F-4C Deep Dive: The Overlooked Early Phantom Was 1965's Best Air-To-Air Fighter 

FUN TRIVIA: The original USAF designation for the F-4C was the F-110 'Spectre'. Then came MacNamara and his Whiz Kids... FROM my reading back in the '70s, a lot of the missile problems were because they were originally intended for intercepts with little maneuvering, as well as the heat and humidity of SE Asia. Maintenance in austere settings didn't help, either. My brother-in-law served as an F-4 navigator, circa 1970. He never saw combat, though he spent a year at Clark AFB, then finished out his active duty in England. While he was not a rated pilot, he got plenty of stick time so his front seater could catch naps.

"If the delta dart was a finely crafted rapier, then the phantom is a baseball bat with nails in it, being swung with surprising finess by some dude whos nickname is probably something friendly..like knuckles."

It was my father’s squadron that scored those first kills: the 45th Tactical Fighter Squadron/15th Tactical Fighter Wing flying out of Ubon, Thailand. They were the first Air Force Phantom squadron to deploy to Southeast Asia in April, 1965. The pilots were Tom Roberts and RC Anderson, and Ken Holcombe and Arthur Clark. Sadly, the 45th would end that month with another first: the first loss of an aircraft to a Surface to Air (SAM) missile when Richard Keirns and Ross Fobair were shot down outside of Hanoi. Keirns , who was a 47thTFS pilot flying an orientation mission ahead of the 47th taking over from the 45th, would become a POW - for the second time after having his B-17 shot down by the Germans in WWII - and would spend 8 years in North Vietnam prisons. Fobair, flying his last mission before rotating home, was killed outright. His remains were repatriated in 2001. This shoot down led to the creation of the Wild Weasels to go after and kill the SAMs. As for the level of readiness of the crews for air combat, you are correct. Very little time was spent on the skills that would keep them alive in Vietnam. In the year prior to deploying to Thailand the 45th was still practicing “toss bombing” in preparation for delivering nuclear weapons on Soviet targets. The Squadron lost its first two members on the range at Avon Park, Florida practicing this “over the shoulder} delivery method. After my father returned from Thailand and transitioned into the front seat of the Phantom, one of the requirements before going back to Vietnam was that they had to fire a missile. The story related to me by one of my father’s squadron mates about this process was fairly comical. The flights went out over the Gulf of Mexico, each aircraft with a pod of folding fin rockets under one wing. The aircraft, in turn, would pitch up, fire a rocket, which was to be the target, acquire a missile lock, and fire. The rockets however had a different plan. Jet after jet went through this process and jet after jet failed to get a lock on the rockets. They’d dutifully cycle around to try it again. My father’s turn came, and when he fired his rocket it went out a couple hundred yards and then broke straight down towards the water. It was at this point that my father exploited a technicality: they had to fire missile, but no one ever said they had to hit anything with it. With that, he rolled the jet inverted, pulled the nose down into the vertical, chased the rocket down in the clouds and fired his missile. By the time the rest of the flight landed after a long, frustrating day, he was already back in uniform ready to head to the club. To this day no one knows whether he hit anything! With that he was fully qualified to take on the best of the VPAF. It is amazing that, between the degradation of dogfighting skills, and the ludicrous rules of engagement - which led directly to the loss of Keirns and Fobair - that we didn’t lose many more than we did. It’s a testament to the skills of the men who had to make it up on the fly, so to speak.

Great video, thank you. The F-4C also had reflector gunsight, but it was not lead computing, it could be depressed for A2G. The reason I am mentioning this is that fitting a gun pod to an F-4C would have been hampered by a lack of an LCOS (Lead Computing Optical Sight). The F-4D, on the other hand, did have an LCOS and that would assist the pilot when there was a SUU-23 pod fitted.

I once talked to an F-4 pilot who worked with my dad at the White House. He said: "The first time flying the Phantom, I lit up the afterburners, and for the first five seconds, I was scared to death. After those five seconds, I flew it for another 12 years...and I never got enough of it!"

Hi. Asa a former Weapons Control System technician, just think ...the air intercept radar system in the F4C WAS ALL TUBES!!! No digital circuitry!!

You are providing a fantastic introduction to the REAL history of the air combat of the 1950-1960s. Fascinating!

