F-4 Phantom Who Wants it Poll

[dimitrischal]

really F4 tough workload? Compared to the Mig23? I have to disgree, Mig23 cockpit is switches Galore. also the Swing wings are manually operated so thats also a strain, and thus the dogfight potential OF say a Mig23MLD being able to turn circles inside an F16 is not a truly a reality because of that.. Lets just say I played the F4 in a 3 letter Civilian flight sim, and Its not as bad workload instense as you might think. and to be fair the F5E or Mig21 are not look down shoot down at all.

 

USAF F4E and USN F4S/J phantoms are very much capable of lookdown shootdown albeit obviously not as reliably good as modern 4th gen radars.

 

well than In that case For those who fly in squadrons the RIO oR WSO can be substituted by a reliable Human, if not satisfied by AI.

 

On the other hand F14 IS a 4th generation platform despite having early digitization and Analog Based functions. It shouldb't be compared to last gen stuff. If you go by that logic of comparison, than no point buying the F14 ( or anything that isn't the latest n greatest technology) because a EF Typhoon , will trump any prior 4th gen platforms , for EG ( planned by VEO)

 

Not comparing it anywhere with the mig23 am i? I've been in the cockpit of a mig23 and besides being switches galore it was also cramped with poor visibility so?

But its a single seater and can be readily simulated, difficulty is in the eye of the beholder...

 

And for those not in squadrons? I was refering to the average joe who buys this and goes online. What then? Having a jerk hop in the back seat can actually make flying harder even impossible, hence the crm reference.

 

Workload has only part to do with the older radar, it has to do with other things like flying the thing, navigating, employing ag weapons etc, it all adds up. People like to fly the thing multirole not only dogfight in it.

 

I compared it with the f14 because the wso there has to be implemented also but he is a radar jockey, not actively controlling the ac afaik, the f4 is different.

 

And being a generation newer it affords you the luxury of a slower ai interaction system because of the automation, reaction and decision margins in the f4 will be smaller, very important parameter.

 

I didn't say its impossible to make it work just harder, i brought up the bombercat issue because multirole and ground attack in these planes is important(even the f14, only plane so far with 2 crew that can carry lantirn in DCS) and people will probably be doing these things while dodging migs at the same time instead of using them strictly air to air.

[Robert31178]

Visibility in the Phantom isn't really good either from what I have read, so I see that as not really a disadvantage vs the F-4. Actually, the way the Phantom smoked you might be in a disadvantage in the "I see you" department :-)

[asla36]

really F4 tough workload? Compared to the Mig23? I have to disgree, Mig23 cockpit is switches Galore. also the Swing wings are manually operated so thats also a strain, and thus the dogfight potential OF say a Mig23MLD being able to turn circles inside an F16 is not a truly a reality because of that.. Lets just say I played the F4 in a 3 letter Civilian flight sim, and Its not as bad workload instense as you might think. and to be fair the F5E or Mig21 are not look down shoot down at all.

Do you have info on if the swing-wings can only be placed in fixed presets (slow speed flight; medium speed flight; high speed flight), or can be controlled by a sort of axis? Thanks for the reply in advance!

 

I myself have a personal preference for planes with high workload and potential. Weather is is proper wing geometry management in the MiG-23 to theoretically beat an F-16 in a dogfight or working the radar hard in the F-4 to gain the advantage of being pretty much the king of the BVR-hill (if it is an earlier scenario). Or trying to desperately lock a target among all the ground clutter, if you have to work hard in order to get awesome performance (at least for the time) in my opinion it provides longevity. After all training the proper wing geometry management and pilot-REO teamwork is going to take time, but that's what provides longevity. :D

 

So I have my hopes up for both awesome planes! Can't wait to fly them against each other,

that is if they ever get developed...

[WinterH]

As far as I know, later MiG-23 types have 4 presets for sweep angle to choose from, and older ones have 3. Don't exactly recall the angles themselves though.

 

BTW, F-4 vs F-14 vs MiG-23 when it comes to cockpit modeling difficulty all have their difficulties in my opinion.

