Kirk66

Well, no. I have personal experience using the SUU-16 and SUU-23 on the F-4C against towed dart targets, using a fixed mil setting on the (admittedly really basic) sight. This is in RTU, and the student pilots had really no problem hitting the dart (which is a lot smaller than a real jet); even sometimes destroying it on the first pass - which would really piss off the rest of the flight waiting to shoot! In the pit, we would lock up the dart (trying REAL HARD not to lock the tow plane!) and give range calls to the pilot. I don't remember any cases of gunpods jamming. This is in 1977, so basically 10 years after the gun battles over NVN (and pretty much the same jets - many of them had Mig kill stars on them). There are some suggestions that the slightly bigger dispersion of the gunpods was a benefit in air to air combat - the fixed M61s in the F-105, F-104, and F-4Es had so little dispersion that they were "laser" guns; you absolutely had to be on target to get any hits, while the gunpods had a bigger cone of shells to hit the target (and it doesn't take many 20mm hits to kill a Mig). F-4s towed targets for other fighters. It was "interesting" watching someone come at you and his nose lighting up as he shot at the target you were towing (in a turn, of course). F-4s were OK, but F-15s seemed to be coming right at you during their passes! They liked those high angle shots, probably due to their better sight system. The book "Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965–1972" does an excellent job of explaining the use of guns and gunpods. Highly recommended! Vulture

Except that Bolo used F-4Cs, hence no guns, less reliable missiles, less maneuverable F-4s (no slats), which directly affected tactics used. But hey, it's a simulation! "What if...?" Would definitely be interesting. Vulture

And there you have the fundamental problem with the Bullpup guidance system, and why it didn't really work well against a target that was shooting back. Unless you stayed lined up with the missile and target, you couldn't accurately guide the weapon, so at best you could jink a bit (accepting a bit of loss of accuracy) but you were still forced to a really predictable flight path. From wikipedia (yeah, I know): "Bullpups were widely used by both the Navy and Air Force during the Vietnam War, with mixed results. In its most famous early use, sixteen Air Force F-105's carrying two AGM-12Bs were part of the group of aircraft that attacked the Thanh Hóa Bridge on 3 April 1965. Because the weapon was manually guided, each aircraft had to line up for attack twice in separate passes. After the attack was completed the bridge was essentially undamaged, and the Bullpups were described as simply "bouncing off" the bridge. The missile was constructed in two separate portions for the nose and tail. The nose contained the guidance receivers which translated instructions into commands for the electro-pnuematic actuators for the four small delta wing control fins arranged around the nose. The tail section held the two tracking flares and larger wings to maintain flight and help prevent the airframe from rolling in flight. The main roll prevention was provided by a gyroscope controlling the front control fins. The Bullpup used a Manual Command Line Of Sight guidance system with roll-stabilization. In flight, the pilot or weapons operator tracked the Bullpup by watching the flares and used a control joystick to steer it toward the target using radio signals. The goal was to direct the missile so that it remained on the line between the pilot and the target. After launching the Bullpup, best accuracy was maintained by continuing to fly the same track, so that the pilot could sight down the smoke trail and steer the missile from directly behind as much as possible. Unfortunately, one problem quickly discovered by pilots in Vietnam was that gunners on the ground could simply fire at the smoke trail of the missile's flare and have a fairly good chance of hitting the aircraft that had launched—and was still guiding—the missile. Thus, to try to protect their own aircraft, the pilot would "jig" slightly off of the missile's path and hopefully avoid the anti-aircraft fire." No way you could do that from the pit of an F-4. Sidenote: There is a commonly used bit of video used on many films about the Vietnam War that purports to be a NV SAM launch against an F-105; it's actually a Bullpup launch against a ground target (probably from an F-105) but run in reverse! It does show how straight the flight path of the guiding aircraft is during the missile TOF. Vulture

I would argue the opposite; that modelling the beat-up end of life condition actually simulating only a small part of the jet's life - the end of it- and that during most of it's operational career it would be well maintained and in much better condition. But maybe that's just my personal 10 years of experience in USAF F-4s speaking...I guess the Navy just has lower standards. Judging from the pictures of their rusting ships, that isn't too surprising... (relax, it's called interservice rivalry. Go listen to some Dos Gringos!) Perhaps developers could put out a poll to prospective purchasers of a module to see what the actual user would like to have? Or even offer a payware option for a "clean" jet to cover the cost of extra development? I know I would definitely pay for a nicer Tomcat cockpit! Vulture