I joined the air Force in November of 1966. I went to Lowrey AFB to Weapons Mechanic training. At Eglin AFB I worked on weapons load crews that had F4D's. We loaded AIM 4 Falcon training missiles on the Phamtoms. Our load crew even made a training movie. In Thailand with the F4E's we always loaded Sidewinders and Sparrows for Mig CAP missions along with CBUand 620 20 MM cannon shells for the gun, but.we never loaded napalm or Falcon missles when I was there in 68-69 at Korat RTAFB.

Prior to the 1962 Tri-service aircraft designation system, the F-4 was known as the F4H-1 Phantom II for the Navy and Marines, and as the F-110A Spectre for the Air Force.

The production F-4C never had the IR system installed at the factory. That was only installed in the F-4B. The thing about having a tone on Sidewinder back in ancient days was it telling you the missile had sensed a heat source, so it was probably working it wasn't a launch command. You still had to use your noggin to determine if you were in the ever-changing launch envelope and then fire.

The 106 was a completely different deal than the F-4 Phantom. The 106 was an interceptor rather than a fighter. I was in 2 F-4 Phantom squadrons aboard ship. They came back with holes everywhere & parts dangling. A pretty tough bird. Damn glad we had them.

Agree with the narrator that there’s scant info in modern published print on how the US aircraft’s infrared seekers functioned. Books I’ve read on the Convair Deltas imply that the seeker was directly slaved to their IR Falcon missiles launch computer (no need for the missiles own seeker head to attain a lock?) but clearly that’s not the case with the F4s Sidewinders as narrated in the storyline. Did switching to the Falcon for the F4D restore this missing capability? If so that would contradict the narration here that the F4D didn’t have the IR Seeker fitted but retained the bulbous fairing. Additionally, if the Seeker was ineffective, why did ADC F4s and F106s carry it right up until the mid ‘80s some 20yrs down the line? If anybody has personal experience from back in the day or can reference some reliable-source information, I’d be grateful

To read hundereds of pages of "Red Baron report" is a labor in itself but this one is particularly interesting, where the #4 performs a vertical energy maneouver already

F-4E and the Japanese F-4EJ Kai were the ultimate evolution of the F-4 family, where both finally unleashed the full potential of the intended design, because both of those have internal guns, reliable missiles and better radar, which were all absent in the earlier models.

The "fuel tank" being moved around at 14:24 is an SUU-16 external gun pod.

I was always amazed by the F4's bomb load, until I saw one parked next to a B17, at an air show. Damn thing is bigger than a B17 !

Great Summary. My father was a GIB in the Satan's Angels at Ubon in 68. He was involved in a landing accident and survived. The Phantom was beast.

Before the F4 Phantom came on the scene, wasn't the F8U Crusader a swept wing, extremely capable air superiority fighter?

The main problem with the early Sidewinder wasn't that it was unreliable or just a bad missile overall, but that its sensor (like that of the Falcon) could only reliably lock on to very hot targets, meaning effectively it could only be used as a rear aspect missile. Not a problem when used against slow lumbering bombers, but when used as a dogfight missile in a head on engagement like Blue flight found itself in, it makes for a very low hit probability. WHEN and IF one hit though, the results were good and a single hit more often than not would bring down a MiG.

Very nice job. I have watched many of your videos over the last couple weeks. I enjoy the detail and the non biased approach. Look forward to many more!

One of the most beautiful fighters ever

I have thought for years that pilots inexperienced with the missiles they were employing, constantly shot out of parameters. Resulting in a lower PK for AA missiles in Vietnam. That being said, when your life is at risk you will definitely take some "Please God let this Hit!" shots.

I can't begin to imagine the Six being carrier-borne. Double ugly is a no-brainer and went on to prove it. Excellent storytelling and entertaining! (PS, I really love the Six!!!)

I am shocked they got rid of the gun until they had a missile that could handle high-g, all-aspect ACM. If I had to choose back then I would have preferred to fly the F-8. I would love to see you compare/contrast the F-4 and the F-8.