 

Air force F-4s are dual control, meaning that both seats can fly the aircraft, but this is something already done in L-39 module, so I don't see an inherently huge difficulty from that. Naval F-4s, as far as I know, weren't dual control capable.

 

Yes both crews need to work in Phantom, but this no different in Tomcat really, if anything, I expect the F-14 RIO's work to be quite intensive, and without him, the tomcat is essentially blind.

 

The MiG-23, well it isn't all that different from the MiG-21 cockpit, and switches galore in practice isn't as bad as one thinks of it first. Also, majority of the MiG-23 types were able to show the radar scope on their HUD, so no need to switch the look back and forth between the hud and console.

 

MiG's problem in my opinion, would be less about switches galore, but more about lack of visibility, which seem even worse than the fishbed, and pilot having to manually operate the wing sweep setting. In the end of the day though, a single pilot can effectively operate it, unlike either of the Phantom or Tomcat.

 

Edit: oh BTW, what's up with these fantasies of MiG-23 being a good match with F-14, or it beating an F-16? I very much like the MiG but these scenarios in my opinion are wishful thinking. Only thing it had over the early F-16 was BVR possibility and speed/acceleration, climbing. Against later ones, I suppose speed would be the only advantage it still keeps which wouldn't mean much. The tomcat on the other hand, still beats the MiG in dogfight settings like F-16 would, but was also much better in BVR already from day one. Even with a MLD, what we'd do against these aircraft is the same as what we do with MiG-21: ambush them and hope for the best :).

Edited May 9, 2017 by WinterH

[asla36]

As far as I know, later MiG-23 types have 4 presets for sweep angle to choose from, and older ones have 3. Don't exactly recall the angles themselves though.

 

Edit: oh BTW, what's up with these fantasies of MiG-23 being a good match with F-14, or it beating an F-16? I very much like the MiG but these scenarios in my opinion are wishful thinking. Only thing it had over the early F-16 was BVR possibility and speed/acceleration, climbing. Against later ones, I suppose speed would be the only advantage it still keeps which wouldn't mean much. The tomcat on the other hand, still beats the MiG in dogfight settings like F-16 would, but was also much better in BVR already from day one. Even with a MLD, what we'd do against these aircraft is the same as what we do with MiG-21: ambush them and hope for the best :).

Thanks for the info!

 

But that's basically how we RED pilots play. We sneak, mask, and stealth murder! :3 And with the exception of the MiG-23P and 3-rd world exports all the A-A variants including the MiG-23M/MiG-23MLD had an IRST sensor and could equip IR-MRM/SRM's. Which makes ambushing much easier.

 

Also if you take into account a perfect vertical turn with no extra maneuvers and a constant AoA (totally unrealistic in an actual dogfight) the MiG-23 would slowly win. However if any other energy consuming maneuvers were to be introduced (in any realistic dogfight) the F-16 would be the clear winner. :thumbup:

 

At least if my sources and understandings are correct...

 

I wonder how picking the target up in ground clutter is going to work for the RIO on the F-4? There were many story's about not being able to find a bandit when at low altitude against a lot of ground clutter. How much better has it gotten over the years?

 

Also how was the EW suite? The Vietnam-Era Phantoms had pretty lacking ones, but how much was it improved? Looking forwards for both amazing planes!

 

BTW has anyone seen the low poly render pics of an Su-15 in the "Ln's fourth aircraft after F-14: MiG-23 or Su-22?" thread...

[dimitrischal]

Needless to say no matter how pointless these discussions are I get a tingling sensation in my pants hoping these planes come in DCS. So much more satisfying flying these than the spamraam datalinky more modern ones. And that hellish otherworldly J79 sound...

[Kev2go]

Not comparing it anywhere with the mig23 am i? I've been in the cockpit of a mig23 and besides being switches galore it was also cramped with poor visibility so?

But its a single seater and can be readily simulated, difficulty is in the eye of the beholder...

 

And for those not in squadrons? I was refering to the average joe who buys this and goes online. What then? Having a jerk hop in the back seat can actually make flying harder even impossible, hence the crm reference.

 

Workload has only part to do with the older radar, it has to do with other things like flying the thing, navigating, employing ag weapons etc, it all adds up. People like to fly the thing multirole not only dogfight in it.

 

I compared it with the f14 because the wso there has to be implemented also but he is a radar jockey, not actively controlling the ac afaik, the f4 is different.

 

And being a generation newer it affords you the luxury of a slower ai interaction system because of the automation, reaction and decision margins in the f4 will be smaller, very important parameter.

 

I didn't say its impossible to make it work just harder, i brought up the bombercat issue because multirole and ground attack in these planes is important(even the f14, only plane so far with 2 crew that can carry lantirn in DCS) and people will probably be doing these things while dodging migs at the same time instead of using them strictly air to air.

 

if a players wants to have a2a capabilities and mud move at the same time theyl buy the Hornet. not the F14. especially since the Lantirn is pretty ancient TGP. to the Altflir of the Hornet , or to the Lightening TPG present the A10C. which are 21st century tech. Altflir and lightening are far more reliable for visual IFF. F14 with some secondary bombing capability is a bonus, But its a aircraft thats IRL due its role will be catered more towards the Air superiority types. a true multi role F14 would be the F-14D. super tomcat.

[Kev2go]

Thanks for the info!

 

But that's basically how we RED pilots play. We sneak, mask, and stealth murder! :3 And with the exception of the MiG-23P and 3-rd world exports all the A-A variants including the MiG-23M/MiG-23MLD had an IRST sensor and could equip IR-MRM/SRM's. Which makes ambushing much easier.

 

Also if you take into account a perfect vertical turn with no extra maneuvers and a constant AoA (totally unrealistic in an actual dogfight) the MiG-23 would slowly win. However if any other energy consuming maneuvers were to be introduced (in any realistic dogfight) the F-16 would be the clear winner. :thumbup:

 

At least if my sources and understandings are correct...

 

I wonder how picking the target up in ground clutter is going to work for the RIO on the F-4? There were many story's about not being able to find a bandit when at low altitude against a lot of ground clutter. How much better has it gotten over the years?

 

Also how was the EW suite? The Vietnam-Era Phantoms had pretty lacking ones, but how much was it improved? Looking forwards for both amazing planes!

 

BTW has anyone seen the low poly render pics of an Su-15 in the "Ln's fourth aircraft after F-14: MiG-23 or Su-22?" thread...

 

EW suite of the phantom? Nothing special when compared to 4th gen tech ,but itsstill better than that of the Mig21Bis , thats for sure. even An/APR 35/36 RWR will still offer better SA from radar sources and direction than a Spo10, and should be able to mount up to multiple external ECM pods on hardpoints. the Mig21BIs only has 1 ECM jamming pod it can mount on the fusalge. Im not sure how well it compares to American ones of the time period however. A later F4E Phatom should also have counter measure dispensors, and a Late 70s version would have a fairly modern RWR ( the IP- 1310 / ALR that the F5E and A10 have)

 

 

Anyways this makes for a interesting read. covers US RWR development history from around the Vietnam war - present.

 

https://www.myaoc.org/eweb/images/aoc_images/goldcrows/.../RadarWarnStory.doc

Edited May 9, 2017 by Kev2go

[Dehuman]

As far as I know, later MiG-23 types have 4 presets for sweep angle to choose from, and older ones have 3. Don't exactly recall the angles themselves though.

 

 

From Wiki,

16, 45 and 72 degrees

on the MiG-23SM these were increased to 18.5, 47.5 and 74.5 degrees. Doesn't seem this made it into any of the production variants however.

 

Phantom, MiG-23MLD and M-2000C would be a fun playground

[asla36]

EW suite of the phantom? Nothing special when compared to 4th gen tech ,but itsstill better than that of the Mig21Bis , thats for sure. even An/APR 35/36 RWR will still offer better SA from radar sources and direction than a Spo10, and should be able to mount up to multiple external ECM pods on hardpoints. the Mig21BIs only has 1 ECM jamming pod it can mount on the fusalge. Im not sure how well it compares to American ones of the time period however. A later F4E Phatom should also have counter measure dispensors, and a Late 70s version would have a fairly modern RWR ( the IP- 1310 / ALR that the F5E and A10 have)

 

 

Anyways this makes for a interesting read. covers US RWR development history from around the Vietnam war - present.

 

https://www.myaoc.org/eweb/images/aoc_images/goldcrows/.../RadarWarnStory.doc

Thanks!

[asla36]

Thought the link doesn't seem to work...

[dimitrischal]

if a players wants to have a2a capabilities and mud move at the same time theyl buy the Hornet. not the F14. especially since the Lantirn is pretty ancient TGP. to the Altflir of the Hornet , or to the Lightening TPG present the A10C. which are 21st century tech. Altflir and lightening are far more reliable for visual IFF. F14 with some secondary bombing capability is a bonus, But its a aircraft thats IRL due its role will be catered more towards the Air superiority types. a true multi role F14 would be the F-14D. super tomcat.

 

I was talking about flying a2g in a 2 seater which offers much more potential than a single seater.

The f-14 was utilized towards the end of its life as a bombtruck with designation capabilities for other ac, something pretty interesting, the f-4 was a wild weasel plane for ages. No i don't want to use harms or 21st century tgps, i prefer shrikes and lantirn.

 

Besides the thermal imaging models are seriously broken in dcs and will remain so for some time rendering this modern equipment ironically useless anyway so...

[asla36]

I was talking about flying a2g in a 2 seater which offers much more potential than a single seater.

The f-14 was utilized towards the end of its life as a bombtruck with designation capabilities for other ac, something pretty interesting, the f-4 was a wild weasel plane for ages. No i don't want to use harms or 21st century tgps, i prefer shrikes and lantirn.

 

Besides the thermal imaging models are seriously broken in dcs and will remain so for some time rendering this modern equipment ironically useless anyway so...

If you want an upcoming 2-seat attack aircraft, the A-29 is for you! Though of course it's a bit slower than the Tommy... ;)

 

But a 2-seat attacker would indeed be a nice experience. I have certainly felt the need for a 2. seat in the AJS-37 while doing RB-04 attacks. Staying lower than 10m and targeting at the same time can be a bit tricky. In the end I really should do more prepping, cuz winging it then is a bit difficult! :D

 

Which is the reason the AJ(S)-37 was originally designed as a 2-seat aircraft. But then they decided against it because the new computers brought the workload just under the limit of which 1 person can do.

[Kev2go]

I was talking about flying a2g in a 2 seater which offers much more potential than a single seater.

The f-14 was utilized towards the end of its life as a bombtruck with designation capabilities for other ac, something pretty interesting, the f-4 was a wild weasel plane for ages. No i don't want to use harms or 21st century tgps, i prefer shrikes and lantirn.

 

Besides the thermal imaging models are seriously broken in dcs and will remain so for some time rendering this modern equipment ironically useless anyway so...

 

Irregardless if FLIR imaging is "broken" or rather not working exactly how it does IRL, because even then the Ligetning and ATFLIR CCD's they still have higher zoom and higher image resolution than that of Lantirn and Nitehawk pods.

 

The Dedicated wild weasel version was the F4G, the F4E ( depending on block) IS a fighter with good Secondary multirole Strike capability, and not a dedicated SEAD platform. It can emply Shrikes and the Longer Range AGM78 ARm, however at the time Air defense It would have faced would have been just Sa2's ( not in DCS yet) and SA'3s but against Modern systems like the S300, AGM88 HArm is a must have.

 

And yes the F14 was used to designate targets for Hornets, however this was at a time period before Hornets had Alt flir, the Nitehawk pod was worse than the lantirn, and thus due to risk for freindly fire thats the only reason F14s were used as target designators.

 

F14s could still designate for Hornets, but the Hornet being developed in question is esseitnally a 2005 - present day era aircraft given it will have ATFLiR, aim9x and HCMS, around the tippy end of Tomcats service life, a time where F14's were being retired.

 

With modern electronics a 2nd person is not necessary to employ A2G. If flying A10C here and F/A18E in 3 lettered civilian sim proven the idea its all very much manageable by 1 person.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Kev2go

[dimitrischal]

Irregardless if FLIR imaging is "broken" or rather not working exactly how it does IRL, because even then the Ligetning and ATFLIR CCD's they still have higher zoom and higher image resolution than that of Lantirn and Nitehawk pods.

 

The Dedicated wild weasel version was the F4G, the F4E ( depending on block) IS a fighter with good Secondary multirole Strike capability, and not a dedicated SEAD platform. It can emply Shrikes and the Longer Range AGM78 ARm, however at the time Air defense It would have faced would have been just Sa2's ( not in DCS yet) and SA'3s but against Modern systems like the S300, AGM88 HArm is a must have.

 

And yes the F14 was used to designate targets for Hornets, however this was at a time period before Hornets had Alt flir, the Nitehawk pod was worse than the lantirn, and thus due to risk for freindly fire thats the only reason F14s were used as target designators.

 

F14s could still designate for Hornets, but the Hornet being developed in question is esseitnally a 2005 - present day era aircraft given it will have ATFLiR, aim9x and HCMS, around the tippy end of Tomcats service life, a time where F14's were being retired.

 

With modern electronics a 2nd person is not necessary to employ A2G. If flying A10C here and F/A18E in 3 lettered civilian sim proven the idea its all very much manageable by 1 person.

 

I never questioned if a single person can fly a2g effectively, especially on modern electronics.

 

I said I want to fly 2 seater a2a and a2g in the same platform namely the f14 or older planes.

So do a lot of others. Hence all the activity on all the old plane wish threads.

Also the broken thermal imaging, that's what it is seriously broken, is a major issue affecting acquisition times and will show up in the upcoming harrier and f18 that are fast with smaller loiter times. Higher zoom doesn't help when a warm tank has the same contrast and heat level as the trees around it...

Now that you mentioned it there is a very large percentage of users disagreeing with ED's decisions to bring post 2000s modules and weaponry only to the blue side myself included, stating serious playability issues in mp.

Not saying anything about nerfing anything, just having a match in opfor would be great. But I don't see it coming soon.

[Kev2go]

I never questioned if a single person can fly a2g effectively, especially on modern electronics.

 

I said I want to fly 2 seater a2a and a2g in the same platform namely the f14 or older planes.

So do a lot of others. Hence all the activity on all the old plane wish threads.

Also the broken thermal imaging, that's what it is seriously broken, is a major issue affecting acquisition times and will show up in the upcoming harrier and f18 that are fast with smaller loiter times. Higher zoom doesn't help when a warm tank has the same contrast and heat level as the trees around it...

Now that you mentioned it there is a very large percentage of users disagreeing with ED's decisions to bring post 2000s modules and weaponry only to the blue side myself included, stating serious playability issues in mp.

Not saying anything about nerfing anything, just having a match in opfor would be great. But I don't see it coming soon.

 

Its a simulator, its up to mission designer how He/She "balances" or adjust Multiplayer scenarios. This isnt World of war planes or War thunder., that 2 sides have to have identical counterparts and have to be "balanced".

 

 

IF there's anything that DCS was lacking it was a 4th generation multi role fighter from the 21st century for team Blue. Don't forget DCS's roots. Modern Air Combat Simulation. The F/A18 is a great module choice from ED. kills two birds with 1 stone. filling Modern Multi role strike fighter and carrier ops. I dont see this larger percentage? Why you happen to have a survey study conducted of all Users? from my point of view its just a vocal group of Redforce fans that complain, as its obvious there are more interest in western aircraft, and in part developers go them because more proliferation of public sourced information. IM sure 3rd parties and ED realize the other side of the argument, and would want to create more modern reforce stuff if it was possible, but that should stop them from making western aircraft. ED still has to make a profit. Remember that ED also has TBS ( commercial version of DCS) And im sure commercial or military customers are looking at more modern aspects of simulation. Thus ED interest to not entirely abandon 21st century iterations of 4th generation aircraft. In essnese stuff they create for DCS is reused over there. Or sometimes vice versa. A-10C and KA50 modules here in DCS are consumer versions of former Military Contracts for trainers.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Kev2go

[asla36]

Sadly yes, getting info on modern Russian birds without a military contract is almost impossible. And I don't see it getting better. So unless ED gets another military contract we are not going to see one.

