Flogger you don’t think the F-4 set the benchmark for later designs because it’s not the MiG-23.

The F-4 introduced so many new features that had never before been seen in fighters, and its influence was felt through many decades. The fact that it’s still in widespread service all over the world just further enforce my (as seahawks, and many others) opinion that the F-4 design was a sound one from the very beginning. The two-man crew concept was proven to be a very good one because of the combat experience of the Phantom. The large radar and powerful avionics systems allowed the F-4 to track and engage targets at much greater ranges than other fighters of the time period, and it wouldn’t be until advent of the MiG-25, F-14 and F-15 that better radars would be introduced. The F-4 as the first fighter that was able to take-off, detect, intercept, and destroy enemy aircraft autonomously. The MiG-21’s smaller size meant that it would never carry a radar capable of that and even the MiG-23 was designed to work in a GCI environment which limited its versatility. The F-4, by contrat, could work in a GCI environment or without one. Obviously working with GCI or AWACS greatly increased its capability to intercept enemy aircraft, but the option was there to operate the Phantom autonomously. Additionally, once the aircraft was shown to have great potential in the air-to-ground role, its range, payload, two-man crew, and strong airframe were put to good use in transforming it from a ship-board fleet defense interceptor to a completely multi-role fighting machine that could perform just about every mission ever tasked to a fighter-type aircraft. The MiG-21 wasn’t multi-role until later versions, and even then its multi-role capabilities paled in comparison to those of the Phantom. The Mirage III was a better multi-role jet than the MiG-21 in its Mirage IIIE variant, but it was still not the multi-purpose jet that the F-4E came to be. It had a much smaller payload, and shorter range, plus the one-man crew was a limiting factor that didn’t allow it to do some of the missions of the F-4.

Even the MiG-21 and Mirage III’s successors the MiG-23 and Mirage F-1 weren’t as capable multi-role jets as the Phantom. In the case of the Flogger you need a completely different version to do ground attack (i.e. either the MiG-23BN or MiG-27). The Mirage F-1 was a better multi-role jet, but it too suffered from one-man crew, shorter range than F-4, smaller payload, and it didn’t have nearly the array of weapons available to the Phantom.

The MiG-21 was important because it was cheap and available in large numbers. It was intended to combat NATO’s fighter because it would overwhelm them in greater numbers, not because its design was anything all that remarkable. The F-16 certainly wasn’t designed based on what was learned from the MiG-21.

The Mirage III was influential because it was the first tailless delta-winged fighter to appear in Europe. The F-102 had appeared years before though, so the wing design of the Mirage III was really nothing special. That’s not to say that the Mirage wasn’t an important aircraft because it certainly was, and it provided the backbone of many air arms for many decades. It was to Europe, what the MiG-21 was to the Warsaw Pact.

The F-15 was designed because of what was learned with the F-4, as well as the F-14. There are numerous others, but in the end the story is the same. The F-4 Phantom was the most influential jet fighter of the 20th century. Not the best, but certainly the most influential. That in itself speaks a lot.

Phantom i feel you exagerate the F-4 legacy.

The F-4 is influential no doubt about it in fact i confess it the MiG-23 is basicly a miniaturized F-4 hybrid with F-111 fuselage, single engined and one man crew.

The Mirage III represents a more advanced aircraft in terms of aerodynamics and development potential.

The JA-37 with cannard has a great influence in fighters like the JAS-39, IAI Kfir C2 and Rafale, only see that the Mirage III sprung the Mirage F1, Mirage IV, Mirage 4000, Rafale and later aircraft like the Eurofighter of J-10.

The F-15 like the MiG-25 owed more to the A-5 Vigilante than to the F-4, in fact the MiG-25 and F-15 are evolutions of the A-5 Vigilante design concept.
Artem Mikoyan was so impressed by the A-5 Vigilante that after seen it wanted an aircraft like that for Russia

The MiG-25 flew in 1964 so it is almost a contemporary of the F-4.

The Russians easily realized the MiG-21 main disadvantages it had with respect the F-4 and saw great potential to the imperant need for STOL could be solved with the F-111 design solutions.

The MiG-23 indeed owes a lot to the F-4 but the F-4 is not very agile and the MiG-21 proved it has many flaws like any aircraft but for 1970s aircraft well has a good design.

See that the Mirage 2000 is basicly a Mirage III updated with new technologies, the Rafale owes a lot to the Mirage III based Mirage 4000 and all these design have an excellent design based upon the Mirage III

Why do you forget the F-4B. Later versions of the deisgns I mentioned als saw later in service dates. However they are perfectly suited to show the greoth potential the F-4 had.

I hope we agree, that the Mirage F1, the MiG-23 and the Viggen were all designed with the F-4 been known and with the F-4 being a kind of benchmark fr their development.

I do not agree with the Idea that the F-4 was the bench mark

In the MiG-23`s case well it is obvious the F-4 was a great inspiration, i do agree but the JA-37 is completley different, it is a revolutionary aircraft for the 1970s in fact the whole line of Eurocanards, J-10, Kfir and Mirage III/V derivatives are based upon this innovative fighter but not in the F-4.

for the 1980s technology the Viggen is a more influential fashion than the F-4.

To my point of view only the MiG-23 and J-8II resemble the F-4 in the fighter role and perhaps the Jaguar and Mitsubishi F-1/T-2 to some degree as attack aircraft.

The Mirage F1 is a rework of the Mirage III is a pure French idea.

The JA-37 represents a revolutionary step in aviation and it is more based upon the Mirage III/V/50 than in the F-4.

The Mirage III it`s a more important influence for Europe than the F-4

Saying benchmark means the F-4 was the best and the design to beat but in 1968 the MiG-25 was already the benchmark for the US and the MiG-21 inspired the F-16.

The MiG-23 is very influenced by the F-4 no doubt about it but the MiG-21 and Mirage III seem to be more inspiring designs for fighters such as the Mirage F1, Viggen or F-16.

The (MiG-21)Ye-8 and Mirage III have some features you can find in the F-16 or Eurofighter

The MiG-23 main influences are the F-111 and the F-4 in fact the Russians studied the F-111 a lot and we could say the MiG-23 is a single engined Hybrid of the F-4 and F-111 but the others are based upon the Mirage III

Why?
The Lebanese sources did confirm. The Syrians did not deny. All the other services around did not question it.
An actual thread here shows a pic of a MiG-29 from a passing vehicle. The USA have high resolution pics from those and the former wreck-sites too.
MAPO revealed that a number of MiG-29s were delivered to Syria.

To possibility to disguise kills as accidents is very limited. Every fighter as an accident-rate related to flying-hours. Nearly every fighter was operated in more than one AF. So the accident-rate could not be kept secret. Of cause there is a range of that accident rate, but it will be never nil.
Let us stay for the researched Israeli example.
216 examples operated during 35 years. 32 w/o through accidents.
Between 1975-87 those F-4s were at peak strength in Israel (5 sqdns 150+ examples) That is less than one example per year. By all standards an excellent accident rate for the F-4. Not much left to disguise, if at all!

Hehehehehe so now you have one grainy tiny picture of a MiG-29 where even you can not see even the roundel or the shape well and many are debating it :rolleyes: 😀 it meant you have the MiG-25P wreckages? so it means you have pictures of Syrian MiG-29s at close up and plenty of pictures of Syrian MiG-25s.

Sens do not pretend to fool me, i have seen so little pictures of Syrian fighter aircraft.

In fact i opened a thread about the Syrian air force fighter pictures and you can get very few pictures of old aircraft.

Syria acknowledges fewer aircraft than Israel claims, i asked you if you have the pictures of the MiG-25 wreckage or the gun camera?

Syria does not deny losses but prove me with pictures how many aircraft has Syria in 2005 or had in 1983 or in 1988.

