Though the technology of the Vietnam-era F-4 Phantom is roughly 30 years older than that found in the Navy’s F-18 Super Hornet, I’m wondering if there would be any chance for an equally skilled pilot in the Phantom in a combat engagement–even 2 out of 10 engagements. I think I know the answer here, but I would appreciate a fact-driven discussion.
FWIW, I’ve always been an admirer of the wicked-looking Phantom.
I always thought the phantom looked way cool too. Unfortunately, I think that it manuevers like a brick compared to the much more agile F-18. Unless they’ve seriously updated the avionics in the phantom, the hornet is going to detect it from farther out, fire on it from further out, and nail it with better weapons. Unless the pilot can figure out some way to give the phantom the advantage, I think he’s gonna be toast.
I recall that back around the time the F-15, F-16, and F-14 came along, there was a company marketing an update kit for Phantoms that involved new avionics and a wing/tail reinforcement. Might have been an engine upgrade in there too. They claimed that the refitted Phantoms could outperform the newer aircraft in terms of cost/performance.
Of course, they claimed that…but if it were true then we’d have bunch of retrofitted Phantoms flying now! 
The original F-18 might be the poorest choice to pick as a “new generation” fighter to compete against the F-4. It’s predecessor the YF-17 lost the flyoff competition between it and the YF-16 for the Air Force multirole fighter contract. The YF-17 was tweaked and had beefier landing gear installed and presto!: the Navy buys the F-18. (The Navy has a fondness for twin-engine carrier-based jets and I don’t blame them).
However, the Lead Sled is still a very old design. ANY new generation fighter can out-turn it, out-accelerate it and out-weapon it. The F-4 was good in it’s time, but as it aged it was relegated to more specific, non-dogfighting roles. It was good at flying REALLY fast REALLY low, so it inherited some Recon missions (The RF-4Cs) and the Wild Weasel mission (shooting at enemy SAM radars after they lit up).
If you put a Super Hornet’s avionics and radar in an F-4, you might balance the equation some. But even on long-range missile shots the Hornet has the advantage (stealthier radar signature for one, more agile and thus more capable to defeat a missile for two). Once the two get inside missile range the F-4 will get eaten for lunch.
Equally skilled pilots in unequal machines will give the victory to the better machine. The F-18 (especially the E/F Super Hornet) is a vastly superior machine to the F-4.
I too have a soft spot in my heart for the F-4, but it’s quickly becoming like the spot I have for the F4U Corsair. Great in it’s time, but time marches on.
My favorite F-4 line:
“If you put a big enough motor on it, even a brick will fly. And the F-4 needed TWO!”
The F-4, as already stated, makes an excellent recon aircraft and low-altitude bomber. If you park the F-18 in a known location and give the F-4 pilot a one-hour head start…
A few points, but first my concession speech: I’m sure you’re right re: the matchup. I suppose I just needed to hear the bad news.
My first point is sheer opinion: the F-4 Phantom was the most menacing-looking fighter in U.S. military history. Mean looking, a real badass.
Of course, a lot of military contracting is driven by jobs creation, not just overall performance.
Re: the F-18 being the poorest representation of current-generation fighters, someone I know who used to fly F-16 for the Air Force told me recently that the F-18 outperforms it in terms of maneuverability, etc., although I always thought the F-16 was the best hands-down dogfighter is U.S. military history.
How maneuverable was the Phantom as a dogfighter?
…and do something to hide the smoke trail…
Carnac I also think that the F-4 was the most badass-looking jet fighter. Huge engines, big flat surfaces at all kinds of crazy angles. And as Chefguy noted, you can always find it…just follow the smoke!
Now, talking dogfighting capabilites of current fighters is more of an opinion. (Disclaimer: I have never flown fighters, and I’m no expert on the subject.)
Both the F-18 and the F-16 are “multirole” fighters. The F-18 is even designated the F/A-18. They were designed with ground attack in mind. The last aircraft that were intially designed for air-to-air only were the F-14 and F-15. The F-14 was a carrier stand-off weapon that could shoot those Phoenix missiles 100 miles. The F-15 was air superiority: not extreme long range, but very good up in close.
