why do commies like to brag that the Phantom ONLY had a 3:1 air-to-air ratio?
Oh, right, cause every later american jet fighter has a comically high ratio that makes a merely dominant plane like the F-4 look plain.
Because commies of course. The F-4 was a great jet, but later jets obviously got their guns back, so I wan tto know what went wrong in the F-4 design process? Was it hubris? Overconfidence in the missiles?
It was non-pilot REMFs making the design decisions based purely on their fantasy of what air to air combat was going to be like once their awesome missile tech was purchased.
Overconfidence in missile tech maturation. They weren't wrong, just jumping the gun by about two decades. Pun intended.
Also they probably didn't expect the F4 to stay in service as long as it did. Fighter development from the 40s to the 60s was so rapid most frames were hopelessly outdated by the time their pilots had been trained on the airframe.
nah hubris implies ego, this was just a miscalculation.
https://i.imgur.com/kbqM5LW.png
Overconfidence in missile tech maturation. They weren't wrong, just jumping the gun by about two decades. Pun intended.
Also they probably didn't expect the F4 to stay in service as long as it did. Fighter development from the 40s to the 60s was so rapid most frames were hopelessly outdated by the time their pilots had been trained on the airframe.
was saying that designing planes in the 50s and 60s would be like designing a plane in 2020 with it being designed to hold up against planes in 2060+. Tech progressed so quickly, and its wild to think that the F-4 and F-117 were only 20 or so years apart. It was the same mistake as drawing a basic trend line and not accounting for changes in the rate of growth, however the designers had no real way of knowing how the change would alter.
It was non-pilot REMFs making the design decisions based purely on their fantasy of what air to air combat was going to be like once their awesome missile tech was purchased.
How many kills have those aircraft gotten with their guns?
>why do commies like to brag that the Phantom ONLY had a 3:1 air-to-air ratio?
to add:
-mostly over enemy territory
-when the enemy could chose to attack them when it suits them
Speaking as a person who loaded them, they were squirrely and jammed constantly and mounting them on the frame was an exercise in frustration. Every time we were supposed to load a gunpod on an F-4J, we knew we were in for trouble. Thank Christ the F-14 integrated the guns again.
Damn, you must be a super salty seaman.
Was it the linkage and linkage connection causing jams/binding?
Wasn't in during that time frame but when I was in the chairforce I worked with 20+ yr MX guys and they had similar issues with pods in general during that timeframe.
Yep. It just was not designed to do that. It was a retrofit on a pylon that was designed to hold something else. It sort of worked but was also just sort of jury-rigged. More often than not, it was just a pain in everyone who had to deal with it's ass. That being said, the F-4J was a very, very good aircraft.
The Crusader was an outdated piece of shit the very moment it was drawn onto a piece of paper. It also had a comically high workload for the pilot and it's good that it got axed rather quick. The Phantom was a much, much better plane in every single aspect including looks.
There, I said it. Fuck you. >inb4 muh last gunfighter
The Crusader fit on the Essex-class CVs tho. It's why the Frenchies bought them for their flattops.
The Royal Navy elected to reengine the Phantom with the Spey to give them more oomph to work on their not-supercarriers.
True. But the F8 was still not a great plane in general. Don't forget the bongs also used the Spey because it was a (low bypass) turbofan that was remarkably less thirsty than the turbojet J79
>Deploy a small number of Crusaders >Crusaders make up a small percent of the fighter force in Vietnam >Crusaders' kills make up a small percent of fighter kills in Vietnam
This is true, but it's not an argument against the Crusaders' dogfight capabilities, is it?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>This is true, but it's not an argument against the Crusaders' dogfight capabilities, is it?
Then how's it an argument FOR the Lolsaders dogfighting capabilities?
It was a very UNFORGIVING plane with a VERY HIGH WORKLOAD for the pilot, BAD AVIONICS and HIGHLY MEDIOCRE FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS.
Most of the idiots who drool over this piece of shit don't understand how much it was a bad, outdated plane over vietnam.
