Military Review

F-4 Phantom. Veteran still plowing the sky

52
F-4 Phantom. Veteran still plowing the sky

On June 29, the German Air Force said goodbye to the last F-4 Phantom 2, in the military aviation There were 263 aircraft of this type in the country, combat vehicles served as reconnaissance, fighter-bombers and air defense fighters for 41 years, Strategy Page 26 July reports.


The withdrawal of the German Phantoms is part of a growing global trend. In 2010, the South Korean Air Force pulled the last "Phantom" out of 222 units out of service. Outdated aircraft (plus F-5 light fighters) were replaced by 40 F-15K and 180 F-16 fighter-bombers.

But not all countries are ready to abandon the F-4. In the 1970-ies, Iran purchased 225 aircraft of this type, currently operating several dozen "Phantoms". Iranians get spare parts for them through a smuggling network, some less complex components and components are produced in Iran. Some countries continue to use the F-4, as this aircraft is still quite effective for striking ground targets.

A total of 5195 machines of this type were manufactured, of which almost 8% continue to be part of the military aviation of the countries of the world, the US Air Force converted approximately 100 "Phantoms" into unmanned targets. In the 1950s, the F-4 concept was very progressive. A double fighter-bomber with an 28 t take-off mass could carry 8 tons of combat load in the form of bombs and missiles. The normal combat radius is 700 km, the average flight duration is about 2 hours.

The F-4 was also one of the first jets to fly safely. The reliability of combat aircraft from a decade to a decade only increases, despite the increasing complexity of design and equipment. For example, at the beginning of the 1950-s, the American F-89 jet fighter had an 383 accident rate on the 100 thousand flight times. F-4 in 1990-s had a level of only 5 crashes on 100 thousand hours. Modern "Phantom" Russian fighter MiG-21 / 23 / 27 had an accident rate in 10-20 times higher. Double "Phantom" was popular among the pilots, was one of the few aircraft, widely represented on aircraft carriers. The aircraft has been modernized many times (electronics and weapon) and for many years remained an efficient and competitive fighting vehicle. The modern "Phantoms" are already 53 of the year, probably the last of them will go to history at the age of 60 years.
Originator:
http://www.militaryparitet.com/
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. il grand casino
    il grand casino 30 July 2013 11: 10 New
    +5
    Good cars, why not upgrade
    1. Argon
      Argon 30 July 2013 12: 34 New
      10
      The article in general, complete nonsense, not some specifics, is constantly compared to heavy and wet. And about the "trends" what have they attracted to? About the accident rate is not a good notion, given that in the mid-90s these MiGs did not fly in erephy and did not receive spare parts abroad. in general, the news is nothing! -bold minus.
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 30 July 2013 13: 01 New
        +2
        I agree, although there is something in it, as a proof of the theory that a stool will fly with the corresponding engines.
        Well, or as the users themselves said - They stepped on his nose and gave a kick in the ass.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 30 July 2013 14: 12 New
          +6
          Americans seem to be laughing - those who do not know how to make engines are engaged in aerodynamics laughing
          1. Corsair
            Corsair 30 July 2013 14: 41 New
            -5
            Quote: cdrt
            Americans seem to be laughing - those who do not know how to make engines are engaged in aerodynamics

            Here is the "zakovyka" that amers have neither one nor the other request
            1. Vovka levka
              Vovka levka 30 July 2013 14: 53 New
              21
              Quote: Corsair
              Quote: cdrt
              Americans seem to be laughing - those who do not know how to make engines are engaged in aerodynamics

              Here is the "zakovyka" that amers have neither one nor the other request

              A bold statement, let's say so patriotic, but stupid.
              1. Corsair
                Corsair 30 July 2013 15: 10 New
                +4
                Quote: Vovka Levka
                A bold statement, let's say so patriotic, but stupid.

                And in which part, I dare to ask you?
                "Outstanding aerodynamics" F117 or in economical and low-noise, but usually suffering from LOW-THRUST engines?
                The aerodynamics of the Su27 and MiG29 families are head and shoulders above almost all modern aircraft, the same Yankees add up legends about the thrust of our "engines" ...
                1. Vovka levka
                  Vovka levka 30 July 2013 15: 56 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Corsair

                  And in which part, I dare to ask you?
                  "Outstanding aerodynamics" F117 or in economical and low-noise, but usually suffering from LOW-THRUST engines?
                  The aerodynamics of the Su27 and MiG29 families are head and shoulders above almost all modern aircraft, the same Yankees add up legends about the thrust of our "engines" ...

                  F117 was made inconspicuous, and only then they taught him to fly electronically. And as for the legends, hunters still do not compose such fables.
                2. svp67
                  svp67 31 July 2013 01: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: Corsair
                  The aerodynamics of the Su27 and MiG29 families are head and shoulders above almost all modern aircraft, the same Yankees add up legends about the thrust of our "engines" ...
                  That's just why the Yankees carry more "harmful load" ...
        2. Pharao7766
          Pharao7766 30 July 2013 14: 15 New
          +5
          Was in the spring of this year in South Korea, just in the midst of a boil with northerners.
          And with my own eyes I saw a "Phantom" in the sky in a standard army paint.
          So as they say conclusions do it yourself ... hi
        3. Vovka levka
          Vovka levka 30 July 2013 14: 51 New
          +1
          Quote: lelikas
          I agree, although there is something in it, as a proof of the theory that a stool will fly with the corresponding engines.
          Well, or as the users themselves said - They stepped on his nose and gave a kick in the ass.

          From the Phantom we copied the engine. But the drying was not very good, the electronics are dreary.
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 30 July 2013 16: 50 New
            +1
            Quote: Vovka Levka
            From the Phantom we copied the engine.

            Coca engine - what is the brand name?
            1. phantom359
              phantom359 30 July 2013 22: 44 New
              -2
              Quote: Rus2012
              Quote: Vovka Levka
              From the Phantom we copied the engine.

              Coca engine - what is the brand name?

              J79 Based on it made AL21.
              1. Rus2012
                Rus2012 30 July 2013 23: 03 New
                +7
                Quote: phantom359
                J79 Based on it made AL21.

                Yes?! But I don’t remember this ...
                Compare the incomparable -
                AL-21 (89 product) - A single-circuit single-shaft turbojet engine with a third-generation afterburner developed under the guidance of General Designer A. M. Lyulka.
                The engine consists of:
                axial 14-stage compressor(10 guide vanes with rotary blades (1 inlet apparatus, 4 first stages and 5 last))
                straight-through tubular-annular combustion chamber
                3's Stage Turbine

                Weight and size characteristics
                Weight: ≈1800 kg
                dry weight 1580 kg
                Length: 5340 mm
                Diameter: 1030 mm
                Performance Characteristics
                Thrust: 7800 kgf
                Afterburner Thrust: 11215 kgf
                Turbine temperature: up to 1097 [1] ° C
                Air consumption: up to 104 kg / s
                Specific thrust: ≈6,5 kgf / kg
                specific fuel consumption - 1.86 and 0.86 kg (kgf * h)

                The J79-GE-17 engine has an adjustable straightener (first six steps) and 17-stage compressor, combustion chamber with 10 fire tubes, 3-stage turbine, adjustable nozzle, afterburner with an adjustable degree of thrust boost.

                Afterburner engine thrust, kgf 8090
                Engine thrust in full throttle, kgf 5400
                Specific fuel consumption (afterburner), (kg / h) / kgf 1,965
                Air Consumption kg / s 77
                13,5 full pressure boost
                Overall dimensions, mm
                993 diameter
                5301 length
                Dry weight of the engine, kg 1750
                Air temperature in front of the turbine, C ° 654

                And about studying engines from downed ones - and who does not study them?
                As you know, the first mass-produced car is bought by a competing company and disassembled into cogs ... :)))

                Therefore, dear colleague, we don’t need to reduce our aircraft designers to the plinth, okay?
                1. phantom359
                  phantom359 31 July 2013 11: 05 New
                  0
                  Have you read carefully? I wrote based on it, not copied. These are different things. I explain on the fingers - they brought, studied and took all the best.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 30 July 2013 16: 49 New
        +2
        Quote: Argon
        not some specifics, the heavy is constantly being compared with the wet. And about the "trends", what have they attracted to? About the accident rate is not a good notion


