Talk:F-4 Phantom II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	F-4 Phantom II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result February 6, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 23, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 1, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Additional information: Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Name 2 Rewrite 3 Split up/expansion? 4 Editting Conflict 5 Service ceiling? 6 General Note on F-4 and other fighter performance 7 Bent Tail of the F-4... 8 Use of the F-4 by Israel 9 RF-4E and RF-4EJ 10 Operation Bolo 11 Vietnam War Aces 12 Lead-in section 13 Question about non-US service section 14 Sandia's F-4 15 Phantoms in non-US service images-RAAF F-4Es 16 [citation needed] 17 Widely believed but incorrect 18 A bit of kindness

[edit] Name

The article states that it was known as "simply "F-4 Phantom" after 1990." Is this an official name change, or does it state an arbitrary date where the popular name changed?

Nobody today remembers the FH Phantom, so the "II" is probably unnecessary - Mmartins

Nonetheless, there was never an official name change AFAIK. Emt147 21:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, no official name change. The original McDonnell Phantom was a Navy aircraft produced by the same company, so making the distinction is still valid. Guapovia 12:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Glad someone agrees. :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Some nicknames used in the German Luftwaffe are "Eisensau" (iron sow), "Fliegender Ziegelstein" (flying brick) and "Luftverteidigungsdiesel" (air defence diesel), all referring to both its durability and (lack of) maneuverability. They are slowly being phased out of service as of 2005 to be gradually replaced with the Eurofighter Typhoon.

[edit] Rewrite

IMHO this article needs expanding and formatting help. Unless someone has major objections or other ideas, I'll do it this weekend. First goal is reformat to fit WP:Air guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content, then it will be easier to expand without having to rewrite entire paragraphs.

And "double ugly" is not a B-52 reference. It describes either the dihedral wings with anhedral tail or the crew. Or both. :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There, 'tis done. The article still needs expansion, particularly the details of Vietnam and Gulf War activities. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 09:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Emt! I like it! Keep it up! Guapovia 08:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split up/expansion?

Two issues:

1. The article is getting huge. Should we split off the variants into a separate article?
2. The Phantom is very well documented so the info can keep on coming forever. I don't think this article needs to be the definitive Phantom reference but more operational history and cool tidbits would be nice. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 08:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Per lack of responses to the above, I have split the Phantom variants into a separate article, F-4 Phantom II variants, to make the main page more manageable. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editting Conflict

I attempted to change a link category heading from "Comparable Aircraft" to "Contemporary Aircraft" because the aircraft cited were single-engine single-seaters and the F-4 was neither. In doing so I was unaware someone else was editting at the same moment and my changes deleted the section. I'm not certain how to restore, but the links were to the F-8 Crusader and the Mig-19 and Mig-21. My apologies. Buckboard 12:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Your edits broke the template output. The "similar aircraft" line is a parameter fed into the template. When you changed its name, you made a new parameter the template did not recognize and thus that whole section got lost. The output is coded into the template.
2. These are comparable aicraft because they were Phantom contemporaries with similar roles (air superiority) and performance (and besides, MiG-19 had two engines). That's the the whole idea of the "comparable aircraft" sub-section. Phantom contemporaries include such sky burners as the Cessna O-2 -- does that belong in the list then? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 16:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually IMHO there are short-comings to either term (and Comparable Contemporaries is a bit cumbersome, eh?). Fighter purists would argue the comparability point, esp. the idea that the Phantom was an air superiority fighter (local over the fleet, maybe, but otherwise, much more the fighter-bomber). Was unaware that the Mig-19 had two engines--I'm sure they caught hell from Mig-21 drivers over it, the way P-38 and all other twin-engine a/c caught it from the single-engine community. I reported this to restore the previous section. Buckboard 19:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Just read the project page guidelines and understand "comparable" as used here. Buckboard 20:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate.

MiG-19, MiG-21 and F-8 are of similar role, era, and capability as the Phantom (sort of, Phantom's radar was above and beyond anything else available at the time). What's your point? Regardlness, the line "Comparable aircraft" is written into the template (per the page content guidelines) so changing the template parameter in the F-4 document will only break the template output. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Service ceiling?

