Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II

message: Under retirements where it says the JASDF retired F-4s in 2021. That is true, however, this is the incorrect F-4. The JASDF retired the Mitsubishi F-4, which is a Lockheed/Mitsubishi colab variant of the F-16, in 2021. 67.209.202.10 (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The retired field in the Infobox only lists the final retirement dates for the major operators. The Japan section does state that the last F-4 produced, was done by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and completed in 1981. The Infobox is only meant to be a summary. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

text: The Japanese variant of the F-16 is the Mitsubishi F-2, which is still in service. Quite a mix-up. BilCat (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect F-4 

message: Why does it state that the F-4 was introduced in 1960, but then in the text and from several sources it says in was first introduced to the navy in 1961? BeeboMan (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the 1960 date is for VF-121 being first F-4 squadron to receive aircraft or reach initial operating capability.  The squadrons have to pass milestones to introduce an aircraft into service. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Smith Mag. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/where-have-all-the-phantoms-gone-96320627/) states the the F-4 entered service with the USN in 1960, and Britannica, (https://www.britannica.com/technology/F-4), says the first F-4 was delivered in 1960, but first delivery is not the same as IOC, and the text says that it was introduced in 1961, coming from a now archived Boeing webpage.   BeeboMan (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation 183 may be unreliable