SgtPappy

Yea, what other jet can carry 4 sparrows, 4 sidewinders, two drop tanks AND 12 Mk 82s at the same time? I dont even think the Strike Eagle could since the outer two hard points were deleted from the F-15 until just recently.

Just to add to the excellent information already provided, I'd also like to mention that the F-4E with slats showing up in late 1972 in the final stages of the Vietnam War with the "new" 555th TFS was a very mature version of the F-4 while the earliest of F-14A and F-15A blocks had a lot of hiccups to fix at the time when they were still prototypes. Of course despite this, when they worked properly, they really were next generation in terms of performance. To me, what makes this F-4E version special is that it was the best version of the F-4E to fight in wars (Vietnam, Israel in 1973) where it was the best over all in the world. After 1973, the F-14A, F-15A, Mirage F1, MiG-23 started showing up and IMO, the F-14/F-15 completely outclassed the new fighters entering service. The MiG-23MS - the first mass produced version - did not have a radar as capable as the 1977 circa MiG-23ML/MLA. And indeed the first examples of the MiG-23 to see combat was the MF variant in 1974 which had no BVR missiles and a MiG-21 radar. The AIM-7E-2 at this time also yes, had a poor hit rate - only improving over the legacy AIM-7 by around 2% - but Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965–1972 (and probably the infamous Ault report - I'd have to read it again to confirm) admits that a LOT of the missed missiles also had to do with shots out of parameters or switches being in the wrong position, leading to duds on top of the lack of reliability. I've seen figures as high as 30% of missed missiles was from these factors, but I'd have to dig deeper to be sure. If we end up making servers with period-accurate combat until and including 1973 tech, say good bye to chaff and flare launchers on either the F-4E or MiG-21 and very limited R-3R/S missiles on the MiG. The F-4 would be at a significant advantage here, being able to use AIM-9D's (if Israeli) or J's (probably similar/exactly the same as AIM-9P's as far as DCS is concerned). However to get good traffic, I imagine servers would understandably need to compromise a bit by having technologically similar jets for balanced gameplay and accessibility and sort of forgo time frames. From quick and rough checks of weights, dimensions and uninstalled, sea level engine thrust, the Mirage F1 appears to be inferior to the F-4E in thrust to weight ratio with a similar wing loading, aspect ratio and wing sweep while also having leading edge slats (the Mirage has half span slats and half span LE flaps), though it seems to be faster. It does not surprise me too much if it were to actually turn worse instantaneously and sustained. Also note that the S530F, while maybe a much faster missile than the AIM-7E-2 was a 1978ish missile - by which time the contemporary would have been the AIM-7F which equipped F-14's and F-15's and would equip some F-4E squadrons. The AIM-7F is still slower but it is loads better in performance and reliability than the AIM-7E variants. All this to say I guess is that the better MiG-23MLA and DCS Mirage F1 variants and weapons aren't really contemporary to this F-4E chronologically (but they would be for the later DMAS F-4E) - but rather they'd showed up when the likes of the Tomcat and Eagle were on the scene.

Haha I see what you mean. My eyes are only slightly better than the LANTIRN so to me, there's almost no difference!

Is the LANTIRN bad? I always found it incredibly good on the F-14.

There will also be unique audio for each emitter and filter buttons to help you focus on one type or the other. Still crude but of course threats at the time were fewer in type. I think it would be ideal for me if the earlier F-4E had the strobe display and the later F-4E with DMAS had the alphanumeric display. Best of both worlds and maximum immersion for the time frames.

I'm actually hoping it has the strobe display instead of the alphanumeric one since that would more reflect what would have been used in the wars in that time frame. Also, it would be a more novel feature for DCS.

So it looks like we are getting the ALR-46 RHAW of which there were many versions. Because the development of this system for DCS is related very closely to the ALR-45 on the F-14A (early) with a strobe display, I assume the F-4E is also getting an earlier strobe display design, unlike the alphanumeric ALR-46 version the DCS F-5E. Can anyone from HB confirm this? And does anyone have more info on this system? Most of my docs only talk about the APR-36/37 that showed up on the later F-4E's in Vietnam and Israel in 1972/73.

I believe it was communicated that the F-4F would only appear as liveries. Fuel lines and systems are one task but the non-slotted stabiliator would require different modeling - aerodynamics and mass are different. Modeling the F-4F would cause scope creep for this release... but who knows for the future.

Lol its not my opinion, I'm quoting you... with the airplanes switched.

"Alas we are not getting the F-4E, just a couple of bland F-4J/S..." If it were the other way around i wonder how this would be justifiable...

I knew this was a thing.. not a lot of people believed me but it would be nice to experiment and try this at least on missiles if possible (if the choice exists) to reflect missile failure rates of the time.