The Syrian air Force is one of the most secretive air forces i`ve ever seen really camera shy.

You can choose, what you prefer. The Israeli F-4s are all retired from service now and the survivers can be watched at Hatzerim, Uvda, Haifa, “Holtz” and some ABs. No longer a military secret, the Israeli numbers are now ‘linked’ to production serials to track-down the fate of every single one and the crews are freed to give the details.

“Spector and Manoff flew Kurnass 172 (Peace Echo IV F-4E Block 48 71-0228) on October 8, 1973, ABA mission to Saikal.
It flew with 107. sqdn from Hatzerim AB and Spector was sqdn Cd.

Such details were not published before retirement for security considerations.
So it is time to update your knowledge base and fill the gaps in outdated books. You have to do such work alone or wait an indifinate time, that someone may do it for you.
It is “childish” some way, to blaim the inaccuracies of different claims and different sources, but still posting yourself some inaccurate datas, you know about. “Different sources” is sometimes no more than finding the same datas in different books or under different links. It is your own work to verify every source given to come as close as possible to really numbers. Not an easy task, but not doing so you opinions are no more than personal guesses!
Limiting my view about that too much, I will cheat myself only. Sympathie has no place, when looking into details.
Posting the max number quoted everywhere is a cheap bail-out from reality. But it is acceptable, due to limits to own knowledge, to give a range about that. You are aware about that, when it came to your Syrian example. A good start!

The statistic reveals, that to every total loss came ~3 damaged fighters, from light to severe damage. An impact to feel in daily operations and may be noticed as “temporary” losses by the adversary.
Rich countries like the USA will not repair severe damages or moderate damages, driven by economical considerations. A behavior, which doubles a nominal loss-rate with ease. The opposite may be Israel or SA, where even severe damaged fighters were repaired, because there were no new replacements available in short notice, if at all. All such details have an impact to compare or judge numbers given.

Could be possible the question is nobody has made the inventory of the Syrian Air Force and many times kills are disguised as accidents, or are you claiming you have the accurate data base confirmed of the Syrian Air Force?

Can you show me a Syrian MiG-25P wreck from the Bekka Valley or a Syrian MiG-29 or a Syrian Air Field Close up?

Flogger, you have F-14 vs MiG-23MLA thread for that.. I personally find these xx deg in yy sec at zz km/h numbers absolutely useless..

i do not think they are useless, for example i do not know the instant turn rate or sustained turn rate of the Mirage F1, F-4 or JA-37.

In a dogfight the fighter that gets behind the tail and cues the missile on a lock on well it wins the battle specially the third generation fighters.

better acceleration gave to the MiG-23MLD a superior kill rate versus the early MiG-29s while training at the Russian TOP GUN school equivalents.

BVR combat was not what the F-4 did enjoy with the small MiG-21s; the JA-37 and Mirage F1 might have a turn rate that allows them to out manuever other jets if they want to shoot them at WVR combat.

The IDF-AF operated the F-4s for 35 years. It received 216 examples of all marks.
46 of those were lost in combat and 32 were written-off in accidents.
During that years the F-4s got 116,5 confirmed kills.

The air-to-air exchange rate was:

Nov 69 – Sept 73 – 25:1 (3 with AIM-7, 1 with AIM-9B, 15 with AIM-9D, 4 cannon and 2 no weapon)
YKW – 85:5* (* icludes one friendly fire loss through Nesher, not listing all details, the higher number of cannon kills (22,5) and no weapon (18) is mostly related to helicopters and fighters hitting the ground by loosing control. )
Dec 73 – Jun 82 – 6,5:0 (no cannon kill, all victims were MiG-21s)

During YKW ~33 F-4s were lost through all causes. Related to the cease-fire agreement from 1970. The USA had promised to deliver a free replacement for every F-4 lost to hostile fire. The USA delivered 34 replacement F-4s till the end of YKW!

