Aussie_Mantis

speaking of @G.J.S- heya! Do you happen to remember any cold start procedures for the F-4M? I don't know if it's similar or different to the F-4E procedure I mentioned earlier but it might help either way! Also, did the RAF/FAA Phantoms get IFF?

Feck. Also RE the IFF, does anyone have any pics?

Ah, excellent. Thanks! Pappy, I know you flew the old RAF F-4Ms back in the day- did they have any similar systems on the old Marconi License-builds? Also, do you have discord? Would love to interview you at some point. RE IFF to both you and Pappy, I rechecked my sources- T.O. 1F-4E-1 '86 says that it was indeed installed at some point. Not sure if it was standard prior to 1975, but it's there. Does anyone know anything about the later F-4E's radar warning reciever? Iheard they used AN/ALR-69 past 1978 and DMAS, giving it a full digital RWR threat receiver suite like the A-10, but I'm not sure.

for the other questions which I didn't answer- sorry- The USAF Phantoms have LORAN and other such INS or beacon-based systems that just give you a readout for lat-long or your heading and distance from a beacon, I think. It's not that great but it'll do. As for the IFF, most early phantoms did not have built-in IFF. the USAF trialled the APX-80 Combat Tree IFF system on the F-4D (the D had a slightly superior radar on account of the dish being bigger, along with better scan presets) and that's a similar system to what would come later. Oddly enough I think the benefit of IFF wasn't really the fact that you got IFF but also that you could acquire MIGs from longer ranges on the F-4D, particularly with its very terrain clutter-sensitive radar set. It should give you little markers on your screen for friendlies and enemies. F-4Es however don't use APX-80 from what I know and you need to visually identify the enemy to actually kill them, hence TISEO and associated bells & whistles. The radar display is extremely basic and looks like something out of War Thunder, with a central acquisition "puck" (or whatever that little thing with the two bars is called) that goes around your screen when you select a target. This is more the WSO's thing, and the pilot only has Automated Acquisition (boresight) or on later variants CAA (Computer Assissted Acquisition), which is boresight with a few filters to help discriminate targets against terrain/noise and thus doesn't discriminate, she just locks. As far as I know it (CAA and APX-80) are USAF only, not USN. I don't know if USN radars had IFF or not.

Cold start I have no idea, I know how to do it with the Cart attached, though, which is: Check master caution & reset Check O2 throttles to OFF (not idle) air on #2/cartridge fwoosh, it's done externally not internally IIRC but I could be wrong, never was sure about the cartridges. Know that air was defo external. Wait for rotation on #2 at 10% hold ignition and advance throttle to 50% and then back to idle, release ignition and call lightoff check oil and hydraulics air off at 45% if cart start cycle right generator test spoilers i.e. ailerons air/cartridge #1 and repeat steps 4-8 for engine #1 external doors check clear, disconnect all power and air connections to outside clear and check airbrake up and down check flaps, cycle down and then back up check all other controls, pitch roll yaw etc etc check all augmented stabilities in order yaw --> aileron --> pitch double check tires, iFF, Altimeter activate SPC and taxi Before takeoff ensure you check wing tank transfer is on (not external tanks) and internal tank 5 and 6 lockout (these tanks along with the wing tanks're closest to the transsonic centre of maneuvering and help keep the center of gravity nice and close to your aerodynamic centre, so only use them when you REALLY have to), engage all stability augmentors,reconfirm controls and trim, close cockpits, check pitot heat is good, double check IFF and circuit breakers if you're the RIO, flaps down to takeoff (i.e. slats + takeoff flaps, setting #3(?)) and then engines to burner and go!

Nah, they said it was AN/APR-36 on the Phantom that was delaying development in a facebook post ( @Czechnology posted it in another thread) , and the model had the APS antenna in the trailer. The FAQs have mentioned that it'll get DMSQ and all other upgrades prior to '75-ish..

The FAQ said it was a late '74-'75 F-4E, so I'm predicting a non-TISEO block 48 F-4E. They did however say it will most definitely have slats, as well as DMSQ and other upgrades applied prior to this point, e.g. the 5-5-6 mod that puts a HOTAS in your plane. Irregardless, it'll be better than the f@#&ed up one in War Thunder which is a block 48 mesh slatted non-TISEO with DMAS and 1991 TISEO phantom capabilities and a 1970s RWR.

any news about the date, incidentally? They said 2022 but it was missed, I assume we're coming in the first major patch of the year?

