During their own service eras, which was the better naval fighter: Phantom or Tomcat?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - During their own service eras, which was the better naval fighter: Phantom or Tomcat? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:26:36 PM EDT

Poll coming.

I think the F-4 was better at more things during the '60s and '70s than the Tomcat was during the '80s and '90s.

What say you?

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:31:46 PM EDT

[#1]

If you define best as "most versatile" then I'm going to officially answer "it depends on what you mean."

The F-14C was a much more well rounded jet than the F-4E. However if you add in the RC-4C and F-4G then I'd go with the Phantom airframe.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:32:55 PM EDT

[#2]

The F4 did it all and just plain looks BAD...!

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:34:34 PM EDT

[#3]

In other words, which of the two was the better all-around and most versatile fighter when flown off the deck of a carrier?

I'm not talking about air force capabilities, just the navy.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:35:45 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
In other words, which of the two was the better all-around and most versatile fighter when flown off the deck of a carrier?

I'm not talking about air force capabilities, just the navy.

I'd probably have to give it to the Tomcat then.

But still, Phantoms Phorever

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:35:56 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Poll coming.

I think the F-4 was better at more things during the '60s and '70s than the Tomcat was during the '80s and '90s.

What say you?

No contest, the F-4 was (so far anyway) the only fighter to be flown by the USAF, USMC, and USN simultaneously. It set many many world records, carried twice the bomb load of a B-17, and shot down a buttload more MIGs than the F-14 ever did. The F-14 was a high priced, overspecialized aircraft, the F-4 was the jack of all trades, much like the modern day (yes he's gonna say it.....) F/A-18E/F Superhornet.

I always liked the Tomcat, but my first aircraft was the F-4G, so what did you expect me to say.

Damn, post 737, should have started a thread about these:

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:37:24 PM EDT

[#6]

Meow.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:37:56 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Poll coming.

I think the F-4 was better at more things during the '60s and '70s than the Tomcat was during the '80s and '90s.

What say you?

No contest, the F-4 was (so far anyway) the only fighter to be flown by the USAF, USMC, and USN simultaneously. It set many many world records, carried twice the bomb load of a B-17, and shot down a buttload more MIGs than the F-14 ever did. The F-14 was a high priced, overspecialized aircraft, the F-4 was the jack of all trades, much like the modern day (yes he's gonna say it.....) F/A-18E/F Superhornet. I always liked the Tomcat, but my first aircraft was the F-4G, so what did you expect me to say.

But the Naval F-4 was a fighter and a bomb truck. By the end of it's life the Tomcat evolved from just a fleet defender to a fighter, a bomber, and a recon platform.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:38:32 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
The F4 did it all and just plan looks BAD...!

What he said...

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:39:28 PM EDT

[#9]

Apples to oranges in my opinion.

The F-4 was used extensively during war. The F-14 was not.

As I stated in my other post, the F-14 was / is designed as an air superiority interceptor. It was designed to shoot down bombers from 100 miles and fleet defence. As an interceptior the F-14 was better. As a multi role platform (Air to air and air to ground) the F-4 was better.

One destingushing characteristic was the adoption of the F-4 by all three branches of the service.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:41:26 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

But the Naval F-4 was a fighter and a bomb truck. By the end of it's life the Tomcat evolved from just a fleet defender to a fighter, a bomber, and a recon platform.

The F-14 was never a bomber, the F-4 carried a max load of 24 500 pound bombs, what did the -14 max out at, 4? Strapping a TARPs pod on an aircraft does not make it a recce, the F-4C was heads and tails above any -14 with a strap on. It was always a fleet interceptor, a mission that was pretty much as useless as the ICBM during the cold war. Sure they scared a lot of Bears away during excercises, but the F-4 was proven in actual combat from the early 60s through the mid 90s.

ETA: F-4=M-4
F-14=Barrett M-82

Which would you take into sustained combat?

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:51:17 PM EDT

[#11]

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:51:43 PM EDT

[#12]

Read the f'ing question "... carrier-based fighter?"

The F-4 had no guns! The F-4 had only AIM -9's and Sparrows. It was sub-optimized for all 3 services and a bastard in all especially in air to ground. It was a truck.

