Kalasnkova74

Heres a video Link from players engaging a SAM site. It illustrates why this effort is a much bigger task than many realize. Would a competent SAM operator continue to transmit knowing there’s ARM- equipped aircraft in the vicinity? Nope! They’d shut down , and use alternative engagement techniques which don’t rely on radar. None of that real world tactical logic is modeled in game, and it would need to be for the EW framework to be complete.

…but, will there be a Naval F-4?

The key difference is the model. The clean F-16A - which is where most public domain energy charts show- can outturn basically everything. The F-16C is oriented to the air to ground role with reduced maneuverability relative to the -A model. Further, in USAF service the -C mode is not flown clean. Typically they’re carrying two tanks , a targeting pod and a centerline store or ECM pod. Im sure there are regimes where an F-4E could out-turn a missionized F-16C (pods, tanks etc) depending on fuel weight and so forth.

Another point of complexity are tactical choices by SAM operators. Example- Syrians in the Bekaa Valley anchored their sites and stuck to the manual. They paid the price for that. Serbians (and the Vietnamese) didn’t, and not only moved their sites relatively quickly (Colonel Zoltan Dani even drilled his missile company to pack up faster than the Russian manuals claimed) but used “Maverick-style” moves like getting non-electronic airborne target cues from spotters, launching their missiles first, timing the flight manually, then activating their acquisition radar where they expected the target to be. This tactic bagged future USAF Chief of Staff David Goldfien & two hits on F-117s during Allied Force. Thats just two case studies of people doing “unexpected” things with these weapons systems to thwart very competent EW assets. Modeling these RW capabilities would be difficult to impossible, plus a more realistic IADS implementation also would make the game a difficult experience for new and inexperienced players (much like real life, ironically).

Here’s a SAM simulator video from YT showing an S75 Dvina. Coding all the radars, SAM systems and sensors, connections and modes alone is a HUGE task. Hell, just coding the S75 throughly enough to be relevant would be equal effort as HB’s F-4E project. Even if we handwave the massive logistical task of building player-useable RedFor SAM modules, the other side of the equation has to be built also. IRL, making an F-4G meant taking apart an F-4E at Ogden logistics center and rebuilding it with the APR sensor suite. The meat puppets up front needed a dedicated transition course just to learn the basics of using the F-4G. All that means HB would have to start from scratch modeling the F-4G (flight model is different from the F-4E because of the APR-47’s avionics in the nose, reducing nose authority vs the standard F-4E) , and intellectually the same goes for the people paying money to participate. Think learning to fly the jet is hard? Try doing that effectively AND understanding the Electromagnetic Spectrum so in a turn with the RWR going off you know which threat to prioritize or ignore. It’s a lot more brainpower than pointing the radar at a blip & launching an AIM-120 in the bozosphere. Bottom line- making an F-4G (or any EW aircraft) needs a solid groundwork of full fidelity, player controllable SAMs+ long range radars AND common behavior logic in DCS so all the other modules experience the same realistic threats. It’s a lot of work, and I can easily see how this project just isn’t gonna pay the bills vs the cost.

That’s putting it mildly. Electronic Warfare Officer training was a dedicated months long course in the USAF, starting with memorizing every threat and tactical radar system sound signature. Quick, anyone here know off the top of their head what a “Teamwork” I-band tracking radar sounds like vs a “Low Blow”? Then came tactics, which is going to be the real obstacle to playing a hypothetical F-4G model well. What frequencies to focus on, when to manipulate them, which threat emitters to prioritize or ignore, and how to suppress them are all “inside baseball” tips that are A) still used today in some ways by multiple nations and B) probably classified. So a viable F-4G model at minimum would require a VERY involved AI EWO (not WSO!) and a total overhaul of RedFor threat systems to provide a realistic challenge. That task too will encounter classification obstacles (unless Russia /China decides to Ok release of double digit SAM data). I’ve little doubt there’s people out there like Mike “Starbaby” Pietrucha who’d love playing an EWO in a realistic F-4G (to say nothing of an ECR Tornado/ F-16 CJ/ E/A-18) , but that’s a very niche market and would be capital intensive to create.

