# Old planes/designs with new technology: F-4 Phantom II and no F-15/F14/FA18



## gjs238 (May 27, 2010)

Old planes/designs with new technology.
The thread of the Superhornet replacement got me thinking about this.

Could the F-4, with appropriate updates, have provided necessary performance and carried US Air Force/Navy/Marine requirements forward through today without the need of the F-15, F-14, F-18?

I'm not including the F-16 here because that seems more comparable to the F-5.


----------



## Crimea_River (May 27, 2010)

Without a complete redesign, I'm sure the F-4 would have never matched the maneouverability of the later birds you mention.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> Could the F-4, with appropriate updates, have provided necessary performance and carried US Air Force/Navy/Marine requirements forward through today without the need of the F-15, F-14, F-18?



No - the IDF did do some improvments to their F-4s but was still light years behind the mentioned aircraft, especially the F-15.


----------



## syscom3 (May 27, 2010)

Didnt the Germans upgrade their F4's to keep pace with modern designs?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Didnt the Germans upgrade their F4's to keep pace with modern designs?


They did, but you're not going to be able to get an F-4 anywhere close to an F-15 in performance. Avionics, nav equipment, all good, but still behind the newer aircraft.


----------



## Colin1 (May 27, 2010)

The F-4 wouldn't have gotten to altitude to counter the MiG-25 anywhere near as fast as the F-15 did, I believe the MiG-25 was a primary driver for the F-15 program - before they realised what a barge the MiG-25 was.

I vaguely remember reading an article about experienced Vietnam-blooded F-4 jocks tangling with the new-in-service F-14 in mock knife-fights and coming off second best but I wouldn't know if that were true or just sales talk. I doubt it would win BVR either.

You've made me wonder if the F-4, with a similar avionics suite, wouldn't be as good as the Tornado in the mud-mover role.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> The F-4 wouldn't have gotten to altitude to counter the MiG-25 anywhere near as fast as the F-15 did, I believe the MiG-25 was a primary driver for the F-15 program - before they realised what a barge the MiG-25 was.
> 
> I vaguely remember reading an article about experienced Vietnam-blooded F-4 jocks tangling with the new-in-service F-14 in mock knife-fights and coming off second best but I wouldn't know if that were true or just sales talk. It doubt it would win BVR either.


 Correct on all counts. My father in law had a chance to fly F-4s and F-15s and he said there was no comparison. 


Colin1 said:


> You've made me wonder if the F-4, with a similar avionics suite, wouldn't be as good as the Tornado in the mud-mover role.



It might be - the Rhino was able to carry a lot of weight - remember it made a good Wild Weasel aircraft.

BTW, CF-5As had F-18 avionic suites in their last years in service.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Didnt the Germans upgrade their F4's to keep pace with modern designs?



Later German F-4s were mostly used in Recon roles and home defense as well as Wild Weasel. They were not used in that sense as a front line fighter. 

Only a few years ago I had one buzz over us when flying around. He passed over our helicopter by maybe 1000 ft. Was pretty neat actually. I believe there believe there a still 60 or so in service with JG 71.


----------



## Messy1 (May 27, 2010)

I don't think other than avionics upgrades that there would be much you could do to make the F4 keep up with the current generation, or even the generation before's planes. Without it's big engines for it's speed, the F4 was not known for it's maneuverability I do not think.


----------



## vanir (May 27, 2010)

My two cents,

we shouldn't be comparing the F-4 to the F-15 if you're talking about cancelling the F-15 project in favour of an updated F-4 to carry the USAF through the 1970's.

We should be comparing it to its overseas contemporaries. These would be the MiG-23 primarily. And it's about even on overall performance, the MiG is much faster and more nimble (the Flogger-G can out-accelerate an F-16 but that isn't available until the late 70's), but the Phantom is more robust and a better weapons platform. Also consider that by the mid-70's an F-4 fleet as the primary fighter type would have the ICE stats of an AN/APG-65 and by 1980 the early AMRAAMs.

But you couldn't cancell either the F-16 or F/A-18 and between them they'd replace Phantoms in front line service by 1980. Those two modern fighters are perfectly cost effective anyway.
It was really the F-15 that was a rushed development, hence ridiculously expensive and a little ahead of its time in terms of complexity. It cost just about as much to put in service as it did to develop and put into production, then as much again to maintain.

But it did deliver the goods, not really very cost effectively at all, but they were there. You can't compare an F-4 to an F-15 any sooner than you could a MiG-23M (Flogger-B), but you can compare an F-4 to a MiG-23 no prob.


----------



## gjs238 (May 27, 2010)

Question: Weren't both aircraft ~similiar empty weight?
(F-4 F-15 that is)


----------



## Colin1 (May 27, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> Question: Weren't both aircraft ~similiar empty weight?
> (F-4 F-15 that is)


Possibly
just not quite the same thrust being applied to both

late-mark J-79: approx 18,500lbf with afterburner (approx 12,000lbf dry)
early-mark TF-100: approx 29,000lbf with afterburner (approx 18,000lbf dry)


----------



## vanir (May 28, 2010)

Plus engine dynamics are pretty different between the old turbojet and newer turbofan, specific thrust, frontal thrust, static thrust, the turbofan is much more fuel efficient and has several performance enhancing benefits, not the least being less tendency to overspeed.

