Tyndall QF-4 down- No injuries-Second QF-4 loss in a week...

[Warbirdnerd]

Giant Drone Crashes Near Florida Highway, Explosive Possibly Inside
An Air Force QF-4 unmanned drone has crashed at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, the second drone crash to occur there in the last week. Nobody was injured but the status of its onboard explosive device is currently "unknown." That's reassuring.P
The crash occurred during takeoff around 8:30 this morning. It forced the closure of Highway 98, but not because the highway was damaged.
Officials have said that the highway may remain closed for up to 24 hours because of fires caused by the crash. The QF-4 also carries an explosive device on board that can be activated when the plane is in a precarious position and might cause harm to others. The status of that device is currently unknown, but it does discharge within 24 hours. After that time it can't explode.
Another QF-4 from Tyndall went down over the Gulf of Mexico last week. The Air Force detonated its on-board explosive device because they had no choice. It sounds like the drone had developed problems that would keep it from returning to Tyndall safely.P
The QF-4 is not like the surveillance drones that you see on the news. This is essentially a McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom that is used as a moving target to test weapons. It looks much more like a fighter jet than a top secret surveillance craft.

Found it here:
http://jalopnik.com/giant-drone-crashes ... -813351800

[SaxMan]

Favorite line from the article: "It looks much more like a fighter jet..."

Um, isn't the F-4 "a" fighter jet and not "like a fighter jet"?

My favorite quote about the Phantom: "Proof that if you have powerful enough engines, you can make anything fly"

Second favorite: "F-4 Phantom: World's Leading Distributor of MiG parts".

[maxum96]

Second favorite: "F-4 Phantom: World's Leading Distributor of MiG parts".

[Steve Nelson]

Favorite line from the article: "It looks much more like a fighter jet..."

Um, isn't the F-4 "a" fighter jet and not "like a fighter jet?".

Well, the reporter is probably younger than the plane that crashed, and to today's average non-aviation , "drone" = Predator (and most don't even realize there is a such thing as a Reaper..let alone the difference.)

SN

[43-2195]

Good, let's keep em ignorant.

[sandiego89]

Second favorite: "F-4 Phantom: World's Leading Distributor of MiG parts".

So with a thread drift, what can claim really claim to be the "World's Leading distributor of MiG parts" ie: most MiG kills by a particular airframe. I see this monicker used by fans of the F-15 in the modern era with 100+ MiG kills in US and Isreali hands, F-4 Phantom must be around 250+?? (USAF, Navy, Isreali, Iranian), Mirage III ~150?, but my vote must be the F-86 with over 700 credited in Korea, and perhaps a few more dozen in Pakistani hands. Maybe bf-109 over prop migs on the Easern Front?? Anyone got good number on total MiG kills by airframe type?

(Honorable mention may go to India- they seem to be distributing parts on their own quite a bit)

[old iron]

So with a thread drift, what can claim really claim to be the "World's Leading distributor of MiG parts" ie: most MiG kills by a particular airframe. I see this monicker used by fans of the F-15 in the modern era with 100+ MiG kills in US and Isreali hands, F-4 Phantom must be around 250+?? (USAF, Navy, Isreali, Iranian), Mirage III ~150?, but my vote must be the F-86 with over 700 credited in Korea, and perhaps a few more dozen in Pakistani hands. Maybe bf-109 over prop migs on the Easern Front?? Anyone got good number on total MiG kills by airframe type?

But there is another way to look at this. Rather than comparing

# F-4 shoot-downs of MiGs vs. # MiG shoot-downs of F4s

we could compare

$ cost of F-4s shot down by MiGs vs. $ cost of MiGs shot down by F-4s.

My guess is that if you did the $ numbers you would determine that the MiGs won in Viet Nam. I think the F-86s won in Korea as the cost differential between our and their aircraft was likely closer.

These comparisons could be extended to more recent US and MiG types but would be more difficult to evaluate, as the US or allied losses for the recent types would be very low (zero F-15s, I think). The low numbers would perhaps skew that statistics.

For the next conflict, should they shoot down several F-22s or F-35s, the other side might be able to lose their entire airforce and come out ahead costwise. The loss of just a few of our aircraft would be a significant loss - several percent of our entire air force. Heck, if we were to lose a B-2 that cost might exceed our opponents entire military budget for a year.

Just some thought to put the numbers into different contexts...