[simpits-chat] Phabulous Phantoms....

Gene Buckle simpits-chat@simpits.org
Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:30:10 -0700 (PDT)

This is why I put "sense of humor=ON" in there. :)


On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Chris Woodul wrote:

> Funny. Full of good points, and also full of errors too.
> If anyone wants to see the bulk of damage done in the first gulf war, they
> only need to look at the record of the The Mighty Vark. I challenge any of
> you to show me an aircraft with a better record of damage done in Gulf War
> I. Especially tank plinking and LGB drops/hits. Even the EF-111 got a Kill
> on a Mirage ( no shit)_ask me bout that one when I got time.
> And if I had a choice of steeds to go into combat against migs in the skies
> of North Viet Nam back in the day, I would take another Texas Product, The
> Mig Master- F-8 Crusader. I would not want to be in something as big as the
> F-4 trailing 20 miles of smoke as a "follow me" sign to some GCA controlled
> gommer full of Spiz and Atoll.......The Crusader was a fighter pilots dream
> ( for the time) fast, manuverable and it had four 20 mm cannon- missles were
> a secondary option. Single seat fighters are the way to go.
> Most GIB's/RIO's/WSO's usually were dead weight, as opposed to being an
> asset, and if an asset in that jet it was only for a second pair of eyes. Id
> rather carry around the equivilant amount of fuel or weapons than his
> ejection seat, avionics, and human flesh.
> As for the Viper, I remeber from my early childhood reading dads Aviation
> Week and Space Technology ( aviation leakly to the "in crowd") and seeing a
> picture taken from the ground of the YF-16 and an F-4 in a great big turning
> circle in the sky. Both were trailing smoke to define the radius of the
> circle, and I think even as a small boy I understood the implications of the
> little GD jet out turning the F-4. I will give you that the "tits" Light
> weight fighter concept that was the YF-16 got ( as always) every thing
> everyone could stick in it and hang off it, so now its not quite as much the
> fighter it could have been...but it aint too far off the mark, especially
> with the later model "shit hot" engines.
> If you want to just go for the pure macho of a dog fight, I will state this.
> A real fighter pilot makes a kill with guns. AAMRAMM shots are for all the
> coke bottle glasses, PC programing, geek types found in many parts of
> todays military. A real kill involves the strategy of outmanuvering your
> oponent in a dog fight in the oblique vertical. All fighter pilots should
> have this down as a fundimental. Of course if you have the AAMRAAM fire it
> first, then go to mid range, then to guns as a last resort. But in the real
> world, weapons dont work like Raytheon, and other Contractors tell you or
> show you in the films. If I had a dollar for every guy in Viet Nam fired off
> a AIM-7 Sparrow, or even AIM-9 Sidewinder only to see it go off chasing the
> sun or just plain ballistic, only to find them self at gun range in the
> original C and D models of Phantom with no gun, and then no kill. Trusting a
> missle is like trusting lucy when she was holding the ball for charlie
> brown.
> Even though I know that Gene posted this to rouse the F-16 folks ( which can
> be fun, although I qualify as one too since I own an F-16 cockpit, not to
> mention F-4E) I think that even Gene knows that if he had to go do battle
> against the Phabulous Phantom, that it would be in Genes favor to choose his
> own F-15 if he wanted the odds in his favor.So keep this in mind.
> All that being said, I get a hard on watching a Phantom in full burner, and
> I do miss them very much. I love the Brittish Phantoms too with the big Spey
> Engines.
> Dont fret, Justin, you know I love the F-4, but in this subjective world of
> aviation love, we all gotta speak when we read these threads   : P
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Buckle" <geneb@deltasoft.com>
> To: <simpits-chat@simpits.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 5:23 PM
> Subject: [simpits-chat] Phabulous Phantoms....
> > This was posted to a message board I read.  <sense_of_humor=ON>
> >
> > TO: Capt. Eric Best 3 SEP 93
> > FROM: The Wild Weasels
> > SUBJ: Gross Written Buffoonery
> >
> > 1. In case you hadn't noticed, the F-4 is the F-4 of the 1990s. Any
> > comparison between that worthless piece of flying FOD that you buzz around
