Heatblur F-4 Phantom

[ebabil]

Dear HB, I know you can not reveal a module too early if you are making it. But if you are not developing it, you can say that you aren't making it. Soo if you are not into it, please don't let us hyped for nothing.

[OnionSpider13]

Isn't this basically asking them to confirm it?  If they don't respond at all, will you assume they ARE making it?

[Northstar98]

On 9/14/2021 at 3:53 PM, Airhunter said:

I sure hope it's a naval variant that will operate from the Forrestal class CV's.

 

Phantoms were gone from the Forrestals by the time our one is supposed to represent (early 80s, at the earliest), before our Forrestal fit, they operated the F-4J.

 

The only naval Phantoms in service at the same time (but not on) the Forrestals was the F-4S AFAIK.

 

 

As for the rest, I've said it before and I'll say it again, to really do the Phantom justice we would need both a naval and land based variant.

• For land based, I think an early to mid 80s ('83 - '86) USAF F-4E is where it's at, due to the expanded AG capability, earlier Phantoms (circa '77) could be pretty well approximated by weapons restricting and having historical weapons available.

Spoiler

According to the C:MO database:

 

Sensors (excl. TGPs), 1977 - 1990:

• AN/ALQ-101 RADAR
• AN/APR-37 RWR
• AN/ASX-1 TISEO 1st TV camera (think TCS, but lower resolution(?))

 

For countermeasure dispensers, they all have the AN/ALE-40(V)1 with 4 dispensers (each with either 30 chaff (RR-170) or 15 flares (MJU-7/B)

 

Stores and Weapons (c. 1977):

• M61A1 Vulcan w/ 640 rounds
• AIM-7F Sparrow III
• AIM-9J Sidewinder
• AGM-65A Maverick
• AGM-65B Maverick
• BLU-27/B 750lb Incendiary Bomb
• CBU-52/B Cluster Bomb (217 x BLU-61/B frag bomblets)
• CBU-71A/B Cluster Bomb (650 x BLU-68/B frag bomblets)
• GBU-10A/B (Mk84) Paveway I LGB
• GBU-12A/B (Mk82) Paveway I LGB
• GBU-8 HOBOS (Mk84)
• Mk20 Rockeye II Cluster Bomb (247 x Mk118 DP bomblets)
• Mk82 500lb LDGP
• Mk82 500lb Snake Eye
• Mk84 2000lb LDGP
• AN/AVQ-23 Pave Spike (EO + LTD/R, 12k feet)
• AN/ALQ-119 DECM pod (noise jamming/range denial, unsure of track breaking techniques)
• 370 US Gallon drop tanks
• 600 US Gallon drop tanks

Stores and Weapons (c. 1981):

• M61A1 Vulcan w/ 640 rounds
• AIM-7M Sparrow III
• AIM-9L Sidewinder
• AGM-65A Maverick
• AGM-65B Maverick
• BLU-27/B 750lb Incendiary Bomb
• CBU-52/B Cluster Bomb (217 x BLU-61/B frag bomblets)
• CBU-71A/B Cluster Bomb (650 x BLU-68/B frag bomblets)
• GBU-10E/B Paveway II LGB (Mk84)
• GBU-12D/B Paveway II LGB (Mk82)
• GBU-8 HOBOS (Mk84)
• Mk20 Rockeye II Cluster Bomb (247 x Mk118 DP bomblets)
• Mk82 500lb LDGP
• Mk82 500lb Snake Eye
• Mk84 2000lb LDGP
• AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack TGP (FLIR + LTD/R, 12k feet)
• AN/ALQ-119 DECM pod
• 370 US Gallon drop tanks
• 600 US Gallon drop tanks

Stores and Weapons (c. 1983):

• M61A1 Vulcan w/ 640 rounds
• AIM-7M Sparrow III
• AIM-9L Sidewinder
• AGM-65A Maverick
• AGM-65B Maverick
• BLU-27/B 750lb Incendiary Bomb
• CBU-52/B Cluster Bomb (217 x BLU-61/B frag bomblets)
• CBU-71A/B Cluster Bomb (650 x BLU-68/B frag bomblets)
• GBU-10E/B Paveway II LGB (Mk84)
• GBU-12D/B Paveway II LGB (Mk82)
• GBU-15(V)1/B CWW EO (Mk84)*
• Mk20 Rockeye II Cluster Bomb (247 x Mk118 DP bomblets)
• Mk82 500lb LDGP
• Mk82 500lb Snake Eye
• Mk84 2000lb LDGP
• AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack TGP (FLIR + LTD/R, 12k feet)
• AN/ALQ-119 DECM pod
• AN/AXQ-14 Datalink pod (for GBU-15)*
• 370 US Gallon drop tanks
• 600 US Gallon drop tanks

