Kalasnkova74

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.

Ed Cobleigh wrote of a joint assignment he drew to “teach” the Navy how to use LGBs. The first system was the “Zot Box” that required the WSO in a USAF F-4D to laze the target from the backseat (predating Pave Spike) , so a USAF pilot needed to brief the Navy on how it worked so they could collaborate on the sortie. To put it mildly, interservice politics killed that plan. The Navy assigned F-8 (!) pilots to participate, and they weren’t fans of anything not associated with killing MiGs. Much less bombing with the Air Force. Cobleigh authored a study proposing USAF buddy lazing for Navy strikes, but it went nowhere.

Are you using the correct approach speed? Note the F-4E approach speed changes based on weight. The heavier the jet, the higher the speed. If you try to land a heavy jet at 160 knots you’ll stall out. If you’re heavy- say because you’re taking off heavy to do circuits and haven’t burnt much fuel - aim for a speed closer to 175-180 knots.

One tactic I’ve read about (but never applied) is launching an AIM-7 without a radar lock and then illuminating the target to guide a weapon in flight. It was recorded as a tactic during the 1970s ACEVAL exercises, so it may be just a one-off experiment. A more practical suggestion from a similar document is to launch and “crank” ,meaning turning to the maximum radar angle possible while illuminating the target. That 59.9 degree or less turn from centerline - theoretically- puts the launching aircraft at a more advantageous position above or below the intended target instead of just driving straight ahead. This way you avoid immediately entering a BFM merge if the target evades. It’s an easier tactic with modern (relative to the F-4E) radars.

Given the F-4 was built around the Sparrow, perhaps it’s time to create a resource for people willing to explore the F-4Es main engagement weapon. Hopefully we can use this thread to share tips and tricks on using the Sparrow effectively. After all , Steven Ritchie and Chuck DeBellvue did just that to become aces…and managed to return in the same aircraft they took off with. This is the section where I’d share the knowledge I have. Regrettably I used it up in the thread title. Hopefully, others here have tips to share…as we all know what awaits next(a probable visual BFM loss ) if the Sparrow shot gets trashed.

Early build F-4Cs were basically the same as US Navy F-4Bs, down to the landing gear and tires. Later F-4Cs featured wider tires and different main landing gear shocks - thus the upper bulge in USAF Phantom II wings - which made them more suited to land operations. The F-4D carried these traits over , even retaining electronic wing fold systems. The electronic wing fold was deleted on the -E model to save weight, although they can be manually folded if needed. Insofar as catapults go, no modern carrier in DCS can launch the F-4E….or their Naval cousins and predecessors, for that matter. Carriers back in the day used “bridals” , which were chains that hooked into frame points on the jet and then to the catapult. Modern jets use a different system directly attaching the catapult to the forward landing gear. So for Heatblur (or anyone else) to include a Naval /USMC F-4, they’d also need an old school bridal launch option built into a DCS carrier. I suspect that logistical fact may play a small part in why HB built and released the land based variant first. No major changes to the base game are needed for an F-4E, but the same cannot be said about the naval Phantom IIs.

Careful- It was Robert McNamaras decision to push the USAF to buy the Naval F-4B and operate it as the F-4C that led to the lineage which became the F-4E. If we are filtering DCS experiences through the lens of “what airplanes were designed for”, then operating the F-4E on land is the misuse.

Thing is, real world F-4E pilots worked in a team. The real world tactical manuals and suggestions being shared are written with that assumption in mind. If you have a wingman , it exponentially increases the effectiveness of each F-4E as one can climb while the other presses the fight until the bandit out turns them. This is how the USAF won the day in Southeast Asia agains the agile MiGs. Then the wingman takes point, and the cycle continues until the bandit dies or the Phantoms disengage. One on one - the typical game situation - changes things for the worse. Without a wingman to watch your back, vertical turns have to be timed VERY carefully or the F-4E will be caught by the bandit at the top of the climb & gunned. Failure to accurately assess the bandits energy state - or bleeding too much energy in the climb relative to the bandit - will also result in this outcome. Maintaining energy with lag pursuit turns and rolls is paramount, and it’s not the kind of BFM people learn fighting Hornets and Vipers. As many of us noted months ago when the module was still in development , the F-4E presents a different BFM challenge versus earlier aircraft. All of us must to adapt to the Phantom II “Aerial Martial Art”, and how long that takes is obviously an individual journey. Someone that started off in an F/A-18 will have a tougher journey than someone accustomed to an F-15E or F-14 Tomcat.

The first F-4 Phantom II was a Naval interceptor. Fast engine response time is a paramount criterion when landing a 35,000 lb jet on a 1960s era carrier. Remember, back then the U.S. Navy still had escort carriers left over from WWII. Landing a big Phantom II on those short deck ships meant needing very precise throttle control. Part of that responsiveness is the J-79 motor itself, and part of that is the Phantom II’s intake bellmouth system that matches airflow to throttle and engine settings nicely to avert compressor stalls & other common jet engine throttle issues. The original TF-30 F-14 is a textbook case of what happens when that engineering isn’t done fully. Later on, pilots who exchange toured between the U.S. and UK navies noticed the British Spey-powered Phantoms were harder to land on ships due to reduced throttle response vs their less powerful but more responsive American J-79 cousins.

I know high yo-yos are promoted with the F-4, but my two cents is they should be avoided in solo engagements. Remember, most Phantom II tactics manuals are written with the assumption of two-ship (or more) flights. A high yo-yo puts the offensive F-4 in a position to maintain energy , while the wingman is coming back into the fight…..… …so when (not if) the squared away bandit pulls up to counter the high yo-yo once the F-4commits to the dive, the engaged F-4 can separate while #2 can press. If it’s a 1v1, the Phantom IMO should avoid a yo-yo or separate if the bandit counters, because if they counter it well you’ll be defensive after their defensive pull-up takes the bandit behind the F-4s 3/9 line.