> > in and the Mighty Phantom II is insulting to the many men who have fought
> > and died In the F-4. The Phantom II was flying Defense Suppression and Air
> > Superiority missions over Hanoi, dropping LGBs with PAVE KNIFE on the Paul
> > Doumer Bridge, and flying CAS in the Iron Triangle (to mention just a few)
> > long before your flying toy was a wet dream in the minds of the Texas
> > Congressional Delegation.
> >
> > The misplaced belief that the F-16 is a true multi-role fighter is no
> > doubt a contributing factor to the common occurrence of Vipers spearing
> > rocks, dirt, trees, other aircraft and large bodies of water with the
> > pitot tube. The F-16 was designed to be a cheap, day VFR fighter and no
> > amount of training or money will ever be able to overcome that imitation.
> > If any aircraft today approaches the potential for comparison to the F-4,
> > it is another two seat, two engine McDonnell Douglas product in the Air
> > Force Service.
> >
> > 2. Any attempt to inflate your basement-level status by comparison to what
> > is, quite simply the best jet fighter ever built and the Defender of the
> > Free World for over 30 Years, is a pitiful attempt to boost your ego by
> > comparing yourself to better men flying a better aircraft. The F-4 has
> > flown more types of missions, in a superlative fashion, than the F-16
> > could ever consider. We would all love to see the day when an F-16 lifts
> > off with 24 Mk 82s and four AAMs on a combat mission. And the F-4 became
> > the world's best ever distributor of MIG parts with 1950s technology,
> > AIM-7Es, AIM 9Bs and cannon, without having to wait for the introduction
> > of the AMRAAM.
> >
> > 3. The simple fact of the matter is that the dismal combat performance of
> > the F-16 in the Gulf War is directly responsible for the continuing
> > service of both the F-4 and the A-10. The F-16s inability to deliver
> > ordnance load accurately resulted in the need to re-attack targets,
> > endangering men needlessly and wasting resources. It wasn't the F-16 that
> > ran a SAM-killing 8 ship through the most intense air defenses ever
> > encountered by the USAF over Baghdad on the first night of the war. The
> > only reason "Magnum" is even in your vocabulary is because the dwindling
> > numbers of Phantoms led to the conclusion that an F-16 on the wing is
> > better than nothing at all, but only just.
> >
> > The only people that have not caught on to the glaring inadequacy of the
> > F-16 are the people who drive them. The only foreign customer stupid
> > enough to purchase the F-16 since the war has been Taiwan, largely
> > because, (1) they placed their order long before the war, and (2) they had
> > no real option because they were not offered the F-18 and didn't already
> > operate the Phantom II. Even your own manufacturer bailed out of the
> > business as soon as they realized that they could no longer rely on
> > general and gross stupidity to sell their flying failure.
> >
> > 4. To wrap this up, we greatly resent the misguided and faulty comparison
> > of the F-4 Phantom II to the Fighting Falcon, the only fighter aircraft In
> > history to be named after a second-rate college football team. Any
> > resemblance between the McDonnell Douglas Phantom II Supersonic,
> > All-Weather, Fighter-Bomber (Mostly Bomber), and the miserable,
> > single-seat, single-engine, computer designed, fly-by-wire, composite
> > airframe, software-driven, day VFR, ice-FOD sucking, weakdick bubble
> > canopied, target missing, ground impacting, non-hook raising, auto
> > trimming, piddlepack ejecting, G-LOCing piece of flying pork barrel
> > politics is limited to the fact that both aircraft have an F- designation.
> > Your aircraft should have a blue stripe painted around the nose and "FOR
> > TRAINING USE ONLY" stenciled on the fuselage. And you can go to the club
> > tonight knowing that you, your article, and this letter occupy a
> > significant place in our Doofer book
> >
> >
> > * PANAMA
> > * CUBA
> > * TEXAS
> >
> >
> > :)
> > g.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > simpits-chat mailing list
> > simpits-chat@simpits.org
> > http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-chat
> _______________________________________________
> simpits-chat mailing list
> simpits-chat@simpits.org
> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-chat