Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 12 months

McDonnell Douglas 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 27, 2008.

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
February 21, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 27, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

Military history: Aviation / Cold War

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vietnam Mid‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What does this mean?

"The baseline performance of a Mach 2-class fighter with long-range and a bomber-sized payload would be the template for the next generation of large and light/middle-weight fighters optimized for daylight air combat."

What is a "bomber sized payload"? Is there some threshold that distinguishes a bomber payload fun another? What specific "large and lightweight" fighters was the F-4 a template for? That seems like a complete contradiction. A lightweight fighter is an F-5. A large fighter is an F-15. A middleweight is an F-18C Hornet or maybe an F-16. The only fighters that have any real relationship to the F-4 are the F-15 and F-14, which are both large fighters, neither one was designed with the intent to carry air to ground munitions, which makes a "bomber sized payload" seem strange. I don't see how the F-4 is a "template" for any other aircraft, aside from generally being the first modern fighter with integrated systems and intended to use radar and missiles as primary weapons from the start. It also got a head start on the more recent trend towards multi role fighters.

Idumea47b (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The F-4 is not one of the aircraft featured in the cited source plus no page number is given (not good for a Featured Article). I searched the source for this information but couldn't find it or anything similar. I also tried to find which editor added it (the text was not there at the Featured Article Review) but failed. I suggest the sentence is removed completely. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 183 may be unreliable

The Website cited uses this Wikipedia page as its own source, creating a cycle of sourcing where there is no origial proof of the information provided. Sadly the website of Citation 183 itself doesnt list what info stems from what source, meaning either the sources of that article have to be individually verfied or a new source for the info has to be found. 2001:7C7:2051:195:91B8:DCA0:2443:C967 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Privately Owned

I was adding the privately owned part and missed adding the citation. I have added a citation for that part now. Jjoonnii (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F4 US Navy carrier accidents

F4 US Navy accidents. When reading Mike Spick's book he says that there were quite a few catapult accidents with the F4 so should this not be mentioned? Also, is there reference to accidents vs contemporary aircraft? I was surprised the F4 was so accident prone. Roy Szweda (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]