“No way an F-35 will ever match a Typhoon fighter jet in aerial combat” Eurofighter test pilot says

Feb 11 2013 - 195 Comments

In an interesting piece by Flight’s Dave Majumdar, Bill Flynn, Lockheed test pilot responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for the F-35 claimed that all three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter will have better kinematic performance than any fourth-generation fighter plane with combat payload, including the Eurofighter Typhoon (that during last year’s Red Flag Alaska achieved several simulated kills against the F-22 Raptor) and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

“In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter,” Flyinn said.

According to the Lockheed pilot, (besides its stealthiness) the F-35 features better transonic acceleration and high AOA (angle-of-attack) flight performance than an armed Typhoon or Super Hornet.

RNLAF

Image credit: Lockheed Martin

As Majumdar says in his article, such claims are strongly disputed by other sources. Among them an experienced Eurofighter Typhoon industry test pilot, who tried to debunk all Flynn’s “theories” about the alleged superior F-35 performance.

Here’s what he wrote to The Aviationist:

No doubt the F-35 will be, when available, a very capable aircraft: its stealth design, extended range, internal carriage of stores and a variety of integrated sensors are definitely the ingredients for success in modern air-to-ground operations.

However, when time comes for air dominance, some other ingredients like thrust to weight ratio and wing loading tend to regulate the sky. And in that nothing comes close to a Typhoon, except an F-22 which has very similar values. The F-35 thrust to weight ratio is way lower and its energy-manoeuvrability diagrams match those of the F/A-18, which is an excellent result for a single engine aircraft loaded with several thousand pounds of fuel and significant armament.

But it also means that starting from medium altitude and above, there is no story with a similarly loaded Typhoon.

Dealing with the transonic acceleration:

Transonic acceleration is excellent in the F-35, as it is for the Typhoon and better than in an F/A-18 or F-16, but mainly due to its low drag characteristics than to its powerplant. That means that immediately after the transonic regime, the F-35 would stop accelerating and struggle forever to reach a non operationally suitable Mach 1.6.

The Typhoon will continue to accelerate supersonic with an impressive steady pull, giving more range to its BVR (Beyond Visual Range) armament.

For what concerns AOA:

Angle-of-attack is remarkably high in the F-35, as it is for all the twin tailed aircraft, but of course it can not be exploited in the supersonic regime, where the limiting load factor is achieved at low values of AoA.

Also in the subsonic regime, the angle-of-attack itself doesn’t mean that much, especially if past a modest 12° AoA you are literally going to fall of the sky! Excessive energy bleeding rates would operationally limit the F-35 well before its ultimate AoA is reached.

Eurofighter superb engine-airframe matching, in combination with it’s High Off-Bore-Sight armament supported by Helmet Cueing, has already and consistently proven winning against any angile fighter.

Last, the F-35 is capable of supersonic carriage of bombs in the bomb bay, but the fuel penalty becomes almost unaffordable, while delivery is limited to subsonic speeds by the armament itself as is for the Typhoon.

Concluding (highlight mine):

[…] it is in the facts that while the Typhoon can do most of the F-35 air-to-ground mission, vice versa the F-35 remains way far from a true swing role capability, and not even talking of regulating the skies.

Provided that the F-35 will be able to solve all its problems, and that the raising costs will not lead to a death spiral of order cuts, both the British RAF and the Italian Air Force will be equipped with both the JSF and the Typhoon.

Mock aerial combat training will tell us who’s better in aerial combat.

MM7274_Typhoon

Enhanced by Zemanta
  • R Valencia

    F-35 is able to maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using afterburners(1)

    Source
    1. Tirpak, John A. (November 2012). “The F-35’s Race Against Time”. airforce-magazine.com. Air Force Association. Retrieved 6 November 2012.

    picard578 is using a quote from 2011.

    • Picard578

      That quote from 2011 is the only direct quote avaliable and is actually a basis for what you provided.

      http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110613/DEFFEAT04/106130302/F-35A-Testing-Moves-Into-High-Speeds

      “What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going … you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you’re pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you’re cruising,” Griffiths said. “So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air.”

      • R Valencia

        No, it’s not based from it. O’Bryan is not Griffiths.

        From
        http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/f-35-yeah-baby-it-super-cruises.html

        The F-35, while not technically a
        “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
        “Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.

        Your not factoring time progression and engine improvements.

        Are you claiming F-35 is static? If it’s static, what’s the point for R&D?

        Might as well sell the F-35 at Block 1 instead of Block 3F and repeat F-16/79 export failures i.e. not one copy of F-16/79 was sold to export customers.

