F-4C Deep Dive: The Overlooked Early Phantom Was 1965's Best Air-To-Air Fighter

[@petesheppard1709]

FUN TRIVIA: The original USAF designation for the F-4C was the F-110 'Spectre'. Then came MacNamara and his Whiz Kids... FROM my reading back in the '70s, a lot of the missile problems were because they were originally intended for intercepts with little maneuvering, as well as the heat and humidity of SE Asia. Maintenance in austere settings didn't help, either. My brother-in-law served as an F-4 navigator, circa 1970. He never saw combat, though he spent a year at Clark AFB, then finished out his active duty in England. While he was not a rated pilot, he got plenty of stick time so his front seater could catch naps.

[@notapound]

Thanks for the comment! I like the idea that the rear seater was essentially a taxi driver/ autopilot! I read some accounts of pilots basically telling the rear seater to keep quiet and stay out of it throughout the flight. They hated being in two seaters…

[@burtbacarach5034]

@@notapound Well shame on them,sounds like thry could have used a lesson in Resource Management.Seems like a competent back seater would be a great thing,but knowing the USAF,"If the Navy is fer it we're again it!".Not being a pilot myself,I was a Merchant Marine Captain,I found another set of qualified eyes/ears very useful from time to time.

[@nickmitsialis]

@@notapound Yeah, that's what I read from 'Clashes'; HOWEVER, things improved with somebody finally hit on the idea to put a trained navigator (of which there appeared to be an overabundance of) in the back seat rather than a pilot. Most useful of all, the navigator could use search/warning/tracking radar and other electronics as well as providing an extra set of eyes looking out of the back.

[@johnosbourn4312]

By the way, the correct terminology for Clark, is Air Base, not Air Force Base, because it was a USAF facility on foreign soil, and Air Force Base is used for USAF facilities on US soil, and only one overseas base uses that designator: Anderson, which is on the Island of Guam.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@johnosbourn4312 Ah! Thanks for pointing that out. 😎

[@MarcoPono]

"If the delta dart was a finely crafted rapier, then the phantom is a baseball bat with nails in it, being swung with surprising finess by some dude whos nickname is probably something friendly..like knuckles."

[@MrTylerStricker]

Perhaps the pilot's callsign is "Negan" & the Phantom is a baseball bat with barbedwire called "Lucille"?

[@nodirips_8537]

F - 4 a.k.a. "Lucille" ha ha, don't know if it was adopted any time but I love the nickname Rhino.

[@brandspro]

It was my father’s squadron that scored those first kills: the 45th Tactical Fighter Squadron/15th Tactical Fighter Wing flying out of Ubon, Thailand. They were the first Air Force Phantom squadron to deploy to Southeast Asia in April, 1965. The pilots were Tom Roberts and RC Anderson, and Ken Holcombe and Arthur Clark. Sadly, the 45th would end that month with another first: the first loss of an aircraft to a Surface to Air (SAM) missile when Richard Keirns and Ross Fobair were shot down outside of Hanoi. Keirns , who was a 47thTFS pilot flying an orientation mission ahead of the 47th taking over from the 45th, would become a POW - for the second time after having his B-17 shot down by the Germans in WWII - and would spend 8 years in North Vietnam prisons. Fobair, flying his last mission before rotating home, was killed outright. His remains were repatriated in 2001. This shoot down led to the creation of the Wild Weasels to go after and kill the SAMs. As for the level of readiness of the crews for air combat, you are correct. Very little time was spent on the skills that would keep them alive in Vietnam. In the year prior to deploying to Thailand the 45th was still practicing “toss bombing” in preparation for delivering nuclear weapons on Soviet targets. The Squadron lost its first two members on the range at Avon Park, Florida practicing this “over the shoulder} delivery method. After my father returned from Thailand and transitioned into the front seat of the Phantom, one of the requirements before going back to Vietnam was that they had to fire a missile. The story related to me by one of my father’s squadron mates about this process was fairly comical. The flights went out over the Gulf of Mexico, each aircraft with a pod of folding fin rockets under one wing. The aircraft, in turn, would pitch up, fire a rocket, which was to be the target, acquire a missile lock, and fire. The rockets however had a different plan. Jet after jet went through this process and jet after jet failed to get a lock on the rockets. They’d dutifully cycle around to try it again. My father’s turn came, and when he fired his rocket it went out a couple hundred yards and then broke straight down towards the water. It was at this point that my father exploited a technicality: they had to fire missile, but no one ever said they had to hit anything with it. With that, he rolled the jet inverted, pulled the nose down into the vertical, chased the rocket down in the clouds and fired his missile. By the time the rest of the flight landed after a long, frustrating day, he was already back in uniform ready to head to the club. To this day no one knows whether he hit anything! With that he was fully qualified to take on the best of the VPAF. It is amazing that, between the degradation of dogfighting skills, and the ludicrous rules of engagement - which led directly to the loss of Keirns and Fobair - that we didn’t lose many more than we did. It’s a testament to the skills of the men who had to make it up on the fly, so to speak.