TL;DR You aren't sh*t without slats and a gun. F**k MiGs.

Nobody's disregarding F-4Js here. You're the one who's constantly disregarded F-4E history in favour of your version of F-4J/S history and then tried to get everyone to somehow try and turn an already coming and existing F-4E module into an F-4J/S module which heatblur says will eventually come further down the line because "it's not the right phantom", while ignoring F-4E fans because you personally think it's not the "best representation". The F-4 Phantom may have started as a naval fighter, but the most prolific users of the F-4 turned it into something beyond that- the world's first true multirole strike fighter with weapons and sensors integrations far outpacing whatever the Eastern Block could put out, able to kick ass in the air and on the ground. ANd for that, seeing as most users of the F-4 around the world used the E variant, it's very much the best variant to represent what the F-4 did in real life. Air to Air, Air to Ground, both in terms of Precision Guided Weapons Delivery and TARCAP.

I sniffed a Chemtrail and it made me watch Saturday Night Live. 0/10, Government needs to make them better.

Oh, you... you know, your near-constant negativity about the F-4E Phantom is one of the things that inspired me to make this post, right? Putting aside the fact that you peddle your own versions of the historical narratives and doctrine of the USAF regarding the F-4, and the fact that you entirely disregard years' worth of USAF tactical development and improvement over the course of Vietnam and beyond, as well as entirely misunderstanding the F-4E's role and configuration to the point of disregarding the piles of evidence that other members have given... If I'm being honest, nobody on this forum could care less about your constant negativity about the F-4E and your worship of the F-4J and F-4S, to the point of your previous complete apathy towards the rich histories of any other force that used the F-4 other than the US Navy, which frankly, I find disrespectful to an extreme. If you want actual diversity of scenarios and operational functions, fly the F-4E. At least it can fly more mission profiles than just intercepts and TARCAP. Otherwise, I'm not really sure why you even bother. This is an F-4E forum. This is about the F-4E. The USN isn't the only user of the Phantom and honestly, if you really want to push the angle of the USN F-4J "mattering" more? The F-4E was used by more nations than the F-4J and its derivatives ever were. Please stop being such a negative nancy. We're getting an F-4E, I'm sure an F-4J comes later, but your opinion does not matter to most of us and trying to force us to swallow it only sours you and your reputation. The F-4J NEVER, EVER outperformed the AIr Force's F-4Es on the ground up north or even in any of the conflicts afterwards. The truth is that the F-4E, as a multirole fighter-bomber, is both better in concept and execution than the Navy's half-baked attempts at including some sort of bombing ability in the F-4J. I'm sure I would very much enjoy using a manually adjustable mil sight or using LABS when I can just use a TV-guided munition, laser-guided bomb, a Bullpup or a Maverick instead- or in later variants, quite literally just aim, wait, and then drop with the CCIP function introduced by the DMAS bombing computer. Your points that I have read, time and time again about the US Marine Corps and US Navy somehow being whiz kids who can hit a mortar size target while the USAF can't apparently hit the broad side of a barn just land wrong to the point of sheer lunacy. I've read the diaries and talked with pilots who headed north with the Air Force and the Navy. You're really just being delusional about the skill differential- if it existed at all. The USAF and USN were both extremely dedicated forces and extremely good at their job, and your comments about the US Air Force's pilots frankly disrespect the veterans who flew, fought, and died in some foreign field of Not-America and turned into shooting stars shooting past Thud Ridge Up North. If you really want to push the air to air angle- sure, the F-4E had less kills than the F-4J, but that implies you completely blind yourself to the fact that 41+45+23 makes 109, which is the kills that F-4Cs, F-4Ds and F-4Es made. The F-4J made thirty kills, the F-4B eleven. The USAF overall leads the USN in terms of air to air kills with the F-4 over Vietnam, because you apparently forget the fact that the USAF has three major F-4 variants that went into Vietnam. You push a false narrative about USAF training as if it never existed, which it does not. The USAF very much embarked on a similar training program to retrain its pilots, which lead to the present doctrines at Fighter School at Nellis, and saw fruit in Late Vietnam (though not yet results) in '72 as part of Rivet Haste, and later would bear true fruit with the Israelis as US-trained pilots tussled with their highly motivated, well-trained Soviet counterparts over Egypt in '70 and won, as well as when they took twenty-eight planes on with two F-4Es, and won. Let us also not forget the contributions of the Wolfpack, of which famous names such as Robin Olds are often held in high regard- the man who helped brainstorm and ultimately executed the operation that shot down seven MiG-21s in a single day, knocking half of the early MiG-21 fleet in '67- training be damned! But please, stop trying to w**k off the F-4J. We get that you like a different Phantom variant. I am pretty sure however that not many of us care for your attempts to force your tastes, your desires and your often completely spurious opinions onto us. Hear hear.