The F-14 had guns, the Phenoix (sp), the Aim and the Sparrow. It was optimized for carrier CAP and excelled in that job until it was dumbed down to a bomb carrier in tha last few years. It was the sports car of the Nav for at least 25 years.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:52:08 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
But the Naval F-4 was a fighter and a bomb truck. By the end of it's life the Tomcat evolved from just a fleet defender to a fighter, a bomber, and a recon platform.

The F-14 was never a bomber, the F-4 carried a max load of 24 500 pound bombs, what did the -14 max out at, 4? Strapping a TARPs pod on an aircraft does not make it a recce, the F-4C was heads and tails above any -14 with a strap on. It was always a fleet interceptor, a mission that was pretty much as useless as the ICBM during the cold war. Sure they scared a lot of Bears away during excercises, but the F-4 was proven in actual combat from the early 60s through the mid 90s.

ETA: F-4=M-4
F-14=Barrett M-82

Which would you take into sustained combat?

Good post.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:52:10 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:

But the Naval F-4 was a fighter and a bomb truck. By the end of it's life the Tomcat evolved from just a fleet defender to a fighter, a bomber, and a recon platform.

The F-14 was never a bomber, the F-4 carried a max load of 24 500 pound bombs, what did the -14 max out at, 4? Strapping a TARPs pod on an aircraft does not make it a recce, the F-4C was heads and tails above any -14 with a strap on. It was always a fleet interceptor, a mission that was pretty much as useless as the ICBM during the cold war. Sure they scared a lot of Bears away during excercises, but the F-4 was proven in actual combat from the early 60s through the mid 90s.

ETA: F-4=M-4
F-14=Barrett M-82

Which would you take into sustained combat?

It wasn't really a great bomber, but it did help fill the bomber role for the USN.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Tomcat retire undefeated in aerial combat?

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:54:04 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Read the f'ing question "... carrier-based fighter?"

The F-4 had no guns! The F-4 had only AIM -9's and Sparrows. It was sub-optimized for all 3 services and a bastard in all especially in air to ground. It was a truck.

The F-14 had guns, the Phenoix (sp), the Aim and the Sparrow. It was optimized for carrier CAP and excelled in that job until it was dumbed down to a bomb carrier in tha last few years. It was the sports car of the Nav for at least 25 years.

Ummmm, F4's had guns. Well some did.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:54:31 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Tomcat retire undefeated in aerial combat?

I don't know the numbers, but if you compared the total amount of engagements each had, I suspect you'd be looking at a 20-1 ratio in favor of the Phantom.

Maybe even more than 20-1.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:57:34 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Read the f'ing question "... carrier-based fighter?"

The F-4 had no guns! The F-4 had only AIM -9's and Sparrows. It was sub-optimized for all 3 services and a bastard in all especially in air to ground. It was a truck.

The F-14 had guns, the Phenoix (sp), the Aim and the Sparrow. It was optimized for carrier CAP and excelled in that job until it was dumbed down to a bomb carrier in tha last few years. It was the sports car of the Nav for at least 25 years.

They added guns with the E model.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:59:42 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

But the Naval F-4 was a fighter and a bomb truck. By the end of it's life the Tomcat evolved from just a fleet defender to a fighter, a bomber, and a recon platform.

The F-14 was never a bomber, the F-4 carried a max load of 24 500 pound bombs, what did the -14 max out at, 4? Strapping a TARPs pod on an aircraft does not make it a recce, the F-4C was heads and tails above any -14 with a strap on. It was always a fleet interceptor, a mission that was pretty much as useless as the ICBM during the cold war. Sure they scared a lot of Bears away during excercises, but the F-4 was proven in actual combat from the early 60s through the mid 90s.

ETA: F-4=M-4
F-14=Barrett M-82

Which would you take into sustained combat?

It wasn't really a great bomber, but it did help fill the bomber role for the USN.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Tomcat retire undefeated in aerial combat?

Pretty sure that title goes to the F-15.

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:01:36 PM EDT

[#19]

Super Bug

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:02:31 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Tomcat retire undefeated in aerial combat?

I don't know the numbers, but if you compared the total amount of engagements each had, I suspect you'd be looking at a 20-1 ratio in favor of the Phantom.

