SgtPappy

What is DMSQ? I know that DVST was the old display and DSCG is the newer digital version that had better displays. Or is DVSQ something else completely unrelated? Couldn't really find much on google.

To add to this, in March 1973, Israel received the first non-TISEO F-4E's that came from the factory with slats (Block 48 to 51, maybe 53) that would see combat. These would be the first slatted F-4E's to score MiG kills when war broke out in October of that year. I think the first version we are getting would essentially be anything in this block range, except with mods up until 1974 which may include things like the ALE-40 countermeasures dispenser.

Realistically, I'm betting it will be like most modules - as best as they can make it and it will eventually need tweaking as people explore the flight envelope. I'm not sure if anyone - even HB - can speculate on how "finished" it really will be.

No doubt the Israeli and especially Iran victories are contested. Even the books on Israeli Phantoms (Ghosts of Atonement) points out where opinions diverge between the US evaluation of the conflict and the Israeli claims (i.e. some Israeli losses are attributed to AAA when they were actually shot down by MiGs). However there are several kills that are confirmed by all sides (Israeli, US evaluators and Syrian or Egyptian accounts) and those are the ones I take most seriously. My research so far implies that most kills are confirmed. Even so, the sources in question are all US sources on the US-North Vietnam conflict and they confirm each other, for the most part. My question is primarily on the US claims of 23 kills for the F-4E vs 20 for the F-4J. There are also plenty of interviews and videos of both services' pilots but I want more book-related info since I guess I'd rather read than sift through (admittedly good, but long) interviews.

But... you just asked me to provide sources. Earlier you said: Then you said the following when asked about your sources: How confusing! Anyway - and now I'm asking genuinely- do you have any sources that refute the aerial victories in the sources I posted? This is an open question to anyone in the thread btw. If my understanding of the F-4's A2A victories is wrong, I'd really like to know.

That's insane! But sounds typical. Thanks for the insight. Sounds like you guys and girls must have been overworked. I wonder if newer aircraft like the Typhoon are much better in this regard or if it was more of a staffing or logistics issue regardless of airplane type.

I guess getting back to the F-4... I heard that the F-4 always came home with something broken. Do you think that's true? Would that be a testament to how much damage it could take, or does it mean the Phantom was fragile?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. And they say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again so I guess I'm insane because I'll try this one more time even though this has ALL been stated before in this thread and several others... With the exception of that video you've actually not backed up one claim with any numbers or reference to text. The Osprey series of books contain probably our best records of aircraft victories to date. They are not perfect and every researcher/author of each volume has disclaimed the possible errors in their books. Even if all but three or four of the ~115 claims these stock F-4E's got during the War of Attrition during their service from 1969-1973 and Yom Kippur War (Oct 1973) are unconfirmed, (stock means without modification because you ignored that twice already) it would still be more kills than the F-4J. Extensive modification (refuel probes, new weapons, etc.) of these F-4's happened after the Yom Kippur War. That said, the F-4J is not any less awesome than the F-4E just because it got fewer kills. This is a concept you do not understand, and one I'm sure you'll ignore for the fourth time. The stock slatted F-4E then saw combat with Iran as well in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War and was the back bone of their AF. We don't have reliable kill stats but we know they shot down at least a few MiG-21s and MiG-23s. We also know they undertook most of the bombing missions alongside F-5's and much later, modified F-14's. The tonnage dropped by just the F-4E when cross referenced with the other texts shows that it dropped more ordnance, and caused more collective damage than all other variants combined. Doesn't make it better, but it does make it far from non-negligible. Both the F-4E and F-4J got a similar number of kills in US service in Vietnam (~20) with the F-4J shooting down more MiG-17s and the F-4E shooting down more MiG-21s. In fact, according to [1] and [2] (see bottom of post), the F-4E got 23 kills and according to [3], [4], and [5], the F-4J got 20. So your whole argument based on air to air victories crumbles. I suppose you'll find a new goal post to invalidate this. I've already mentioned that the 24 Rivet Haste birds flew over 200 sorties logging over 600 combat hours between Nov 1972 and Jan 1973, but you've ignored the service of all those who took part in the program and anyone who flew the F-4E before them. Most of their combat was air to ground but you've ignored that as well. Even if you wanted to count that service as negligible, then your claims of the F-4S would hold no water because it saw no combat and was fewest in number between the F-4E or J. Then there's still that unaddressed claim you made that the slatted F-4E's maneuverability doesn't matter because it's not interesting or whatever you made up. But I'm sure you'll ignore this too and not address a single one, or maybe you'll focus on one claim and say the rest is wrong or you'll just say the opposite again for some reason. Frankly, this is a delusional statement. I've also tried to show empathy to your arguments on why the F-4J would best represent the Phantom first (my second favourite version) on three occassions and you have not reciprocated once... People are agreeing not because of popularity, but because most Phantom records are publicly verified and the replies to you contain logic that can only be dismissed by ignorance or denial (that, and you're not addressing rebuttals to your made-up claims, you're being unfriendly and unempathetic, to put it kindly). This is why I'm convinced you either have some unaddressed, unhealthy coping mechanism resulting in absolute denial of fact or you're doing this on purpose. Unless there are legitimate reasons to continue, I will stop talking to a wall. References: [1] Futrell, Frank (1976). United States Air Force in Southeast Asia 1965-1973: Aces and Aerial Victories. Air University, Headquarters USAF [2] Davies, Peter(2012). USAF F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers 1972–73 [3] Naval History and Heritage Command [4] Elward, Brad. US Navy F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers 1972-73. Osprey Publishing. [5] Stoffey, Robert (2008). Fighting to Leave: The Final Years of America's War in Vietnam, 1972-1973

