Kalasnkova74

Spotted in S1 , Episode 2

Supporting this point, the Israeli Defense Force/Air Force used loft attacks with CBU to suppress Arab AAA in the Yom Kippur war. While the gunners were ducking CBU, the rest of the Kurnass strikers then hit the main target. Given the threat - like SA-6s which didn’t trigger alerts on their RWR and murderously dense AAA - it was probably the best tool in the drawer .

Brigadier General Olds flew the F-4E in combat. During Operation Linebacker (circa 1972) - years after his 8th TFW tour flying the F-4C & D - then Colonel Olds had a staff job at the Pentagon. After the improved North Vietnamese GCI system took down multiple USAF F-4s in quick succession , he was dispatched to Thailand with orders to audit the air to air training level of the USAF wings. His Linebacker tour was supposed to be ground-duty research only, but “somehow” Olds wound up flying combat missions in the F-4E. He delivered a candid report informing HQ USAF its pilots were woefully underprepared for air combat. Nothing was immediately done to address that.

Not to spoil your enthusiasm, but “MiG-21 vs F-4E” won’t be as exciting as you may think. IRL, 60% of the kills on both sides in SEA were unobserved ambushes . No turns or aircraft maneuvering kung fu, just a supersonic GCI/ Red Crown managed pass and a burning victim. Lacking those resources , in DCS it’s going to come down to pilot familiarity with their aircraft. IMO, the “airplane kung fu” match I’m curious to see is the MiG-19PF vs F-4E. The Farmer has much better subsonic acceleration, canopy visibility, and comparable low speed turn performance vs the F-4E.

Yeah, I’m with you there. Shame there probably isn’t a business case for an F/RF-101 module….

Apparently, Heatblur is born to lose. Unless they execute a module of advanced complexity with 100% accuracy and ahead of schedule , people will complain and criticize the effort at the first sign of adversity. Much gnashing of teeth lately since the delay announcement. My two cents? I’ll quote Edward R Murrow: ”We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men”

Looks like they could carry 6 max (2 wingtips / 2 center / 2 wing station). But the centerline stations are draggy and pose a risk of engine stall upon firing due to rocket smoke ingestion. Realistically, most Starfighter users carried 2 Sidewinders and 2 fuel tanks. As far as F-5 comparisons go, the F-104s substantially faster and flies higher.

DCS will differ considerably from F-4E real world tactics. In real life, the U.S. side had to satisfy two factor identification, meaning two sources confirming an aircraft was hostile (controlling agency call out plus visual / BVR Combat Tree + controller / Controller + Visual , etc). Typically , this meant a visual ID plus radar, but the radar was negated once the F-4 got close enough for a visual. Further, successful AIM-7 employment in real life was far more reliant on ground missile maintenance and servicing than anything the crews did during launch. 5 kill ace Steve Ritchie (and his WSO) personally inspected and reviewed the maintenance history of every Sparrow bolted to his F-4: the results of that curation speak for themselves. Many others in the 555th did the same. Some USAF (and USN) crews found out that even just carting the AIM-7s from the ammo shack to the jet could damage the weapons due to the fragile electronics and rough pathways between the flightline and the shack. These points mean the tactics U.S. pilots used in real life will be little help to most DCS conditions. A BVR contact - radar or APX-80 (Combat Tree) - plus DCS-perfect AIM-7s not subject to damage from ground handling = much deadlier effects in game vs real life. Also, players don’t get get court martialed and kicked out of the game for shooting at a friendly .

Two points. One: the F-104 was initially just wired to carry AIM-9s on the wingtip stations. The Pakistani Air Force completed local modifications enabling AIM-9 carriage on inboard wing pylon stations, which was later adopted by other F-104 operators over time after the bugs were sorted out. In not sure if Spain was one of them. Incidentally, this modification resulted in the PAF F-104s losing out on a chance to shoot down an IAF MiG-21. A malfunction caused the F-104s AIM-9s to fail, resulting in two misfires. While under-belly (catamaran) and under intake fitments were trialed, few operators used them in practice due to excessive drag & deleterious impacts to fuel range + speed. Two, the F-104 was - and probably even now- an effective air superiority fighter. We must step back from the “Top Gun” images of airplanes WVR dancing and look at the statistics. Between 60% and 80% of air combat kills are ambushes- meaning the losing aircraft never even knew they were attacked until they got hit. No turns or “hit the brakes he’ll fly right by” aircraft jiu-jitsu, just a missile /gun pass on a totally unaware victim. People get hung up on E-M WVR chart dogfighting , but that regime is a minority of air combat engagements. When the F-104 was designed in the 50s, BVR was science fiction and infrared missiles were cutting edge tech. Kelly Johnson’s team designed the F-104 to be an air superiority fighter for the 60%-80% when you’d spot the bad guy from high altitude and just drop down to shoot them. As proven by the Operation Featherduster tests in the 1960s, the USAF F-104s were the deadliest fighters in the inventory. They even gave later F-15s fits. Today? With good CGI vectors, an F-104 would be a terrible opponent even for a modern Su-27 /Mig-29. Sure, those jets can do the visual fight jiu-jitsu better. But the F-104 is still hard to see, very fast, and clean has a better climb rate than the Soviet iron. Not that I expect Growling Sidewinder or other YT publishers to act accordingly.

