SgtPappy

My guess in an F-4, you would do your best to drain the MiG dry of energy so you can line up a good shot for a rear-aspect heater. Otherwise, try and get a good AIM-7 shot. With the F-4J/S, a working radar would make the latter pretty deadly in an early 70s scenario. And although the F-4S is an 80s jet, I can see mission designers putting in the same arena as the other mid-Cold War planes.

That's what I'm thinking as well. HB stated the earlier block that's coming out will have DSCG, and a bunch of other retrofits from 1974 and earlier so there's a good chance it will have Mavs. The later, DMAS bird will have TISEO, probably the AAQ radar mode, and other goodies.

Just curious, what is it specifically about the block 53 that you're wanting?

You already made a thread regarding this question. As with any other module, the F-4 be useable in every map. Perhaps you are trying to ask something else that I am not understanding.

I believe you are correct. I believe that the smokeless variants of the J79 only showed up after the US left the Vietnam War and so by the time the DMAS version was around, it was likely common on the F-4E. So I would guess the DMAS F-4E that HB is making may be smokeless and the earlier F-4E will have smokey exhaust.

Any update on this issue? The apache is also spawning inside helipads.

I think it's "Clashes: Air Combat over Vietnam" that mentions some pilots would put one engine into min burner and the other to idle to reduce the smoke while saving fuel and that it was relatively effective. I'm not sure how it was finally solved later but you bet I'm going to use smoke to IFF while in combat where there are mixed friendlies and hostiles.

That's what I thought. What great insight! On a similar note, I remember reading the Israelis had trouble detecting SA-6 CW launch warnings for the first few days of the Yom Kippur War. I had thought that as long as the carrier frequency is within the detecting bandwidth of the RWR, you'd hear it. Perhaps the SA-6 used some kind of chirping that made the APR-36 unable to detect it? Were you able to hear weird FM modulations with your experience?

This is pretty hype - I wonder if theoretically, a good ear can determine the type of radar and its mode based on the audio alone. Real cool stuff!

I don't follow. The IFF interrogator and RWR systems are separate, independent systems.

The SAC data for the F-14A in 1977 says the APX-76A(V) is used and the APX-76B(V) is used for the F-14D (1985). F-14A (1977) SAC: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-14A_Tomcat_SAC_-_April_1977.pdf F-14D (1985) SAC: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-14D_Tomcat_SAC_-_July_1985_(Partially_Declas).pdf Given the limitations of DCS, I think the IFF will work perfectly every time just like it does with the F-14 right now.

I'm fairly certain that the APX-76 IFF interrogation system was present since at least 1967 on the F-4D. The APQ-109 radar on the F-4D had 8 IFF antennas and the APQ-120 has 4. I am under the impression that this is the standard IFF systems that can identify only friendlies. Combat Tree (APX-80/81, not sure yet what the difference is since the 1F-4E-34-1-2 makes reference to both) used the APX-76 controls though they both displayed info on the same screen. Together, you could see friendlies and any MiG transmitting using the SPO-2. Hopefully someone can shed more light on this since I'm having a hard time finding the manual that mentioned the APX-76 IFF.

Keep in mind there is a possibility that this is subject to change (maybe HB can clarify?) but this was the response from HB on my own TISEO question in the other TGP thread (spoiler alert, TISEO is planned on the ARN-101/DMAS-equipped version but not the earlier block 36-45 version):

I have read here and there (no credible sources unfortunately) that ALE-40 showed up between 74-75 on the F-4E (this forums conversation: http://aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=6438). I'm trying now to find a good source.

There's a lot more info in the Phantom vs XXX thread (link at bottom of this post). But to summarize, yes, they make a noticeable difference. For context the F-4J with 4x AIM-9Ds and 4x AIM-7E's needs to have very little fuel such that it weighs 37,500 lbs. (that's ~25% fuel) to match the sustained subsonic turn rate performance of the F-4E with slats carrying 4xAIM-7E when carrying ~60% fuel (block 50 and above) at a much heavier 42,777 lbs. All this data is from the manual. Of course with this light weight, the F-4J can pull more max G's but anything lower than 7.5, and it matches the F-4E almost exactly. Supersonic, the clean F-4J is vastly superior in sustained turns, top speed, ceiling and acceleration. Another illustration below shows the relative difference between the F-4D and a heavier F-4E which again, despite the higher weight, the F-4E turns better. Another big advantage is the more care-free handling at high AoA. There is therefore reason to believe that the F-4S improvement would be similar.

I think I have had similar experiences here so I practiced vs various targets offline and it appears that it still does go active with ACM cover up but you have to be closer than before. Routinely, I would fire AIM-54C's online at ~ 10 nm and the missile would right away drop off the plane which was my indication that it was active. Now, the target has to be a little closer and very hot which leads me to believe the active at launch/off the rail is a TTI-driven thing (maybe that was common knowledge but I don't remember for sure). I'm fairly certain that the AIM-54s go active based on calculated TTI (< 16 s?) and now that they have slowed down especially at lower altitude, TTI is a lot longer at 10 nm than it used to be so you have to be a lot closer for the missile to go active off the rail unless you have a RIO. The rate of acceleration now appears to be more in line with the real AIM-54 launch videos that exist, but of course that is peanuts compared to the actual papers/proof shown earlier in this thread.

