SgtPappy

Very disappointing to hear. Has it been reported already?

Adding further to the issues experienced above, the AIM-7s are also being dodged at essentially any altitude by simple barrel rolls + spamming chaff. I've only experienced this with the Mirage but have yet to test other jets. If it is only reproduceable with the Mirage, I'll post it in the M2k forums as well. Link to tacview (it's too big to attach): https://file.io/eZND4892GFaX Link to track: https://file.io/Sge770WFtLiB

There's an FAQ for questions like this pinned to the F-4 forum page:

Very nice pictures! Yes hopefully the ALQ-101 and the ALQ-119 become available. Although with DCS' current implementation of jamming, the benefit will be mainly cosmetic. Not that aesthetics is ever a bad thing!

This appears to be the same bug, affecting the AIM-120 and the AIM-7M/MH but I've only ever encountered it vs the Mirage. I'm sure it's happening with other aircraft but I've never managed to reproduce it with other planes: AIM-7M/MH examples:

Very good points! Thanks for the added context. It certainly didn't help that the flight paths of bombers and attack aircraft were extremely predictable in order to simplify planning.

If you ever feel inclined, I recommend Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965-1972 by M. Michel III. Great read about basically everything you'd want to know about how the F-4 performed in Vietnam. Spoiler alert: the gun did not change anything. The USAF slightly improved into Linebacker II from better tech and raw experience. But what really made the difference was training - for the USN anyway. The USAF didn't catch up with its training syllabus or tactic reforms until after Vietnam.

I mean I can see where you're coming from. But also note that there are a lot of modules whose performance are either off (MiG-21, and until recently the Viggen) or unknown publicly (M2k, F/A-18C). It can be a downer but personally, I think it's a limitation we have to deal with - no matter what, most planes will not be exact or accurate. I'm hoping that the performance of the F-4 will be accurate enough that we will still see the 2-circle advantages it holds vs the MiG-21 even if in real life, the gap may be even bigger. There will be frustration even if everything was perfectly correct. So maybe just wait and see what the community thinks of the F-4 and make your decision then. Deciding right now that it isn't worth your time may not be any more logical than those who believe they'll wipe the floor in MP.

I think the footnote thing is highly subjective. While the land based versions and especially the E were more ubiquitous and did a lot more, that doesn't mean the USN Phantoms contributions were small. For one thing it made aces which was becoming a more rare thing in the 60's-80's. It did quite a bit of work in Vietnam, being the main fighter there by 1972. I think if you call that small, everything the USN did just after WW2 is small. There are stars in the universe that dwarf ours but i wouldn't call our sun insignificantly tiny! I feel that non-combat contributions like QRA in the UK or simply maintaining a presence in international waters are an underrated part of the Phantom's history. One could argue this influence prevented combat. But yes, in terms of what historical combat we could realistically simulate, only Vietnam would work.

Most interviews I've heard from Phantom crew say the opposite, most notably Jerry Tucker and Bill Switzer.

Right, agreed. The push back however is applicable to those who are consistently saying that the E is a surprising/incorrect/illogical choice which it is not. The Navy F-4's are equally logical - not more or less.

The Rivet Haste F-4E's were I believe 24 block 48 aircraft that joined a new 555th TFS (to the chagrin of the original 555th TFS) with TISEO, and with AGM-65 capability (and therefore DSCG). They had the ALR-36/37 and a bit more than half had the Combat Tree IFF system. They would have had Pave Knife carrying capability but I don't think they got to use it. They flew a bunch of A2G sorties before the US reached a cease-fire with North Vietnam in Jan 1973 despite having their aircrews trained in fixed crew pairs with a stress on air superiority missions.

Glad to know another (I'm assuming) Canadian was there before me! When we went, the F-4 was closed for repairs so we couldn't sit in it. If you go again, I hope you manage to go in!

1973: The First Nuclear War suggests that there were limited AIM-9G's in IDF service. If true, that would be incredible. It's a great read - primarily from the Egyptian perspective but it seems very well-researched and everything is questioned and put under a microscope for what is, IMO, a very objective take on the Yom Kippur War. To answer the question though, my understanding is that the USAF managed to really increase the reliability of the AIM-7E-2 by 1972, before which time, as mentioned, the AIM-7's were being handled very poorly. Steve Ritchie was apparently able to choose from the stock of best maintained/most recently fixed Sparrows and he had great success with them. The AIM-7E-2 allegedly hit around 13% of the time, all reasons for failure included. Heck, the perfectly reliable AIM-7M's in DCS hit about 25% of the time for me. For the AIM-9's the main versions the USAF used in Vietnam was the E which was only a bit better than the B. The Navy moved to the D which was very good - had a record of almost 50% hits. The USAF trialed the J which was reportedly very good and maneuverable but the aircrew were given data and training that overestimated the missile's range at low altitude so most missiles were inadvertently fired out of range and scored 4 out of 4 initial launches but never hit again (total of 31 launches). The USN then used the AIM-9G and then H which incorporated more discrimination, better lead-bias tracking for likelier probability of hitting and the ability to slave to the radar. When the Israelis used the AIM-9D during the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur/October War, they did not have the slaving ability because the F-4E did not accommodate that ability. Actual hit records for the Israelis is iffy because while there's some verifiable data and evidence out there, there is also a lot that is not so it's harder to say. Regardless, DCS missiles will perform a lot better than they did in real life since they're all perfectly reliable.

