Kalasnkova74

The Rafale’s biggest advantage is that it’s not an F-35. One of the dangers of standardization is you also standardize the enemy’s ability to stop you. If a flaw is exploited in the F-35 fleet- or its crippled by a cyberattack- the Rafale will have to carry the load until the problem is solved.

No. The Shrike doesn’t easily fit DCS MP scenarios. IRL, the Shrike was employed as a suppression weapon to keep SA-2s from transmitting during the critical minutes a strike package(s) needed to hit a target. Weasels and Iron Hand flights planned positions of known SAMs and the strike times, so the Shrikes would be lofted at emitting radars right as the bombers started their runs. Whether the missiles hit or not wasn’t the point, although wasting a site’s control van was an appreciated outcome. That happened about 15% of the time based on the books I’ve read. So, if you’re flying in a multiplayer session & acting as a Weasel for your buddies strike, the Shrike will work well enough. But if you want to delete a SAM site solo , it ain’t the tool to use.

For a challenge, try to achieve a “Jester-positive” ILS landing. Managing on-speed AoA and glide slope alignment gets interesting!

“….(silence)…..”

AIM-9J was employed starting July 1972, and was carried during Operation Linebacker II later that year. Given the scope of other things needed for an accurate SEA map- like an actual map, and a period accurate MiG-17 & MiG-21 - this is a nothingburger.

If those features are desired in an SEA setting, the AIM-9J would be appropriate then. Inclusion of the -E variant should not be prioritized over other, far more important development priorities for the F-4E.

As I understand, the AIM-9E was just an AIM-9B with a different seeker and wider field of view. So for Southeast Asia scenarios, one need only substitute the AIM-9B.

I imagine they’ll post the revised sound files once the bugs are sorted. Hopefully, they’ll also add showing the J-79 engine sound fading when the plane goes beyond Mach 1 and fading back into the background when the jet slows down (as demonstrated when this F-104 decelerated from Mach).

In addition to Zabuzard’s post, I recommend doing some personal scholarship on the AIM-7. The AIM-7 is a rocket powered mini-aircraft designed in the 1950s , and must be treated as such to be launched effectively. Unlike modern missiles which tell you their kill parameters on the HUD and other computer systems, the pilot and WSO must mentally understand the Sparrows hit capability , dynamically apply that in the air, and know when to shoot and not shoot. First, nose/tail settings must be applied so the missile knows it’s engaging a tail-chase vs a head on target. You can still get a hit if you don’t do this, but it’ll be much lower probability. Next, relative size of the target must be considered. If you’re engaging a TU-95 or B-52, you can launch further away than engaging a MiG-21 or MiG-15. The smaller the target, the lower your realistic engagement range and thus the lower probability of a successful Sparrow kill. Consider the time to launch as well. Five miles goes by QUICK at combat speeds. You may not have enough time to set the borseight mode, lock the target , wait four seconds to ensure the missile guidance data is downloaded and the antenna cued, then wait another 1.5 seconds from trigger pull to missile clearance and launch. Note the AIM-7 has to roll when launched from the F-4E before it can maneuver, so it won’t behave like an AIM-120 that maneuvers nearly off the rail. When using the Sparrow, I mentally budget six seconds for the launch cycle. If it looks like I can’t complete a firing cycle within that time, I pinky switch to a different weapon.

In line with the change log entry about the engine sounds being reverted- I noticed in the above video that as the F-104 slows to subsonic (approximately 30 seconds in), the J-79 howl/engine noise fades back into the cockpit. Which makes sense, seeing as the engine’s behind the pilot and thus you’d be outrunning the engine’s noise. Given the F-4Es similar engine placement- as in far behind the pilot/WSO/RIO seats - shouldn’t the J-79 engine sound fade down above the Mach also for the Phantom II? Figured since the sounds were being reviewed anyway I’d point this out. OFC, if the SMEs say it never did this in real life please disregard.

AI bias or not, it is worth pointing out that the MiG-21 in game is very different from the ones the U.S. faced in Southeast Asia. US forces initially faced the MiG-17 and MiG-21F-13, neither of which could fight the F-4 Phantom II in the vertical unless the Soviet fighters engaged with an energy advantage. Thus, the tactical advice to engage using “the egg” & leveraging the F-4s climb performance advantage. Unlike those earlier MiGs, the BiS in game has the T/W to compete with the F-4E in the vertical(as does the MiG-19).

Truth is , the tanker implementation in DCS (boom or probe/drogue) needs an overhaul irrespective of the F-4E & Jester’s vocabulary. Of course the fella’s behind the aircraft - can’t help it when the KC-135s dancing like John Travolta after connection.

USAF pilot Theodore “Gabby” Drake in an interview with 10 Percent True host Steve Davies explained it thus. First, at low airspeeds you’ll still want to roll with rudder (slats notwithstanding)for optimum maneuvering . While you won’t adverse yaw rolling with the stick alone at low airspeeds, using full rudder can help with roll authority. The roll augmentation (aka ‘Roll Aug’ ) logic inhibits this because the control logic counters the rudder movement you’re using to roll the aircraft. Disabling it enables full rudder assisted roll capability, which is useful depending on your maneuvering plans (and necessary if you intend to depart the aircraft in BFM). That said, if you want to fight “conservative” BFM (meaning large , classic vertical turns and no aggressive close -in maneuvering ) , you can pretend this switch doesn’t exist and lose nothing doing so. Incidentally, I personally disable the Roll Aug when landing to enable fine adjustments with the rudder on final approach.

Personal choice, I ignore the tanker lights and let Jester’s guidance keep me on track. Works well enough to tank on, and I don’t have to mess with the seat height.

If I recall my print sources, the APQ-120 MiG-21 detection range is about 21 miles head on without any jamming. Even without ECM, a head on radar lock is a brief event as you’ll be merged very quickly afterwards.

