Kalasnkova74
最新回复 发布由 Kalasnkova74
-
-
Did you enable it in the Mission Editor or Special Options menu?
-
NEW: Added Persistent Aircraft system: allows saving and loading the same aircraft—including its properties, wear, tear, and condition—across missions or campaigns. The aircraft state is automatically saved when successfully left on the ground.
- Enabled via either the Mission Editor or Special Option.
- If enabled through Special Option, press the “Initialize Persistent Aircraft State” keybind in-game to initialize aircraft state saving (LCTRL+P).
- Aircraft is tracked by its livery and tail number.
- Optionally, a Persistent Aircraft Key can be set in the Mission Editor to enforce specific airframe continuity across missions (useful for campaign builders). Mission Editor persistence settings override user Special Options.
-
1
-
NEW: Added Persistent Aircraft system: allows saving and loading the same aircraft—including its properties, wear, tear, and condition—across missions or campaigns. The aircraft state is automatically saved when successfully left on the ground.
-
On 10/16/2025 at 8:53 AM, Civetta_ITA said:
Hi everyone — I’ve been trying to settle a question that’s been bugging me in DCS: is it realistically possible to beat a MiG-29 in a dogfight flying an F-4 (in a head on merge)?
I’ve been using one of the preset F-4 vs MiG-29 missions included in the F-4 package and every time I get into a visual dogfight with a MiG-29 I end up getting out-turned or killed despite trying my best.
I’m not trying to argue realism here — I know the Phantom is an older airframe — but I’d like to know if anyone has reliable tactics that make an F-4 competitive in a pure dogfight.
I try to keep my energy and avoid sustained turning fights but the MiG usually manages to force a turning engagement or get behind me quickly after the initial pass.
Thanks in advance.
Good timing on your post. I recently switched my F-4E BFM training mission opponent from an aced MiG-15 to the MiG-29.
After losing the first ten fights, I’ve killed the Fulcrum 4x. The last two were head on gun passes.
Im still paying my skill tax, but the core tactic is to pretend you’re in an F-104. Only turn in enough to force a head on pass. Fix the cannon sight and hose that MiG with 20mm at the merge. If he’s still alive, keep flying straight until you’ve got some knots back, then gently turn back. Feel free to cash in some energy to make the head on merge happen, because you’re not turning after his tail.
In case I didn’t make this clear, don’t turn in after the Fulcrum- even if he makes an error and gives you his six. No amount of BFM skill will overcome a Fulcrum’s thrust and turn advantage at close range. You’ll saddle into the control zone long enough to see him shake you off like a bad Facebook post. Act like Maverick here and you’ll get shot down like him. Even if you’re good and force an in-close overshoot by the MiG , you won’t have the energy to do anything to the Fulcrum.
Dont bother with Sparrows or older Sidewinders unless the MiG loses sight and leaves the fight. If he goes vertical , don’t follow him up unless you’re above Mach.
Flying big ovals might not win any visual effects Oscars, but you’ll still bag a Fulcrum or two with a Phantom.-
5
-
-
The workaround I use is to start the mission with the aircraft in flight or on the runway if I care about the replay.
-
On 9/29/2025 at 9:40 PM, joespeed52 said:
I know this is a hell of a necro-post, but do you have a source on the validity of USAF F-4E's carrying AIM-7M or P? Also, the USAF Phantom inner pylons were never wired or set up for Sparrow, so I'm not entirely sure where that last point comes from.
Source: https://phantomphacts.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-f-4-inboard-pylons.html
Cheers,
-JoeI’m not the quoted poster. But original versions of the Navy F-4B had Sparrows on the inboard rails for fleet defense missions. If I recall correctly, this capability was dropped later on.
-
16 hours ago, Cytarabine said:
Several users who held onto their F-4’s into the 90’s and early 2000’s did modernise the radar with a new set, however by then in US service the Phantom was on the way out.
I guess it would be cool to have one of those variants, though to be honest we would end up destroying some of the charm of the current module with how challenging the radar is compared to more modern jets.
Thing is, those modernized F-4s are really unique animals to the versions in game. It wasn’t just the radar sets, but the aircraft mission computers, weapon sets, and various avionics which were changed. On some modernized F-4s , enough wiring was consolidated to reduce the aircraft’s weight by thousands of pounds.
There’s the APG-66 in the Hellenic , German ICE and Japanese F-4s, then the ELTA GMTI radar in the Kurnass 2000 (no Sparrow capability however), plus the AIM-120 integration for the Hellenic and German F-4s. Developing one of these would be a dedicated module in and of itself.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, sirrah said:
Sorry up front, I forgot to save the track file
But perhaps anyone else had this issue, perhaps it is a known problem in the F-4 (feature), or maybe even a known bug?