Also take a good look at what it downed: 16 of the 19 kills were Mig 17s, only 3 Mig 21s.The F4, on the other hand, downed mostly Mig 21s - a much tougher adversary than the 17s.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You sound angry. How about a nice cup of tea? The Crusader was a 2nd Gen fighter, like the MiG-19 and early variants of -21. Of course it was worse in many ways when compared th the Phantom. But I think the Crusader should be celebrated for what it is: the last plane to be designed with WW2 mentality and still be good.
pilots would claim the best kill ratio of any American type in the Vietnam War, 19:3.
Your ugly-ass POS downed just 19 planes over the course of the entire war. The Phantom scored 147 kills.
And since the Lolsader wasn't used as heavily it got lucky and wasn't shot down that often. Doesn't make it a great plane at all. >Phantom pharts at it from two exhaust nozzles >Phantom driver floors it and is out of Lolsaders sight within 30 seconds
...And your flying brick got shot down by peasants in MiGs, anon.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
When you're the fighter plane that carries the entire air war on its shoulders then its only logical that you get shot down most.
There's been only one, perhaps two planes over vietnam that deserve the same amout of respect as the Phantom: The Thud (especially the Iron Hand/Wild Weasel ones) and the Intruder.
>Ugly POS
You Phantom Phaggots wish you had the sleek, slender lines and the strong jawline of the CRUSADER
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Kek, so you need to post some prototype because the OG Lolsader can't hack it? You know, thats the same spirit as some 3/10 who puts on tons of make-up to resemble a 9/10.
Pic related, amigo. THATS a beauty. And it's also got no ugly double-chin / pig snout
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Phantom: Agrressive, natural born killer >Lolsader: Hue, I can haz dogfightz?!
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Ph*ntom: Used by Muslims to blow up other Muslims >CRUSADER: EXCLUSIVELY USED BY WHITE PEOPLE
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
: EXCLUSIVELY USED BY WHITE PEOPLE
But frogs used them?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The French invented being white you utter fool.
3 weeks ago
RC-135 Rivet Joint
https://i.imgur.com/JIx5VBa.jpg
Kek, so you need to post some prototype because the OG Lolsader can't hack it? You know, thats the same spirit as some 3/10 who puts on tons of make-up to resemble a 9/10.
Pic related, amigo. THATS a beauty. And it's also got no ugly double-chin / pig snout
The superiority of the AIM-9, actually.
The only reason this is even a debate is because the AIM-4 sucked badly and was a flawed design. Once the USAF admitted their missile sucked and adopted the USN's Sidewinder the problem was solved. Not by adding guns to the Phantom.
>Vietnam war >airforce puts guns on their phantoms >kill ratio doesn't improve >navy just trains their pilots better >kill ratio skyrockets
The lack of a gun was never the issue. It was down to pilots needing better training.
Also notable is that the US has not scored an air to air kill against a fixed winged aircraft since the vietnam war.
>Also notable is that the US has not scored an air to air kill against a fixed winged aircraft since the vietnam war.
"During Desert Storm, 36 aircraft were shot down in aerial combat.[57] Three helicopters and 2 fighters were shot down during the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990. Kuwait claims to have shot down as many as 37 Iraqi aircraft. These claims have not been confirmed.[58] In addition, 68 fixed wing aircraft and 13 helicopters were destroyed while on the ground, and 137 aircraft were flown to Iran and never returned.[59]"
Okay so I am failing to see the point of his false statement of 'the US hasn't scored an A2A kill since Vietnam'
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The point is that there are no planes to shoot down, therefore there are no planes to shoot down with guns. Therefore post-Vietnam gun kill counts are irrelevant to the question of F-4 performance in Vietnam, and the value of planes with guns in Vietnam. There simply isn't enough post-Vietnam A2A combat data to say anything conclusive about the value of having a gun, much less in the Vietnam era.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I mean virtually all A2A kills have been achieved with missiles. Bar the one time an F-15E killed a Hind or Hip with a GBU-10.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>>I mean virtually all A2A kills have been achieved with missiles
Virtually all... of a very small sample. It means little.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Okay. Then what is the breakdown for A2A kill methods during the Vietnam war?
Captain Bob Swain shot down a helicopter using the main gun of his A10.
Based
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Captain Bob Swain shot down a helicopter using the main gun of his A10.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
that's not even remotely close to the same thing. The Hind he shot down with his 30mm gun had just taken off and his older AIM-9 couldn't lock as it wasn't producing enough heat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Libyan_Civil_War_(2011) > 24 March 2011 – a G-2 Galeb was destroyed after landing by a French Air Force Dassault Rafale after it had violated the declared No-Fly Zone over Misrata.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown
maybe you can find more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Syrian_civil_war
Army >poor understanding of proper storage of sensitive electronics in missiles >outdated training programs >demands gun be added >performance goes from poor to okay
Navy >higher storage standards >reforms training programs >disregards gun >performance goes from decent to great
Retards >Vietnam proved you always need a gun
Damage to the tail plane has not been replicated outside of the stress tests that even the test pilots admitted was not real world.(as in no F-35 is going to fly that high that fast back to back)
cursory research into this subject reveals the inaccuracy of your statement.
>Was it hubris?
Go check the A2A ratio during the latter stages of the vietnam war to answer your own question.
Baseline: The air force put the M61 on their Phantoms, the Navy completely changed their training regiment.
it was designed for long range fleet defense and was supposed to use its missiles to intercept incoming bombers, a cannon wouldn't be necessary for such a design. So no it wasn't hubris. It turned out the missiles didn't work as well as advertised, but remember training, doctrine, rules of engagement, mission profiles and the skill of the opposition also plays a large role. It's not gun = good, missile = bad. In that case the gun-armed US aircraft would presumably have been much more successful than the F4
They eventually put the Vulcan in it. With the linkless feed and electrics its near 300kg. Had USA joined in the MG213 study at the right time they could have had a 30mm for half the weight. A 100 series fighter the Vulcan is not so bad but F4 was not 100 series.
Missiles in Vietnam were gimped by ROE which limited engagements to within visual range. If they were able to use the Sparrows BVR they'd have performed much better
Sparrow was bad against fighter sized targets at BVR ranges and very hard to use at close range because of its semi active guidance.(and wing design iirc)
So using them against fighters really lowered the kill prob to laffable numbers.
It was design to shoot down bombers and had "QC" issues.
Yes, sparrows were gimped much more by the restrictive ROEs as they were much larger missiles meant to be fired at much longer ranges and had longer minimum range as well.
Although the ROE were probably a good call as vietnam air war is massively overblown and basically irrevelant on the scale of US air-to-ground operations.
>OP watches new Youtube video on F-4 Phantom (Operations Room / Intel Report) >makes thread >refuses to elaborate further >leaves
Dear diary. Today OP was a fag.
Because commies of course. The F-4 was a great jet, but later jets obviously got their guns back, so I wan tto know what went wrong in the F-4 design process? Was it hubris? Overconfidence in the missiles?
, but you didn't bother to read. The flamewar that became of this thread later is hardly my responsibility.
>youtube (Operations Room / Intel Report)
I don't watch those sort of channels, all they do is paraphrase wikipedia. I can read wikipedia myself, those channels provide zero novel insight. I made this thread because I watched James Markel's F-8 presentation on the Western Museum of Flight's youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QoUp_vmU8k
It's a very good channel, with real pilots sharing their experiences instead of some millenial punk soullessly reading an AI-written summary of whatever nonsense an obese wikipedian editor saw fit to publish.
F-4J did just as well as F-4E, and it doesn't have a gun. Real reason to lackluster initial performance was that technology development outpaced doctrinal development and Phantoms were essentially used as Sabres, which didn't work. Once doctrine and missile tech matured, Phantoms started clobbering fishbeds in droves. Muh gun is literal reformist cope after they were laughed out of development boards as to justify making gun only day fighters in the 80's.
why do commies like to brag that the Phantom ONLY had a 3:1 air-to-air ratio?
Oh, right, cause every later american jet fighter has a comically high ratio that makes a merely dominant plane like the F-4 look plain.
Because commies of course. The F-4 was a great jet, but later jets obviously got their guns back, so I wan tto know what went wrong in the F-4 design process? Was it hubris? Overconfidence in the missiles?
