If the Americans suffered so many losses is because the Vietnamese had quality in their Russian made weapons and a strong will to defeat the US

Interesting comments. Just few facts to refresh your memory dear Flooger

The US.AIR FORCE, NAVY AND MARINES were not allowed to strike targets at will in North Vietnam. The targets indentified by Recon planes had to receive clearance from Washignton before being approved to be attacked. There were numerous SAM sites close to Hanoi that were left untouched due to this system (like fighting a boxing match with a hand tied behind your back!!)

When the US. NAVY mined Haiphong Bay it brought North Vietnam to its knees having no more SAMs to fire at the incoming strike planes, unfortunately the US. NAVY had to clear the mines later on

The US forces were not allowed to strike at the nerves of the war, meaning they were not allowed to touch Russian ships delivering supplies to Haiphong as well as railroads and bridges near the North Vietnam-China border due to fear of getting those two countries directly involved in the conflict.

The issue is not about quality of Russian weapons, some were ruged and efficient as well as the US were. The issue is how the use of weapons is allowed during a conflict like the First Gulf War showed it

One last point

Flogger, we all have a favorite plane, mine is the Mirage III, however it do not mean that you have to defend it at all cost and against all odds just because you like it so much. This forum is for grown-up people, please do us a favor, behave like one. Thank you

Yes but North Vietnam was not a Supe power with all the man power and technology the US had they depended in Russian weapons and a will to defeat a super power, that is the real reason they defeat the US

Really how about that lineage ?

F-4 -> F-15 -> F-22

What lineage? the F-22 has no commonality with the F-4, i see no commonality in the F-15 and F-4

The MiG-23M and Tu-22M2 have almost the same configuration
see

Tu-22M

MiG-23MF

The MiG-23MF and Tu-22M2 belong to the idea that VG wing will solve the same problems and the vertical ramps are the best design for an inlet in the Mach 2 class speed, check the MiG-23MF and Tu-22M2 have even the same style vertical fin

The Su-24 belongs to the same design aerodynamic fashion philosophy

Aside from its poor abilty to take battle damage, I disagree with this assesment of the F-105. It was a bomber, and it flew into the teeth of the strongest air defenses in the world. The vast majority were shot down by AAA, and any other aircraft would have been hit at least as often as the F-105, probably more often. The same goes for the F-4. Load up any aircraft of the period with bombs and it becomes a flying target until it drops its weapons on the enemy. After that, the F-105 was almost untouchable by other fighters. It was the F-22 of its time, cruising out of enemy airspace on the deck at such high speeds that nothing could catch it.
The F-105 was a strike aircraft, it was never intended to be fighter. Its not fair to compare it to dedicated air to air fighters of the time. As a strike aircraft, there was nothing better, except perhaps the later F-4. No tactical aircraft could carry such a large load to such distant targets at such a high speed.
Different F-105 wings used different tactics over North Vietnam. One wing flew large strike packages at medium altitudes with large numbers of support aircraft. They were plagued by AAA, SAMs and MiGs that had to be fended off by fighter escorts, chaff bombers, SAM suppression aircraft, and the like. The other wing used low level attacks without support aircraft, using the F-105 in the way it was designed to be used – high speed flight at low level, using terrain masking. The defenders had little warning of attack, and the F-105 was more successful using these tactics. Before you knock the F-105, name one aircraft that could have done the job better.

HEHEHEHEHEH strongest defences in the world :rolleyes: heheheheheheheh come on
the strongest defences in the world in the 1960s were NORAD AND THE SOVIET UNION, or NATO or the WARSAW pact, but Vietnam never fielded so many fighters and SAMs as the Soviet Union or the US did.

If the Americans suffered so many losses is because the Vietnamese had quality in their Russian made weapons and a strong will to defeat the US

The F-4 and F-105 are good aircraft but the Mirage F1, JA-37 or MiG-23 have also good merits despite Afghanistan or the Iran-Iraq war probably do not have Historically in the West mind set the importance of Vietnam.

If the JA-37 had ever been used in a Vietnam style war i think i would had performed better.

The Soviet Tu-22M, Su-24 and MiG-23s in Afganistan had better combat record than the B-52, F-105 and F-4 in Vietnam.

Aircraft like the Mirage III and it`s derivatives are worthed aircraft to put in the contest with te F-4 and MiG-23 as excelent products of the 1960s technology

The F-4`s vertical ramp inlets were great influences in the MiG-23 and J-8II, from frontal views they look quit similar

I’m not sure of the name, it’s the F-4 use in the Luftwaffe.