Before people start sharpening their pitchforks, please consult HBs update : When we began mass testing of the F-4 in January, we found that an estimated 5-10% of users had complete, game breaking, unusable lag with any and all UI elements due to a GPU bottleneck, and despite all-out efforts, truly day and night, to resolve these as soon as possible, we found ourselves at the mercy of a complex onion of PC hardware and OS interactions. Every time we thought we had a breakthrough, we’d run into another set of hardware and software combinations and be right back at step one. Every time this happened, we thought we were back on track, only to find ourselves behind schedule once again. Every time, this forced us back to the drawing board to reassess and try new solutions, and further shifted our timeline, yet disguised itself as something that appeared to be solvable in time. While concerning, we initially approached the issue with confidence. We’ve solved worse in the runup to the release of the F-14 and Viggen. Or so we thought. The core issue causing this turned out to be an incredibly complex, multi-layered onion involving both the Windows GPU scheduler as well as GPU process scheduling in DCS itself, mixed in with some deep, hardware level connections across various technologies, such as HAGS, resizable bar, and even specific GPU drivers. It took us hundreds of hours of debugging and bombarding the affected hardware and individuals with experimental builds, and in the end, despite also reaching out to industry contacts, we found no solution but to rewrite significant parts of our UI layer to solve the issue. Not only did we spend an inordinate amount of time trying every combination of solution we could think of, seemingly at the brink of a breakthrough, but in the end found no reasonable solution other than to go back and rewrite this key piece of the F-4. In summary, this issue has diverted a significant amount of resources to fix. Elusive issues with many elements out of our control can be a nightmare, especially when it comes to features which underpin the entirety of our product, and for the very first time in our entire decade long history… we just couldn’t find a solution except ripping it apart and building it back together. While an “I told you so” retort may be poor form, it has to be repeated: this is an ambitious project. HB is implementing many positive changes with this module, but each new feature requires testing, bug fixing, and retesting to confirm the bugs are fixed. We cannot have our cake and eat it too: the product can be delivered quickly, properly, or within financial and labor cost. We can have any two outcomes on a given project , but not all three at the same time. The same people willing to rip ED a new one for a delay are also the same people who’d rip them a new one if they met the deadline but had a buggy product. Let’s be better than that. Note, every successful aircraft project -yes, that includes the so-called “affordable” F-16 and A-10- completed suffered delays and overruns. Thats part of the game. We aviation fans stand frustrated when ignorant hit piece media gets released tearing down the program at the first sign of obstacles or problems . We groan when Congresscritters and reporters hurl complaints because Aircraft X is behind schedule. It’s the same story, just change the aircraft. The same things being said about the F-35 now were said about the F-15 & F-4. I don’t speak Russian, but I’m sure the Soviets traded similar internal critiques about the MiG-29 and Sukhoi 27 back in the day. We know in the end it’ll pan out, but that doesn’t stop the baloney slinging . Let’s not do that , and extend the same courtesy to HB that we do to Lockheed Martin and other concerns when they too have delays. Give HB the chance to make it right in the end. That may take months, or they may even have to erase the whole thing and start over with a fresh codebase and a 2025 release date. It is what it is, and we’re better off letting HB make it work without pointless bickering, “is it here yet” threads or pointless epithets speculating that a conspiracy with the Illuminati and the Lizard People are secretly embargoing the F-4E release.

Ah! To redress my faux pax of an oversight, I’ll share a story about the RF-4Bs development. Originally the plan was for the main Phantom II variant to be the F-4B, which would be sold to the USAF and Navy. Republic Aircraft had a contract lined up for a recce RF-105 - to replace the RF-101- and they began development accordingly. Meanwhile, USMC needed a reconnaissance aircraft but nothing in the upcoming inventory could do the job, since it has to be carrier capable. After realizing that the USMC couldn’t afford a reconnaissance F-4 variant alone, the USMC officer pitched the RF-4B to their contemporary in the Air Force - who wanted a higher performance reconnaissance aircraft than the RF-105 proposal- the two began an underground effort to get the RF-4B off the ground. McDonnell , seeing a business opportunity to take market share from Republic, did their part & after much knashing of teeth & debate within the USAF between the options , the RF-4B won out over the Republic offering.

THE reconnaissance pod? You’ll need to be more specific Unlike some aircraft, the F-4E featured many recce options over its career. Setting aside dedicated reconnaissance variants like the RF-4C, RF-4E & derivatives, here’s some of the recce pods fitted to “normal” F-4Es: Long Range Optical (LOROP) Tactical in line camera pod: The French-developed ASTAC electronic intelligence pod for JASDF RF-4EJ: G-139 HIAC1 mounted to a F-4E Karpada : …and this likely isn’t a comprehensive list. Incidentally, it would be really neat for recce assets to be useful in a DCS pre/post strike capacity. We could see more recce variants like the recon Tornado, RF-101, RF-8, U-2, and yes..the RF-4C & E

Perhaps. My two cents is it’s not worth the effort to integrate. The Iranians adapted the HAWK because they’d used up their AIM-7 stockpile. With no consistent resupply on the horizon & Iraq modernizing their air force , the IRIAF needed a BVR replacement. The HAWK happened to be available , locally produced, and technically compatible with the F-14s guidance radar. Fortunately for the Iranians, the same company developed the HAWK and the F-14s radar. Based on Tom Cooper’s research , the HAWK adaptation had a maximum range of 12 miles, with an effective range slightly less than this (as is true of most radar guided missiles).

