SgtPappy

Excellent news (at least for me lol)! AFAIK, the -36 is a strobe only display, as it ever was fitted to the F-4. But someone correct me if there was an alphanumeric version.

I don't think the AIM-7M was ever used on the F-4E, even though it may have been an approved loadout. They did however carry AIM-7F's and AIM-9L's at some point which would still be pretty deadly. I can see the later F-4E with these weapons, TISEO and DMAS be a little more threatening on the 80's servers.

I remember having to get used to the F-14's 3 piece windshield and having lots of trouble seeing the enemy in BFM. That said, I thought the rearward visibility in the F-4 would be even worse than in the video.. the F-5 and MiG-21 are not great in those departments but it looks like the F-4 WSO has a modest ability to see behind! I actually like some elements of the F-4's post TO 556 mod ergonomics than modern planes. The early F-16 and F-14 have a very inconveniently-placed radar display but the F-4's repeater is right in your face.

Thank you for chiming in. It's too bad that we don't know the weights but still great that we have that data at all. I suppose we'll see how they compare once the F-4 shows up. If ever a JA 37 was made, it would be quite a beast.

That's very interesting! I didn't realize that. I wonder if this is the case for a real MiG-19. If so, I wonder if the vortex lift that would usually be generated by a swept wing with a sharp leading edge is absent for the MiG-19 design due to maybe a blunt leading edge or the wing fences preventing spanwise flow.

I agree with most of your points. We have anecdotes from @G.J.S and other published accounts of the MiG-23 never really impressing anyone. As you mentioned, the MiG-23 also has an AoA limiter because of its lack of stability especially with the wings at the 16 degree sweep position. Do I believe the F-4E will be overall dominant in BFM than the MiG-23MLA? Yes. How about with all missiles involved? I'm less sure, but as you mentioned, the F-4 can carry more AIM-7's so it will be close. All of that said, there are a couple things that should be taken into account. For one thing, we have a plethora of F-4E data so we can reasonably understand a lot of its capabilities. The MiG-23 information is not quite as available and all that I have of it is in Russian. Therefore it's hard to be absolutely sure about its turning capabilities. Some of the points you make also negatively affect the F-4. For example, while the R-24 is no AIM-7M, there is data out there that shows it has a similar kinematic envelope than the AIM-7E-2 (see attached graphs of the R-24R and the AIM-7E-2 envelopes). You mention that the R-24R range is short so its not really a dominating factor in a BVR fight. True, but the AIM-7E-2 has the same disadvantages. The MiG-23 has a radar barely capable of lookdown... yes, but the F-4E's is worse if not on par with help of an experienced WSO. Note that the MiG is blisteringly fast - faster at all altitudes than the F-4E and that's not something to ignore. If we get to carry the AIM-7F, then that's a big advantage for the F-4 though the MiG can simply run away. Finally, even with its stability issues and flight envelope placards, we don't know how it will be used in DCS - where one might be able to ignore AoA limiters and structural limitations to wring extra performance out of the jets. How many people use flaps and manual wing sweep in the F-14 for that edge in a dogfight? Now how many real pilots would risk damage or death in the same way? One thing that I like to mention however, is that the MiG-23MLA/R-24R combo is a 1980's system which first fought in 1985 against F-15's and F-16's while the slatted F-4E/AIM-7E-2 is from 1972 and fought in Vietnam and the Middle East in '73 before the arrival of the 4th gen fighters. They aren't strictly contemporary.

I replied to this question in the Phantom vs XXX thread here.