 

Though Cold-War era Russian birds are a different story. They are a bit easier to get information on since they are out of service with the Russian air forces. So a MiG-23 or Su-15/22 module shouldn't be that difficult to make.

 

Though I don't think RED modules should be given priority, it certainly would be nice to see some more in the game. But that's up to ED and the 3-rd parties, we can only hope for our favorite birds to make their way into DCS.

 

Things are getting better for both teams as the modules come out. RED is getting the MiG-19p and BLUE is getting the F/A-18, AV-8N/A, and F-14 in the near future. So it is going to be an amazing time for simulations! And the RAZBAM MiG-23 "conflicting with already existing plans" sounds a bit like we are going to get one by someone else...

 

But as the F/A-18 would create a situation where RED wouldn't have an upfront counter, the MiG-19p would create a simular situation as well. So Super Sabre?

 

Anyways this is the F-4 thread, not a wishlist. So I better get back on track. So how are the close quarters modes for the F-4?

[dimitrischal]

Its a simulator, its up to mission designer how He/She "balances" or adjust Multiplayer scenarios. This isnt World of war planes or War thunder., that 2 sides have to have identical counterparts and have to be "balanced".

 

 

IF there's anything that DCS was lacking it was a 4th generation multi role fighter from the 21st century for team Blue. Don't forget DCS's roots. Modern Air Combat Simulation. The F/A18 is a great module choice from ED. kills two birds with 1 stone. filling Modern Multi role strike fighter and carrier ops. I dont see this larger percentage? Why you happen to have a survey study conducted of all Users? from my point of view its just a vocal group of Redforce fans that complain, as its obvious there are more interest in western aircraft, and in part developers go them because more proliferation of public sourced information. IM sure 3rd parties and ED realize the other side of the argument, and would want to create more modern reforce stuff if it was possible, but that should stop them from making western aircraft. ED still has to make a profit. Remember that ED also has TBS ( commercial version of DCS) And im sure commercial or military customers are looking at more modern aspects of simulation. Thus ED interest to not entirely abandon 21st century iterations of 4th generation aircraft. In essnese stuff they create for DCS is reused over there. Or sometimes vice versa. A-10C and KA50 modules here in DCS are consumer versions of former Military Contracts for trainers.

 

Right it's a simulator so if I want to balance it in multiplayer I should give both sides all planes or remove armaments from one or both sides instead of simply having planes of the same era in each side adding in realism and immersion. But it's ok it's fixable. Suuuuure...

The statement that D.C.'s is a simulator and needs no balancing is absolutely correct. The belief some people have that we don't need planes and equipment of the same era for a better gameplay experience is utterly retarded.

Western planes are in high demand because Dcs userbase is primary Europe and USA. No secret here.

[Kev2go]

Right it's a simulator so if I want to balance it in multiplayer I should give both sides all planes or remove armaments from one or both sides instead of simply having planes of the same era in each side adding in realism and immersion. But it's ok it's fixable. Suuuuure...

The statement that D.C.'s is a simulator and needs no balancing is absolutely correct. The belief some people have that we don't need planes and equipment of the same era for a better gameplay experience is utterly retarded.

Western planes are in high demand because Dcs userbase is primary Europe and USA. No secret here.

 

 

you have FC3 Su27 and Mig29 A/G?/S for the time being. However This is not just an issue of Western fighter being more popular. Its an issue of acquiring information an/ or being roadblocked by legal red tape. because Russians are much more secretive about there tech and or less willing to cooperate. ED is HQed in Russia, so they would be subject to repercussions unlike a company that would be headquartered in the West.. In fact way back when they did want to trto attempt to make the Su27SM and Mig29SMT modules, to give Redforce a 21st century modernized 4th gen Ac with glass pits and such, but they cancelled it for fear of comming intp conflict with the GOv't. due to ( at the time) new strict security act/ laws being implemented by Putin Administration. This however is not longer news.

