[DesertFox]

The British operated the F-4 Phantom on their last full scale carrier and we have discussed in in bits and pieces.
The French operated the F-8 Crusader until not too long ago (until replaced the the Rafale)
Of the comparison needs to be between the aircraft during the same time frame. Comparing a 1975 Phantom against a 1995 Crusader is likely an unfair comparison.

If I understand, the F-4 was faster and longer ranged

What I am wonder is which had the better radar system, which is more maneuverable, which had the better gun, which had teh higher payload, and other factors involved in a discussion.

Finally, if it came down to a fight between the two fighters, which is better?
As well, in carrier defense roles, which was the better fighter?

[Exel]

Isn't the F-4 as a design a whole generation newer than the F-8?

[Arminius]

F 8 :

... the last fo the gunfighterz ...

I think it would outmaneuver an F 4 any day of the week.

Plus it got FOUR gunz!

The radar ´winder wasn´t too reliable ...

I dunno, what the better Radar of the F 4 and the longer range and heavier weapons fit of the Mighty Phantom play a role in AA Combat.

Hermann

[Sikkiyn]

DesertFox, on Wed 3 Jun 2009 1543, said:

If I understand, the F-4 was faster and longer ranged

Yes

Quote

What I am wonder is which had the better radar system

F4

Quote

which is more maneuverable

Depends on the density altitude, fuel weight, & a host of other nit-picky factors

Quote

which had the better gun

F4 (6x20mm M61 Vulcan vs 4×20 mm Mk 12 cannons)

Quote

which had the higher payload

F4 by a wide margin

Quote

Finally, if it came down to a fight between the two fighters, which is better?
As well, in carrier defense roles, which was the better fighter?

Depends on the circumstances, wx, pilots, and scenario.
F8 v F4 from the old Wings series

[Luke Y]

DesertFox, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 0613, said:

What I am wonder is which had the better radar system,

F4, the F8 had only a rudimentary short range system, the F4 was a powerful long range set.

Quote

which is more maneuverable,

F8, but the F4 wasn't quite the slouch many make it out to be.

Quote

which had the better gun

F8, the F4K had no onboard gun, and AFAIK only the RAF F4M was cleared to carry the SUU-23/A gun pods.

Quote

which had teh higher payload,

The F4 could carry a lot more, a lot further.

Quote

and other factors involved in a discussion.

Quote

Finally, if it came down to a fight between the two fighters, which is better?
As well, in carrier defense roles, which was the better fighter?

If you want to keep regiments of Bears, Badgers and Backfires away from your carrier and convoy, the Phantoms are far and away the better option, to find, fix and kill the enemy, but given the small airwings of both carriers and how small their respective SAG's would be it is a bit pointless.

The F4 also gave much, much greater offensive payload and range, and remember range isn't just distance but loiter time while CAP'ing the CVBG.

The F8 had it's place and was an excellent aircraft for tackling fighters in WVR engagements, but I don't know how many of those were envisaged in WWIII short of supporting Norway in close.

[Exel]

Was the F-8 ever armed with missiles or was it a pure gunfighter til the end?

[DougRichards]

Also look at what they were to be tasked to do: the 'strike' aircraft on the RN carriers was the Buc, which the F-4 would have been much better able to escort and do CAP in connection with those whereas the F-8 would have been more appropriate to the Etendard / Super etendard, that was a much lighter and low powered aircraft than the Buc.

In general terms the RN flew heavier aircraft than the (whatever the Frence Navy is called) and this extended to the anti-sub fixed wing as well, and probably helicopters too.

[DougRichards]

Exel, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 0652, said:

Was the F-8 ever armed with missiles or was it a pure gunfighter til the end?

Carried 4 'Winders' which were able to be replaced by pods carrying 8 rockets. The AIM-9 were carried alongside the fuselage rather than on the wings. I don't have reference material with me - at work - but I seem to recall that some French AA missiles were able to be carried.

[Kensuke]

Exel, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 0652, said:

Was the F-8 ever armed with missiles or was it a pure gunfighter til the end?

It could carry 4 Sidewinders. French F-8s could carry 2 Mantra, or 4 Magics. Most of the AtA kills in Vietnam were achived by Sidewinders. Mainly because the Colt 20mms had a high jam rate.

Interesting bit of trvia is that the F-8 was the only aircraft rated to carry the AIM-9C. It was a short-lived SARH version of the Sidewinder.

- John

[Kensuke]

DesertFox, on Wed 3 Jun 2009 2043, said:

Of the comparison needs to be between the aircraft during the same time frame. Comparing a 1975 Phantom against a 1995 Crusader is likely an unfair comparison.

Actually, the French F-8s in 1995 were not much different than what they orignally purchased. The FN acquired their F-8Es in 1964, and despite a "rebuild" in 1991 that involved some modest upgrades like a RWR, they really didn't do much with them (though they were redesignated F-8P).

