Kalasnkova74

On the contrary, Combat Tree was successfully used by the USAF aces to score multiple kills during the Southeast Asian war. Incidentally, the Soviets had nothing to do with countering Combat Tree- the VPAF figured out something was up on their own when they started losing aircraft. “The North Vietnamese eventually wised up to the presence of such a technology, though, they didn’t quite know what it was or how it functioned. The VPAF’s ranking officers began noticing a sharp increase in attrition rates with their fighter forces, especially those that found themselves tangling with US Air Force fighter jets.” Source: https://tacairnet.com/2017/01/02/how-combat-tree-made-the-f-4-phantom-ii-the-deadliest-fighter-over-vietnam-in-the-1970s/ As an addendum: while Combat Tree is coming in the next DCS F-4E block, it is not reliant on the DMAS upgrades to function. In fact Combat Tree was first implemented on the F-4D to good success, helping make it the best MiG-killer of the USAF vs the earlier -C and later -E.

Perhaps the accomplishments of pilots like then-Colonel Olds can be weighted more accurately now, with some appreciation of just how not-advanced their tech was. The first F-4B/F-4C Phantom IIs had AIM-9Bs and generation I Sparrows - period . Had HB released those versions instead of the later F-4E we have, the transition from modern kit would have been too much.

First, we have to adjust expectations. Old school pulse radars like the F-4Es don’t have the automated filters and target resolution computer logic applied to modern radars like what we see in the Hornet, Viper and others. Smaller aircraft like the F-5 & MiG-21 will not be reliably detectable at BVR ranges, especially head on (this was verified during “Have Donut” tests with the stronger F-4Ds radar). Next, what made the Phantom II truly BVR was Combat Tree, not the onboard radar alone. Combat Tree enabled BVR tracking of bandits beyond the APQ-120s range. We’re meant to get this system with the next F-4E block featuring DMAS.

This was a problem many of us here saw coming & pointed out months ago. In real life, people who’d spend careers flying F-8s, F-100s, F-104s and similar transitioned to the F-4; followed by the 4th generation “teen series” we all know. Going from old school iron bombs, bomber killer missiles and “don’t fly like that in the pattern Or Else” coffin corner aerodynamics to the Gucci tech of later stuff is simple- by design. Modern DCS players are transitioning in the opposite technological direction, and IMO it’s significantly harder. They’re also discovering via osmosis why capabilities they’re used to in modern fighter jets were invented- because they’re experiencing the complications built into the F-4E.

Thing is, the initial AIM-7 (and AIM-9B/E) were built to kill bombers. The system was not designed to fight maneuverable targets, and that’s clearly reflected in the operating process. To engage a fighter sized target with the Sparrow in the F-4E, you need to put the airplane in Sparrow parameters & budget time for Jester to manage the systems while also keeping the jet in optimum Sparrow engagement position. In most maneuvering fights that’s just not gonna happen. Even a rookie bandit will react in that timeline. Thats not necessarily a bug, it is rather an artifact of being accustomed to a mature system (AIM-120) and stepping back to its flawed predecessor (AIM-7).

Is it perhaps the “Master Arm” switch? Naturally, you will launch no missiles (or anything else) if it’s set to “Safe”

At $23,000 per flight hour in fuel & maintenance costs, I’d hope so! Even if you got the jet for free, the cost of maintaining the ejection seats alone would bankrupt everyone but the super wealthy. And even Tom Cruise’s wallet might not comfortably stretch that far once you factor in red tape costs.

…which was implemented much better on the USAF/RCAF F-101B interceptors. The AIM-4 was designed to be used with a Hughes guidance system. The interceptor crew would lock on to the medium or high altitude target (such as a Bear, or B-52/British V-bomber ), the Hughes radar (or IRST) would hand off tracking data to an internal guidance system , and the guidance system would calculate the optimum launch point for the missile after six seconds of launch consent. It’s almost like an air to air version of CCRP; once the crew locked on they’d press the “shoot” trigger for launch consent and the airplane would take it from there. Missile cooling and seeker cueing were automatic processes transparent to the crew. Using that system at altitude , the AIM-4 worked very well. AIM-4s frequently scored hit to kills on BOMARC SAM targets in that theatre (which thankfully never needed to be used for real). Note that a proximity fuse isn’t ideal for a bomber killing missile, since a big four engine Tupolev could easily survive a proximity detonation. An impact kill where the missile actually hits and embeds into the target is more desirable for the interceptor mission. When the USAF Systems Command ordered its installation on the F-4D and F-4E, it was done out of political spite against the Navy’s Sidewinder. Since the Navy owned the AIM-9 ,bruised egos in the USAF thought “Screw taking orders from those ship loving Admirals, we have a heat seeking missile too. Works the same right?” The result was one of the worst weapons system/airframe combinations fielded in Southeast Asia. The genius System Command generals took a high altitude , hit to kill bomber missile designed for a systemic guidance system and ordered it used manually at low altitude against maneuvering fighter sized targets. All the steps the Hughes system did to cue and launch the weapon automatically in the F-101B had to be managed by hand in the F-4D/E during a dogfight, including activating the seeker and triggering the cooling sequence. Further, external carriage of the AIM-4 at low level degraded the seeker heads , as the missile was engineered to be used in a weapons bay to minimize drag on the launching interceptor . It’s a miracle the 8th TFW hit any MiGs at all under those circumstances. Using an AIM-4 F-101B would be a more fun experience than many would think at first , although nuking a fleet of Tupolevs with an AIR-2 would probably get more headlines