I was doing some training touch-and-gos the other day at Ramstein AB. I was properly in the flow and Jester praised me every single time
But..After my 4th touch-and-go, I couldn't raise my landing gear. I was able to flip the landing gear lever, but nothing happened. I tried landing and taking off again, but still it stayed down.
Any ideas on what might have caused this?
I can imagine something like this could happen after a hard landing, but they were all pretty smooth (really, you can ask Jester)
Here’s one hypothesis that may explain your event. I’ve committed the human factors error of unintentionally activating the emergency gear deployment while clicking the switch for the landing light /taxi light on. IRL you push in on the lever , but in game it’s triggered by a mouse click on the lever. Once the emergency gear extension is deployed , it will not retract.
-
On 8/11/2025 at 8:20 AM, Kang said:
Frankly, the whole reputation of the Starfighter in Germany was decidedly blown out of proportion by a contemporary media campaign and the concurrent bribery scandal. Once it had that reputation there was nothing to be done to change it again.
A lot of it had to do less with the F-104G or its mission profiles and more with the Luftwaffe itself.
As with most subjects, context matters.
Most Cold War Mach 2 fighters were deathtraps regardless of manufacture. Many Mach 1 fighters were similarly unsafe. One didn’t graduate F-100 Super Sabre training so much as survived it. The students who didn’t pass washed out in fireballs. The MiG-23 was so hard to handle Egypt lost over a dozen of them in the first week from accidents.
-
6
-
-
On 8/13/2025 at 1:34 PM, Northstar98 said:
The exact same waveform exists in sidelobes and the missile has no way of telling whether it's in the main or sidelobes.
How well it can detect and track sidelobes should pretty much be entirely dependent on the transmitted power of the radar and its radiation pattern.
Don't forget the Shrike has guidance sections for (even examples exclusively for such as the Mk 37), can and has been used against (albeit less than completely successfully) radars that rotate IRL - or in other words, radars that present a mainlobe a minority of the time and a sidelobe the majority of the time.
Based on the accounts of Wild Weasels who employed the Shrike, the weapon was essentially a psychological deterrent first and a site marking system second. They hoped but didn’t expect it to kill a radar.
“Shrike was dumb. You could do better with a peashooter. It was only fifty percent reliable, fifty percent accurate, and when you do the probabilities on that you realize it takes a lot of them to hit the target. …We really had to line it up with the target in an almost perfect trajectory…You used Shrike as a marker most of the time.”-Kim Pepperell, from the book “Iron Hand” by Anthony Thornbourough & Frank Mormillo.
Further, USAF Wild Weasels typically escorted a strike package of other aircraft , so they’d fly interference by operating between IADS sites and the strike force. If one of the IADS locked on with a SAM, the Weasels would fire a Shrike to mark the general location and the hunter-killer flight would do the rest with CBU / bombs.
What does that mean for DCS? Well, employing the Shrike as a one-shot single ship kill weapon against an IADS radar sadly isn’t realistic no matter how well the player flies, especially in MP. Using it that way is , as many of us have discovered the hard way, a recipe for enduring frustration. It’s a supporting weapon used to find camouflaged sites so Someone Else could bomb them. Worse, the psychological “kill” of a SAM site battalion commander turning off his radar to avoid a Shrike visit isn’t part of DCS as a default yet, so the suppression benefit is lost also.
Bottom line- if you’re flying with a team or as a flight , the Shrike makes sense as a SEAD target locating tool. Otherwise , skip it.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, DSplayer said:
AGM-45 should be able to track sidelobes and backlobes since that is a basic requirement for ARM seekers.
That may be true of the later ARMs like the HARM, but in real life the initial AGM-45 was unable to reliably track sidelobes.
Source: https://ia801900.us.archive.org/26/items/history-of-the-electro-optical-guided-missiles/S-75 family.pdf -
On 7/20/2025 at 8:06 AM, MBot said:
I did some fresh testing with Mk49 Mod 0 against SA-6:
I think a big problem is a discrepancy between the Heatblur model (RWR, weapon seeker pre-launch) and ED model (weapon seeker post-launch).
In my testing, the Phatoms RWR and the Shrike seeker did pick up the SA-6 tracking radar regardless of which direction it is pointing. I think that is because Heatblur simulates receiving radar sidelobes. But once launched and the ED weapon modeling takes over, the Shrike will only track the SA-6 when it is within the mainlobe of the tracking radar. It will track when fired 40° off axis and will not track when fired 50° (or more) off axis.
So unfortunately a seeker tone/ADI bars in the cockpit is no guarantee that the weapon will track after launch.
In fact, what you’re seeing is not an ED weapon modeling issue. As I understand the AGM-45 wasn’t originally built to track radar sidelobes (the later HARM does). So this behavior, while inconvenient, is accurate.
In the field, this situation is why the guy in back earned their pay; they could do EW magic and know which signal was a quality one to use for weapons employment and advise the “bus driver” up front when to shoot and when not to.
