A Case against the Phantom

[Tank50us]

Now, I know that the moment you all read that title, you're going to be furiously slamming on the keyboard nasty things to me about how I dare insult the F-4. However, this post is about why the Phantom may not be the plane you think it is, and why I think it might be a bit over-rated. This is not a Phantom bashing post, this is just a way to explain to people that there is a reason that in the fighter role, better planes were introduced, and, most importantly, why the F-4 wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

 

1. Avionics

Depending on which version of the F-4 you're sitting in, you're most likely going to be sitting in an aircraft cockpit that wouldn't look out of place in the late stages of WW2 or Korea. You don't have a HUD, you don't have any form of fly-by-wire or assistance avionics, it's all basic kit in there. Sure, the pilot has a rudimentary radar display up front, but that's about as good as it gets. The RIO gets some more stuff to mess with, but it would very much require that both the RIO and PIC be well in tune to make it all work. It was the 60s after all.

 

2. Not that great a fighter

The combat record in the early days of the Vietnam war speaks for itself, the Phantom just wasn't that great a fighter. Missile technology of the time period was mostly miss, and you didn't have a gun to fall back on. You ran out of missiles, it was time to RTB. It took the pilots getting creative and the military realizing that guns were still needed for that to change, and even then, the Phantom still struggled against its opponents. Many of which were much more nimble than the Phantom, due to their smaller size. Yes, if the Phantom got a solid lock, and the machine spirit blessed the missile, you'd get a kill. But, that was unfortunately, not the case in most air to air engagements.

 

3. A flying brick

Ask anyone who's flown the F-4 and transitioned to a newer, more capable aircraft, and they'll tell ya what the change felt like. While one or two might say they prefer the Phantom as an aircraft, you'd be hard pressed to find any combat pilot who would say they'd rather have it over the newer aircraft in a fight. Reasons vary, but some of the key ones revolve around its engine performance and its maneuverability. When you bled energy in a Phantom, it took a while to get it back, and issue rarely found in most fighters, even at the time it was introduced. This fact led to a lot of Phantom pilots who thought they were in the better plane being forced to take the HH-3 Express or spend the rest of the Vietnam War in the Hanoi Hilton.

 

4. It's hard to miss

One key fact about the Phantom is that compared to many fighters of its era, the damn thing is huge for a fighter. Something not lost on Phantom pilots when they suddenly saw telephone poles coming up at them. Couple that with its weight, and lack of energy recovery, and in the dogfight against something smaller and more maneuverable, and you could find yourself in trouble really quick.

 

5. Good luck seeing out

Pilots of the Tomcat can attest to this, but having that ring on the front of your canopy can be a major pain in the backside when trying to do... well... anything. This coupled with the fact that the canopy is covered in bars and it's a wonder that the flight crew could even see in the thing. This likely resulted in cases where Phantoms would be killed by something that a pilot in any other aircraft before or since would've been able to spot.

 

6. A true piece of its time

The F-4 is a relic of the time it was built for. And while some air forces have upgraded their Phantoms to suit modern threats, it still took a lot of work that more recent aircraft wouldn't have to undergo. For example, on a modern jet, if you want a jammer to be fitted, you merely have to hook it up to a designated location, and flick a switch. The F-4 would have to specifically modified for the equipment to be fitted, and this meant doing a lot of work to get something fitted to the plane. Same happened with the gun pods. The first pods had no lead-computer like the later ones, and even that was more akin to the equipment used on the F-5 to aim the gun.

 

7. It was a bit over-hyped

While it is true that most of the air to air kills were achieved in the F-4, it should be noted that the majority of F-4 Sorties flown were to deliver bombs and napalm, compared to aircraft that were dedicated to that role, the Phantom suffered. It wasn't as accurate with the bombs and rockets as the Intruder or Corsair, and that meant that it ran a heavy risk of hitting allied forces on the ground if it was required to get in close. And without a proper bomb site, many Phantoms had to fly low to make sure their bombs could hit their target, which exposed the aircraft to heavy ground fire, and likely resulted in many F-4 crews taking a trip to Hanoi on the bamboo express. But this is to be expected of a plane ultimately designed by people who don't know a thing about combat.

 

So, while this post is fairly negative against the F-4, I should end by saying that if you're ok with all of this, then the F-4 is going to be an aircraft you'll want. However, this post is meant to show that maybe it isn't the be all end all fighter that people claim it to be. It's kind of like the Spitfire in that regard. A great aircraft in its own right, but over hyped. Phantoms for example weren't sent to Vietnam because they were the best fighter ever, they were sent because it's what we had at the time. And at the end of the war, F-14s were flying CAP over the South, and the F-15 was coming down the pipe, both aircraft worlds better than the Phantom.

 

But at the end of the day, whoever ends up making the F-4, it's your money, so spend it however you please.

[Tom Kazansky]

3 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

But at the end of the day, whoever ends up making the F-4, it's your money, so spend it however you please.

 

thank you.

[Knock-Knock]

You pretty much listed all the reasons why I want one.

[schurem]

Haha ain't that the truth! Rhino powah!

[ebabil]

No one would like to buy phantom to wipe all other planes and ground targets from the server. We all know it is no match against a hornet with 10x amraam with its a few aim7's. Or against a-10cII to make CAS. 

We want it because we love it as it is.

[Phantom88]

I have a 56 yr Old Muscle Car...It rides like crap,It turns like crap,it brakes like crap....but it's a **Classic**....And I Love it....I feel The same about The Phantom.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

So, you described a 50's-60's aircraft basically, what's the problem with that? MiG-21 wouldn't cut it either, or mostly any other aircraft from the era. Phantom should be in DCS because it's an historical aircraft used in many battlefields, not because it should wipe out everything effortlessly.

 

DCS simulations is about experiencing what we most can't or couldn't, so if that's the experience with Phantom as it should be so be it!!

 

S!

Edited August 31, 2021 by Ala13_ManOWar

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

If you want to tell everyone you have bad taste, just post a Limp Bizkit appreciation thread. It'd be less effort. 

[Lace]

My only argument against the Phantom, is that it had such a long service life (1961-present day, almost as long as the B-52), with many operators, equipment fit, wing, engine and undercarriage types, role configurations, that unless ED builds some kind of Franken-Phantom (which it won't), then we are going to be limited to one specific variant, and as a result have lots of disappointed Phantom Phans.

 

The simple solution is to not develop a Phantom module, it is to develop lots of Phantom modules.

 

A phantom would be a day-1 instabuy for me, and I suspect the vast majority of DCS players.  Not everyone wants the 'best' performing aircraft.  Especially in the SP or PVE realms it is the experience which counts, not the meta data and K:D ratios.  No, the Phantom is not a well groomed FBW, BVR weapons platform, it is a 26-ton St. Louis Slugger. A triumph of thrust over aerodynamics.

 

Gratuitous pictures below:

 

 

[Exorcet]

On 8/31/2021 at 5:36 AM, Tank50us said:

2. Not that great a fighter

The combat record in the early days of the Vietnam war speaks for itself, the Phantom just wasn't that great a fighter. Missile technology of the time period was mostly miss, and you didn't have a gun to fall back on. You ran out of missiles, it was time to RTB. It took the pilots getting creative and the military realizing that guns were still needed for that to change, and even then, the Phantom still struggled against its opponents. Many of which were much more nimble than the Phantom, due to their smaller size. Yes, if the Phantom got a solid lock, and the machine spirit blessed the missile, you'd get a kill. But, that was unfortunately, not the case in most air to air engagements.

 

3. A flying brick

Ask anyone who's flown the F-4 and transitioned to a newer, more capable aircraft, and they'll tell ya what the change felt like. While one or two might say they prefer the Phantom as an aircraft, you'd be hard pressed to find any combat pilot who would say they'd rather have it over the newer aircraft in a fight. Reasons vary, but some of the key ones revolve around its engine performance and its maneuverability. When you bled energy in a Phantom, it took a while to get it back, and issue rarely found in most fighters, even at the time it was introduced. This fact led to a lot of Phantom pilots who thought they were in the better plane being forced to take the HH-3 Express or spend the rest of the Vietnam War in the Hanoi Hilton.