In order to continue this discussion based on a question in another thread here from @Aussie_Mantis, I'm going to post what I've learned so far concerning the F-4E vs the Viggen, MiG-19 and the Mirage F1C. I invite others with more information to add. I'd like to disclose that this analysis only holds water in DCS if in-game versions perform close enough to these graphs. Additionally, this is once again primarily an pseudo-academic exercise in comparing the jets from an engineering and physics-based standpoint and we all know that tactics and pilot skill matter the most in a fight. Anyway, we've seen some great work when HB adjusted the F-14 and Viggen FM's so I have confidence that all their jets will be accurate if not already. AJS37 vs F-4E This one is going to be a bit of speculation due to a couple of assumptions, but I believe the guess is educated enough to yield some realistic expectations. Any Viggen experts, please chime in if you would like to share more. For the Viggen, we have a couple manuals, one for the AJ37 here (big thanks to @widen76 and @renhanxue) which has a lot of data. Unfortunately it does not have direct turn rate data for the AJ37 but, there is a speciell förarinstruktion SFI manual which I cannot post here for the JA37 since it's from 1983 that has several turn rate plots at different configurations. My first assumption is that the AJ37, AJS37 and JA37 are virtually identical aerodynamically as it relates to subsonic turn rates. One of the turn rate diagrams in the latter manual shows a clean JA37 at 40% fuel among many other configurations at SL, 4 km, 8 km and 12 km altitude. Both the aforementioned manuals have lots of data for different configurations and I noticed that a clean JA37 at 40% fuel had approximately the same weight as an AJ37 Viggen at 70% fuel (~13600 kg = 30000 lbs). Conveniently, the TO 1F-4E-1 has a plot of the F-4E with 4xAIM-7E's and ~63% fuel (for anyone new to the discussion, this has been posted several times, including earlier in this thread). This weight is 42,777 lbs is approximately the F-4E's weight clean with 70% fuel. This graph therefore is a bit more conservative in favour of the Viggen since the F-4E weighs the same as it would clean at 70% fuel, but with the added drag of AIM-7's. If we compare the sustained turn rates of the graphs in the F-4E's -1 and the JA37 Viggen 1983 performance manual, we estimate that the 40% fuel clean JA37 can attain a maximum STR of ~14.2 deg/s at ~Mach 0.73 or so. The F-4E's plots shows a 14.7 deg/s turn rate at ~Mach 0.78. Now what we do know as well is that the AJ(S)37 has a slightly weaker engine and that the F-4E here has a tiny bit more drag than clean so if we were to clean the F-4E but maintain the weight by adding fuel and decrease the thrust for the Viggen to reflect an AJ(S)37, we know that the F-4E must have an even better sustained turn rate than what we have just visually compared on the graphs. It won't be absolutely massive, but if I estimate it at being ~0.5 deg/s or more, then it will be noticeable with two pilots who are competent in the rate fight. Note that as speed gets slower, the JA37 slowly loses STR while the the F-4E's drops faster so the F-4E will have to stay fast to keep its small STR advantage. If we compare the instantaneous turn rates of both fighters, things get a bit messy. Another AJ/JA37 (Fpl aerodynamik III) manual from 1981, we see that at SL, the AJ(S)37 hits 4G at ~Mach 0.4 and that the F-4E reaches 4G at ~Mach 0.48 at 42,000 lbs (fig 5-9 in the TO below). These are estimated since I can't read Swedish so I don't know at what weight the Viggen is at. Also figure 5-9 in the F-4E TO is ambiguous since it's the same plot as in the hard-wing 1F-4C-1 manual. There are no plots for the slatted F-4E at SL and at any other weight than 37,500 lbs which is too light. I may extrapolate F-4E ITR data by calculating CLmax on the given Vn plot lift curves and then applying a larger weight to estimate the ITR at, say, 50% fuel clean but I need to find an AJ(S)37 ITR plot at a specified weight as well to make a comparison. So here, I estimate that the Viggen has an even better ITR than the F-5E and MiG-21, making it the best turn rate of this era of jets. As an added point of interest, the JA37 has an engine that is more capable of handling high AoA so it can pull crazy high instantaneous turn rates (i.e. 5G at ~Mach 0.4 at SL, clean, 80% fuel). I do know that the DCS AJS37 experiences compressor stalls at high AoA but to what degree, I'm not sure so perhaps it can reach similar turn rates at the risk of flameout. Comparing speed, see the AJ37 level envelope to the F-4E's below. We can see that they have the same max allowed speed at SL, with the F-4E outpacing the AJ(S)37 as altitude increases for ISA day conditions. Max Mach for the AJ(S)37 is ~Mach 1.82 at ~36000 ft, with the F-4E reaching ~Mach 2.04 at 36000 ft. Adding weapons will change this but the jets are fairly comparable. Acceleration and climb rates are very, very close when comparing the AJ(S)37 plots with those of the F-4E. In summary, I believe the Viggen - with its 1 circle performance that rivals even 4th gen jets if it doesn't suffer a compressor stall - will be tough for the F-4E which will have to counter with 2 circle fighting at higher speeds and lobbing AIM-7's to get to an advantageous merge. As an aside, the hard-wing F-4E and J plots imply that they have large advantages in climb, acceleration and speed but are far inferior in turning capabilities. MiG-19P vs F-4E This is tough because I don't have a single shred of data for the MiG-19's performance like I do for the MiG-21SM/MF/bis. If anyone has any performance plots, please share! However, we know that MiG-19 has a very high T:W ratio, exceeding the F-4E's and has a low wing loading so it likely has superior ITR and STR. However, being barely capable of Mach 1.2, it is probably easily outpaced at higher speeds by the F-4E. The F-4 strategy is therefore simple vs the MiG-19 - boom and zoom and never get slow. Otherwise be prepared to die, like if you were to turn fight a Spitfire in an F-86 or MiG-15. Mirage F1 series vs F-4E I had posted a similar analysis for this elsewhere but am too lazy to find it. The Mirage F1C has a very similar wing sweep and aspect ratio, as well as half span flaps and half span slats. The Mirage F1 has a conventional (for the era) tube-shaped fuselage with no LERX or lifting body features. Wing loading is higher than that of the F-4E and T:W is lower. It is almost certainly going to turn worse in both ITR and STR than the F-4E. Published figures on its speed imply it has a faster top speed (~Mach 2.2). The lack of graphs available however make it difficult to directly compare turn and speed performance at different altitudes. Based on how it performs vs the MiG-21 in DCS, I believe the F-4E will out-rate it with some margin, while the Mirage may be better extending in the vertical if it keeps its speed high.

