Is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter the New F-4?

Real Clear Defense ^ | September 3, 2014 | Michael Peck

[C19fan]

The jet fighter can’t maneuver, the critics say. It’s based on a wrongheaded concept. It relies on unproved technologies. It’s a one-size-fits-all jet for the Air Force, Navy and Marines, and yet it doesn't really meet any of their needs.

Is this Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter I’m describing? No, it’s actually the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, the ubiquitous fighter-bomber, reconnaissance and radar-hunting aircraft that formed the backbone of U.S., NATO and Israeli air power in the 1960s and 1970s. More than 50 years later, the Phantom still flies, as evident when Syrian gunners downed a Turkish RF-4 recon plane last year.

While the Phantom still has many fans, it also had quite a few detractors. And many of those complaints are eerily similar to the criticisms now aimed at the Joint Strike Fighter. Is the F-4 a guide to what we can expect from the F-35?

[Busko]

The F-4 Phantom was a work horse for a long time. Early Eighties it carried the NATO Flag in Germany. While we had the older bird it out worked the 15 and the 16.

[Jacquerie]

Way too many Naval Aviators got smoked in peacetime ops flying the Phantosaurus off of carriers.

[NorthMountain]

F-4 Phantom: Objective proof that if you put enough engine on a brick, it can go supersonic ...

And yeah, one of my favorite aircraft:

[skinkinthegrass]

(iirc) Wasn’t Burt Rutan (design genius) asked to “help” w/the elevators, on that flyin’ Brick? ..he solved the problem.

[tanknetter]

The F-35 is really more of a stealthy A-7 than F-4.

[GBA]

Has any new plane gotten a warm review or have the critics beaten on each and every new design that came along as an overpriced, and probably dangerous, failure?

The planes we love today got about the same treatment the F-35 gets now. Remember the F-22? The V-22? "SSDD" Different airplane, but the same story, same criticisms. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.

The critics who hated the F-15, F-16, F-17 >> F/A-18 when they were prototypes under trial now love them and, of course, now hate the F-35 and think more F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s are the answer.

Decade after decade, design after design, it's the same old, same old.

[artichokegrower]

Saw the Blue Angles at El Toro MCAS when the flew the F4s’. Lots of smoke and noise.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NvGesCDMqSU

[CPOSharky]

It’s a one-size-fits-all jet for the Air Force, Navy and Marines, and yet it doesn't really meet any of their needs.

And the last time they tried a tri-service fighter it worked out so well...

[SampleMan]

The F-4 was not a great fighter plane. It was a good fighter-attack aircraft and a good interceptor.

That said, it would have had a much better record as a fighter, if the AIM-7 Sparrow missile wasn’t such a POS during the Vietnam war. The failings of that missile made most encounters a knife fight, where the MiG 17s and 19s were allowed to maximize their strengths.

[IronJack]

I heard that same sentiment expressed as “If you put a big enough engine on it, you can make a piano fly.”

[NorthMountain]

The F-35 has yet to prove itself, one way or the other. The "Left" seems determined to destroy it before it has the opportunity.

In addition to the aircraft you cite, the "Left" was determined to destroy the M-1 Abrams. I think they were conclusively proven wrong a little over 20 years ago.

[rdcbn]

The F-35 is a much more capable aircraft than it’s detractors give it credit for.

[rdcbn]

The F-35 is really more of a stealthy A-7 than F-4.

---

Amazingly, the F-35 is more like a replacement for the Grumman A-6 - the F-35 has a much higher weapons load than the A-7.

Both the A-6 and F-35 have similar weapons loads, on the order of 18000 lbs.

[ExTxMarine]

F-4 Phantom: Objective proof that if you put enough engine on a brick, it can go supersonic...

Obviously the F-4 was designed like the early American muscle cars. I imagine the car engineers having a discussion that ended something like this, "Aerodynamics? F@#K aerodynamics! I am going to make this box car weighing 5000 pounds do 200MPH! WATCH!"

Absolutely LOVE the F-4!

[rdcbn]

In addition to the aircraft you cite, the “Left” was determined to destroy the M-1 Abrams. I think they were conclusively proven wrong a little over 20 years ago.

---

The left tried to destroy the M-1 Tank, the Abrams Fighting Vehicle, the F-16, the F-15 and the especially the A-10 which was much feared by their friends in the Soviet Union.

They pretty much succeeded with the F-22 and now they are making a pass at the F-35.

[mad_as_he$$]

The F-4’s and the BUFF’s came from the factory coal powered.

[GBA]

The F-35 has yet to prove itself, one way or the other. The "Left" seems determined to destroy it before it has the opportunity.

My guess is that it has proved quite a bit about itself already with the prototypes and first production planes now in service, which is one of the main reasons the progressives need to kill it, usually by driving up its price tag however possible, same as with the M-1, etc.

Their goals and tactics don't change, only the new generation of people those things work on is what changes.

Reagan's warning should always be heeded. The other side figured that out.
They took Reagan seriously. We took him for granted.

[KarlInOhio]

The F-4 was designed to turn jet fuel into sound. Flight was an unexpected but ultimately useful side effect.

[NorthMountain]

The Left seems hellbent on destroying our military. They view the Army as a camping trip for faggots, rather than an effective force for defending our interests around the world.