F-4 Phantom vs. F-18 Super Hornet

Factual Questions
21

Just to clarify, the YF-17 didn’t lose the flyoff against the YF-16; they were about equal. USAF picked the Falcon over the Cobra based on its engine commonality with the F-15, easing the supply and maintenance problems with introducing a new type. By that time, the US Phantoms were pretty much worn out as well as technologically obsolete, and life-extension kits wouldn’t have been a good investment.

The F/A-18A/B is substantially larger and heavier than the YF-17, requiring a new engine design. The F/A-18E/F “Super Hornet” is substantially larger and heavier than that, requiring another new engine design, and would have had a different designation, if not for the value on the Washington funding merry-go-round) of making it look like a simple derivative.

The F-4 was not very maneuvrable, but had a huge thrust/weight ratio. Typical tactics in Vietnam against any enemy aircraft were to simply go vertical - the Phantom could go straight up faster than any enemy plane, and higher too. When enough vertical separation had been achieved, the pilot would simply nose over, look for the other guy, get a lock, and launch.

22

That is a killer photo! I’ve seen only one other photo of a fighter slipping through the sound barrier, and both photos show a photo of a vapor (?), or something surrounding the aircraft.

What the hell is that vapor–if it’s vapor at alll? Is it a sonic shockwave, and why is there color (gray/white) to it?

23

Curious since one of the weaknesses of fire control radar, particularly earlier ones like the AWG-10, was ground clutter caused from looking downward at a target. Not an issue with AIM-9 missles but it probably means getting visual contact to lock the IR seekerhead. Still in A-A combat the AIM-9 has had more kills than guns and all other missles combined. At least it was still the case in the early '80s when I went to weapons school.

This conversation has some of the dynamics of can a vampire beat up a werewolf? and I’m suprised it hasn’t been moved to GD.

24

It is indeed a ‘Vapor Cone’. It seems such photos are incredibly difficult to get. Neato stuff.

25

Bite your tongue, not-so-young man! Since when does anyone have the manufacturing specs on vampires? :wink:

26

FROM YOUR LINK… (I didn’t see the linked picture)

Shock wave picture: F/A-18 breaking the sound barrier:

This white cloud is a cone of vapor with a sharp leading edge. Every so often, just the right combination of conditions and events occur to create an unbelievable event-in this case an F-18 passing through the sound barrier. Not only were the water vapor, density and temperature just right, but there just happened to be a camera in the vicinity to capture the ***ent. The F-18 is actually in transonic flight, with normal shock waves emanating from behind the canopy and across the wings and fuselage. The condition will last for only an instant, and once supersonic flow exists completely around the aircraft, sharp-angled sonic cones replace the normal shock waves. The odds of getting a shot like this are staggering.

Jim Frysinger, University/College of Charleston, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, People Web Server frysingerj@cofc.edu

27

This is the SDMB. Of course we have the specs on Vampires! :wink:

28

Now I definitely think the Phantom could take a Vampire. Are there even any Vampires still flying?

29

Carnac, posting all the text of a site is conisdered bad form and against forum rules for copyright violation. You may want to report your post to the mods so they can edit it.

The text with the vapor cone photo has some things that are a pet peeve of mine. I’ll accept an invitation to debate the topic but I think “breaking the sound barrier” is often used incorrectly. It implies a single event, exceeding the speed of sound, that ties in with the common misconception that the sonic boom is a one time event as well. The sonic boom is a continuous event, you just have to be moving to stay at the surface of the cone shaped shock wave to percieve it as such. The same is true of the vapor cone which isn’t nearly as rare as they make it seem. On several occasions I’ve seen F-14s make supersonic passes, about 1k knots, at less than 100 feet altitude from the water. Typically the cone flashes in and out rapidly and capturing one on film is a matter of timing or having a very fast motor drive. Such photo ops are not awfully common.

Has anyone found the specifications to a Werewolf?

30

Returning to the OP with some factual (if anecdotal) info …

I flew the F-16A in the USAF back when there were still a few F-4s left to fight against. I had the chance to fight them fairly often, late model F-4Fs with all the best mods the USAF ever put on them (which isn’t saying much).

Short version: Killing F-4s was slightly harder than killing transports, but not much. And I wasn’t particularly spectacular as an F16 pilot, more Captain Average than Maverick.

Long version:

Now in the A-model F16 we did not have any radar-guided missile, while the F-4 at that time carried the AIM-7F Sparrow. So if the Rules of Engagement (ROE) permitted them to shoot me before seeing me with their eyes to ID who/what I was, well then sometimes they could take me out before I could get in close enough to use my AIM9-L or M Sidewinder heatseakers or gun.

They also carried the much less capable Sdewinder AIM-9P version and essentially the same gun as the F-16. The AIM-9P was essentially limited to attacks from the rear, whereas the AIM9-L/M could be used head-on.

So absent the radar missile, they had to dogfight to get me, while I could shoot them in the face as we closed, and if somehow that didn’t work, then we’d wrap it up into the dogfight to finish them off.

Once in the dogfight, they had a lot less G capability and a lot less power. And a lot less visibility out of the cockpit.

And they were huge and usually trailed smoke & I was tiny and invisible with no smoke trail.

It normally didn’t take long, 2 minutes tops, to kill them. And I was in no particular danger from them at any time.

Finally, their radar was a LOT worse than ours, and that drives the AIM-9 missile aiming / range computation and the gunsight.

So even if somehow they got behind me they were much less likely to actually be able to hit me with ordnance than if the roles were reversed with the exact same geometry.