The service ceiling is listed as 60,000 feet. "Service ceiling" is defined as the altitude at which an aircraft can sustain no more than a 50 FPM climb. Earlier in the article, it is noted that the Phantom held a sustained altitude record of over 66,000 feet, and set a time-to-30,000-meters record. During the record climb, it gained its last 5,000 meters of altitude (about 15,000 feet) in about 2.5 minutes, which by my figuring is a ROC of about 6,000 FPM, well over the 50 FPM required for a service ceiling.

I realise the altitude records involved some zoom-climbing (don't know how much), but I think the 60,000-foot service ceiling number is at *minimum* 6,000 feet or so on the low side. Is there any more data out there to further define the true service ceiling of the Phantom? Where did the 60,000-foot number come from in the first place?--chris.lawson 06:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Per definition of service ceiling, it is 100 fpm at max continuous power, which I presume means non-afterburning power. My reference is listed in the specs (Green's "Great Book of Fighters"). I have seen 70,000 (extremely dubious) and 62,250 (Joe Baugher) as well. If you have a quality source, you are welcome to update the specs so long as you cite your references. A maximum sustained altitude is not the same as a service ceiling. Climb rate is extremely non-linear and may well utilize some zoom climbing. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, you're right about the 100 FPM. Woops. :) I hadn't considered afterburning as a factor there, which probably accounts for the difference. I know max sustained altitude and service ceiling aren't the same thing, but the fact that there were so *many* altitudes so far above the quoted service ceiling is what caught my attention.--chris.lawson 04:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

All the 100,000 ft altitudes are zoom climbs with the engines off. The general technique is described in the text under Project High Jump. The advantage of the SR-71 was that it could cruise at the superhigh altitudes -- Soviets and Americans had to employ zoom climb tactics to try and intercept it. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually an early F4 achieved a sustained altitude of nearly 100,000 feet in the early record-setting attempts. I have a book that documents those records the Phantom set soon after it was introduced, but unfortunately it's in storage at the moment. The service ceiling, of course, was nothing like 100,000 feet; I believe the earlier mentioned figure of around 60,000 feet is approximately correct. --Molon Labe 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Note on F-4 and other fighter performance

I hope people here realize that the performance statistics cited for fighter planes typically assume clean configuration (that is, unencumbered by bombs or even a full missile load) and a relatively pristine aircraft (ie new condition). Take a Phantom that has seen a combat tour, has gotten dents, some minor battle damage, is carrying things on the hardpoints, and you won't get 1,600 mph out of it. You'd be lucky to get 1,000. Plus, the fighter's top speed and service ceilings are almost irrelevant to combat duty anyway, as most dogfighting takes place at middle to lower altitudes and speeds that are right around or below Mach 1 (and in planes with T-W ratios lower than unity, the dogfighting pilots end up at lower altitudes as they bleed off energy trying to getin each other's six o'clock). This is especially true when your only truly effective weapon is an early rear-aspect Sidewinder.

How would you suggest this aspect of the F-4's (or any plane's) performance be discussed?

06:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)raryel

[edit] Bent Tail of the F-4...

One subject that has not been covered is the purpose behind the downward-bent horiziontal tail section. Hopefully the explanation will be included soon by a knowlegeable enthusiast.

To quote the article, The all-moving tailplane was given 23° of anhedral to improve control at high angles of attack and clear the engine exhaust. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the point about control at high angles of attack sounds correct, but the bit about clearing the engine exhaust can't be right. The tail surfaces are bent downward, toward the exhaust. The tailplanes clear the exhaust because they are mounted on what is essentially a tail boom above the exhaust nozzles, just as in the Phantom's predecessor, the McDonnell F3H Demon. --Molon Labe 04:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the F-4 by Israel

The article states that the F-4's use by Israel was discontinued in May 12, 2006. However, it is known that the Kurnas 2000 (introduced 1989), which uses an F-4 airframe, is currently in use [1]. This information should be included, as it doesn't seem quite as usage of the F-4 has been completely discontinued. - MSTCrow 10:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RF-4E and RF-4EJ

The point of recognizing RF-4E and RF-4EJ simply is the existence of the M61 (under a nose). See this picture. Left and center are RF-4E and right is RF-4EJ.

• RF-4E
• RF-4EJ

--add signature--Open-box 11:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was wrong. --BillCJ 16:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RF-4EJs do not have cameras in nose. They carry reconnaissance pods (,and sometimes ELINT pods) with dog fight capabilities remained. I310342 06:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Bolo

Operation Bolo. If you guys want to read an article about a great F-4 victory over Vietnam take a look at Operation Bolo Tu-49 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit] Vietnam War Aces

"During the Vietnam War, the USAF and the USN each, had one pilot and RIO become ace's by shooting down 5 or more enemy aircraft in air to air combat."

