Is the Phantom a dogfighter?

[Bremspropeller]

12 minutes ago, Goose489 said:

All that is correct except I disagree with the gun kills. They did not have the ammunition or the self-leading gunsight to hit the target consistently.

Of course they did. Check out the IDF, which had a boatload of gunkills.

The USAF just chose to not employ the F-4E as a fighter more. Instead, they'd use the F-4D with the bigger radar. The F-4E was mostly employed for fighter-bomber (read: bomber) sorties.

[Goose489]

2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Of course they did. Check out the IDF, which had a boatload of gunkills.

The USAF just chose to not employ the F-4E as a fighter more. Instead, they'd use the F-4D with the bigger radar. The F-4E was mostly employed for fighter-bomber (read: bomber) sorties.

The F-4 did not originally have a gun so instead added a gun pod.

[Bremspropeller]

Just now, Goose489 said:

The F-4 did not originally have a gun so instead added a gun pod.

I know. The F-4D also had a lead computing sight for the gun-pod. The pod that wasn't used much for A-A anyway.

[Goose489]

Ok, that makes more sense.

5 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I know. The F-4D also had a lead computing sight for the gun-pod. The pod that wasn't used much for A-A anyway.

 

[Kalasnkova74]

42 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Of course they did. Check out the IDF, which had a boatload of gunkills.

The USAF just chose to not employ the F-4E as a fighter more. Instead, they'd use the F-4D with the bigger radar. The F-4E was mostly employed for fighter-bomber (read: bomber) sorties.

The F-4E radar also had implementation issues (as is normal with new technology), so many deployed F-4Es didn’t have fully functional /reliable air to air radars anyway. That plus their better air to ground avionics led to them being mud-movers, leading to F-4Ds working USAF MiGCAP duties. 

[SuperKermit]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Bremspropeller:

The F-4D also had a lead computing sight for the gun-pod. The pod that wasn't used much for A-A anyway.

Was that also the case for the Navy Phantoms?

[Goose489]

2 minutes ago, SuperKermit said:

Was that also the case for the Navy Phantoms?

The navy used the F-4B

[Bremspropeller]

13 minutes ago, SuperKermit said:

Was that also the case for the Navy Phantoms?

Don't think so.

They used a different gunpod (twin-barreled 20mm Hughes Mk.4) anyway. Gunpods weren't used  on the carrier, so shore-based Navy or Marines ops only, anyway. I think they're A-G only, so no LCOS.

I'm wondering if the Phantom FGR.2 did have a LCOS. Maybe @G.J.S could share a story or two on the SUU-23 use in the RAF and whether it was ever used A-A.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Bremspropeller

[SuperKermit]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Bremspropeller:

Don't think so.

They used a different gunpod (twin-barreled 20mm Hughes Mk.4) anyway. Gunpods weren't used  on the carrier, so shore-based Navy or Marines ops only, anyway. I think they're A-G only, so no LCOS.

I'm wondering if the Phantom FGR.2 did have a LCOS. Maybe @G.J.S could share a story or two on the SUU-23 use in the RAF and whether it was ever used A-A.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer!

It would be indeed interesting how the Royal Navy / Air Force handled that matter. 

[SuperKermit]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb Bremspropeller:

I'm wondering if the Phantom FGR.2 did have a LCOS. Maybe @G.J.S could share a story or two on the SUU-23 use in the RAF and whether it was ever used A-A.

 

According to this source https://www.david-gledhill.co.uk/the-phantom/the-suu-23-gunpod/ it was used for A-A and also had an LCOS. 

[G.J.S]

2 hours ago, SuperKermit said:

According to this source https://www.david-gledhill.co.uk/the-phantom/the-suu-23-gunpod/ it was used for A-A and also had an LCOS. 

Indeed it was.
The air defence role trained with it quite a bit, it would have been a pain downloading the pod, then uploading again and having to re-align the gun. Dispersion could vary greatly if the pod had the slightest hint of “shimmy”. 
The mud movers also could use gun, but where the A2A used LCOSS, the ground role would use a set depression for range, and the combination of dive angle and target altitude would dictate your initial pitch in alt, giving you a few seconds to get your sight picture and at the relevant time - make the pod a few rounds lighter (hopefully showering your desired aim point with sufficient lead).

For a good approximation, if you own the F-5 module, the way the HUD symbology is utilised in the A2A role - both Sidewinder and gun, is very close to the F-4.

[SuperKermit]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb G.J.S:

Indeed it was.

Thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge! 

I wonder how much the added weight influenced the flight characteristics.

[G.J.S]

14 minutes ago, SuperKermit said:

Thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge! 

I wonder how much the added weight influenced the flight characteristics.