While I realize many like the "atmosphere" of a beat-up, scruffy, dirty scratched canopy and unreadable instrument panel cockpit, the reality is that most line jets (at least in the USAF) never get that nasty - because they are routinely rotated through depot maintenance where they are overhauled, straightened out, fixed, repainted, and have canopies and cockpit panels replaced. Most of the DCS modules have canopies that would have grounded the jets in real life - and NO self respecting crew chief would let anyone near his jet with a dirty, scratched canopy. Pilots and WSOs even had moleskin on their visor covers to keep from scratching the inside of the canopy (and Marines had their cool leather helmet covers). Seriously! (And canopies can be replaced in the field, you know...) So developers, could you please give us the option to select a "factory fresh" or "just out of depot" jet? Both external and internal? Please? (not pointing elbows here, but the Tomcat is disgusting!) I had the pleasure of dropping off and picking up several beautifully refurbished F-4Es from depot maintenance in Taiwan (late 70s) and from Hill AFB (80s). No dirty scratched canopies or unreadable panels on those jets! And they had yaw strings!!! Vulture

Short answer - yes they did (and very useful it was!). Long answer - I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you ;^) Vulture

Uhhh - no. Bullpup controller was only in the front cockpit, not even sure if the WSO hand controller could control a Bullpup, since as far as I know they were never used operationally by the F-4. They (AGM-12?) were definitely not in any F-4C or E -34 that I have, and were absolutely not in service by 1977 when I first started flying the beast. And even if they were available, no way the pitter could see enough to control the missile while flying the jet (WSO hand controller on right side, so would have to fly left handed), since your field of view was really limited forward and you pretty much would have to be flying the jet to maintain line of sight and alignment of the missile at the same time. Pilot could just set the throttle and guide the missile (line up the Bullpup's flare with the target) with the left hand while flying with the right hand. With a command missile like the Bullpup, you have to fly your plane at the target while steering the missile until impact, otherwise you can't tell where you are guiding the missile - think of shooting a rifle while holding it off to the side instead of using the sights. Not a good plan in a high threat environment! Maverick was a different thing altogether, probably about as easy from either cockpit, but tactically we trained for the pilot to find and point at the target, the WSO to lock and fire, and the pilot to watch for threats and maneuver as necessary. The Maverick is the reason the Bullpup handle was retained after the Bullpup was removed from use. Vulture

CAA was an automatic acquisition mode, similar to vertical scan modes common in F-15/16/18s. I think you are reading too much into the "dynamic range limiting" feature; that really just reduces the lock on range in look down situations to reduce chance of locking the ground clutter. Max auto lock on range look up was 30k ft, dropping down to 9k ft when the radar was scanning below the horizon. This from TO 1F-4E-34-1-1, figure 1-12A. CAA worked pretty good, actually, as long as the pilot could position the target at the right place (no HUD, remember). Interesting feature is that the CAA scan center (post OFP P005) could be moved left, center, or right via the RADAR/HEAT/GUNS throttle switch. So pilot had to remember to put the weapon mode switch back to the weapon he wanted after a lock. Or the pilot could just call out "30 high, 10 left" and the WSO could lock on manually - pretty much just as fast as the radar on it's own... Vulture

Standard USAF Mode 1-4 transponder in front cockpit. AN/APX-81 interrogator (both friendly and hostile) in back seat, controls were just to the left of the radar scope. Interrogation returns were on the radar display. Very useful in peacetime to find your tanker (via specific Mode 3 code) or VFR traffic in a MOA (using the Mode 3/1200 code). It did not give altitude info, but rough altitude cuts could be obtained by taking advantage of the systems narrow vertical beam and interrogating while in a 90 degree bank (with the radar "stab-out"). Vulture

Nope, the FUF is the "Chauffeur".

Fascinating. I just found the test report by Stephanie Smith. Haven't read it yet, but just looking at the thing it sure looks like the vertical tail volume is a bit small...

That is really interesting! Can you reveal what type of aircraft it was? Yaw strings are way better than slip balls anyway - of course the F-4 (and F-14, among others) was designed to have one - even had a special hole in front of the canopy for the string, and a place inside to tie it off. Some jets had a black line painted to make the white string easier to see... but I rarely saw one on a USAF F-4, unless it was just out of Depot. On the 1-300 YouTube channel you can see them on all the beautiful F-4EJs up until the very end. As a glider guy, I have a lot of time pushing a string around; the joke is that the best way to make the glider fly straight is to tape down both ends of the string, or put it on the inside of the canopy... Cheers, Vulture

Max range of the pod was never a limitation, the limits were in acquiring the target with the optics of the day, and the range of the LGBs. With Spike, you could cue the pod in front of the jet on the run in and look around until you found the target, then hang on to it until weapon impact; or select 12 acquire and have the nose gunner point the jet at the target so you could find it. Trickier was 9 Acq, where the pilot put a grease pencil mark on the left canopy off his shoulder and used that to "aim" the pod at a target at 9 o'clock. Yeah, it was as crude as that! Pave Tack was better, you could definitely cue the pod to a preplanned target area, and then refine your search until you found what you wanted to hit. No problem from medium altitude; was fun sightseeng from 10k ft or so; you could make out chickens in peoples back yards, and tell how much fuel was in oil storage tanks by the heat signature. All low-threat stuff, of course. Vulture