WRONG!

First, the USAF had one pilot and two backseaters become aces. Second, Air Force backseaters are called WSOs (pronounced "whizzo") which stands for Weapons Systems Officer, and not RIOs. And third, the plural of ace is "aces", not "ace's"!

Lyle F. Padilla (lpadilla@voicenet.com), Former F-4E WSO. 209.158.189.60 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I have read of the Phantom's history in books, articles and a Discovery channel program on Top Gun, a couple of the most spectacular kills by the Phantom in Vietnam were not made by aces at all. If I recall correctly, Jerry Boulliet was in the charter class of Top Gun. After the 1970 stand-down, he ran into 3 MiG-17 jets, and, using the Egg Manuever taught at Top Gun, shot down two MiGs in quick succession. On his third loop around, the third MiG pilot ejected rather than risk being killed. Of course, one consequence of this dogfight was that Top Gun really proved its worth.

By contrast, Duke Cunningham, a Top Gun grad and later an instructor, did not engage "Colonel Toon" optimally (ie not using the vertical effectively) at the beginning of the dogfight. When he did climb, the MiG pilot surprised him by climbing as well, something a Phantom pilot would not expect a MiG-17 driver to do. They were canopy to canopy at one point. As they engaged in rolling scissors, Cunningham realized that the MiG-17 pilot had, at one point, lost sight of him, and he slowed up, allowing the MiG to slide ahead of him. His Sidewinder was just barely inside its acquisition envelope and shot down the MiG. I have in storage a diagram of the dogfight...some dogfight scenes in the 1986 movie were no doubt adapted from this...

By the way, why are edits rejected automatically? I type additional content, save it to the page, and when I come back it is not retained. user 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Raryel

This is because they are removed. Most of these edits pertain more to the pilot than the plane. So I suggest you put them in the pilot's page, as they are more significant to that page.--LWF 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with LWF. This is a general article that is already quite long without stuffing it with anecdotes and trivia. Second, don't compromise your credibility by citing the Discovery Channel or the History Channel as a source -- both have a long and rich tradition of feeding incorrect information. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• The place for those type details is the pilot's and WSO's articles (Duke Cunningham and William P. Driscoll), not the F-4's. -Fnlayson 04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, thanks for the reply.

First, the material on Cunningham's dogfight victory isn't trivia - it's actually a very important event in the history of the F-4 as a fighter, and of course was part of what led to Cunningham's ace status. Second, the material I wrote was designed in fit in context with the history of Cunningham's day - and it actually fits better here than it does on the biography page. Third, I didn't rely primarily on the History channel or Discovery to describe the event - Cunningham himself described it many times.

Fourth, the description of Top Gun tactics taught to F-4 pilots should be familiar to anyone with more than a passing interest in the subject, as presumably you are because you edited this page. The use of the vertical dimension is important to any pilot flying an aircraft with superior t-w ratio but inferior turning ability. For example, an F-104 can eat a MiG-19 for breakfast by climbing, looping and diving. Discovery had a program on Top Gun and they actually got that part dead right - so if you had dismissed that particular show as fluff, you'd be wrong.

I'm relatively new to the wiki thing, but I would guess that removing material without telling authors why (or posting it on a change board) is rude. I happen to think that your removing my material from the article was not appropriate purely on the content and context, but that's a separate issue. I certainly would not edit an article and carve sections out of it without discussing it first (though I have made grammatical and sentence structure edits and corrected a spelling mistake or two). Do you think we could show each other that courtesy? 68.165.47.187 06:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)raryel

[edit] Lead-in section

The content from the Overview section got moved to the Lead in making that very long, at to me. WP:LEAD says the lead should be concise and no longer than 3-4 paragraphs. What do you think? -Fnlayson 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead section was developed specifically in response to comments from the FAC review. It is a long article and so it needs a more extensive summary section. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about non-US service section