Maybe even more than 20-1.

I'm just busting balls. The retirement story earlier today said that that there were a few early A-A kills in the Tomcat.

If you were to just ask my personal favorite it would have to go with the Phantom. They have some great lines and just sound like they have power.

On my last TDY one of our pilots was an old F-4 wizzo and when we asked him how he liked flying on them his answer summed it up "If my wife is around, I say it's the next best thing to sex, if she's not around then it's better then sex." I can't think of a better endorsement than that.

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:03:15 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
In other words, which of the two was the better all-around and most versatile fighter when flown off the deck of a carrier?

I'm not talking about air force capabilities, just the navy.

Fighter? the F-14D supertomcat.

All weather multi role? The F-4

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:03:46 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Read the f'ing question "... carrier-based fighter?"

The F-4 had no guns! The F-4 had only AIM -9's and Sparrows. It was sub-optimized for all 3 services and a bastard in all especially in air to ground. It was a truck.

The F-14 had guns, the Phenoix (sp), the Aim and the Sparrow. It was optimized for carrier CAP and excelled in that job until it was dumbed down to a bomb carrier in tha last few years. It was the sports car of the Nav for at least 25 years.

Oh boy! The phoenix, that's the only advantage over an F-4E? Talk about a lot of hype, everybody is in love with the AIM-54s capabilities until they realize that an MIG-21 could defeat it easily if it had a decent pilot. It has little to no terminal maneuvering capability, the later gen sparrows were a much more deadly missile within their envelope. Guns don't mean shit anyway, do you have any idea how many gun kills vs missile kills their have been since 1965, look it up. Putting a gun in the F-22 and F-35 for nostalgia is idiotic, the age of missles is well at hand. The only thing a gun with 150 rounds (yes, less than an infantry guy with his basic combat load carries) is good for is one inaccurate strafing run. It's the only time the F-15's or F-14s guns have ever been fired in anger anyway. Three seconds, brrrrrrrrrrrp, and you're spent.

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:04:29 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
In other words, which of the two was the better all-around and most versatile fighter when flown off the deck of a carrier?

I'm not talking about air force capabilities, just the navy.

Fighter? the F-14D supertomcat.

All weather multi role? The F-4

There's your answer.

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:05:14 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

But the Naval F-4 was a fighter and a bomb truck. By the end of it's life the Tomcat evolved from just a fleet defender to a fighter, a bomber, and a recon platform.

The F-14 was never a bomber, the F-4 carried a max load of 24 500 pound bombs, what did the -14 max out at, 4? Strapping a TARPs pod on an aircraft does not make it a recce, the F-4C was heads and tails above any -14 with a strap on. It was always a fleet interceptor, a mission that was pretty much as useless as the ICBM during the cold war. Sure they scared a lot of Bears away during excercises, but the F-4 was proven in actual combat from the early 60s through the mid 90s.

ETA: F-4=M-4
F-14=Barrett M-82

Which would you take into sustained combat?

It wasn't really a great bomber, but it did help fill the bomber role for the USN.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Tomcat retire undefeated in aerial combat?

Pretty sure that title goes to the F-15.

Yeah the F-15 is 103-0 and the F-14 is what 5-0? Didn't the Iranians lose a couple?

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:06:22 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Read the f'ing question "... carrier-based fighter?"

The F-4 had no guns! The F-4 had only AIM -9's and Sparrows. It was sub-optimized for all 3 services and a bastard in all especially in air to ground. It was a truck.

The F-14 had guns, the Phenoix (sp), the Aim and the Sparrow. It was optimized for carrier CAP and excelled in that job until it was dumbed down to a bomb carrier in tha last few years. It was the sports car of the Nav for at least 25 years.

Oh boy! The phoenix, that's the only advantage over an F-4E? Talk about a lot of hype, everybody is in love with the AIM-54s capabilities until they realize that an MIG-21 could defeat it easily if it had a decent pilot. It has little to no terminal maneuvering capability, the later gen sparrows were a much more deadly missile within their envelope. Guns don't mean shit anyway, do you have any idea how many gun kills vs missile kills their have been since 1965, look it up. Putting a gun in the F-22 and F-35 for nostalgia is idiotic, the age of missles is well at hand. The only thing a gun with 150 rounds (yes, less than an infantry guy with his basic combat load carries) is good for is one inaccurate strafing run. It's the only time the F-15's or F-14s guns have ever been fired in anger anyway. Three seconds, brrrrrrrrrrrp, and you're spent.