My first flight in an F-4E was as a USAFA Cadet in 1972 (At Homestead AFB), then several more cadet orientation flights in RF-4Cs at Shaw AFB in 1973. I started F-4C RTU at Luke AFB in Jan 1977, and my first operational unit was the 36th TFS at Osan AB ROK starting in September 1977 in F-4Es - big jump from the old C's I had trained in! F-4E fini flight in Oct 87 at Seymour Johnson AFB. Vulture

While a lot of the stuff the patch wearers developed was passed down to the operational crews (which was the whole point of FWIC), some of the tactics were just a bit too sketchy - F-16 LANTIRN low altitude LGB deliveries being a perfect example. This was pre-NVG, using the LANTIRN FLIR in the HUD and the targeting pod to do a popup self-designated LGB delivery at night. Run in low & fast using the LANTIRN FLIR HUD, pop straight ahead at about 4 miles, acquire the target in the TPOD, track and lase, drop the weapon in CCRP, fly a designation turn away from the target while lasing until impact, and also descending back down to low altitude for egress. Needless to say, they lost a few pilots doing this at night - including a classmate of mine from the zoo... At the time I was running ACCs fighter simulator certification program (SIMCERT) and had the opportunity to not only fly a low level LANTIRN night sortie to the range in the back seat of a Block 40 D at Luke (it was a brand new jet - and we brought it back Code 3 after a birdstrike during the low level; left a hole on the OUTSIDE of the intake!) which included night pop-up attacks dropping BDU-33s (pretty scary when doing it from the pit, my pilot had more confidence in me than I would have had!) - but also fly the F-16 sims a lot. I tried to duplicate my classmates accident, and succeeded - it was just too hard to run the targeting pod and perform a slicing turn back to low level at night using only the HUD for reference... That particular weapon delivery was quickly dropped for the F-16, being better suited for the F-15E (two man crew, etc.). Vulture

Doable - see the Eldorado Canyon F-111 attacks for Pave Tack use at low alt - but the problem with low alt LGBs is you really need a vertical target, and then you get "podium effect" where you fly around the target and the weapon loses the laser spot as it is coming in from one direction while you are lazing from the other side. In the F-4 with Spike you could do a pop attack and toss the GBU-12, and use delayed lazing to wait until the GBU was on the way down; then basically float the pop up until weapon impact. Not good if there was any serious SAMs or AAA. SA-6/8s and ZSU-23-4s would eat you alive... And you really need GBU-24s that are designed for low alt deliveries; GBU-10s and 12s lose too much energy due to their "bang-bang" guidance. More of an F-15E kind of thing... Somewhere I've probably got some old tactics manuals that describe how to do it; I'll have to dig around and see if I can find them. Vulture

Spike was actually better for medium altitude LGB deliveries than Tack because of the location of the pod - it was forward of the wing so you could lase the target in a continuous left hand turn - with Tack you had to turn away and bunt, basically. Once the WSO found the target and started to manually track it, the weapon was released (parameters not too critical, it's a GBU-12 after all) then the pilot would offset to the right then reverse to the left until bomb impact. Tricky part for the WSO was the fact that the video was not horizon-stabilized, so the image would rotate into some odd positions - or worse you would get "de-rotation" when the pod head reached its gimbal limits and re-oriented itself - it that happened during the last seconds of a lased delivery it could cause a miss. There was definitely a steep learning curve in getting good using a Spike, but it was a lot of fun once mastered. Vulture

Ah OK, This one? AIR-TO-GROUND GUNS SELECTION BUTTON (CAS - Touche de séléction canons air-sol): Selects the air-to-ground guns. I think it's the "AG Gun SELECT" command, in the PCA Weapons Management section. Vulture

From the DCS M-2000 manual, in the SNA Modes Selection section: CNM SWITCH (on throttle) The CNM switch (sélécteur armement CNM) function is the same irrelevant of the SNA mode. C (Canons air-air – Air-to-air guns): Rightmost position, selects the air-to-air gun and sets the SNA in air-to-air mode. N (Neutre – Neutral): Center position, returns to the previously selected SNA mode and weapon. • M (MAGIC): Leftmost position, selects the MAGICs and sets the SNA in air-to-air mode. There is a 0,5 second delay before the CNM switch neutral position is registered to allow the SNA to be switched between air-to-air gun and MAGIC modes without returning to the previous selection CNM switch is on throttle, if you are using a Warthog throttle, for example, you can use the 3 position thumb switch that is below the speed brakes (Boat Switch) to Forward: Magic (else SNA), Center: SNA selection (usually the 530), and AFT: Guns (else SNA). Vulture USAFA '74