Friends, I think it's about time we stop feeding trolls. They're either doing this on purpose, cannot accept facts or have a legitimate issue processing logic.

For QRA jets, are their systems aligned, then the kept on with, say external power, until the jet is needed?

Bit of a double standard asking for this when you haven't recognized the F-4E's history no? Plenty of examples in this and other threads of you negating its history as well. But the previous post is right. Why we try to convince anyone else anything by bickering is indeed pointless. Don't lose hope. HB is the only one so far who have delivered multiple variants. I have faith they'll make a USN version. If this is what's motivating your crusade, I extend an olive branch.. let's just chill and hope together. I think we all have that feeling in common.

Well you dont seem like the type that consistently puts others down or trolls about the F-4E being the wrong choice. Most everyone have been respectful and I'm pretty sure that's all that Mantis is getting at.

This really puts it into perspective. Thanks! I should've realized the fuel fraction was higher. Hopefully the F-8 comes out soonish so we can have them fly alongside our Phantoms.

No. Sorry I didn't mean to suggest it was you. I was just trying to summarize that despite the F-4S' fantastic capability, a lot of the discussion in the thread is discrediting the F-4E in the context of its relevance in Vietnam and other conflicts like the YomKippur/October War.

The F-4S is the ultimate Phantom IMO. But it's just from a different era since it showed up way after Vietnam. Sure it'd be great to have it but some seem to think it's the right choice and the F-4E is the wrong choice despite the fact that the slatted F-4E saw butt loads of combat within its own era when it was top dog. If the F-4S came first I wouldn't be upset, but to suggest the F-4E is wrong choice is ... delusional.