[@16rumpole]

the Air Force, sucked, they denied your father guns and gave them crappy missiles

[@kzgysr]

I was at Ubon with the 45th out of Tampa I remember Capt Roberts tell us how he shot down that Mig. I must have worked around your dad back then. I have a photo of me standing by one of those birds just after the crew chief had just painted a red star on the aircraft.

[@keiththorpe9571]

I once talked to an F-4 pilot who worked with my dad at the White House. He said: "The first time flying the Phantom, I lit up the afterburners, and for the first five seconds, I was scared to death. After those five seconds, I flew it for another 12 years...and I never got enough of it!"

[@craigpennington1251]

The 106 was a completely different deal than the F-4 Phantom. The 106 was an interceptor rather than a fighter. I was in 2 F-4 Phantom squadrons aboard ship. They came back with holes everywhere & parts dangling. A pretty tough bird. Damn glad we had them.

[@johnosbourn4312]

Yes, that's correct, but The Six could also dogfight, too. Just look up Project Six Shooter, for insights on the '106's ability to dogfight.

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

Great video, thank you. The F-4C also had reflector gunsight, but it was not lead computing, it could be depressed for A2G. The reason I am mentioning this is that fitting a gun pod to an F-4C would have been hampered by a lack of an LCOS (Lead Computing Optical Sight). The F-4D, on the other hand, did have an LCOS and that would assist the pilot when there was a SUU-23 pod fitted.

[@ReviveHF]

So that means the reflector gunsight on the F-4C is actually identical to the ones used by P-51 Mustang?

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

@@ReviveHF Depends on which P-51 Model you are referring to. The later versions of the P-51 had a Gyro lead computing Gunsight, where the pilot adjusted the reticle to fit the targets wings span and the mechanical computer calculated lead. The F-4C did not have a lead computing gunsight because it did not have a gun, at best the USAF F-4C had a standard non-lead computing optical sight that could be depressed for a bomb or rocket attack. It wasn't until the F-4D came along that the Phantom had an LCOS ( Lead computing optical Sight )

[@aker1993]

@@ReviveHF its more like f86 saber radar gunsights but set on ground attack only as the @michaeldenesyk3195 said

[@SFsc616171]

Hi. Asa a former Weapons Control System technician, just think ...the air intercept radar system in the F4C WAS ALL TUBES!!! No digital circuitry!!

[@notapound]

That is why I am addicted to trying to understand technology from this period. The engineering effort to make it and keep it flying was just incredible. I have to salute your skill!

[@Notmeeeeeee69]

@@notapoundif you’re obsessed with the engineering from this time period, I can’t recommend Dan “Two Dogs” Hampton’s book on the early wild weasels. He goes into a lot of depth on both sides equipment.

[@richwalling6694]

I joined the air Force in November of 1966. I went to Lowrey AFB to Weapons Mechanic training. At Eglin AFB I worked on weapons load crews that had F4D's. We loaded AIM 4 Falcon training missiles on the Phamtoms. Our load crew even made a training movie. In Thailand with the F4E's we always loaded Sidewinders and Sparrows for Mig CAP missions along with CBUand 620 20 MM cannon shells for the gun, but.we never loaded napalm or Falcon missles when I was there in 68-69 at Korat RTAFB.

[@stephentaylor5337]

Load Toads unite...man..how are your knees?

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

I was always amazed by the F4's bomb load, until I saw one parked next to a B17, at an air show. Damn thing is bigger than a B17 !

[@ReviveHF]

F-4E and the Japanese F-4EJ Kai were the ultimate evolution of the F-4 family, where both finally unleashed the full potential of the intended design, because both of those have internal guns, reliable missiles and better radar, which were all absent in the earlier models.

[@cdfe3388]

Gun Phantoms are best Phantoms!

[@WardenWolf]

Don't forget the Israeli Phantoms and their upgrades. There was an Israeli plan to upgrade their Phantoms with new engines which would have actually given them a positive thrust to weight ratio, which is absolutely insane (the F-22 is one of the few fighters that have that). Sadly it never came to fruition and they decided to retire them in favor of newer aircraft. They would have been an insane interceptor (if not a hugely capable dogfighter) with that upgrade. Remember that the airframe was already mach-2 rated even with its legacy engines.