        Around year 2012, F-35 was at Block 2A state.
        Around year 2015, F-35 would be in Block 2B state.

        IF F35 reaches Block 3F and it doesn’t perform as advertised then complain like any other mad customer.

        • M&S

          Mach 1.2 is a lousy speed for the F-35 or -any- jet because half the airframe is still immersed in transonic flow. Around 1.35 that flow cleans up and goes pure supersonic with a noteable lurch that signals the jet is able to either again accelerate towards VMax or pull back off the throttles and sustain the cruise point at a lower throttle setting. Nobody supercruises at 1.2 because that’s a _lousy_ point to be stuck at, for want of thrust.
          Indeed, even at 1.3+, the problem becomes what you can do with that energy state vs. what it does -to- you.
          Mach 1.35 is starting to get a stagnation temp off the bow shock which is sufficient to show up on IRST at double the nominal detection range of say 15nm. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the F135 is already a very hot-plume engine and even ‘minimum burner’ is going to spike that up through the detection threshold. Making it -easily- possible to EID targets with ‘no radar signature but one helluva heat bloom’ for torpedo-down-bearing preemptive fire by any jet with a PIRATE/OSF/IR-OTIS/OLS IRST. i.e. every jet -except- the U.S. radar based platforms.
          Mach 1.35 or 746 knots also provides you about 5-7 seconds and -200 knots of bleed in a Pump or Chainsaw crank off maneuver before you are back subsonic; after a ‘very bumpy ride’ with all manner of TRO and buffet limits on commanded G.
          At which point you have to start all over again on the supersonic acceleration phase. Compare this to an F-22 which can truly sustain a 6G pull at 800 knots use burner to hold that G through a split ess reversal (escaping the seeker cone through maximum rate displacement in altitude) and _still be supersonic_ at Mach 1.3, from a Mach 1.6 start. At which point, at 30,000ft from 50,000ft, it simply starts high stepping away, in military power, back to it’s initial SSC point and height.
          The F-35, with it’s bumblebee wingspan, will never see 50,000ft and it will certainly never have /time/ to sprint up to 1.6, even with an unload, to get max pole on it’s own shots or evade and extend from others.
          Finally, the F-35 is intended to be a 700nm interdictor in the A/C models and a 460nm airframe in the B. Best achieve radius thus far is actually only about 585nm but the fact remains that the farther you go out on your tether, the less you can afford to yank it with excessive amounts of burner usage before it snaps and you don’t have the gas to even get back out, over the fence, to a tanker.
          This is again, particularly true with an engine like the F135 which has a TSFC of .9lbs/lbs/hr fuel burn (the F100 is around .76). It sucks fuel like a pig, even in IRT, largely because it has the residual STOVL torque generator requirement inherent to a huge mass flow fan and very high TETs to sustain the stochios needed to turn the spools.
          Only an idiot would put an ocean liner steam turbine in a tugboat and stack fuel drums six stories high on the foredeck to feed it, ‘expecting good things’. It’s just not practical.
          Because of it’s design compromises, the F-35 is neither an endurant goose nor a speedy falcon but suffers from the attempt to make it a hybrid Goocon or Faloose.

          • R Valencia

            The Typhoon is capable of supersonic cruise without using afterburners (referred to as supercruise). Air Forces Monthly gives a maximum supercruise speed of *Mach 1.1 for the RAF FGR4 multirole version*.[131] The Eurofighter Company states that the Typhoon can supercruise at Mach 1.5 in clean configuration and Mach 1.2 with typical air-to-air configuration

            Clean configuration are useless for combat. The latest Typhoon RAF FGR4 multirole version goes down to Mach 1.1.

            View http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/992/f35f22shockum9.jpg
            If F-35A has similar nose and wing Mach speed angles as F-22A.

            From
            http://nationalinterest.org/feature/f-35-needs-bigger-more-powerful-engine-12491

            The new adaptive engine mitigate F-35’s speed issue.

