This is an instructive question that should be asked more often in the context of the F-35. A key difference in the F-4's gestation is that the Navy pretty muc

This is an instructive question that should be asked more often in the context of the F-35. A key difference in the F-4's gestation is that the Navy pretty much single-handedly drove all of its requirements. (The USAF didn't really want any part of it, and in the end it was shoved down their throats.) And if you think about it, the Navy's requirements tend to be more stringent. The Navy requires more range (blue water ops and less tanker support), more durable stealth coatings and features (shipboard life is hard on an airplane), better fatigue life (carrier landings take their toll), more corrosion resistance (saltwater exposure), simpler maintenance (all work done in crowded decks with limited ability to fly in new parts), lower approach speeds (the slower the plane lands, the more flexibility the captain has in how s/he drives the boat) and so on. So when the F-4 was designed, it was born out of a relatively (!) unconflicted set of requirements, rather than being a grand compromise on behalf of every customer. This is how I think the F-35 should have gone -- the Navy should have set the requirements, the USAF should have been allowed to add their own refueling gear, and if the Marines wanted VTOL that bad they should have gotten together with the Brits and modernized the Yak-141 airframe to which Lockheed bought rights, as any other alternative would have been too expensive.