divinee
-
Posts
141 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by divinee
-
-
15 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:
Yeah, as far as I can see this is the case. Those are only some of the more relevant charts and graphs I grabbed, would have to look at said manual again and see what details I can find. The point I was trying to make originally is that the 23MLA will pretty much outmatch the 4E or 4J even in most areas - it's frankly a much newer aircraft. You will not want to turn with a Mig in the Phantom - just look at Vietnam.
My understanding is that J is not that much better at turning than E with slats. S though is propably superior to E with slats because of the better thrust. I haven't found sustained numbers for the J or S but -79 manual for E says about 14.5deg sustained in SL with 4x AIM-7 and 42777lb. Test flight was done in 1973 so those numbers are propably without slats (not 100% sure because the charts don't mention that).
Let's continue the discussion in
-
1
-
-
I created this topic to compare different F-4 versions to different aircrafts. The main point is to learn how to fly phantom against various enemy aircrafts.
This topic will be a continuation from the page 8 and 9 discussion of the "Announcing the F-4 Phantom for DCS World!" @BIGNEWY @NineLine maybe you can move those posts here if possible?
Edit: We don't want to start to argue which aircraft is better and please keep the discussion civil.
-
We really should make ”Phantom vs XXX” topic and move these posts into that. Lots of good info and it would be shame that it gets lost here
edit: maybe moderators can help with that?
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:
In fact the 23MLA will eat the F-4E alive in pretty much all areas. BVR, WVR and BFM. Heck even our current Mig-21Bis pretty much matches the F-4J's, let alone the E's sustained rates at most altitudes and weights, has better T/W and a better inst. rate. Obviously it will come down to BVR tactics and pilot skill in ACM but with the R-60's alone the Mig's have a huge advantage. A 21-F13 or 23M would be closer matches in both kinematic capability and armament.
These are quite interesting comparisons. Can you show us some numbers?
-
5 hours ago, SgtPappy said:
I only have this one source after researching as much as I could on the Rivet Haste birds a couple years back. I haven't been able to find the original quoted report in full. I got it from http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=5985
From the summary page of a report titled, "TAC Project 72A-068F: Rivet
Haste SEA Intoduction (U) Final Report" dated April 1973"The introduction team was in place at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force
Base, Thailand, from 12 November 1972 to 12 January 1973. The 20 Rivet
Haste aircraft and aircrews were integrated into the 555th Tactical
Fighter Squadron of the 432d Tactitcal Reconnaissance Wing and
consisted of all Block 48 F-4E air superiority aircraft.During this period of introduction, the Rivet Haste aircraft flew 238
combat sorties for a total of 643.6 combat hours..."The 20 jets did NOT show up in one wave.
The first increment of 6 Rivet Haste aircraft arrived at Udorn on 20
November...first in-theather flights were flown on 24 November. [note:
none of these 6 had APX-81 Combat Tree]Second batch of 6 Rivet haste arrived thusly...5 on 18 December 1972,
and number 6 the following day, 19 December (delay was due to radio
failure departing George AFB with the others). All 6 jets had Combat
Tree.Last batch of 8 arrived at Udorn on 13 January 1973. Only 4 of the 8
had Combat Tree.As stated above, the first combat mission was 24 November 1972. There
were ONLY three MiG engagements by Rivet Haste jets.The first was on 22 December by a non-Tree jet, at night , closed to
within 4000' but could not get clearance to shoot.Second was a during the day, the MiGs popped in and out of clouds
before a shot could be taken. [I infer a VID shot criteria, probably
due to numbers/proximity of radar contacts.]The last was also at night, during a tail chase a max range AIM-7 shot
was taken...no luck. This was the ONLY missile shot by a Rivet Haste
jet.Thank you for the link. There seems to be quite a lot of good info
-
10 hours ago, SgtPappy said:
In general, you're right. Most E's did not have them. However, as of November, 1972 under program "Rivet Haste", F-4E's with slats, cockpit ergonomics mods, long gun muzzles and TISEO arrived. Some of them had Combat Tree and these Phantom crews which trained together saw many many sorties, firing the first Mavericks in anger (most sorties were air-to-ground, 600 hrs or 600 sorties or so I forget the number) before the US left in 1973. They encountered MiGs on at least 3 occassions but their Sparrows missed.