            From http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.cfm
            Typhoon FGR4 multirole variant
            Maximum speed: Mach 1.8

            • M&S

              1.1 still has the airframe sheathed in transonic flow, full of burbles and boundary effects as shocks build, migrate and bust across the airframe without ever going truly to supersonic flow condition.
              No pilot wants to fight at Mach 1.1 or 1.2 or indeed much of anything below 1.3 because the fuel penalty for staying stuck in that airspeed range is like pushing to passing gear in a car and then letting the clutch partway out to ride the revs at 45mph as you pass a 40mph semi.
              You creep along at minimum speed in passing the 30ft trailer and your engine roars along at 3,500rpm but without getting it into the gear range that pushes you into 55-60mph passing speed, you are riding the centerline praying that someone doesn’t pass the far corner before you see the cab door.
              Similarly, in ACM, Supercruise at low Mach numbers is not supercruise because it doesn’t really give you that ‘passing gear’ option to truly boost the missile poles (time as much as distance in an ARH world) while you burn up your TETs limits (in minutes) on an engine that is clearly NOT optimized for SSC or it wouldn’t be holding back the airframe at that low Mach number.
              This is a critical thing to understand too. The F119 is _not_ a multicycle powerplant. Pratt’s experience of that stepped thrust curve with the J58 (Blackbird engine) was not good as things like stall margin and stability in the gas generator core rpms was never all that good.
              Unstart jokes about early inlet spike ‘pullout’….here.
              Instead, the F119 likely uses a system of rpm speedup similar to the T2 reset on certain marks of the J79 which, in aircraft like the F-104, gave you a noticeable increase in thrust as the engine transitioned between a redline 1 as the point where the engine was sucking enough air to keep the front end from blowing up and a slightly higher rpm setting by which, the increased mass flow of higher Mach numbers, suitably shocked out through the engine spike system on the J79 fanboss cover, gave the jet enough added flow to strip away the heat of it’s own compression ration while remaining within core temp values.
              Bluntly (as an F-22 pilot told me) the F-22 likes to go fast and the F119 likes to run hot and the faster you go, the more thrust it makes because it has a fairly wide pressure ratio : engine temp limiter.
              This is not so on the EJ200 or they would have used that capability margin to push the jet faster, cleaning up the transonic flow off the airframe and /then/ (FADEC’d) off the thrust curve to stabilize at a much higher energy point with less inherent drag.
              The ultimate proof of which is the contrail band. If you are fighting below 40-45K, you are in the contrail layer and everyone will SEE YOU from anything up to 70nm away. If you are above this FL, you shouldn’t need that damn much thrust to go fast because the air is so bloody thin.
              To which I would like to add that it really shouldn’t matter. The Eurofighter is now moving towards full Meteor deployment and as a result it has a weapon whose airbreathing (oxy weak fuel grain) can take it’s own time to reach peak Mach because to the total impulse seconds available to it dwarfs that of conventional SPRs.
              Which brings up another point of comparison: You don’t go supersonic over a hostile GBAD because you are impaling yourself (Q limits on maneuver G) on threat _surface launch_ poles. Stealth allows you to buy off this system limiter because you are radar invisible and there is so much atmospheric obscurants and pollutants at low level that IR tracking is relatively pointless on jets in the ‘high’ (FL50+) sanctuary.
              Aircraft firing at FL20 and below, where their _subsonic_ thrust and lift curves cross to provide maximum SAM defeat fps on their EM globals CAN be seen on IRST and so are really well advised to use SOMs to attack and RamAAM to atlatl their opponents with.
              Low Mach = Low Closure on target area and terminal defenses, particularly those which ‘blink’ with a radar coming on at your four o’clock networking your position to a SAM site at your eleven o’clock with enough accuracy to cue the scan volumes of missiles launched passively as the (silent) threat site passes your nine o’clock, really close aboard.
              There is no cheap and easy way to do things. You either max out the specs and get F-22 leap over with all three bases of RFLO, SSC, SOMs covered. Or you end up slogging through the weeds with ‘some combination of the above’ and still having to fight the defense penetration game more than the mission target reduction one.
              This applies equally to the FGR.4 and the F-35 as both are a long way from ideal platforms for the kinds of missions we now face.

              • R Valencia

                No, F-35A has similar nose distance to wing leading edge, mach speed wing angles as F-22A.

                To supercruise is an aviation term. An aircraft that can supercruise is able to attain and maintain supersonic level flight without using afterburners. F-35 has reached this term better than F-16C.

                According to
                http://nationalinterest.org/feature/f-35-needs-bigger-more-powerful-engine-12491
                F-35’s speed issue was mostly from thermal management and GE’s new adaptive engine can mitigate the speed issue. F-35 Block 6 has engine upgrade.

                GE claims their new adaptive cycle engine can mitigate F-35’s speed issue.

                The F-135 engine ground test reached 50,000 lbf.

                Your post about a road vehicle is just a red herring to the basic supercruise term i.e. supersonic speeds without afterburner.

                Remember, F-22A has about 52,000 pounds of military thrust to push the aircraft.

