My uncle flew for the JASDF from 1970 to 1998 and he flew the F-4EJ until the F-15 replaced it in his unit. I can remember at age 5 my parents took me to Iruma AFB for an Airshow and my uncle was the flight commander presenting the Airshow. Funny years later i married a soldier and life has been wonderful.
@@mattg5978Really? I am old (76) and say “beast” all the time. Oh, and I maintained Phantom Tacans for the Navy as an AT aboard the USS Constellation, which was a whale of a beast itself. 😊
@@mattg5978 Okay, Matt. That is an unusual take on modern English lexicology. Dictionaries like Merriam-Webster follow trends in word usage and annually add words to their contents once those enter common usage. It is probably dumb that they didn’t check with you before including “beast” with a new non-animal definition specifically, “something formidably difficult to control or deal with.” You’re welcome. Out.
When I was a kid the F-15s and F-4s. Would dogfight right over my grandmother's house. I would watch in amazement. My family used to say a jet aircraft would stop me in my tracks. I just couldn't believe a person was making something flying through the air and do the things they do.
When i was a kid i made several models of phantoms...nowdays still fixem in Greek airforce...i tell you guys...this thing can stand everything....a great machine..LOVE IT
Of all the worlds machines, this, the Phantom II is in my personal top 3. Proportions are just right, big, bad, mighty and intimidating. Just such a nice shape and all.
I couldn't agree more. Just something about the shape of that thing makes it look so beautiful and yet ominous. I fly RC planes -- including jets -- and an F-4 Phantom is definitely on my bucket list.
A Anhedral and dihedral sloped wing is the term you're looking for, not canted, and the rear flight surfaces that hang down at a 23° angle, they're called stabilators, not stabilizers. FYI....
Don't you know it. The History Channel has gone the way of MTV, whose programming has little to do with its original intent. I don't get cable/satellite, so I can't speak about the Military channel.
The Phantom was ahead of it’s time. The early use of this aircraft did not do it justice. The modern upgraded version of the Phantom is an impressive aircraft. The Greeks are still flying the F-4E, now equipped with the same radar and avionics of the F-18.
F-4 Phantom. The Fighter all other modern jet fighters are compared to, Can they do what the F-4 did operationly,.... and the marine corp use the Phanton in the close air support role to name just one of the many it did well.
The most feared fighter jet bomber on the planet.it had dominated the skies throughout it's carrier.a true warrior in its history.surprisingly it is still in service with six countries in the world.hope,there could be a revival of this aircraft in the near future.goodluck to the F4 Phantom.
5000 of them. Had no idea the numbers were that high. It took two of us to replace the F/C/P ICS Box. Why? The square tube containing the internal boarding ladder was right in front of the box. So, a double 90 degree bend in the thick wiring in a very short distance. We'd use a wooden stick to shift the wire bundle around. You could get the box a little above the console rail. The person in the cockpit would stand on the box and push down from the open canopy. The person on the boarding ladder would lock in two dzues fasteners-on a diagonal-to anchor the box. The person inside could then lock in the last two. On top of the backbone (panel 48) was the upper UHF antenna. Fuels couldn't be bothered to disconnect the antenna and stripped it off the connecting cable. This happened so often (not following tech data) the USAF had a stencil by the antenna telling the person to disconnect the antenna before removing the panel. The UHF radio removed from a phase aircraft had to go back in. The guy that installed it couldn't get it to work. So, I went out there and applied power. Yep, no workie. The radio was on an interface mount that plugged into the aircraft. Pulled the whole thing out and felt back there. @$%@#$%#$%#$% Someone covered the female end of the connector in the metal foil from a candy bar. Removed the foil, plugged it all in and it worked fine.
Fantastic introduction & informative documentary coverage video about F-4 Phantom II 👻 👽........previous designed Phantom appeared its supremacy during the 60th & 70th years of the last century in the Middle East & Vietnam 🇻🇳 conflicts... thanks, (Mike Guardia) channel ..for sharing this thrilled documentary that focuses on its components & components functions that provides superiority of USA 🇺🇸 Aviation techniques capabilities around the world
Remember, Just like the F-104. The Phantoms were forced into roles it was never initially designed for......The Phantoms were bear/Mig killers....
6 месяцев назад
The CF 105 Arrow development was approximately 12. months Ahead of the F4 imagine the superplane we would have had if these 2 groups had pooled their resources??? To ad insult to injury the cancelation of the CF105 meant that the RCAF wanted the F4 as it's replacement but due to the huge costs of the Arrow program there wasn't any extra money in the budget due to the high unit cost of the phantom so Canada had to settle for F101s ,F104s and manufacturing F5 freedom fighters and starfighters in Montreal instead.....
The truth about Vietnam and the phantoms was the Powers to be forced the phantoms to Dogfight on every encounter because they needed visual Identification, however the phantoms missiles would fail about 90% of the time and pilots was not trained to Dogfight due to the BVR ONLY Doctrine of that time. However when you had WWII pilots who knew how to Dogfight they became ACEs with the phantoms during Vietnam. And Dan Pedersen the founder of Top Gun and the other Top Gun trained pilots actually took the ratio from a 2:1 to 24:1 with the phantoms by the end of Vietnam. However you will never hear about this new ratio that was achieved after the Ault report showing the problem was with poor training combined with poor missiles because it puts the blame not on the phantoms capability but on the Top Brass Fighter Doctrine during Vietnam !
I've read on each mission, in the early days, 50% were lost on each sortie, as they were flying at tree top level; until they developed new tactics. It wasn't until this one pilot's obituary that we learned he had gotten a Silver Star. He was the Wizzo (guy in back) and the front of the aircraft took a missile hit losing the canopy. The pilot was slumped over in the rain. The Wizzo took the aircraft over the sea and was about to punch out when he saw the pilot move. The nearest airfield was a Marine base. He radioed ahead and the airfield was prepared and he landed in the rain. The pilot survived. No idea what his injuries were.
