Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

F-4 in Operation Power Pack, 1965, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic ?

Excuse my English, I am a contributor to the French wikipedia. I rewrote a article : Occupation de la République dominicaine par les États-Unis and we reported the close air support of F-4 from the USMC in the 508th regiment of the 82nd division without much detail. Someone in the details? In any case, it must be stated in the article) And Happy New Year to all. January 12, 2011 L'amateur d'aéroplanes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.143.31.114 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Phantoms in non-U.S. service chart placement

Requesting permission to place this chart on the top center rather then flushed right. The reason being is that the photos F-4s in non US service and almost out of the related section entirely. If the chart were to be place back on the top center it would allow the space for the photos to be parallel with the written section related to that country. Articseahorse (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The table is cramping stuff and it is duplicated at McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators or perhaps it has been duplicated here. That article has been split to thin out the contents of this section (only a summary of Phantom use in each country should be there now), my suggestion would be to ditch the table completely from this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I compressed the table so it was narrower. The images are near the relevant sections after moving the German image was moved to left and removing some on-ground images. Having that image on the left next to the table is not good. The on-ground images can be seen in the non-U.S. operators article, I believe. Yea, the table could be moved to the non-U.S. article also. Whatever seems better overall. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Speed on the deck?

What was the F-4's top speed near ground level? I've heard that the F-105 could outrun the F-4 on the deck. The F-105 could go Mach 2 at altitude and Mach 1 on the deck. This is important because as an escort fighter for F-105's in Vietnam, the F-4 would have to keep up with F-105's, yet I've heard that the F-105's would take off and leave the F-4 escorts behind. Also, I've heard that the F-4's aerodynamics were pretty bad but it's two powerful engines overcame this. Also, I've heard that the F-4 could 'dance' or semi-pivot in the air by pilots alternating thrust back and forth in the two engines. Thanks. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

was Turkish F-4 in international airspace?

The following sentence about the recently-downed Turkish F4 is confusing to me:

There is no evidence to support F-4 was in international Air Space when it was shot down.

Can someone clarify, and provide a reference? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamWQuick (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That was a claim made with no sources provided to back it up. That was has been changed back. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"Turkey has stated the reconnaissance aircraft was in international airspace when it was shot down, while Syrian authorities stated it was inside Syrian airspace." -- This sentence is still in the article, though the claim is all but verified and the Syrian claim that it was indeed in Syrian airspace sounds credible. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fuel consumption

This article makes a number of references to fuel-capacity enhancements, etc., but no mention of the aircraft's prodigious fuel consumption, especially at high speeds, which was what made the enhancements so important (but which remained a serious limitation). I don't have the figures or quotes, but it was an especially important consideration when the USAF began shopping around for replacements. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Newly uploaded Commons image

I think this file would be a good contender for the infobox, just found it trawling through the uploads. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good one. A better view and better color than the current infobox image, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Shall we change it then? The new image complies with WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES and has the advantage that a higher resolution version is available where there is none with the current image. Only reason I could think of keeping it is that it is a period photo of an F-4 on operations but that's not actually a requirement. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam War

Is it really more NPOV to talk about the "end of US involvement" in Vietnam? I don't see anything wrong in calling it what it was, a defeat. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  • As this has been reverted three times, I thought I would post (again) here. Do people reverting think America won the Vietnam War? It isn't really that complex; they lost, there are many references for this, and the article should say so. Should we otherwise note on the Me-262 article the stage of development the aircraft had reached before the "end of German involvement" in the war? I think that would be a bit silly. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It's more complicated than that, and better left to be covered elsewhere, not in the lead of an aircraft article. - BilCat (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Then let's take it out entirely. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
No. The sentence conveys useful info regarding the Phantom's increasing role in the conflict. The last phrase merely notes when and why the Phantom's involvement ceased. Calling that end a defeat is what should be left to be covered elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The defeat in Vietnam occurred 2 years after the US withdrew and that detail is not really relevant to the F-4. The sentence is just saying that the F-4 became the US's main fighter and attack aircraft over the course of the war. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Then let's say something like that, rather than "end of US involvement". I'd have to say, the outcome of a war is usually considered a pretty important aspect of the war by historians. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The USA defeated North Vietnam in 1972 during the Easter invasion; the USA killed over 40,000 of the invading North Vietnamese troops; then with the Christmas bombing the USA brought North Vietnam to its knees and forced the North to sign the Paris Peace Accords, thus ending the war. Later, three years after the USA left, the South Vietnamese lost to the North Vietnamese. When you folks say the USA lost you insult every American Vietnam Veteran. I thought you were supposed to be polite. The problem is there are too many Cultural Marxists involved in Wikipedia who see Wikipedia as a brainwashing mechanism. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Basically, having negotiated a peaceful settlement, the North Vietnamese broke the agreement and invaded South Vietnam after the U.S. departure. Because of the weakened state of the U.S. presidency due to Watergate, there was no response to this renewed fighting by the communist regime. South Vietnam fell to the barbarians from the north (barbarians is being kind, ask anyone who was from South Vietnam who failed to get out before the communists took over).

Countering Israeli Reaction to F-4 Sales to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait

It from Nixon Library Website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takahara Osaka (talk • contribs) 20:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Phantom named wrong

In the part of the article about the USAF there is photograph of a Phantom shown after landing. It is named "U.S. Air Force RF-4C Phantom II at Ellington Field (Houston)". In fact, this Phantom is an F-4E. Can someone please rename this photograph? I have no Idea how to do it... Thanks a lot.

A Google search identifies it as QF-4E 74-0627, a semi-retired F-4E. The caption could be changed, leaving the file name as it is. The file can be renamed through a procedure at Commons and/or a note added to the image file to record the problem. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiki SAGE Mis-information

The F-4 never had the SAGE datalink system installed - the Phantom's use by ADCOM-gained ANG units relied on manual GCI control (BUIC). It was not an ideal situation, but by the time the F-4s were being used for air defense, it was generally conceded that the SAGE system would most likely be severely compromised in the early stages of any nuclear war anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nicknames: Luftwaffe's "Eisenschwein"

The name "Eisenschwein" for the German Luftwaffe's F-4s is translated in this article as "iron pig". While this is a possible and lexically correct translation, it is semantically wrong. The German "Schwein" can be translated as "pig", but in English "pig" doesn't have the ring of beastliness that the German word "pig" can have. The proper translation would be "iron hog". Similiar parallel uses of "hog" and "Schwein" are "warthog" and "Warzenschwein" (v. A-10 Warthog), "hog cycle" and "Schweinezyklus" or "hog house" and "Schweinekoben".

The English translation should thus be changed to "iron hog".

--Ursus Maior (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference format changes?

Is there consensus for the sudden change in reference format to sfn?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No so I have reverted back, probably lost some minor changes in the revert but it seemed easiest to do and the minor changes if valid can be done again. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
See also the same ip's edits on McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. Again - no apparent discussion on the talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
And the ETPS article, I have reverted them both and left a note on IPs talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The same IP was editing the Saab Gripen article; the user seems to have then switched IPs to 200.219.132.103, 200.219.132.104 and 200.219.132.105. Watching the activities of these IPs, I feel fairly certain in stating my suspition that the IPs correspond in their editing pattern to an individual editor, Lgfcd. Kyteto (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

VMFA-333 Also flew the F4-J in Vietnam.

See [[1]]


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II&action=edit&section=new# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.164.84 (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Number of Hardpoints.