The Brits put Rolls Royce turbofans in some of their Phantoms and whilst top speed wasn't improved because the intakes had to be widened, the overall mid range performance, fuel consumption and low speed handling were much improved.
One of the main restrictions of Phantom level speed is fuel consumption, in service conditions it was an impressive thing to manage 2 Mach in one, most wouldn't see more than 1.4-1.6 unless specially prepared for a speed run, as stated by pilots.
But this holds true for most jets, when they say "Mach 2.3 top speed" what they really mean is that it can carry a bigger load to about 1.5 Mach than other contemporaries which have a top speed listed as "Mach 1.8"
Maximum level speed with most supersonic fighters is really a measure of load bearing and altitude performance and not actual speeds ever achieved under service conditions.

There are some exceptions, notably the MiG-25 (it's Mach 2.8 is demonstrated with a 2 ton external load in a serially produced example right off the line, hella impressive).

With F-4 manoeuvrability, against the MiG-21 which was much, much lighter and had great thrust/weight and thrust/drag (meaning both excellent acceleration and top speed, as well as spritely manoeuvrability), well the F-4 was considered especially good in early Vietnam encounters with the Fishbed because it has plenty of excess thrust at subsonic speeds and that MiG didn't have boosted controls where the F-4 did. Also a help was the dedicated weapon systems operator (WSO), who acted as both an extra pair of eyes in an era of warplanes which have a poor field of view, and a dedicated brain to operate weapons systems in an era of warplanes where avionics were fairly rudimentary in terms of artificial intelligence.

The way it worked out was the Phantom had the advantage at low altitude where transonic performance, excess thrust and additional operating functions really came into play. But the MiG had the advantage at high altitudes where you could be more single minded, outright speed performance and supersonic acceleration was important, and high-g manoeuvres were prohibited by speed. At medium altitude they were about even.

The Flogger however introduced more performance to the MiG, it had comparable excess thrust in subsonic manoeuvres and boosted controls, but it still falls down on functionality and as a weapons platform. The radar on the Flogger for example is a very simple unit, barely capable of true lookdown/shootdown and it was the Soviet's first attempt at doppler so it was probably pretty easy to break a lock with, also of course analogue and not digital. Its display didn't even have a CRT screen, it just projected syntax on the HUD and all told is a very basic unit. By 1975 the Soviets installed an IRST under the nose as a more reliable option for close combat.

Really, get an F-4E and pop an AN/APG-65 in it and smack in the middle of 1976 it'll go toe to toe with Floggers and kick butt in altitude BVR. Get down low and hell, you've got F-16's by then and the Flogger doesn't have a chance (near the deck). You don't need an F-15, that's the argument. Just not needed.


----------



## Glider (May 28, 2010)

The one plane that could be updated (in theory) is the Tornado. The original design of the Typhoon engine was such that they could be installed in the Tornado. Put that to the extended fusulage with the extra fuel tank as fitted in the Tornado fighter versions and that would be quite an improvement in range / payload. I don't know how the engines changed over the years but even if they did fit the airframe would not get the best of the old technology plus the aircraft are getting old and maintaining the Tornado must be a major problem. 
Obviously I am talking about upgrading the Tornado in the strike role, it was never a dogfighter.

The F15 was needed and results have proven this. The F16 in its first few versions was a dogfighter pure and simple and it didn't carry Sparrow missiles, just sidewinder. Without the F15 the USSR would have the advantage in long range combat and wouldn't be nearly as worried as the West about shooting down some of their own aircraft by mistake. The F4 was better than the Mig 23 but would not dominate it in the manner of the F15 plus the F4 couldn't allow itself to get sucked into a dogfight with the later versions of the Mig 21. The much larger USSR airforces would soon overwhelm the few F4 available.


----------



## gjs238 (May 28, 2010)

Let's hotrod the F-4, just for fun.
Get F-15 engines avionics in there.
Replace components with carbon fiber where possible.
Streamlined gun/cannon installation.
Revised air intakes.
Etc, etc., etc.

Thrust vectoring (?!)

It may end up costing more than a F-15, but would be interesting.


----------



## Colin1 (May 28, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> Thrust vectoring (?!)


I'm a bit off base with the modern stuff
but I don't think thrust vectoring is something you just tag on the end of the aircraft, I think there is significantly more of the airframe involved than meets the eye. Could be wrong on that.

I think the F-4 tail unit would interfere with the vectoring anyway.


----------



## Messy1 (May 28, 2010)

I do not think you would get much bang for your buck hot rodding the F4. I was always under hte impression that it was not known as a aerodynamic masterpiece, basically was a flying brick or sled with really big engines.


