| Modern Discuss Old planes/designs with new technology: F-4 Phantom II and no F-15/F14/FA18 in the Other Eras forums; Old planes/designs with new technology. The thread of the Superhornet replacement got me thinking about this. Could the F-4, with ... |
Old planes/designs with new technology.
The thread of the Superhornet replacement got me thinking about this.
Could the F-4, with appropriate updates, have provided necessary performance and carried US Air Force/Navy/Marine requirements forward through today without the need of the F-15, F-14, F-18?
I'm not including the F-16 here because that seems more comparable to the F-5.
Without a complete redesign, I'm sure the F-4 would have never matched the maneouverability of the later birds you mention.
No - the IDF did do some improvments to their F-4s but was still light years behind the mentioned aircraft, especially the F-15.Originally Posted by gjs238
Didnt the Germans upgrade their F4's to keep pace with modern designs?
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"
They did, but you're not going to be able to get an F-4 anywhere close to an F-15 in performance. Avionics, nav equipment, all good, but still behind the newer aircraft.
The F-4 wouldn't have gotten to altitude to counter the MiG-25 anywhere near as fast as the F-15 did, I believe the MiG-25 was a primary driver for the F-15 program - before they realised what a barge the MiG-25 was.
I vaguely remember reading an article about experienced Vietnam-blooded F-4 jocks tangling with the new-in-service F-14 in mock knife-fights and coming off second best but I wouldn't know if that were true or just sales talk. I doubt it would win BVR either.
You've made me wonder if the F-4, with a similar avionics suite, wouldn't be as good as the Tornado in the mud-mover role.
Last edited by Colin1; 06-02-2010 at 12:16 PM.
Correct on all counts. My father in law had a chance to fly F-4s and F-15s and he said there was no comparison.
It might be - the Rhino was able to carry a lot of weight - remember it made a good Wild Weasel aircraft.
BTW, CF-5As had F-18 avionic suites in their last years in service.
Later German F-4s were mostly used in Recon roles and home defense as well as Wild Weasel. They were not used in that sense as a front line fighter.
Only a few years ago I had one buzz over us when flying around. He passed over our helicopter by maybe 1000 ft. Was pretty neat actually. I believe there believe there a still 60 or so in service with JG 71.
Last edited by DerAdlerIstGelandet; 05-27-2010 at 04:58 PM.
fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"
I don't think other than avionics upgrades that there would be much you could do to make the F4 keep up with the current generation, or even the generation before's planes. Without it's big engines for it's speed, the F4 was not known for it's maneuverability I do not think.
Bryon O.
"When you are at the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on!" Franklin Roosevelt
My two cents,
we shouldn't be comparing the F-4 to the F-15 if you're talking about cancelling the F-15 project in favour of an updated F-4 to carry the USAF through the 1970's.
We should be comparing it to its overseas contemporaries. These would be the MiG-23 primarily. And it's about even on overall performance, the MiG is much faster and more nimble (the Flogger-G can out-accelerate an F-16 but that isn't available until the late 70's), but the Phantom is more robust and a better weapons platform. Also consider that by the mid-70's an F-4 fleet as the primary fighter type would have the ICE stats of an AN/APG-65 and by 1980 the early AMRAAMs.
But you couldn't cancell either the F-16 or F/A-18 and between them they'd replace Phantoms in front line service by 1980. Those two modern fighters are perfectly cost effective anyway.
It was really the F-15 that was a rushed development, hence ridiculously expensive and a little ahead of its time in terms of complexity. It cost just about as much to put in service as it did to develop and put into production, then as much again to maintain.
But it did deliver the goods, not really very cost effectively at all, but they were there. You can't compare an F-4 to an F-15 any sooner than you could a MiG-23M (Flogger-B), but you can compare an F-4 to a MiG-23 no prob.
Question: Weren't both aircraft ~similiar empty weight?
(F-4 & F-15 that is)
Possibly
just not quite the same thrust being applied to both
late-mark J-79: approx 18,500lbf with afterburner (approx 12,000lbf dry)
early-mark TF-100: approx 29,000lbf with afterburner (approx 18,000lbf dry)
Last edited by Colin1; 06-02-2010 at 12:17 PM.
Plus engine dynamics are pretty different between the old turbojet and newer turbofan, specific thrust, frontal thrust, static thrust, the turbofan is much more fuel efficient and has several performance enhancing benefits, not the least being less tendency to overspeed.
The Brits put Rolls Royce turbofans in some of their Phantoms and whilst top speed wasn't improved because the intakes had to be widened, the overall mid range performance, fuel consumption and low speed handling were much improved.
One of the main restrictions of Phantom level speed is fuel consumption, in service conditions it was an impressive thing to manage 2 Mach in one, most wouldn't see more than 1.4-1.6 unless specially prepared for a speed run, as stated by pilots.
But this holds true for most jets, when they say "Mach 2.3 top speed" what they really mean is that it can carry a bigger load to about 1.5 Mach than other contemporaries which have a top speed listed as "Mach 1.8"
Maximum level speed with most supersonic fighters is really a measure of load bearing and altitude performance and not actual speeds ever achieved under service conditions.
There are some exceptions, notably the MiG-25 (it's Mach 2.8 is demonstrated with a 2 ton external load in a serially produced example right off the line, hella impressive).
With F-4 manoeuvrability, against the MiG-21 which was much, much lighter and had great thrust/weight and thrust/drag (meaning both excellent acceleration and top speed, as well as spritely manoeuvrability), well the F-4 was considered especially good in early Vietnam encounters with the Fishbed because it has plenty of excess thrust at subsonic speeds and that MiG didn't have boosted controls where the F-4 did. Also a help was the dedicated weapon systems operator (WSO), who acted as both an extra pair of eyes in an era of warplanes which have a poor field of view, and a dedicated brain to operate weapons systems in an era of warplanes where avionics were fairly rudimentary in terms of artificial intelligence.
The way it worked out was the Phantom had the advantage at low altitude where transonic performance, excess thrust and additional operating functions really came into play. But the MiG had the advantage at high altitudes where you could be more single minded, outright speed performance and supersonic acceleration was important, and high-g manoeuvres were prohibited by speed. At medium altitude they were about even.
The Flogger however introduced more performance to the MiG, it had comparable excess thrust in subsonic manoeuvres and boosted controls, but it still falls down on functionality and as a weapons platform. The radar on the Flogger for example is a very simple unit, barely capable of true lookdown/shootdown and it was the Soviet's first attempt at doppler so it was probably pretty easy to break a lock with, also of course analogue and not digital. Its display didn't even have a CRT screen, it just projected syntax on the HUD and all told is a very basic unit. By 1975 the Soviets installed an IRST under the nose as a more reliable option for close combat.
Really, get an F-4E and pop an AN/APG-65 in it and smack in the middle of 1976 it'll go toe to toe with Floggers and kick butt in altitude BVR. Get down low and hell, you've got F-16's by then and the Flogger doesn't have a chance (near the deck). You don't need an F-15, that's the argument. Just not needed.
Last edited by vanir; 05-28-2010 at 04:49 AM.
The one plane that could be updated (in theory) is the Tornado. The original design of the Typhoon engine was such that they could be installed in the Tornado. Put that to the extended fusulage with the extra fuel tank as fitted in the Tornado fighter versions and that would be quite an improvement in range / payload. I don't know how the engines changed over the years but even if they did fit the airframe would not get the best of the old technology plus the aircraft are getting old and maintaining the Tornado must be a major problem.
Obviously I am talking about upgrading the Tornado in the strike role, it was never a dogfighter.
The F15 was needed and results have proven this. The F16 in its first few versions was a dogfighter pure and simple and it didn't carry Sparrow missiles, just sidewinder. Without the F15 the USSR would have the advantage in long range combat and wouldn't be nearly as worried as the West about shooting down some of their own aircraft by mistake. The F4 was better than the Mig 23 but would not dominate it in the manner of the F15 plus the F4 couldn't allow itself to get sucked into a dogfight with the later versions of the Mig 21. The much larger USSR airforces would soon overwhelm the few F4 available.
Last edited by Glider; 05-28-2010 at 05:19 AM.
Let's hotrod the F-4, just for fun.
Get F-15 engines & avionics in there.
Replace components with carbon fiber where possible.
Streamlined gun/cannon installation.
Revised air intakes.
Etc, etc., etc.
Thrust vectoring (?!)
It may end up costing more than a F-15, but would be interesting.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks