Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: F-4 : really an interceptor Message-ID: <7853@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 29 Jun 89 03:45:13 GMT References: <7740@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 56 Approved: military@att.att.com From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <7740@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) writes: > From: Michael J. Tighe > The F-4 a fighter? I respectfully disagree. The F-4 was an air defense > interceptor, not a fighter. Sure they tried to turn it into one, but it > wasn't. Those J-79 engines put out so much smoke, you could see it for > miles. Engines developed during the period that the GE J-79s came on line *all* tended to smoke. As cleaner engines happened, it became much more of a problem, of course. The Israeli's latest upgraded F4s tend to be much better in that respect. (The smoke isn't a problem if you come after your opponent from their 6 o'clock or from sunward...but if you miss the first time, things can get ugly.) > Early versions didn't even have a cannon. Of course not. This was the Age of the Missile. One shot, one kill and all that. (Didn't work out that way off paper.) The pilots got a cannon added externally and a later version (F4E?) got an intenal vulcan. > It wasn't very maneuverable either. Migs could run circles around > it. And it had two seats. Here we go again (them, not you). Different mission requirements dictate differeent approaches. Russian fighters, until fairly recently, tended to be point-defense types: Light, maneuverable, no legs, little on-board fire control or target acquisition. They were to be directed from the ground and very tightly controlled at that. US doctrine dictated fighting as far from home as possible, assuming that forward bases would be denied our use. So the aircraft had to have long legs, and they had to carry their fire control and target acquisition gear. You end up with a bigger, heavier aircraft, and a guy in back to deal with the extra workload of the radar and ECM. Of course, everyone wanted a single aircraft to do every job for everyone... With proper tactics you can minimize you weaknesses (don't dogfight) and work to your strengths (one pass and gas it...). The problem being that it took a while to re-learn the lessons of WW2 in the Pacific, and we lost too many aircraft and crews in the interim. >> ...had some requirements left over from the then terminated F-111B. They >> were 1) tandem two-seat twin engined aircraft... I thought the F-111 (nee' TFX) flew after the F4 (nee' F-110) first flew in 1956... In any case, the F-111's don't seat the crew in tandem, they're side by side.