        ... actually the article is one-sided. Well, to hell with him. Only if they were on their Yankov site, there would be no questions.
        And so it is better - "MiG-21 against" Phantom "
        http://topwar.ru/1201-mig-21-protiv-fantoma.html
        or
        http://topwar.ru/28272-mig-21-protiv-f-4-phantom.html

        the confrontation between the MiG-21 and the F-4 Phantom in the sky of Vietnam ended in the defeat of the American machine: F-4 fighters during the period of operations from 1966 to 1972 managed to shoot down only 54 MiG-21 aircraft, during which time the MiG-21 fighters destroyed 103 -4 Phantom. It should be borne in mind that F-4 cost American taxpayers an amount several times higher than the cost of one MiG-21 (in comparable prices).
        Still closer to the topic :)
    2. self-propelled
      self-propelled 30 July 2013 22: 25 New
      +6
      Quote: il grand casino
      Good cars, why not upgrade

      his sworn enemy is still flying (and modernizing)
      MiG-21-93

      or Israeli modernization option
      MIG-21 2000

      but actually a good car has a long life
    3. Suhov
      Suhov 31 July 2013 07: 03 New
      0
      Quote: il grand casino
      Good cars, why not upgrade

      Modernization of the F-4 "Phantom":
      bringing the headache to phantom!
      wassat
    4. T-100
      T-100 31 July 2013 16: 54 New
      +1
      Phantom plowed everything, and Mig-21 plowed, plowed and will plow !!!
  2. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 30 July 2013 11: 15 New
    10
    Our 21 MiGs are also in some places still in service, in China they also modernized
    1. Constantine
      Constantine 30 July 2013 12: 45 New
      +5
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      Our 21 MiGs are also in some places still in service, in China they also modernized


      This is true, but the American aircraft is glorified in this article, and our aircraft must receive, albeit a small, dose of feces per wing. At first it was thought that there was a review article, as it was yesterday about the Tu-134, and then a populist leaflet smile
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 30 July 2013 13: 24 New
        +9
        Quote: Constantine
        as it was yesterday about the Tu-134, and then the populist flyer

        Quote: Constantine
        and our planes should receive, albeit a small, but a dose of feces per wing

        Yes, you, Konstantin, are full of tragedies to do with the fact that most of the participants did not accept your rosy point of view on the account of the Pogosyanovsky miracle of aviation technology. So, he did not earn the trust of the really thinking part of the site participants. Yes, and hardly ever deserve ...
        And "Phantom" is a successful car. He proved it, and proved it repeatedly ... As for the material itself, it is really rather weak. But this is the author's own fault ... And the plane has nothing to do with it. Even if he is American ...
        1. Constantine
          Constantine 30 July 2013 13: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: Chicot 1
          Yes, you, Konstantin, are full of tragedies to do with the fact that most of the participants did not accept your rosy point of view on the account of the Pogosyanovsky miracle of aviation technology. So, he did not earn the trust of the really thinking part of the site participants. Yes, and hardly ever deserve ...
          And "Phantom" is a successful car. He proved it, and proved it repeatedly ... As for the material itself, it is really rather weak. But this is the author's own fault ... And the plane has nothing to do with it. Even if he is American ...


          And here is my point of view and an excellent article about the Tu-134? Your algorithm of thinking is strange.

          It feels like you are reading my comments, but you see there only what you want to see, and not what is written there.

          As for this:
          Yes, you, Konstantin, are full of tragedies to do with the fact that most of the participants did not accept your rosy point of view on the account of the Pogosyanovsky miracle of aviation technology.


          I somehow somehow accepted, or not accepted. Only time and history will judge us, and these minuses do not matter. fellow
          1. Chicot 1
            Chicot 1 30 July 2013 14: 04 New
            +5
            Quote: Constantine
            Your algorithm of thinking is strange

            Analog, not digital ... lol
            Quote: Constantine
            Only time and history will judge us

            Yes, in general, it has already judged. Air carriers are somehow in no hurry to acquire the Poghosyan miracle and prefer to make do with imported second-hand and the remaining fleet of the Soviet Aeroflot. That's the whole story ... wink
            1. Constantine
              Constantine 30 July 2013 14: 09 New
              0
              What are you talking about? An interesting point of view, and if you back it up with facts, then we'll talk wink
              1. Chicot 1
                Chicot 1 30 July 2013 14: 20 New
                +3
                Quote: Constantine
                and if you back it up with facts, then we'll talk

                It will be enough just one fact - "Super-Jet" (belonging to the class of short-haul) is more expensive than Tu-214SM (medium-haul liner). Do you still have a desire to "talk"? ..
                1. Constantine
                  Constantine 30 July 2013 14: 49 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Chicot 1
                  It will be enough just one fact - "Super-Jet" (belonging to the class of short-haul) is more expensive than Tu-214SM (medium-haul liner). Do you still have a desire to "talk"? ..