Do you have a source for the Marines' superiority in A2G performance over the USAF Phantoms? What metrics are used to measure this? While I agree that overall the USN training was superior, you've changed the discussion to another thing entirely. The original argument was that the slatted F-4E was more maneuverable overall than the F-4J during the Vietnam War time frame. That's why I consider it my favourite Vietnam War jet. Thats all there is to it. Then you went on about how the F-4J's more interesting history somehow made the F-4E's maneuverability not applicable ... or something... which confused me.. so Kalasnkova47 stated that an aircraft's maneuverability and aerodynamic performance are independent from its service history. That is to say, ok cool the F-4J had a super awesome history. It doesn't mean the slatted F-4E is suddenly discounted from that war just because it did less. Imagine going up to one of the Rivet Haste crews and telling them that their time in the F-4E shouldn't count because they barely did anything (as if 640 combat hours is nothing for ~24 jets). Yes.. that's what I was saying. You can compare the F-4E - any of them that saw combat in Vietnam - to any F-4J that saw combat in Vietnam. About the diversity of scenarios, I'm just going to assume you're trolling. The two planes are different and both deep as everyone has been saying but you've ignored it every time. Carrier capability is one thing, but the plethora of weapons and delivery profiles that the USAF Phantoms carry and use add just as much depth as CV ops. Relying on less "gadgetry" as you put it does not necessarily correlate to a deeper experience. Forgot to ask about this one. Why was the F-4 more fuel critical than the F-8? I know it has two engines but it has more than enough fuel to make up for it and Navy Phantoms carried at least 1 drop tank most of the time right? Was it just the types of missions they were flying that caused this?

No worries, Brems! I think thats why I'm so thrilled about the later E as well - later variants really worked out most of the kinks in tech before the era of all aspect heaters and proliferated aircraft-mounted ECM.

I know this gets a lot of flak, but this is why I think having varying levels of weapon reliability would help the game. I could've sworn I've seen it implemented via script in some dogfight servers. Then each mission designer could tweak the level to suit their audience. Some argue that it would be unrealistic to model random weapon failures due to all the variables/causes but I believe the end user wouldn't see these variables - they'd just see the missile not work when it hung, fell off without firing, decided not to guide or exploded early. All these outcomes were possible in SF2. The causes are irrelevant for the crew at the time of pushing the button.

I think maybe the purpose of my argument has been lost. Allow me to clarify. All I meant to express was how I chose my favourite version of the Phantom. I was careful to not say that the F-4S was obsolete; I understand why the refurbishment process happened and that the F-4 was still a sizeable portion of the USN aircraft. But for my own personal preference, I know that by the time the slatted F-4S was in service, the F-14A and F-15 were around. It sort of was like, why would I choose a Seafire III in 1946 when the Sea Fury was in service if given the choice? That's all it really is. Though thanks for clarifying the F-4S' history for the benefit of the discussion. This is a good point. The AIM-9D was a very good missile while the USAF AIM-9J was around in only tiny numbers for combat trial in the closing months of the US' involvement in Vietnam and wasn't used that well. The Israelis' use of the Navy missile is another reason I really like their Phantoms.

The slatted F-4E of Nov 1972 (Rivet Haste jets) indeed had no air to air kills. But its combat service and contribution was small but not insignificant as you seem to be implying. My point is it was there, it saw combat and should not be discounted. I seem to remember others pointing out that A2G work should not be ignored and that's true. Again for the record, I agree that the J has a more interesting air combat history than the Rivet Haste birds, but A2A is only half the story. I actually do prefer the Israeli F-4E's that shot down some 86 jets within two and a half weeks in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War (a total of 115 since 1969) before the 4th generation jets entered service, bringing the F-4E total higher than the F-4J. These were stock F-4E block 35 to 52, btw. Some of them delivered during Nickel Grass were straight from US stocks. These birds had anything but an insignificant contribution to the F-4 record and especially to the Israelis... I agree that I probably wouldn't count field mods as a good representation of the jet but all those mods came after the Yom Kippur War. Also we've already established with actual plots and data that the F-4E at the same loadout and fuel has both better ITR and STR than the J. By definition it is more nimble. I'm not sure what you are trying to articulate with this argument. The J is probably better in the vertical but that's not really more nimble if the F-4E has both ITR and STR advantages. Not sure if I would call an SR-71 nimble even though it can fly higher and faster than anything else... nor would i call the faster P-51 more nimble than the much slower A6M5. the F-4E is simply the most maneuverable Phantom version that saw combat. Full stop. And that's fine.. the F-4J is better at many other things. I'd like to point out this isn't a competition for which jet is better, or which one had more impact, simply why I prefer the E and why I think it's fair to compare it to the J and S from a historical stand point. Still, it's only fair that I apologize if it sounded like I was implying that the J was not as worthy due to its record. I just wanted to illustrate which jets were seeing combat at a given time frame.