[@patronix1276]

neither of both were the pinnacle of the Phantom Variants, the F-4E even less so than the F-4EJ Kai, there are numerous versions which are more modern and better equipped than these two. For example the German F-4F ICE which added compability with the AIM-120B and IRIS-T, or the Turkish F-4E which were modernized by Isreal to the "Terminator 2020" standard which made it a lot lighter, added MFDs and a modern HUD plus the EL/M-2032 radar which was used on some F-16 before. Or the Greece modifikation named "Peace Icarus 2000" for their F-4E which also added a lot of modern systems and weapons to it (including the AIM-120B and the AN/APQ-65 (same radar as the older F/A-18 Hornets)) The F-4E which was used is far from being the best, its radar, the AN/APQ-120 cant compare to the Radar sets of the other versions i listed and even other Phantoms which came a few years after it (Like F-4J/S), the F-4EJ Kai retains a rather old version of the early AN/APG-66 radar of the F-16A (it is a slighty enlarged version, but still just a version of the AN/APG-66V1) and it lacks any sort of modern BVR missiles, and didnt recive any upgrades to its flight performance, unlike the more modern Phantom versions of Greece, Turkey and Isreal

[@kingghidorah8106]

these were known to sustain much higher forces and turn a lot tighter thanks to their reinforced wings, these reinforced spars made them heavier but it was quite worth it.

[@thesweatleaf]

ultimate evolution of a carrier fighter that no longer lands on carriers

[@PlugInRides]

Prior to the 1962 Tri-service aircraft designation system, the F-4 was known as the F4H-1 Phantom II for the Navy and Marines, and as the F-110A Spectre for the Air Force.

[@Jack2Japan]

You are providing a fantastic introduction to the REAL history of the air combat of the 1950-1960s. Fascinating!

[@dawightg9787]

The fake news on the phantom was they weren’t maneuverable but the pilots couldn’t maneuver the F4 due to the BVR only Doctrine. However WWII pilots became ACEs in the phantoms because they knew how to Dogfight and Dan Pedersen the founder of Top Gun and the other Top Gun phantom pilots took the kill rate from 2:1 to 24:1 in the phantoms during Vietnam!

[@skp788]

Very nice job. I have watched many of your videos over the last couple weeks. I enjoy the detail and the non biased approach. Look forward to many more!

[@notapound]

Thank you. Glad you’re enjoying them so far. Lots more to come!

[@mikegrimm2253]

Excellent video, the F-4 is my fav fighter of all time. Love learning about her.

[@wlmac]

The production F-4C never had the IR system installed at the factory. That was only installed in the F-4B. The thing about having a tone on Sidewinder back in ancient days was it telling you the missile had sensed a heat source, so it was probably working it wasn't a launch command. You still had to use your noggin to determine if you were in the ever-changing launch envelope and then fire.

[@jwenting]

The main problem with the early Sidewinder wasn't that it was unreliable or just a bad missile overall, but that its sensor (like that of the Falcon) could only reliably lock on to very hot targets, meaning effectively it could only be used as a rear aspect missile. Not a problem when used against slow lumbering bombers, but when used as a dogfight missile in a head on engagement like Blue flight found itself in, it makes for a very low hit probability. WHEN and IF one hit though, the results were good and a single hit more often than not would bring down a MiG.

[@Tigershark_3082]

The Navy ended up investing in more maneuverable Sidewinders, starting with the AIM-9D (as well as other features, such as Sidewinder Extended Acquisition Mode and a longer burn time for the motors), which I think increased hit probability by a lot (if I can remember correctly)

[@petesheppard1709]

Those were the days when a reliable way to break lock was to pull up into the sun.

[@jwenting]

@@Tigershark_3082 as did the Air Force, but those weren't available yet at this point in time.

[@Tigershark_3082]

@@jwenting Right, the AIM-9J didn't enter service until around 1972. Vy that time, the Navy already had the AIM-9G, and was probably gonna begin taking deliveries of the AIM-9H.

[@GA-br8wj]

One of the most beautiful fighters ever

[@RANDALLBRIGGS]

The "fuel tank" being moved around at 14:24 is an SUU-16 external gun pod.

[@songjunejohnlee2113]

EM diagrams in an youtube video? This channel puts itself right up there with Greg's and GS, keep it coming !

[@reinbeers5322]

GS? I know Greg's well, but haven't heard of that one.

[@neilturner6749]

Agree with the narrator that there’s scant info in modern published print on how the US aircraft’s infrared seekers functioned. Books I’ve read on the Convair Deltas imply that the seeker was directly slaved to their IR Falcon missiles launch computer (no need for the missiles own seeker head to attain a lock?) but clearly that’s not the case with the F4s Sidewinders as narrated in the storyline. Did switching to the Falcon for the F4D restore this missing capability? If so that would contradict the narration here that the F4D didn’t have the IR Seeker fitted but retained the bulbous fairing. Additionally, if the Seeker was ineffective, why did ADC F4s and F106s carry it right up until the mid ‘80s some 20yrs down the line? If anybody has personal experience from back in the day or can reference some reliable-source information, I’d be grateful

[@rbrtjbarber]

In reading Robin Olds' memoir "Fighter Pilot," he recounted that the Falcon missiles were worse than useless on the F-4Ds, and he ordered them sent back to the States.

