Kalasnkova74

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.

I too share your wish for historically accurate , older aircraft. But the businessman in me also understands why we don’t. Even with the modernized aspects of the F-4E block 45 we have, players are having a tough time adapting to the Phantom IIs unique traits vs modern stuff in the game. An F-4B/ F-4C paid module would just be a bridge too far for most players. Even us die hard fans would have a tough go making one work in a modern PvP server, and someone coming from an F/A-18 /F-16/MiG-29 would be utterly boned. It’s a recipe for flame wars and pissed off comments to the developer for selling a “useless” module.

A FF F-4G model ain’t happening. Setting aside the major obstacle of EW tactics still being classified , you’d need a Jester-EWO. Which would be the most complex game AI ever created , because that character would have to know a LOT about electronic warfare to act as the bear. Further, the behavior and characteristics of SAMs and IADS in game would have to be overhauled , because real life operators were very dynamic. It was a cat and mouse game between the IADS people (who’d shoot from one site, but launch guidance from a different site..) and the Weasel (make fake “Magnum” calls to dupe the site into triggering a launch that gives away their position , etc)

Here's my latest track file. I'm a long way from 8th TFW material (thus the "Rookie" bandit setting & visibility tags), but I did take down the F-5E bandit with a Sparrow & land smooth enough for Jester to appreciate my work. A good day at the "office". F-4EJ v F-5 Kill.miz.trk

A truly representative Southeast Asian theatre map will be substantially larger than the Afghanistan map. The aerial component of what’s colloquially called the “Vietnam War” included territory from Thailand in the East all the way to Hainan Island in the west , and ranged from the southern tip of the Vietnamese peninsula all the way to the Chinese border. Accurately modeling this theatre means creating a MASSIVE map, and ED can’t leave out anything to save room. Drop Thailand and Laos, and that eliminates accurate representation of the USAF A-1E / F-105/F-100F/ F-4 wings operating from Thailand. If ED includes Thailand, may as well include Cambodia and Laos too (including Koh Tang island). Hainan Island should be added because that Chinese island was the site of multiple skirmishes between Communist Chinese and USAF/USN aircraft, including the first aerial engagement between USN F-4Bs and MiG-17s around 1965. So with the “less publicized” theatres included , it’s going to be massive.

Real world storytime: most operators didn’t use the battery if feasible, as for one reason it was located in a very inconvenient place to service. Changing the battery required removing the ejection seat and the work associated with that, which DieselThunder captured well with their video series on the Collings Foundation F-4D.

In the 1989 USAF Gunsmoke competition at Nellis, F-4E 3rd TFW squadrons avoided using Dive Toss. The reason was precision- the Dive Toss system couldn’t perform better than 20 meters, in top line F-4Es . Their competitors in F-16s were dropping practice bombs on tank turrets, so that clearly wasn’t going to work. To place well at Gunsmoke - an event so precise the timing of your squadrons arrival at Nellis was one of the activities scored for points - the F-4E teams brought along a centerline Pave Drag- err, Pave Tack pod. They’d fly a profile for a CCIP drop using the ARN-101, but on lineup the WSO would slew the Pave Tack on the target and take a laser range of the targets altitude. The WSO punched that data into the ARN-101 “Arnie” and now they have a very precise targeting solution. The 3rd TFW clocked 7 meter accuracy during Gunsmoke, placing 5th out of 16 units participating. The top 4 were F-16A wings employing digital CCIP “Death Dot” systems.

As background, no RWR has an infinite catalogue of threat detection data. In situations where a threat is not in the library it’s considered an “Unknown” . From the manual: When an emitter is detected that does not have a catalog entry, but is recognized by received power, duration, and pulse as being a possible threat, the U indicator on the Unknown button (9) will flash. Pressing the button will provide a U symbol on the RWR CRT at the correct azimuth position for reference and monitoring.The default condition of the Unknown button is with the U symbol illuminated, but steady. OP, can you see if the MiG-23’s considered an “Unknown” contact?