Both airframes have been modified and pressed into ground-attack roles, though. So, which one is the best dogfighter? The capabilities are so good (maneuverability, thrust-to-weight) that it might come down to which airframe has the latest avionics and engine package. Guys who fly the Super Hornet love it, and can give F-15C and F-16 guys a great fight. My “poorest example” description was of the original F/A-18, based on it’s losing a head-to-head flyoff with the F-16. But 20 years later the mods on the F/A-18 E/F have been extensive, and it is truly a great airplane.
Of course, they’ll ALL get smoked when the F-22 comes online!
The F-4-2000 Super Phantom is one such upgrade (and the link even mentions the F-18!). Now we just need to sell Egypt a bunch of F/A-18s and let nature take its course!
I have nothing real to add to the comparison but I have another bit of F4 trivia:
To this day our German air force relies mostly on F4 F (german only), last updated in 1996.
The only other fighter planes are some MiG-29 inherited from the eastern German air force.
Now you know why they wanted the Eurofighter/Typhoon so badly.
Are you talking smoke trail or “contrail”? How could a smoke trail differ so much in fighters? Do tell.
The fighters of that generation that used the J75 , were known as clear air converters. Compared to its adversary in Viet Nam, the Mig 21 , the F-4 phantom could be seen from 20 miles away in good weather conditions. Pilots could only lose the smoke by going into after burner.
Declan
Interesting comparisons…
F-4 PHANTOM II
Performance Characteristics
Cruising speed 585 mph
Maximum speed Mach 2.2+ or greater than 1,500 mph
Initial climb rate 61,400 feet per minute
Service ceiling 62,250
Combat range 595 miles
Maximum range 1,885 miles with three external fuel tanks
Airplane Dimensions
Wing span (wings spread) 38 feet, 5 inches
Wing span (wings folded) 27 feet, 7 inches
Length 63 feet
Height 16 feet, 5 inches
Gross weight 31,500 pounds to 33,000 pounds
Maximum takeoff weight 54,000 to 55,000 pounds
Nickname “Rhino” and “Smoker” because of the thin trail of smoke left by the General Electric J79 engines.
F-18 Super Hornet
General Characteristics, Super Hornet, E and F models
See also the Super Hornet page.
Primary Function: Multi-role attack and fighter aircraft
Contractor: McDonnell Douglas
Unit Cost: $ 57 million
Propulsion: Two F414-GE-400 turbofan engines
Thrust: 22,000 pounds (9,977 kg) static thrust per engine
Length: 60.3 feet (18.5 meters)
Height: 16 feet (4.87 meters)
Maximum Take Off Gross Weight: 66,000 pounds (29,932 kg)
Wingspan: 44.9 feet (13.68 meters)
Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained
Ceiling: 50,000+ feet
Speed: Mach 1.8+
Crew:
A, C and E models: One
B, D and F models: Two
Armament: One M61A1/A2 Vulcan 20mm cannon;
External payload: AIM 9 Sidewinder, AIM-9X (projected), AIM 7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Harpoon, Harm, SLAM, SLAM-ER (projected), Maverick missiles; Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM); Data Link Pod; Paveway Laser Guided Bomb; various general purpose bombs, mines and rockets. See the F/A-18 weapons load-out page.
Date Deployed: First flight in November 1995. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in September 2001 with VFA-115, NAS Lemoore, Calif. First cruise for VFA-115 is onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-fa18.html
(Continued slight highjack): Unfortunately, not only could we see them coming, but Charlie could see them coming as well, and was underground before the birds could drop their ordinance. Whenever the Phantoms were doing airstrikes, we could count on receiving incoming rockets that night in retaliation.
this comes from my hazy recollection from a tv documentary, so not to be taken as a sure thing, but in terms of air to air combat this program made special mention that the US gov. had invested heavily in electronics (ie radar and long range missles) for combat rather than dogfight capabilities. This led to some serious probs in vietnam since the migs they were facing were seriously better dogfighting planes. Apparently it was enough of a problem that they had to find a solution. (dont remember what they did though).
Point is that apparently they phantom wasnt designed as a dogfighter so if the avionics are outdated its pretty much toast.
