Kalasnkova74

Tactical reconnaissance is another role we need to add to DCS. Picture a dynamic campaign needing to dispatch reconnaissance aircraft like RF-4s, RF-101s, RA-5s, etc to track down Scuds.

Small point to note here- originally the USAF Air Staff had no plans to acquire the F-16 after the LWF competition. The combination of NATO Allies lobbying for a replacement of their aging F-104s & the Navy’s financial problems with the F-14 prompted the Secretary of Defense to move forward with the F-16. Since the USAF Air Staff viewed the F-15 as all that was needed for the air superiority role , General Alton Slay convened a committee to transition the F-16 into mainly an air to ground mission. This is why the F-16A never got the AIM-7 despite being tested for it in development: the Air Staff didn’t want a Senator asking for cuts in the F-15 buy because of the F-16 sharing the same BVR capability. Ideally , the force composition would have been a high/low mix of F-15s and F-16s -each having similar capabilities (note also the F-15A used basic CCIP/CCRP bomb capability). The IDF/AF model for these aircraft is a good example of that composition . But the Pentagon had different ideas, because $$$. So instead of the “hi/low” mixture, it was mostly just hi (F-15)with a side of BVR later in the Vipers career. The USN did fulfill this with the F-14/F-18 combo, and does so now with the F-35/ Super Hornet mix.

The high density light fighter vs fewer but “gold plated” question is IMO a false dichotomy. The truth is a capable air force needs both, in concert with quality training & tactics. Missing any one of these four elements = risk. If an air force does not invest in sustainment and development of higher technologies, it will lose to the opponent who does. Science holds no passport, and the only way to find the next generation of workable technology is to sift through the litany of ones that don’t. You can model and project, but ultimately combat is the final test of a plan or technology. We didn’t fully understand the practical shortcomings of AIM-9Bs or AIM-7s until we used them in combat. If we never fielded them in the name of using simple technology, another nation - say, France- would have learned those lessons instead. That means fielding higher technology weapons like the F-4 (in its day), F-14, F-22, NGAD and the like. Keeping your nations military industrial complex up to date is a defensive necessity too. Yes, there’s corruption at work there…but it’s a zero sum game. If your military industry lags behind the rest of the region or world , your military becomes irrelevant (see modern day Iran). The flip side of that requirement is you DO need higher density, simpler aircraft also because at the end of the day, not all the gold plated stuff is going to work. When bugs need to be sorted, a higher density aircraft is needed to carry the missions. This requirement tends to be brushed aside when generals motivated by status and budget allocate money to exclusively finance the gold plated science projects. The balance of which equipment to include will change based on the national budget of the buyer, training requirements, and operational area. Finally we have quality training and tactics. These are another two elements generals like to shortchange in favor of financing the gold plated stuff. Unfortunately for their egos and career ambitions, without these pillars nothing else matters. An air force can operate with ineffective equipment, misallocated resources, embargoed logistics and even mismatched technology IF their tactics and training on what they have is on point. But if a nation sends people to battle with high *or low tech* kit they’re not trained in using , it will end badly for that nations military. Obsolete tactics will also undermine any other advantage brought to the fight. See the USAF’s welded wing formation in Southeast Asia , a formation the Air Staff knew even before Linebacker was obsolete and dangerous during the Cold War. Rigid USAF bureaucracy and dogma (mere wingmen shall not independently shoot in battle!) ignored the findings. Many Air Force officers and families paid the price. The Israeli Air Force in the Cold War was a good example of this balance done right, as they had the then-cutting edge F-4E flying and fighting alongside the less expensive yet still effective Mirage & A-4.

Yet there are still differences to account for. One is the landing gear & wings. The C uses thicker tires, resulting in a thicker wing to accommodate the larger tires used on the land based variant. In turn that affected the wing lift and turn performance vs the Naval -B variant. It’s enough to create a handling difference based on feedback from Naval pilots that flew both USAF (F-4C) and Naval (F-4B) versions. The Sidewinder loadout was also different.l, as the USAF and USN employed different Sidewinder missiles after the AIM-9B.

