Kalasnkova74

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.

Sounds like you “windmilled” the motors. The generators run off of engine rotation. Ideally, that’s provided by a running J-79. If your engines flames out or compressor stalled, diving fast enough will create enough airflow to spin the compressors (the aerial equivalent of push-starting a manual transmission car). Thus, running the generators and enabling engine re-start in flight. In your case, with no fuel your only option was a controlled ejection.

Not necessarily: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Upcoming/Photos/igphoto/2000541099/ “Battle-damaged F-4E-32-MC (S/N 67-321) of the 366th Tactical Fighter Wing. 1Lts. Wesley E. Zimmerman and David J. Craighead successfully recovered their crippled F-4E after receiving serious damage in engagements with MiGs, SAMs and AAA. With two hydraulic systems gone, the rudder shot away, no drag chute, half the trailing edge slat on each side destroyed, and moderate damage to the right engine and wings, they nursed their fighter home. Despite the high speed required by the no-flap approach, Lt. Zimmerman made a successful landing and barrier engagement. (U.S. Air Force photo)” Note, many Israeli & Iranian F-4s returned to base despite extensive damage from AAA and missiles (AA and SAM). In one instance , an Iranian F-4E lost a Sparrow duel with a U.S. Navy F-14 in the 1980s. The Phantom II still made it back to base despite being hit. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-the-us-navy-f-14-tomcat-pilot-that-scored-an-aim-7-sparrow-soft-kill-on-an-iranian-f-4-attacking-a-us-navy-p-3-and-saved-the-lives-of-the-orion-crew/amp/ Then we have Showtime 112 flying long enough to get feet wet even after being hit by a SAM. The F-4 Phantom II is surprisingly resilient for a tactical fighter.

Close. In the 80s they omitted one 750 in exchange for a single AIM-9/Python. The problem was later solved with a dedicated AIM-9 pylon attached to an adapter hardpoint using the forward Sparrow missile well.

It depends USAF F-4s flew with wing, centerline or both based on circumstances and mission. On many sorties, especially MIGCAP coming from Thailand, they flew with all 3 plus full A/A loadout. Since the MIGCAP flights jettison all external tanks anyway before engaging, the centerline store interlock wasn’t a factor. To highlight the variety of setups some operators used, the Israelis ran an asymmetrical loadout in October 1973 featuring centerline bombs, 750s on one wing station, AIM-9s on the other & two wing external tanks. Much later the USAF used centerline tanks for F-4Gs operating in Kuwait , but both deployed squadrons later switched to a three bag setup to maximize fuel range when the Weasels needed to cover Iraqi airspace too. It just depends on the mission and operational need.

That’s one side of the equation. The other is the energy state of your bandit, especially the MiG-19 which has superior acceleration to the F-4E in some parameters. If you’re up against a MiG with high energy , going vertical won’t necessarily save you. The name of that game is staying fast while baiting the MiG into bleeding energy. It’s harder than it seems , especially if the MiG driver knows what they’re doing.

I had issues as well with the speedbrake keybinds. I totally stumbled on the solution by using a hat switch on my throttle to open and close. From what I can tell, the speedbrake is not a “click once -it opens” switch. It’s a graduated action where you hold the key to open until it’s fully deployed and hold the key again to fully close. (See why using the throttle hat switch paid off?) Using a momentary switch will just crack them open (and similarly crack them closed). When the speedbrake opens you’ll see a yellow caution light on the right telelight panel. Good luck on the remap!

It’s an aerodynamic leftover from the F-4s Naval roots. The first versions of the F-4 were launched off of ships. Thus also the “unusual for an Air Force bird” landing procedure.

This. Note also the NWS doubles as a quick air to air acquisition mode for the radar in-flight, so you want this on your HOTAS.

At that point in the process (after you’ve switched on the engine master ) , move left/right throttle out of the cutoff position (I use a dedicated keybind) & move the throttle to halfway and back (it’s a cross-check to ensure its rigger correctly) while simultaneously holding down the engine igniter button (another keybind). Release the igniter button once the RPM goes above 40%.

I’ll lead off with my errors. As I was following the startup checklist, the left engine didn’t want to start up. After staring at the 20% RPM gauge like a drooling idiot and wondering if my last mod broke the game- or perhaps a throttle keybind error - I looked at the left panel….. <profanity>… (Click) Turns out the left engine won’t start without the left engine master switch in the “ON” position. Guess that’s in the checklist for a reason!

Shoot the bandit in the face with a Sparrow, and use the time saved to beat your wingmen to the squadron bar .

First- I extend my appreciation to HB for their sweat, blood and toil put into this module. It shows, and I thank you all. The preorder goodies ain’t bad either. Next- what a difference a day makes around here. This time yesterday on the forums people were ready to go Walking Dead on each other.

“Where’s my Playboy mansion party invite?”

Or, it’s symptomatic of a niche business where investment in systemic quality management processes is not available. If EA is Toyota, HB is the hand built sports car company working out of a garage. Scalable processes don’t work for niche businesses because there isn’t enough capital to finance repeatable process development. Which is why you can buy a Toyota truck off a showroom lot and drive the thing for hundreds of thousands of miles with no issues , but a handbuilt Morgan sports car might have quality problems before it even leaves the dealer lot. I’m sure HB and ED would love to implement better quality management steps, but those quality management practices cost money. Unless Taylor Swift picks up DCS and brags about it on social media, that revenue isn’t realistic. So, like the Morgan customer, we must grin and bear the occasional process failure and delivery delay.

Even if HB delivered on time with no incident and an expenses paid trip to a party at the Playboy Mansion, the first time a fellas PC stuttered they’d be lighting up the forums complaining about “flawed modules- why can’t they wait to release until they get it right?” People, let’s put this in perspective. It’s not cancelled, it’s not missing critical features, it’s just delayed ONE business day. For goodness sakes people don’t act like this when their Amazon parcel is late a day, but they’ll take HB and ED to task for QCing the release. Nobody’s gonna remember this thread 12 months after release.

The same people complaining about a one business day delay would be ROASTING HB if the F-4E dropped on time with any flaws. These modules are nearly as complex as real world aircraft, and we know how often delays happen in that profession. It may drop tomorrow, it may be delayed until June 2024…or even later. Stuff happens. I’ll be ready when HB is.