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

[vanir]

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]

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]

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

 

[vanir]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[The Basket]

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]

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

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]

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]

That sums it up.

 

[Matt308]

I would agree. Good post Basket.

 

[gjs238]

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]

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]

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]

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.