And if you want to get technical, the F-4 DID have a gun, just a specially designed one in an external pod.

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:07:09 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

But the Naval F-4 was a fighter and a bomb truck. By the end of it's life the Tomcat evolved from just a fleet defender to a fighter, a bomber, and a recon platform.

The F-14 was never a bomber, the F-4 carried a max load of 24 500 pound bombs, what did the -14 max out at, 4? Strapping a TARPs pod on an aircraft does not make it a recce, the F-4C was heads and tails above any -14 with a strap on. It was always a fleet interceptor, a mission that was pretty much as useless as the ICBM during the cold war. Sure they scared a lot of Bears away during excercises, but the F-4 was proven in actual combat from the early 60s through the mid 90s.

ETA: F-4=M-4
F-14=Barrett M-82

Which would you take into sustained combat?

It wasn't really a great bomber, but it did help fill the bomber role for the USN.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Tomcat retire undefeated in aerial combat?

Pretty sure that title goes to the F-15.

Yeah the F-15 is 103-0 and the F-14 is what 5-0? Didn't the Iranians lose a couple?

I think we lost one/some in Iraq the First.

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:07:27 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

But the Naval F-4 was a fighter and a bomb truck. By the end of it's life the Tomcat evolved from just a fleet defender to a fighter, a bomber, and a recon platform.

The F-14 was never a bomber, the F-4 carried a max load of 24 500 pound bombs, what did the -14 max out at, 4? Strapping a TARPs pod on an aircraft does not make it a recce, the F-4C was heads and tails above any -14 with a strap on. It was always a fleet interceptor, a mission that was pretty much as useless as the ICBM during the cold war. Sure they scared a lot of Bears away during excercises, but the F-4 was proven in actual combat from the early 60s through the mid 90s.

ETA: F-4=M-4
F-14=Barrett M-82

Which would you take into sustained combat?

It wasn't really a great bomber, but it did help fill the bomber role for the USN.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Tomcat retire undefeated in aerial combat?

Pretty sure that title goes to the F-15.

Yeah the F-15 is 103-0 and the F-14 is what 5-0? Didn't the Iranians lose a couple?

Ah horseshit, Maverick took down more bogies than that!

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:08:54 PM EDT

[#28]

The F-4 did EVERYTHING in one version or another. The adaptability of that platform must have amazed even the designers who were figuring out the various ways to adapt it to new roles.

I believe the Israelis are still flying some of their F-4s, but they're VERY updated models with current generation technology....including fly-by-wire, and the most advanced fire control radar in the sky...with the possible exception of what's in the F-22 but not much is being revealed about THAT.

CJ

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:09:16 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read the f'ing question "... carrier-based fighter?"

The F-4 had no guns! The F-4 had only AIM -9's and Sparrows. It was sub-optimized for all 3 services and a bastard in all especially in air to ground. It was a truck.

The F-14 had guns, the Phenoix (sp), the Aim and the Sparrow. It was optimized for carrier CAP and excelled in that job until it was dumbed down to a bomb carrier in tha last few years. It was the sports car of the Nav for at least 25 years.

Oh boy! The phoenix, that's the only advantage over an F-4E? Talk about a lot of hype, everybody is in love with the AIM-54s capabilities until they realize that an MIG-21 could defeat it easily if it had a decent pilot. It has little to no terminal maneuvering capability, the later gen sparrows were a much more deadly missile within their envelope. Guns don't mean shit anyway, do you have any idea how many gun kills vs missile kills their have been since 1965, look it up. Putting a gun in the F-22 and F-35 for nostalgia is idiotic, the age of missles is well at hand. The only thing a gun with 150 rounds (yes, less than an infantry guy with his basic combat load carries) is good for is one inaccurate strafing run. It's the only time the F-15's or F-14s guns have ever been fired in anger anyway. Three seconds, brrrrrrrrrrrp, and you're spent.