That tiger nose art looks awesome!

Thank you! So it looks like I will have to get into scripting. I wonder if the empty drop down list in the default trigger is a bug.

Is it possible to set a parameter that essentially "rolls dice" to cause a missile to fail when fired by a player? My goal is to model a % chance that a missile fired will simply not guide. I've looked up how to use the "Set Failure" trigger but in the few tutorials that exist, I am told to select a system from a drop down menu. However when I do so in the Editor, my list is empty and there is no field to select a specific unit to which to apply this failure. I could have sworn I've seen server messages in the "Just Dogfight" server that state "missile fired by XX: chances of failure = 50%" or something akin to that.

I've wondered this as well and I'm 99% sure I saw one of the dogfight servers use a script to cause random missile failures based on the mission designer's input number. I.e. someone fired an AIM-9X and the server created a message to all players "so-and-so fired an AIM-9X (failure rate = 50%". Maybe more experienced mission designers can confirm that this is in the Editor. I'd love to see this used in 1970's historic servers where we see missiles failing left and right (educated guess gives ~25-33% failure rates) and Pk will drop to the levels seen in real conflicts.

Keep the stories coming - these sound epic! That WSO locking up the bandit manually is something I can't wait to try when I'm in the backseat. That leads me to wonder: say you were in a good position to just use the front seat 5 nm "boresight" lock, did you have to wait the full 4 seconds before firing as well? I realize I may not have been clear in my missile vs missile comments. The point I was trying to make was limited only to the context of DCS as a game and the strategies that players develop in-game that do not reflect real-world strategy. I prefer when the combat reflects real-world events as closely as possible, but in a game with perfect IFF, players who consistently over-G their jets, nearly all-seeing GCI (especially with humans vectoring other human flights to bandits) and understandably simple ECM warfare modeling, you end up at a disadvantage in the game sometimes if you wait for VID. This is why servers that try to make VID more important are really my jam but I get it's not for everyone (hence my question about TISEO earlier). Now maybe one day in the far future, we'll get all the above set to maximum realism - including the reportedly terrible low altitude air conditioning system that will really put on the sweat I've heard even getting that system to work required skill and technique!

In addition to Gypsy's stats, I also had read about the R-23/24 having almost twice the rocket burn time of the AIM-7E (5 sec vs 2.9 sec which I may have mentioned elsewhere), so assuming even similar motor impulse, I do not have much confidence that the AIM-7E will be anything other than an all-aspect dogfight missile in servers that restrict heaters to the more historical rear-aspect only versions. I can see some forgoing them entirely for AIM-9P5's (or the AIM-7F if allowed) if the option is there. Absolutely badass!

What a surprise! Hopefully that F-16 was just as afraid as you were. Combat Tree sounds like it would be an awesome addition but I wonder if it can be modeled in DCS. I guess anyone flying a MiG with their transponder on could be made vulnerable although I'm not sure if the MiG-21 has this feature or if anyone would use it since SAMs rarely friendly fire. I still don't own a 4k anything now... so I get it. But it sounds very useful, I would imagine. That big ol' CRT TV in both birds was something I think other planes didn't really have at the time. I use the thing so much in DCS just to look at stuff, even if I'm just flying around, I think I've become spoiled. Thanks to both of you for the insight.

Did you feel like the TISEO wasn't worth the drag/handling penalty? I really enjoy how the TCS is modeled in DCS and I'm pretty excited to use it in the F-4E. Similarly @Victory205, did you find the TCS really useful when you trained/deployed? It sounds like HB will give us a choice since their earlier F-4E will not have it.

You have some good points, I mean the Navy and USMC Phantoms came first and are sort of the "purest" of the Phantom designs as well. If we got the F-4B or J first I certainly wouldn't complain as they all have their advantages and we all have our favourite versions. And while agree that a numbers can't be the only driver to the decision of which modules should be prioritized, I think maybe you may be giving too little priority to sheer numbers as well. I mean if it's the most widely exported, saw combat by a myriad of different countries, touched the hearts of people of vastly different backgrounds and cultures, I'm sure you can also empathize with why a lot, maybe the majority of people wouldn't mind an F-4E first. I've read pretty much every page of almost every thread here (can you tell I'm obsessed? ) and I haven't really seen anything about the F-4E's glaring disadvantages that made it "clipped" compared to the Navy or USMC birds, so it doesn't feel like really beating a dead horse. Rather I've just seen how F-4's in general are much older tech than the Viper or Hornet and that they are simply different than their Navy counterparts. Anyway, I'm getting a better understanding in all these great discussions so I'm happy to talk about it and learn more.