                  What should I talk with you if the arguments are childish, and the crowd of followers immediately minus me? smile I do not mind, but other adherents build their opinions based on the pros and cons, which is unfortunate. smile

                  It was not about Tu-214SM, but about Tu-334. This time. You somehow kept silent about after-sales service and operating costs, and they play no less role than the initial price wink

                  In general and as a whole, you seem to be on the same topic, starting to jump from side to side. It’s like saying smart things, but somehow your thoughts are not connected. It may be interesting for someone to have a dialogue like this, but I have no desire. Sorry. hi
                  1. Constantine
                    Constantine 30 July 2013 15: 11 New
                    -1
                    2 Chicot

                    That's actually what was required to prove, all my comments are red for no apparent reason wink Sense to me to enter into a discussion, in such a situation? I'd rather write a review article on my blog and post it. It will be both more complete and more useful than an exchange of arguments taken out of context. hi
                    1. Chicot 1
                      Chicot 1 30 July 2013 15: 42 New
                      0
                      Quote: Constantine
                      That's actually what was required to prove

                      Yes, in fact, you have not proved anything ...
                      Quote: Constantine
                      all my comments are red for no apparent reason

                      Not so they are "red". A total of "-1". This is so - pink ...
                      Quote: Constantine
                      I’d better write a review article on my blog and post

                      And you apparently consider this site unworthy of such material? ..

                      However, good luck in this endeavor. This is entirely your own business, Konstantin ...
                  2. Chicot 1
                    Chicot 1 30 July 2013 15: 34 New
                    0
                    Quote: Constantine
                    What should I talk with you if the arguments are childish

                    Do you consider the difference (the cost of Tu-204SM * and "Super-Jet") in 100 million rubles a "childish" argument? .. Maybe for you it is not money, but air carriers apparently think differently ...
                    Quote: Constantine
                    the crowd of followers immediately minus me

                    Adepts, stop minus Konstantin !!! ...
                    Quote: Constantine
                    but other adherents base their opinions on the pros and cons

                    You deny the participants (whom you call only "adepts") in their own opinion ...
                    Quote: Constantine

                    It was not about Tu-214SM, but about Tu-334. This time

                    Yes indeed. But you didn’t think that the price for the Tu-334 would be lower than for the Tu-204SM *, and even less so than the “Super-Jet”? .. Like, too, “this time” ...
                    Quote: Constantine
                    You somehow kept silent about after-sales service and operating costs, and they play no less role than the initial price

                    And actually we did not start a conversation about it. It's like "two" ...
                    But since we have touched on this topic, it would be logical to assume that a more expensive car will cost more in the course of further operation, but not vice versa. And the "Super-Jet" is expensive ...
                    Quote: Constantine
                    In general and as a whole, you seem to be on the same topic, starting to jump from side to side. It’s like saying smart things, but somehow your thoughts are not connected. It might be interesting for someone to have a dialogue like that, but I have no desire

                    Technically so. And quite politely ... Or maybe there is simply nothing more to say, eh, Konstantin? ..
                    Quote: Constantine
                    Sorry

                    Not at all ... Be healthy, Konstantin ...

                    *I apologize to the participants - in the comment for 14:20 it was not Tu-214CM, but Tu-204CM that was meant. In this comment, I correct my mistake ...
                    1. Pharao7766
                      Pharao7766 30 July 2013 16: 16 New
                      +3
                      Chicot 1 and Constantine ...
                      If you may ... The main negative aspect in the Super Jet for me is its filling, the overwhelming percentage of which is of foreign manufacture. And therefore this project can be called Russian with a stretch.
                      If possible, enlighten on the number of imported (non-CIS countries) completing in Tupolev machines.
                      hi
                      1. Chicot 1
                        Chicot 1 30 July 2013 18: 01 New
                        +2
                        Good day, Maxim ... hi
                        In the absence of an opponent who voluntarily leaves, it is unsuitable to respond to your comment kag-be. Do not blame me. But...
                        I’ll ask you only one question, Maxim - if there are more Russian components than imports in the Ukrainian An-148 (oriented to the Russian market), then what do you think their ratio will be in the Russian (and oriented to the Russian market initially!) -204/214? .. The same situation with the Tu-334 ...
                        And you draw your own conclusions ... Regards ... wink
                      2. Pharao7766
                        Pharao7766 31 July 2013 10: 02 New
                        +2
                        Vasily, good day to you too hi
                        The answer to the question is clear, thanks for that. yes

                        The maniacal support of the SJ-100, which consists of a bunch of expensive imported components with the support of foreign workforce, instead of the native Russian manufacturer, remains unclear. Talk about orienting the SJ100 to the export market is blatant crap for the simple reason that no one will sell it there, and there is no huge demand.
                      3. Chicot 1
                        Chicot 1 2 August 2013 16: 08 New
                        +2
                        Good day, Maxim! hi My answer is of course more than belated ...