Data change from source to source like the kills of Mirage F1 or MiG-23, you might have some data and this might be right, nevertheless you also have to consider that one source is not enough.
I prefer to admit the max number of claims for any fighter because the exact number of any combat record it`s blur at best.

I will answer that with pleasure.. Yes, RC400 brings in MICA EM capability. Due to RC400 option for JF-17 even SD-10 comes into question even if that is pretty unlikely in Moroccan service. OTOH, I cannot confirm any orders of MICA EM by Moroccan govt so far but it is likely only a matter of time..

Okay now we’re getting somewhere. Let me reevaluate my comparison. This also greatly helps the Mirage F-1. The MIC, although it doesn’t have quite the range of the AIM-120 is still a nice step up from the Super 530, although with the smaller number of hardpoints the Mirage has to trade weapons or fuel tanks. Either four AAM’s and three tanks or one tank and six AAM’s. Dogfight performance is on the side of the Mirage, until the IRIS-T enters service with HAF Phantoms. You didn’t say anything about MICA IR, so I’m going to assume the R.550 Magic II is the F-1’s short-range weapon. It’s comparable to AIM-9L/M, so weapons wise in close they are equal until IRIS-T comes along.

You US tech fans can sound almost identical sometimes..

And the people who vouch for the Russian stuff don’t ever say the wrong thing do you? Get over yourself.

It is ugly, correct. The machine seldom had the possibility to enjoy a comfortable service in some rich country with skilled personnel, clean hangars and tons of spares, a country which only lead wars against much weaker opponents. Fulcrum’s worldwide service life has been plagued by harsh conditions, inapropriate maintenance, lack of spares, lack of funds, lack of kerosene, lack of flying hours, school pupils instead of pilots and much stronger and technologically advanced opponents denying almost all combat losses. And even the few live missiles they have fired were stored inproperly, damaged during trasnports or had IR sensors off warranty.. It is pretty hard to maintain a solid combat record in such conditions.

Oh would you give it a rest already? What that boils down to is whining……
The bottom line is the Fulcrum hasn’t done well. We all know the varous reasons why, but as they say what’s the point of crying over spilled milk? It’s record doesn’t make the current MiG-29’s being built or upgraded any less capable so would you drop the subject please?

Yes.. I have seen it very well from the very start. But I have to repeat here, it is you who brought out combat records (see your own post to Flogger). After that I gave it a little thought that you might be needing some cold shower of actual numbers to cool your attitude down a bit..

I personally never consider combat kills as decisive, but again, it was not me who brough that one out.. If you don’t want to get burned, you’d better give the matches back to your Daddy..

Who says I got burned? I think I pointed out quite well that the Flogger certainly has no air-to-air superiority over the Phantom, and at the end of the day more MiG-23’s of whatever variant have been destroy by F-4’s than F-4’s by MiG-23’s. That doesn’t tell the whole story, but it sure does look nice when you read the numbers. 🙂

As a pure fighter the MiG-23 dedicated fighter variants are better dog fighters and have a better record and specifications in air to air combat.

No, it doesn’t. In the various wars the F-4 has been involved in over the years it has destroyed a far larger number of enemy aircraft than has the Flogger. End of discussion.

The AJ-37 and JA-37 Vigen in that sense followed a design philosophy closer to the F-4`s because it is mostly electronics what makes different one variant to the other, now you need to ask your self the following question : is the F-4 combat record better because the nation that created it was constantly at war or if the SAAB JA-37 would have fought a Vietnam war style would it had a better combat record?

That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard you say Flogger. Your lack of logic, which is usually bad, is really stupid here.

First of all the Viggen and F-4 are very different in that if you want to do strike you can take an AJS-37 and do that, but if you want air-to-air, you’ve gotta get the JA-37. The F-4E by contrast can do both missions.

