>no gun

>no gun
Was it hubris?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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 Fighter development from the 40s to the 60s was so rapid most frames were hopelessly outdated by the time their pilots had been trained on the airframe.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Overconfidence in missile tech maturation.
          in other words, hubris

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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 Fighter development from the 40s to the 60s was so rapid most frames were hopelessly outdated by the time their pilots had been trained on the airframe.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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Did you just learn that word and want to sound smart?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          the guns are fun for bullying ground units

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Nothing went wrong. It was purely a case of poor training and even worse RoE

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    whats wrong with the gun pods?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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. ancientgay

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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).

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >And it has the best booty
              This. Phantom has a GREAT ASS.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Based fellow plane cowling enjoyer.

                I just love heavy fighters with two frick off huge engines on them.
                Also why I like the f111 aardvark even thought most people think it's ugly.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Connects gun pod
    hasgunnow.jpg

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Guns have literally never shot down a fighter after Korea though, they were absolutely vindicated and planes today shouldn't have guns

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      ur dumb

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      F8 crusader

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Good stuff

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/R5JuehT.jpg

        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. Frick you.
        >inb4 muh last gunfighter

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >1,261 Crusaders were built. By the time it was withdrawn from the fleet, 1,106 had been involved in mishaps

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >1,261 Crusaders were built. By the time it was withdrawn from the fleet, 1,106 had been involved in mishaps

          >Crusader pilots would claim the best kill ratio of any American type in the Vietnam War, 19:3.

          • 1 year ago
            RC-135 Rivet Joint

            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

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >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?

              • 1 year 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.

              • 1 year 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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              And once again:

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              ...And your flying brick got shot down by peasants in MiGs, anon.

              • 1 year 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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Ugly POS
              You Phantom Phaggots wish you had the sleek, slender lines and the strong jawline of the CRUSADER

              • 1 year 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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Phantom: Agrressive, natural born killer
                >Lolsader: Hue, I can haz dogfightz?!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Ph*ntom: Used by Muslims to blow up other Muslims
                >CRUSADER: EXCLUSIVELY USED BY WHITE PEOPLE

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                : EXCLUSIVELY USED BY WHITE PEOPLE
                But frogs used them?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The French invented being white you utter fool.

              • 1 year 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

                F-18 better looking and in Independence Day

                McDonaldsDuggles only W (F-15 ugly)

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >19 kills in the whole war
            so it's statistically insignificant. the fricking f-105 managed to kill 27.5 migs and that thing is a dumptruck.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >They're selling me to the French tonight
            Sides : gone

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Lmfao completely and utterly wrong. One example from a mirage pilot:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ran_Ronen-Pekker

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        nta but we both know that tallying Egyptian mig kills from that era is a bit silly

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No, majority of air to air kills were done with missiles.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That’s almost definitely a chicken and egg situation. Especially considering the cost of sidewinders

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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]"

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Sorry, gun kill*
        I don't know how I forgot that part

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      F15 racked up an impressive combat record during Vietnam

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        True. None were shot down in combat between 1965-1975

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        plot a chart of A2A kills by year and you'll see that he's not strictly correct, but he's still basically right.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          What fricking planes were there to shoot down in Afghanistan moron? No shit A2A went down when there is nothing to fricking shoot.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >What fricking planes were there to shoot down in Afghanistan moron?
            That's the point you disagreeable tard.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Okay so I am failing to see the point of his false statement of 'the US hasn't scored an A2A kill since Vietnam'

              • 1 year 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.

              • 1 year 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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >>I mean virtually all A2A kills have been achieved with missiles
                Virtually all... of a very small sample. It means little.

              • 1 year 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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Captain Bob Swain shot down a helicopter using the main gun of his A10.

              • 1 year 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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        holy fricking shit can you just read the other replies first you stupid Black person

        Sorry, gun kill*
        I don't know how I forgot that part

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >holy fricking shit can you just read the other replies first you stupid Black person
          no

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        when was last aircraft to aircraft kill ? afaik it was Israeli in early 80's = that's 40 years ago...

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          An American jet shot down a Syrian jet in 2018 or something

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            shot down by a Super Hornet
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ja%27Din_shootdown_incident
            verification not required

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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
    morons
    >Vietnam proved you always need a gun

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >army

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Look, when you're as busy as I am sucking wiener you cant always take the time to correct your mistakes

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the chair force originates as the army air force, most of the oldgays who served in vietnam were originally army so it checks out.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    F35B &C have no gun

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm sorry but the F-4 is one of the ugliest fighters ever made and you won't convince me otherwise.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >no gun
    >no functioning afterburner
    >can't break the soundbarrier to fire BVR missiles
    was it hubris?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >no functioning afterburner

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        B and C will experience structural damage if they run it for more than a few seconds.

        • 1 year ago
          RC-135 Rivet Joint

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're obviously more than one person posting under the same trip.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      All models of F35 have a gun, why does this keep getting repeated when the information is publicly available?

      • 1 year ago
        RC-135 Rivet Joint

        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.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    When is the last time a plane got shot down with a gun in air to air combat?

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Was it hubris?
    No

  15. 1 year ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    penalty. OP/ bringing up Vietnam air combat. automatic turnover on downs.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It was ahead of Its time, now Sidewinders are accurate and reliable enough that you don't need guns

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No because the navy never added a gun and solved the issue with training, it was literally a skill issues.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Weren't Sparrows the ones that performed worse? The AIM-9s bagged the most enemies.

      • 1 year ago
        RC-135 Rivet Joint

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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 gay.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      [...]

      to elaborate further
      I literally elaborated

      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.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Warriortard cope

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    guns are entirely irrelevant in modern aerial combat. We aren't in the 1940s anymore, anon

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      they are for bullying ground units

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Modern aerial combat is completely beyond the point. The question is whether guns could have still been relevant in the late 60s early 70s.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    how to shoot down balloons?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      throw a cat at it

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >b-but the crusader was a gunfighter and it- OH NO

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >3 lost due to enemy action
      >167 lost due to fire and accidents

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *