Check-Six Forums

TO: Capt. Eric Best 3 SEP 93
FROM: The Wild Weasels
SUBJ: Gross Written Buffoonery

1. In case you hadn't noticed, the F-4 is the F-4 of the 1990s. Any comparison between that worthless piece of flying FOD that you buzz around in and the Mighty Phantom II is insulting to the many men who have fought and died In the F-4. The Phantom II was flying Defense Suppression and Air Superiority missions over Hanoi, dropping LGBs with PAVE KNIFE on the Paul Doumer Bridge, and flying CAS in the Iron Triangle (to mention just a few) long before your flying toy was a wet dream in the minds of the Texas Congressional Delegation.

The misplaced belief that the F-16 is a true multi-role fighter is no doubt a contributing factor to the common occurrence of Vipers spearing rocks, dirt, trees, other aircraft and large bodies of water with the pitot tube. The F-16 was designed to be a cheap, day VFR fighter and no amount of training or money will ever be able to overcome that imitation. If any aircraft today approaches the potential for comparison to the F-4, it is another two seat, two engine McDonnell Douglas product in the Air Force Service.

2. Any attempt to inflate your basement-level status by comparison to what is, quite simply the best jet fighter ever built and the Defender of the Free World for over 30 Years, is a pitiful attempt to boost your ego by comparing yourself to better men flying a better aircraft. The F-4 has flown more types of missions, in a superlative fashion, than the F-16 could ever consider. We would all love to see the day when an F-16 lifts off with 24 Mk 82s and four AAMs on a combat mission. And the F-4 became the world's best ever distributor of MIG parts with 1950s technology, AIM-7Es, AIM 9Bs and cannon, without having to wait for the introduction of the AMRAAM.

3. The simple fact of the matter is that the dismal combat performance of the F-16 in the Gulf War is directly responsible for the continuing service of both the F-4 and the A-10. The F-16s inability to deliver ordnance load accurately resulted in the need to re-attack targets, endangering men needlessly and wasting resources. It wasn't the F-16 that ran a SAM-killing 8 ship through the most intense air defenses ever encountered by the USAF over Baghdad on the first night of the war. The only reason "Magnum" is even in your vocabulary is because the dwindling numbers of Phantoms led to the conclusion that an F-16 on the wing is better than nothing at all, but only just.

The only people that have not caught on to the glaring inadequacy of the F-16 are the people who drive them. The only foreign customer stupid enough to purchase the F-16 since the war has been Taiwan, largely because, (1) they placed their order long before the war, and (2) they had no real option because they were not offered the F-18 and didn't already operate the Phantom II. Even your own manufacturer bailed out of the business as soon as they realized that they could no longer rely on general and gross stupidity to sell their flying failure.

4. To wrap this up, we greatly resent the misguided and faulty comparison of the F-4 Phantom II to the Fighting Falcon, the only fighter aircraft In history to be named after a second-rate college football team. Any resemblance between the McDonnell Douglas Phantom II Supersonic, All-Weather, Fighter-Bomber (Mostly Bomber), and the miserable, single-seat, single-engine, computer designed, fly-by-wire, composite airframe, software-driven, day VFR, ice-FOD sucking, weakdick bubble canopied, target missing, ground impacting, non-hook raising, auto trimming, piddlepack ejecting, G-LOCing piece of flying pork barrel politics is limited to the fact that both aircraft have an F- designation. Your aircraft should have a blue stripe painted around the nose and "FOR TRAINING USE ONLY" stenciled on the fuselage. And you can go to the club tonight knowing that you, your article, and this letter occupy a significant place in our Doofer Book.

Your aircraft should have a blue stripe painted around the nose and "FOR TRAINING USE ONLY" stenciled on the fuselage.

