Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: F-4 : really an interceptor Summary: OOOH, you're in trouble now! Message-ID: <7854@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 29 Jun 89 03:45:15 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 117 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Mary Shafer Fred Shubert (fjs@floyd.ATT.COM) wrote: >In article <7740@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) writes: >> >> From: Fred J. Shubert >>> Oh contraire! The F-14 was built to replace one of the best naval fighters >>> around, the F-4 Phantom. >> >> The F-4 a fighter? I respectfully disagree. The F-4 was an air defense ^^^ fleet? >> 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. Early versions didn't even have a cannon. It wasn't very >> maneuverable either. Migs could run circles around it. And it had two >> seats. (see below). >> >>> ...had some requirements left over from the then terminated F-111B. They >>> were 1) tandem two-seat twin engined aircraft... >> >> By fighter pilot definition, any aircraft that has two seats, or air-to- >> ground capability, cannot be a fighter. :-) >Sorry. >(I probably offended Mary Shafer, too! Her E-mail's on the way. :-) ) >My mistake. I'm not really up on the F-4's, except I've always perceived >them as a fighter. BUT the NAVY really did want to replace them with a >high-tech fighter, the F-14 Tomcat eventually fit the bill when the F-111B >didn't. Before I rise to the defense of the grossly maligned Phantom, I'd like to point out an interesting difference between Navy two-seaters and Air Force two-seaters. Navy two-seaters have only _one_ set of controls (stick, rudder, throttle, gear, flaps, radio) while Air Force two-seaters have two sets (although the back-seater may not have quite as many as the pilot--I'm pretty sure that some models of USAF F-4s don't have gear handles in the back seat). RIOs are passengers (with ejection seats, though) where WSOs can fly the plane. This doesn't apply to trainers, of course, and I don't know how much, if any, training WSOs get. Not putting flight controls in both seats reduces weight, complexity, and cost. However, an incapacitated pilot leads to loss of the aircraft. It's a tradeoff (like everything else in aircraft design). Now, about the Phantom. Going right to a contemporary source, here's what the 1959-60 Jane's All the World's Aircraft has to say. [corporate history] As a successor to the F3H Demon fighter, which is operational with the U S Navy, McDonnell has developed the F4H [the astute reader will notice that this is the old designation system, where the H means McAir, not model], a long-range two-seat interceptor which flew for the first time on May 27, 1958. After evaluation in competition with the Chance Vought F8U-3 Crusader III, the F4H was ordered into production for the US Navy towards the end of 1958. On the next page (340) there's two photos, one plan-form (aerial) and one profile (ground), both captioned "The McDonnell F4H-1 Phantom II Navel Fighter ...." In the a/c description it says: The F4H Phantom II is a twin-engined, two-seat, long-range, all-weather interceptor and attack bomber which has been designed as a successor to the F3H Demon. .... Normal armament of the F4H consists of four Sparrow III missiles on semisubmerged mountings under the fuselage. Alternatively, it can carry nuclear or conventional bombs and missiles. [end of quotes] But...at this time everybody was building interceptors. The theory (style, doctrine--you pick) was that you'd run out at Mach 2, pop off a missile, and go home, while the other guy took the hit, blew up, and fell out of the sky. Dogfighting was extinct. A slightly more extreme example of this doctrine is the F-104. It couldn't even be an attack bomber, it could only carry Sidewinder missiles (air-to-air). Eventually a 20 mm cannon in the nose and podded M-61 cannons for ground attack or tactical support were added. (Same Jane's) The Navy's power projection requirements made it imperative that the F4H be a bomber as well as an interceptor. It's quite obvious that the F4H and the F-4 are not the same aircraft. I contest the claim that MiGs were much better--the results of training the pilots to keep the battle in their area of superiority showed that the tactics were at fault, not the aircraft. The missiles weren't that good either. Look at the difference that the gun made, as well. The F-4 did become a fighter, and a damn good one, even though it started life as an interceptor/bomber. Phantoms are smokers (hey, I never said they're perfect :-)) but I'm not sure how much difference this makes in the radar-assisted arena. A point about the Phantom that is rarely mentioned is its resistance to battle damage. There are photos of some awesomely damaged Phantoms that not only made it back to base, but were repaired and flew again, in Boyne's book, Phantoms in Combat. This is a factor that can't be overlooked. The airplane was seriously overbuilt, which made pilots feel really good. Fleet pilots are known for their ability to test aircraft to destruction. That's why F-8 Crusaders have bobweights in the feel system. BTW did you know that you can successfully launch an F-8 _with_ the wings folded? I don't know if you can do this with the F-4, but maybe nobody ever tried. -- M F Shafer |Ignore the reply-to address NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility |Use shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're doing, and everybody's happy this way.