F-4 Phantom II

>>28535255
As maneuverable as a bus with jet engines
Did they even bother putting a gun on it, or did it have to have a pod too?

>>28535283
From what I know it was capable of engaging NV MiG's in dogfights. So maneuverability wasn't bad. And yes, they did put a gun on it, but in Vietnam they used gun-pods.

>>28535283
>As maneuverable as a bus with jet engines
It was far more maneuverable than people think, just not able to keep up with the lighter and more nimble MiG-17s in Vietnam.
>Did they even bother putting a gun on it, or did it have to have a pod too?
Depends on the version.

File: MiG-21_Lancer_C_cropped.jpg (32KB, 856x561px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 856x561px

>>28535255
It looks nice. That's really all i got.

File: Spitfire XIX.jpg (501KB, 1400x950px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1400x950px

>>28535409
Also the spitfire.

>>28535255
>great as a strike fighter, great at engaging targets BVR (in fucking 60's)

Define 'great', considering BVR in Vietnam was basically non-existent, and Pk for its only BVR missile the AIM-7, was <10%

File: bunch of CF-188s.jpg (62KB, 700x450px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 700x450px

>>28535255


>F-18

It's self explanatory...

File: Clear Victories.png (191KB, 753x556px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 753x556px

>>28535442

But anon! Despite the issues with early radar-guided missiles, the Phantom still generally came out on top in air-to-air engagements. This was especially true after Nixon loosened the ROE and allowed the Phantom pilots to use the plane's full potential. Air battles during Operation Linebacker I and II showed that the Phantom was unstoppable when it had the proper ROE behind it.

>>28535516
More info about how the ROE constrained the Phantom pilots?

>>28535516
Your point being?

Two BVR shootdowns for the entire war a 'great' BVR platform does not make

File: 1412558125758.jpg (49KB, 566x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 566x480px

>>28535283
>As maneuverable as a bus with jet engines
Read a book nigger

>>28535283
USAF ended up putting an internal gun on it.

USN put a gun pod on, used briefly, then put away for being crap.

Funny part though was that the USN's missiles-only Phantoms, combined with Top Gun training and training for maintainers to care for missile seekers, resulted in a kill / loss ratio ~7x higher than the USAF's.

>>28535536

Phantom pilots were typically required to approach a target to visually confirm it as a MiG before shooting. As in, the pilot had to actually put eyeballs on the target and say "that's a MiG" before shooting. That had the nasty side effect of often putting the F-4 into low-speed turning battles where it was at a disadvantage against slower MiGs.

(This doesn't apply to the MiG-21, the MiG-21 was even worse at turning than the Phantom.)

>>28535635
Why was the MiG-21 worse at turning? I thought it would be better, being lighter and all.

>>28535516
>>great as a strike fighter, great at engaging targets BVR (in fucking 60's)


'BVR' didnt exist in Vietnam. Sparrows had the worst hit rate of any missile, and had to be used in at short ranges.

Heaters and guns made up the bulk of the kills in Nam.

>>28535425
u mean shitfire

>>28535651
F-4 had a greater thrust-to-weight.

Keep in mind too that there's other things like pitch stability to consider.

>>28535651
Delta wings aren't conducive to turning fights. They have a low lift-curve slope, meaning you need a higher angle of attack (and thus produce more drag) to get a certain lift coefficient.

I wouldn't be surprised if it had a better instantaneous turn rate (reportedly they turned better than the MiG-23), but sustained turning performance on the MiG-21 probably wasn't too good.

>>28535709
Sparrows still accounted for more kills than any other weapon though.

>>28535717
For a mid-to-late 30's design it held up very well

>>28535739
Which is deceptive when taken alone.

If the Vietnam loadout is 90% AIM-7s and 10% AIM-9s, then of course they account for more kills.

AIM-9s still had double the Pk and were forced to operate within very similar engagement envelopes.

>>28535442
considering nobody else in the world was getting BVR kills at all, that's pretty good.