[@reinbeers5322]

​@@rbrtjbarber They were designed as interceptor missiles against unmaneuvering targets, not agile MiGs. The heat and humidity of Vietnam also made them more unreliable.

[@enscroggs]

"Knuckles won this one." 🤠 I listened to that sequence over and over.

[@Dougeb7]

The F-4 was the top US fighter when I was born, so I've always loved it. Great video! The scripting and editing were excellent. I know a fair bit about the F-4 (mostly the E and G), yet I learned a lot and had a good time doing it. Thanks!

[@naoakiooishi6823]

To read hundereds of pages of "Red Baron report" is a labor in itself but this one is particularly interesting, where the #4 performs a vertical energy maneouver already

[@iskandartaib]

Before the F4 Phantom came on the scene, wasn't the F8U Crusader a swept wing, extremely capable air superiority fighter?

[@notapound]

My understanding is that the early (1957) Crusader was fine, but not particularly exceptional. The F-8U was definitely an excellent dogfighter, but it didn’t come along until 1961 and it was deficient to the Phantom in thrust to weight, speed, climb rate etc. It also lacked a long range missile, although it did have cannons. The main reason that the Crusader was so effective in Vietnam was its pilots, who were solely trained and drilled for air-to-air. The made fewer mistakes and knew how to get the best out of their aircraft.

[@iskandartaib]

@@notapound I guess what I was getting at was that the Navy didn't go from straight winged subsonic fighters to the F4 in one leap - it's sort of implied in the video.

[@alantoon5708]

What the F-8 had going for it was the ACM mindset of its' pilots. But it too was being phased out at the time of Vietnam.

[@johnosbourn4312]

Yes, and, until the mighty F-14 went into service, the F-8 was the last US Naval fighter that had guns as the primary weapon, augmented by AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.

[@johnosbourn4312]

​@@notapoundthe F8U never entered service in 1961, instead, it entered service in the mid 50's.

[@pastorrich7436]

I can't begin to imagine the Six being carrier-borne. Double ugly is a no-brainer and went on to prove it. Excellent storytelling and entertaining! (PS, I really love the Six!!!)

[@notapound]

Me too - it just has that textbook 'fighter' look.

[@RCAvhstape]

The A-5 Vigilante was similar in size and shape to the Six, maybe even a bit longer, and they flew off the boat. Also a beautiful machine in its own right.

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

This is a great channel that deserves more subs. Not many aviation channels on KZbin go into this sort of detail on historic engagements. Would love to see more in the future!

[@uflux]

Awesome! Looking forward to the future episodes 👍

[@colinsmith8584]

I have thought for years that pilots inexperienced with the missiles they were employing, constantly shot out of parameters. Resulting in a lower PK for AA missiles in Vietnam. That being said, when your life is at risk you will definitely take some "Please God let this Hit!" shots.

[@braincraven]

Great Summary. My father was a GIB in the Satan's Angels at Ubon in 68. He was involved in a landing accident and survived. The Phantom was beast.

[@brianrmc1963]

I am shocked they got rid of the gun until they had a missile that could handle high-g, all-aspect ACM. If I had to choose back then I would have preferred to fly the F-8. I would love to see you compare/contrast the F-4 and the F-8.

[@Tigershark_3082]

The F-8 had a lot of issues, funnily enough. The biggest issue was that the Colt Mk.12 20mm autocannons hardly ever worked, due to a poorly designed feeding mechanism. Not only would they jam under more than a single G, but there was no recocking mechanism, so they'd be useless until you could unjam them on the ground. By 1966, the Navy/Marines already had the AIM-9D, which was a lot better than the AIM-9B they previously used (which the AF was still using). The Crusader ended up scoring the majority of its kills with AIM-9Ds, with only two being guns kills.

[@KB4QAA]

@@Tigershark_3082 11% of Crusader kills in Vietnam were with guns.

[@Tigershark_3082]

@@KB4QAA That's 3 kills out of 19. The rest of those 19 were with missiles, so....

[@TransparentDanglingCarrots]

I wound up here after looking at a video of a Phantom (II, since the McDonnell FH was the first) doing a barrel roll since I read the descriptions but can't always picture them in my head though I've been to enough air shows, as related in a test flight for a Phantom that had undergone repairs at an airfeild I want to say in Thailand but can't remember at the moment, in a book called Phantom Over Vietnam written by a Marine pilot John Trotti. F-100Ds were used extensively for ground support and my stepdad, who retired Lt. Col. in the Air Force flew two tours of duty in them. He had a couple of runins w MiGs but was told not to engage because that was not what they were there to do, if memory serves...