The problem for the F-106 was its weapons. Designed as an all-weather medium range bomber interceptor, it was armed with an AIR-2 Genie and AIM-4 Falcons. Like the F-4B/C/D, it had no integral gun(s). The F-106's flight envelope in fighter combat was very similar to that of the Mirage IIIC/CJ of the same period. Despite its greater weight, its power-weight ratio was superior to the Mirage, giving better climb and turn rate. With its delta wing, like the Mirage III and the MiG-21, the F-106 bled energy quickly in a tight turn, but it had more energy to bleed. But the Falcons, both semi-active and IR homing, were designed to kill Soviet bombers, large, non-maneuvering targets that needed an impact warhead, which is why the Falcon did not have a proximity warhead like the Sidewinder. The Sidewinder had similar guidance performance, a proximity warhead and slightly superior maneuverability. The F-4B had Sidewinders and initially the USAF put Falcons on its F-4Cs, but quickly dropped them for Sidewinders. In addition, the Sparrow was larger, but more powerful than the SAH Falcon. Both missiles were designed to kill bombers at BVR missions. Their supporting radars were very similar in performance. The Sparrow, however, had growth potential, even compared to the AIM-26 Super Falcons which later armed the F-106. Finally, the extra pair of eyes of the RIO in the F-4 gave it an edge in close, visual combat. Moreover, the F-4 was a multi-role fighter, where the F-106 was a dedicated interceptor designed for a mission, the defense of NORAD from Soviet bombers that had turned out to be over-estimated, which resulted in the cancellation of the Arrow, the F-108 and the procurement of the F-106 cut by 50%. The alternate history is an F-106 designed for more than bomber interceptions, armed with Sparrows and Sidewinders and sporting a gun. Later mock combat with F-4Es showed the F-106 with the Vulcan in place of the AIR-2 to be dependent on pilot experience and capability. However, the F-106 was developed as a contemporary of the F-4 at a time when the USAF and USN did their best to avoid using the other's weapons, electronics and engines on the (supposedly) notion that a full mobilization would find the USAF and USN not competing with each other for resources.

Excellent video, the F-4 is my fav fighter of all time. Love learning about her.

The F8F Bearcat had a short front line carrer with the Navy, it was quickly withdrawn as the first jet powered naval fighters entered service, and no Spitfires ever shot down enemy jet fighters in WW-2, but they did shoot down numerous V-1 buzz bombs, however. The Corsair, and Sea Fury each shot down one MiG-15 during the Korean War.

The early USAF Phantom crews did not have dedicated weapons systems operators (WSOs)/navigators. The "guy in back" was another rated pilot, who did not have dedicated skills in navigation or knowledge of the F-4's systems. Crews would sometimes swap seats, between missions. It wasn't until the late 1960s (after 67) that the USAF started training dedicated F-4 WSOs.

EM diagrams in an youtube video? This channel puts itself right up there with Greg's and GS, keep it coming !

The F-4 was the top US fighter when I was born, so I've always loved it. Great video! The scripting and editing were excellent. I know a fair bit about the F-4 (mostly the E and G), yet I learned a lot and had a good time doing it. Thanks!

The F-4C having an arrestor hook led to the USAF developing an emergency landing system which laid wires across a runway that no longer had sufficient length. SInce then almost all USAF tactical aircraft have an arrestor hook.

The F-4 was definitely a better air to ground fighter than the F-106. But in air to air, the F-106 was hamstrung by the shitty Hughes AA missiles. They were suitable for killing bombers, but lacked the agility for engaging fighters. But the F-106 had 2 extra fuel tanks that allowed it to fly supersonic WITH TANKS STILL ON. It could outrun the F-4 and still have fuel when the F-4 was at "bingo". If they had given the F-106 better missiles I think they could have been a decent air superiority fighter. But all the neato avionics and radar systems of the F-4 were just so superior for versatility that the decision to order the F-4 for the Air Force was shown to be a good decision.

Awesome! Looking forward to the future episodes 👍

For context the most experienced pilots in the NVAF flew in the Mig 17 and 19 units, trained by Korean War Soviet aces and veterans,so were highly skilled and motivated in the dogfight.

Great video thank you for posting

Great work!

This is a great channel that deserves more subs. Not many aviation channels on RU-vid go into this sort of detail on historic engagements. Would love to see more in the future!

Another excellent documentary! Thank you

Great vid. Loving the channel ❤

Man every video of yours is just 10/10 keep it up

So, mistakes were committed that were foreseen in this instance, but the crews and planes still succeeded in defending themselves. I guess the key question is, "Did the USAF institute any corrections in training or operations after this fight, or was it business as usual?"