This. A good pilot triumphs in a dogfight. A great pilot avoids one in the first place. Putting things in perspective, a 1v1 airplane jiu-jitsu fight is not statistically the most common way aircraft get shot down. Most A/A kills are zero-circle ambushes of unaware targets, typically because they’re engaging someone else or distracted (looking at maps/instruments/etc). Unless you’re in a BFM specific session, accepting a merge is asking to get ambushed by a third party. That all said ,it is fun to spank an F-5E in an unrealistic & tactically unlikely 1v1 mission.

A point to note. Those aware can disregard, but for maximum maneuvering performance you’ll want to disable the stability augmentation switches on the left console below the throttle. CAUTION: I would highly recommend newcomers practice departure from controlled flight recovery at higher altitude before fighting with those switches disabled. Abusing AoA with the stability augmentation disabled (especially in pitch) carries a risk of spins. If that happens, deploy the drag chute in flight and neutralize the controls.

My findings were the same. I earned my first landing compliment from Jester yesterday. Basically, I followed the book (fly the tone etc) until just above the runway threshold. Then I pitched up slightly, and just before touchdown bumped the throttles a tad to cut the decent rate. Hello greased landing , instead of the Navy-style “plonk” that books a snarky comment from the back

You should see how other organizations handled this. The MiG-23 uses a totalizer that’s set by the crew chief with the amount of liters pumped into the jet. The cockpit “fuel gauge” uses a flow measurement device which deducts from the totalizer how much fuels been pumped through that pipe. If a situation arises where a fuel tank is punctured or leaking, the Floggers fuel gauge will be of little help.

Correct. They did, until they didn’t. Background: the US Navy F-4 Phantom IIs used a boundary layer control system that blew air over the leading edge wing slats. Much like the F-104, this system used compressor bleed air to enhance low speed control of the aircraft. Land based F-4Es retained this system upon introduction in the late 1960s. Because of this, certain F-4E manuals still reference this system. In 1972, a project researching wing slats for the in-development F-15 yielded benefits for the F-4. Thus, the “Agile Eagle” wing slats project was applied to the Phantom II. Starting in 1972, leading edge slats were fitted to improve low speed handling: this change addressed USAF issues with bomb-laden F-4s entering buffet and spins once they turned to drop ordnance. The leading edge slat system replaced the boundary layer control system. The leading edge slats are essentially “standard equipment” on F-4Es now, including the version produced for DCS. Different operators converted to slat wings at different timescales as early block F-4Es (before block 48 IIRC) were pulled in and retrofitted for slats. The Japanese Air Self Defense Force reviewed conversion and opted to decline slat wing upgrades, so their F-4Es were the last fleet to retain the boundary layer wing.

Luck. As Ed “Fast Eddie” Cobleigh put it, the U.S. Navy’s aces relied on sidewinders and close maneuvering. Duke got his MiGs..and lost an F-4J. The USAF aces relied on Sparrows and teamwork. Ritchie and DeBellevue not only took away five MiGs from Uncle Ho’s inventory, but did it without losing any of Uncle Sam’s hardware in the process. I know the strategy I admire, and it ain’t Cunningham’s. The perhaps uncomfortable fact is killing MiGs effectively in the F-4 is a team sport. Go it alone at close quarters in the Phantom II and you’ll be riding a parachute, as the Navy’s aces discovered the hard way.

Yup, starting with Jester. On that note, has anyone got him to actively compliment their landings? Best I’ve managed is silence.

Does anyone have a good breakdown summarizing each AIM-7s maneuver parameters and effective ranges? Back in SEA the USAF aces who relied on the Sparrow went directly to Raytheon for that data. Hopefully it’s publicly available for us to reference, otherwise it’ll be guesswork to understand when Jester can realistically lock and guide vs when he can’t . Further still, understanding when a boresight lock is in Sparrow parameters or not.

Right now, F-4 players on public servers are a good example of how NOT to fly the jet.