Originally posted by Mini D
Wow... I've not read such an excuse and caveat laden post before in my life. Smart bombs? LOL!
By the time issues with the F4 were ironed out, it was useless. Blame tactics, strategy, missiles or whatever you want. The F4 did not do anything very well. It was owned by the Mig17.
The plane was built in such numbers because it was a standard airframe used by all branches of the service and the military was standing steadfast with it's decision to go with it.
The F4 served to epitimize beauracracy in the 60's and 70's. While that may be an accomplishment, it's not something that should be getting it on the list.
How do you define "owned" ? The only things the MiG-17 had over the F-4 were turning ability and guns. History says the MiG-17 got spanked by everything from the A-1 Skyraider to the F-105 Thunderchief. The F-4 did not lose to the MiG-17 very often. Generally, only when the F-4 pilots had no SA and the MiG-17s got free shots. Once again, I would compare such a matchup to the Spitfire MkI and latewar US aircraft.
What did the F-4 not do well? You keep saying "everything". For the purposes of this discussion we are talking air superiority and if you want, lets limit the discussion to its "horrific" air-to-air performance in Vietnam. How did it fail? List the kills the F-4 got, list the F-4s killed (don't even modify the numbers for the F-4s that were defenseless and/or surprised when shot down). Compare the F-4s record to the F-86s record (and I don't mean the often misquoted 14:1 ratio). Even without guns, using worthless AIM-9Bs and AIM-7Ds, and being flown by pilots with no ACM experience, the F-4 came out on top. The MiGs only left the ground when they had the advantage and still got their butts spanked most of the time. So please cite some facts that demonstrate everything the F-4 couldn't do and how it was owned by any other aircraft prior to the F-14/F-15 series.
It was built in great numbers because it worked better than anything else they had available. As soon as better became available, the F-4s were replaced. Up until the F-4, the USN changed frontline types every 2 years and only bought at most a few hundred of any one type. The USAF had done little better. The USAF did get the F-4 forced on them by politics, but once they got a hold of it, they loved it. This is the same military that bought the F-14 and F-15. They could and did build anything they wanted. They built the F-4.
If the F-4 was so bad, what other plane was so good... everything is on a relative scale. You can't compare F-4s to F-14s and F-15s. Anything earlier was inferior overall. Name some of those superior fighters. A-4s and A-6s don't count as fighters. Check out the actual performance of F-8's and you might find out why the F-4 was better: it's all about Ps (SEP). The F-4 had plenty to spare, the F-8 didn't. The F-4's turning ability wasn't that much worse because the F-8's conventional swept wing's lift advantage was canceled out by high wing loading and low thrust to weight ratio. The F-8's were loved by their crews and called "the gunfighters", but they got their kills with AIM-9s and got their butts kicked in turn fights with MiG-17s just like Navy F-4s.
Your insistence on the inferiority and uselessness of an aircraft that the Israelis fly to this day astounds me. The Israelis aren't stupid and don't keep equipment that doesn't do the job well. Sure they took anything they could get their hands on, but once they found out something got their people killed, they got rid of it and got something better. They did not get rid of the F-4 and only took it away from air superiority roles when something better was available.