In real combat, as opposed to peacetime practice, most kills are unobserved. The loser is flying along unaware that anything’s amiss until he suddenly blows up. And an F-4 could certainly sneak up on an unsuspecting F-16 driver, provided the F-16 was “cooperating” by exposing himself to enemy ground control radar, or was ignoring the warning signals from the F-4’s radar.

But in setup engagements where both guys knew the other one was out there, and the F-4 didn’t have, or couldn’t use, radar-guided missiles, then I’d expect the F-16 to win 19 out of 20 and lose the 20th because he misjudged a turn & hit the ground.
Now that F-4 vs F-16A. When I was flying the Navy had just gotten their first F/A-18As.

I only fought F/A-18s a couple of times but my limited experience was that they were essentially comparable to us in maneuverability and power, with the same weapons (AIM-9L/M & gun), similar overall ease of use, and somewhat better radar. They had a LOT better manueverability at slow speeds, but getting slow in a fighter is already real bad for your longevity. We had some advantages in G-rates at higher speeds and in visibility.

So overall, most times the better pilot won regardless of which airplane he was flying. For evenly matched pilots in a 1-on-1 scenario, the F/A-18 would usually win if the fight got long, while the F-16 would win if he played his opening moves right. I’d handicap exactly evenly matched pilots at 60% for the F/A-18, 40% for the F-16.

Now the F/A-18A did have the big stick of carrying the AIM-7M longer-range radar-guided missile, but as a practical matter, most times the ROE prevented its use. But if they could fire AIM-7s freely, they could eat our lunch most times.

The AIM-7M on the F/A-18 coupled with its radar was a vastly more effective weapon than the AIM-7F on the F-4 coupled to its radar.
Now the modern F/A-18C & soon-to-be-released F/A-18E have the even better AIM-120 AMRAAM radar missile, better radar and supposedly better handling and power, as well as even better radars and other avionics.
Overall, there’s just no comparison in tactical effectiveness between the late model F/A-18 and the F4. Imagine a Knight on horseback with a lance and sword against a Marine with an M-16 with the underbarrel M203 grenade launcher. Not a fair fight; not even close. Unless the Marine is asleep, in which case he’s dead.

LSLGuy

p.s. Combat is a team endeavor. Discussions about how one man/machine would fare against another in an isolated arena are inherently very artificial. Good tactics and good teamwork can overcome a lot of deficiencies in individual capability.

The USA nowadays (and even in the '80s when I was doing this) is enjoying the synergistic result of applying excellent machines with excellent men with excellent teamwork with excellent tactics, oh yeah, in overwhelming numbers. The other guys have been weak in all 5 areas.

31

You mean in military service? I dunno - maybe some 3rd world country somewhere has some? There are a number of Vampires in private hands - in fact, John Travolta flies one.

32

p.s. Padeye’s exactly right about the vapor cone & the sonic boom & the “sound barrier.”

Both vapor cones and sonic booms are continuous phenomenon for Mach 1+ flight. The visible vapor cone requires a particular combination of ambient humidity and pressure that doesn’t exist everywhere.

But when a Mach 1+ airplane flies through such a region of air, they’ll form a visible vapor cone as long as they’re in the region.

The “sound barrier” is/was a barrier in the same sense that the 4-minute mile is/was a barrier. Until mankind knew how to do it, it was impossible. Afterwards, it was just a matter of knowing how to try hard enough to make it easy.

33

The Werewolf

34

One thing not yet mentioned is the cost to repair an older jet. As a brand spanking new jet rolls off the assembly line, the repairs are alot as they work out the problems from assembly. But after those are found and repaired mostly the technicians only have to pull and replace boxes. Fast and easy to do. But as a jet gets on in age, the problems then become more complex and involves major wiring work. The F4s I worked on from 1986-90, which was at the end of their USAF life, had some major wiring problems which grounded them for over 30 days at a time.

Regarding smoking engines, in about 1987 the regular Air Force retrofited the F4’s with smokeless engines. But not all of the Guard troups replaced their engines.

35

posting all the text of a site is considered bad form and against forum rules for copyright violation.

Whoops! I thought short passages were fine, not realizing that using the entire short excerpt was bad form. I therefore sincerely apologize to the mods and duly credit the source: Jim Frysinger, University/College of Charleston, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingjfrysingerj@cofc.edu

One more outburst from you, Padeye and I’ll have you flying a Sopwith Camel. :wink:

36

[hijack] A couple of years ago I watched a bit of a “documentary” on UFOs (probably on Fox). They showed a video of a mysterious object moving slowly away from the viewer in mid-air over a “secret Air Force base” at night. The object was a pair of side-by-side red-orange balls of light, with. visible against the faint sky glow, a vertical line extending up from between the balls, and a downwards-angled line on each side. Another faint line ran horizontally under the two balls, with the ends bent slightly upwards.

Three guesses what the “mysterious object” was! [/hijack]

37

I am now an old fart. I still think the F4 Phantom hands down is a Great Aircraft.
Had it been upgraded in electronics, and engines, it would still outfly any of the competition.
But the Pentagon seems to live on spending money without regard for what they get for it.
The F18 is an outstanding replacement for the A7, but not an F4 or F14.
Just my opinion.

38

I am now an old fart. I still think the F4 Phantom hands down is a Great Aircraft.
Had it been upgraded in electronics, and engines, it would still outfly any of the competition.
But the Pentagon seems to live on spending money without regard for what they get for it.
The F18 is an outstanding replacement for the A7, but not an F4 or F14.
Just my opinion.:smack:

39

Moderator Action

Given that this thread is about a dozen years old, and the OP as well as many of the thread participants are no longer around, it’s probably best to put this poor zombie back in its grave.

If anyone wishes to discuss the F4 Phantom in a more modern context, feel free to open a new thread in the appropriate forum.

Thread closed.