past '68-'69 most CAS units in general were flying the F-4. The F-100D had been retired since, I believe.

I don't really think they were "a bit less into CAS" at all. USAF birds flew down south on CAS missions just like the rest... I think I still haven't managed to find images of USAF Phantoms with Zunis.

We don't. Insanity is by definition uncontrolled. Controlled Insanity is by definition Australian.

weird, they're not in the TO... I thought they'd be there for sure. Maybe some unofficial use in Vietnam but other than that I'm on the rocks about it

The visibility from rear cockpit is only +/- 3 degrees to the front if you swivel your head a bit to look past the the seat that blocks. Yes, a landing is possible, I just wouldn't expect it to be that smooth or centered. There were a few stories from Vietnam about landing them using rear cockpit controls...

FAQ here on this very forum says both have TISEO. wait, no, never mind, I'm tripping off sleep deprivation and you're right. Blocks 36-45 are the ones without TISEO. but did recieve slats, CCRP (DSCG) and Mavericks under various technical orders, as well as the good ol' 556 mod letting you have a real HOTAS on your Real Planestm where all the weapons functions were on your throttle or stick.

also, did a little more digging- the "early" variant'll have enough in common with Rivet Haste F-4Es with 5-5-6 mod, 9Js, 7E-2, TISEO, AN/APR-25/36 sets, as deployed in '72 for OP Linebacker II.

Trawling through this, nobody's mentioned CAA. Phantoms with AN/APG-120(V)10 or above radars will have CAA, which helps with boresight acquisitions while trying to counter ground clutter, most effective when looking down at about 10 degrees. From what I know and have tried of the F-4E in other sims, your missiles have an effective range of maybe 10 nautical miles in a headon. Maybe less, dependent on altitude. Do not rely on the radar's ability to look down, it's terrible at best and sub-par at worst, but of course, it helps if the target you're scanning for is massive or heading towards you at high closure. Sparrows should work best at decently high closure rates of ~1300-1400 feet per second, fired at ~7.5nm-10nm if it's the E variant, 10nm-17nm if the F variant. Reliability is meh. The radar's honestly going to be the bigger problem- trying to look or lock down low or while low (below ~10000 feet) is going to be tantamount to suicide..

Very sure. GBU-8s and GBU-9 HOBOS sets otherwise. Or alternatively, The Funny(!!!) Yes, it's a laser-guided cluster bomb. Don't ask.null

Unique stuff we won't get: - AGM-65D - CAA Computer Assisted Acquisition (helps with boresight against ground clutter) - AGM-88 (possibly) - CBU-87, GBU-24, etc etc - Pave Tack - ECM Pods more advanced than AN/ALQ-131 - AIM-9L/M/P-3/P-5 - AIM-7F/M/MH/P - Chaff/flare dispensers possibly (F-4E flare dispensers were introduced in 1978, before then it was chaff only) - Some other stuff that I don't remember off the top of my head but I'm sure is probably important. We however will get funny USN bombs and stuff because earlier F-4Es carried those. Why? They stole them or took them from USN stocks, e.g. Walleyes, Mk 20 Rockeyes, etc... that is, if the example of F-4Ds flying with USN GBUs and F-4Es in Vietnam with USN CBUs is to be believed.

$1280 on a metal cup. Fair enough. Were Zunis also on the <profanity>list or were they off?

Why are LAU-3s and their associated launchers still in the dash-ones then? You'd think if you couldn't use them, they wouldn't be left in the dash-one...

why, though? Didn't they release the later F-14 first before early F-14? Also, wouldn't it be much more simpler to just release the late one?? Weapons and avionics are pre much the same as on modern US planes after all...