[@michaelsnyder3871]

The problem for the F-106 was its weapons. Designed as an all-weather medium range bomber interceptor, it was armed with an AIR-2 Genie and AIM-4 Falcons. Like the F-4B/C/D, it had no integral gun(s). The F-106's flight envelope in fighter combat was very similar to that of the Mirage IIIC/CJ of the same period. Despite its greater weight, its power-weight ratio was superior to the Mirage, giving better climb and turn rate. With its delta wing, like the Mirage III and the MiG-21, the F-106 bled energy quickly in a tight turn, but it had more energy to bleed. But the Falcons, both semi-active and IR homing, were designed to kill Soviet bombers, large, non-maneuvering targets that needed an impact warhead, which is why the Falcon did not have a proximity warhead like the Sidewinder. The Sidewinder had similar guidance performance, a proximity warhead and slightly superior maneuverability. The F-4B had Sidewinders and initially the USAF put Falcons on its F-4Cs, but quickly dropped them for Sidewinders. In addition, the Sparrow was larger, but more powerful than the SAH Falcon. Both missiles were designed to kill bombers at BVR missions. Their supporting radars were very similar in performance. The Sparrow, however, had growth potential, even compared to the AIM-26 Super Falcons which later armed the F-106. Finally, the extra pair of eyes of the RIO in the F-4 gave it an edge in close, visual combat. Moreover, the F-4 was a multi-role fighter, where the F-106 was a dedicated interceptor designed for a mission, the defense of NORAD from Soviet bombers that had turned out to be over-estimated, which resulted in the cancellation of the Arrow, the F-108 and the procurement of the F-106 cut by 50%. The alternate history is an F-106 designed for more than bomber interceptions, armed with Sparrows and Sidewinders and sporting a gun. Later mock combat with F-4Es showed the F-106 with the Vulcan in place of the AIR-2 to be dependent on pilot experience and capability. However, the F-106 was developed as a contemporary of the F-4 at a time when the USAF and USN did their best to avoid using the other's weapons, electronics and engines on the (supposedly) notion that a full mobilization would find the USAF and USN not competing with each other for resources.

[@reinbeers5322]

That's an interesting comparison to the Mirage III, its surprising to see that the F-106 is so similar.

[@ironroad18]

The early USAF Phantom crews did not have dedicated weapons systems operators (WSOs)/navigators. The "guy in back" was another rated pilot, who did not have dedicated skills in navigation or knowledge of the F-4's systems. Crews would sometimes swap seats, between missions. It wasn't until the late 1960s (after 67) that the USAF started training dedicated F-4 WSOs.

[@petesheppard1709]

That's when my brother-in-law came in as a nav.

[@nickgardner1507]

I always loved this plane, very interesting documentary.

[@i-love-space390]

The F-4 was definitely a better air to ground fighter than the F-106. But in air to air, the F-106 was hamstrung by the shitty Hughes AA missiles. They were suitable for killing bombers, but lacked the agility for engaging fighters. But the F-106 had 2 extra fuel tanks that allowed it to fly supersonic WITH TANKS STILL ON. It could outrun the F-4 and still have fuel when the F-4 was at "bingo". If they had given the F-106 better missiles I think they could have been a decent air superiority fighter. But all the neato avionics and radar systems of the F-4 were just so superior for versatility that the decision to order the F-4 for the Air Force was shown to be a good decision.

[@ReviveHF]

The French Mirage 3 series is what F-106 could/should have been.

[@noseyparker8130]

11:24 audio narration "employing cartridge start." You're not talking about the use of blank shotgun cartridges, are you? The caption in the video reads "cart", as in cart, as in portable wheeled ground equipment used to start aircraft from an external source. It's that boxy yellow four-wheeled thing with the hose.

[@johnosbourn4312]

The F8F Bearcat had a short front line carrer with the Navy, it was quickly withdrawn as the first jet powered naval fighters entered service, and no Spitfires ever shot down enemy jet fighters in WW-2, but they did shoot down numerous V-1 buzz bombs, however. The Corsair, and Sea Fury each shot down one MiG-15 during the Korean War.

[@silentone11111111]

Great vid. Loving the channel ❤

[@romainnelseng3264]

Just excellent commentary, thank you.

[@andhelm7097]

Brilliant presentation.

[@notapound]

Thank you!

[@halonsox]

Wow man, love ur chanel great videos, pretty cool and not mainstream topics, is a total delight!!

[@notapound]

Thanks! Glad you’re enjoying it… lots more to come from off the beaten track :)

[@halonsox]

@@notapound Im pretty glad to hear that mate!!

[@1joshjosh1]

Good video.

[@janwitts2688]

Quickfired 4 sidewinder... yes this is how to do it...