----------



## vanir (May 28, 2010)

I don't think results have proven the F-15 was needed at all. It's only combat prior to the US entering the Gulf was in Israeli hands where its glaring fault, that its design technology was ahead of the weapons technology to support it was prevalent. The Israelis wound up using them just like the US used the F-4 in Vietnam because of the shocking poor performance of 70's gen sparrows and sidewinders (the reason the Israelis developed the Shafir which is a generation ahead of the Sidewinder like the Archer or that South African missile). Actual combat reports in encounters with MiGs involved firing off all your missiles at once trying to hit one target and frequently missing, then getting a gun kill on a Fishbed through sustained manoeuvres, in these cases the performance of an F-4E would be just about the same, the main factors here being excess thrust and boosted controls.
The Sidewinder of the period had only just overcome the tactic of using g-manoeuvres to break its lock, but it still liked clouds and random heat sources. Sparrows were still just about useless, scoring maybe 1 in 3 shots fired and half the time just plain going ballistic after launch.

The Israelis did like the Eagle because of its terrific all round performance, they were used to dogfighters like the Mirage and it still had the weapons and intercept qualities of a Phantom with a newer tech avionics fit and especially its powerful radar. But those crappy era weapons ca.1978 still meant basically you saw the enemy well far away but still had to close to the same type of combat you'd be in using a Phantom or a Mirage anyway, because the weapons tech couldn't keep up with the plane tech. The Israelis jokingly referred to it as "the flying SAM site" because you had this powerful radar, waited for the enemy to finally close to combat range, then fired a whole lot of missiles, nevertheless the name isn't all that affectionate since the Israelis respect gun kills and dogfighting over any other aerial combat (mostly because guns don't fail on you). Upon closing to combat range Israeli pilots say they routinely ignore everything going on inside the cockpit with the avionics anyway, which is understandable considering the poor reliability of pre-80's-digital era.

The Eagle was like a glimpse into the future, a very, very, very expensive one. One should recall it was a knee jerk reaction to unreasonable paranoia about the Foxbat. You could've put the Eagle in production five years later and saved a bundle, but my point is it was still not strictly needed at all. It didn't actually serve any physical purpose which couldn't have been handled just fine without it, at a savings of several thousand million dollars, quite simply the United States would've been a wealthier country without it, you might've had free universal healthcare in 1976.

The F-16A was placed in service in 1980 and if I'm reading my Janes right in 1981 (block 5) it had Sparrow capability and a couple of other improvements (databuses and the like). The AN/APG-66 was pretty good with digital multimode, pulse-doppler and angle track, it was well ahead of anything in the Soviet arsenal before the Foxhound.


There's a couple of things to consider with the "fantastic Eagle performance" in that some of it, a good part of it is illusory because we're incorrectly comparing a 4th warplane with 3rd gen warplanes on that score.

As mentioned firstly weapons tech wasn't really up to 4th gen standard in the 70's, 4th gen is an 80's thing. It's like having a great new assault rifle with only black powder and ball to load it with.

Its engineering requirements, whilst achieved under test conditions are only partly achieved in service trim. First point is the 1.8 Mach speed restriction under normal combat conditions. There's an engine management system override switch inside the cockpit which was used to achieve its design requirements of a 2.5 Mach top speed (clean and specially prepared), but if used once the engines require a full tear down maintenance immediately upon landing.
Its other requirements were based on Vietnam experience in Phantoms, where it was found they manoeuvred well compared to MiGs at low altitude because of excess thrust and twin engine reliability, so improving on this theme of dogfight capability was listed. Borrowing industrial technologies from the blown out Valkyrie project were used for this. And of course a gun was mandatory.
The other requirement was extended ferry range for European deployment, achieved by aerial refuelling, external tankage and stripping (combat fit is carried in an escorting KC tanker's cargo hold). Unrefuelled range in combat trim isn't all that spectacular.

So it has great 4th gen (ie. honeycomb, body lift, good avionics fit) performance both in dogfight at low alt and BVR or intercept performance. But we're still comparing it to 3rd gen warplanes which is all wrong.
The thing to keep in mind is in the common 4th gen combat environment the Eagle can't dogfight on equal terms with an F-16, Hornet or a Fulcrum at low altitude. No way. I mean you can still win and it comes down to pilot skill, but just on the face of it these lightweight, dogfight specialised 4th gens have the standing advantages of sheer thrust/weight, specific thrust/altitude ("spooling" if you like), nimbleness, very high g-capability (the F-16 and MiG-29 were both specifically designed for 12+g without breaking although a pilot isn't supposed to exceed 9g if he wants to stay conscious and external stores can restrict it further depending what is carried).

So take the Eagle into an environment of technological parity, which is to say the period where its vision is kept up with by industrial tech commonality, and it's just like the Phantom was for a 3rd gen fighter, a heavy weapons platform designed for medium altitude BVR and sustained air superiority rather than agile low alt dogfights against lightweight 4th gen contemporaries like the F-16 and Fulcrum. But even so it can do dogfights pretty damn well. This was the same story for the Phantom up against Fishbeds, can do it but if you had the chance a medium alt missile kill was a safer bet if the missiles actually tracked for a change, and sustained transonic manoeuvres were the preferred mode of close combat (avoiding the benefits of a lightweight fighter).

