F4 pilots cvs F16

[Francous]

http://www.bobnorris.com/spd.php/spi/sea_stories_6

 

TO: Capt. Eric Best 3 SEP 93

FROM: The Wild Weasels

SUBJ: Gross Written Buffoonery

 

1. In case you hadn't noticed, the F-4 is the F-4 of the 1990s. Any comparison between that worthless piece of flying FOD that you buzz around in and the Mighty Phantom II is insulting to the many men who have fought and died In the F-4. The Phantom II was flying Defense Suppression and Air Superiority missions over Hanoi, dropping LGBs with PAVE KNIFE on the Paul Doumer Bridge, and flying CAS in the Iron Triangle (to mention just a few) long before your flying toy was a wet dream in the minds of the Texas Congressional Delegation.

 

The misplaced belief that the F-16 is a true multi-role fighter is no doubt a contributing factor to the common occurrence of Vipers spearing rocks, dirt, trees, other aircraft and large bodies of water with the pitot tube. The F-16 was designed to be a cheap, day VFR fighter and no amount of training or money will ever be able to overcome that imitation. If any aircraft today approaches the potential for comparison to the F-4, it is another two seat, two engine McDonnell Douglas product in the Air Force Service.

 

2. Any attempt to inflate your basement-level status by comparison to what is, quite simply the best jet fighter ever built and the Defender of the Free World for over 30 Years, is a pitiful attempt to boost your ego by comparing yourself to better men flying a better aircraft. The F-4 has flown more types of missions, in a superlative fashion, than the F-16 could ever consider. We would all love to see the day when an F-16 lifts off with 24 Mk 82s and four AAMs on a combat mission. And the F-4 became the world's best ever distributor of MIG parts with 1950s technology, AIM-7Es, AIM 9Bs and cannon, without having to wait for the introduction of the AMRAAM.

 

3. The simple fact of the matter is that the dismal combat performance of the F-16 in the Gulf War is directly responsible for the continuing service of both the F-4 and the A-10. The F-16s inability to deliver ordnance load accurately resulted in the need to re-attack targets, endangering men needlessly and wasting resources. It wasn't the F-16 that ran a SAM-killing 8 ship through the most intense air defenses ever encountered by the USAF over Baghdad on the first night of the war. The only reason "Magnum" is even in your vocabulary is because the dwindling numbers of Phantoms led to the conclusion that an F-16 on the wing is better than nothing at all, but only just.

 

The only people that have not caught on to the glaring inadequacy of the F-16 are the people who drive them. The only foreign customer stupid enough to purchase the F-16 since the war has been Taiwan, largely because, (1) they placed their order long before the war, and (2) they had no real option because they were not offered the F-18 and didn't already operate the Phantom II. Even your own manufacturer bailed out of the business as soon as they realized that they could no longer rely on general and gross stupidity to sell their flying failure.

 

4. To wrap this up, we greatly resent the misguided and faulty comparison of the F-4 Phantom II to the Fighting Falcon, the only fighter aircraft In history to be named after a second-rate college football team. Any resemblance between the McDonnell Douglas Phantom II Supersonic, All-Weather, Fighter-Bomber (Mostly Bomber), and the miserable, single-seat, single-engine, computer designed, fly-by-wire, composite airframe, software-driven, day VFR, ice-FOD sucking, weakdick bubble canopied, target missing, ground impacting, non-hook raising, auto trimming, piddlepack ejecting, G-LOCing piece of flying pork barrel politics is limited to the fact that both aircraft have an F- designation. Your aircraft should have a blue stripe painted around the nose and "FOR TRAINING USE ONLY" stenciled on the fuselage. And you can go to the club tonight knowing that you, your article, and this letter occupy a significant place in our Doofer Book.

 

 

====

 

A good reason why i don't like the F16... never did.

Just thinking what the Rafale made of the F16 .. ooops!

[mvsgas]

Man, that is old article, 1993? I think. Well, the only thing I got to say is, F-16 are operational in the USAF and F-4 retired and are only use as FSTD (AFAIK), which are getting shut down by F-16 :thumbup:. The F-4 might be a better aircraft according to this guy, but ask any current fighter pilot from any nation which one he rather take to combat if he only had the two choices: F-4C Phantom II or a F-16C Falcon, see what they say.

[Weta43]

Well, the only thing I got to say is, F-16 are operational in the USAF and F-4 retired and are only use as FSTD (AFAIK), which are getting shut down by F-16

 

The fact that the F-4 is no longer in service with as many airforces as the F-16 doesn't make the F-16 a better plane - simply one that is more practical to keep in the air for most of the "client" airforces that are allied with the USA.

