FWIW, I flew the F-4 in the late 70s, and later flew the F-16 from early 80s to early 90s. Some thoughts on the above:

While cheer-leading for old “double-ugly” is understandable, this article is grossly misleading and lacking in realistic appraisal. The F-4, even at its original introduction, was a compromised design just to achieve some degree of stability: dihedral wings, anhedral tail, 3-channel stability augmentation, etc. The original “hard-wing” (prior to the 556 slat mod) would readily depart controlled flight at high-g/high-AOA if the pilot attempted to roll using the stick (ailerons/spoilers) rather than the rudder. While the slat mod did make the aircraft much less departure prone during maneuvering, the slats also slowed acceleration and top speed in non-maneuvering flight while causing extensive airspeed bleed-off in hard turns. The added drag also reduced effective combat radius.

The comparison of “making a tight, 180 degree turn” is meaningless: at the same altitude, airspeed, and G, all aircraft make the same turn. What distinguishes performance is at what minimum speed can the aircraft achieve the given G-load (instantaneous turn) and what G the aircraft can sustain without losing airspeed/altitude (sustained turn). The F-4 does not fair well by comparison to any modern fighter.

The old J-79 was a great engine in its day, but it is also a gas-gulping hog. At Red Flag in the 80s we planned our strike packages with the F-4s taking off first so they could top off on the tanker. The 16s would rendezvous with them at the tankers w/o taking gas, then we’d all low-level ingress, attack, and egress. The 16’s would then orbit up north to let the low-fuel F-4s RTB first. The point is that the F-4 doesn’t have very good range compared to later generation aircraft. A final note is that its cockpit visibility, while better than equivalent-era MiGs, is poor.

Installation of modern avionics has certainly enhanced the vacuum-tube technology I experienced, and elimination of the “coal-burning” J-79 smoke trail was long overdue. However, this classic aircraft, which was used effectively in a variety of missions, is way past its prime. The attempt to give it a favorable comparison to better-performing (and more maintainable) successors is risible.