Stores and Weapons (c. 1986):

• M61A1 Vulcan w/ 640 rounds
• AIM-7M Sparrow III
• AIM-9L Sidewinder
• AGM-65A Maverick
• AGM-65B Maverick
• BLU-27/B 750lb Incendiary Bomb
• CBU-52/B Cluster Bomb (217 x BLU-61/B frag bomblets)
• CBU-71A/B Cluster Bomb (650 x BLU-68/B frag bomblets)
• GBU-10E/B Paveway II LGB (Mk84)
• GBU-10J/B Paveway II LGB (BLU-109/B)
• GBU-12D/B Paveway II LGB (Mk82)
• GBU-15(V)1/B CWW EO (Mk84)*
• GBU-15(V)2/B CWW IR (Mk84)*
• GBU-15(V)31/B CWW EO (BLU-109/B)*
• GBU-15(V)32/B CWW IR (BLU-109/B)*
• Mk20 Rockeye II Cluster Bomb (247 x Mk118 DP bomblets)
• Mk82 500lb LDGP
• Mk82 500lb Snake Eye
• Mk84 2000lb LDGP
• AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack TGP (FLIR + LTD/R, 12k feet)
• AN/ALQ-119 DECM pod
• AN/AXQ-14 Datalink pod (for GBU-15)*
• 370 US Gallon drop tanks
• 600 US Gallon drop tanks

Stores and Weapons (c. 1988 - 1990):

• M61A1 Vulcan w/ 640 rounds
• AIM-7M Sparrow III
• AIM-9L Sidewinder
• AGM-65A Maverick
• AGM-65B Maverick
• BLU-27/B 750lb Incendiary Bomb
• CBU-52/B Cluster Bomb (217 x BLU-61/B frag bomblets)
• CBU-71A/B Cluster Bomb (650 x BLU-68/B frag bomblets)
• CBU-87/B CEM Cluster Bomb (202 x BLU-97/B CEM bomblets)
• CBU-89/B GATOR Cluster Bomb (72 x BLU-91/B AT mines, 22 x BLU-92/B APERS mines)
• GBU-10E/B Paveway II LGB (Mk84)
• GBU-10J/B Paveway II LGB (BLU-109/B)
• GBU-12D/B Paveway II LGB (Mk82)
• GBU-15(V)1/B CWW EO (Mk84)*
• GBU-15(V)2/B CWW IR (Mk84)*
• GBU-15(V)31/B CWW EO (BLU-109/B)*
• GBU-15(V)32/B CWW IR (BLU-109/B)*
• Mk20 Rockeye II Cluster Bomb (247 x Mk118 DP bomblets)
• Mk82 500lb LDGP
• Mk82 500lb Snake Eye
• Mk84 2000lb LDGP
• AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack TGP (FLIR + LTD/R, 12k feet)
• AN/ALQ-119 DECM pod
• AN/AXQ-14 Datalink pod (for GBU-15)*
• 370 US Gallon drop tanks
• 600 US Gallon drop tanks

Stores marked with an * are exclusive to aircraft belonging to the 3rd TFW (AFAIK), everything else is common.

 

Curiously, the 2.75" FFAR or Hydra 70 didn't appear, nor did the M117.

• For naval, preferably an F-4S or an F-4J, I imagine Heatblur will go for this one owing to the rest of their USN lineup, though the Forrestal fit we have succeeds the F-4J (with the F-14A replacing them) and the F-4S wasn't based on any of Forrestals (but does fit the timeframe).

Edited September 22, 2021 by Northstar98

[AdrianL]

The HB roadmap lists 3 incoming modules: The A-6 and 2 next gen jets.

We know that 1 of the next gen jets is the Euro Fighter.  And we also now that the F-4 is not a next gen fighter.

So chances are HB is not doing the F-4. 

With 3 new modules + having to finish the F-14 and Viggen, it is highly unlikely they have capacity for another module.

Edited September 23, 2021 by AdrianL

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, AdrianL said:

We know that 1 of the next gen jets is the Euro Fighter.  And we also now that the F-4 is not a next gen fighter.

They mean next-gen Heatblur module, it doesn't mean a modern fighter. They've confirmed this a few times as far as I can recall.

[OnionSpider13]

6 hours ago, AdrianL said:

The HB roadmap lists 3 incoming modules: The A-6 and 2 next gen jets.

We know that 1 of the next gen jets is the Euro Fighter.  And we also now that the F-4 is not a next gen fighter.

So chances are HB is not doing the F-4. 

With 3 new modules + having to finish the F-14 and Viggen, it is highly unlikely they have capacity for another module.

 

Yeah I don't know why the roadmap shows only 3 upcoming modules.  But HB stated multiple times that there are 4 upcoming modules, 2 of which are unannounced and will come before the A-6.  IronMike stated this in the Eurofighter merger thread.