Welcome to the Party Pal! Air combat discussions are ladders- you never get an answer, just another rung to launch the next question. Literally billions of dollars are spent on these questions and even the think tanks don’t have answers. Jokes aside, where the lightweight fighters “win” over the big hardware is cost-per-effect. Not necessarily slow speed dogfighting , which is a rare flight regime (for good reason). We can see this with Southeast Asia whenever a pair of MiGs forced a USAF strike package to jettison bombs. We have a massive formation of 40 expensive aircraft that cost $10000+ per hour to fly on a 6-8 hour mission , and the sortie is ruined by two MiG-21s ringing up a $10k per hour bill combined. Guerrilla warfare in the air, indeed. This dynamic in the late 1960s pushed General Momeyer to green light Operation BOLO. In DCS -so far- this dynamic doesn’t matter as unlike a certain OTHER air battle game, players don’t have to pay for modules after the initial purchase (thank Zeus). But if other module makers adopt HB’s parts wear function, some of the core logistical challenges of real world air campaigns will be present in the game. If you have to choose between an F-4E and an F-5, a trained pilot will pick the F-4E. But if the F-4E has a bad radar and wonky Sparrow rails for lack of parts vs a fully mission capable F-5, now the question gets interesting.

Let’s look at the combat records. Between the F-4 Phantom II and the MiG-21, the biggest variable is pilot training and tactical skill. At the beginning of Southeast Asia the NVAF had the training edge over US pilots trained in nuclear bomber intercepts. Scary thing is most of us on this forum know more about fighting the F-4 than your average US junior pilot did in 1965. Thus the MiG wrecked the F-4s: at one point the VA-176 prop engined Skyraiders killed more MiGs than their “Air Superiority” F-4Bs embarked in the same Navy air wing! TOPGUN of course changed this dynamic, and the kill statistics bore that out. The USAF kept their obsolete finger four tactics & bomber intercept training. Their kill ratio at the end was the same as 1965. The USN posted a 12-1 ratio by the end of hostilities. We see the same thing in the Middle East. Arab air forces not trained to the same standard as Israeli or Iranian pilots were mauled. While MiG-17s were fighting Phantoms over Southeast Asia & winning, the same jet was cannon fodder to Israeli Phantoms over the Middle East. MiG-21s in Arab & Iraqi service were downed in droves against Western trained opposition. Then we have the 4477th TES, staffed with the cream of the USAF crop. Aggressor pilots, hand recruited, 2000+ hours & many flown combat in Southeast Asia. Flying MiG-21s & Chengdu F-7s they frequently smoked “Blue Air” F-4s ,F-14s & F-15s in the initial fight. Ward Carroll recounted a fight where he lost to a MiG-23 when the pilot extended and shot them in the back. Bottom line; E-M diagrams and data matters, but training tops all. What does that mean for DCS? Excusing the minority of people who’ve studied in advance & may even fly the VSN mod as a basic training aid, most F-4E module buyers will be just like those US pilots from 1965: totally unfamiliar with analog aircraft or the F-4Es kinematic and technological capabilities & limitations. They will make the same mistakes , because they’ll do the same things they did with their Hornets and Fulcrums only to find out the hard way “lift vector on bandit and PULL” ain’t how you win in Phantom land. I anticipate a backlash from the easily frustrated players used to CCRP & AMRAAMs.

Bear in mind ADTW= Air Development & Test Wing, so who knows what gadgets have come and gone on 17-8301 over the years. Based on the faired over gunport, the cannon’s certainly been changed.

It’s beneficial to note here that in many phases of Southeast Asia, encountering MiGs was a very uncommon circumstance. Many US pilots rotated in, flew their deployments and rotated home with 0 MiG encounters, much less dogfights. The Rules of Engagement to VID were 100% sound when multiple , uncoordinated branches were flying missions in the same airspace. The F-4 downed 150 out of 197 MiGs shot down in that war- lots of planes, but a pittance vs the over 5,000,000 sorties the USAF alone flew in Southeast Asia. The RoE wasn’t the ball and chain it’s often cited as. Bigger factors were the USAF using an obsolete finger four tactical formation , and overall lack of air to air training in the nuclear war focused US military of the late 50s and early 60s. The Navy would rectify this before Linebacker kicked off in 1972.

The challenge changes from “information unavailable due to political reasons” (classification , government policy around reproducing Chinese and Russian aircraft, etc) to “information unavailable due to the passage of time”. The F-4E & MiG-21Bis are unique in that they’ve been flying continuously since the Cold War (and are still in service in the F-4s case) , so theres people alive today who worked on those jets and can speak to the capabilities. Hardware like the MiG-19, F-105, F-101, etc hasn’t seen squadron service for over 30 years. Mechanics, weapons loaders, and pilots have all long since retired or passed away. Sure, the paperwork’s declassified (in some cases), but back in the day how a system worked on the jet and how it worked on paper tended to be different. Someone once referred to DCS modules as museum artifacts you can fly at home, and I think there’s truth to that. One day all of us will be gone, and so it goes for anyone who flew or worked on the F-4E (and other jets). But as long as there’s organized civilization, the DCS module will endure for future generations to experience.

Get ready, because once it drops lots of people used to 4th Gen hardware WILL scream about losing nose-pointing contests to MiGs (& everything else). “hurr durr the F-4E sux can’t win a 1 circle with a MiG-21”

It’s a sledgehammer ; the F-4 does a lot of damage in a visual fight, but only when wielded smartly. It can win a turning engagement, with intelligent application of power and energy management. As many over Southeast Asia found out the hard way, playing the nose pointing game is a great way to end up dead or needing a ride back to base.

I’m reminded of a story from Shlomo Aloni’s “Ghosts of Atonement”. During the October 1973 war, a Kurnass (#164 if memory serves) was tested with the A-4Ns more advanced bomb computer. During the program war broke out and the modified jet was pressed into emergency squadron service. During sorties 164 did weird stuff like releasing one single bomb on the centerline MER. Properly done- and with educated participants- one could engineer a delightful campaign tying player actions on logistics to tangible consequences for their Air Force.

I agree that a “degradation” model -implemented well, among understanding participants- could make an interesting campaign. Suddenly MiG-21s and F-5s are a valuable part of the arsenal- because the more complex stuff like MiG-23s (eventually) and F-4Es are all in the shop or NMC. Tie in each sides “up” aircraft to player actions like airlift missions flown, and you’d be cooking with grease.

That’s a good question. Hopefully it’s not simulated with the missiles ; while that’s certainly a historically accurate aspect, I’m not sure most buyers of the F-4E module are aware. They’ll simply throw a fit & file a bug report when their AIM-7 shot doesn’t connect or the missile’s motor doesn’t fire. This dynamic is why I like the F-4E & VSN mod combination. Most players are used to the 4th Gen look and feel- even going from a Hornet to an F-4E will be a major transition. Going from a Hornet/Eagle/Fulcrum to a paid module early F-4B or F-4C is a bridge too far. It’s a recipe for upset players once the flaws of early 60s tech are clear , yet the early Phantoms deserve inclusion in DCS too. The VSN mod solves this because at the end of the day, it’s hard to complain about a $0 investment

I extend my deepest thanks to your team for their hard work & dedication despite MAJOR obstacles. And now….

Attach ground power, activate ground air & enable external power. Conduct system checks & prepare for launch. Time on Target: 24 minutes.

Having worked in software development, I’ll just say here and now that HB is right to not release a date. DCS modules are very complex, and much like their real world counterparts delays are inevitable. Keep in mind the F-4 Module is not just a standalone product- it’s also tied to HB overhauling and upgrading their entire code base for every existing product. Given that scope it’s foolish to pin hopes on this module coming out at ANY date. It may be ready next week, or next October, or even 2026. When the F-4E is ready I’ll be waiting.

Before we close this topic, I do have a practical question on AAR. When flying the VSN mod, I must crank the seat up pretty high to see the tanker lights. Is there a better alignment process for the pilot to line up their F-4 to the tanker? Or is the “booster seat” technique the best option in DCS?

An R-22 is not the same as a combat fighter jet at all. I have a whopping 0 hours in a Viper or Phantom, but I know enough to understand a flight sim -no matter how comprehensive- is not the same as the real thing. And DCS - high dollar setups excluded- is a video game we play on a PC monitor or VR headset, not a full featured manufacturer flight simulator with no deviations from the actual jet cockpit besides being attached to the ground. If playing a game = real world training, the USAF would have saved millions and shut down the T-38 pipeline a long time ago. Same goes for NATO countries that still pay for real world flight training you propose isn’t needed.