The mirage 2000 doesn’t owe mcuh with a mirage III even they look nearly the same.
The mirage 4000 is more complex than the 2000 and the RAfale is based on stuides on the mirage 4000.
So I think you should rethink your opinion about the rafale 🙂

the comparison isn’t really fair.
the f4 is way bigger and has been in use for a very long time in the USAF, so much more fund to made it evolved.

The Mirage III had all the features that lead to the Mirage 2000, Mirage F1, Mirage 4000 and even Rafale.

The Mirage III NG and Kfir C2 had all the features you can enjoy in the Mirage 2000 and Mirage 4000 and eventualy lead to the Rafale.

Basicly all Dassault aircraft are evolutions of the Mirage III.

The Mirage 2000 is basicly a Mirage III NG (IAI Kfir C2) with relaxed stability and fly by wire, better visibility and new engine.
The Mirage 4000 adds the twin engine platform and the bouble canopy to that evolution.
In order to fit the Mirage III with such enhancements Dassault built new airframes but the basic Mirage III aerodynamic concept was kept in the Mirage 2000 and Mirage 4000

The JAS-39 has a similar relation to the more stable JA-37.

The Rafale is a further evolution of the Mirage 4000 in a smaller platform and with different air intakes for better AoA and engine function.

The F-4 has never lead to such large family of aircraft derivatives, the Mirage III excellence lead to a great array of fighters such as Mirage V/50, Mirage IV, the Kfir C2, Dennel Cheetah, ENAER Pantera, Mirage 2000, Mirage F1, Mirage 4000 and Rafale.

The MiG-23 only sprung the MiG-27 and the Russians had two other aircraft with similar aerodynamic configuration: the Su-24 and Tu-22M

The Su-24, MiG-23 and Tu-22M2 are basicly the same aerodynamic configuration tailored to different military needs

Flogger, you’ve got to learn that you can never trust just once source for data such as those listed above. I’ve read hundreds upon hundreds of sources on F-4’s and I’ve seen maximum speeds listed from 1,320 mph all the way up to 1,600 mph. Generally speaking though the speed I’ve seen the most is 1,500 mph for the F-4E with slats, which makes sense because the earlier hard-wing models were capable of 1,580 mph because they lacked the slats fitted to F-4E’s after the Agile Eagle program. The slats caused more drag and such reduced the speed of the F-4E compared to say an F-4D. Agility was greatly increased, and on par with many variants of MiG-21, despite what you often hear.

The MiG-23 is the same. I’ve seen numbers of 1,520 mph, 1,550 mph, 1,515 mph, etc. It just depends on the source and you can never go one just one source. I hope you’ll take my advice and learn to look at multiple sources before going with one specific number.

The same goes for the ceiling statistics…most sources I’ve seen state 62,250 feet for ceiling while 60,000 feet is quoted for British Spey-engined models (which incidentally were slower than their J-79 cousins with a maximum speed of Mach 2.1 or about 1,385 mph).

Besides, Boeing never built the F-4. McDonnell Douglas, who Boeing bought, built the F-4. There’s no telling where those stats were pulled up from. Of course 1,485 mph isn’t that far from 1,500 mph so it doesn’t really make much of a difference. Who’s to say that 1,485 mph reached one day wouldn’t be 1,500 the next.

I totally agree with you, i have also found different numbers.

This kind of annoys me because the unreliability even of some books but i think the F-4 has a slower rate of climb than the F-15, the figures i have for the F-15 climb rate is 50000 feet/min (15240m/min) that is the reason i feel the book WARBIRDTECH series volume 8 titled “F-4 GUN NOSED PHANTOMS” is reliable because in the book the figure for the F-4`s climb rate is 41300 feet/min.

I do not think the F-15 is marginaly better than the F-4 in climb rate it must has a quicker acceleration by a great margin.

Also Boeing`s is credible they are the most reliable surce of all them all.

F-4E Max speed:2.24

Mach 2.27 (1,500 mph)

F-4E rate of climb:41000 feet/min

Try 49,500 feet/min

F-4E Service ceiling:58750 feet (17905m)

Try 62,250 feet

I’m also a bit skeptical of those TWR ratios. THe MiG-23 is supposed to have a much better TWR than the F-4, yet those numbers put them very close….

In short what am I saying? Those numbers are just numbers. I’ve already conceded the MiG is slightly faster than the F-4E variant (though not faster than earlier models like F-4B and F-4C with hard-wing), and has better acceleration. The F-4 has longer range, better avionics, better payload and a two-man crew. Bottom line is that both have advantages and disadvantages.

If a third-world country like Vietnam with a bit of foreign help is able to shoot down over six hundred aircraft of the type, then I rather call the aircraft a ticket to heaven than anything else.. This shall be the best aircraft of the cold war? You are kiddin me..

Now you’re just getting desperate…..