 

7. It was a bit over-hyped

While it is true that most of the air to air kills were achieved in the F-4, it should be noted that the majority of F-4 Sorties flown were to deliver bombs and napalm, compared to aircraft that were dedicated to that role, the Phantom suffered. It wasn't as accurate with the bombs and rockets as the Intruder or Corsair, and that meant that it ran a heavy risk of hitting allied forces on the ground if it was required to get in close. And without a proper bomb site, many Phantoms had to fly low to make sure their bombs could hit their target, which exposed the aircraft to heavy ground fire, and likely resulted in many F-4 crews taking a trip to Hanoi on the bamboo express. But this is to be expected of a plane ultimately designed by people who don't know a thing about combat.

I disagree with these three. The F-4 will probably dominate in DCS as long as it goes up against contemporaries. What held it back more than its design was poor pilot training and tactics. Missiles did most of the work, poor as they were. The gun was always a backup. The F-4 wasn't the most maneuverable fighter in Vietnam but speed is still important and that is something that it did provide. The pilot just needs to fly to the F-4's strengths, not its weaknesses. Considering that the plane was used in ways that differed from the design expectations, I'd say it did pretty well for itself.

[TLTeo]

These "much capabilities" posts are really getting out of hand. If that's your metric for what a DCS module needs to be worth flying, then only the Hornet, Viper and Jeff belong in DCS. "There is no HUD or FBW and the radar screen is bad!"...really?

Edited September 1, 2021 by TLTeo

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

6 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I disagree with these three. The F-4 will probably dominate in DCS as long as it goes up against contemporaries. What held it back more than its design was poor pilot training and tactics. Missiles did most of the work, poor as they were. The gun was always a backup. The F-4 wasn't the most maneuverable fighter in Vietnam but speed is still important and that is something that it did provide. The pilot just needs to fly to the F-4's strengths, not its weaknesses. Considering that the plane was used in ways that differed from the design expectations, I'd say it did pretty well for itself.

It's kind of a moot point since the F-4 that BST was exploring was a post 'Nam bird with slats and other improvements. It was a much better turner than the F-4s of 10 years prior.
 

Edited September 1, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[AG-51_Razor]

Anything with a tailhook (intended for use aboard ship) will get my credit card #!!

[Eldur]

On 8/31/2021 at 11:45 AM, Knock-Knock said:

You pretty much listed all the reasons why I want one.

 

Totally nailed it. And it's called character.

[Tank50us]

I should clarify something... I didn't make this post to tell people to not want the F-4 Phantom. It was created because I've seen what feels like a million threads here and elsewhere of people demanding the F-4, and act as though it's the best aircraft to ever exist. Some act like the Phantom is better than many modern aircraft in just about everything. Sure, they're rare, but it is getting a bit ridiculous when ED Releases a trailer for something like the Mosquito, and in the comments someone has to go "Phantom?"

[Tom Kazansky]

So for those rare people you decided to go against all valid points of the rest of the Phantom fans?

 

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

12 hours ago, Tank50us said:

I should clarify something... I didn't make this post to tell people to not want the F-4 Phantom. It was created because I've seen what feels like a million threads here and elsewhere of people demanding the F-4, and act as though it's the best aircraft to ever exist. Some act like the Phantom is better than many modern aircraft in just about everything. Sure, they're rare, but it is getting a bit ridiculous when ED Releases a trailer for something like the Mosquito, and in the comments someone has to go "Phantom?"

The more pertinent question than "Why do people stan the F-4 so hard" is "Why would you read youtube comments?"

[LucShep]

I think you're missing the point.
The allure with the F4 Phantom (and many other 50s/60s/70s aicraft) is comparable to old racecars of that period.

 

For a quick example, a 1970 Boss Mustang 302 or 1968 Chevy Camaro in Trans-AM (so successful back then) were pigs on corners, on the brakes, and were death traps, quite obviously if compared to more modern tintop racecars. And they were also flawed in many areas, more so if placed against european counterparts, in that era.