It was non-pilot REMFs making the design decisions based purely on their fantasy of what air to air combat was going to be like once their awesome missile tech was purchased.
Overconfidence in missile tech maturation. They weren't wrong, just jumping the gun by about two decades. Pun intended.
Also they probably didn't expect the F4 to stay in service as long as it did. Fighter development from the 40s to the 60s was so rapid most frames were hopelessly outdated by the time their pilots had been trained on the airframe.
>Overconfidence in missile tech maturation.
in other words, hubris
nah hubris implies ego, this was just a miscalculation.
was saying that designing planes in the 50s and 60s would be like designing a plane in 2020 with it being designed to hold up against planes in 2060+. Tech progressed so quickly, and its wild to think that the F-4 and F-117 were only 20 or so years apart. It was the same mistake as drawing a basic trend line and not accounting for changes in the rate of growth, however the designers had no real way of knowing how the change would alter.
Did you just learn that word and want to sound smart?
How many kills have those aircraft gotten with their guns?
the guns are fun for bullying ground units
Nothing went wrong. It was purely a case of poor training and even worse RoE
>why do commies like to brag that the Phantom ONLY had a 3:1 air-to-air ratio?
to add:
-mostly over enemy territory
-when the enemy could chose to attack them when it suits them
whats wrong with the gun pods?
Speaking as a person who loaded them, they were squirrely and jammed constantly and mounting them on the frame was an exercise in frustration. Every time we were supposed to load a gunpod on an F-4J, we knew we were in for trouble. Thank Christ the F-14 integrated the guns again.
>t. ancientfag
Not to mention they didn't even use them until the C variant. They didn't give the Phantom an internal cannon until the E.
Damn, you must be a super salty seaman.
Was it the linkage and linkage connection causing jams/binding?
Wasn't in during that time frame but when I was in the chairforce I worked with 20+ yr MX guys and they had similar issues with pods in general during that timeframe.
Yep. It just was not designed to do that. It was a retrofit on a pylon that was designed to hold something else. It sort of worked but was also just sort of jury-rigged. More often than not, it was just a pain in everyone who had to deal with it's ass. That being said, the F-4J was a very, very good aircraft.
And it has the best booty besides the b1-b, and I say that as a eagle fanboy.
Did you guys have a runaway firing pod happen?
One of the dudes I mentioned had that happen to him during test firing(till it jammed lmao).
>And it has the best booty
This. Phantom has a GREAT ASS.
Based fellow plane cowling enjoyer.
I just love heavy fighters with two fuck off huge engines on them.
Also why I like the f111 aardvark even thought most people think it's ugly.
Hell yeah, the F-111 looks great. The F-101 Voodoo is another nice one, similar to the Phantom although with a more conventional tail.
>Connects gun pod
hasgunnow.jpg
Guns have literally never shot down a fighter after Korea though, they were absolutely vindicated and planes today shouldn't have guns
ur dumb
F8 crusader
Good stuff
The Crusader was an outdated piece of shit the very moment it was drawn onto a piece of paper. It also had a comically high workload for the pilot and it's good that it got axed rather quick. The Phantom was a much, much better plane in every single aspect including looks.
There, I said it. Fuck you.
>inb4 muh last gunfighter
>1,261 Crusaders were built. By the time it was withdrawn from the fleet, 1,106 had been involved in mishaps
The Crusader fit on the Essex-class CVs tho. It's why the Frenchies bought them for their flattops.
The Royal Navy elected to reengine the Phantom with the Spey to give them more oomph to work on their not-supercarriers.
True. But the F8 was still not a great plane in general. Don't forget the bongs also used the Spey because it was a (low bypass) turbofan that was remarkably less thirsty than the turbojet J79
That being said, the bigger size of the Spey increased the drag of K/M phantoms so the most of the reduced fuel consumption was eaten up in practice.
>Crusader pilots would claim the best kill ratio of any American type in the Vietnam War, 19:3.