        • Picard578

          “Your not factoring time progression and engine improvements.”

          F135 is one of the worst fighter aircraft engines around, being optimized for ground attack first and foremost.

          https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/fighter-aircraft-engine-comparision/

          To compare it with M88-2 (since Rafale is the closest alternative):

          Thrust-to-drag:

          M88-2: 3.805 cm2, 73,9 kN, 19,42 N/cm2

          F-135 (CTOL): 10.715 cm2, 191,35 kN, 17,86 N/cm2

          Thrust-to-weight:

          M88-2: 1.977,5 lbs, 16.620 lbf, 8,40:1

          F-135 (CTOL): 6.444 lbs, 43.000 lbf, 6,67:1

          Bypass ratio:

          M88-2: 0,3:1

          F-135: 0,57:1

          Worse thrust-to-frontal area (and frontal area is indicative of engine drag at supersonic speeds, plus engine frontal area drag is a major portion of aircraft supersonic drag), worse thrust-to-weight and far worse bypass ratio.

          So while engine progression will help, there are hard limits.

          • R Valencia

            That’s BS. F-135’s engine frontal size is similar to a MiG-25/31.

            F-35A was designed to replace F-16C which is multirole..

            F-35’s frontal cross section area size is similar to Rafale.
            ttp://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18395

            “Here is a nice comparison of the F-16, F-15 and F-35 put together by an Aerospace engineer”
            http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19935&sid=214acd0562285efb750c3b9b911a86bb

            The main point with the new adaptive engine is it’s capability to change it’s bypass ratio based on speed.

            View https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh5b0fhre3M
            for the basics on adaptive cycle engines.

            Wing loadings via empty weight.
            F-35A
            Empty weight: 29,030 lb (Year 2013 build).
            Wing area: 460 ft²
            Wing loading: 63.11 lbs/ sq feet.

            F-16C Block 52
            Wing area: 300 ft²
            Empty weight: 18,900 lb
            Wing loading: 63 lbs/ sq feet.

            F-35A’s empty weight is 1.54X scaled from F-16C.

            F-35A’s wing area is 1.53X scaled from F-16C.

            F-35A’s 43000 lbf thrust is 1.50X scaled from F-16C’s 28600 lbf.

            There’s a near straight scaling between F16C to F-35A.

            From http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

            General Mike Hostage On The F-35 vs F-16
            The F-35, he says, *has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16.* The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15.

            http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20130619-0600/2013/All%20Categories
            Year 2016 for engines with higher 10% increase in thrust power AND 25 percent increase in fuel efficiency. This is P&W’s adaptive engine upgrade.

            With 10 percent increase thrust, the result is 47,300 lbf.

            From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135
            The weight of F-135 engine is 3,750 lbs (1,701 kg).

            Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.47:1 (dry), 11.467:1 (wet/afterburning)

            Engine Thrust-to-weight:
            F-135: 3,750 lbs, 43.000 lbf, 11.46 :1

      • R Valencia

        It doesn’t serve as the basis for quote since it’s a direct quote from O’Bryan instead of Griffiths and there’s a change with time i.e. mid 2011 vs late 2012.

        From
        http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

        The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
        “Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.

        “without using fuel-gulping afterburners” is a direct conflict to “min[imum] afterburner”

      • R Valencia

        It doesn’t serve as the basis for quote since it’s a direct quote from O’Bryan instead of Griffiths and there’s a change with time i.e. mid 2011 vs late 2012.

        From

        http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

        The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
        “Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.

        “Without using fuel-gulping afterburners” is a direct conflict to “min[imum] afterburner”

      • R Valencia

        http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

        The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
        “Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.

        “without using fuel-gulping afterburners” is a direct conflict to “min[imum] afterburner”

  • Joe Schmoe

    You mean without the pilot on board.

  • R Valencia

    F-35 has 360 degrees ultra long range IRST.

  • R Valencia

    For point 1

    The problem with rear mounted delta wings is the lift’s center of balance. A mid-mounted wing’s lift’s center of balance is nearer to the center.

    Early LM JSF was forward canard + rear delta wing model and it lost against mid-mounted wing + quad-rear stablizers model. Your not factoring rear mounted delta wings has to also provide lift, while quad-rear stablizers can be allocated pitch controls.

    F-35 has following additional lift devices

    i. Angled twin tails for extra lift and acts like another pair of rear stablizers.

    ii. Chinned forward fuselage in place of LEX.

    iii. From http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/F-35A_three-view.PNG
    Notice F35’s wing like shaping from engine inlet to the rear.

    iv. Over size rear stablizers.

    v. Carefully shaped engine cowls in place of LEX.