I agree. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I do hope that the early F-4 will have that characteristic smoke. Though I believe if the radar is used correctly, the F-4 crew may maintain more SA. I used to never use the radar in the F-5 but I've found my SA is much better when I turn it on and look where GCI/AWACS has vectored me. Split throttles or min burner for both engines could mostly eliminate the smoke (as the MiGs are also a little bit smokey and I've spotted them from a distance from smoke or long after burner tails). Also Jester has been invaluable for me in the F-14 during a merge. I think Jester 2.0 will be just as useful. The AIM-7E is barely a BVR missile but I think it may find use as an all-aspect WVR weapon, like an R-3R on steroids. Some people will surely be turned off when they realize they're not wiping the skies of MiGs, but there will be others who will find out how to use the Phantom properly and be very successful, as is the case for every module in the right setting.

Hey absolutely understandable and there's no need to like something that other people like. Ditto for me and the F-15E. I really like the F-15A/C and even though the F-15E has the most capability, I simply do not like it which is enough said. Same for others and the F-4E. The majority of people waiting for a Naval F-4 have been very respectful. My response was primarily just an observation to the logic being presented in that reply.

Which by that definition every aircraft incapable of operating from an aircraft carrier are among the least flexible.

At least a part of the reason was the US realizing that they had to maintain the AIM-7's very well between sorties which took lots of time and care. By 1972, Sparrows were doing much better and Steve Ritchie was in the position to hand pick the best Sparrows for his missions. The books I've read on the Israelis suggest that they were maintaining the Sparrows the same way the US was before 1972 - not too well - and that by the time of the Yom Kippur War, there simply wasn't enough time, infrastructure/training in place to change that. It was considered a low priority during a 2 front war, especially while the Mirages were the primary A2A asset and the F-4's had to pull double duty (attack and CAP).