[@jameshodgson3656]

Good video but I disagree with the title. The F-4C, as you mentioned, was held back by the immaturity of it's systems and weapons, on paper it may have been the only BVR capable fighter in the world, but the poor performance of the early sparrow meant that actual BVR engagements would have been a non-starter even if the USAF rules of engagement had allowed for them. Looking at the roster of fighters around in 1965, my choice would be a three way tie between the Mirage III, the F-5A/C, and the J-35 Draken, all three armed with guns, more manoeuvrable than the Phantom, and equipped with the sidewinder.

[@MartinSheckelstorm]

Well done sir

[@michaelsnyder3871]

The F-4C having an arrestor hook led to the USAF developing an emergency landing system which laid wires across a runway that no longer had sufficient length. SInce then almost all USAF tactical aircraft have an arrestor hook.

[@johnmoore8599]

So, mistakes were committed that were foreseen in this instance, but the crews and planes still succeeded in defending themselves. I guess the key question is, "Did the USAF institute any corrections in training or operations after this fight, or was it business as usual?"

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Yeah that was more do to have little to no training in that Airframe... Still it's something right outa Ace Combat.

[@thomaswest5931]

Another excellent documentary! Thank you

[@ctrains123_]

Man every video of yours is just 10/10 keep it up

[@rodneypayne4827]

For context the most experienced pilots in the NVAF flew in the Mig 17 and 19 units, trained by Korean War Soviet aces and veterans,so were highly skilled and motivated in the dogfight.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

True and I'll like to point up they still lost that fight to which they had the incitive when the USAF pilots were brand new to wizbang aircraft...

[@gotanon9659]

And for all intent and purposes they were bad at dogfighting.

[@okayestguitar66]

I love that description, "A baseball bat with nails in it." The F-4 is, from my earliest days as a child, on my list of favorite USAF weapons. It was well suited to it's place at the top of my list, staying there until the mighty, but diminutive by comparison, F-16 took flight.

[@nortoncomando3728]

Great video thank you for posting

[@AV-sl9wg]

This particular engagement has similar approach as what the Japanese did using the zero superior power to weight ratio over the wildcats to essential make them stall in the vertical. Only when the Hellcat was introduced was this advantage negated for the zero. It would be interesting to see how the phantom II managed against the mig-19 which still had guns but had more power than the mig-17 but less than the MiG-21.

[@OuterHeaven210]

I think the mig 19 would have done better than the mig 21. It was more agile, had waaaaaayyyy better energy retention than the 21 and was a good deal faster than the 17.

[@brucegoodwin634]

Excellent! I haven't seen much out there about the C. May I add as a maintainer in the USAF I worked on the recce version: RF-4C. No weapons on those piggies!

[@ronjon7942]

Arguably the prettiest of the Phantoms.

[@brucegoodwin634]

@@ronjon7942 I respect anyone who will put “prettiest” & “Phantom” in the same sentence! 😅

[@JackMyersPhotography]

Great image of Ritchie and Chuck DeBellevue, I’d never seen that one before. DeBellevue was my base commander in Japan. Did USAF F4C have a JFS?

[@Pwj579]

Your chart @4:33 OVER - EXAGGERATES the gap between F-9F Cougar and the F-8U Crusader. The F-8U Crusader first flew in 1955 only 2 years after the F-100 Super Sabre. The F8U-1 (later F-8A) day-fighter (318 units) entered service with US Navy in 1957 NOT 1961. The "all weather" F8U-2N (F-8D) entered service in 1960 (152 units) and the upgraded F8U-2NE (F-8E) followed in 1961 with still more powerful J-57-P20A turbojet. The F-8B, C, Ds, Es were all re-manufactured in mid-1960s to become the L, K, H and J respectively. The re-manufactured Crusader squadrons were operated from smaller Modified-Essex Class carriers that the F-4 Phantom was too big to operate from. When the USS Oriskany was withdrawn from active duty in 1976, the last two F-8 squadrons were also withdrawn from frontline service. The Nimitz -class nuclear supercarriers were in production and the F-14A Tomcat was also in full-rate production beginning to replace the F-4 Phantom. The Crusader had served as frontline supersonic naval fighter aircraft for nearly 2 decades. Also, while the Navy was fielding the "all weather" F8U-2 in late 1950s there was also the F5D Skylancer, as well as the F11F-1F "Super Tiger" that were under consideration....all were superior in speed, acceleration to the F-100. The F-100 was kind of a dog when it came to transonic performance, due to lack of area ruling. The F8U "Cheated" with its dorsal wing fairing. And oh btw....the Crusader could wax the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104 and F-105 "Century Series" USAF fighters in air-to-air combat. The F-106 probably would have been formidable fight.

[@CodeZero4090]

Great work!