 

Look at your local taxi fleet - the best cars they can get ? or just the ones with the package that combined low operating costs with the best deal from the dealers...

 

His note that the F-4 was a true all-weather multirole aircraft while the F-16 is a VFR light fighter that has been cobbled into a multirole aircraft through post design upgrades to allow it to be "pushed" onto client states has more than a grain of truth in it...

 

but ask any current fighter pilot from any nation which one he rather take to combat if he only had the two choices: F-4C Phantom II or a F-16C Falcon, see what they say.

 

Ask any current fighter pilot what he'd rather take into combat & the likelihood is that they'll tell you whatever it is that they fly at that time...

 

I do have a quote from an ex pilot that flew F-14, F-15, and F/A-18. though : http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=603713&postcount=1

[mvsgas]

The reason I say the F-16 is a better aircraft is that:

-In mi limited experience on the F-4 and the stories I hear from old F-4 mechanics it was a pain to keep the F-4 flying and maintaining it. Things like "bi pas doors" at the bottom, the chute, hell just removing simple things like the tire was more complicated and requires more maintenance hours that the F-16. Not to mention on the F-16 maintenance requires less experience due to the structure of the manual (Technical Orders) which, explain repair in very simple terms and an inexperience mechanic can understand and complete a task. The F-4 used old main big T.O.system that did not brake down repairs in simple terms, or so I was told, and Require a lot of experience just understanding, let alone maintaining that specific system.

-It cost more to operate and the failure rate of many part is very short, it is harder to acquire parts, and more costly to maintain a good stock of parts since many companies that created this parts no longer do. You would have to pay the companies certain amount of money to keep this parts in production, bad thing on a combat aircraft that brakes more.

- Uses a lot more fuel, big issue in today standards when a gallon of JP-8 can cost as much as 20$ dollars a gallon. More expensive fuel, more cost and less training hours pilots may be able to fly, limiting their experience.

- The need to train two individuals to be able to operate the weapons systems instead of just training one. The today military cutback and less and less personal, believe or not, a second pilot affects many things. From the money spend in his training to simple little things most people don't think about like the need for a squadron to use more liquid oxygen(Lox), again cost more money to produce etc.

- The F-16 is a lot easier to fly that and F-4, it take a lot less training for an F-16 pilot to be combat qualified that it took a F-4 pilot

- Radar systems on the F-16 are better, granted not on the earlier block F-16, but today F-16 radar is better in many ways than that of the F-4 radar (except the German F-4F)

- They say the F-16 was designed as a "cheap day fighter" so was the Mig-17 and if I recall correctly the "more technical advance" F-4 had a hell of a time fighting them. Didn't the Migs shoot down several F-4? I don't know about this, I am really wandering if anyone has any info.

- They are right saying that F-16 can not carry 24 Mk82 bombs in combat, it does not need to. To send a pair of F-16 block 40/42 against a target is enough to destroy it, is more cost effective and you risk less assets.

-They say that the F-16 is less accurate bomber? That is a lie, the Israelis prove this on June 1981, they had F-4, if the F-4 is so superior to the F-16, why did they choose F-16 rather than F-4?

-F-4 pilot work load is higher even do is has two people in there. They guy in the back is not a extra pair of hands, he was not a commodity back there, he is a requirement since the front pilot does not even have all the necessary control for the aircraft systems and need the guy on the back to help him operate the weapons, radar etc.

-On that note the way pilots integrate with the aircraft is completely different. Most F-4 don't even have a HUD. How can it be more accurate bomber when the F-16 ( even A models) have a continuously computed impact point (CCIP) that is determined by the aircraft radar and aircraft computers ensuring a more accurate bomb delivery and oppose to the F-4 " i think this is enough mills of deflection" method of bombing, I know mechanics that told me of pilots using a grease pencil to mark the F-4 PDU reflective glass to give them a aim point, yea, better aircraft all right.

-Visibility, have you ever sit in a F-16 cockpit? I have. Have you ever sit in a F-4 cockpit? I have ( Oshkosh 1999, F-4F form Holloman) I do not even know how pilot fly the F-4 with such little visibility available.

-Agility... do we really need to go here?

 

Enough of my ranting, I guess you are right, the F-4 is so much better than my F-16, so much better. In the end do, I get an incredibly gratifying feeling seeing all those QF-4 take off and be shot down by my F-16. When all the F-4 are retired and rusting some where, my F-16 will still be flying.

:thumbup:cheers m8

[Mugatu]

Some one once said, the F-4 is proof that if you put big enough engines on a brick it will fly.