                        Quote: Pharao7766
                        The maniacal support of the SJ-100, which consists of a bunch of expensive imported components with the support of foreign workforce, instead of the native Russian manufacturer, remains unclear. Talk about orienting the SJ100 to the export market is blatant crap for the simple reason that no one will sell it there, and there is no huge demand.

                        Everything is absolutely true. good And so much so that I’ll even have the audacity to quote an opponent who voluntarily leaves -
                        Quote: Constantine
                        That's actually what was required to prove
  3. Ezhaak
    Ezhaak 30 July 2013 19: 40 New
    +2
    Quote: Constantine
    and here is the populist flyer

    I don’t understand for what reason the people of the spear are breaking! Here is the address of the original article http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20130726.aspx This shows that the article is for its rams and cowboys (shepherds).
    1. Constantine
      Constantine 31 July 2013 00: 28 New
      0
      Quote: Hedgehog
      I don’t understand for what reason the people of the spear are breaking! Here is the address of the original article http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20130726.aspx This shows that the article is for its rams and cowboys (shepherds).


      I don’t break it) I just expressed my opinion about the article, however, suddenly, the discussion of the article was transferred to another plane wassat Well, there it happened already hi
  • Edward72
    Edward72 30 July 2013 11: 41 New
    +4
    Our old men, the same Su-17 developments of the early 60s, are still in service in some countries
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 30 July 2013 11: 44 New
    10
    UNIVERSAL SOLDIER

    Interceptor
    Bombers
    Attack aircraft and direct support aircraft
    Radar Hunter (F-4G Wild Weasel)
    Naval and Marine Corps carrier-based bomber fighter
    Tactical Scout (RF-4B, C and E)
    Drone QF-4

    Records:
    Operation SAGEBURNER, 28 August 1961 g. - achieved speed 1452 km / h in a supersonic cast on PMV (flight altitude 125 feet - approx. 40 meters)

    Operation SKYBURNER, December 22 1961 - world speed record, 1606 mph (2585 km / h)

    Operation HIGH JUMP, 1962, - climb and altitude records, climb 3000 m (34 seconds), max. achieved height - 30 000 meters (371 seconds)
    1. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 30 July 2013 13: 14 New
      +8
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      UNIVERSAL SOLDIER

      Successful aircraft live long ...

      Oboin in the subject ... "Phantom" in person ... Although, how can I not remember the words:
      "I'm running on scorched earth,
      face mask slamming on the go.
      My "Phantom" ...
      1. baltika-18
        baltika-18 30 July 2013 13: 31 New
        +6
        Quote: Chicot 1
        Oboin in the subject ... "Phantom" in person ... Although, how can I not remember the words:
        "I'm running on scorched earth,
        face mask slamming on the go.
        My "Phantom" ...

        To be continued .....
        ".... in the clear sky I clearly heard,
        Kohl I'll cover the "Phantom", beat Ivan I'll cover the tail,
        These aces are only relatives of Russians ..... "
        1. Chicot 1
          Chicot 1 30 July 2013 14: 09 New
          11
          Quote: baltika-18
          To be continued .....

          And the finale ... And Texas there or Alabama with Utah and Kansas, it doesn’t matter of principle anymore ...
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 30 July 2013 16: 57 New
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Records:

      A colleague, for justice, would not hurt to mention - when and on what siJ records are updated ...
  • creak
    creak 30 July 2013 12: 34 New
    +7
    I had a chance to see them in action in the Middle East - a worthy enemy. But as they said in the old days: "The enemy is strong - the greater is our glory."
  • 3030
    3030 30 July 2013 12: 36 New
    +1
    Goodbye winged democratizer!
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 30 July 2013 14: 17 New
      +5
      Goodbye winged democratizer!