    “Here is a nice comparison of the F-16, F-15 and F-35 put together by an Aerospace engineer”
    http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19295

    F-35A’s effective lift area is 828 ft^2.

    3. On what basis for your calculation?

    Does your F-35 calculation factor in engine upgrades from 43,000 lbf to 49000 lbf?

    EF2000’s Mach 1.5 super cruise speed drops to Mach 1.3 with typical air-to-air weapons load while F-35 remains clean. The point here is air-to-air weapon loads impacts EF2000’s performance.

  • R Valencia

    EF2000’s Mach 1.5 super cruise speed drops to Mach 1.3 with typical air-to-air weapons load while F-35 remains clean. The point here is air-to-air weapon loads impacts EF2000’s performance.

    • Picard578

      Don’t forget that Typhoon’s “clean” configuration includes 4 AAMs. IIRC, Typhoon achieves Mach 1,3 with centerline tank, and Mach 1,4 with air-to-air loadout.

      • R Valencia

        The Typhoon is capable of supersonic cruise without using afterburners (referred to as supercruise). Air Forces Monthly gives a maximum supercruise speed of *Mach 1.1 for the RAF FGR4 multirole version*.[131] The Eurofighter Company states that the Typhoon can supercruise at Mach 1.5 in clean configuration and Mach 1.2 with typical air-to-air configuration
        Clean configuration are useless for combat.
        The latest Typhoon RAF FGR4 multirole version goes down to Mach 1.1.

  • Steve Perreira

    If the F/A 22 is so magical and supreme, why has it been on the sidelines while A10’s and F16’s have been doing the real work for the past decade? The truth is, the F22 is too expensive to risk losing in combat, so it is a hold out unless we become desperate. Even a buck sends the does out of the brush into the open first when hunting season starts.

    • Steve Johnson

      The F-22 hasn’ been on the sidelines, it’s just not pointlessly committed to assymetric warfare. Why would you want to exhaust service life bombing bunkers of people armed with AKs and RPGs with an airplane designed to infiltrate and dominate contested airspace and destroy high-tech integrated defense systems?

    • R Valencia

      http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/F22AssertionsAndFacts.pdf

      Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.

      Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.

  • Steve Perreira

    The smartest of all F35 pilots will opt for the air conditioned bunker and drone joystick.

  • Steve Perreira

    Good, let’s save money and drag and remove the wings.

  • stig781

    The trouble is the Typhoon isn’t a “fourth generation” fighter nor is the F-35 a fifth, as these nonsensical labels conjured up by Lockheed are irrelevant.

  • Carl Marqs

    All these so called 3rd generation combat
    planes are still nice and all, but the need to replace them with a newer
    type is based not on its competitiveness with other combat planes but
    more on its survivability. With the new missile system in the horizon,
    none of the non stealth combat planes will be useful. Hence we need to
    develop the 4th generation which incorporate stealth technology but less
    expensive than the $412 million F22 raptor price tag.. depending on
    which version (Air Force $148M,navy $337M,Marines $251M and generic
    $178M), an F35 is definitely cheaper than F22. And I believed its not an
    option for US not to get into this new flat form..You must! if you want
    to keep your superpower status.You must! if you want to stay alive!

  • Vijay Mehra

    Dose he not account for the fact that his Typhoon is Not stealthy, and will be a burning hunk of metal because he cant find the F35?

  • Joe Schmoe

    In spurts? Gotcha.

  • valorius

    It is reasonable to expect the F-35 with an internal AAM loadout will have excellent performance due to its clean config, however, the F-35s internal AAM loadout of just four missiles is completely insufficient for an actual combat aircraft.

  • valorius

    If the F-35 actually expects to perform CLOSE air like the A-10 does, that gun will be a critical component of the aircraft.

  • R Valencia

    According to http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/the-mysterious-lm-cuda-missile.html
    CUDA missile has similar range to AIM-120.

  • R Valencia

    http://www.pacificaviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/the-f-4c-phantom-ii

    However, its kill-to-loss ratio in Vietnam was far from spectacular—only about 2:1

    F-4 without a gun kill 2 miG 21 for 1 F-4 lost.

  • R Valencia

    It’s 150 nautical mile = 172 mile.

  • R Valencia

    Where’s your data on Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen E’s super cruise range?

  • R Valencia

    Actually, F-4 has positive kill ratio (2 kills :1 lost) without a gun.

    http://www.pacificaviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/the-f-4c-phantom-ii