>>28535651
look at the shape of the wings. The MiG-21 is a rocket with fins and missiles attached. It was designed to take off quickly, scramble to high altitude, accelerate to mach 2, and shoot down a strategic bomber.

It was a pretty crappy dogfighter, but compared to the F-4, it was competitive, because the F-4 wasn't supremely maneuverable either.

But comparing the F-4 in a dogfight to the MiG-17 is hardly fair. The MiG-17 is a development of the MiG-15, designed mostly for gun combat.

>>28535709
>Heaters and guns made up the bulk of the kills in Nam.
Because the vast majority of aircraft flying carried at most a cannon and AIM-9s. Only the F-4 carried the Sparrow, and, on Phantoms carrying Sparrows, Sidewinders, and guns, the Sparrow always accounted for the most kills. In fact, the Sparrow accounted for more kills than all other weapons the Phantom used combined on all variants except the F-4E (in which case the gun+Sidewinder kills were equal to the Sparrow kills)

>>28535769
No, loadouts were
>Four Sparrows in semi-recessed positions
>2 to 4 AIM-9s

>>28535255
>very maneuverable too
you mean "the triumph of thrust over aerodynamics"?
right.

>>28535794
Oops fucked up there - the F-4C had more Sidewinder than Sparrow kills.

>>28535789
>considering nobody else in the world was getting BVR kills at all, that's pretty good.

A kill is a kill. Its largely irrelevant, and certainly doesn't make it a good BVR platform. Not when you launch hundreds of AIM-7s and there are two kills.

>>28535794
>F-4s had one loadout
sasuga

>>28535651

I think that the main issue is that the fuel tanks of the MiG-21 were rather poorly conceived. It was dependent on having the weight of the fuel tank to keep it balanced in the air. Once the fuel tank got to about 1/3 capacity, the plane's center of gravity would shift dramatically and make the entire airframe unstable. At this point, it becomes much more difficult for the pilot to control the aircraft properly, and if you can't control, you can't maneuver.

That may not sound like a HUGE problem until you realize that the MiG-21 had a small fuel tank to begin with and thus it would reach that 1/3 threshold rather quickly.

>>28535739
>Sparrows still accounted for more kills than any other weapon though.

>for the US Airforce F-4's using them

heat seaking missiles accounted for more kills, as well as ordinanary guns.

F-4 =/= every other aircraft that flew in the war

Naval F-4's didnt even use the sparrow to any affect for christ sake

>>28535717

It was one of the top-notch fighters throughout the entire war, from 1939 to 45.

At the time of the BoB, it and the Bf 109 were without a doubt the best in the world.

>>28535810
two kills? Where are you getting that number? According to the source posted by anon above there were 29 kills.

>>28535842
Late war griffon variants took it too another level.

>>28535842
not to mention that near-perfect wing shape

>>28535851
2 in BVR.

>>28535837
>Naval F-4's didnt even use the sparrow to any affect for christ sake

Sauce?

File: Messerschmitt_Bf_109E_at_Thunder_Over_Michigan[1].jpg (100KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1600x1066px

>>28535842

The Hurricane won the BoB. And it wasn't that impressive considering they had home court advantage.

>>28535255

Yeah it's probably top 3 along with the F-15 and the Bf-109. Just straight up workhorses.

File: Doubt.png (85KB, 492x280px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 492x280px

>>28535255

>Very maneuverable too

>>28535507
15x SUU-11, that's 90,000RPM

>>28535879

t. shitposter

File: f35a[1].jpg (111KB, 690x415px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 690x415px

>>28535255
Best fighter of the 21st century?

>>28535866
Literally the AIM-7 wiki page

>>28535876

>First Wehraboo coming to shitpost

Never did I claim it won the BoB, but you'd be a fool to deny it and the 109 were the best performers of that period.

The 109 was at peak much, much earlier than the Spit though. After the F and arguably early G series it was the end of the line.

>>28535507
>>28535890

>almost_enough_dakka.jpg

>>28535930

I agree with all of that. But this thread is about workhorses. The Spitfire was a compliment to the Hurricane, despite being a great fighter with few flaws.

>muh Wehraboo

Come on no fampai don't start the shitposting.

File: USAF_F-16CJ.jpg (2MB, 4188x2316px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4188x2316px

>>28535909
If we're talking actual results rather than theoretically

The best fighter of the 21st century so far is pic related.

File: 1031407069.jpg (112KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1000x541px

>>28535487
pure sex

File: 1440377516732.jpg (66KB, 500x627px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x627px

>>28535894

I love the Phantom but come on. It was very fast for its day and it could carry a fuckload of fuel and ordinance (in comparison to other fighters of the day) but it was never a turner. The Phantom did its best work at long range and supersonic speeds. It got murdered in dogfight tests against NASA Crusaders, so much so that the Navy shut down the training program because it was thought too demoralizing for Navy pilots.

>>28535979
Implying any other jet fighter of the F-4's vintage could turn like an F-16

>>28535952

I thought that was due to the

>Muh 109

Also, the Spit was the true workhouse. When it became obvious that the Hurricane weakened in comparison to what it faced production was reduced and finally ceased in mid-1943, the Spit was used from day one to the end, just like the 109.

>>28535977
>so far
but by the end or middle?

>>28535997
>what is the MiG-17

>>28535979
I'd bet you $5 that both those aircraft are totally clean

and that the F-4 with combat load changes marginally, whereas the F-16 with combat load changes massively and starts turning very similar to the F-4.

>>28535979
>>28535979
There were no tests between nasa crusaders. They encountered them on exercises and would do impromptu dogfights.

>>28535998

It didn't have a huge role once the BoB ended.

>>28535978
This plane is so god damn sexy.
I'm going to do NROTC marine option just so I can get a sliver of a chance to fly one of those sexy beasts.

>>28536062

>It didn't have a huge role once the BoB ended
>Literally the main British fighter

okay

>>28536022
A "combat load" here would just be the addition of the a2a missiles themselves.

Which fighters are designed to turn with..

>>28536019
MiG-17 had a sustained turn rate of about 13deg/s. F-16? 18deg/s

File: F-15E-80-0010-64as-nellis.jpg (76KB, 1024x517px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1024x517px

F-15E now with aggressor scheme because it makes me hard.

>>28536019
But on the other hand the MiG-17 would never be able to catch the F-4.
Once again retarded RoE got the F-4 in trouble since they could not just stay out of the MiG-17s engagement range and put missiles on it.

>>28536076

Flying patrols over Egypt and India doesn't qualify as war.

>>28536079
...really... they're... designed to turn with missiles....

wow....

A light fighter gets affected more by parasitic drag and weight of anything more than a heavier fighter does.

>>28535909
Dude, we're only 16 years into it.

That's like saying the Sopwith Camel was the best of the 20th century...and it's only 1916.

>>28536080

What's the number for the Phantom? Or the MiG-21?

File: MiG-19_3.jpg (540KB, 1280x955px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1280x955px

>>28535996
at least post a photo and not a video game screenshot

>>28536070
Relevant for aircraft / squadron preferences:

https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/sites/default/files/files/2015%20Marine%20Aviation%20Plan.pdf#page=35

File: eagle.jpg (342KB, 1800x1312px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1800x1312px

>>28536095

Looks better in dark camo. Strike/Silent Eagle makes my dick hard.

>>28536095
Single seat... fuck didn't notice it was a C, oh well.

>>28536104
You literally dont understand aerodynamics or the weight and abilities of any aircraft here.

A viper with missiles still outturns a clean phantom, kiddo

File: 65 AS new paint 2.jpg (361KB, 3225x1909px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 3225x1909px

>>28536126
My fave by far would have to be the splinter version of the aggressor F-15

>>28536126

Can somebody explain to me why the USAF isn't more interested in the Silent Eagle? Wouldn't that have been an easier route than developing a completely new plane?

>>28536105
Is muh prediction though. You don't have 3000+ of a fighter and not have it get a lot of use.

>>28536097
...that's not it at all...

Sparrows could only be fired at short distances and straight moving targets, because that's just how shitty they were.

Enemy fighters that were aware of a threat in an area would turn into them to close distance. That's basic bfm 101

>>28535876
>>The Hurricane won the BoB
Due to the tactics involved. Hurricane v bombers, Spitfires to shield them from the escort fighters. The fact the hurricane was a second tier airframe within 18 months tells you the Spitfire > Hurricane over the entire war

>>28536100
The spitfire was used as the RAFs main air combat fighter for the remainder of the war in Europe.

>>28535876

109's were getting dumpstered once the allies let the 51's and 47's off the leash and not tied down to bombers.

It was too old of a design by mid-44 while the allied fighters still had tons of room to grow.

>>28536158
Because they need to replace the F-16. Replacing small single engine fighters with a big twin engine fighter that costs twice as much to operate?

As for the F-22, they're just upgrading F-15Cs at the moment and instead of replacing them with F-15SEs, are just focusing on a 6th gen replacement. F-35s will fill in the gaps.

>>28536158
Because Lockheed needed the contract, and the F-15 air frames are reaching the end of their life expectancy. The F-35 is also more a capable multi role aircraft while the US already has the F-22 as a air superiority fighter.

Also prices for the F-35 are similar in unit cost ignoring the total development costs of course.

Or something like that, I'm no expert by any means.

>>28536221
didn't obongo cancel the f-22 though?

>>28536217

I didn't say the 109 was the BEST fighter, just that it was the biggest workhorse. Saw ridiculous amounts of combat through the entire war on all different fronts.

>>28536249

Yeah, but it's already in service. He just cancelled future orders. But they kept all the production stuff there so that they can restart production at any time.

>>28536158

There's no real need for it with the F-22 and F-35.

Silent Eagle makes sense for other countries though.

>>28536225
Not including development, the F-35A is about 20% cheaper. Including development is hard, because the F-15SE has only had a half-assed concept plane fly. ie, lots of development left still if someone wants to buy it.

The big killer for the F-15SE though is that it costs around 50% more per hour to run. The F-35 is expected to have about 2/3s of its cost in operating expenses, so adding another 50% onto that would be a killer.

>>28536249
Still about 184 IIRC F-22s; enough to counter Russia's 48 Su-35s or 'planned' 250 PAK-FAs with F-35 assistance.

>>28536262
one of my friends ended up working in his reelection campaign for community service hours in 2012 and they had cards they gave out desperately trying to prove he wasn't a do-nothing president. one of the 50 things was literally listed as them cancelling the program outright. but that kind of disinformation is to be expected.

>>28536217
>109's were getting dumpstered once the allies let the 51's and 47's off the leash and not tied down to bombers.
This is true, switching to fighter sweeps and allowing free hunting on return flights is what really killed off the Luftwaffe, and it sure helped in fucking up the logistics for the Wehrmacht too.

>>28536296

Your friend sounds like a massive faggot, just saying.

>>28536322
oh, he joked about it all the time. he was in IB so he needed all the service hours he could get.

>>28536158
aging airframe, not future-proof, only gives a slight avionics upgrade to the F-15.

Would be a cool way of upgrading the F-15 to true 21st century standards. But the F-22 is purpose built to be far superior to it in pretty much every way. And the F-35 is also way better.

>>28536225
pretty much. Everyone flips their shit over the program costs, but no other aircraft has had the same level of cost tracking the F-35 has had. It's likely that programs like the F-16 or F-18 had extremely expensive programs as well.

Once the F-35 is in full production, it will be a competitive price.

>>28536262
not to mention they have around 180 of them. I mean, they only have around 250 active F-15's, with 150 of those being National Guard....So there's plenty of F-22's. And they could indeed restart production if WWIII broke out tomorrow.

>>28535997
>what is Mirage III

>>28536409
>aging airframe
The airframe is practically new
>not future-proof
Other than stealth, F-15 has enough room to accommodate plenty of upgrades; redundant fly by wire, IRST, AESA radar, even new engines
>slight avionics upgrade to F-15
AESA is significantly more powerful than APG-63