Well done sir

Just excellent commentary, thank you.

Wow man, love ur chanel great videos, pretty cool and not mainstream topics, is a total delight!!

Brilliant presentation.

I love that description, "A baseball bat with nails in it." The F-4 is, from my earliest days as a child, on my list of favorite USAF weapons. It was well suited to it's place at the top of my list, staying there until the mighty, but diminutive by comparison, F-16 took flight.

I always loved this plane, very interesting documentary.

Good video but I disagree with the title. The F-4C, as you mentioned, was held back by the immaturity of it's systems and weapons, on paper it may have been the only BVR capable fighter in the world, but the poor performance of the early sparrow meant that actual BVR engagements would have been a non-starter even if the USAF rules of engagement had allowed for them. Looking at the roster of fighters around in 1965, my choice would be a three way tie between the Mirage III, the F-5A/C, and the J-35 Draken, all three armed with guns, more manoeuvrable than the Phantom, and equipped with the sidewinder.

Great image of Ritchie and Chuck DeBellevue, I’d never seen that one before. DeBellevue was my base commander in Japan. Did USAF F4C have a JFS?

Good video.

11:24 audio narration "employing cartridge start." You're not talking about the use of blank shotgun cartridges, are you? The caption in the video reads "cart", as in cart, as in portable wheeled ground equipment used to start aircraft from an external source. It's that boxy yellow four-wheeled thing with the hose.

More deep dives please!

This particular engagement has similar approach as what the Japanese did using the zero superior power to weight ratio over the wildcats to essential make them stall in the vertical. Only when the Hellcat was introduced was this advantage negated for the zero. It would be interesting to see how the phantom II managed against the mig-19 which still had guns but had more power than the mig-17 but less than the MiG-21.

The fact that the mixed 17 was the fraction of the cost of the Phantom. We should be embarrassed. Kept on sending the wrong plane to do the job instead of losing one person, we would lose 2. The crusader was a better beT

Also - the British invention of the angled flight deck and steam catapult helped a bit - well, rather a LOT actually…

The F4 also beat out the Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III due to political direction of unity in services weapon standardization which was bad ass and some say was better. BTW, one time I was a Navy Reservist on a deployment from NWS China Lake in California. They have a weapons museum there, pretty cool weapon presentation about things like the Sparrow.

Excellent! I haven't seen much out there about the C. May I add as a maintainer in the USAF I worked on the recce version: RF-4C. No weapons on those piggies!

I built a lot of bombs, missiles, and strings of 20mm, and hauled them for the F-4s...great airplane..

I’d like to know more about that automated bombing system. Doubt it was CCIP, was it like LABS or that radar ranging computer thing from the F-86?

You have a bit of high settings on your gate. Increase the decay time or lower the gate dB as it cuts the endings of your sentences. Or raise the sustain time.

You need to do one of these on the F-111.

Did you say you had a link to a Sidewinder training film or something?

I have always loved the F-4 and F-14. Both had their life cut short when both airframes had tremendous room for improvement. The Super tomcat 21 and the Iron Hammer (Israeli modified) F-4 both would have significantly outperformed the Super Hornet and even the F-15E. The F-4 Iron Hammer would have had super cruise ability and much improved range and payload. The US Air Force killed the F-4 updates because they didn’t want to reduce F-16 or F-15 deliveries. The F-14 was killed because of politics.

The F4 was beautiful, a brutal beauty

A very interesting fact is that the Vietnam War's first U.S. Air Force ace, Steve Ritchie, scored all his kills using the much-maligned AIM-7 Sparrow missile. 🤔

I have always loved the F-106 since first seeing them fly out over the Gulf of Mexico from Tyndall AFB to shoot down little red or orange colored drones in the early mid 1970s. It was a beautiful plane! I will concede, albeit grudgingly, the the F-4 was probably a better fighter. This is borne out by the fact that F-4s are still serving frontline units in numerous air forces around the world.

My god that flight lead just hung his second element out to dry

The fake news on the phantom was they weren’t maneuverable but the pilots couldn’t maneuver the F4 due to the BVR only Doctrine. However WWII pilots became ACEs in the phantoms because they knew how to Dogfight and Dan Pedersen the founder of Top Gun and the other Top Gun phantom pilots took the kill rate from 2:1 to 24:1 in the phantoms during Vietnam!