Personally I love him. As said before, to me he feels alive BUT I also wholeheartedly understand that others might not want his constant jabbering especially during BFM. Imagine if he had a snarkiness slider that would change how silly he was in increments or change his personality! I'm only half serious but that could be hilarious.

No harm no foul, bud. I didnt mean to imply you were calling us nerds. We ARE nerds lol. From your post I just wasn't sure if you you didn't understand why we were doing the comparison at all.

Is there a story behind the nickname "10 Ton Chicken?"

This is more of a scientific exercise - an engineer's perspective. It doesn't actually have to have practicality in BFM for it to be valid. I think being curious and passionate about any aspect of aircraft, their performance and technicalities shouldn't be gate-kept. Nothing really has to be "believed" here. Not sure if that was your intent in your reply, but it's just something I thought I'd mention because this analytical perspective tends to be shut down a lot in general. It's just data and data is interesting. What Smyth and I are bringing to light is how effective the slats are by illustrating how a very light F-4B/J can barely match a heavier F-4E with slats and similar amounts of loadout parasitic drag. Isn't that a nice thing that we can look at and think "huh, pretty neat"? And to your point, now we can conclude definitively, if the F-4B/J needed to carry a gun pod, it's definitely going to be worse in a sustained turn. This is one of many conclusions we can draw from our nerdy, seemingly neurotic or pointless calculations. On the flip side of the condom mentality - and as mentioned - if your enemy has sidewinders and no gun, you should still understand whether or not a better sustained turn rate is a tool which they could use to get behind you and shoot you down despite not having a gun. It's a possibility that should be prepared for, even if it seems unlikely. I'd rather be prepared for my enemy not having a gun = having better performance than assume they have a gun pod and therefore I'll win the turn fight handily. Obviously you know way more than myself, but this is my mentality when doing these analyses.

I think the 1F-4C-1 manual might have all that gear already. The earliest F-4B weight and characteristics data shows a slightly lighter weight by about 900 lbs. This is probably the lightest a combat F-4 could get: https://www.avialogs.com/reader2.php?jid=4600 So the earliest F-4B pretty much has the same turning capability as a later slatted F-4E. It's also a fair bit faster and higher flying. The trade-off for the weight creep, as usual, is a big jump in capability and survivability.

Thanks for doing the work, Smyth! And a big thanks for confirming that the public only has one official F-4J plot in existence! I was trying hard to find a digital copy but it seems the only seller doesn't ship the CD version to Canada I attempted this scaling/extrapolation method last year on the slatted F-4E at SL as well and found similar results - large gains for a clean, 50% fuel slatted F-4E overlaid on my older plot below. I happened upon this in a post by John Chesire. The F-4B/C are actually pretty capable, being so darn light and very much come close to the slatted F-4E with 60% fuel and 4 Sparrows per 1F-4E-1. Per the 1F-4C-1, the F-4C (and therefore B) weight about 42300 lbs full fuel, clean and 29500 lbs operating weight (no fuel). 50% fuel clean weight would be 35900 lbs and adding 4 Sparrows and 4 AIM-9D's (estimating that their associated pylons weigh the same as the USAF ones) would be ~39140 lbs so with this plot, we can estimate the F-4B is carrying about 37% fuel. Maybe Smyth can confirm if this is from the same manual.

So the issue is that even though you can calculate the drag index in the 1F-4E-1 manual for any combination of external stores, both the weight and drag go up between the STR plots. It would be possible to ignore the 1000 lb gain between the first two STR plots in the manual and just interpolate STR as a function of drag index but you'd get some error from ignoring the weight change. However, it may be more accurate to apply this method to the F-4J plots which I still have to find (I only have a screenshot of 1 plot but I imagine there are more). The one plot I have shows 37500 lbs with a full 4x4 A2A loadout. This weight seems to be a common "control" point that a lot of the data is centered around in all three manuals (F-4C, F-4E, NATOPS F-4J). If we're lucky, there will be another plot at the same weight but maybe clean or just 4 Sparrows and then you can more accurately apply the drag index interpolation. I'll have to dig more to see if I can find the other plots. I might know a guy.