The Eagle was a step ahead only because it was rushing something everybody was headed towards, at terrific cost, for an advantage that was both unnecessary and short lived.
In 1975 a force of Phantoms and F-5's are going to be perfectly contemporary against any Soviet threat. The Eagle had no advantages over the Foxbat from the Phantom (another conversation but my sources are Israeli combat records of Eagles versus Foxbats, mostly they all fired off all their missiles at each other without hits and then the Foxbats disengaged at a whim and were uncatchable, and Israelis have been known to chase enemy MiGs all the way to Egypt and get turned back by AAA over their home bases, if they could any way have caught a Foxbat in an Eagle, they would've).

Then in 1981 a force of Block 5 F-16A's and F/A-18 Hornets are already replacing the Phantoms, which is timely and still gets 4th gen fighters on the front line a full five years ahead of the Russians.
The only thing you're missing is a parity with the Flanker entering service ca.1990 but you don't have that with the Eagle anyway (it's often referred to as a 4.5 gen even with analogue FBW). Flankers retain more of their design requirements in full service trim than Eagles do and have other benefits (STOL, low maintenance and rough field operation). But then again Flankers are made almost entirely out of titanium (brittle but very, very light for their size, fit and loadbearing).

The Eagle is supreme in 1970's air superiority, but the thing is it stands alone here. You could've done exactly the same thing with Phantoms with complete parity toward any potential aggressors. And the cost factor of achieving this, largely academic exercise simply cannot be understated. Seriously, the entire nation of the US would've noticed, really noticed the difference if projects like the Valkyrie, Blackbird and Eagle were never started. And the defence industry wouldn't have been any the worse for wear in terms of maintaining parity with national security threats.
It is after all, a "defence" force, is it not? Which is why many other nations would declare the US is just as bad as the Soviets in the Cold War role, and is more like Hitlerian/Stalinist rearmament planners than anything approaching a benevolent democracy. I mean what else if not an imperialist agenda? And this is being played out right now in the Middle East and central Asia at least to a foreign perspective, these oil wars and industrial imperialism (we want all the money, everywhere, and bow down dammit, etc.).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2010)

vanir said:


> The Eagle had no advantages over the Foxbat from the Phantom (another conversation but my sources are Israeli combat records of Eagles versus Foxbats, mostly they all fired off all their missiles at each other *without hits and then the Foxbats *disengaged at a whim and were uncatchable, and Israelis have been known to chase enemy MiGs all the way to Egypt and get turned back by AAA over their home bases, if they could any way have caught a Foxbat in an Eagle, they would've).



The IDF Killed MiG-25s on the following dates

31Aug82
31Feb81
29July81

All F-15, All Syrian AF


----------



## vanir (May 28, 2010)

And yet the only combat report where the Foxbats actually engaged Israeli Eagles, a two for two confrontation over the Sinai and the longest combat recorded between Eagles and Foxbats all missiles of both groups were used up with no hits and then the Foxbats finally disengaged and fled, leaving the pursuing Eagles behind.
All other engagements with Foxbats involved them firing their missiles defensively and fleeing immediately, which is why this one encounter stood out to the IAF. Following this the IDF took the approach of destroying them on the ground wherever possible, one particular strike on airbases had the specific objective of destroying landed Foxbats.

The incident where an Iraqi Foxbat downed a Hornet too was despite an escort of Eagles and Vipers, according to reports the Foxbats sped past the escorts to attack the strike aircraft without fear of interdiction.

But certainly Foxbats have been downed, the individual reports should be closely examined for context and circumstances however, outside ground based directors (designed support infrastructure), tossed into a furbee at low-medium altitude as an independent fighter facing an organised and tasked enemy using AWACS they don't stand much of a chance. If they get a lucky setup though, they do have the speed performance to be effective (but unreliable weapons).

I'm not trying to blow a horn for the Foxbat, simply pointing out that in the examples I had in mind where Foxbats did very well in combat, it wouldn't have made any difference if you were in a Phantom or an Eagle assuming a common weapons package. The advantages a 4th gen has over a 3rd gen didn't come into play on at least those two occasions (there is another inconclusive combat with Eagles but that was again defensive fire/flee on the part of the Foxbats, two missiles fired by the Eagles which went ballistic).


----------



## vanir (May 28, 2010)

I'm actually still looking for a link to the two for two Foxbat engagement with IDF Eagles (1981 from memory), my memory could be failing and it might've been the incident where one Foxbat was actually shot down (and I'm combining it with the following separate account during the Gulf War



> In yet another incident, two MiG-25s approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then outran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of ten air-to-air missiles were fired at the MiG-25s, though none reached them. [Atkinson, pp. 230-231.] According to the same sources, at least one F-111 was also forced to abort its mission by a MiG-25 on the first 24 hours of hostilities, during an air raid over Tikrit. [ Atkinson, p. 75.]