      The democratizer is rather the F-16 (war of the 1990s).
      This one is a winged fighter against communism. laughing
  • AleksUkr
    AleksUkr 30 July 2013 12: 39 New
    +5
    Phantoms are good, but MIGs are better.
    From the Vietnamese Chronicle:

    "The rivalry between MiGs and" Phantoms "in the Vietnamese sky ended in general with the defeat of the American machine: F-4 fighters during the entire period of hostilities from 1966 to 1972 managed to shoot down 54 MiG-21 aircraft, during the same period the" twenty first "destroyed 103" Phantom. "In addition, the loss of one American aircraft, as a rule, resulted in the death or capture of two crew members. In addition, the Phantom cost American taxpayers several times the cost of one MiG-21."
  • alone
    alone 30 July 2013 12: 46 New
    10
    Well, each plane has its pros and cons. the same instant-21 that inscribed legends is permissible in Vietnam, when, like the same instant, the 21st in the hands of Indian pilots suffered accidents and crashes. the human factor has a significant role. in the hands of an incompetent pilot, even a su-35 can become a bucket
  • Evgeniy46
    Evgeniy46 30 July 2013 13: 20 New
    +2
    the author forgot to mention that there were much more MiGs released and they were operated and are being operated in places where the Phantom crashes after takeoff
  • captain
    captain 30 July 2013 13: 47 New
    +4
    I wonder why they don’t write about our planes so sincerely.
    1. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 30 July 2013 14: 25 New
      +2
      Quote: captain
      why don't they write so mentally about our planes?

      They write. You just need to search the material on the pages of the site ...
  • Bort radist
    Bort radist 30 July 2013 15: 28 New
    +2
    There was the most recognizable silhouette, in the rank of possible opponents, in the tail.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 30 July 2013 15: 51 New
      0
      Quote: Bort Radist
      There was the most recognizable silhouette, in the rank of possible opponents, in the tail.

      Because of the characteristic shape of the airframe, the amers called Phantom"twice ugly"
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 30 July 2013 18: 33 New
        0
        Quote: Corsair
        Due to the characteristic shape of the glider, the amers called the Phantom "twice ugly"

        "Minus" to the commentary I attribute to the AMERICOS who assign SUCH epithets to their planes ...
  • Vlad_Mir
    Vlad_Mir 30 July 2013 16: 22 New
    +3
    Phantom is a classic of the genre. One can argue about the merits or demerits, but such a long "life" of the aircraft clearly shows who is right.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 30 July 2013 16: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: Vlad_Mir
      Phantom is a classic of the genre.

      Dear colleague, let's clarify - "BATTLE classic of the genre", on it Yusei - did not find fame ... rather the opposite!
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 30 July 2013 16: 48 New
    +3
    Phantoms are still in service
    Iranian Air Force
    Turkish Air Force
    South Korean Air Force, it is not entirely clear why the author of the article brought them out of there.
    Greek Air Force
    Air Force of Japan
    Egyptian Air Force
  • alal
    alal 30 July 2013 18: 23 New
    0
    Quote: Vovka Levka
    Quote: lelikas
    I agree, although there is something in it, as a proof of the theory that a stool will fly with the corresponding engines.
    Well, or as the users themselves said - They stepped on his nose and gave a kick in the ass.

    From the Phantom we copied the engine. But the drying was not very good, the electronics are dreary.

    Ayayayay ... it’s unpretentious. Somehow you expose Russians to suckers, but how the hell is American? Are they the suckers?
  • 3 inches.
    3 inches. 30 July 2013 20: 32 New
    +3
    srach arranged. and the article is essentially about that the plane-era is leaving. who is not cooler or who is thicker, but just will not have it in the sky soon. but he was a worthy adversary. than. pay tribute to the veteran — he served honestly.
  • Mista_dj
    Mista_dj 30 July 2013 22: 05 New
    +4
    Nonsense, not an article!
    And the numbers about the accident rate of MIGs are generally a lie!
    Ftopku karoch!
  • phantom359
    phantom359 30 July 2013 22: 51 New
    0
    A good aircraft for its time, but the author went too far about reliability. This is where he got that MiG accident rate was 10 times higher? And does not say a word about that. that he pulled out of a corkscrew very hard. And the fact that he reacted very inhibited to the movements of the RUS. That even well-trained pilots crashed because of this feature. And finally, the fact that in Vietnam he had a good old MiG17.
  • vip.da78
    vip.da78 31 July 2013 00: 51 New
    +1
    Well done Germans! Squeeze all of the technology, they have M113 and M125 still in the service. Only our officials and I can sell aircraft carriers at the price of scrap metal ...
  • Corsair
    Corsair 31 July 2013 05: 46 New
    -2
    The title of the article:
    F-4 Phantom. Veteran still plowing the sky

    To be precise ...smokes the sky.