Only two guns only verified guns (F-8 Crusader Units of the Vietnam War Mersky 1998)
Only 3 squadrons of Crusaders in Vietnam
Literally only 19 kills
Dial it down there anon
>Deploy a small number of Crusaders
>Crusaders make up a small percent of the fighter force in Vietnam
>Crusaders' kills make up a small percent of fighter kills in Vietnam
This is true, but it's not an argument against the Crusaders' dogfight capabilities, is it?
>This is true, but it's not an argument against the Crusaders' dogfight capabilities, is it?
Then how's it an argument FOR the Lolsaders dogfighting capabilities?
It was a very UNFORGIVING plane with a VERY HIGH WORKLOAD for the pilot, BAD AVIONICS and HIGHLY MEDIOCRE FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS.
Most of the idiots who drool over this piece of shit don't understand how much it was a bad, outdated plane over vietnam.
Also take a good look at what it downed: 16 of the 19 kills were Mig 17s, only 3 Mig 21s.The F4, on the other hand, downed mostly Mig 21s - a much tougher adversary than the 17s.
You sound angry. How about a nice cup of tea? The Crusader was a 2nd Gen fighter, like the MiG-19 and early variants of -21. Of course it was worse in many ways when compared th the Phantom. But I think the Crusader should be celebrated for what it is: the last plane to be designed with WW2 mentality and still be good.
pilots would claim the best kill ratio of any American type in the Vietnam War, 19:3.
Your ugly-ass POS downed just 19 planes over the course of the entire war. The Phantom scored 147 kills.
And since the Lolsader wasn't used as heavily it got lucky and wasn't shot down that often. Doesn't make it a great plane at all.
>Phantom pharts at it from two exhaust nozzles
>Phantom driver floors it and is out of Lolsaders sight within 30 seconds
As per usual: Pic related
And once again:
...And your flying brick got shot down by peasants in MiGs, anon.
When you're the fighter plane that carries the entire air war on its shoulders then its only logical that you get shot down most.
There's been only one, perhaps two planes over vietnam that deserve the same amout of respect as the Phantom: The Thud (especially the Iron Hand/Wild Weasel ones) and the Intruder.
>Ugly POS
You Phantom Phaggots wish you had the sleek, slender lines and the strong jawline of the CRUSADER
Kek, so you need to post some prototype because the OG Lolsader can't hack it? You know, thats the same spirit as some 3/10 who puts on tons of make-up to resemble a 9/10.
Pic related, amigo. THATS a beauty. And it's also got no ugly double-chin / pig snout
>Phantom: Agrressive, natural born killer
>Lolsader: Hue, I can haz dogfightz?!
>Ph*ntom: Used by Muslims to blow up other Muslims
>CRUSADER: EXCLUSIVELY USED BY WHITE PEOPLE
: EXCLUSIVELY USED BY WHITE PEOPLE
But frogs used them?
The French invented being white you utter fool.
F-18 better looking and in Independence Day
McDonaldsDuggles only W (F-15 ugly)
>19 kills in the whole war
so it's statistically insignificant. the fucking f-105 managed to kill 27.5 migs and that thing is a dumptruck.
>They're selling me to the French tonight
Sides : gone
Lmfao completely and utterly wrong. One example from a mirage pilot:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ran_Ronen-Pekker
nta but we both know that tallying Egyptian mig kills from that era is a bit silly
Bullshit. The Egyptians were fine. the Soviets spouted this shit as well and it was never true. They weren’t the best but they lost fair and square
No, majority of air to air kills were done with missiles.
That’s almost definitely a chicken and egg situation. Especially considering the cost of sidewinders
The superiority of the AIM-9, actually.
The only reason this is even a debate is because the AIM-4 sucked badly and was a flawed design. Once the USAF admitted their missile sucked and adopted the USN's Sidewinder the problem was solved. Not by adding guns to the Phantom.
>Vietnam war
>airforce puts guns on their phantoms
>kill ratio doesn't improve
>navy just trains their pilots better
>kill ratio skyrockets
The lack of a gun was never the issue. It was down to pilots needing better training.
Also notable is that the US has not scored an air to air kill against a fixed winged aircraft since the vietnam war.
>Also notable is that the US has not scored an air to air kill against a fixed winged aircraft since the vietnam war.
"During Desert Storm, 36 aircraft were shot down in aerial combat.[57] Three helicopters and 2 fighters were shot down during the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990. Kuwait claims to have shot down as many as 37 Iraqi aircraft. These claims have not been confirmed.[58] In addition, 68 fixed wing aircraft and 13 helicopters were destroyed while on the ground, and 137 aircraft were flown to Iran and never returned.[59]"
Sorry, gun kill*
I don't know how I forgot that part
>Also notable is that the US has not scored an air to air kill against a fixed winged aircraft since the vietnam war.
what?
the most recent documented kill was 2014
your bait tasted good
I meant to say
>"Also notable is that the US has not scored an air to air *GUN* kill against a fixed winged aircraft since the vietnam war.
yeah, pop culture has latched on to yet another garbage narrative with no regard to its truthfulness
the problem with the phantom was never the lack of a gun, it was the fact that it was given to the chair force to play with
F15 racked up an impressive combat record during Vietnam
True. None were shot down in combat between 1965-1975
>Also notable is that the US has not scored an air to air kill against a fixed winged aircraft since the vietnam war.
Are you ignorant or just lying?
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35765/confessions-of-an-f-15-eagle-driver-with-three-mig-kills
plot a chart of A2A kills by year and you'll see that he's not strictly correct, but he's still basically right.
What fucking planes were there to shoot down in Afghanistan retard? No shit A2A went down when there is nothing to fucking shoot.
>What fucking planes were there to shoot down in Afghanistan retard?
That's the point you disagreeable tard.
Okay so I am failing to see the point of his false statement of 'the US hasn't scored an A2A kill since Vietnam'
The point is that there are no planes to shoot down, therefore there are no planes to shoot down with guns. Therefore post-Vietnam gun kill counts are irrelevant to the question of F-4 performance in Vietnam, and the value of planes with guns in Vietnam. There simply isn't enough post-Vietnam A2A combat data to say anything conclusive about the value of having a gun, much less in the Vietnam era.
I mean virtually all A2A kills have been achieved with missiles. Bar the one time an F-15E killed a Hind or Hip with a GBU-10.
>>I mean virtually all A2A kills have been achieved with missiles
Virtually all... of a very small sample. It means little.
Okay. Then what is the breakdown for A2A kill methods during the Vietnam war?
Based
Captain Bob Swain shot down a helicopter using the main gun of his A10.
that's not even remotely close to the same thing. The Hind he shot down with his 30mm gun had just taken off and his older AIM-9 couldn't lock as it wasn't producing enough heat
holy fucking shit can you just read the other replies first you stupid moron
>holy fucking shit can you just read the other replies first you stupid moron
no
Bullshit.
F-15, F-16, and F-14 all have confirmed enemy kills and those are just the ones reported to the media. Great bait though.
when was last aircraft to aircraft kill ? afaik it was Israeli in early 80's = that's 40 years ago...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)
> 24 March 2011 – a G-2 Galeb was destroyed after landing by a French Air Force Dassault Rafale after it had violated the declared No-Fly Zone over Misrata.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown
maybe you can find more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Syrian_civil_war
An American jet shot down a Syrian jet in 2018 or something
shot down by a Super Hornet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ja%27Din_shootdown_incident
verification not required
Army
>poor understanding of proper storage of sensitive electronics in missiles
>outdated training programs
>demands gun be added
>performance goes from poor to okay
Navy
>higher storage standards
>reforms training programs
>disregards gun
>performance goes from decent to great
Retards
>Vietnam proved you always need a gun
>army
Look, when you're as busy as I am sucking cock you cant always take the time to correct your mistakes
the chair force originates as the army air force, most of the oldfags who served in vietnam were originally army so it checks out.
F35B &C have no gun
I'm sorry but the F-4 is one of the ugliest fighters ever made and you won't convince me otherwise.
>no gun
>no functioning afterburner
>can't break the soundbarrier to fire BVR missiles
was it hubris?
>no functioning afterburner
B and C will experience structural damage if they run it for more than a few seconds.
Damage to the tail plane has not been replicated outside of the stress tests that even the test pilots admitted was not real world.(as in no F-35 is going to fly that high that fast back to back)
cursory research into this subject reveals the inaccuracy of your statement.
