
....

aktarian

F-4, proving that if you strap a big enough engine on them bricks can fly too.

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

Stan

wasnt the F4 in service with the Royal Navy also?

wabpilot

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

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

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

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

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?

__________________
"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

wabpilot

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

Thanks for the info.

hello

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

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.

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.

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

Big K

was the F-14 far better than F-4?

__________________
When i say, there will be no effect but i am not willing to remain silent.
-Fuzuli

hello

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.

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?

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