but in either case (I have the account in one of my books somewhere, I've just been hunting for it, I'll find it eventually and repost for prosperity), the Israeli incident is infamous because it was the longest combat recorded against Foxbats by the IDF, as mentioned because whilst Syrian Foxbats attacked aggressively, they often fired and fled immediately, not hanging around to mess with Eagles in the long term. Except this one incident, where if I stand corrected at least one got away despite the Eagle drivers' best efforts to bring both down.
And the noteworthy point was the pilot report that the Foxbats during that encounter functioned with parity, this I remember clearly as it stood out most of all (since I had thought Foxbats were useless in air superiority combat).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2010)

vanir said:


> I'm not trying to blow a horn for the Foxbat, simply pointing out that in the examples I had in mind where Foxbats did very well in combat, it wouldn't have made any difference if you were in a Phantom or an Eagle assuming a common weapons package. The advantages a 4th gen has over a 3rd gen didn't come into play on at least those two occasions (there is another inconclusive combat with Eagles but that was again defensive fire/flee on the part of the Foxbats, two missiles fired by the Eagles which went ballistic).


Points taken.

The MiG-25 had something like a 1 to 4 combat record if you use internet sources. Additionally an F-4 can out turn it. Also remember an F-16 killed a MiG-25 over the "No Fly Zone" after the Gulf War.


----------



## Matt308 (May 28, 2010)

...and F-15s killed two in Gulf War. Sparrow shots as I recall.


----------



## vanir (May 28, 2010)

Actually the supersonic turn of the Foxbat is supposedly quite good (more than 4g) where a Phantom under similar conditions can sustain only 2.5g, mind you a Hornet can sustain the same turn at 7g. At high mach not much can sustain a turn like a Foxbat, up around 2.5 mach most get restricted to 3g and the Foxbat maintains 4.5g design limitation (I've been told all these figures can be exceeded in emergencies, just these are the design limitations by condition).

The Foxbat really drops off at subsonic (ie. dogfight) and low alt performance though, it's not very robust for thick air manoeuvres but can get tossed around at alt and mach, comparatively speaking surprisingly well...if one was thinking they're just a brick all over the place.
There's a really nice comparison by a some flight engineers on the web of the Foxbat design structure, the characteristics of its nickel steel (apparently better than titanium under most flight conditions), overall its structure isn't too very far removed from something like a Tomcat but without the swing wings. Their impressions are it should be a little better than often assumed for air superiority style combat so long as you use its advantages, but its major drawback are those massive diameter engines that give great frontal performance at altitude and mach, but are sluggish at low alt, they do very little for you under 5000 metres.

I was just reading whilst hunting authoritive links, Syrians are really noted for using their Foxbats very aggressively and kind of won back some of the reputation destroyed by Belyenko, at least in Israeli minds who had quite a healthy respect for the type (this from an Israeli website).

From AIM-7M and AIM-9L onwards weapons get pretty good (not as good as a Python or an Archer). But those poor MiGs are stuck with ancient R-40/60 pairings. I dare say they must've jumped around the cockpit anytime they actually scored anything.

Even US defence analysts (whatever that term means) whilst patriotically toting the superiority of American materiel recognise a totally different context of performance comparisons where the combat environment is over Russian airspace with their EWR networks, upgraded equip and support infrastructure. A Russian only Flogger-G for example is a completely different animal to the Floggers ever encountered in the Middle East or the Flogger-B of the satellite nations, and Russian PD/PDS had ECM suites (just flares, chaff and updated RWR but still). Not sure if the export (Iraqi) Foxbat-E had the doppler set of the Russian ones too, this at least had lookdown/shootdown.



> ...and F-15s killed two in Gulf War. Sparrow shots as I recall.



Sounds about right. I was just listening to an Israeli pilot (dogfights episode on disc) describing AIM-7F on the Eagle in about 1978 though, and they're not reliable at all (3 fired in a particular encounter, two went ballistic, one tracked), the Israelis used the same tactic as F-4's in Vietnam of sparrow salvos for hits. The AIM-9 of the time too was a problem because it was an early attempt at an all aspect version so it went chasing any heat source around, especially (sun reflecting off) clouds. It did track better in high g evasions than the older sidewinders though, so if it was fired at close enough range for an obvious tone there was no escaping it.

This does bring me back to my initial point that due to the weapons available a Phantom in BVR during the 70's is no worse than an Eagle and you've got lightweight fighters present in the vicinity for dogfights in the atypical US combined operations doctrine anyway.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2010)

vanir said:


> Actually the supersonic turn of the Foxbat is supposedly quite good (more than 4g) where a Phantom under similar conditions can sustain only 2.5g, mind you a Hornet can sustain the same turn at 7g. At high mach not much can sustain a turn like a Foxbat, up around 2.5 mach most get restricted to 3g and the Foxbat maintains 4.5g design limitation (I've been told all these figures can be exceeded in emergencies, just these are the design limitations by condition).


What's your source on that? The MiG-25 has an absolute G loading of 4.4 Gs and has a normal G loading of 2.2Gs at all speeds. Belenko confirmed this during his defection...


----------



## BombTaxi (May 28, 2010)

It's slightly unfair to compare the F-4 to the F-14 as some of the lessons learned from the Phantom went into the Tomcat (and the Eagle and Hornet too).