One point to note- I dont consider it prudent to equate the performance of an F-4E with slats locked in to that of a USN / Royal Navy/ USAF F-4C/D. First, the -E differs from those variants in overall configuration, which in turn affects nose authority and other handling traits. The addition of an approximately 1,000lb cannon & accessories in the nose , plus the additional fuel tank in the tail, means the -E handles differently even without taking the wing into account. Next, the drag and lift characteristics of the non-slat wing differ from the slatted one beyond just the obvious adverse yaw aspects. Between the different nose authority and higher drag of the slatted wing- even with the slats stowed- we cannot collectively assume they handle the same. While we probably shouldn’t assume a Naval & land based slatted Phantom II handle the same, we can still conclude using the rudder is a good skill to have. If there’s a slats disagree situation or battle damage inhibiting operation, you might be landing without the benefit of the slats - so you’re right back to flying the F-4E like it’s a big F-100.

While I personally like the previous engine sounds too, the goal should be accuracy of presentation. If the real F-4E sounded “quiet” in the cockpit (remember the J-79s are more than 20ft behind the seats) , then regardless of preference that’s what the sound should reflect.

I’m in the camp who likes Jester as is and looks forward to some of the performance enhancements down the road. The modules only been around four months. If he’s not doing something right, it is probably a sign us nose gunners need to do some homework to fix matters. Further, Jester’s another incentive for me to fly “civilized”, because its his virtual backside on the line too if I screw up.

That’s a rational sentiment, but the fact is given HBs commitments it’ll realistically be years before the Naval F-4 is ready for release. It’s a bad deal for the Navy fans to see us land based Phantom Phans have all the fun, and if a harmless mod/script can enable carrier landing of the F-4E until that variant is released, so much the better. HB probably doesn’t have capacity for that, but modders do.

Good catch. For clarification: the 35 mil setting is used to manually align the reticle with the radar antenna for a boresight lock. For an immediately available online source consult this website, but the 35 mil guidance matches print sources on employing the boresight mode IRL. https://flyandwire.com/2024/05/27/f-4e-boresight-mode-aim-7-and-speedgates/ I suspect that guidance predates the F-4D/E implementation of a RBL caged/ non-manual sight. For our F-4E one need only flip the switch to “caged” to get the sight where it needs to be. Another great example of why we need to do our homework.

My two cents- all of us, myself included, need to really hit the books (digital or otherwise) on employing the AIM-7 before immediately blaming Jester or the aircraft implementation when things go wrong. First, the reticle needs to be set to A/A or the “CAGE” option mils adjusted to 35.(disregard mils setting - this is for previous iterations of the F-4). Otherwise your reticle will not be aligned with the boresight radar beam and Jester will (probably) be locking thin air. Next, the Sparrow’s minimum and maximum range varies based on engagement altitude. At 40k ft a Sparrow’s max range against a 2 square meter target is 20 NM- but if the target is even 5000 ft higher, the engagement range is cut by 1/4th of a mile. Closure rate with the bandit must also be taken into account - because at high fractions of Mach you’ll cover a lot of distance in the five seconds the missile needs to tune, and 20 miles goes by VERY fast at head on closure speeds. Unless your control mapping is next level fast, you’ll be inside minimum engagement range before the missile is ready- and the interlock, if engaged, will not enable AIM-7 launch. Even if you successfully fired at this point because you disabled the interlock , the closure rate will cause the bandit to close inside of arming range of the in flight weapon anyway. So your AIM-7 isn’t going to detonate. Next , you can wave hello at the bandits front quarter IR/radar missile…. Note also that F-4Es pulse radar means aircraft with small frontal RCS like an F-104, F-105 or MiG-21 will have even smaller effective engagement ranges than the missile can kinematically achieve. Which is one reason why APX-80/Combat Tree was a game changer, since an equipped F-4 could track and engage a MiG-21 beyond the APQ-120s ability to capably detect in certain parameters. Ergo, without that system head on shots will be impractical to achieve because the realistic lock-on range is too small to permit full completion of the lock on- telemetry download & missile prep- launch -guidance firing cycle. Larger RCS targets like a MiG-25, Tupolev bomber, etc will be easier to engage. Understand, what I’ve shared so far merely scratches the surface of what one should know about the APQ-120/AIM-7 employment. If a modern radar & AIM-120 combination is a brand new Formula 1 race car, the F-4E is a 1960s Ferrari P-1. A modern F-1 driver can’t just hop in a vintage P-1 and win races immediately. To be effective, much like that F-1 driver we Phantom Flyers must gain a new discipline of education in understanding the Sparrow and radar. Our Phantom’s don’t work remotely the same as calling up a HUD icon and launching a pitbull AMRAAM, and Jester is NOT a magic “lock up the bandit” resource.

Which is why the J makes the most sense, to me personally. The -B isn’t a sitting duck, but the J features the same technology reach as the published -E variants. An F-4B disqualifies Naval fans from using their aircraft competitively in late 70s / early 80s scenarios. A -J can be kitted out for Rolling Thunder by just equipping the early missiles, or loaded up with later all aspect Sidewinders and better Sparrows for post-Vietnam scenarios.

HB hasn’t said, but I earnestly hope they don’t pick the -B and opt for the -J. To understand why, fly the F-4E with AIM-9Bs / AIM-7Es….and then turn off the slats. Most players won’t enjoy paying money for that experience.

Im not surprised. My computer features a mere 16GB RAM & a not-leading edge NViDIA card. Runs the F-4E just fine. As with the airplanes themselves , technology is no guarantee of good results in the field.

Yes. You ditch the HDD for the SSD. There are some optimizations that can be made, but none will overcome the inherent hardware limitations of an HDD vs SSD.