Thank you for the correction. Yeah I was familiar with the Rivet Haste, but i haven't found info about the Combat Tree in Rivet Haste program and that information seems to be under the rock
. Can you share some sources where I can read more about those?
-
4 hours ago, upyr1 said:
I don't believe the Vietnam era E would have the combat tree, I could be wrong. The 1980s E would have something like that or better. I believe the first Phantoms with the system were Ds.
That’s what i’ve also read. Only some D’s had combat tree in Vietnam. Though the information is quite limited so i’m not 100% sure..
-
7 hours ago, Baco said:
Not YET it aint.. its after the family of Es, and after the EF and after the A6... so no, not even started.. they will make it in the future...
I’d like to have source for that order? They said that E will be first and then they will start to make other version.
-
I’d recommend ”Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club” by Thomas McKelvey Cleaver
-
1
-
-
Just now, Rudel_chw said:
Yes, but shouldnt that go onto the Wishlist threads? ... and in that case I believe that there have been requests for Vietnam Map before, I'm sure ED is aware of this wish.
Then this whole topic is in a wrong place among many other topics
-
1
-
-
You guys think too negatively.. If someone makes Vietnam map, wouldn’t that be great? If you are not interested in that, there are lots of other people willing to pay for it and you are still losing nothing. If HB is planning to do more phantoms, the propability that we are getting Vietnam era version in a couple years timeframe is quite great and we need a map for that. Also Vietnam map would be excellent from the sales point of view (lots of Vietnam era fans here). Would be crazy not to make it. ED is improving the core all the time so i wouldn’t keep Vietnam map as impossible to model or run. I’m not saying that HB should do that map and we have other companies specialised in those.
-
7
-
-
Absolutely the best possible solution! My wallet is ready..
-
10 hours ago, RustBelt said:
This has to stop already.
There's nothing wrong what he said. If people start arguing about whether it's possible or not to make D at this moment, then it's just stupidity as HB have made the situation quite clear. Still I can say that if HB decides to make D one day, it will be instabuy for me.
-
1
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, upyr1 said:
No, I don't think it would be possible to represent the F-4 with one model. The bare minimum would be two, if you wanted to the least amount of work those would be the B and C which from my understanding were basically twins except for the controls in back. The J and E would IMHO be the defitinve versions though I would also like the gunless USAF phantoms. So as I keep saying instead of arguing about which would be the best single model it would be better to answer the question how many Phantoms would you be willing to buy?
Yeah i completely agree that we really need more than one model. I would buy all, any day
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, Bozon said:
The E has more A2A kills than all the other types combined. That is in addition of being the best ground pounder.
Just saying.
Yeah, those were the times when Phantom was still the best platform available. Those early E’s what Israel was using to get most a/a kills -69 to mid seventies were quite a lot off different machines than ~1500lbs heavier later blocks which had pods etc. The model what belsimtek was making was around ~block 50.
-
I don’t think that the J or even B would be so bad placeholder for other models. For me the naval variants are the most iconic variants of the phantom so i’d like to get one (doesn’t matter whether it’s B, J, S or N) and i could use it for the replacement for C, D or E. Other way around it’s not possible because USAF versions didn’t have carrier capabilities. I’d change daylight targeting pod, mavericks and shrikes any day to possibility to have carrier ops. We will have those with A-6 and A-7. Phantom’s Vietnam war lasted from -64 to -73 so it’s quite a big part of it’s service and where it made it’s reputation. Just another almost dedicated ground pounder for Persian Gulf or Syria without carrier capabilities feels a little waste. That’s just my opinion and everyone is entitled to have one. In the end we should be happy with any variant we can get. At least i will be
-
3 hours ago, Heatloss said:
If you mean that it could serve as a stand-in for a 4B or 4C, no. 4D maybe, if you ignored the different heatseekers, lack of AIM-4, and lack of ordnance. 4E definitely not. You'd also be missing some radar modes for the 4D and have a few too many modes in the 4J. So no, I'd say it's a poor placeholder, for many reasons including the radar.