This is what I'm most excited for. While all-aspect heaters and reliable pulse-Doppler radar guided missiles are interesting in their own way, there's nothing like the kind of classic combat that's encouraged by the era when missiles were a lot more limited. Also the ECM environment was much simpler (still classified today but it was much less ubiquitous in combat then, I think). The way ECM worked in the 80s and after are anyone's guess.

Not this again... Yes the Naval F-4 was incredible and I think I'd prefer an F-4J over the hard-wing F-4E which was the main E version in Vietnam. But there's logic to the choice. By production numbers, tonnage dropped, aircraft lost and A2A victories, countries served and time in service the F-4E is the definitive F-4 for most nations whether anyone likes this or not, it is a fact. And I know this will fall on a few deaf ears but I'll reiterate this again - that doesn't make the F-4E better, or more significant, or more practical or whatever compared to the excellent Navy F-4. These are just facts that the "wtf, why would they choose the F-4E" crew doesn't seem to want to accept. If a design evolves into something else it evolves into something else. Some seem obsessed with the idea that the F-4 isn't being represented in its original design form and purpose which is true, but it only makes sense to present this as a travesty (which it isn't) if you forget about all the other stuff I mentioned about the E above. My goal isn't convince you that the F-4E is better (I know it's not, it's just different), but to inform you better so you can empathize why the F-4E was chosen. You don't have to agree with the choice but to not at least understand the choice is to close your eyes, block your ears and go "lalalalala" and I know you're not that kind of person right? Oh and one last thing, if anyone despises the F-4E so much, just pretend its a totally different jet! Easy. I want a FF F-15C but you don't see me telling the world that the F-15E was the wrong or surprising choice. RAZBAM simply decided to make that specific plane - a different one than the purely A2A version that the design was orignally made for.

Note that the traditional definition of wingloading means less and less with aircraft that have lifting bodies or LERX because those create lift that isn't really accounted for using just wing loading alone. Also as mentioned, the earlier F-16 was super light and was originally designed to only be a WVR fighter compared to the multi-role beast of today. It turned better than anything before it at lower speeds, 1 or 2 circle.

Woah this is amazing!! Did you make this?

Just came back from Japan and got to see, what I believe is the last F-4 ever built! This was in Hamamatsu Air Base's Air Park. It was a great place to visit - I do recommend for anyone here going to Japan.

Thank you! Yes, I'll send you a PM. Thank you both very much!

Hi everyone! I just wanted to share my painting of the F-4E that I finished in February. With the hype at an all-time high during this pre-order period, I feel like now's a good time to show off a little Thank you Heatblur for creating inspiration. I had been intimidated to pick up the paintbrush again but the F-4 announcement (on my birthday no, less) really pushed me to make this. I hope you like it! And please, I absolutely love seeing others art as well so if anyone else wants to share their doodles, drawings, paintings of our favourite jet, please do so here! Some info behind the piece: "Phantoms over the Philippines" - Acrylic on 16"x12" canvas Two McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II fighter aircraft - each equipped with two external fuel tanks and a single AIM-9P Sidewinder missile - tear through the skies somewhere over Luzon in the Northern Philippines in 1981 while on a training sortie. After the Vietnam War, the 3rd TFW, USAF reorganized and moved from South Korea to Clark AFB near Angeles City in the Philippines (hence the PN tail codes) in 1974. With the end of the tumultuous Marcos era in 1986, the fate of Clark AFB would fall on the shoulders of the new government, headed by Corazon Aquino. It was eventually agreed that US would return their largest overseas air base to the Philippines by 1992. The eruption at Mount Pinatubo forced the USAF to return the base early in June 1991 but not before six of the 3rd TFW's F-4E's would temporarily join the 7440th Composite Wing in Incirlik, Turkey during February of that year to take part in Operation Desert Storm. These would be among the last combat missions the F-4E would see in US service. Inspiration was a photo by SSgt. A. Taninggo.

The MiG-2MF fought the hard wing and slatted F-4E loads of times between 1970-1973 in the Middle East. It's basically a MiG-21bis with no emergency AB. I doubt anyone will purposely hamper their performance for historical accuracy though. As always with DCS, it will have to be close enough. It would be nice to have data for the middle MiG models like the -21PFM, but the -21F-13 energy diagrams are out there. They have similar 2-circle performance to the -21bis but of course better 1-circle performance while being significantly more limited in level speed down low.

Apologies if this has been answered but I remember there being a 6 G limit on the AIM-9D per the performance manual for the F-4B/J. Maybe that's just for that whole pylon? I think it's 6.5 G in the USAF F-4E manual for the AIM-9J/P. See below:

The best anyone can do is make the jet match dynamic characteristics, stability derivatives and the published data - turn rates, accelerations, top speeds, climb rates etc. Agreed that not everything can be perfectly simulated but what is generous about the F-14 FM?

You could be right when it comes to DCS. I haven't tested the MiG-21bis turn rate in game. But if the F-4 and MiG are accurate to the plethora of real life turn rate, climb and acceleration data, the F-4E has the edge in general. The MiG will always have the acceleration and slight climb advantage but not by enough to be a game-changer IMO. It's barely enough to keep up with the F-5 as it is currently. That epic T/W ratio isn't quite enough to overcome the induced drag of the MiG's wings in a turn, per the aforementioned data.