Thoughts on F-4 as a fighter aircraft

yes

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Too good for its own good

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the heatblur F-4 is lookin good

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It fucking does.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pure sex

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      agreed

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's satisfying to say F-4 out loud which is the only metric I use to assess military hardware

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    F-4 and f-101 are peak sex.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pierre didn't like it.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Phantom is top name.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Spectre because it technically has two names

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was known as the black smoke brick by Nam pilots.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    An excellent plane whose reputation was almost entirely ruined by the History Channel

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And the US Air Force

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        An excellent plane whose reputation was almost entirely ruined by the History Channel

        no plane should have the USAF's record counted against it.

        the air force was happy to reach 1.8:1 over Vietnam while the navy's kill ratio was something like 12:1

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it go fast

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The design itself was a good one. The israelis did a fun F4 project called the Heavy Hammer. Made it fly by wire instead of hydraulic control. Saved a few tons of weight with that alone. Pratt and Witney developed the PW1120 engine for it, producing almost as much thrust as the F100 engines found in the F15z. New radar and pilot interface resulted in a fighter with 85% of the F15’s performance and capability for like 50% of the cost. The thing is nobody wanted to refurb an old design, they all wanted the new hotness and so only the Turks went through with the proposed upgrades.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Israeli RF-4s were pretty neat

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Don't forget that the US didn't want something to compete against the their next generation stuff, a Mach 3 capable F-4 would have been horrible for the F-15. If Congress heard "We can make a F-4 almost as good as a F-15 with less costs" they would have taken it in a heartbeat.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If the latest version of it is almost comparable to F-15, why don't Iran produce unlicensed copy of F-4s? It's practically 50's tech.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Do you really need to ask?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because none of Iran’s indigenous aerospace programs can make an engine powerful enough to be suitable for anything heavier than yet another F-5 clone.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good for its time but the F-15 is miles ahead

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they got fucked by stupid ROE in nam'

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I should play through the whole AC7 campaign with only an F-4

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I love that the F4 gets UGB's in AC7

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        An excellent plane whose reputation was tarnished by morons and bad tactics.

        I'm pissed it doesn't get FAEB

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >WW
          >Wild Weasel
          I believe this F-4G was part of the 37th TFW stationed at George AFB when I was a teenager.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The United States put remote control pilot controls in them and had current pilots shoots them down as practice. They said pilots needed the actual experience of an air to air kill.

    Oh, and an f-14 shot one down when he wasn't supposed to, by accident.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw too poor to buy a used F-4 from Cal Worthington

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yeah

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's performance at the time was pretty mediocre.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was the best fighter on the planet for over a decade. Just because the USAF bungled its employment through retarded tactics and RoE, allowing themselves to be jumped and/or get stuck in turnfights with far slower planes doesn't invalidate its raw capabilities.

      A trained pilot in the F-4 could more or less engage and disengage at will no matter what he was up against until the introduction of the MiG-23 - at which point the US already had F-14s/15s.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even then, I’d bet on an up to date phantom over a MIG23 on most occasions.

        Pic related was a cool project.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Buck Broken by the Crusader III

        "NASA pilots started intercepting Navy F-4s and embarrassing them in mock dogfights, causing the Navy to complain to military top brass. The Pentagon had to request that NASA stop the harassment officially.." Source MiG Master by Barrett Tillman

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They literally had to cut weight from the crusader to compete. No co pilot half payload. You sacrificed any guided arms to keep up. The f-106 did better and sacrificed less.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Here is Soviet interoceptor of this time.
      Phantom is faster, more range, x2 more rockets, can dogfight and works as strike aircraft carrying tons of bombs. Can take off and land from the carrier.
      Soviet radar+missiles interceptor? Flying behemoth made from the bomber.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is good but I prefer this.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Okay for it's time, but dogshit compared to anything that came after. Even the F-14 would mop the floor with the F-4.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No internal gun. Missiles dodgey firing downwards.

    It had its day. Bye.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's cool

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