So if you would get only one model to represent the Phantom you think that E would be the best option?
In that case we wouldn’t have perfect situation. Only what’s less bad for everyone.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Heatloss said:
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. 85% cumulative probability of detection against a 5m^2 target was 37 nautical miles in wide search, for look up, down, and co-altitude target detection, and in head-on in narrow search (guided intercept with datalink), 60 nmi for look up/down/co-alt. This is on the original AWG-10, not even the slightly digitized 10A and fully digitized 10B. This puts detection ranges significantly above N008, and just below Zhuk. I'd say that's pretty solid, wouldn't you?
You think that the increase is so big that it’s impossible to use J as a ”placeholder” for other versions?
-
8 hours ago, Nexus-6 said:
I had originally thought that Heatblur's Forrestal would cover it, but the version they made is, as was previously pointed out, too recent to have seen F-4s on her deck. Whereas there are multiple maps that cover multiple nations in DCS that can accept an F-4E right now.
But we aren’t getting F-4 right now so the present situation shouldn’t limit what devs are making. The developers should aim for the situation which exists roughly at the time of release (no one knows when, but i’m guessing -23-24). Also Phantom would be excellent motivator for other developers to start making stuff for vietnam. If heatblur is making the phantom i have no doubt that they are making some assets for it also.
You are absolutely right that Phantom really needs more than one version to represent it’s career like it deserves.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:
A J would be a terrible E-simulator. Totally different and much more capable radar for one.
In the end, radar would be quite a small problem because it wasn’t that good even in the J
Also, E would be even worse to simulate any other version and if we get only one version, we have to think that kind of stuff. Hopefully we get more than one..
1 hour ago, WinterH said:For someone who wants an E like I do, J is firmly in the "better off not even being done" bin. Naval Phantoms had better air to air capabilities like a pulse doppler radar that can look and shoot down, an early helmet mounted sight, and better missiles. However, when it comes to being a multirole aircraft, E was much, much better. It already got early targeting pods in 70s, had AGM-65 Mavericks, GBU-8 and later GBU-15 TV guided bombs, latter of which had man-in-the-loop capabilities, AGM-45 Shrike anti radar missiles, an internal gun, a complex iron bombing computer with many modes etc. And yeah, an actual onboard gun too. Neither J, nor even S would remotely be able to simulate an E in any way. Nor can really E simulate a naval one.
ED staff said multiple times in various venues that they aren't the ones making the F-4 BTW.I am hoping very stronglt that it'll be a 75-80s F-4E. As far as I'm concerned it is by far the more interesting aircraft to use, and it just has a way wider history and operators: USAF, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, as well as Japan and Germany with close yet somewhat different variants specific to themselves. Australia also temporarily operated it.
Late E is just a ground pounder and it would be quite a shame to get version which wasn’t the ”high point” of it’s career. If we’d get more than one, then it would be nice to have Late E but with only one i’d rather have older iconic versions.
-
6 hours ago, Nexus-6 said:
The fact that ED teased it at the end of their "20XX and Beyond" video makes me think it's not Heatblur who will create the first Phantom (assuming they're doing one at all and their progress is way farther along than we think), but rather Eagle Dynamics themselves since it was Belsimtek who were building an F-4E in the first place, and because an "E" model will slot in much more comfortably with the maps and potential scenarios we already have. Not to mention that it will be right at home facing off against our MiG-19&21, as well as the forthcoming Mirage F1, MiG-23 and (whenever it gets here) that MiG-17 Red Star Simulations is working on.
ED told that they are not making phantom and that it is possibly made by 3rd party. Off course they can change their mind and start doing that but if some 3rd party started development it would be a little bit slap in the face to take that F-4 back to ED
Second thing is that developers cannot make all the modules to fit current maps and timelines. If they keep doing that, it will start to limit quite a bit. Also we have no info what maps etc developers are planning to do in the future. I wouldn’t wait phantom until -23-24 and there is plenty of time to announce new maps.