You do realize the F-4 Phantom was involved in far larger numbers than any other fixed-wing aircraft of the entire war don’t you? USAF service….USN service…USMC service……fighter….bomber….recon….SEAD…..CAS…..FAC…..precision strike……etc…..constant combat from late 1964 until early 1973……

Now flex I know you’re an intelligent guy…….do you think the Mirage III or the MiG-23 or the MiG-21 or the Viggen or whatever other non-U.S. airplane you can think of would have done better? Seeing as none of them have the versatility and overall multi-role capability of the Phantom II I seriously doubt it…..

In Gulf War I, much more advanced Tornadoes have proven much more prone to shotdowns than nimble Jags. I would take Jag over Tonka any day of the week.

Jags also didn’t have to fly over Iraqi runways at 100 feet to deliver the JP.233…….you’re comparing apples with oranges here. In short, both of your comparisons have left you looking rather like a fool so please take a different approach.

It might not have been carryin as much bombs and stuff and would not have flown that far but at least I would have had a good chance to return back..

Yes I guess completion of the mission isn’t really all that important. Pilots and aircrews are just there to take-off, fly around, and then get home safely. All that into harms way nonsense is just stupid afterall……

It’s like you’re saying the Jaguar was purposely designed to be more survivable than the Tornado, and that’s just ridiculous. The Tornado had much more dangerous mission profiles in the Gulf War, and it was involved in larger numbers so the losses are of course going to be more. I think there were somewhere around 8 Tornado GR.1/GR.1A squadrons compared to one Jag squadron…….so again I ask you to do the math.

Don’t twist it. You have clearly pointed out that Phantom was the best performer of these four even in A-A, ergo better than Mirage F1… Look it back for yourself and quit lyin to my eyes..

Again I ask you to find what point I denied it…..I think they are both relatively even in the air-to-air role, but personally the advantages of the F-4 are the reason I would take it. If you want longer range, larger payload, two-man crew, and slightly more speed then the F-4 is your jet…if you want more agility the F-1 is your jet.

F1 or Viggen and studies on Phantom? Where? When?

perhaps those were worded wrong……but when the world saw what the F-4 was capable of in Vietnam and the Middle East, features like better radars for more autonomous operation became a big thing as well as multi-role capabilities…..it could be argued that if the F-4 had failed as a multi-role fighter in Vietnam then you’d never have seen developments of the Mirage F-1 like the F-1E or any other fighter for that matter until later when costs prohibited designing something for one missions. The success of the F-4 sped up that trend, and then combined with higher costs is the reason you see so many multi-role planes today.

I disagree. There is one single confirmed F-4 kill with Super 530D. You are not serious if you take that account and completely ignore all other kills being achieved by R.550 or 530F.

Did you read what I wrote instead? I said the Super 530F had done most of the work (the Super 530F was comparable to the AIM-7F, but IRIAF fighters had the older AIM-7E variants), and also you forget to mention the R.550 which was an ALL-ASPECT weapon. Even Iraqi MiG-21’s proved to be much more dangerous because they were now equipped with the weapon. Look at the success of FAA Sea Harriers. That made a huge difference in air combat. If an F-1 can shoot an F-4 or F-5 or even F-14 from any angle in close while the other three can only shoot the F-1 from the rear hemisphere with the AIM-9P who do you think has the advantage?

I’ve heard you jump all over the MiG-29 bandwagon by saying it had bad AAM’s and that’s the reason it has suffered losses, yet when its Western aircraft that come into play you change your tune? Double standard yet again?

The Climb rate and in general all the data i gave was based upon the WARBIRDTECH series book “F-4E gun nosed Phantom”

So i did not make up the data.

By the way BOEING`s webpage gives a much lower figure for the F-4 ceiling of only 56,100 feet and a max speed of 1485 mph so the figures you gave are not accurate

Hmm, I think the experiences with the shortcommings of the Draken, rather than that of the Mirage III, led to some of the aerodynamical sollutions for the Viggen. 😉

Well that is certainly true, what i meant is the Delta Wing best fighter has been the Mirage III and has been the best representative of a Delta fighter but you are right the Drakken was the aircraft to surpass and replace but undoutedly the Mirage III share more commonality with the JA-37 as delta fighters because the JA-37, IAI Kfir C2 and the Dennel Cheetah resemble more the Mirage III than the Drakken.

But i addmit the Drakken lead to the JA-37 concept, it is true but the JA-37 takes the design closer to the IAI Kfir than to the Drakken showing how good was the Mirage III.

In the Draken the air intakes blend the fuselage with the wing and create vortexes but in the SAAB JA-37 and IAI Kfir the inlets are not blended to the fuselage as in the J-35 Drakken and the Canards are the foreplanes that created vortexes.

The IAI Kfir showed how good was the Mirage III/V in development potential.