The F-4 was, as I understand, originally designed to down bombers from long range with missiles. Hence, it didn't need particularly good dogfight capability - and so confident were they that missiles would settle the issue BVR or at least beyond gun range, the Navy didn't even put a gun on it. 

Vietnam was a wakeup call that dogfighting was still alive and well and that Phantoms were losing out to the much smaller and more agile MiGs. The lesson was not lost on either the USN or USAF, who have put a gun into every fighter they have used since. They have also made sure that all of thier fighters have the capability to dogfight. 

Assuming that the F 14/15/18 had never been built, the Phantom would have continued to lose out to more agile Warsaw Pact types as a fighter - hence the construction of the F-14 and -15. And while it's huge payload would have kept it in business as a mud-mover for a while longer, I think the drive toward single-seat multi-role types like the F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter etc. would have spelt the end for the Phantom regardless of it's performance. Air forces always want the best bang for the least buck, and the F-4 could not stay competitive on both fronts much past the late 80s, IMHO.


----------



## vanir (May 28, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What's your source on that? The MiG-25 has an absolute G loading of 4.4 Gs and has a normal G loading of 2.2Gs at all speeds. Belenko confirmed this during his defection...



Mikoyan OKB release data (cited) published by Janes. Given 4.5g supersonic, higher subsonic (but undisclosed). By comparison the design limits on the Flogger-G are 8.5g subsonic and 7.5g transonic (supersonic undisclosed but likely in the typical 2-3g realm).

Also some of Belyenko's statements have been brought into question in the fairly recently improved international relations east/west (Mikoyan and Sukhoi have an almost open book policy these days), he was excellent in giving an accurate impression of Foxbat planning/doctrine and pilot view of operational guidelines ca.1975 but might be loose on a detail here and there in strictest terms.

But then there is also the consideration that manufacturers are sometimes a little...generous with claims for export marketing and general pride.

But an engineering source confirmed the figure on the web discussing the Foxbat structure, comparing what he termed a "demonstrated 4g turn at high mach by the Foxbat" (perhaps referring to one of the Ye-155/255 test flights on record, I'm not that familiar with all of them), with the maximum 1.5g turn of the Blackbird at high mach as an example that at these speeds it was very nimble (the Blackbird's limitations are due to operation of the J58 thrust control at high mach, prone to flameouts in stressful turns at speed).
Still here it was also discussed that contemporaries like the Eagle are under a lot of pressure from about 3g supersonic and typically 2-3g is a guideline. I've heard that same guideline from USAF pilots on the web too.


erm...I realise I'm being pretty anecdotal a lot here. Please understand I speak more in the spirit of expressive communication than authority, just shootin the breeze.
As always I am fully prepared to stand corrected on anything I put out at all, after all it's not like I've got Eagle and Foxbat flying experience to really know anything for certainty.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2010)

vanir said:


> Mikoyan OKB release data (cited) published by Janes. Given 4.5g supersonic, higher subsonic (but undisclosed). By comparison the design limits on the Flogger-G are 8.5g subsonic and 7.5g transonic (supersonic undisclosed but likely in the typical 2-3g realm).



Forget the flogger, we're talking MiG-25...

Based on the evaluation of the USAF of the MiG-25 in 1976 and info from Belenko it was apparent that the MiG-25 was not capable of anything over 4.5 Gs (and I'm being generous accepting Jane's info). Even at lower speeds I don't the the MiG-25 pulling any sustained Gs over 4 without bending the aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Forget the flogger, we're talking MiG-25...
> 
> Based on the evaluation of the USAF of the MiG-25 in 1976 and info from Belenko it was apparent that the MiG-25 was not capable of anything over 4.5 Gs (and I'm being generous accepting Jane's info). Even at lower speeds I don't the the MiG-25 pulling any sustained Gs over 4 without bending the aircraft.





vanir said:


> erm...I realise I'm being pretty anecdotal a lot here. Please understand I speak more in the spirit of expressive communication than authority, just shootin the breeze.



No worries - at times I'm black and white especially with finite numbers from tech or flight manuals.


----------



## vanir (May 29, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> It's slightly unfair to compare the F-4 to the F-14 as some of the lessons learned from the Phantom went into the Tomcat (and the Eagle and Hornet too).
> 
> The F-4 was, as I understand, originally designed to down bombers from long range with missiles. Hence, it didn't need particularly good dogfight capability - and so confident were they that missiles would settle the issue BVR or at least beyond gun range, the Navy didn't even put a gun on it.



Indeed the good dogfight capabilities of the F-4 in its class was accidental, two powerful engines were fitted both for reliability and with the speed performance agenda of competing against Russian speed records (held before the Phantom by the Fishbed), but as it was discovered in Vietnam this also worked great for sustained manoeuvers because it had plenty of excess thrust, so could outfly the much more agile MiG-17 for example so long as you kept the speed up where his controls were heavy, which was easy to sustain in the Phantom through manoeuvers and even in the vertical. The trick was just keeping the fight close to transonic and the Phantom was a great dogfighter, it had problems against lighter craft if too much speed bled off like sticking with a rolling scissors instead of doing a yo-yo.