Third point i have is that if they make E model, it cannot do carrier ops but if they do navan version like J it can do carrier ops AND ”simulate” USAF versions just without internal gun. That would be a terrible thing for the purists but in the bigger picture that would propably satisfy more people.
-
13 hours ago, Northstar98 said:
The reticle in the trailer matches exactly with one seen on a -34-1-1 c. 1979 (rev. 1983) for the F-4E, unless the J or other variants use the same gunsight reticle, I think we can be pretty confident it's an E.
Doubtful for PGMs, but you've got your standard affair for unguided stuff (Mk80 series, CBU-59/B, CBU-78/B, Mk20, Zuni, Mk77).
Late have F-4E have something similar to that (probably replacing Zuni with Hydra 70/Mk. 4 FFAR) plus:
- Paveway I & II
- GBU-8
- AGM-65 (all blocks once they were upgraded with DSCG)
- GBU-15 (blocks 48 - 62)
Don't forget they also have Pave Spike (blocks 36 - 45) or Pave Tack (blocks 48 - 62) and blocks 48 and onwards had TISEO.
About the gunsight..
-
1 hour ago, bies said:
Is this "carrier capable" F-4E some kind of joke or serous suggestion? Even WT or old Strike Fighters didn't go that crazy unrealistic. Let alone DCS. I'm confident ED will never do something like that.
To clarify: F-4E didn't have any carrier capabilities. It didn't have any device to connect to carrier steam catapult. It didn't have reinforced undercarriage. It didn't have naval hook, just a delicate standard USAF hook for emergency landing without brakes which would be teared immediately when catching carrier wire.
F-4C had most of the navy equipment to operate from carrier since it was basically a Navy F-4B bought by USAF. Subsequent USAF variants lost naval specific features.
Do you have any info about what they changed from the landing gear and arresting hook? Looking from the pictures and comparing naval and USAF variants i cannot find any differences in landing gear and arresting equipment. Briddles attachment points have blanc plates on top of those slots in land based variants. I'm just curious to find more info about those.
-
14 hours ago, bmbpdk said:
Agree that HARM´s arent a kill-guarantee.
Too many, including some ED personel, believes that just because a radar goes silent when the HARM counter reaches it equals a kill.
That is not correct, actual warfare have proven that many times and giving many Generals and intelligence some explaining to do.
Perhaps it equals a kill in game world, but in the real world, which this simulator should reflect, it does not.
And as you said, CBU´s are very good at giving that "more-than-likely" "guarantee".
If you are interested in the subject of SEAD/DEAD/Wild Weaseling from persons who actually know their stuff, i recommend the following readings:
Missileers against the stealth ISBN 9781775395362Air Defence Artillery in Combat - 1972 to the present ISBN 1526762048
NATO´s air war for Kosovo ISBN 9780833030504
Viper Pilot - Memoir of air combat - ISBN 9780062130358
Vipers in the storm - ISBN 9780071346702
Yeah that's the case in real life. In DCS context, HARM's are insanely good because of the SAM AI and absence of IADS, like said earlier. In real life, it also depends on the type of the mission. If the mission is to suppress air defences and allow strike flight to get in and out, HARMs are quite a good. If the enemy turns off their radars and strike gets to AO, SEAD mission is success. If the point is to invade enemy country and get the air superiority, the CBU's and stuff are the weapon of choice and DEAD is the only choice. Those differences in philosophies must be taken into account when reading those books and when "building" the context. Persian gulf war was never total invasion of the enemy country so HARM's did quite fine to accomplish the SEAD mission. Second Iraq's war was total invasion and the only choice to get air superiority was total destruction of all enemy air defences (also Iraq's air defences were already in a quite bad condition when comparing to Persian Gulf war, allowing DEAD flights to get into AO more easily).
Also one good books is "Magnum! The Wild Weasels in Desert Storm" ISBN 9781473899001
and "The Hunter Killers" ISBN 9780062375124
Those books you suggested are quite good. Hampton is just a little bit "braggy" in Viper Pilot for my taste but still a good book
-
2
-
Phantom vs XXX
in DCS: F-4E Phantom
Posted
Looks like that my charts are from the slatted version