I’m not sure there’s much to debate here. The USAF System Command generals got upset that they didn’t have full control of the follow on Sidewinder iterations after the AIM-9B - being a Navy project and all- so they kludged the AIM-4 onto the F-4D & F-4E as a “take yer Navy missile and Shove It” tack. It failed miserably, because the AIM-4 was designed to use a Hughes guidance system at altitude against Soviet bombers attacking North America. Thus the hit to kill setting- a proximity fuse is a bad thing when you’re trying to bring down a four engine bomber with 7lbs of explosive. You want the missile to hit and get deep into the bomber before detonating to maximize damage. A Tu-95 will just shrug off a proximity detonation. Without the Hughes MG series guidance computer included on the Air Defense Command aircraft like the F-102, F-101, and F-106 the pilot had to initiate the AIM-4 launch sequence manually- including cooling the seeker head. It’s like bolting an AIM-54 to an F-5 and making the pilot manually steer the missiles radar and trigger the launch. Good luck with that. While all of Rolling Thunder was an exercise in using nuke bomber killing missiles as air superiority tools , the AIM-4 was an egregious case of this . It’s a testament to the F-4 crews’ skill that they killed five MiGs with a weapon and aircraft system combination totally unsuited for that mission.

I doubt this. We commenters here are a tiny minority of the people who will buy both modules. Remember the majority of DCS players got their start flying something advanced , like a MiG-29/ F-16/ F/A-18, Su-27 ,F-15 or similar. If you fly an F-4E the same way you’d fly an F/A-18 , your flight is ending with a ride on the ejection seat. Playing the horizontal game with an F-4E (or MiG-23 for that matter) is a ticket on the pain train. Getting A2A kills with the F-4 requires finesse and tactical understanding of using the jets power in the vertical. That is just not how DCS players do BFM with 4th Gen stuff, except maybe the sharper F-15E players. I suspect when the F-4E drops we’ll see a DCS reenactment of the errors US crews made between 1965 and 1969:people getting shot down playing 1 circle nose pointing contests. After a few months people will understand that’s a bad idea and start learning how to properly fight the jet, but on release it’s gonna be a great day to be a Mirage F-1 or MiG driver.

The -MLD is fast and has a capable suite of offensive avionics (unlike its predecessors). But the APG-120 still out ranges the High Lark, so without GCI or outside guidance an F-4E can still track and engage the Flogger from beyond the MiG’s sensor envelope. Yes, it goes fast…but the MiG-23 is not stable or controllable at top speed either. Throttle interlock kicks in above Mach 1, so slowing down means pulling up to airbrake enough to deactivate the throttle coast-down interlock. Speed brakes are phased out as well, so if a Flogger goes fast they’re committed until they can climb high enough to slow down for another pass.

The MiG-23 Flogger was designed to stop bombers. The mission was to take off from a short field -hence the swing wings- call to a GCI station, and be vectored to stop B-52s from nuking The Motherland. In that role, the 4477th TES people acknowledge it was probably effective. The 4G or less turn limit and dangerous handling qualities precluded effective visual fighting. The 4477th team documented that as well, and it’s a point the Egyptians underscored in the 80s by knocking down Qadaffis Floggers with the “obsolete” MiG-21 in a border skirmish. By the time the Soviets fixed the Floggers issues, the world had moved on. Even a well flown F-4E has little to fear from a MiG-23MLD, much less the 4th generation kit.

The Soviets didn’t export their best equipment to Hanoi primarily because of China. All equipment destined for that theatre had to go through Chinese territory, and Beijing was “skimming off the top” for their own R&D. Knowing this and other concerns like exposing technology to the Americans, they did not field their best hardware such as the SA-6 Kub or MiG-23. As to the low speed turns aspect…horizontally speaking, you’re correct. However correspondence between the Israelis & TOPGUN in the mid-70s revealed there are ways a Phantom can kill a MiG (or any other lightweight jet) in the dreaded low & slow regime. I won’t be sharing those findings here- but you’ll see it if you get gunned in a slow speed scissors by my HB F-4 in the coming years.

The MiG-19 fielded by most nations is not the same version as is in DCS. The MiG-19P’s heavy radar inhibits the Farmers turn performance (and acceleration) relative to the -C model flown in Southeast Asia, Pakistan and elsewhere. The MiG-19C is a much more dangerous foe close in, as the 555th TFS found out the hard way over North Vietnam.