But this capability was never intentional, it had been designed with BVR combat in mind with only a limited CWC capability, it was thought extended, seat of the pants turn fights lasting several minutes were pretty much over because even if you got that close within the first few seconds a sidewinder should've taken care of things. But hindsight is 20/20 in terms of realising how low tech the seekers and avionics were back then.

But still, whilst it can't compete with any 4th gen fighter, against other 3rd gen contemporaries the Phantom is a very good dogfighter so long as the pilot is aware of situational disadvantages.



> Vietnam was a wakeup call that dogfighting was still alive and well and that Phantoms were losing out to the much smaller and more agile MiGs. The lesson was not lost on either the USN or USAF, who have put a gun into every fighter they have used since. They have also made sure that all of thier fighters have the capability to dogfight.



Judging from what I've read so far the need for a gun was in part a product of poor reliability of AIMs at such an early stage of development where their planners and demonstrations under test conditions were quite a bit more hopeful, or unrealistic. Early sparrows had simple technical difficulties and sidewinders couldn't track in more than a 3g turn. In a lot of dogfights there was no available firing solution with the missiles of that period but a gun would've worked just fine, pilots cursed their absence and MiG's could fire more often during turn fights than a Phantom who really had to pick his opportunity to even get a firing solution at all.

The high early loss rate wasn't so much related to lack of an internal gun but the circumstances of the conflict, severe flight restrictions (ROE), the deadly SA-2, more AAA over Hanoi than used by Germany in WW2, plus at the early stages the NVAF were using their Fishbeds where later on they shepherded them and used them only under cover for hit and run (because they didn't have many), so MiG-17's were the main type later, MiG-21 early on which performs better than Phantoms at high altitude. And it was related to pilot training, local command air doctrine, and the fact the vast bulk of losses were USAF F-105's (more than 40/month being downed until 67) rather than Phantoms. The arrival of Colonel Olds, a WW2 ace and his pet project known as Operation Bolo really turned things around. This was well before the Phantom got its internal guns and pretty much chased the NVAF Fishbeds from the skies except for relatively isolated encounters.



> Assuming that the F 14/15/18 had never been built, the Phantom would have continued to lose out to more agile Warsaw Pact types as a fighter - hence the construction of the F-14 and -15. And while it's huge payload would have kept it in business as a mud-mover for a while longer, I think the drive toward single-seat multi-role types like the F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter etc. would have spelt the end for the Phantom regardless of it's performance. Air forces always want the best bang for the least buck, and the F-4 could not stay competitive on both fronts much past the late 80s, IMHO.



The F-4E is matched I think by the Flogger-B but not as a weapons platform, and the MiG draws away as altitudes rise. From about 1977 the Flogger-G kind of mothballs the Phantom as obsolete with sheer thrust/weight and clean design, plus the radar set is now doppler with improved track mode and the R-23 are an updated version comparable with the AIM-7F. But by this point the F-16 is nearing deliveries which turns things back around.

The Phantom didn't really lose out to Warsaw Pact contemporaries, certainly not in downgraded export versions (most Soviet satellite nations were using MiG-21MF and later license produced "bis" into the 80's with smaller numbers of Flogger-B handed over after 1978 whilst the export Flogger-E was just a MiG-21 with swing wings, and exported MiG-21FL was just a first generation series production with a side hinge canopy fitted).
The Phantom has total parity until after 1977 and then only over Russian airspace it has problems against the Flogger-G. The whole idea though was that the Phantom would be replaced by the F-16 and Hornet in front line service by 1980, and you could've pushed that ahead a couple of years if you really needed to, but the Eagle sought to do it back in 1972 which was just premature in terms of strictly defined need.


----------



## gjs238 (May 29, 2010)

How many aircraft did it take to truly replace the Phantom?
In that context, was the Phantom ever truly replaced?


----------



## The Basket (May 29, 2010)

The F-15 or an equivalent would have been built eventually as the Phantom was not exactly perfect or the last word in air combat.

The Phantom was getting outclassed by the late 1960s by Soviet designs and the lead the Americans had were starting to be eroded by French and Swedish designs as well.

Even without Vietnam or Isreali wars, the F4 was due for replacement beginning of the 70s.


----------



## Glider (May 29, 2010)

There is a lot of good info in this posting but I have a different understanding in some areas.



vanir said:


> I don't think results have proven the F-15 was needed at all. It's only combat prior to the US entering the Gulf was in Israeli hands where its glaring fault, that its design technology was ahead of the weapons technology to support it was prevalent. The Israelis wound up using them just like the US used the F-4 in Vietnam because of the shocking poor performance of 70's gen sparrows and sidewinders (the reason the Israelis developed the Shafir which is a generation ahead of the Sidewinder like the Archer or that South African missile). Actual combat reports in encounters with MiGs involved firing off all your missiles at once trying to hit one target and frequently missing, then getting a gun kill on a Fishbed through sustained manoeuvres, in these cases the performance of an F-4E would be just about the same, the main factors here being excess thrust and boosted controls.
> The Sidewinder of the period had only just overcome the tactic of using g-manoeuvres to break its lock, but it still liked clouds and random heat sources. Sparrows were still just about useless, scoring maybe 1 in 3 shots fired and half the time just plain going ballistic after launch.