Quote

If I understand, the F-4 was faster and longer ranged

By far. The F-4 set speed records that I don't believe were broken until the F-15. British F-4s had RR Spey engines which had even higher rated thrust.

Quote

What I am wonder is which had the better radar system,

The F-4. The Phantom was envisioned to by a BVR interceptor, in an age where the USN was strongly concerned with intercepting Soviet bombers. The British had similar concerns. The F-8 was strictly a daylight knife figher, built in the same vein as the F-9 Cougar it replaced, but with the capability of going supersonic.

Quote

which is more maneuverable,

Generally, the F-8 in most flight envelopes.

Quote

which had the better gun,

The Crusader wins by default because the RN/RAF Phantoms didn't have internal guns. Adding an SUU-23/A gun pod would mean that the Phantom gets the nod.

The Colt Mk12s used in the F-8 had a high jam-rate under intense G-loads. I dunno if the French ever fixed this though. Presumably if they thought it was a big problem, they could have retrofited DEFA cannons.

Quote

which had teh higher payload,

F-4. Again, by a wide margin.

Quote

Finally, if it came down to a fight between the two fighters, which is better?
As well, in carrier defense roles, which was the better fighter?

This is impossible to answer without giving a specific scenario.

Generally, if the RN/RAF Phantom has the FN Crusader on radar, the Crusader would be in deep doo-doo. The Phantoms have Skyflash. FN Crusaders could carry 2 Mantra missiles, but they didn't have the radar reach the Phantom did (and I don't know if they had the FCR to handle the SARH versions).

OTOH, in a knife fight, assuming equally skilled pilots, the Crusader probably has a slight advantage. Keep in mind, the Phantom can disengage pretty easy and run for it though. The Cursader would be hard pressed to keep up.

In terms of carrier defense, one only needs to look at the development of the F-14 to descern what the USN thought was the better design (the Phantom). However, again, the USN was highly paranoid of a Red Storm Rising type scenario involving Russian bombers. Fleet defense has to take into account what you intend to defend against.

- John

This post has been edited by Kensuke: 06 June 2009 - 0500 AM

[Luke Y]

Kensuke, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 1741, said:

The Crusader wins by default because the RN/RAF Phantoms didn't have internal guns. Adding an SUU-23/A gun pod would mean that the Phantom gets the nod.

I was under the impression that only the F4M's were modified to accept the SUU-23/A gunpods not the RN F4K's?
Did they ever carry them? I can't think of ever seeing an RN F4 with a gunpod.

Either way gunpod accuracy was considered pretty average by pilots compared with fixed guns.

[Sikkiyn]

Luke_Yaxley, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 0334, said:

I was under the impression that only the F4M's were modified to accept the SUU-23/A gunpods not the RN F4K's?
Did they ever carry them? I can't think of ever seeing an RN F4 with a gunpod.

Either way gunpod accuracy was considered pretty average by pilots compared with fixed guns.

Originally the F4K could not carry the pod, though the ability was added later on.

I am curious why the Brits didn't go with the internal M61 20mm of the F4E model...wonder if it had something to do with the wheel well modifications for carrier use?

SUU-23 20

[Kensuke]

Luke_Yaxley, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 0834, said:

I was under the impression that only the F4M's were modified to accept the SUU-23/A gunpods not the RN F4K's?
Did they ever carry them? I can't think of ever seeing an RN F4 with a gunpod.

You're probably right about the K model. Though it doesn't make much sense when you consider it's basically a modified J. Still, the point I'm trying to make is that the F-8 kinda wins this by default unless you consider an M with a SUU-23/A. In which case, I'm inclined to give the nod to a Phantom with the gunpod.

Quote

Either way gunpod accuracy was considered pretty average by pilots compared with fixed guns.

The Mk12s were also not terribly accurate:

http://en.wikipedia....lt_Mk_12_cannon

Given the choice between a dubious and documented reliability record, or a gun that's highly reliable but maybe not quite as accurate: I'd take the later. It's not like the pilot can climb out of the aircraft and clear a jam in the middle of a dogfight.

- John

[seahawk]

Sikkiyn, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 1140, said:

Originally the F4K could not carry the pod, though the ability was added later on.

I am curious why the Brits didn't go with the internal M61 20mm of the F4E model...wonder if it had something to do with the wheel well modifications for carrier use?

SUU-23 20

No naval F-4 had an internal gun. The reasons for which are not entirely clear to me, but one might be that their radar systems were much bigger then the "smaller" radar in the F-4E/F.

One important drawback of the French F-8 would have been the Magic I AAM though.

[Kensuke]

Sikkiyn, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 0940, said:

I am curious why the Brits didn't go with the internal M61 20mm of the F4E model...wonder if it had something to do with the wheel well modifications for carrier use?

It wouldn't fit.