I've seen a grainy photo of an Israeli F-4E (USAF serial number 71-0230) hanging bombs off hardpoints that were between the inner pylons and the front sparrow recesses. If my eyes aren't fooling me and it's indeed true, then there's obviously more than the 9 mentioned. Can anyone confirm this? 124.183.92.111 (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed 9 weapons hard points on the F-4E Phantom II. 4 one the wings, 4 AIM-9 (sparrow) missile launchers, and 1 center line. The outboard pylons usually held 300 gallon wing tanks that could be jettison for high speed flight. - Dennis Doolittle USAF 1971 - 1975 (weapons maintenance)

Maximum number of Mark 82 unguided bombs and GBU-12 laser guided bombs

The F-4E Phantom II is able to fly with 24 Mark 82 bombs, so the mentioned 18 is not the maximum number. 24 Mark 82 bombs are fitted to 3 Multiple Ejector Racks (MER) and 2 Triple Ejector Racks (TER). A source about this number is the book Modern Fighting Aircraft: F4 by Doug Richardson and Mike Spick (see Bibliography).

18 GBU-12 bombs cannot be fitted as the GBU-12 is longer than a Mark 82 bomb and also the Mark 83 bomb. Fitting 6 GBU-12 bombs on a MER is impossible. Best regards HWClifton (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

Recent changes have included the addition of a section on upgrades to Iranian Phantoms which is sourced to a forum (i.e. not a reliable source, and the addition of a massive section on a single air engagement in the Vietnam War, which is completely over-the-top for an encyclopaedia article on the F-4 - see WP:UNDUE. These additions as they stand are inappropriate for the article, never mind that this is meant to be a featured article and represent the best of Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the text dump, no wikilinks, very non-encyclopaedic language and questionable sources, instant FA fail. The Iranian adds need to be looked at for worthy content and sources.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes to reference format

Is there any consensus for the recent changes to the reference format for this featured article, with the introduction of citation templates?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly against WP:CITEVAR, changed by a new user who probably is unaware of this. Have reverted to the accepted version. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reversion. And yes the changes were against WP:CITEVAR. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Variant addition?

I was recently confused on why a UAV's (QF-4E) link led to this, and was wondering if I should add a variant section to the side bar. Do you think this in necessary to clear up confusion? AA Quantum (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I will now proceed with this, except calling it a "Varients developed into" section. If anyone has any obligations, please say so. AA Quantum (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The sidebar, called the infobox, only accepts predefined fields. The sections for variants are only for linking to other articles. There is a Variants section in the article already. - BilCat (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Current" costs are never current, although you tried

I was going to remark that "Current" costs are no longer "Current" as soon as they are published, but especially in an undated encyclopedia article. The only exception to this rule being the rare case where the currency (in both meanings of time and money) can be recomputed for each viewing instance.

There is no indication this was being done (outside the frequently enthusiastically misused and misleading "Current"). In my habit of thoroughness, however, I checked the underlying text of the table, and was pleasantly surprised to find the tool "Template:Inflation" being used (!) to actually recompute the currency for each viewing instance!

So, yeah!, for use of programmed Wikipedia template I did not even know existed! It is better than cost figures without the time value of money, better than a static year interval, and much better than nothing.

Disappointment occurs upon reading further. The Template:Inflation page explicitly states

"This template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers' rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating capital expenses, government expenses, ..."

and also

"Do not assume that using this template will mean that a calculated value is "current", "as of 2016", "as of 2015" or even necessarily "recent". Per MOS:REALTIME, statements made using this template should either specify an end_year, or rely on |fmt=eq or Error: no index specified when using {{Inflation/year}}. to automatically indicate the latest year this template provides an inflation calculation. Do not use 2024."

Awww.

So, good try.

But, "Current" terminology should be changed.

Also, the "Template:Inflation" template is incapable of inflating capital expenses and government expenses.

Perhaps a caveat added, explicitly noting that the figures are recomputed instantly, would be informative. Citing the method used for re-computation might allow a ballpark semi-accurate inflation figure, if not a precisely correct figure, as long as some uncertainty indication is included, until a capital and government expense inflation template appears. SalineBrain (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of being bold, I would make the changes now, but I judge they lie outside the scope of my current capabilities to complete correctly. SalineBrain (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

factory

Let's think of a way to mention that it was built in St. Louis. Also search where else it was built. Someday, readers may find this interesting, particularly if St. Louis stops building planes. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If you mean in the infobox, no. It's only intended as a general summary and brief overview. But there's nothing wrong with mentioning it the main text, preferably with a reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Decibels

Being involved in a discussion (outside of Wikipedia) regarding relative noise levels of various aircraft, I was hoping to find a discussion of the decibel levels of this aircraft during afterburner takeoff. Preferably with a source, of course. No such luck, but if anyone knows of a good source for this info, it might make an interesting addition to the article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

dead links

I found active links for (4) and (5) but see the new link doesn't support some of the other places where the dead link is uses. Most are covered by other links but what I thought was going to be a quick fix is taking longer than I have time for. this is the new link http://www.boeing.com/history/products/f-4-phantom-ii.page Jackhammer111 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Aircraft on display" section getting a bit long/redundant....

Hello!

I've noticed that new aircraft keeping creeping into the "Aircraft on display" section....which would be great, except it's redundant with F-4 Phantoms IIs on display. Could we cull all but the most notable from the list in the main article, and maybe add a hidden note requesting no new entries on this page? Thoughts?

Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes! The text and sources in this article should be moved the 'on display' page, then the section can be almost emptied. --Finlayson (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"Ace Status"

"The Phantom has the distinction of being the last U.S. fighter flown by pilots who attained ace status in the 20th century" is nonsense. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalil_Zandi

I'm surprised an unsourced bit of nonsense like the "distinction" statement survived so long in the header of such an important article. but, i'm sure the number of rivets mentioned elsewhere is correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:14AB:C500:2434:5453:9F86:188E (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

COUNTRY NAMES=/=AİR FORCES

yea that's it. when i see USAF, while dont see other country's airforce im getting angry. we should add other country's airforce names instead country names. like: turkey;turkish air force. sorry for bad english. hope to understanding. Modern primat (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)modern_primat 11 april 2020

It's an American topic about an aircraft used in more numbers by the American military than all other nations combined. That's not bias, just reality. My main issue with your changes was two-fold: Adding the full names was making the headings too long, and was somewhat redundant anyway. In addition, you ignored the basic fact that not all operators of the F-4 were air forces! The USN and USMC were major users, as was the UK's Royal Navy. In the end, it doesn't really matter which way we go, just as long as it's done consistently. We just need to decide which way is best for the article. - BilCat (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"In addition, you ignored the basic fact that not all operators of the F-4 were air forces! The USN and USMC were major users, as was the UK's Royal Navy." yea... maybe you are right. im same opinion right now... thank you. Modern primat (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)modern_primat

Aircraft on display

Why does this article list 14 aircraft on display when the list of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs on display exists? In most cases on Wikipedia where a separate list article exists, the "Aircraft on display" section only contains a link to the list. A couple of the listed aircraft seem notable in their own right (66-7463 and the Pardo's Push aircraft), but the others seem like a random hodgepodge. Carguychris (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:Summary style, a summary of the section is left and the main text split to another article. I've tagged the section for summarizing. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Notable Accidents: Friendly Fire Shootdown

Hi, I recently learned of the incident when a US Navy F-14 actually shot down a USAF F-4 during a training mission. It is described in detail here: | 22 Sept 1987 F-4 incident. I think this history is fascinating and is a notable accident (training mission gone very wrong). I'd like it to be included in the Notable Accidents section. TAPwiki (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You'll need a reliable reference, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Then you'll need consensus as to the nobility of your information. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 22:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, fair. the linked section has multiple sources, here is one: [1]. Here is another, more recent, online [2] TAPwiki (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Washington, D.C., "Navy F14 Downs Air Force Jet During Exercise", Washington Post, Associated Press, Wednesday 23 September 1987, page A-4.
  2. ^ "Friendly-fire victim outraged over Navy officer's admiral promotion". CBS News. CBS. Retrieved 29 July 2021.

Not TAF it's TurAF

Turkish air force abbreviation is not TAF it's TurAF. Thanks. 151.250.152.32 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II/Archive_3&oldid=1194933287"