F-4 Phantom in the Vietnam War Debate

[Goose489]

Was the F-4 a capable fighter in the Vietnam War?

Edited December 6, 2023 by Goose489

[rfxcasey]

1 hour ago, Goose489 said:

Was the F-4 a capable fighter in the Vietnam War?

 

It claimed victories and suffered high loses mostly to SAMs. It didn't have the record of other planes like the Hellcat did in WW2, but it was a capable fighter none the less. The training and quality of the aircrews was I determining factor.  It didn't turn fight like an F-16.

[av8orDave]

I think the most commonly cited number is that it had 147 air to air kills in Vietnam, so yes, it was capable. Were there gaps in it's design? Probably. Were there gaps in how it was employed? Probably. Still a capable fighter. I'd have a hard time making a case that it wasn't the best fighter of the Vietnam War.

Another consideration when thinking about how effective the F-4 was in Vietnam was that the missiles it employed objectively sucked. The AIM-7 had multiple issues, with the motor frequently not firing at all. Most stats show about a 7% - 8% hit rate. The AIM-9 fared slightly better, but still only hit 10% - 15% of the time. There's probably no need to even discuss the AIM-4.

I think the biggest flaw with the F-4 is that the aircraft was built around the concept of using air-to-air missiles as it's primary weapon, and those missiles were at a very early and unreliable stage of their development, and when they didn't work, the F-4B, C, and D had no other weapon to fall back on (ok, maybe the -C and -D had a poorly-boresighted gun pod on occasion).

Edited December 6, 2023 by davidrbarnette

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Yes.