It may be “three lines in a text file”, but that change still needs HB to validate and quality check before publishing in an update . That all requires time & money to complete; IMO, HB has better uses for those resources right now. Perhaps when the DMAS block F-4E is out and the bugs are sorted they can build, test and publish carrier capability. Far as “silly and dumb” goes this is a video game- not a documentary

The DCS business case depends on the variant. The F-101B shouldn’t be an issue, being the most produced version & flown by Canada & the U.S. Sure it can’t out turn a MiG, but then neither can the F-4. The RF-101 wouldn’t have a business case since Recce aircraft don’t have a role yet, but the early cannon armed F-101A & F-101C fighter bombers would sell well.

Considering HBs extensive research and work on the McDonnell Douglas F-4E (and upcoming Naval versions), has Heatblur considered taking on the F-101B Voodoo down the road? While it wouldn’t give MiG-29s fits, an F-101B would be fun to fly as a long range interceptor and would be a proper challenge to fly (hello pitch-up) . With Heatblur’s familiarity with McDonnell Douglas systems they’d be able to transfer much knowledge gained from the Phantom II to such a aircraft. Of course , that project would need to wait in priority behind other efforts such as the next Phantom II variants plus the EF2000 & A-6.

In principle, I 100% agree with enabling carrier launch of the F-4E. However, I’m sure HB’s got their hands full fixing minor bugs with the Block 45 we have, publishing weapons and changes for the F-4E like integrating the refueling probe for the Kurnass , ANd rolling out the next block with DMAS and associated upgrades. Following this they’re working on a dedicated Naval variant, so IMO their team should be focused on knocking these out before catering to fun but fringe scenarios.

I imagine the situation will change once Combat Tree is released. Most of the USAF Sparrow MiG kills in Linebacker employed this system, as it allowed identification of bandits from well beyond lock on range of the APQ-120.

It may not be so ironic when considering that Israel upgraded Türkiye’s F-4Es to the “Terminator” specification- and those F-4s remain in service as I type this. On the flip side, the USAF retired the F-4G over 21 years ago.

Explained simply, the AIM-7 will track on the strongest return. That strongest return may be a friendly that’s flown into the path of your radar. If you’re engaging mixed formations of aircraft , you cannot safely use the Sparrow. This is why during Operation Bolo, Sparrows were cancelled after the second flight of F-4s entered North Vietnamese airspace.

For more detail: the first F-4E versions had a gun fairing that streamlined into the nose. Testing later showed that in certain flight parameters, gun gasses would get sucked into the intakes & trigger a compressor stall. Not a good thing when you’re shooting a MiG! (Although Amir Nahumi & Yossi Yavin seemed to work around the situation when it happened to them) The solution was reconfiguring the gun gas vent system (thus the nose vent on top displayed in the Hellenic Air Force F-4E in the 2nd picture) & extending the muzzle under the nose. The modification was called “Midas IV”, so you’ll see references to it named by that project.

You answered your own question. The F-4E has an amazing air to ground capability for the time; indeed it soldiers on in frontline service to this day for that mission. Iran used F-4Es not too dissimilar from the DCS version to pound Daesh some years back. Modernized versions are only this year being retired from the Hellenic and South Korean Air Forces. Further, an F-4E is still formidable as an air defense interceptor- and as a SEAD/DEAD platform. Even if every DCS air to air server shut down tomorrow, players could still get value from an F-4E module. The MiG-19S/ MiG-21-F-13? Not so much. They’re dedicated air to air platforms, so if you can’t do air to air in a missile restricted server it’s a wrap. With no handcuffs, an F-4E can still survive against a modern 4th gen asset & even prevail, if skillfully flown( see evidence in my last post). A MiG-21F-13 in the same situation would get Sparrow’d into oblivion , and the same goes for the MiG-19S. Dont take my word for it. Just look at the Iraqi Air Force MiG-23 losses from lacking RWRs against the then-U.S. spec IRIAF .

You’re correct about the Farmers performance in a dogfight. Yet, we should note the majority of A2A kills are ambushes, not 1v1 fights. In a MP context, the guns only MiG-19 would be outclassed at range by the F-4E (and everything else). Without RWR or countermeasures, an early MiG-19 is toast to any missile armed opponents (and would be blind to a BVR attack). Further, the fuel consumption is so high that combat endurance is terrible. It’s probably the one combat aircraft worse than the F/A-18 in this regard. The NVA were not fans of the MiG-19 for this reason (fuel starvation and subsequent crashes killed many of their pilots , including the one who shot down Oyster 2 crewed by Maj Lodge /Cpt. Locher) Outside of a restricted lobby (Vietnam or otherwise) , a new player couldn’t use the early MiG-19 competitively. Same issue affects the early F-4s and MiG-21F-13. That makes them terrible business prospects relative to later options.

