F-2

You da man

Yea I was just making a point about the availability of information not what version should be made (I would love both). If a third party took it up or was formed to take it up that would be great. Razbam has a Mig-23mld in development which is similar to the original Mig-29 in terms of technology. No doors seemed to have been knocked down, but Raz isn’t based in Russia.

Mind linking it?

The Mig-29 is extremely well documented, if current circumstances prohibit ED from making it a FF aircraft then I can think of no better aircraft for an aspiring team to develop as a module. All needed documentation can be provided for the original and a few people have mentioned having access to SMT manuals over the years. They allow it under some circumstances, but I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that the information is out there. A press copy was released and I’ve found screenshots taken a few years ago. Since it was made with SME and manufacturer assistance I thought it was worth a mention.

http://web.archive.org/web/19991002084308/www.aha.ru/~gland/ we could see if we could find a copy of this bad boy and use it as a base for a Su-27m.

I think captor is more likely the best mechanical scan radar in its class. The Swiss evaluation implied a longer range the apg-73 and RBE2 but not overwhelmingly. I also have this antidote https://www.timesaerospace.aero/features/defence/aesa-does-itor-does-it I would expect apg-71 and possibly apg-70/63(v)1 could exploit meteor fully and might brute force through jamming. blue vixen, captors forerunner was supposedly very good at maintaining locks and allegedly filled in coverage gaps for AWACS in the Yugoslav wars, so I think Captor is more the best in other ways then simply range.

I honestly don’t think we’ll know anything until Jeffry is out of early access and out in the world.

I wonder if this is hinting ICE. Peace Rhine I predates ICE but that would be a very odd Phantom to simulate. Apparently unlike the Greek modernized phantom the German planes pretty much have the same cockpit and Radar scope.

Yea, the funny thing about the C hornet was that it wasn’t appreciably different from the A till a few years in.

His accent is international man of mystery

So apparently the F-4F got the ability to use AIM-9L in the first peace rhine update in the early 80s. Could the standard F-4 use AIM-9 natively? Is something being teased?

I think the F-4F lacked sparrow capabilities which would kinda limit its use (and no reason an F-4E with no sparrow couldn’t fill in) unless they wanted to tease ICE, but that’s not slatted and it would be easy to tell. I think Germany also operated the F-4E too, im not sure the details of those craft.

People ask occasionally but it seems like the only real use for it is RPing a time period. 35 degree AoA limit and underpowered engines, it seem kinda dull as a dog fighter. It’s not like say a viper where different versions have different strengths and capabilities.

Oh nvm then

Kinda surprised a German F-4 was so prominently featured.

Yes it is. But I’m assuming the phantom has priority.

You might have a little trouble with a naval phantom in a guns only fight

Captor M is based of the extremely well regarded Blue Vixen radar from the sea harrier which you can read about in this article if so inclined. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ferranti-radars-blue-falcon-blue-hawk-blue-vixen.1224/post-10340

How about this garish monstrosity

Mod would be fair, just like the F-16I mod.

70 page lecture notes on N019 Radar translated into English by the secretprojects forum. Just in case someone wanted to create a detailed radar model. Т12 RLPK ENG.pdf

Did I suggest that? If I did it wasn’t intended.They simply mentioned they would like to do a Naval Phantom at some point and I said I thought the F-4S seemed to be the most capable choice.

