[simpits-tech] [simpits-chat] Phabulous Phantoms....
Justin Messenger
simpits-tech@simpits.org
Mon, 4 Aug 2003 19:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
--0-153581916-1060049667=:34816
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
It all comes down to using your fighter's strength and minimizing your opponent's, IE pilot skill, and training. When you have a well trained back seater that fighter definatly has the advantage over a single seat fighter type. SA is much higher when the crap hits the fan . When flown correctly the F-4 decimated the MiG's in Nam, even with crappy early generation missiles. Just like the P51 did to the Germans in WWII when finally let loose from the the restraint of staying strictly with the bombers.
I think when the airframe is upgraded to it's full potential the F-4 is a better ground pounder because its airframe has more room for stuff than a 16 and because the GIB helps keep better situational awareness. This is not only due to the second pair of eyeballs but also to better monitoring of shared information from AWACS, etc. after, like I said before, the crap hits the fan..
In a close in dogfight it's no contest, you need a F-18 if you want to turn inside a Falcon, forget it in an f-4. All aspect missiles help the F-4 to still perform when it's time to get closer in. Dog Fights also make better movies! However, it also take good teamwork for a flight of fighters to take out another flight from long range. For example, one fighter gets the bandits to paint him while other members of his flight do a radical altitude change and a beam turn to break doppler radar lock so he can gain a better position to fire his own missile. If find that kind of teamwork skill just as interesting as one on one dogfight skills.
I think the strategy of outmanuvering your oponent for the most part has changed do too AMRAAM. When you can force the enemy to fight on your terms like in desert storm those weapons are actually incredibly effective. In the F-4 if you keep up your speed and distance it is a huge threat to the jets like the 16 because it is very fast the newer missile do work well. And the upgraded F-4's dont have the smoke problem, that was fixed. Minimum afterburner is no longer required to stop the smoke.
If you you had an unlimited budget I think modernized F-4's would make a much more effective combat aircraft force than the 16. Heck, the Israelies even got the F-4 to supercruise when they changed out the engine types. climb was 30 percent better. I'm sure a flyby wire F-4 airframe turns well too. But why upgrade the f-4 when you could have the F-15E? That's what the Air Force wishes it could really have rather than the 16.
That being said there is no question that F-16 is effective at what it does as a multi role aircraft. To say otherwise is silly.
As far as air to air combat between the F-4 and any of the late 70's fighters go they are all high threats to each other when flown and supported properly. I think what will completely nutralize the F-4 in air combat will be aircraft like the F-22. I really dont see how the F-4 could take on a Raptor and win.
I know you love the F-4 Chris. I think when it comes down to it we all love all fighters:)
BTW, you met someone I know when you were in England not long ago. Tony Leaver.
He said you bought an F-111 part from him.
http://www.geocities.com/cap17.geo/Tony_Leaver.html
Justin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
--0-153581916-1060049667=:34816
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>It all comes down to using your fighter's strength and minimizing your opponent's, IE pilot skill, and training. When you have a well trained back seater that fighter definatly has the advantage over a single seat fighter type. SA is much higher when the crap hits the fan . When flown correctly the F-4 decimated the MiG's in Nam, even with crappy early generation missiles. Just like the P51 did to the Germans in WWII when finally let loose from the the restraint of staying strictly with the bombers.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think when the airframe is upgraded to it's full potential the F-4 is a better ground pounder because its airframe has more room for stuff than a 16 and because the GIB helps keep better situational awareness. This is not only due to the second pair of eyeballs but also to better monitoring of shared information from AWACS, etc. after, like I said before, the crap hits the fan..</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a close in dogfight it's no contest, you need a F-18 if you want to turn inside a Falcon, forget it in an f-4. All aspect missiles help the F-4 to still perform when it's time to get closer in. Dog Fights also make better movies! However, it also take good teamwork for a flight of fighters to take out another flight from long range. For example, one fighter gets the bandits to paint him while other members of his flight do a radical altitude change and a beam turn to break doppler radar lock so he can gain a better position to fire his own missile. If find that kind of teamwork skill just as interesting as one on one dogfight skills.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think the strategy of outmanuvering your oponent for the most part has changed do too AMRAAM. When you can force the enemy to fight on your terms like in desert storm those weapons are actually incredibly effective. In the F-4 if you keep up your speed and distance it is a huge threat to the jets like the 16 because it is very fast the newer missile do work well. And the upgraded F-4's dont have the smoke problem, that was fixed. Minimum afterburner is no longer required to stop the smoke.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If you you had an unlimited budget I think modernized F-4's would make a much more effective combat aircraft force than the 16. Heck, the Israelies even got the F-4 to supercruise when they changed out the engine types. climb was 30 percent better. I'm sure a flyby wire F-4 airframe turns well too. But why upgrade the f-4 when you could have the F-15E? That's what the Air Force wishes it could really have rather than the 16. </DIV>