Sorry Kermie, this is one of the extremely rare times I'd have to agree with exhausted on this one... VTAS can be something that's disabled and you won't have to use it. I hope that it is going to be optional and that it can be removed or enforced in some servers, similar to the F/A-18 and F-16 HMD's. I'd still prefer to have the option though as it doesn't take anything away once disabled and it would be fun to try. However, there's no reason to go on a sarcastic tirade as you responded to the original post. It's fairly disrespectful. A simple "I' don't prefer it for reasons <XYZ>." is sufficient. Everyone wants their ideal version of the jet, and VTAS happens to be one of the technologies that was around at a similar time as the F-4E we're getting so why not the F-4J get the AWG-10B and VTAS? I also want a more dogfighting-prone environment with limited-capability missiles, but to discount anyone else's opinion with yours touted as superior is inherently illogical. Please try to be respectful.

Pretty sure he's the world's only F-16 ace! Thanks for sharing.

Wow these videos are great.. I'd often set these to loop while I fell asleep. Another great video that came out today from the Operations Room channel on youtube about Israeli F-4 action during the Yom Kippur War:

I know everyone working with or for ED has their priorities... but this would be super awesome and immersive.

I'm hoping for the F-4J for a Navy variant because a hard-wing Phantom will give us a little different flavour than the slatted E we are getting first. Also, the J saw combat while the superior BFM F-4S did not and only really showed up in the early 80s. As cool as the S is, I think a late J would bring more history and variety than an S. This would make the slatted E the turn fighter and the J the vertical fighter while they'd still be somewhat similar in performance.

I think a lot of people have addressed this already but I'd also like to point out that even if less than half the Israeli and Iranian claims are to be believed, they still scored more kills in the F-4E than the USAF did in Vietnam. They also fired more AGM-65's and possibly destroyed more ground targets with them. I can empathize with Vietnam being the most popular and favourite among the DCS crowd, so I get it. But I think it's important to remember that the Vietnam War was not the only, and arguably not necessarily the most important conflict from several metrics for every history buff on these forums. I think the Marianas could *maybe* work even if you take off and pretend you're in a USAF Thailand base but the immersion sort of breaks down once you see water everywhere. I think we'll have to wait and hope that there will be a practical way of simulating trees that block LoS while also allowing munitions through.

Yeah I think I've read every publication I could find but understandably, none go into detail on what was done after the first few days of that war to get the Phantoms to detect SA-6 signals. I'm still making my way through "Ghosts of Atonement" which outlines every F-4 sortie thus unearthed in the Yom Kippur War and they've implied several times that the SA-6 lock on signal was detectable after a few days but not much is stated on how. I wonder if by the time the US emergency Nickel Grass jets arrived if they had already been modified or if they were modified when arriving in Israel. Lots of questions, but hopefully one day, I'll find more info.

Your ego is writing (virtual) cheques your (virtual) body can't cash!

From what I remember this is more true for the hard-wing F-4. From the plots, the slatted Phantom has a better maximum sustained turn rate even against a MiG-21 using emergency burner. However if the Phantom slows down under, say ~350 KIAS, the MiG has a better sustained rate and the gap increases as the Phantom slows. The top speeds (more specifically the 1G flight envelopes) appear to be close since the slats add some drag. The F-4E has a higher speed limit to 36,000' but the MiG-21 can fly higher. With all 8 missiles, I suspect the Phantom might be a hair slower or just about the same all the way up to 36,000' than a MiG with 4xR-60s or 4xR-3s (the more historically accurate loadout for the early 1970s). I don't know if the MiG-21bis in DCS can fly past that temperature limit line though... if so it would be faster up high where the F-4E with slats can't climb to. Note that the hard-wing F-4E does not have this disadvantage. Instantaneous turn rate is in favour of the MiG by a decent but not crazy amount, IMO. Below is a graph I made a long time ago based on manual data, interpolated where applicable: Maybe I'll eventually make an overlay but here are the plots form the Russian MiG-21bis manual and the 1979 TO 1F-4E-1:

Thanks! Did you have any restrictions on the AIM-9's used on the Phantoms you flew? IIRC the UK used the AIM-9D/G right?

Being the expert that you are in munitions, I noticed that the TO 1F-4E-1 states that the max symmetric G's you can pull while carrying AIM-9E/J is only 6.5 G. But the missiles definitely pull way more than that in flight. Do you know why this is so low? Is it an issue with the pylons or is 6.5 G the max G you can pull while firing the missile (since the max G load to fire does not seem to be stated in the -1)? I'm hoping I didn't miss something in the manual.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Wing and aircraft design are indeed relevant when we engineers determine (at least on paper) how an aircraft will perform. I suppose you are actually saying why we don't need aircraft-specific parameters in the formula? The calculations I provided don't require parameters like CL, CD etc because they are saying that: "given that an aircraft can pull n G's at speed v, what is its turn radius?" That is, the formulas are just basic kinematic formulas that work on anything that is turning. It assumes that the values you plugged in can be achieved by whatever aircraft/car/boat/thing you are calculating it for. Yes, this is correct.

Need more 3rd TFW liveries! My parents' home country never flew Phantoms, but they certainly hosted them... This one without TISEO matches our first DCS F-4E perfectly.