Kalasnkova74

Of course damage/malfunction is one reason, but another is to keep the slats from cycling in and out at certain parameters.

Once the Combat Tree feature arrives in the DMAS block under development, the tables will turn quickly. That system pings the IFF of hostile aircraft to track them passively: if it’s implemented for everything in DCS (not just MiG-17s and 21s) , it’ll be a major advantage for the F-4E in the Cold War servers. I can see people desperately searching for “IFF keybinds” once that version drops.

I think the issue is simple. Players just aren’t used to the F-4Es pulse radar. They’re coming from modern fighters with intuitive control setups and look down/shoot down modes. God mode on the screen, as it were. Then they hop in the F-4E and go “WTF” when they can’t easily search targets, can’t effectively sort, or effectively employ the APQ-120/AIM-7 at AMRAAM range. The hope is Jester can somehow bridge this capability gap out of the box. That said, Combat Tree will change this to an extent in the next block coming out.

If you’re in this forum, you already understand the appeal of a Vietnam War map. My question-within the bounds of economics and player system, is a comprehensive Vietnam War map viable? We’re looking at a combat zone stretching from central Thailand in the West, up just beyond the Chinese border in the North, south to the end of Vietnam and Cambodia, and east to include the ocean around Hainan Island. That’s a LOT of area. Fully detailed , that’s going to be a VERY large map file. Time to crack open the piggy bank for another 1TB external drive. ED could break it up to avoid a huge map file , but the playerbase won’t like that either. A “Vietnam Only” map means you can play Southern Vietnam scenarios, but full fidelity simulation of Laos or North Vietnam campaigns is off the table. Thailand and Laos covers the Barrel Roll and some SAR ops, but obviously Vietnamese air campaigns are not viable. This is one map where leaving parts off compromises the utility of the whole project. However, I’m not sure people are OK with buying a map AND needing a dedicated HD because of the size. Seems like a no-win scenario for me. What say you all?

I’ve gotten ‘er up to 1.8 with the pylons in a dive to 25k ft. She’ll probably do 2.0, but I backed off after seeing the intake duct temp light come on.

I agree with the others. The flight model changes are a welcome upgrade. Before ,on landing an alert hand on the throttles was needed -or you’d just plop on the ground. Now the Phantom II is much smoother, more predictable and less likely to fall like an anvil over the fence. The trim feels much better, the aircraft is easier to control on bomb passes, and overall the flight model feels much more refined and forgiving. Well done HB!

Further, when attacking /suppressing ground based air defenses, the Israelis used loft as a standoff method. Not terribly accurate, but it did well at making AAA gunners run for their bunkers during an airfield or other attack run. By the time the gunners got back to their posts, the strike was over and the Kurnass flights were egressing.

Not in the F-4s case. Combat Tree enabled reliable passive ID of hostile targets beyond the APQ-120s detection range. Knowing who is or isn’t a bandit is a bonus.

Possible? Sure. Likely? Not in the near future. The F-4E spawned multiple “boutique” variants , and each one has its own quirks and capabilities. The F-4F ICE, the F-4E AUP, the F-4E 2020 Terminator, the F-4E Kurnass 2000….each is just different enough to merit its own dedicated module. It would take a development studio years to knock out one of them. HB is in the best position to make a Gucci Phantom, but their plate is full for the foreseeable future.

The flip side is the OPFOR behavior. Current IADS behavior is too simplistic to make an F-4G (or any SEAD specific aircraft) worth the effort, public info availability on the -G notwithstanding. This is of course in EDs court and not HBs. Real world IADS operators did tricky stuff like launch from one site while guiding from another, spoofing RWRs with fake lock on signals only to switch to another target or frequency, launching blind and activating the guidance radar only in the last phases of SAM flight, and so on.

Also worth noting here, the F-4s angular engine placement means power changes also change nose angle. This was of course an intentional design decision going back to its naval roots. No big deal (at least to me) in casual flight, but it’s perceptible in formation and AAR.

Logistically? Nope. Looking at the task, HB would first need to build a “Starbaby” AI EWO who could track, sort, and engage threat radars using the APR-47 sensor and engagement suite. Even if we assume detailed documentation on this system is freely available - which, far as I know, it’s not- that would be a MASSIVE development effort. Assuming that box is checked, the F-4s flight model would need to be changed to accommodate the black boxes which replaced the gun, and - most important - the DCS game needs to be updated to feature more realistic and threatening IADS. Real life air defense battalions didn’t just constantly radiate , and would play tricks like launching from one site and timing radar guidance from a different site to delay RWR detection. ED would have to update the whole game to feature more potent IADS. Finally, developers would need to code new EW aircraft to take advantage of these changes. Best of luck here- even the long-decommissioned F-4G doesn’t have easily obtainable documentation, and many other EW systems players would want to fly remain classified to this day.

Stats can be misleading without context. USAF strike crews of the time were based in Thailand, which was approximately a 700 mile flight one way. When the round trip from base to target and back is 2,240 kilometers fuel and payload become primary metrics. One of the lesser known reasons USAF Phantom II crews couldn’t match their Navy equivalents in MiG kills was fuel range. Naval fighters were based near the coast, and could surprise North Vietnamese air defense teams with unpredictable arrival vectors. USAF crews had an exponentially longer trip and were identified hours before entering North Vietnam. A consistent refrain you see in the Red Baron reports on MiG engagements that didn’t end in a kill was fuel concerns, which makes sense given the distances. The F-104 was not designed for that kind of long-range aerial campaign. It was built on the lessons of Korea, which was a much smaller battlespace. Further its refueling system - probe/drogue- was incompatible with the boom system established by SAC to refuel their bombers. The final nail in the F-104s air to air career in Vietnam was the North Vietnamese. They had radar and ELINT SA on US aircraft movements and knew to steer well clear of the Starfighters. While this was to the advantage of the EC-121s , Operation Bolo F-4Cs and EB-66s those Starfighters escorted, it meant their odds of fighting a MiG were very low no matter how competent the aircraft and crew. The one engagement on record between an F-104 flight and a single MiG-21 ended with the Fishbed-D pilot punching tanks and running away. A wise decision by the MiG pilot , but hardly the stuff of MiG killer books and movies.

Did you guys have centerline fuel tanks or stores during these flights? Because if you do, the back two Sparrows will not launch due to a built in safety interlock. It is to avoid hitting the centerline store with rocket exhaust.

Fair ‘nuff, thanks!