Every squadron had at least three k-ball birds (used for parts) and the hangars were never empty with phase inspections. All models were not designed for ease of maintenance, and you couldn't work on one in a chem warfare suit. The F-15 fixed all that.
6 месяцев назад
I saw the F4 and T38 thunderbird shows they were pretty cool to watch
Someone came in from Germany into the other wing and clued us in. This was at the Dawn of ESD. You had to use the static mat with the TACAN but only had to handle the edges of things for Have-Quick. For a time we were having more problems with the mock-up radio control box. Once we had the missing information tidbit, no more problems. The other wing had the Luftwaffe. American markings and maintenance personnel. The German's decided to up-grade their radio system so I set up the upgraded unit on their flight line. A short time later the other wing decided to upgrade their system so sat in on a few of their TCTO (time compliance tech orders) meetings.
Meh, persistent myth. Look at Vietnam kill statistics. Only a couple were with guns, even including the F-8. If pilots had been trained in air to air combat and in the launch parameters of their missiles, it would have been even better. Guns didn't make a big difference.
@@Mishn0 nothing I said was incorrect-our air to air missiles needed improvement (and have been since Nam) and Vietnam taught the Air Force, Navy, etc that every fighter jet should have a cannon backup in case a dog fight ends up happening. What about these facts, that our own military agrees with, is confusing to you? The cannon is the only issue today that might nit be needed, but we still include it on most all modern fighter jets because the US military realizes that pilots are going to run into situations they cannot predict. Even the smaller F-35 version had a cannon pod attachment if needed because… again… we learned from the F-4 in Nam on why cannons are always needed. Again-what do you not understand about this issue? Even our own military had written extensively about this very topic.
@@ttrestle Look at the actual air to air kill statistics. The military may "want" a gun, but the statistics prove that they don't "need" a gun. Even the famous A-10 only scored a fraction of its tank kills with a gun, most of them were with Mavericks. What don't you understand about actual objective statistics?
@@Mishn0 Those statistics don't count the number of times a Phantom could have shot down a MiG, if it had had a gun when its missiles failed, or to continue fighting (rather than retreating) if it was out of missiles. I don't really know how much of a difference it would have made; I'm just saying that statistics don't necessarily tell the whole story.
@@RB-bd5tz Look at the statistics of just the Crusader, then. It always had guns and all but one of their kills was with missiles. A second kill was damaged by the missile and then finished off with the guns. What I'm saying is that the poor kill/loss ratio at the beginning of the war wasn't the missile's fault, it was training and improper tactics. Once that was fixed the kill ratio between Phantoms and MiGs went from barely 1:1 to 5 or 6 to 1, and they still didn't have any guns. You can "if" all you want, but it doesn't change that. The weight and space used by the gun and ammo would be better spent on two more missiles.
The narrator has an interesting accent, a sort of “Mid Atlantic” accent used by actors during the 1940’s and up until the mid 1950’s…ie Grace Kelly and Cary Grant.
a pretty good war plane in its era, however, eventually DONE! then, came the best fighter in this world. the F 15 EAGLE , what else is there to say!! history in its glory . god bless the F15 , and America, for OUR FREEDOM!!
An amazing piece of aircraft engineering for its time. Too bad it's missiles couldn't hit the side of a barn door from ten feet away. And too bad they didn't give it a gun
USAF E’s had guns, but this only marginally improved the kill ratio in that service. Navy F-4’s didn’t add a gun, but instead responded to rolling thunder by increasing crew training standards and creating TOPGUN. The Navy’s kill ratio climbed while Airforce F4’s lagged behind, solid proof that the lack of a gun was not the problem. In fact, gun kills remained far behind AIM-9 and AIM-7 for the course of the war.
The largest reasons for missile underperformance were outdated and ineffective maintenance procedures, rules of engagement that prevented the Sparrow from operating at anywhere near it’s maximum range, and flight crews’ operator errors.
Are you sure this documentary is from *1987* ? I`ve watched it almost halfway through, and I have yet to see the first F-14. Having been introduced to the Navy in 1961, the F-4 Phantom was an old hat by 1978, let alone 1987 - not to mention that by 1987, the F-4`s replacement aboard the carriers had long been completed.
I remember the Royal Australian Air Force leased 24 phantoms for 2 years whilst waiting for F111 delivery. From what I understand the RAAF pilots absolutely loved the Phantom
Having been on the near receiving end of an 10 gun run I could barely make out my rsm screaming scatter and managed to jump onto a landy and the rest of the platoon bomb burst away from the wadi but apart from that I can attest to some pilots getting gun happy in airframes totally unsuitable close air support
too bad the audio clip of the engine spooling is reused over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in some scenes
Say what you will about the F 4 but it truly was not a good ground support weapon in Vietnam. The F 4 pilots could not see our opposition in the field at all. It was good for blowing up train stations, roades and such, but no real help to us infantry needing air support. We did not have the A 10 Warthog in Nam but it would have been a true game changer. But we did have a good number of other aircraft that supported us and the best was an old world war II propeller driven airplane, it could hang around for almost two hours keeping our enemy away long enough for us to succeed at our little missions, it was called a "SANDY" it was the A1 Sky Raider, and that one saved us many a time. I saw a lot of hype here for the F 4, so I had to comment. I myself saw 5 F 4s shot down.
Do you really know what you are talking about? I flew over 300 missions and I have seen the bad guys up close many times, so don’t tell me we couldn’t see them. We got the grunts out jams many times. The F-4 did a great job as close air support