The F-4S was well after the initial fielding with far more reliable components. There were six "bars" that I remember. I don't recall the starting bar, but if the bars were numbered as such: 1 2 3 4 5 6 I believe the vertical scan pattern went something like: 2,4,1,5,6,3 It wasn't quite what one would expect. I don't recall it changing the bar scan pattern - but remember, the last time I worked on those things was 27 years ago. As far as modes - they could select PULSE, PD (both ACM modes) A/G (which was the ground mapping feature, 120º PPI (Plan Position Indicator) mode) and I believe T/C or TERRAIN - this last very obscure feature was very difficult for aircrew to understand; it was supposed to indicate to them the likelyhood of collision with terrain features when proceeding at high speed, low altitudes (eg:bombing runs). The antenna scan pattern was that of a "+" - Full Up, Full Down, Center, Full Port, Full Starboard, Center (repeat) The scan displays on both scopes was also a "+". However, a number of crashes occurred while using this mode, and it's use was discouraged by modifying a card in the LRU-10 (Cockpit Display Unit, aft cockpit, port side, just under the canopy rail) to display a large "X" on the screen. As mentioned above, the pilot could select DOGFIGHT mode, which would override the RIO's controls, select short pulse, 10 mile range, and enable VTAS acquisition by sweeping out the range gate upon the pilot's pressing the lower button on his joystick. The RIO had his own joystick, mounted to the right of the scope and above it. The RIO's stick was about the size of a screwdriver handle, or straight sausage-shaped on a ball mount. It had an "action" button under the middle finger, and a thumbwheel on the top. The thumbwheel controlled the antenna's elevation. The elevation was indicated on the scope as a short horizontal blip on the right side of the screen. Pressing the button halfway down was called "half-action", this would cause the antenna to be slaved to the RIO's stick, and would initiate 60ms PRF switching to prevent target eclipsing. There was also the "taboo" mode, "EMERGENCY". This mode was to be used ONLY if you were in actual combat, and you had a transmitter failure. This mode overrode all of the thermal sensors, and a number of other protection circuits. Selecting this mode might enable the transmitter to work for a short period of time, but at the likely cost of destroying a number of radar components. When a RIO selected this mode, it tripped a red flag on the knob, which could only be re-set by removing the knob with a small Allen-type wrench. That was one of the very first things we would check after a flight - if that flag was out, the RIO got a trip up to the Skipper's office for an ass-chewing. There may be more modes that I've forgotten. The last couple of years I was on active duty, we got F-4S's with the AWG-10A's in them, then I transferred to VMFA-122 which had the older F-4J's with AWG-10's again. One can't remember everything from 27 years ago null PRF was approximately 40ms in PD mode; but remember there still was minute adjustments made to the PRF at the end of every scan, and it would switch every 60ms during half-action or acquisition. One interesting aspect of the PD mode was the ground clutter notch. This looked rather like an inverted arch. The faster the aircraft was travelling, the taller and narrower the arch was. It was, literally, a "black hole" - the radar would not "see" anything in that notch. It would take digital signal processing to make use of that ground clutter return, which wasn't until later. Remember, the electronics in the AWG-10 were quite crude by today's standards - their idea of an integrated circut back then was a collection of discrete components surrounded by a black cube of epoxy. This is also what made it so difficult to repair, and gave it a low MTBF. The MTBF on the original AWG-10 radars we had was quite dismal; if an aircraft was still "up and up" (airframes/radar) for three "hops" (sorties) it was golden. Remember, these aircraft were doggone old by the time I got to operational squadrons back in 1975; they were all Vietnam Veterans, and had seen MANY launches/recoveries from aircraft carriers, and were very high-time airframes. A single F-4J Phantom had 15 miles of wire in it. That's a lot of wiring to maintain. Much of it involved the radar. And the radar had quite a few electro-mechanical relays. One of our most frustrating "gripes" would be, "Radar breaks lock under G's" to which we could only reply "G-force simulator on back order." They wouldn't let technicians fly in the backseat - so we couldn't begin to troubleshoot it. The BIT box (LRU-8) was a troublesome piece of equipment (BIT=Built-In Test) - it was driven by a film strip with written instructions and frame numbers to tell you where it was in the test, and a grid of (logical) 1's or 0's (either black or see-through) that drove a series of either phototransistors or photoresistors, which controlled a "relay tree" above the antenna that would select various circuits to test. This thing was a nightmare in itself. The AWG-10A BIT box was infinitely better; it was all digital, and markedly faster. When my 1st squadron got the very first F-4S's with the AWG-10A radars in them, we found them to be VERY reliable in comparison - we were getting 10, 20, 30 or more hops between repairs. However, the first time we went to swap out a computer (LRU15 or LRU16, can't remember which) in the turtleback (behind the RIO) we discovered that the computer harness had been made too short! We got the cables off OK, but they just wouldn't go back on the new computer. They'd made an error in measuring the "jig" used to build the cables. The F-4S's had other teething problems. They changed from the old flammable hydraulic fluid to a new, non-flammable hydraulic fluid; however the old O-ring seals were not compatible with this new fluid. Well, they supposedly replaced all of the O-rings when the airframes were rebuilt, but they missed a few in the turtleback area, causing eventual massive hydraulic leaks and our squadron to nearly lose an aircraft after losing all hydraulic pressure during approach.[/quote] I left the Corps before those missiles were available. The Sparrow missiles I worked with connected to the missile umbilical using a 32-pin shear "wafer". When the missile was ejected from the rack (by firing what amounts to a blank shotgun-shell type device) the wafer would actually shear in half; one side would remain attached to the missle, the other half would stay with the harness. I have a couple of these "wafers" left from my tour in the Corps; I was using them to build Sparrow missile simulators so the aircrew could practice locking on the radar and firing when the missile was inside the envelope. Don't have any photos - yet. They're rather crude, we didn't have any circuit card material available - just soldered together a dozen resistors, capacitors and diodes along with a fuse holder, then potted the whole thing. You're welcome - hope this is enough for the moment. It's after midnight here, it's been an event-filled day, and I have more to accomplish before hitting the rack. From the secret projects forum on APG-59

Well in terms of radar the F-4S is vastly more capable the the E.