Originally posted by Bluesman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The F-4 Phantom
Collapse
X
-
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
-
I heard that Germans proudly say ´´Our Phantoms still smoke´´ or something like that . Can anybody enlighten me , what it stands for?If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today
Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok
Comment
-
Originally posted by braindead View PostI heard that Germans proudly say ´´Our Phantoms still smoke´´ or something like that . Can anybody enlighten me , what it stands for?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by glyn View PostTime after time the value of the gun has been demonstrated due to the flexibility it gives to the pilot in so many situations, ....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostHow maneuverable was the F-4? Was it mainly an interceptor or was it a good dogfighter?
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.
Comment
-
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by leib10 View PostThe 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 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by wabpilot View PostThe 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 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hello View PostI'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?
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.
Comment
-
was the F-14 far better than F-4?Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.
Comment
-
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.
Originally posted by wabpilotLike 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 was the Phantom vs the tiny, nimble F-104 Starfighter?
Originally posted by wabpilotThat 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.
Originally posted by wabpilotI do. The MiG-25 was a fine recon bird, but then so too was the A-5.
Comment
Comment