Any resemblance between the McDonnell Douglas Phantom II Supersonic, All-Weather, Fighter-Bomber (Mostly Bomber), and the miserable, single-seat, single-engine, computer designed, fly-by-wire, composite airframe, software-driven, day VFR, ice-FOD sucking, weakdick bubble canopied, target missing, ground impacting, non-hook raising, auto trimming, piddlepack ejecting, G-LOCing piece of flying pork barrel politics is limited to the fact that both aircraft have an F- designation

*Aquila* a écrit :Bah, si le Mirage 2000 avait des oreilles, elles n'auraient pas fini de siffler tant les pilotes de Jaguar (et de F1?) lui ont servi de la "pelle à tarte électronique" par opposition à "l'avion d'hommes" qu'était le Jag, lequel Jag "avait, lui, besoin de ce qu'on appellait alors un pilote" (sic!)...

1. In case you hadn't noticed, the F-4 is the F-4 of the 1990s. Any comparison between that worthless piece of flying FOD that you buzz around in and the Mighty Phantom II is insulting to the many men who have fought and died In the F-4. The Phantom II was flying Defense Suppression and Air Superiority missions over Hanoi, dropping LGBs with PAVE KNIFE on the Paul Doumer Bridge, and flying CAS in the Iron Triangle (to mention just a few) long before your flying toy was a wet dream in the minds of the Texas Congressional Delegation.

2. Any attempt to inflate your basement-level status by comparison to what is, quite simply the best jet fighter ever built and the Defender of the Free World for over 30 Years, is a pitiful attempt to boost your ego by comparing yourself to better men flying a better aircraft. The F-4 has flown more types of missions, in a superlative fashion, than the F-16 could ever consider. We would all love to see the day when an F-16 lifts off with 24 Mk 82s and four AAMs on a combat mission. And the F-4 became the world's best ever distributor of MIG parts with 1950s technology, AIM-7Es, AIM 9Bs and cannon, without having to wait for the introduction of the AMRAAM.

3. The simple fact of the matter is that the dismal combat performance of the F-16 in the Gulf War is directly responsible for the continuing service of both the F-4 and the A-10. The F-16s inability to deliver ordnance load accurately resulted in the need to re-attack targets, endangering men needlessly and wasting resources. It wasn't the F-16 that ran a SAM-killing 8 ship through the most intense air defenses ever encountered by the USAF over Baghdad on the first night of the war. The only reason "Magnum" is even in your vocabulary is because the dwindling numbers of Phantoms led to the conclusion that an F-16 on the wing is better than nothing at all, but only just.

The only people that have not caught on to the glaring inadequacy of the F-16 are the people who drive them. The only foreign customer stupid enough to purchase the F-16 since the war has been Taiwan, largely because, (1) they placed their order long before the war, and (2) they had no real option because they were not offered the F-18 and didn't already operate the Phantom II. Even your own manufacturer bailed out of the business as soon as they realized that they could no longer rely on general and gross stupidity to sell their flying failure.

4. To wrap this up, we greatly resent the misguided and faulty comparison of the F-4 Phantom II to the Fighting Falcon, the only fighter aircraft In history to be named after a second-rate college football team.

Any resemblance between the McDonnell Douglas Phantom II Supersonic, All-Weather, Fighter-Bomber (Mostly Bomber), and the miserable, single-seat, single-engine, computer designed, fly-by-wire, composite airframe, software-driven, day VFR, ice-FOD sucking, weakdick bubble canopied, target missing, ground impacting, non-hook raising, auto trimming, piddlepack ejecting, G-LOCing piece of flying pork barrel politics is limited to the fact that both aircraft have an F- designation. Your aircraft should have a blue stripe painted around the nose and "FOR TRAINING USE ONLY" stenciled on the fuselage. And you can go to the club tonight knowing that you, your article, and this letter occupy a significant place in our Doofer Book.

Bah, si le Mirage 2000 avait des oreilles, elles n'auraient pas fini de siffler tant les pilotes de Jaguar (et de F1?) lui ont servi de la "pelle à tarte électronique" par opposition à "l'avion d'hommes" qu'était le Jag, lequel Jag "avait, lui, besoin de ce qu'on appellait alors un pilote" (sic!)...