Well she wasn't as aerodynamically pure anymore 

 

No. Weighing about 1800lbs (i think?), it lowered Vmax somewhat, and violent maneuvering could shift the alignment whilst airborne meaning that it would have to be "re-boarded" when back on the ground - the armourers would set up a board ahead of the A/C and sight the pod against that. Laborious!

Pods were routinely carried by the squadrons in Germany, and the Falklands detachment. Not so common in the UK, other than training that required the gun.

[rkk01]

Quote

Is the Phantom a dogfighter?

A2A kills….

[Bremspropeller]

My first guess would have been the Shaguar that was foxxed by a QRA jet out of Wildenrath, but this is a grey jet and possibly an FG.1 (periscope)?

 

Edith:

I guessed correctly.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Bremspropeller

[rkk01]

13 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

My first guess would have been the Shaguar that was foxxed by a QRA jet out of Wildenrath, but this is a grey jet and possibly an FG.1 (periscope)?

 

Edith:

I guessed correctly.

 

Yep

https://www.key.aero/article/when-raf-phantom-shot-down-14-sqn-jaguar

[Bremspropeller]

Is this a brrt-pod on the outboard station?

[Bremspropeller]

Is that a TISEO on this early hard-wing?

[G.J.S]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Is that a TISEO on this early hard-wing?

Certainly looks so, doesn’t it? Early blast diffuser - pre Midas 4.

[SgtPappy]

22 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

While these points are true, then-Colonel Robin Olds pointed out in an interview that other - and more important factors- explain why the USAF didn’t match the USNs kill ratio. 

First, the USAF Phantoms had to travel almost 900 miles from Thailand over Laos to North Vietnam. That gave so much warning to the VPAF that the 8th TFW command post may as well have phoned Hanoi for official advance notice. So the VPAF had plenty of time to launch and position MiGs for a high speed pass. Further, this mean USAF Phantoms were fuel critical from combat zone entry, because they had to fight and save enough gas for the 900 mile trip back to base. Get it wrong and you might be heading to the Hanoi Hilton (or a painful death by the Pathet Lao) after flaming out. Even saving enough for a tanker track might not be enough if you’re waiting for four (or more) similarly fuel starved USAF Phantoms or Thuds to tank off. These reasons resulted in many USAF Phantom pilots - Olds included- being forced to bypass sure MiG kills to save fuel. By the time an engaged flight of USAF Phantoms launched AIM-4/AIM-7/AIM-9 the flight typically was bingo, scratching the opportunity for a close range gun kill. 

Meanwhile, the USN operated out of the Gulf of Tonkin with substantially closer distances. So the VPAF had commensurately less alert of USN Phantom II sorties, especially if they ingressed at low level. That reduced the possibility of an aft attack used so well against USAF flights. The USN pilots also had greater fuel flexibility to engage MiGs , and their Search and Rescue (SAR) situation was somewhat better than the USAF provided they got out to sea. 
Now layer in the other elements (TOPGUN,  better IR missiles for the USN, fluid pair tactics etc) and the better kill stats by the USN are evident.

Very good points! Thanks for the added context.

It certainly didn't help that the flight paths of bombers and attack aircraft were extremely predictable in order to simplify planning.

[Dragon1-1]

Note that this was only true for the Wolfpack, who flew out of Udon, actually quite a way away from Vietnam. There were USAF F-4s and Thuds at Da Nang as well, rather closer to action, though I don't know what their record was, or where they flew. I knew Phantoms from Cam Ranh and Phan Rang mostly flew the trail in the south, but MiGs weren't a concern there (the flak there was mean, though).

The Phantoms' gas troubles are well attested, though. There are stories of tankers flying out of their tracks and into indian country, at no small risk to themselves, to help fighters that wouldn't make it on their own. They'd sometimes hit the tanker multiple times during one mission, too.

[Bremspropeller]

Nakhon Phanom or Udorn would be the most convenient bingo airfields in northern Thailand.

[Dragon1-1]

NKP didn't have Phantoms, though. That's where Nail FACs, Sandies and the Jollies lived, among other assorted slowmovers. It was a common divert airfield, though, being closer to Vietnam than Udorn.

[Voyager]

On 12/5/2023 at 9:25 PM, Saguanay said:

Gonna love seeing the F-4 jocks trying to survive whenever the MiG-17 shows up.

"Why yes I want to climb into a phone booth with a Korean Era turn fighter. Wait, was that a bad idea?" 

[Omega417]

46 minutes ago, Voyager said:

"Why yes I want to climb into a phone booth with a Korean Era turn fighter. Wait, was that a bad idea?" 

Stolen from YouTube, made in 90 seconds