The F4 is a terrible fighter, to heavy and unmaneuverable. They didn't put guns on them until they starting losing a lot of them in air combat. It was outclassed by Migs.
Close. Outclassed as a blanket statement is not quite fair or accurate: While lacking in turn RATE, it outclassed the migs in other areas such as climb/dive rate and of course much better missile armaments. Bottom line, don't get in a low altitude turning fight with Mig 17s, 19s or even 21s, unless you know WTF u are doing. Once we remembered how to FIGHT and not just intercept, our kills ratios were significantly higher than Migs. Yes, TRAINING was a big component. The Navy F-4s NEVER got a gun whilst the USAF F4-E variant and follow-ons did.
Overall it was a SUPERB airframe and an especially good fighter-bomber, outclassed is a bit of a stretch.
I think the air-to-air missiles of that era also let the F4 down as well..
I suspect the early kill ratio would have been a lot better had those things gone bang when/where they were supposed too!
Just the AIM-7s. Pete, DISMAL kill ratio of about 7%. The AIM-9 though, was a sure killer.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