I believe the original, first model or two of the Phantom rolled off the assembly line without even having a gun, rabbit. No cites for that, just some hazy memories.
Robert McNamara decided that war was a thing of the past and no longer would planes dog fight ala ww1 with scarves in the blowing wind. Thus the Phantom was built as an interceptor originally , for tracking and killing bombers .
The concept is still in use today , just amended by the fact that the newer fighters have a gun for knife fights , heaters for mid range snapshots and sparrows and aim-120’s for long range BVR engagements.
While the Mig 17 and Mig 19 were better dogfighters , the Mig 21 was not. However circumstances must be looked at to get a better picture. The Administration , caring about world opinion , gave (read handed to the communists on a silver platter) sanctuary airfields ,that could not be bombed or strafed.
This allowed the Mig 21’s to be able to loiter , virtually invisible concidering their size and profile , while visually scanning the surrounding air for smoke trails ,then they would scream in , make a slashing pass and then zooom out and make a run for the sanctuary.
By wars end , nixon had removed the sanctuarys , removed the restrictions on bombing hanoi and haiphong harbour, the air battle had returned to more korean war type statistics.
The avionics were not outdated by a long shot , due to restrictions on weapons release , visual identification of a target had to be made , as to avoid a blue on blue casualty. That alone took away the upper teeth of the phantom.
Declan
Actually I think it was the first four models that came without the internalgun.
Up till the D/E model , the phantom was relegated to using an inline gun pod. Which as one Bomber/Navigator on an A-6 relagated to me , had a mind of its own , as to when it would fire.
Declan
Carnac those are indeed interesting stats you posted. It clearly shows the late 50s/early 60s fascination with SPEED and more SPEED in everything related to jets.
It ties in nicely with GMRyujin’s true statement about the original F-4 having no internal gun. It was all about speed and missiles, and the “fastest” aircraft was the “best” aircraft.
Of course, it took actual combat experience and subsequent testing to prove that no one actually fought dogfights at high speed. A high top speed was useful for getting into the fight, but not actually fighting. It can also be used to run away, and the F-4 was uncatchable at low altitude (except by an F-111, and all he can do is glare at you).
With it’s design of a high top speed, the F-4 sacrificed lower-speed maneuvering. The thinking at the time was: high-speed dash into the fight, shoot a couple of missiles and go home. Of course, the missiles weren’t always accurate so the F-4 got into some close-in dogfights. Without a gun, it was helpless. I think it was a Navy guy who persuaded the leadership to let him mount a 20mm cannon externally on a few aircraft and see what happened. In a very short time the gun racked up more kills than the missiles.
The guns eventually became standard (internal) equipment on the F-4, and they were used when inside of missile range or when some poor guy was out of missiles.
The lessons of the F-4 were (thankfully) learned, and future fighters were designed with dogfighting maneuverability in mind. This is one reason why the F-16 and F-18 have lower top speeds than the Phantom II. Yeah, a high top speed is a sexy number but it contributes almost nothing to actually downing other airplanes.
And Chefguy and Declan have already commented on the smoke trails (NOT contrails). It was smoke from the exhaust, and once again something that technological progress has taken care of. For fighters it was to reduce detectibility, but for commercial airliners it’s been to reduce noise and pollution. Think about a 707 taking off vs a 777. Tons of smoke and noise vs almost none of either. Same thing with an F-4: tons of noise and smoke, even at cruise. An F-16 is still noisy on takeoff but leaves a smoke-free trail. You have eliminated one way for the enemy to spot you.
Obligatory link to a cool F-4 picture. It’s a Navy F-4 going transonic at VERY low altitude (the aircraft visible to the left is on the ground, as is the blue station wagon at the base of the shock wave. The F-4 is doing a high-speed pass down a runway.)
Slight Hijack…but F-4 related.
An interesting story about the F-4 in combat is that of Randy Cunningham vs the infamous Colonel Toon, Vietnam’s leading ace with 13 kills. (it appears now that he never existed).
RC and his F-4
I looked for the full, minute by minute, report of this dogfight and couldn’t find it. I highly recommend reading it if you can find it in print. It will keep you on the edge of your seat.