It doesn't mean that the nostalgia around them isn't justifiable, because it is. The exhistence of quirks and limitations doesn't detract to the fact that they're some of the most amazingly sweet things ever built, automotively speaking.

 

Same thing for the F4 Phantom, and same era aircraft.

 

There's a lot more unique things, shapes, quirks and interesting solutions that would differ, and be seen, between diferent models, in a different time when experimentation, trial and error, and pure human ingenuity is what created them, instead of having them developed/designed with computers so coldly effective, like today.

Some call that "character", and I tend to agree.

And that's what makes those machines, when looking back, so desireable and inspiring. It's not their effectiveness or strenght against today's stuff, or what replaced them imediately after.

 

It goes beyond rationale, and that's something that many people here will imediately understand and relate to. 
Others simply won't. And that's fine. 
 

Edited September 2, 2021 by LucShep

[Tank50us]

5 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

The more pertinent question than "Why do people stan the F-4 so hard" is "Why would you read youtube comments?"

 

Because sometimes they can be quite entertaining to read, and great for a good laugh. Other times.... well....

12 hours ago, Tom Kazansky said:

So for those rare people you decided to go against all valid points of the rest of the Phantom fans?

 

 

More along the lines of "Are you sure this is what you want?" seeing how many people treat the F-4 as the best plane eva.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Not sure I have ever seen a post saying the F-4 was the best plane “eva”. 
Folks just want it because its an iconic bird and flying analog is a hoot! 
 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

 

Because sometimes they can be quite entertaining to read, and great for a good laugh. Other times.... well....

More along the lines of "Are you sure this is what you want?" seeing how many people treat the F-4 as the best plane eva.

That's not a phenomena exclusive to the Phantom Phanatics or any particular aircraft enthusiast. It's a product of internet culture encouraging extreme statements without context or nuance and video game enthusiasts having a severely misplaced confidence in their own expertise on the subject matter. The first airframes which I saw this sort of lauding over wasn't the Phantom, but the Flanker and Berkut.

Honestly, by referring to one of the most successful fighter aircraft in history as 'overrated,' you did much the same. The Phantom has proven itself in actual warfare to be an incredibly competent aircraft for its era as well as being every bit as susceptible to bad doctrine as any other. It has also displayed a knack for longevity, a hallmark of a solid design. To deny that metric would also deny the same of the MiG-21, which has equally matched it in said longevity. And I'm unsure I could suffer such heresy be spake in the year of our Lord 2021!

Edited September 2, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[G.J.S]

There will always be detractors, and in the same vein - enthusiastic proponents.

Im in the latter camp.

The perceived lack of AA kills in its infancy was due to improper use and equipment. It was a learning curve. Vietnam kind of ‘got in the way’ and accelerated its use in ways that couldn’t really capitalise on its strengths for a while. That did change, just not quick enough.

The F-4 did mature, and became extremely good. A “jack of all trades”, if you will.

The F-4 became the yardstick that all following fighters were measured by, and that shows how it was valued, for its timeframe it was ‘the best’.

But, time moves on.

The flame had to pass on, and it did. The F-14, F-15 took the mantle as they were better. 
 

But the old wrinkly master can still surprise the student. And has done on a few occasions, one of which I was party to.

 

It all boils down to the “meat behind the stick”, if you pardon the parlance. You can have a new upstart armed to the teeth henchman, but an experienced guy with a stick can still whip him if the opportunity presents itself. So just because the F-4 is “over the hill”, and old news, doesn’t mean you can safely ignore its nose. You can’t, you really can’t.
Any Phantom driver with ANY moxie will still pull your panties over your head whilst spanking your booty with 20mm if he (or she) fancies getting in close after you make a mistake, to really make it a personal thing.

Yes the F-4 was as big as a barn, and slowed in the turn similarly, but power recovery when unloading was eye watering. Use of the vertical would give many modern fighters heart palpitations. True - the view was limited, but with 4 eyes it makes up for any canopy bow.

The F-4 consistently made opponents re-evaluate their tactics, and sometimes their life choices too.

I miss the old girl, she had a fat arse (FGR2), leaked a bit, and cut and bruised many who worked on her innards.

 

But by god . . . . What a ride.

[Tank50us]

Before people start smashing their face on the "Exterminatus Button", take note that I do not hate the Phantom, for its time it was a good plane, just had a bad go with politicians calling all the shots in its design and use. It could've certainly been better, and by all metrics, it very much should've had many of the features adapted to it later on from day one.

 

But, like I've said before, this is a post aimed at those who try to over-rate the Phantom, believing it more capable than it actually is/was.

 

As for the longevity, one thing I will say is that when a country spends potentially billions of dollars on an aircraft (Design, Development, and Procurement), you're going to get as much use out of the thing as you can until the wings fall off, or in the case of the F-15, until the nose section falls off.

 

But, at the end of the day, it is the buyers choice what they get. If someone makes a Phantom, odds are I'll get it myself, especially if it's one of the more recent models (like the EJ in use with the JSDF), but I want people to be aware that it is very much an aircraft of its era, and while it's still to be respected, I don't want people acting as though it's the best plane in the world. It was good enough for its era, but as @G.J.S said, the torch had to be passed on, and many of the Phantoms users upgraded to F-15s and F-16s, and haven't looked back.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

“I don’t want people acting as though it was the best plane in the world “ 

Why?
Didn't realize the thought police had an account…..  

[QuiGon]

On 8/31/2021 at 11:36 AM, Tank50us said:

Now, I know that the moment you all read that title, you're going to be furiously slamming on the keyboard nasty things to me about how I dare insult the F-4. However, this post is about why the Phantom may not be the plane you think it is, and why I think it might be a bit over-rated. This is not a Phantom bashing post, this is just a way to explain to people that there is a reason that in the fighter role, better planes were introduced, and, most importantly, why the F-4 wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

 

Alright, then let's see:

 

On 8/31/2021 at 11:36 AM, Tank50us said:

1. Avionics

Depending on which version of the F-4 you're sitting in, you're most likely going to be sitting in an aircraft cockpit that wouldn't look out of place in the late stages of WW2 or Korea. You don't have a HUD, you don't have any form of fly-by-wire or assistance avionics, it's all basic kit in there. Sure, the pilot has a rudimentary radar display up front, but that's about as good as it gets. The RIO gets some more stuff to mess with, but it would very much require that both the RIO and PIC be well in tune to make it all work. It was the 60s after all.

 

You're starting with one of my favorite things about the Phantom right there! I love not being babysitted by some fly by wire systems and other kind of automation that keep the fun away, so this is a huge plus for me. Even more so, because I love RIOing/WSOing even more than piloting, which is why the Tomcat's rear seat is one of my absolute favorites in DCS and I think the Phantom might offer even more in this regard as it is even less automated than a Tomcat and unlike the Tomcat it is much more versatile. So this is gonna be great!

 

On 8/31/2021 at 11:36 AM, Tank50us said:

2. Not that great a fighter

The combat record in the early days of the Vietnam war speaks for itself, the Phantom just wasn't that great a fighter. Missile technology of the time period was mostly miss, and you didn't have a gun to fall back on. You ran out of missiles, it was time to RTB. It took the pilots getting creative and the military realizing that guns were still needed for that to change, and even then, the Phantom still struggled against its opponents. Many of which were much more nimble than the Phantom, due to their smaller size. Yes, if the Phantom got a solid lock, and the machine spirit blessed the missile, you'd get a kill. But, that was unfortunately, not the case in most air to air engagements.

 

I don't expect it to be on pair with the modern 4th gen fighters, but neither are the MiG-21, F-5E, MiG-19, F-86, MiG-15. The Phantom will be really great on Cold War missions and servers and will be a fun underdog in more modern settings.

 

On 8/31/2021 at 11:36 AM, Tank50us said:

3. A flying brick

Ask anyone who's flown the F-4 and transitioned to a newer, more capable aircraft, and they'll tell ya what the change felt like. While one or two might say they prefer the Phantom as an aircraft, you'd be hard pressed to find any combat pilot who would say they'd rather have it over the newer aircraft in a fight. Reasons vary, but some of the key ones revolve around its engine performance and its maneuverability. When you bled energy in a Phantom, it took a while to get it back, and issue rarely found in most fighters, even at the time it was introduced. This fact led to a lot of Phantom pilots who thought they were in the better plane being forced to take the HH-3 Express or spend the rest of the Vietnam War in the Hanoi Hilton.

 

I'm playing DCS not to do esports, but to enjoy military aviation and flying this brick will be a great and demanding challenge compared to the boring 4th gen jets and their fly by wire systems that keep a lot away from you!

 

On 8/31/2021 at 11:36 AM, Tank50us said:

4. It's hard to miss

One key fact about the Phantom is that compared to many fighters of its era, the damn thing is huge for a fighter. Something not lost on Phantom pilots when they suddenly saw telephone poles coming up at them. Couple that with its weight, and lack of energy recovery, and in the dogfight against something smaller and more maneuverable, and you could find yourself in trouble really quick.

 

5. Good luck seeing out

Pilots of the Tomcat can attest to this, but having that ring on the front of your canopy can be a major pain in the backside when trying to do... well... anything. This coupled with the fact that the canopy is covered in bars and it's a wonder that the flight crew could even see in the thing. This likely resulted in cases where Phantoms would be killed by something that a pilot in any other aircraft before or since would've been able to spot.

 

I couldn't care less about this. You seem to have a pretty competetive attitude. Well, I don't, I just want to enjoy military aviation history and find out how it worked back in the day.

 

On 8/31/2021 at 11:36 AM, Tank50us said:

6. A true piece of its time

The F-4 is a relic of the time it was built for. And while some air forces have upgraded their Phantoms to suit modern threats, it still took a lot of work that more recent aircraft wouldn't have to undergo. For example, on a modern jet, if you want a jammer to be fitted, you merely have to hook it up to a designated location, and flick a switch. The F-4 would have to specifically modified for the equipment to be fitted, and this meant doing a lot of work to get something fitted to the plane. Same happened with the gun pods. The first pods had no lead-computer like the later ones, and even that was more akin to the equipment used on the F-5 to aim the gun.

 

That's what I am talking about! Reliving military aviation history and the iconic Phantom plays a huge role in this!

 

On 8/31/2021 at 11:36 AM, Tank50us said:

7. It was a bit over-hyped

While it is true that most of the air to air kills were achieved in the F-4, it should be noted that the majority of F-4 Sorties flown were to deliver bombs and napalm, compared to aircraft that were dedicated to that role, the Phantom suffered. It wasn't as accurate with the bombs and rockets as the Intruder or Corsair, and that meant that it ran a heavy risk of hitting allied forces on the ground if it was required to get in close. And without a proper bomb site, many Phantoms had to fly low to make sure their bombs could hit their target, which exposed the aircraft to heavy ground fire, and likely resulted in many F-4 crews taking a trip to Hanoi on the bamboo express. But this is to be expected of a plane ultimately designed by people who don't know a thing about combat.

 

Unlike the Corsair or the Intruder it was a true multirole aircraft, the first one that really deserves this designation if you ask me. So while it might not be brilliant in certain roles, it can do quite a lot of them. Especially if we get the F-4E and early PGMs and TGPs.

 

On 8/31/2021 at 11:36 AM, Tank50us said:

So, while this post is fairly negative against the F-4, I should end by saying that if you're ok with all of this, then the F-4 is going to be an aircraft you'll want. However, this post is meant to show that maybe it isn't the be all end all fighter that people claim it to be. It's kind of like the Spitfire in that regard. A great aircraft in its own right, but over hyped. Phantoms for example weren't sent to Vietnam because they were the best fighter ever, they were sent because it's what we had at the time. And at the end of the war, F-14s were flying CAP over the South, and the F-15 was coming down the pipe, both aircraft worlds better than the Phantom.

 

If anything, your case just proofed even further what an interesting aircraft the Phantom is and what a great change this analogue machine would be to fly compared to the rather boring flying computers that the F-16 and F/A-18 are. I'm stoked for the Phantom, even more so now, which makes it even harder to wait for it to find it's way into the sim eventually