Since Jester never went to EW WSO school & we just have the ALR-46, solving this problem means mission planning where the site is in advance, noting where the radar’s pointing and attacking the site from that direction. Just like the real world
nutcasesWeasels.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, ClausHoffmann said:
The „Slats/Flaps Control Lever“ has a middle position „out“ for deploying slats without flaps, if the landing gear is not deployed. I wonder which flight regime would require this setting?
Of course damage/malfunction is one reason, but another is to keep the slats from cycling in and out at certain parameters.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, primus_TR said:
. Of course, I can't imagine a practical solution to this problem other than ED setting ground rules for at least FF modules somehow, but even that could be a practice in futility. So, best to stay away from multiplayer with the F4…
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.
-
2
-
-
On 7/8/2025 at 8:14 PM, Phantom12 said:
I did a bit of testing when the F-4 came out and came to the conclusion that the biggest issue isn't really Jester's ability, so much that using him effectively requires brainpower from the front seater that in many cases is better spent elsewhere.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
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!
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, IronMike said:
Just maybe to add: offset mode was primarily used for nuclear delivery, and trained as such (iirc what our SMEs told me), in other words, it is a mode that is more of an exercise of concept than anything you should pick for normal F-4 missions. The primary mode that was used was Dive Toss. Laydown is a very good mode for facility or area of effect bombing etc. Loft, toss, like you mention yourself, are also modes rather not used for regular missions. That said, it is ofc fun to explore all of them, which is why we modelled them all, despite not really having a nuclear option in DCS.
The best thing imo about dive toss, is that it lets you do the pop up or ingress in any way you like, as long as you can roll out on the target high and far enough to go through the procedure before pickle. And I really like laydown for its simplicity, you basically set the mils you want fly level and pickle.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.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, streakeagle said:
In DCS World, IFF generally works perfectly, which negates the need for Combat Tree.
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.
-
On 5/4/2025 at 2:10 AM, OhNoMyHookBroke said:
Hope this isn't off topic, but since it's related to the F-4E, I thought it'd be best to ask here. If it isn't, I'll delete it.
Would an F-4E AUP ever be possible see in DCS as a module? As in, is there enough documentation and sources on it that'd allow for it to be a DCS module?
Really just wondering. This isn't a plea for HB to make one.
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.
-
On 4/26/2025 at 7:33 PM, upyr1 said:
From what I have seen I think the F-4G is probably one of the few Wild Weasels we could get. I'm talking about front and back seat
Looking at diagrams of the system, I think it might be possible
This basically works like the HTS in the F-16 its just a matter of getting the buttons mapped right
Now we look here
Frequency- exact numbers are classified but you could use something based on the different bands
The RPF is pulses for second- this is based on the radar's max range lower PPS indicates longer ranges
SPS sweeps per second that would change with the state, as would the FPS
the displays with a bunch of lines show the different radars tracking you and is divided up by band each horizontal line represents a different band, I belive L, S ,C, X, Ku, K and each spike is a radar
then to the right we have the attack scope, which I believe is similar to the HARM display
There is also an oscilloscope more which would give us the power as well as an audio mode these last two items I believe would the hardest to get 100% right or at least close enough
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.
-
On 4/17/2025 at 3:54 AM, Pantera93 said:
I'm joining you on the throttles problem.
Seems to me that matching the tanker speed is one of a kind experience and, above all, the engine reaction time to my inputs is in terms of 3-4 seconds. Is this "real"? Is there a specific tanker speed that mitigates this effect? Should I set some specific throttle curves in controls (using Warthog Thrustmaster)?
Maybe is just muscular memory...
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.
-
2
-
-
On 4/5/2025 at 11:57 PM, upyr1 said:
Makes me wonder if the G would be possible
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.
-
On 1/25/2025 at 5:55 PM, 303_Kermit said:
Well... check stats of Vietnam war. F-105 performed more missions than F-104, killed more MiG's than F-104 (27,5 A2A kills, 24,5 of them by M61/A1 Gun, at a cost of 17 planes lost in A2A combat. I say it's nice statistics), and dropped more bombs than F-104. I think it makes him quite capable. I know... F-104 wasn't popular during Vietnam war, and later send to secondary tasks etc... TBH I am sure that in capable hands F-104C would show in Vietnam war it's true valor. All these plane demands is very experienced pilot, unfortunately that was not the case in Vietnam.
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.
-
7
-
-
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.
DT Bombing
在 DCS: F-4E Phantom
发布于
Tip one, don’t follow the YouTube jockeys. Most of them are wrong in some respect.
Tip two, read the manual.
Finally, Dive Toss is not modern CCIP/CCRP. It can correct for minor deviations, but the pilot still needs to plan their DT pass with the targets altitude above sea level, specific release altitude, dive angle, airspeed. They must then follow those parameters just like a direct mode pass.
In following those guidelines and pulling out wings level, I’ve never missed a DT pass.