<DIV>That being said there is no question that F-16 is effective at what it does as a multi role aircraft. To say otherwise is silly. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As far as air to air combat between the F-4 and any of the late 70's fighters go they are all high threats to each other when flown and supported properly. I think what will completely nutralize the F-4 in air combat will be aircraft like the F-22. I really dont see how the F-4 could take on a Raptor and win. <BR></DIV>
<DIV>I know you love the F-4 Chris. I think when it comes down to it we all love all fighters:)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BTW, you met someone I know when you were in England not long ago. <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT size=2>Tony Leaver.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14px"><FONT size=2>He said you bought an F-111 part from him.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.geocities.com/cap17.geo/Tony_Leaver.html">http://www.geocities.com/cap17.geo/Tony_Leaver.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Justin</DIV>
<DIV>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Funny. Full of good points, and also full of errors too.<BR>If anyone wants to see the bulk of damage done in the first gulf war, they<BR>only need to look at the record of the The Mighty Vark. I challenge any of<BR>you to show me an aircraft with a better record of damage done in Gulf War<BR>I. Especially tank plinking and LGB drops/hits. Even the EF-111 got a Kill<BR>on a Mirage ( no shit)_ask me bout that one when I got time.<BR>And if I had a choice of steeds to go into combat against migs in the skies<BR>of North Viet Nam back in the day, I would take another Texas Product, The<BR>Mig Master- F-8 Crusader. I would not want to be in something as big as the<BR>F-4 trailing 20 miles of smoke as a "follow me" sign to some GCA controlled<BR>gommer full of Spiz and Atoll.......The Crusader was a fighter pilots dream<BR>( for the time) fast, manuverable and it had four
20 mm cannon- missles were<BR>a secondary option. Single seat fighters are the way to go.<BR>Most GIB's/RIO's/WSO's usually were dead weight, as opposed to being an<BR>asset, and if an asset in that jet it was only for a second pair of eyes. Id<BR>rather carry around the equivilant amount of fuel or weapons than his<BR>ejection seat, avionics, and human flesh.<BR>As for the Viper, I remeber from my early childhood reading dads Aviation<BR>Week and Space Technology ( aviation leakly to the "in crowd") and seeing a<BR>picture taken from the ground of the YF-16 and an F-4 in a great big turning<BR>circle in the sky. Both were trailing smoke to define the radius of the<BR>circle, and I think even as a small boy I understood the implications of the<BR>little GD jet out turning the F-4. I will give you that the "tits" Light<BR>weight fighter concept that was the YF-16 got ( as always) every thing<BR>everyone could stick in it and hang off it, so now its not quite as much the<BR>fighter it
could have been...but it aint too far off the mark, especially<BR>with the later model "shit hot" engines.<BR>If you want to just go for the pure macho of a dog fight, I will state this.<BR>A real fighter pilot makes a kill with guns. AAMRAMM shots are for all the<BR>coke bottle glasses, PC programing, geek types found in many parts of<BR>todays military. A real kill involves the strategy of outmanuvering your<BR>oponent in a dog fight in the oblique vertical. All fighter pilots should<BR>have this down as a fundimental. Of course if you have the AAMRAAM fire it<BR>first, then go to mid range, then to guns as a last resort. But in the real<BR>world, weapons dont work like Raytheon, and other Contractors tell you or<BR>show you in the films. If I had a dollar for every guy in Viet Nam fired off<BR>a AIM-7 Sparrow, or even AIM-9 Sidewinder only to see it go off chasing the<BR>sun or just plain ballistic, only to find them self at gun range in the<BR>original C and D models of Phantom
with no gun, and then no kill. Trusting a<BR>missle is like trusting lucy when she was holding the ball for charlie<BR>brown.<BR>Even though I know that Gene posted this to rouse the F-16 folks ( which can<BR>be fun, although I qualify as one too since I own an F-16 cockpit, not to<BR>mention F-4E) I think that even Gene knows that if he had to go do battle<BR>against the Phabulous Phantom, that it would be in Genes favor to choose his<BR>own F-15 if he wanted the odds in his favor.So keep this in mind.<BR>All that being said, I get a hard on watching a Phantom in full burner, and<BR>I do miss them very much. I love the Brittish Phantoms too with the big Spey<BR>Engines.<BR>Dont fret, Justin, you know I love the F-4, but in this subjective world of<BR>aviation love, we all gotta speak when we read these threads : P<BR><BR><BR></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com">Yahoo! SiteBuilder</a> - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
--0-153581916-1060049667=:34816--