Oh and nation constantly at war? Well there was Vietnam, and the 1991 Gulf War, but those were the only two times U.S. Phantoms were in combat. The other times Israeli used it in 1970 and 1973 plus 1982. The Greeks and Turks used it in 1974, and the Iranians used it from 1980 to 1988 in war. During the 1990’s U.S. Phantoms saw service over Bosnia and Iraq enforcing no fly zones. Israeli F-4’s saw service throughout the 1990’s combating terrorists.

So, most of the combat done by the F-4 has been done outside of U.S. service……..

Care to take back your statement? Since you’re 13 or 14 I’ll assume the “nation that’s always at war” statement wasn’t some type of liberal anti-U.S. propaganda.

The Mirage F1 has a better combat record in the air to air role when it faced the F-4 same it is with the MiG-23M/MS/MF/MLMLA/MLD, as fighters the JA-37, Mirage F1 and MiG-23MF/ML have all what they needed to beat the F-4.

No it doesn’t. The F-4 throughout the years has still compiled a better air-to-air record. In the few times they met, the Mirage did destroy more Phantoms, but when you arm them with brand-new Super 530’s, and all-aspect R.550 Magics against F-4’s armed with older AIM-7E and newer (but still older than the all-aspect R.550) AIM-9P’s, what do you expect? Look at the Sea Harrier in the Falklands in 1982….Of course i’m starting to echo flex and his MiG-29 arguments so I’ll drop that.

The point is that I’m not convinced the Mirage F-1 is a better air-to-air fighter than the F-4. They are roughly equal as far as I’m concerned.

besides payload the MiG-27 and AJ-37 can do attacks and also can be armed with some self defence capability.

Can you translate what that means from “Flogger” to “English”? Are you just saying the AJ-37 and MiG-27 can do self defense? That nice, but so can all the others. What’s the point of that statement?

with the exception the MiG-23BN/MiG-27 all other fighters can carry air to ground, and air to air weaponry and asure excelent fighting capability versus the F-4.

The MiG-23BN and MiG-27 can both carry sefl defense weapons as you pointed out above. So can the AJ-37. They just can’t do a full out air-to-air mission. For that you need a MiG-23 fighter variant or the JA-37.

The Mirage F-1 and F-4 by contrast can do it all in one airframe.

Those planes are contemporariers, the fact that you compare the F-4 to the successors of mentioned planes, speaks for itself.

Well said seahawk. When you look at it from that point of view it speaks volumes of the capability of the F-4. It wasn’t until the 1980’s and the advent of the Mirage 2000, Su-27, MiG-29, and JAS-39, that France, Russia, and Sweden came out with airplanes that were outright better than the F-4. The F-1, MiG-23, and Viggen are all comparable, but certainly no better.

Seeing as the F-4 first flew in 1958, that’s speaks quite well of the folks at McDonnell……

Relax Phantom.

Defend the F-4 with an adult view just not because you like the aircraft.

A)The F-4 has the most number of kills around 450 but also has the most number of losses around 900-800 F-4 have been lost in war
B) The AJ-37 has 0 kills and 0 losses why? simply because Sweden has a defensive military posture.
C)the MiG-23 has around 40-45 kills and a minimun of 100+ losses in combat but since probably the Iraqies have lost all their MiG-23s that might be around 150 losses
B)the Mirage F1 has some 47 losses at a minimun but around 25+ kills

See the Mirage F1 has beaten badly the F-4 when they have faced each other

Remember the battle between Russian and Israeli pilots from 1970.
The Israeli side could claim 4 kills against Russian MiG-21MF from that melee. The gun-camera footages showed more hits, but just four crashes could be observed for shure.
It were the Egyptians, which gave away, that a fifth Russian MiG-21MF had shot down really.

About your last sentence, I agree that way, as long there is no confirmation of those losses from the other side.

Well i agree but most of the time in within visual range air combat you can have gun camera footage from the head up displays.

You are right also if the other side admits the kills it is also a proof.

but usually niether side admits all the kills and seldomly both accounts match.