[@josephdupont]

The fact that the mixed 17 was the fraction of the cost of the Phantom. We should be embarrassed. Kept on sending the wrong plane to do the job instead of losing one person, we would lose 2. The crusader was a better beT

[@ViperPilot16]

You need to do one of these on the F-111.

[@cavemanbum]

A very interesting fact is that the Vietnam War's first U.S. Air Force ace, Steve Ritchie, scored all his kills using the much-maligned AIM-7 Sparrow missile. 🤔

[@i-a-g-r-e-e-----f-----jo--b]

The F4 also beat out the Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III due to political direction of unity in services weapon standardization which was bad ass and some say was better. BTW, one time I was a Navy Reservist on a deployment from NWS China Lake in California. They have a weapons museum there, pretty cool weapon presentation about things like the Sparrow.

[@KB4QAA]

The -3 did not meet the requirements the F-4 did with range, radar capability, etc. It was a great dog fighter, but that was not what the Operational Requirements caled for.

[@scottl9660]

My god that flight lead just hung his second element out to dry

[@sergioleone3583]

More deep dives please!

[@martindice5424]

Also - the British invention of the angled flight deck and steam catapult helped a bit - well, rather a LOT actually…

[@robmclaughjr]

The F4 was beautiful, a brutal beauty

[@robmarsh6668]

Brutiful! And i agree

[@stevenscoggins170]

I have always loved the F-106 since first seeing them fly out over the Gulf of Mexico from Tyndall AFB to shoot down little red or orange colored drones in the early mid 1970s. It was a beautiful plane! I will concede, albeit grudgingly, the the F-4 was probably a better fighter. This is borne out by the fact that F-4s are still serving frontline units in numerous air forces around the world.

[@reinbeers5322]

Would have been interesting to see a fighter conversion for the F-106 interceptor. A lot of weight could be saved with a simpler radar and avionics alone, and Sidewinders are smaller than the Falcons so more could be carried in the internal bay. A better engine could even put it ahead of the Phantom in maneuverability.

[@Archie2c]

The Sidewinder and Sparrow were like the Falcon were designed slow Bombers on a straight and Level bomber.

[@Turf-yj9ei]

Contrary to the title the Phantom isn't a forgotten aircraft but well remembered as being very poorly suited for it's task. The F8 Crusader had something like a 7-1 kill ratio against migs while the Phantom only a 2-1 ratio

[@Cortana_ice_fox]

Wasn’t the kill loss ratio 19:4?

[@yolkiandeji7649]

I’d like to know more about that automated bombing system. Doubt it was CCIP, was it like LABS or that radar ranging computer thing from the F-86?

[@bret9741]

I have always loved the F-4 and F-14. Both had their life cut short when both airframes had tremendous room for improvement. The Super tomcat 21 and the Iron Hammer (Israeli modified) F-4 both would have significantly outperformed the Super Hornet and even the F-15E. The F-4 Iron Hammer would have had super cruise ability and much improved range and payload. The US Air Force killed the F-4 updates because they didn’t want to reduce F-16 or F-15 deliveries. The F-14 was killed because of politics.

[@gotanon9659]

Might want to a bit more research there bud. Stop beliving in hype and marketing

[@bret9741]

@@gotanon9659 both Israel and the US did research on updating the F-4. Both concluded that the platform updated would outperform the F-15. That is why the Air Force told Israel, Japan they could not upgrade the F-4… they felt congress might reduce the F-15 order. What knowledge do you have? I’m a professional pilot and have extensive knowledge in aviation in the Navy and airlines.

[@pencilpauli9442]

The Phantom II. One of the rare occasions in which an American declared they didn't need a gun.

[@mattharcla]

Beautiful beast.

[@radoslawbiernacki]

You have a bit of high settings on your gate. Increase the decay time or lower the gate dB as it cuts the endings of your sentences. Or raise the sustain time.

[@hadleymanmusic]

I learned on sim . Bein spun up and bein spun down at the right time.

[@RCAvhstape]

Eph-Phours Phorever!

[@charliegerrie]

22:42 tfw you have helpful genie knowledge

[@davidclouse5894]

That is why the US Navy Developed the Top Gun Program/ And the USAF Developed the Fighter Weapons School Program as well as the Red Flag Program. "Scream of Eagles".

[@cturdo]

Following the F-4C pioneering the USAF deployment, the F-4D was the real game changer in the Vietnam War period.

[@16rumpole]

I wonder how much better the us had done if they had decent missiles and a maneuverable platform like the f-16

[@JSFGuy]

11:05 184th TFG Kansas Air national guard.

[@wacojones8062]

Big problem with the Sparrows was mold growing in the potting compound in the electronics leading to short circuits.

[@Twirlyhead]

When the RAF and Fleet Air Arm were flying Phantoms the Russians never invaded UK. Nuff said.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

About that last point I double it by pointing out the F-22 will likly suffer a similar fate having just killed UAPs but also helping prevent WW3 by being that scary of a fighter platform.

[@PositionLight]

Did you say you had a link to a Sidewinder training film or something?

[@sabercruiser.7053]

👍👍🙌🙌🇺🇲🇺🇲👌👌 thank you thank you

[@gab1993]

Bro got personal with that roast ☠️

[@Paulftate]

semper fi,,semper fortis

[@JohnMcDevitt-f4o]

Bottom line: the reason why the F-4 was superior to the Six was that the Phantom was a third gen fighter and the Six, a second. Unless you've been an avionics tech -- and I was -- you can't really grasp the difference in qualitative ability between the avionics re: the two fighters. There's no real comparison: advantage F-4. Yeah, the Navy F-4 vs. the Six is an "interceptor vs interceptor" -- except that the F-4, having VASTLY superior avionics (esp. radar) not to mention in missiles (ANY Hughes A2A missile is utter dog manure in performance, let alone reliability), wins where it counts -- reliability and performance. The Six was a PURE interceptor -- that's all that it did; that's all that it could do -- that would've fared better with keeping the gun that they developed for it in the late Sixties/early Seventies; would've been MUCH more reliable for its pilots. The Phantom was versatility personified, tho' an enormous gas hog, not to mention advertising itself MILES away with those filthy J-79s. It was well that both the AF and the Navy chose as they did. Btw, the glide ratios for the two planes (as I understood it) was: F-4, about 2.4; the Six, 7:1. Really nice for the Six -- if you survived getting shot.

[@SoloRenegade]

the F-8 was the best air-to-air fighter. and that's partly why the F-4 was a multirole fighter/interceptor.

[@TheAnxiousAardvark]

Says best air-to-air fighter is F-4 Phantom, right after showing a slide with the F8U listed. Pretty sure that should generate some discussion..

[@notapound]

In fairness, that was the Navy’s conclusion when they tested both after Rolling Thunder. The Crusader crews were better trained for air-to-air and better able to get max performance out of the aircraft, but properly flown, the Phantom was superior…

[@TheAnxiousAardvark]

@@notapound Fair enough. There was an incredible amount of economic & political pressure involved in the decision. From what I've read. The same sort of thing that led to the F-111 "One plane for USAF & USN." This is not to slight on the F4 Phantom II, a highly adaptable design that served many countries well.

[@TheAnxiousAardvark]

@@notapound I did chuckle at 'properly flown' since Dick Bong allegedly could out turn a Zero in his P-38.

[@raymondyee2008]

Oh the F-4C got more dangerous when the SUU-23 gun pod came out.

[@billenright2788]

The F-4 was designed to shoot down russian bombers from bvr ranges. never meant to dogfight.

[@johnknapp952]

If the ROE had allowed BVR engagements then there may not have even been a need for a dogfight.

[@robertboykin1828]

worked on them @ bitburg germany

[@mikestanmore2614]

I've always thought he F4 has a certain "F@ck with me, and I'll tear your head off and shit down your neck." look to it. It's as if someone decided the solution to most problems is two really big engines. Apparently they were correct.

[@neves5083]

Tge delta dart could bee flown and fought from the ground? Can someone explain that to me please? :^

[@timb3499]

GCI datalink.

[@Cortana_ice_fox]

I mean, the F-4 seemed to be a state of the art winner though wasn’t the F-8 a better close in fighter?

[@JasonSnow-zq2ve]

"An unorthodox loose deuce" You're just throwing adjectives at the wall. loose Deuce is the ideal tactic for a pair of fighters.

[@notapound]

Thanks for the comment. I describe it as unorthodox because the tactical doctrine in 1965 was for fluid four. It was therefore interesting to me that for this operation a variation on loose deuce was selected.

[@JasonSnow-zq2ve]

This is the kind of insanity in tactical doctrine that reaches back to Lord Dowding's Area tactics or the misemployment of the Bristol Fighter. The fixation with this stupidity might warrant further investigation into the mentality of strategists vs pilots. @@notapound

[@JasonSnow-zq2ve]

Good luck to you and your channel, I enjoy your videos by the way, cheers!

[@JasonSnow-zq2ve]

@@notapound The idea that four fighters can conduct any cohesive tactical coherence after the merge is idiotic.

[@JasonSnow-zq2ve]

As for your mystery in fighters switching to loose, I would guess Robin Olds was behind that. He was a fighter pilot, not some dumbass analyst. Maybe some early adopters scored from listening to the sense that the old man put forward in the mess bar.@@notapound

[@Ammo08]

I built a lot of bombs, missiles, and strings of 20mm, and hauled them for the F-4s...great airplane..