The grim truth is there just isn’t enough money and time to develop every F-4 variant. You’ve got the Navy B, the USAF/Spanish Air Force C, USAF/Iranian/South Korean D, Navy -N, Navy -J, Navy -S, UK variants….honestly it would be a major resource commitment just making all the -E model subvariants like the Kurnass , Luftwaffe & JASDF /TuAF/Hellenic models. DCS would have to be redesigned with a red air human IADS component for the USAF -G version to make sense. Each subvariant has fans, but HB doesn’t have an infinite development budget. Fortunately, VSN has the beginnings of a great F-4B/F-4C mod. It’s got its flaws, but over time if they polish it to the level of the A-4C mod it’ll scratch the early version itch for most folks. Cant beat the price either.

Hopefully the J is chosen. The B is too technically old to be competitive, plus it would be unfair for Navy Phantom Phans to be stuck flying an iteration older than the USAF -E model.

This. 20nm is plenty for a valid AIM-7 shot - remember the Italians used them as point defense interceptors. So a long range radar isn’t needed for that application.

In summary, it performed like a bigger F-104. The ADC Voodoo used a Hughes MG-13/AIM-4 combination. Minimum range of 3 miles & max range of six, utilizing a computer calculated intercept and launch system. Against non-maneuvering targets like bombers and BOMARC SAMs it worked pretty well, but it performed abysmally against maneuvering targets.That would kill the missiles reputation in Vietnam after it was klidged onto the F-4D. The F-101s Achilles heel was pitch up caused by fuselage drag & unstable airflow over the tail. At high altitude this limited the aircraft to less available G than a B-52. Not a big concern for the interceptor role, but lacking cannons maneuvering against a fighter was off the table. I’d certainly like to see it come to DCS, because many interceptor scenarios are fairly challenging and real life crews pulled off some cool stuff like going from the alert ramp to taking off and intercepting a Tu-95 at altitude in less than five minutes.

There’s a somewhat notorious analysis from the F-110 days showing GE pricing out how much it would cost per aircraft to install higher temp engine combustors to reduce the smoke . Came out to $50k per aircraft in modern money. The USAF declined the bill, making IFF exponentially easier for the VPAF when those Phantoms deployed to SEA.

Harder, significantly. People used to 4th Generation tech and tactics will have to adapt to an iron sight, manually flown jet. Precision will be a factor of pilot skill at dropping bombs, not a setting on the MFD. Air to air will be even tougher. Adapting from “match lift vector and PULL” tactics on 4th Gen aircraft to “manage energy and use the vertical” will be a gulf too large to bridge for some. I expect a small social media backlash after release of people accustomed to Flankers and Hornets declaring the Phantom “useless in a dogfight”. Especially when people depart controlled flight because they’ve spent their flight sim time flying computer controlled aircraft that never let them go out of control.

The F-4E radar also had implementation issues (as is normal with new technology), so many deployed F-4Es didn’t have fully functional /reliable air to air radars anyway. That plus their better air to ground avionics led to them being mud-movers, leading to F-4Ds working USAF MiGCAP duties.

While these points are true, then-Colonel Robin Olds pointed out in an interview that other - and more important factors- explain why the USAF didn’t match the USNs kill ratio. First, the USAF Phantoms had to travel almost 900 miles from Thailand over Laos to North Vietnam. That gave so much warning to the VPAF that the 8th TFW command post may as well have phoned Hanoi for official advance notice. So the VPAF had plenty of time to launch and position MiGs for a high speed pass. Further, this mean USAF Phantoms were fuel critical from combat zone entry, because they had to fight and save enough gas for the 900 mile trip back to base. Get it wrong and you might be heading to the Hanoi Hilton (or a painful death by the Pathet Lao) after flaming out. Even saving enough for a tanker track might not be enough if you’re waiting for four (or more) similarly fuel starved USAF Phantoms or Thuds to tank off. These reasons resulted in many USAF Phantom pilots - Olds included- being forced to bypass sure MiG kills to save fuel. By the time an engaged flight of USAF Phantoms launched AIM-4/AIM-7/AIM-9 the flight typically was bingo, scratching the opportunity for a close range gun kill. Meanwhile, the USN operated out of the Gulf of Tonkin with substantially closer distances. So the VPAF had commensurately less alert of USN Phantom II sorties, especially if they ingressed at low level. That reduced the possibility of an aft attack used so well against USAF flights. The USN pilots also had greater fuel flexibility to engage MiGs , and their Search and Rescue (SAR) situation was somewhat better than the USAF provided they got out to sea. Now layer in the other elements (TOPGUN, better IR missiles for the USN, fluid pair tactics etc) and the better kill stats by the USN are evident.

