Heatloss
-
Posts
37 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Heatloss
-
This really is the best timeline.
-
Great to see you in this thread! Very happy to see you guys doing the work on this module (The day F-4S or F-4J with AWG-10B and VTAS II is announced is the day I die of happiness). Is the 4E drawing on any of the work completed by belsimtek, or is that too old/not up to standard in some way?
-
It's made my month!
-
Man, all the doubting in this thread...
-
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.
-
It was external on F-101, 102, 106 and a variety of other aircraft designed for it. The F-4D received an update to the pylons that allowed for, I believe, 20 minutes of cooling.- 20 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- aim-9 sidewinder
- aim-9
- (and 1 more)
-
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?
-
F-4E,J,S,N,M,K. I am unsure if F-4D ever received a vertical scan mode, but it is possible.
-
Ah, yes. That's right, and it was retrofitted to Bs with the N standard. 9G/H and L/M/X have SEAM. I don't think the USAF 'winders had it until maybe 9P-3 at the earliest. I can't find any mention of it in USAF manuals regarding the F-4D/E anywhere.
-
Introduced on the G in the late 60s. I didn't realize that the J introduced it on USAF missiles, I thought it took until later with 9Ps.
-
the 9H was the navy missile, for the F-4Js after 1972. Time equivalent of 9J/N, so before the L.
-
F-4Js with mildly scuffed engines and incredibly scuffed aerodynamics. Nothing against the brits, I know why they did it, but man, that drag was worse than the high camber slats on the F-4S.
-
That's my bad. I kinda forgot the F-4F exists...
-
Here's something unexpected to most people in this thread. That gunsight can mean any of four variants, not including the British Phantoms. F-4D, F-4E, and as far as I can tell, AWG-10A equipped F-4J, or F-4S.
-
Aside from the practical issues of the RIO not being able to see past the giant panel in front of him, there was no VTAS helmet plug-in in the backseat, and I can reasonably assume that means no IR receivers as well. It was normally the job of the RIO to keep eyes on the target at all times during a dogfight, and tell the pilot where the target was. The pilot would split his focus between energy management and getting into a firing envelope. At least, that's my understanding.
-
To the best of my knowledge, no. It still allowed a virtual improvement in turn performance, and the ability to launch even if the aircraft is slightly off target, which happens very often in air to air combat. If you're the only one in the sky with this in the 1970s, this is a big deal.
-
The AIM-7E-2, which nobody will say is a long range missile, lacks any form of loft, and according to every third party source, has less than half the range of the 7F and M, has about a 15 mile range at 15k feet, with both targets going subsonic. I've overhauled aim-7ms in that same head-on envelope at 15k against target drones in hoggit training. I know they were head on because I was the RIO in the tomcat and I was monitoring the doppler aspect gates. This is your "high alt and fast" envelope. For the AIM-7E-2. Not the AIM-7M.
-
All the missiles in DCS (save for the phoenix I guess) right now are underranged. Anywhere from 2/3rds range to 1/4rd of their real range, normally around the half marker. The problem with the 7M only having a head-on range of about 10 miles instead of closer to 40-45 is that it means it is hardly useful in combat scenarios that occur in DCS. That's all. Yes. If we got phantoms after 1972, we would have the best rear aspect sidewinder, the AIM-9H. Sure, that's only 22 degrees off bore, but that's pretty damned good. The more important use of VTAS is for off bore radar locks. The later sparrows, 7F and M, the first of which we could see by 1976 F-4J mods, would be extremely effective with this system, enabling the AIM-7 to be launched in more complex situations.
-
I'd argue that in DCS phoenixes are quite accurate, if somewhat underperforming in terminal guidance maneuvering. Just other missiles are even more underperforming. But, this is a game, so sacrifices must be made for playability and balance. My baby AIM-7M, though, is a sad story. It was pretty much ready to be put into production. Yes, it never saw service. But it was ready for LRIP, as far as I know. I'd count that as going somewhere.
-
Well, I'm not sure if I agree with that one. The tomcat was incredibly expensive to maintain, and only about 150 tomcats were ever not-tomcat-As. That left about 410 14As still in service by the mid 90s. The cost of upgrading them was immense, and as compared to the 18, all it really had going for it was that it could sling phoenixes, which were not great as fighter to fighter weapons historically. I guess I would put myself in the camp of "jobs program" was a bunch of corrupt bullshit, but the reality was the tomcat was aging, the super hornet was very promising (and has proved itself since then), and fact that the cold war was seen to be over made the $50 million per aircraft cost hard to stomach. In short, the given reason was a bunch of hooey, but there was some logic to the decision as a whole.
-
Given the volume of VTAS II vs Shchel, I'd wager that they're roughly the same weight. VTAS I I suspect weighed slightly more, and I am sure it was more of a hassle inside the cockpit, as it had the IR emitters bolted to the sides rather than better integrated in a sleeker over-helmet enclosure. As for R-73, we almost had that with AIM-95 AGILE and the Eagle CLAW program. But that got axed. Thanks, congress. Also, fuck you reformers for warping the AIMVAL results.
-
For kicks, someone asked me about Shchel-3UM, which until about half an hour ago, I knew almost nothing about. It's basically VTAS I, but 1985 and Russian. Sorry for straying off topic, but I thought it might be an interesting comparison.
-
that refers to the 9G and H. I suspect it was expanded to 40 degrees for the 9L and M. 22 degrees was the seeker limitation, not the technology limitation. As for if they could carry the 9L or M, a quick google search returns this... https://imgur.com/b7YM4GH https://imgur.com/otOAbh2 I also suspect that they carried AIM-7Ms occasionally, or were at least fitted/adapted for them, given the time of the navy's F-4S retirement in 1987, as it was being replaced by the F-18.
-
I would be shocked if VTAS didn't get modeled. It's one of the defining features the F-4J and F-4S. I don't think anyone is arguing for only the J or S. The E is the most unique of the phantoms in almost every regard, sure, but to make a blanket statement of "Very disappointing for a lot of people" is just projection. "AWG-9 from walmart" is also ridiculous. I'm not going to take that bait.
-
"worse tomcat" Well sure, if we ignore being able to launch sparrows against ground or sea based targets, having the option of a helmet mounted sight, Zunis, rockeyes, and more... By that logic, why do we have the tomcat, if the F-18 does everything better? Keep in mind, AWG-10 is a proper pulse-doppler system. APQ-120 is not. APQ-120 had most of the pieces in place for a coordinated on receive doppler system, but it never worked quite right. If they replaced the magnetron with a klystron and updated the software, maybe you could do something. But as far as I know, they did not(I am still waiting on the result of an MDR request regarding several manuals involving the a2a usage of apq-120).