You are correct when you say that the Sparrow was not effective as a dogfighting missile and had a number of problems which is why the UK designed the Skyflash. However I think that you are exagerating the problems of the Sidewinder. Early models were very poor against agile targets but from the AIM 9L which entered service in 1978 onwards these problems were overcome with a kill ratio in the Falklands of 70-80% and in the Bekaa valey something like 90% of the kills were using the AIM 9L. So in this discussion you need to pick the timeframe. The Shafir was designed to replace the Sidewinder but was a failure.



> The Israelis did like the Eagle because of its terrific all round performance, they were used to dogfighters like the Mirage and it still had the weapons and intercept qualities of a Phantom with a newer tech avionics fit and especially its powerful radar. But those crappy era weapons ca.1978 still meant basically you saw the enemy well far away but still had to close to the same type of combat you'd be in using a Phantom or a Mirage anyway, because the weapons tech couldn't keep up with the plane tech. The Israelis jokingly referred to it as "the flying SAM site" because you had this powerful radar, waited for the enemy to finally close to combat range, then fired a whole lot of missiles, nevertheless the name isn't all that affectionate since the Israelis respect gun kills and dogfighting over any other aerial combat (mostly because guns don't fail on you). Upon closing to combat range Israeli pilots say they routinely ignore everything going on inside the cockpit with the avionics anyway, which is understandable considering the poor reliability of pre-80's-digital era.


Of course the IAF liked the performance of the F15 who wouldn't but your comment on crappy weapons in 1978 is wrong as per my previous observation. Before 1978 I would agree with you but afterwards I wouldn't. As for ignoring everything going on inside the cockpit in combat range that is more or less correct but goes for any pilot in close proximity to other aircraft. Hence one of the major improvements in the F15 visibility. This in the F4 wasn't great in fact it could be pretty poor whereas the F15 could almost be decribed as perfect. Given similar training then a Mig 21 MF would give an F4 a very hard time in a dogfight and if you don't have the numbers its a bad idea. NATO F5 pilots often scored over the F4 in a close in combat situation. An F15 over a Mig 21 holds all the aces.



> The F-16A was placed in service in 1980 and if I'm reading my Janes right in 1981 (block 5) it had Sparrow capability and a couple of other improvements (databuses and the like). The AN/APG-66 was pretty good with digital multimode, pulse-doppler and angle track, it was well ahead of anything in the Soviet arsenal before the Foxhound.


I think that the first F16 with Sparrow capability was the Block 15 which came out about the same time as the F16 C/D


> The Eagle is supreme in 1970's air superiority, but the thing is it stands alone here. You could've done exactly the same thing with Phantoms with complete parity toward any potential aggressors.


The simple fact is that thay you couldn't do this in an F4. It didn't turn well, it was easily spotted, had average visibility and was probably equal to the opposition. That isn't good when they outnumber you because you will run out of planes first.


----------



## The Basket (May 29, 2010)

Also if you leave the F4 in production for too long then you get MiG-29 and Su-27 in the equation as well.

Considering the advances in design, leaving the Phantom as your premier fighter will come unstuck eventually.

The F-15 even is starting to look old against the latest Flankers...

Its called progress and been nostalgic for an old design is going to cost ya.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 29, 2010)

That sums it up.


----------



## Matt308 (May 29, 2010)

I would agree. Good post Basket.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 1, 2010)

So what replaced the F-4 in US service?

* F-14
* F-15
* F-15E (perhaps this should be listed separately)
* F-16 (ANG)
* F/A-18


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 1, 2010)

I would say basically the F-4 was replaced by the F-15 and F-16 for Air Force and F-18 for the Navy. F-14 was first a fleet defense fighter, and was not designed IMO as a F-4 replacement.


----------



## usafmsgtret (Jun 2, 2010)

I remember in the late 70's when the F-15's were first assigned to the 18th TFW at Kadena AB, Okinawa. Someone high up the PACAF chain of command decided it would be a good idea to replace our alert F-4E's at Osan AB, Korea with a detachment of the latest and greatest USAF fighter. Winter came, and with it, snow. The F-15's were too light in the nose, and couldn't taxi on even a little snow or ice. We promptly put our old, outdated F-4E's back in the alert shelters for the rest of the winter, sending the mighty Eagles soaring back to the south.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 2, 2010)

Messy1 said:


> I would say basically the F-4 was replaced by the F-15 and F-16 for Air Force and F-18 for the Navy. F-14 was first a fleet defense fighter, and was not designed IMO as a F-4 replacement.



F-4 was fleet defense interceptor.
F-14 was replacement. Like F-15, it sought to improve upon F-4 weaknesses, one of which was fighter capability.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 2, 2010)

My point was I do not think the F-14 was originally designed as a ground attack/multi-role aircraft. It's main objective was air superiority and fleet defense, but late in it's career, it did prove a effective ground attack platform with updated weapons systems and avionics.


----------