…leading to people complaining because “there’s no release date”… Bottom line, developers are in a no-win scenario on this subject. Say nothing, and people complain about there being no release date or speculate the project is cancelled for lack of updates in a given period. Give a date, and something will happen to cause the devs to miss it.

Cue forum bickering on why Developer X won’t give anyone a release date on Module Y…..

Based on OSINT, the Fakour 90 is probably a HAWK missile adapted to fit an AIM-54 case. Replicating the AIM-54’s guidance logic, radar set, programming, cooling system & other systems to talk to the F-14 “mothership” is probably beyond even the U.S. Navy’s capability to reproduce at this juncture,to say nothing of Iran who don’t have access to that backend support. The situation is different for the HAWK, as Iran has local production facilities for that missile and is thus very familiar with its technical capabilities. Putting its guts into an AIM-54 case solves the problem of being able to carry just 2 HAWK missiles. While that circumstantial background on the Fakour 90 makes sense - at least to me- that narrative is a very long way from having the solid information to program it (or any other Iranian weapon) into DCS with confidence. Anyone who definitively knows how custom Iranian weapons work will not be in a position to legally tell ED, and that’s that.

It may well be an experimental one-off test: the IRIAF also fired R-27s from the F-14 but found they had limited effectiveness (thus the HAWK adaptations).

Often today when some are asked “what’s the most important aircraft in the USAF”, the typical answer is the F-22,F-15, F-16, or perhaps the B-2. The initiated know it’s the KC-135. Without the Stratotanker’s gas and cargo bay, no one else flies.

I’m sure all of us want the complete module to be released Right Meow. But that’s not how complex projects like this work. Every computer software project is one bug away from being delayed. Despite their best efforts, HB or ED may find a problem in testing that could push the F-4E back weeks…months…or even years, depending on the scope of the issue and what steps are needed to fix the problem properly. No amount of “Are We There Yet?!” threads or comments will eliminate this risk. We may get a module next month…or instead a heartfelt apology because testing found an issue that will push the release back. Either way, I’m behind HB and ED. Are you?

Let us be candid. Even if they released it today, the same people grumbling about a release date now would proclaim that HB missed their deadline. Those determined to be unhappy in life usually succeed. I’m determined to enjoy this module when it comes out, whether that’s 2024 or some other year in the future.

For the open-minded, anyway. I suspect the 4th Gen ’Lift Vector on Bandit & PULL’ club will chime in with “hurr durr it spun when I one-circled a Viper, Phantom sux.”

The good thing about component wear is it permits simulation of the most important airpower dynamics: logistics. Having high tech aircraft is all well and good, but the capabilities are just one ingredient in the warfighting soup that is air power. Choosing an F-4 over an F-5 is a no brainer in a static environment. But if half your F-4s are broken for different reasons but 80% of your F-5s are ‘up’, now the dynamic is different. Next layer in situations like all your ‘cheaper’ F-5s are mission capable but your F-4s are flyable with degraded capability - say, no dive toss or PAVE Spike - and the choices get even murkier. Suddenly, other options you’d just disregard (like using less capable aircraft)become useful. Then there’s good old Murphys Law. You launch 4 F-4Es but two got over-Gd in the last sortie because they dodged SAMs after going off route to avoid interceptors. Now you’re down two jets and your campaign needs four - how do you solve this?

The Dive Toss scandal happened after the Vietnam War. Since the crews were mandated to qualify with the system, but qualifying was infeasible due to inoperative equipment , most squadrons and wings in TAC simply lied about the sorties by “pencil whipping” their stats. Anyone who told the Generals the system wasn’t working earned a carpet dance because the brass would point to another Wing -which was publishing fraudulent data- and ask why the honest units couldn’t do the same thing. Eventually Holloman AFB got busted for an Air Force wide crime; Captain (at the time) Ron Keys’ letter explains it further Lie about your DOC capability because you’re afraid to report you don’t have the sorties to hack it. “Yes, sir, losing two airplanes won’t hurt us at all.” The party line. I listened to a three-star general look a room full of us in the face and say that he “didn’t realize that pencil-whipping records was done in the Air Force. Holloman, and dive toss was an isolated case, I’m sure.” It was embarrassing—that general looked us in the eye and said, in effect, “Gentlemen, either I’m very stupid or I’m lying to you.”

Dive Toss was a scandal back in the TAC days,as the system was inop so often it wasn’t possible for crews to quality. Squadrons started falsifying their statistics instead of reporting the issues until a Wing got busted.

correct. None were used for armament: the MA-31s were license built KH-31 ASMs. Turned out the only aircraft conveniently available that could haul one were F-4s.