Agreed. Technologically, and aerodynamically, apples to apples the Navy Phantoms are way better for air combat. No gun, no bells and whistles for all the A2G work. Problem for me personally is the question of chronology and combat experience - when it entered service, the F-4J was way better IMO than any USAF F-4 but then the F-4E got slats, TISEO, and its more reliable (but less capable) radar etc before the end of the Vietnam War and the F-4J did not. Then the F-4S entered service with slats when the F-14A and F-15 were already seeing combat. To me that's like the F8F Bearcat entering service just after WW2 - no longer really a WW2 plane, and not as good as its post-war contemporaries. Chronologically, the F-4S isn't apples to apples. Similarly, the F4U-1D and P-51D were similar in technology level and time frame. But the superior F4U-4 entered service and saw combat during WW2, while the P-51H didn't get to do much if at all. So I would not choose the P-51D over the F4U-4 for WW2 if I was given the choice. No reason to arbitrarily limit myself to the P-51D and F4U-1D. Had it seen combat with slats before the end of the Vietnam War, the F-4S would probably be my top choice.

Thanks GJS, I agree with you on the worst performing part too, hence why I believed it was a bit of an exaggeration. I read the quote from a Phantom pilot in the Owner's Workshop manual series. I don't remember their name but they said this on the heels of the praise they gave the Phantom for its other qualities.

Apologies if I mislead. I don't know if we have the UK Phantom charts. I need to look in the manuals I have to confirm if those charts exist.

Depending on how technical we want to get, strictly speaking the F-4K/M had the lowest maximum speeds of around Mach 1.9 clean IIRC due to the extra drag of the larger intakes/fuselage and Spey engine limitations. The slatted F-4E was a close second at Mach 2.05 clean. We also have both data and anecdotes for the F-4J and F-4E. The sustained and instantaneous turn rate data from NAVAIR and USAF TO's are all in another thread (https://forum.dcs.world/topic/292414-phantom-vs-xxx/page/3/), so we know that the F-4E with slats, sparrows and 60% fuel sustains turns the same as a light F-4J at ~23% fuel armed with sidewinders and sparrows. We also know that the addition of the extra drag of pylons and sidewinders minimally affects turn rate by interpolation within either manual. At the same clean load and weight, the F-4E has significant instantaneous turn rate advantages per the same manuals. Interpolate within the manuals for different weights and you'll find the slightly heavier F-4E will still outturn the F-4J on the max lift curve. That said, the British Phantoms have a very high T/W ratio (but with more drag) and a slightly lower base empty weight than the F-4E block 48+ makes it a bit ambiguous if it would be more maneuverable or not in a constant G turn. Based on the similar wing loading and the aforementioned F-4J/E comparison, we know the UK Phantoms cannot have a better instantaneous turn rate than the slatted F-4E at the same fuel load. I'll have to sift through the British Phantom manuals when I get back from vacation. Anecdotally, hot rod F-104A pilots with maneuvering flaps mentioned that only the F-4E with slats could outturn them - although they could outmaneuver the draggier F-4E in the vertical. British crews believed the British Phantoms to be the most expensive, worst performing Phantoms built! Might be a bit of an exaggeration lol. The affect of the slats are great and I expect that the lighter F-4F and F-4S would have been the best turning Phantoms ever built.

As of the latest patch, at least for me, the pilot body is showing up in both seats with the setting OFF/unchecked. So far only in MP. In my own SP missions, I have no bodies showing up. Additionally, I have a red exclamation mark beside my show/hide pilot body which never goes away. So it appears I'm stuck with pilot bodies.