The topic is about a business case, not general interest. It’s all well and good that 75% of sampled respondents would spend money on a module. But for the poll to answer the question of a business case, you’d have to ask this: ”Would you spend $80 to buy a FF F-15 module if you can buy the FC3 version for $25?” I suspect there won’t be 75% support on that.

The challenge with a FF F-15C module comes down to two words: business case. show of hands- who here is prepared to drop $80 on a FF Su-25 when you can get one for less than 1/5th of that bill? Crickets, right. Because that’s the value proposition of a full fidelity F-15C to non-enthusiasts. The studio would spend years and capital costs developing a more detailed version of a module you can already buy. Yeah, FF > FC3- but is it $55 better? Probably not in the minds of most DCS players. Add in the F-15E which can do A2G + BVR air combat & the business case totally evaporates.

The opening chapter also described what happened to the unfortunate wingman when they did that.

This thread connects the dots on why so many air arms of the Cold War (India, North Vietnam, etc) gave the F-104 a very wide berth. Getting dived on by a Mach 2 death rocket that can counter a defensive break by climbing and killing your subsonic a$$ is not a welcome prospect. A capably flown Starfighter could give an Eagle driver fits , much less some poor schmuck in a MiG-19 or Hawker Hunter.

The U.S. used them briefly during the F-104s Vietnam deployment. The “catamaran” centerline pylons were draggy and limited the F-104s speed and range. The catamarans were ditched accordingly, especially once F-104s were used for close air support alert in Operation Linebacker. Different operators used different configurations of A2A missiles & fuel tanks. The wing stations originally weren’t wired for missiles, but the Pakistanis field modded their Starfighters to use AIM-9s. This was to free up the wingtip stations for lower drag fuel tanks. The modification made its way to the F-104s other operators, if they saw value in it.

None of that changes the fact that the F-4 has fairly advanced aerodynamics for its time. McDonnell solved a series of conflicting design challenges in the Phantom II without resorting to swing wings, computer aided flight stability , or building a low speed deathtrap. An admirable accomplishment for 1960s technology.

I know this is said a lot regarding the Phantom II, even by crew and pilots . But this phrase discredits the truth of what McDonnell accomplished in the early 60s. In an era with slide rules & drafting tables they built a Mach II capable interceptor that could be safely landed aboard a carrier - at 160 knots. That requires fairly advanced aerodynamic qualities. Meanwhile, pilots in Huns and Starfighters were tightening their sphincters on landing approach. The Hun liked to yaw unaware people into the dirt (with explosive and fatal consequences), and the Starfighter had about six or seven different ways to kill a pilot during landing. The F-4s aerodynamics deserve more credit than is often granted.

Yes. Pilots recognized quick that the AIM-7s kill probability (Pk) wasn’t lining up to the brochure and acted appropriately. Multiple AIM-7 shots at one target was not unusual. One flight of four USAF F-4s expended 16 AIM-7s - the entire flights arsenal- at one MiG with no hits.

A US Navy pilot who flew exchange with the RAF stated he preferred the J79s, as being a turbojet design it has faster throttle response than the turbofan Speys. A crucial capability for throttle adjustments around the boat. Overall, short version is the UK fans will say yes, the Americans will say no, and the truth will be summed up by “it depends”

It does have an internal battery, but unless you’re flying a RF-4C/E variant you wouldn’t want to use it often! Replacing the battery on a standard F-4 Phantom II is an aft-ejection seat out procedure.

Not quite. Meet the RF-4EJ: The JASDF operated a batch of F-4EJs modified to carry a French made TACER electronic recce pod, a LOROP (pictured) , and an inline IR camera pod. All were mounted to the belly stations. It’s the only recce Phantom II to have the M61 cannon & AIM-7 capability.