Kalasnkova74

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.

There’s another point here. Off the top of my head, we have the Israeli Kurnass, the Japanese F-4EJ Kai, Germany’s modernized Phantom II, the Turkish Terminator 2020, Greece’s AUP, and of course the US F-4G. Each of these variants could be a dedicated module. Thus HBs dilemma- if they start accommodating requests, they’re gonna be in scope creep hell very quickly. If they put the Standard on a modded Israeli Kurnass, someone’s gonna ask where’s the Turkish Terminator model? And if the Turkish Terminator gets made, next comes the onslaught for asking the Greek AUP. Greek AUP drops and someone throws a fit because “where’s my F-4 EJ Kai?” I totally get people wanting certain models and missiles and other parts, but we should respect HBs eminently logical plan to develop the variants being released. Frankly, I’m glad we’re getting the F-4E in its analogue prime instead of an early block F-4C you can’t use or a modern F-4E slinging AMRAAMs.

Interesting the example photo of the 497th TFS F-4D is armed with AIM-7s, yet the caption says it has Sidewinders

I respectfully disagree with your assement. A mod cannot be compared to a module, any more than a Corvette can be compared to a base Fiat 500 economy car. As an economy car doing economy car things , the Fiat is probably an excellent choice. But it can’t compete with a Corvette on the track, despite having four wheels and a steering wheel. Same goes for the VSN F-4 vs Heatblurs. They’re not the same product & are not meant to be. The VSN is a great mod, and the forthcoming Heatblur F-4E is promising to be equally good. One is not a substitute for the other any more than a JF-17 can substitute for an F/A-18.

It’s not a concern. For a recent example, the F-104 VSN mod isn’t obstructing development of a legit F-104 module via Aerges. As noted upthread, you can’t compare a mod to an official module.

Even including that. The F-4Gs APR-47 was “sensor fusion” before the F-35 was a gleam on a Pentagon slide deck. Key difference in the -G is theres a trained human doing the “tactical filtering” of every signal in the battlespace vs a computer canned presentation. Even the F-35s sensor fusion isn’t as flexible, because you’re reliant on software to categorize the signals.

Because ED’s got their hands full with upcoming updates, fixes and changes to DCS. It’s not logical for them to spend limited resources changing an inaccurate IADS simulation to one marginally less inaccurate. If the work is to be done, it should be done correctly - meaning using documented and legally available data to model how the systems behave. Moving from a 20% accurate to a 68% accurate EW setup -to me - is not worth the resources when other tasks are on the update shelf. You’re certainly free to disagree with me on that determination. Ultimately ED or a third party must decide if it’s worth the development effort- or not.