You're obviously more than one person posting under the same trip.
>Substantially less incidents per flight hour than 4th gen jets by the time they had achieved the same # of total hours
What did you mean by this?
All models of F35 have a gun, why does this keep getting repeated when the information is publicly available?
Only the A model has a internal cannon. The C and B use a gun pod for ground attack.
Indeed why does this keep getting repeated?
pic related only one has flap for the gun.
>Was it hubris?
Go check the A2A ratio during the latter stages of the vietnam war to answer your own question.
Baseline: The air force put the M61 on their Phantoms, the Navy completely changed their training regiment.
When is the last time a plane got shot down with a gun in air to air combat?
>Was it hubris?
No
penalty. OP/ bringing up Vietnam air combat. automatic turnover on downs.
it was designed for long range fleet defense and was supposed to use its missiles to intercept incoming bombers, a cannon wouldn't be necessary for such a design. So no it wasn't hubris. It turned out the missiles didn't work as well as advertised, but remember training, doctrine, rules of engagement, mission profiles and the skill of the opposition also plays a large role. It's not gun = good, missile = bad. In that case the gun-armed US aircraft would presumably have been much more successful than the F4
It was ahead of Its time, now Sidewinders are accurate and reliable enough that you don't need guns
They eventually put the Vulcan in it. With the linkless feed and electrics its near 300kg. Had USA joined in the MG213 study at the right time they could have had a 30mm for half the weight. A 100 series fighter the Vulcan is not so bad but F4 was not 100 series.
No because the navy never added a gun and solved the issue with training, it was literally a skill issues.
Missiles in Vietnam were gimped by ROE which limited engagements to within visual range. If they were able to use the Sparrows BVR they'd have performed much better
Weren't Sparrows the ones that performed worse? The AIM-9s bagged the most enemies.
Sparrow was bad against fighter sized targets at BVR ranges and very hard to use at close range because of its semi active guidance.(and wing design iirc)
So using them against fighters really lowered the kill prob to laffable numbers.
It was design to shoot down bombers and had "QC" issues.
Yes, sparrows were gimped much more by the restrictive ROEs as they were much larger missiles meant to be fired at much longer ranges and had longer minimum range as well.
Although the ROE were probably a good call as vietnam air war is massively overblown and basically irrevelant on the scale of US air-to-ground operations.
>OP watches new Youtube video on F-4 Phantom (Operations Room / Intel Report)
>makes thread
>refuses to elaborate further
>leaves
Dear diary. Today OP was a fag.
to elaborate further
I literally elaborated
, but you didn't bother to read. The flamewar that became of this thread later is hardly my responsibility.
>youtube (Operations Room / Intel Report)
I don't watch those sort of channels, all they do is paraphrase wikipedia. I can read wikipedia myself, those channels provide zero novel insight. I made this thread because I watched James Markel's F-8 presentation on the Western Museum of Flight's youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QoUp_vmU8k
It's a very good channel, with real pilots sharing their experiences instead of some millenial punk soullessly reading an AI-written summary of whatever nonsense an obese wikipedian editor saw fit to publish.
Warriortard cope
guns are entirely irrelevant in modern aerial combat. We aren't in the 1940s anymore, anon
they are for bullying ground units
Modern aerial combat is completely beyond the point. The question is whether guns could have still been relevant in the late 60s early 70s.
Sort of. The F-4 wasn't meant as a fighter. It was more of an Interceptor, designed to chase down super sonic bombers carrying nuclear bombs.
how to shoot down balloons?
throw a cat at it
>b-but the crusader was a gunfighter and it- OH NO
>3 lost due to enemy action
>167 lost due to fire and accidents
F-4J did just as well as F-4E, and it doesn't have a gun. Real reason to lackluster initial performance was that technology development outpaced doctrinal development and Phantoms were essentially used as Sabres, which didn't work. Once doctrine and missile tech matured, Phantoms started clobbering fishbeds in droves. Muh gun is literal reformist cope after they were laughed out of development boards as to justify making gun only day fighters in the 80's.