 

 

Therefore I would not Not get your hopes up for any full fidelity 4th generation Russian Fighter more modern than Vanilla su27(S) or Mig29A/G in the foreseeable future. If i recal there is a Dev starting making a Pakistani-Chinese made inexpensive 4th generation Export multirole fighter ; the JF-17. Thunder. Take those options or leave it.

 

Sorry but Redforce fans will just have to deal with it. It is what it is, whether you like it or not.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Kev2go

[dimitrischal]

I know, thats what makes ac like the f4,mig19 etc important, they are old(easy to find information) iconic(selling potential) and finally easier to recreate(simpler avionics) than modern ones. They also create the potential to populate and implement a theater in a way previously not possible in DCS.

 

Although i think ED could bypass most of the restrictions by outsourcing the creation of modern redfor jets to developers outside Russia and choosing versions exported to other nations. But who knows...

[asla36]

However I don't see the laws being an issue for a MiG-23/Su-15 module. These old birds are mostly out of service and as far as I know do not contain any super secretive tech.

 

I think a MiG-23/Su-15 module would be fitting in with the F-4 (late variant) in a way that the MiG-19p would not. In an ideal world you would have lets say a Super-Sabre for the MiG-19p and the F-4 (late) MiG-23 pair.

 

But on the other hand if we would get an earlier model F-4 then the MiG-19p would be historically accurate opposition. With lacking BVR armament, but better in a dogfight. :)

 

But first we would of course have to get those birds (we are already getting the MiG-19p! :D)... So plez!

[Ice_Cougar]

We get it. Our great grandchildren might live long enough into their 90's-100's to see a Mig-23MLD come into DCS, only to have it fight F-22s, F-35s, and F15SEs :noexpression:

 

Can we get back onto the topic of muh' Phantom? :pilotfly:

Edited May 12, 2017 by Ice_Cougar

[asla36]

We get it. Our great grandchildren might live long enough into their 90's-100's to see a Mig-23MLD come into DCS, only to have it fight F-22s, F-35s, and F15SEs :noexpression:

 

Can we get back onto the topic of muh' Phantom? :pilotfly:

Yup, I think it is about time to get back on topic. So how are the close-quarters modes?

 

Talking about close-quarters. I think the MiG-21bis would be able to out-turn it. But it would be better in the vertical and speed department. That's how it went in Vietnam, at least as far as I know.

 

This would be amplified for the MiG-19p with it turning even better and being worse in the vertical.

[WinterH]

Actually I think a late F-4E with slats should be able to outturn the MiG-21, at least in sustained turns, may be not instantaneous turns though, not sure of that last one...

 

I don't remember the rate in degrees but, the Phantom, especially the late ones, could turn better than what we give them credit for.

 

 

 

Sent from my ASUS_Z00ED using Tapatalk

[Ice_Cougar]

The J and S phantoms (probably the S) would AFAIK be the best dogfighters. Best tech for any naval and marine variants, retained the boundary layer air over slats and flaps, and didn't have the gun, which DID make it lighter. Also they were used for ACM/BFM training a lot.

 

As for out-turning a MiG-21 we have to remember the earlier MiG 21 MFs, PFs, and F13s were much lighter than the BIS and probably more maneuverable. But as for a MiG-21BIS I'd say theres actually a chance of a phantom being able to definitely keep up with one in a turn fight, and depending on fuel levels, may just be able to out-turn it in certain situations.

 

I'd still definitely prefer either an F4S or an F4E (block-53 or higher) An F4G V would be amazing but probably still classified in some avionics (so would some EW on F4S possibly)

 

We shouldn't really consider any upgraded export variants sadly like the F4 2020 Terminator of the Turkish Air Force, F4E AUP/ICE/KWS of Germany or Greece, Israel's F4 Kurnass project, or Japan's F4EJ or EJ-Kai (my fav), as their avionics are most likely largely classified (unless Germany or Japan is willing to give some data on the upgrades of their retired Phantoms :D) However we tend to never get foreign upgrades of aircraft in DCS so thats the biggest reason against an upgraded Phantom.

 

Thus the best we can hope for is an F4S or an F4E (again, block-53 or higher).

Edited May 12, 2017 by Ice_Cougar