SgtPappy

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.

Yes I honestly count myself so lucky that the first Phantom coming out is precisely my favourite version, and I feel for our Navy fans. I know for a fact there will be times I'm going to be hurting to use that pulse Doppler goodness that the F-4J or S would bring. Let's hope that the F-4E and early F-14A RWR rework cuts down the amount of work needed to get the USN Phantoms out as soon as possible. That said, you bet your butt I'm going to try a takeoff in the F-4E from the very stern of the boat...

Don't worry, one day we'll have a Navy F-4 (I hope for the J!) and then pretty much everyone will be happy. And again, someone made a mod for the F-15 to use its tailhook for carrier landings, so I feel like eventually someone will make a mod of a carrier-launched F-4E though I feel that may hurt my brain to look at

I empathize with how you feel. It doesn't feel great when you just want to put something out there and it feels like someone steps on it. I think we've all been there at some point. That said, I would urge you to look again at the responses, as I can only see maybe 1 that could be conceived as aggressive - and that's a stretch. The rest appeared to be personal preferences. Meanwhile your tone in the replying posts was passive aggressive and also blanketly labeled the other responses as "typical naysays" who prioritized "purism over playability" followed by sarcasm which, let's be honest, could also be construed as overly-aggressively defensive. Maybe it isn't but then neither are the original responses which prompted your rebuttals. Can't be both ways. I can't say I'm innocent of this either. Fact of the matter is, we are one community that bickers form time to time but we might need to give each other a tad more benefit of the doubt to support our hobby.

That's a pretty good prank. I guess TAGM's only have working seekers and nothing else.

I think I should also be mentioned that a lot later in the US' involvement in Vietnam in 1972, the USAF was more able to maintain and repair the missiles. Steve Ritchie was able to pick some of the best taken care of AIM-7E's and managed to get a pretty high kill ratio with them.

What did you expect exactly from a flight simulation that strives for realism? It's one thing to ask and that's totally fair... it's another to come to literally one of two high-fidelty combat simulation communities and then be salty when hearing what you don't want to hear. Then on top of it, act like you're entitled for the developer to develop the uneducated guess of two lines of code it would take to make the feature. If it's that easy, make the mod yourself.

Agreed but it's such a mystery, I cant help but to wonder what's true! At least from a RWR perspective.

I'm quite excited to see what is in store with the APR-36/37 and its limitations. The Israelis were apparently unable to detect CW launch signals from the SARH SA-6, which is odd since I thought that X-band signal was right in the range of the stock APR-36/37. So I wonder if we'll have similar problems with the SA-6 and more modern systems in the game. Of course I might also be missing something or taking that historical tid bit out of context... not much info on what they did to solve the issue within the two days of the start of the Yom Kippur war.