The Sidewinder and Sparrow were like the Falcon were designed slow Bombers on a straight and Level bomber.

Tge delta dart could bee flown and fought from the ground? Can someone explain that to me please? :^

I learned on sim . Bein spun up and bein spun down at the right time.

About that last point I double it by pointing out the F-22 will likly suffer a similar fate having just killed UAPs but also helping prevent WW3 by being that scary of a fighter platform.

Following the F-4C pioneering the USAF deployment, the F-4D was the real game changer in the Vietnam War period.

Bro got personal with that roast ☠️

Beautiful beast.

semper fi,,semper fortis

Eph-Phours Phorever!

The Phantom II. One of the rare occasions in which an American declared they didn't need a gun.

22:42 tfw you have helpful genie knowledge

That is why the US Navy Developed the Top Gun Program/ And the USAF Developed the Fighter Weapons School Program as well as the Red Flag Program. "Scream of Eagles".

👍👍🙌🙌🇺🇲🇺🇲👌👌 thank you thank you

Big problem with the Sparrows was mold growing in the potting compound in the electronics leading to short circuits.

I wonder how much better the us had done if they had decent missiles and a maneuverable platform like the f-16

11:05 184th TFG Kansas Air national guard.

I've always thought he F4 has a certain "F@ck with me, and I'll tear your head off and shit down your neck." look to it. It's as if someone decided the solution to most problems is two really big engines. Apparently they were correct.

Contrary to the title the Phantom isn't a forgotten aircraft but well remembered as being very poorly suited for it's task. The F8 Crusader had something like a 7-1 kill ratio against migs while the Phantom only a 2-1 ratio

Your chart @4:33 OVER - EXAGGERATES the gap between F-9F Cougar and the F-8U Crusader. The F-8U Crusader first flew in 1955 only 2 years after the F-100 Super Sabre. The F8U-1 (later F-8A) day-fighter (318 units) entered service with US Navy in 1957 NOT 1961. The "all weather" F8U-2N (F-8D) entered service in 1960 (152 units) and the upgraded F8U-2NE (F-8E) followed in 1961 with still more powerful J-57-P20A turbojet. The F-8B, C, Ds, Es were all re-manufactured in mid-1960s to become the L, K, H and J respectively. The re-manufactured Crusader squadrons were operated from smaller Modified-Essex Class carriers that the F-4 Phantom was too big to operate from. When the USS Oriskany was withdrawn from active duty in 1976, the last two F-8 squadrons were also withdrawn from frontline service. The Nimitz -class nuclear supercarriers were in production and the F-14A Tomcat was also in full-rate production beginning to replace the F-4 Phantom. The Crusader had served as frontline supersonic naval fighter aircraft for nearly 2 decades. Also, while the Navy was fielding the "all weather" F8U-2 in late 1950s there was also the F5D Skylancer, as well as the F11F-1F "Super Tiger" that were under consideration....all were superior in speed, acceleration to the F-100. The F-100 was kind of a dog when it came to transonic performance, due to lack of area ruling. The F8U "Cheated" with its dorsal wing fairing. And oh btw....the Crusader could wax the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104 and F-105 "Century Series" USAF fighters in air-to-air combat. The F-106 probably would have been formidable fight.

Says best air-to-air fighter is F-4 Phantom, right after showing a slide with the F8U listed. Pretty sure that should generate some discussion..

the F-8 was the best air-to-air fighter. and that's partly why the F-4 was a multirole fighter/interceptor.

If the ROE had allowed BVR engagements then there may not have even been a need for a dogfight.

I mean, the F-4 seemed to be a state of the art winner though wasn’t the F-8 a better close in fighter?

Oh the F-4C got more dangerous when the SUU-23 gun pod came out.

When the RAF and Fleet Air Arm were flying Phantoms the Russians never invaded UK. Nuff said.

"An unorthodox loose deuce" You're just throwing adjectives at the wall. loose Deuce is the ideal tactic for a pair of fighters.

worked on them @ bitburg germany

What gives you the impression that the C model was overlooked?

17:22 Shit Hot…

A modernized F4 could be relevant today

a B-17 could only carry up to 8000 poumds of bombs but only for short distances. ( Of course sending a thouasand planes kind of made up for that.)

its the guy whos driving the jet not the jet,ask any fighter pilot .