And if you want to get technical, the F-4 DID have a gun, just a specially designed one in an external pod.

F-4E was made with a 20mm internal.

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:10:25 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Ah horseshit, Maverick took down more bogies than that!

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:12:50 PM EDT

[#31]

The F-14 was much more manuverable and better suited for dogfighting than the F-4

ETA Im no expert btw, thats just what I heard

Posted: 2/10/2006 3:35:43 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
The F-4 did EVERYTHING in one version or another. The adaptability of that platform must have amazed even the designers who were figuring out the various ways to adapt it to new roles.

I believe the Israelis are still flying some of their F-4s, but they're VERY updated models with current generation technology....including fly-by-wire, and the most advanced fire control radar in the sky...with the possible exception of what's in the F-22 but not much is being revealed about THAT.

That's the point I was getting at.

Posted: 2/10/2006 4:39:25 AM EDT

[#33]

During it's era, the F-4 was the best fleet defense fighter only because of its radar and two-man crew but it could be out maneuvered in most dogfights, a role for which it was not designed for. The missles of the day were unreliable most of the time and were very hard to lock onto a target, especially the radar guided Sparrow. And it could carry a gun pod in the centerline position but I think it was rarely used in Vietnam.

The F-14 on the other hand was descent but the A models were very underpowered and maintenance was a nightmare. The ability of the Phoenix missle is still debatable but in the latter years of the Tomcats career, those missles were withdrawn from service altogether. I've also read that it was a very stable bombing platform and also did some recce missions as well. And even though it's never been shot down in combat, it's really never had to go against an opponent with much of an air force either.

So I guess it's a toss-up but the most important thing to consider is that they both fulfilled their missions in their respective eras well and neither was considered a flop. And both aircraft should really be considered missle platforms with the primary role of fleet defense and all other roles as secondary and in that role, they never lost an aircraft carrier.

Posted: 2/10/2006 4:50:03 AM EDT

[#34]

The question was which was the best FIGHTER....in that case I go with the F-14 hands down.

Great radar, Phoenix capable, more maneuverable for ACM....GUN! (I know the F-4E...but still)

If you ask which was the most versatile...well then hands down the F-4....

But I love 'em both! There is nothing quite like watching 2 F-4's taking off in full burner! You can feel it in your bones!

Posted: 2/10/2006 4:52:57 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
If you ask which was the most versatile...well then hands down the F-4....

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:03:38 AM EDT

[#36]

I don't have any practical technical first hand knowledge of either plane, but I can definitely say that I think the F-4 looks much more badass than the 14.

My dad has always said that the F-4 is proof that with enough thrust, anything will fly.

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:06:46 AM EDT

[#37]

I voted F-14 because the question asked "fighter". I was never a huge Tomcat fan, but I think it was the better fighter.

The F-4 was one of my all-time favorites. Actually, my other favorite shares the same designation and was the best fighter of it's era.

Can you say Corsair?

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:11:25 AM EDT

[#38]

Both were great, but if I had to pick one: the Tomcat had the Phoenix missile. That was a major advantage. With the phoenix missile there is no dogfight. You shoot em down before they ever see you. Shit, I'm still wondering why they retired the F-14

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:24:56 AM EDT

[#39]

I beleive that the F-4 was the better aircraft.
More in service.
Used by three services here, many abroad.
Kick ass fighter, bomber, wild weasel, and close attack aircraft.
Still in service in some countries.

And it's my all time favorite aircraft.

F-14-
Designed with one purpose-fleet air defense.
Bombing life short.

While an excellent fighter, I believe overall it was eclipsed by its contempary the F-15 in terms of versatility.

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:12:41 AM EDT

[#40]

when you say all around best carrier based FIGHTER that is a far cry from most versatile...as a Fighter is a specific role.

F-4 did interdiction bombing well....recon well...WEASEL well, and some intercept. F-14 does bombing well....intercept well....counter air well.....recon well and also can do some Weasel duty.