There were basically two nose types used on the F-4. The "long nose" and the "short nose." The short nose is what most Phantoms were originally (including all USN models). The long nose was originally devised to accomodate additional avionics of the RF-4C. However, it was later used by the USAF when building the F-4E. This allowed an internal cannon to be fitted. The Wild Weasel G (essentially a rebuilt E) also used the long nose, but the cannon was deleted in favor of adding additional avionics.

The the K and M models were both based off the US Navy's J. Not the E.

No carrier-capable Phantom that I know of ever had an internal gun. They were all short nose.

- John

This post has been edited by Kensuke: 04 June 2009 - 1522 PM

[Luke Y]

Damn, just lost my post...

Kensuke, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 1918, said:

You're probably right about the K model. Though it doesn't make much sense when you consider it's basically a modified J. Still, the point I'm trying to make is that the F-8 kinda wins this by default unless you consider an M with a SUU-23/A. In which case, I'm inclined to give the nod to a Phantom with the gunpod.
The Mk12s were also not terribly accurate:

I remember a few years ago on SimHQ one of the contributors was a USAF F4D & E pilot in Vietnam (Also F104 and A10) and openly stated that he would take an E model with the fixed gun over the larger radar but poorer accuracy of a gun pod any day.

Quote

No naval F-4 had an internal gun. The reasons for which are not entirely clear to me, but one might be that their radar systems were much bigger then the "smaller" radar in the F-4E/F.

I would imagine the primary issue was that when the F4K/M was ordered in 1966 the F4E didn't exist.
That plus there is the fact that I can't imagine the British were able/willing to absorb the cost of navalizing a variant on their own for what was at it's peak a total order of 140 aircraft and ended up being much less when the government took the knife to the carrier force.

As to why the USN didn't develop a navalized F4E, I would imagine that by the time it showed up the F14 was close to entering service (in theory at least) and that would've made up the short-fall.

I might even hypothesize that there may have been issues with the F4E's enlongated, downward angled nose with landings on carriers.

[shep854]

It would come down to pilot experience. The pilot that fought his aircraft's strengths better would win. If it's strictly a close-in turning fight, the F-8 gets the nod. A good F-4 pilot, though can use his greater thrust to go vertical or disengage and come back in (look up Cunningham's fifth kill, where he nailed with a far more maneuverable MiG-17). This gives the Phantom pilot the ability to control the battle. Remember, the 'winders available to either fighter were rear-aspect only.

This post has been edited by shep854: 04 June 2009 - 0938 AM

[Tony Williams]

Kensuke, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 0911, said:

The Colt Mk12s used in the F-8 had a high jam-rate under intense G-loads. I dunno if the French ever fixed this though. Presumably if they thought it was a big problem, they could have retrofited DEFA cannons.

I don't think it was fixable with any gun, because the main problem was the length of the ammo belt run between the ammo tanks high in the fuselage and the guns which were much lower down. G forces in combat tended to pull the belt links apart.

[Lieste]

Tony Williams, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 2111, said:

I don't think it was fixable with any gun, because the main problem was the length of the ammo belt run between the ammo tanks high in the fuselage and the guns which were much lower down. G forces in combat tended to pull the belt links apart.

A belt-less feed system? Don't know if they like g loads either though.

[hojutsuka]

Luke_Yaxley, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 1043, said:

As to why the USN didn't develop a navalized F4E, I would imagine that by the time it showed up the F14 was close to entering service (in theory at least) and that would've made up the short-fall.

Sorry, the dates do not support your hypothesis.

The first YRF-4C was modified to carry the 20mm M61A1 and flew as YF-4E on August 7, 1965. The RFP for VFX (which led to the development of F-14 Tomcat) was only issued in 1968, and the Grumman design was selected in 1969.

Luke_Yaxley, on Thu 4 Jun 2009 1043, said:

I might even hypothesize that there may have been issues with the F4E's enlongated, downward angled nose with landings on carriers.

There was no chance that the US Navy would have adopted the F-4E. For the USN, the primary role of F-4 Phantom II was fleet air defense, i.e. shooting down hordes of Soviet bombers at long range before they could launch anti-ship missiles. For this, the important factors were powerful radar and long range (for its period) air-to-air missile armament. A gun armament was much less useful because in order to use it, the F-4 would have to take time to close the Soviet bomber and maneuver to bring it into gun range, time during which the Soviet bomber (or other Soviet bombers in the attacking formation) could launch the anti-ship missile. So there was no way the USN would accept a less powerful radar to get an internal cannon.

I don't know if the long nose of the F-4E was a problem in carrier landings, but it certainly presented problems once it was on board. Carrier flight decks and hangars are very limited in space, so there is a definite need for carrier aircraft to take up as little space as possible. This was even more of a factor with the smaller British carrier, and the F-4K had to have a folding nose radome and radar in order to fit onto the flight deck elevator of HMS Ark Royal. Given where the nose fold fell on the F-4K, I don't think the F-4E could have fitted the British elevator; it looks like the fold line will fall across the M61A1.

Hojutsuka