Hi Snappy - sorry for the late answer! With the A and B TV Mavericks I have experience with, the biggest issue was finding the target; so ranges against the main targets (tanks and vehicles) was pretty short; if you could see it and lock on to it, you were in range to shoot. So not a long range weapon, maybe 2 to 3 miles? Assuming targets were easy to see and close to each other (trucks on a road, for example) you could probably get a couple of missiles off on one pass, but any more and you are flying right over the guys you just really pissed off! Later, in the F-15E (my experience there is all in the sim, unfortunately) you could cue the IR Mavericks via the LANTIRN pod and get longer/more shots off (you could shoot far enough out that it was easy to catch up with the missile before it hit the target!). But the E wasn't a good platform for the Maverick (it took up the stations normally used for fuel tanks) so was removed about the time LANTIRN was replace by SNIPER and LITENING. I doubt any Maverick was ever fired from a Strike Eagle in combat. Short TV Mav story - We were running around southern Georgia looking for vehicles to practice Mav attacks on with our TGMs and found a bright orange school bus cruising down an asphalt country road. Perfect! So we set up an attack, and several unsuccessful passes later realized that the black and white TV tracking system could not distinguish between the bright orange of the bus and the gray of the road surface, even though it was perfectly visible in the cockpit TV screen. Disappointing, but at least the kids on the bus got a free airshow! Cheers, Vulture

Never saw a LAU-117 on any F-4E during my time, all LAU-88s. I think the F-4Gs got the LAU-117s when they got AGM-65Ds as part of their WW mission - all the better to whack a SAM site... We were pretty much stuck with As for training and Bs for combat.

Good chance I was at Moody AFB (in the 70th TFS White Knights) when this photo was taken (78 - 80 timeframe), probably have time in one of those jets. We didn't have LAU-117s, only LAU-88s (as pictured); with all 6 stations loaded you can imagine the drag! We would fly around with a couple of TGMs (which are what are loaded in the photo - note only wings, no tail fins on the missiles) and practice getting as many Mavs off on a pass as possible; with As and Bs it was tough sometimes finding the real target; the TGMs didn't have the dome cover installed so the window rapidly became clouded with dust and dirt - and if you did a low level over the ocean forget it! Never had the opportunity to try a D or later - those needed LAU-117s and went to the Vipers and Hogs. Vulture

Yep, those Guard pukes got all the cool stuff... ;^) Well, one could argue that any nuke is good enough as long as you get it to the right place and it goes off!

All this discussion about radar missile range ignores the fact that usually you will not be able to shoot BVR, unless you have full GCI (which of course was standard Soviet doctrine). If forced into a WVR melee with limited electronic ID capability, the AIM-7E-3 becomes a significant player - giving you a decent front aspect shot prior to the merge if you wingman can give you a "bandit" call in time. Hence the "eyeball/shooter" tactics we used back in the day. During one of my WSEP AIM-7 shots, we missed our first shot (fingers - shot the sim plug instead of the real missile; oops!) so as the drone (Firebee) was running low on range time, we setup for a close commit, turned in with about 10 miles separation, got a quick contact on the drone, locked him up then called the shot after the fastest 4 seconds of my life (you had to wait, by counting, 4 seconds from lock to shoot). The 7 came off the jet at min range, took one hard turn, and center punched the Firebee. That was awesome - nothing but a puff of smoke and a parachute left. F-4 crews practiced close in dogfight radar lock on techniques - this before all the fancy VS and BST auto acq modes. Pilot would attempt to stabilize the bandit in elevation while in a lag turn, the call it out "30 high, 10 left"; the WSO would set the stab-out radar elevation by feel (3 thumbwheel ups, or whatever), come inside, lock up the target, and call "1, 2, 3, 4 SHOOT". So as long as the pilot could hold a lag position in a turn long enough for a lock, the shot was there. Not as easy as an off boresight AIM-9M with an HMD, but the warhead was a lot bigger! We honestly were a lot more worried about late Mig-21s than Mig-23s. Perhaps ignorance was bliss... Vulture

One point that hasn't been mentioned much in the hard wing (Navy and early C and D) vs soft wing (Es, late Navy?) turning capability is the fact that with the hard wing jets you had to be REAL careful when turning hard and slow; a sudden departure was not far away so the natural tendency was to stay fast and turn as little as possible. The slatted E, on the other hand, could be flown a lot closer to the edge before deciding to go it's own way. Which was good, since it was now too slow to get away! No such thing as "carefree handling" back in the good old days. As far as Gs, with external fuel you were pretty limited unless you had the later F-15 external tank, or the original Navy hi-G 600 cl tank. And even then they had to be empty. Practically, it was a 5 to 6 G jet. Except - clean, over the field (literally), enough fuel for one engagement: 8 Gs available and down low that one engagement was fun - if short. Then everybody landed min fuel. Vulture