I notice that the Collings Foundation's aircraft is listed in the "Non-US Service" section. Does this imply that "US Service" means only US Military? If so, does this mean that other N-registered F-4s should be mentioned in this section, or should there be a separate section for civilian-registered aircraft? Akradecki 04:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like that mean non-US miltary service with the preceding sections US Navy, USMC, & USAF. -Fnlayson 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think a civilian or non-military section for Collings would be better. It just looks out of place near Australia and Egypt. -Fnlayson 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can put together, then. I was specifically thinking of the F-4s that were civilian N-registered and used by AVTEL Services and Flight Systems, one of which was painted in completely civvie colors, too. Akradecki 05:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I moved the Collings Foundation info to a new 'Civilian usage' section. That seems like a better fit to me. If anyone has a better idea, change it. -Fnlayson 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Looks good. I've got a pic of the CF plane, plus other N-registered F-4s, and will try to get that info up when I get home this afternoon. Akradecki 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Wouldn't the CF plane photo be better positioned next to the mention of aces Steve Ritchie and Chuck DeBellevue? The CF plane markings are a reproduction of the plane that these aces flew during Vietnam, including the 5 red stars denoting aerial victories. Jacobst 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandia's F-4

(copied from my Talk page)

I agree with what you said in your edit summary about it not being a civilian usage. In fact, it wasn't flown at all, so that makes it harder to claim as "civilian" (seems like the minimum standard for that would be N-registry). Sandia used a gutted airframe mounted to a rocket sled on rails for the test, so it really should be moved elsewhere in the article...suggestions as to where? As for the fact tag, there's a video of the test (and it's quite impressive) on the Sandia website. Will add a ref for this. Akradecki 23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I put this on the main F-4 Talk page so that other editors could comment too. I can't think of a particularly good place in the article for it, and frankly, if all they used was a gutted airframe, does that really count as being an F-4 any more?--chris.lawson 12:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phantoms in non-US service images-RAAF F-4Es

I have some scans of original MDD publicity photos of RAAF 'Peace Reef' Phantoms if you care to use them. Just let me know and I can decrease the size for you.

Cheers,

Adam.

[[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [5]Adam1983 09:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ^{[citation needed]}

After editing and footnoting the F-86 article I worked on the T-34 article (another FA) I've added some ^{[citation needed]} at the end of paragraphs (to limit the amount of reader disruption). These paragraphs make statements without supporting inline citation. Currently articles are being upgraded to a more comprehensive standard than before. If you need help with the citation please let me know and I will bail in and help with them. Tirronan 15:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a 2nd opinion on this link, Chuck Yeager is talking about the F-4 stability or more precisely the lack thereof and its tendency to spin. It might be a nice referrence [[6]] Tirronan 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Widely believed but incorrect

A QI-style bellringer that just got cited at me...

"The F-4's biggest weakness, as it was initially designed, was its lack of an internal cannon."

Sorry, but that just is not so. Dig into the actual statistics - Marshal Michel III's book "Clashes" makes an excellent starting point - and you find the curious fact that in 1972, USAF Phantoms - either gun-armed F-4Es or F-4Ds with the option of a podded Vulcan cannon - shot down 48 NVAF MiGs for 24 air-to-air losses.

Meanwhile USN F-4Js that not only had no internal gun, but no gun pods either (sometimes used for strafing ground targets, not carried for air-to-air work, no MiG kills claimed) shot down 24 MiGs for only four losses to enemy aircraft.

It's a complicated story and Michel tells it best; suffice it to say that not only did the F-4 not need an internal cannon to beat the enemy, it was three times as successful gunless as gunned. There's more to the tale than that, but the "gunless Phantom" was made scapegoat for a lot of other problems despite its demonstrated success.

Jrwlynch 23:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Navy was working its side of the Sparrow program difficulties much harder than the Air Force was and the results were showing. Bad ammo can lead to bad results just ask the British Grand Fleet at Jutland. Tirronan 23:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First, the SUU pods did not provide a sufficiently rigid mount for accurate air-to-air gunnery. Second, the guns vs. missiles statistics do not tell the whole story. Missiles are easier to aim and I suspect that given the choice between getting a Sidewinder lock and figuring out deflection, most pilots would use the missiles first. The exact same phenomenon was seen with the "last gunfighter" F-8. In contrast, the F-105 rarely carried AAMs and scored most of its kills with cannon. Kill ratios are also deceiving, as Navy flew predominantly fighter escort missions while USAF engaged in a lot of air-to-ground combat which means suboptimal configurations for air-air engagements due to bombs, fuel, etc. Regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, every modern fighter since the Phantom was designed with an internal cannon. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Its worse than that, the SUU pod equipped F-4 didn't have a lead computing gun sight so you get an vibrating unstable gunmount with an inaccurate sight. Tirronan 00:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of kindness