All of that data is from the TO manuals. The images attached to this post are in TO 1F-4E-1 from 1979 and are on digital pages 198 (top) and 445 (bottom). I took the max CL line from pg 198 and just used some meth math to convert it to instantaneous turn rate while both pages 198 and 445 show the same allowed structural limit line. You can see that at 42000 lbs, that the max CL line intersects the max allowed structural limit at 7.5 G (I mistakenly put 7.33 G) and it drops linearly vs speed/Mach past Mach 0.7 until it's 6 G at Mach 1.05. The blue thin and dotted lines are also sustained turn rates copied straight from the manual. There are the same corresponding plots for the hard wing/BLC F-4E in the 1-F-4C-1 TO. This data is the probably the most reliable data out there so I've used it for all my comparisons. If you've ever come across the FMS plots for the Phantom or any other plane, note that they are calculations and they do not at all match the aforementioned manuals. To answer your questions on the actual rates and how they compare, in the old F-4E vs XX aircraft thread, people have posted USN official F-4J turn data and MiG-23ML data and the F-4E performs quite favourably. To summarize, the F-4J with a 4x4 AIM-7/9 loadout needs to be almost empty on fuel (~20% fuel) to match the sustained turn performance of the slatted F-4E per the manual at 60% fuel with 4xAIM-7Es - a max STR of about 14.7 deg/s at SL. Of course because the F-4J is so light in this configuration, it has a higher structural limit, so keep that in mind. These limits will probably go out the window anyway in DCS. The MiG-23ML and MLA (which are much later, circa 1976 variants - contemporary not to our upcoming early F-4E but to the F-14A and F-15A) have a slightly better STR with wings fully forward but I understand that they are unstable there (not sure which axis) and they have very low structural limits in that configuration, which again are likely to be ignored in game if the plane doesn't break. In summary, plots are from actual USAF published manuals and in the same relative configuration, the slatted F-4E will out rate instantaneously and sustained any US hard wing F-4 by a big margin except when both are at supersonic speeds (where the turn rates drop a lot anyway). The MiG-23ML/MLA have a better max theoretical STR with wings forward but it is unclear if that rate can be used due to the structural limits and stability issues in that wing configuration. EDIT: Upon review at home of my Excel plots, it seems that the 1F-4C-1 and 1F-4E-1 use the exact same symmetrical load limit plot. This would imply they are ballpark suggested limits rather than accurate turn data. So I used the Vn diagrams to find an average CL for each of the hard and slatted wing jets and just plugged those average CL values back into n = L/W = CL*(0.5*rho*S*V^2)/W where n = load factor and W was the new weight I wanted - in this case a more realistic loaded weight per the STR graphs. Sorry for the confusion, it has been a while since I made these plots. I would assume that interpolating and extrapolating would yield similar results.

I know looking at plots doesn't tell the whole story but it looks like an armed F-4E with slats would be pretty closely matched to an F-5E in a rate fight, and maybe even better when both are clean. Do you have any stories tussling with F-5's in the weeds like this? Thanks again!

Thanks Kirk! Good to know we'll be able to out run the little F-5's

Very interesting. I'm still hoping we get strobes since that's more aligned with the timeline of the early F-4 when it saw combat but whatever it ends up being, I'll be happy with. @Cobra847 is this something you can confirm at this time? Kirk, did you ever train against simulated SA-6's with the APR-36? I wonder if there's anything you can tell us about if any part of that system was detectable because I know its bands are well within the bandwidth of the APR-36 but all public sources say it was difficult/impossible to detect it so I dont understand why... maybe a frequency agility thing.

Super. Thanks for sharing! Though it's a shame such a mod wasn't available for the Vietnam or Middle East wars, at least the smoke was gone in burner. And I bet it will help perform IFF in DCS

Would you have any info/sources to share on the latter -17C mods? It's been a while since I've been able to find anything technical or timeframe-specific regarding this upgrade.