Good points. It’s worth noting I’m concerned about module viability for paying customers, not so much “balance”. As you correctly note, balance is not the goal in realistic warfare. An F-4E vs F-16 matchup is imbalanced, but people will still do it and have fun - especially if the F-4E is flown skillfully. While there’s technical differences, they’re not wide enough to preordain the outcome beyond any hope of overcoming them for the F-4E. However, a MiG-21Bis vs F-4B (or F-4E block 45 vs MiG-19C ) matchup will be much less fun. An F-4B is not gonna beat a MiG-21BiS or a Mirage F-1, and a MiG-19C would be terribly outclassed by the latter two (and the F-4E in game) . The technical differences are a LOT harder to overcome in those fights. A skilled pilot in the technologically inferior aircraft still isn’t likely to win. Thats not a good place when the “technologically inferior” aircraft costs money AND there’s higher specification options for the same prices. For the skeptical, F-16s did in fact lose to Phantom IIs in real life : F-4E 68-0378 of the 141 TFS, 108 TFW, New Jersey ANG based at McGuire AFB during an ACM (Air Combat Maneuvering) det at Luke AFB. During this deployment, The NJ F-4 crews had several successful ACM flights against the Luke Based F-15 and F-16 aircraft. They took to marking the "Kills" on the side of the aircraft in chalk. This was done to remind the pilots of the "advanced" F-15 and F-16's that the "Old" F-4's could emerge victorious in a fight with a skilled pilot controlling her. These were great looking jets with the tigers painted on the nose! For the full story: https://www.deviantart.com/f16crewchief/art/Bart-Simpson-Falcon-Hunter-145151191

If there are Vietnam servers…which don’t exist yet. If we look at the popular servers that do, early model MiGs would get whacked hard. The value proposition of a Fishbed-C or guns only Farmer drops fast if it’s only useful for one server/map style. Players like to use their modules wherever they want (odd behavior for paying customers!) , and it’s a better experience all around if modules are somewhat adaptable- even if that means sacrificing a degree of historical accuracy. I think a Block 45 F-4E is a better choice than a Block 39 that was BLC, had an earlier RWR and used the earlier non-Midas IV gun shroud that caused compressor stalls when it fired.

Perhaps not inferior kinematically. But tell that to some newbie paying $50+ for an aircraft they can’t use anywhere except in a guns-only server. “Bruh chill your MiG-19S has way better P sub S” ain’t gonna fly when they get whacked by a Sidewinder with no countermeasures. People were ready to go Lord of the Flies around here when HB delayed the F-4E release ONE DAY. Good luck selling a less advanced variant of an aircraft already in the game at a profitable price. I can see the comments now : “plz don’t buy F-13….no RWR , no flares, can’t use anywhere. Just get the BiS”

Catch is, doing “Vietnam right” is probably not financially viable. Let’s take the MiG-21-F-13 for example. Say some poor developer spends years making a simulation grade MiG-21 Fishbed -C. The moment those paying customers take the airplane into a Cold War server, they’re gonna get wrecked. Cue flame war and derogatory backlash to the developer for charging money to fly a “POS”. People are just gonna say “why bother” when the technologically superior MiG-21BiS is also available. The same problem applies to the MiG-19C- unless you’re a purist, you’re not paying money to fly an inferior jet. And you can’t run a profitable business on purists alone.

Here we come to a dilemma DCS can’t solve. Because the Southeast Asian conflict is a punch bowl of different aircraft technologies. You’ve got Royal Australian F-86s in the same theatre as F-4Bs, F-4Cs vs MiG-21 F-13s & MiG-17s/J-5s in the mid 60s. Then as time went on through the mid-1970s you have F-4Es and F-4Js serving alongside F-4Bs and F-4Ds. Meanwhile the VPAF flew MiG-21F-13s , -21 PFs, -21PFMs plus MiG-19s. It’s a messy combination because you can have technological disparities in both directions. An F-4B vs MiG-21 PFM fight ain’t fair for the U.S. player , but neither is an F-4E vs MiG-19C duel for the VPAF side. In fact, the current pairing of “1980s spec” F-4E and MiG-21BIS is more balanced than the reality of what a legitimate Vietnam-period setup would be. If DCS went down that path you’d get a toxic War Thunder dynamic where skill would be irrelevant. Either you’d have the right missiles/radar to properly fight your opponent, or you’d be royally screwed from the word go.

Yup. Anything bad I could say about Jester (right now) could be easily said about his nose gunner (aka me).

You’re leaving out the IADS piece. Without a responsive and intelligent IADS , there’s no one for the AI Weasel or the player(s) to play against.