Shall we try and show a bit of kindness to editors here? If they are new lets be a bit kinder to them? Whatever you might think the F-105 saw heavy use in the campaign Rolling Thunder (I think that is correct my books are at the house right now) and I think that is what Taffy was trying to say. I get irritated too but this article isn't personal property and we need not act like it is. A bit of encouragement and some sources the guy might use can get us further than snapping at them with personal comments. Tirronan 15:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Taffy's not that new. He has been adding comments like this in other articles, namely the F-105 Thunderchief. There is a lengthy discussion with him on the talk page. If you haven't seen it yet, it's quite intersting (especially his source!). EMT was more civil than I would have been, which I why I didn't revert it when I first saw it. EMT is fully capable of defending himself (I've been on the receiving end of his retorts a few times too!), but I just wanted to give you a chance to read up on the history of the matter before he responded himself. I would agree with you that we should show kindness to everyone, but after finding out the AFD-nazis were exempt from that, I don't care anymore :) - BillCJ 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my limit on kindness is one per user per problem. I addressed this issue with Taffy several times now. He a) hasn't bothered to reply and b) continues to add the same inane inaccurate stuff from that horrid Dogfights TV show. I believe my kindness is all used up. No one argues that the Thud was used in Vietnam -- go and read Taffy's addition again, he claims it was used in air combat until the Phantom came along. This is what we call "wrong". And pardon me if I act protective of this article -- it is predominantly my rewrite from scratch and I don't want hours of hard work to be ruined by the uneducated and the illiterate (see B-36 for an example of what happens to an FA-quality article that is left unattended for a while). Sure, Taffy has as much right as anyone else to edit any Wikipedia article. And I have as much right as anyone else to revert him. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement "bore the brunt of air combat," is rather deceptive. It is true that the F-105 did not do well in air combat and many shoot downs resulted from this, but the statement Taffy inserted makes it seem as if the F-105 participated in large amounts of air-to-air combat; which is patently untrue. In fact the F-105 avoid air combat if at all possible. As a matter of fact, I saw a declassified brief on the F-105 given to its pilots, and its main point was "don't get in a dogfight," instead it stressed use of the F-105's speed advantage to escape from attacking MiGs.--LWF 01:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah that is ok then, I had one guy on the T-36 article I'd slaved over who didn't speak english all that well wanting to add ^{[citation needed]}s all over the introduction and everwhere else. He then decided his grammer was superior to the natives when that didn't go he then started eliminating sections he didn't think were fit to include... in an FA article he couldn't have writen to that standard if I had done it for him... You are talking about the same history channel that had the Battle of Waterloo without a single Prussian on the field? Sorry about that I thought the guy was a 1st timer that mispoke himself.Tirronan 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Uhm, I know this is a typo, because no one has written the T-36 article yet. (It was a Beech design, but not built.) Did you perhaps mean T-38, or B-36? I'd genuinely like to look at the article, those edits sound like very "interesting" reading! I edit some aircraft pages frequented by non-English native speakers, and it might help. Oh, was he one of those who changes "aircraft" to "aircrafts"? - BillCJ 01:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

T-34 I put in about 40 in line citations and I am still working on a few thing. The thing made FA then ever troll in town decided it wasn't good enough. One hero dumped a ton of facts on it never to be seen again, (and wouldn't know a tank if I fed him to the tread) and on it went. Its all there a lot of it archived. Tirronan 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No one would willingly take an F-105 laden with an extra fuel tank in the bomb bay and ordinance on the wings into a dogfight. You could make an arguement that one wouldn't have a 105 in a dogfight if it could be avoided in the 1st place. That wasn't its mission. I think the only statement that could be made is that it held the brunt of the bomber role for the USAF in the rolling thunder campaign to my knowledge and they stopped using it when there were not that many left and converted over to F-4's for the strike fighter role. Tirronan 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

and I hate trolls... Tirronan 01:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole F-105 discussion is irrelevant -- this is an article about the F-4. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Taffy made it relevant when he inserted that statement on the F-105 into this article. We're discussing why the statement shouldn't be here. Yes, we don't need to flesh out the whole argument all over again, but how can we say why it shouldn't be here without discussing it a little? You're beginning to sound like me on an AFD discussion page :) - BillCJ 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah no worries EMT is working on his social skills.Tirronan 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)