THe F-4 was not as maneuverable in a dog fight especially in a one circle fight...so as a Fighter I say the F-14 is far above that of the Phantom.
As most versatile overall acft....then as bomber, interdiction, fighter and recon platform I say they are about even. F-4 proved that massive thrust could make a brick fly in a straight line.... The F-4 has more kills but that is more a product of the period not the aircraft. Up until DS the F-16 and F-15 did not have many shootdowns either.

and before you think I am biased...LOL...my fav acft to work with was A-10 Warthog (CSAR, Interdiction, Escort, Forward Air Control, SEAD, anti-naval, CAS)...and we got a couple air-to-air shootdowns during the first battle of the desert.....LOL

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:16:25 AM EDT

[#41]

The Phantom got my vote based on the interviews I made during the production of a television program highlighting the life of the Phantom. Pilots loved the thing for having the ability to take a licking and keep on ticking.

The Tomcat was a better weapons platform but never saw the kind of action that the Phantom did.

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:32:15 AM EDT

[#42]

WRT versatility, the Phantom is a clear winner. It was actually a better mud mover than pure fighter plane. It was a true multi-mission plane. The USAF used it for years as Wild Weasel.

The Turkey was the finest Fleet Air Defense fight ever to launch from a carrier deck. It fulfilled the Navy's requirement for a long-legged, HEAVILY armed air defense aircraft perfectly. It was never designed as a bomber and was only modified late in life to support that mission.

For about 30 years, the Turkey protected the Fleet from the anticipated massed bombers and their anti-ship cruise missiles if the Cold War had ever turned hot. Had we had our good two-promotion
"Red Storm Rising" war, the F-14 would have done its job superbly.

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:32:38 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The F4 did it all and just plan looks BAD...!

What he said...

Little Q thought it was pretty bad himself....

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:33:01 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
when you say all around best carrier based FIGHTER that is a far cry from most versatile...as a Fighter is a specific role.

F-4 did interdiction bombing well....recon well...WEASEL well, and some intercept. F-14 does bombing well....intercept well....counter air well.....recon well and also can do some Weasel duty.

THe F-4 was not as maneuverable in a dog fight especially in a one circle fight...so as a Fighter I say the F-14 is far above that of the Phantom.
As most versatile overall acft....then as bomber, interdiction, fighter and recon platform I say they are about even. F-4 proved that massive thrust could make a brick fly in a straight line.... The F-4 has more kills but that is more a product of the period not the aircraft. Up until DS the F-16 and F-15 did not have many shootdowns either.

and before you think I am biased...LOL...my fav acft to work with was A-10 Warthog (CSAR, Interdiction, Escort, Forward Air Control, SEAD, anti-naval, CAS)...and we got a couple air-to-air shootdowns during the first battle of the desert.....LOL

Actually, during Desert Storm, the F-16 had no kills. The A-10 actually had 2 air to air kills while the "Viper" had none. Duirng that conflict at least.

I've gotta say Tomcat. Again, as far as versatility goes, the Phantom and Tomcat are just about even. They were both designed as interceptors, but pressed into different roles later, and they both excelled. However, the F-14 was a much more capable dogfighter than the Phantom, hands down.

For those who say that the presence of a gun is irrelevant, that's what they said going into the Vietnam war. Guess what happened, they found that a gun was a neccessity, thus the strap on gun pod for the F-4 and the integrated one on the AF's F-4E.

The Tomcat was built to remedy the problems that plagued the F-4 during the Vietnam war. It was designed to function well in an ACM environment, as well as have the ability to "reach out and touch someone". The Tomcat was also designed with a gun from the start, to adapt a gun to the Phantom they were plagued with difficulties, and they never found anything more than a half@$$ed solution.

The number of kills to the Phantom's credit is a testament to the times in which it served, the Tomcat was never given the same opportunity, but it did perform well over Libya.

They were both awesome aircraft, but given the choice, I'd take the Tomcat any day.

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:45:50 AM EDT

[#45]

The Tomcat

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:56:02 AM EDT

[#46]

I voted F4. My nextdoor neighbor is a Retired (NASA) Aeronautical Enginerd and he worked on the development programs for the F4 and T35's, as well as F14s. The F4 was a better aircraft in that I could perform multiple roles well. The engines (GE J79's) were superior to the F14's engines that were plagued with problems, extended turn around and terrible maintenance to flight hour ratio.