[Heatloss]

On 9/14/2021 at 11:50 PM, LanceCriminal86 said:

There would be no Phantom without the naval Phantom. To have an E but no Navy Phantom I could reverse the sentiment that it would be just as wrong to have.

 

There's a ton of E variants and spinoffs for export, it's impossible to do an E that's one-size-fits-all. They'd have to pick one and then some specific country fans would be bummered, though I'd figure most would just slap their roundel on there and enjoy it anyways.

 

I'm unsure I could care less about the "capabilities" or "roles" a Phantom brings to DCS. The Tomcat isn't a groundbreaker in multirole do-everything that seems to get most DCS folks all jazzed up. It's good at being a Tomcat, which is why I like it. I don't want it to be a Hornet, nor am I super sad it isn't the super late D model that's more "capable".

 

I want a Phantom that goes on boats, has no gun, handles like ass compared to a Tomcat, and leaves borderline Soviet amounts of smoke behind it. Ideally an S as it slots in with the Tomcat, A-7E, and Tomcats Intruders. It would also fit in if anyone ever does the Midway class. You could close one eye and pretend it's a J if you restrict yourself of some loadouts maybe, and squint a bit more you could pretend it were an N or even a B for the folks that really need their VN Phantom vs Fishbed matchup.

 

But what it also needs are more contemporary adversaries, and even if not flyable then the more reason to get that AI flight model overhaul we were promised however many years ago so we can dogfight and also have our AI be more useful wingmen, which a Phantom in the 80s would need to counter the many more nimble COMBLOC opponents it would be stacked up against.

 

Not saying the E shouldn't be in here, I just think a Naval jet completes the flow of what they've been building out. As pointed out perhaps TrueGrit could someday bring a German F-4F that would fit in that slot?

 

The E has comparable handling in most circumstances to the F-15A/C. The S is the same in a dogfight, except it has a HMD. Look up VTAS, introduced in 1969 on the F-4J. Between that and the AIM-9D/G/H, they never needed a gun. In a two circle or rate fight, the 4E and 4S should more than hold their own against a F-14A. The effect of glove vanes on turn was vastly overestimated, and in a sustained fight, the Phantoms reach their maximum rate at a far higher speed than the Tomcat-A. As for roll, they are roughly similar.

 

To say that the Phantom handles like ass is buying into Robin Olds' trap and misses the incredible piece of engineering that was the later F-4s.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Heatloss
Verb tense error

[LanceCriminal86]

1 hour ago, Heatloss said:

The E has comparable handling in most circumstances to the F-15A/C. The S is the same in a dogfight, except it has a HMD. Look up VTAS, introduced in 1969 on the F-4J. Between that and the AIM-9D/G/H, they never needed a gun. In a two circle or rate fight, the 4E and 4S should more than hold their own against a F-14A. The effect of glove vanes on turn was vastly overestimated, and in a sustained fight, the Phantoms reach their maximum rate at a far higher speed than the Tomcat-A. As for roll, they are roughly similar.

 

To say that the Phantom handles like ass is buying into Robin Olds' trap and misses the incredible piece of engineering that was the later F-4s.

 

 

But I'm talking about Phantom pilots that transitioned to the Tomcat, who are making the night and day performance statements. Including F-4 Reserve pilots who came back from a joint exercise with the AF wearing a bunch of F-15 kill markers on their old F-4N models. Yes, it's an illustration that a poorly flown Eagle could get its lunch eaten by a Phantom, but a properly flown one should have no problems beating even a very experienced Phantom every time. In this instance the Reserve squadrons happened to be stocked with experienced Navy fleet pilots, many RAG instructors and TOPGUN grads. When they transitioned to the F-14 in 1987 the feedback I have gotten is that the Tomcat changed everything, BVR and BFM.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-us-navy-f-4s-scored-plenty-of-kills-against-then-brand-new-usaf-f-15s-in-mock-air-combat/

 

I still want an F-4, J or S. But I'm fully aware that it wasn't the tightest turning jet, even with the various slat changes.

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, Heatloss said:

The E has comparable handling in most circumstances to the F-15A/C. The S is the same in a dogfight, except it has a HMD. Look up VTAS, introduced in 1969 on the F-4J. Between that and the AIM-9D/G/H, they never needed a gun. In a two circle or rate fight, the 4E and 4S should more than hold their own against a F-14A. The effect of glove vanes on turn was vastly overestimated, and in a sustained fight, the Phantoms reach their maximum rate at a far higher speed than the Tomcat-A. As for roll, they are roughly similar.

 

To say that the Phantom handles like ass is buying into Robin Olds' trap and misses the incredible piece of engineering that was the later F-4s.

 

 

So everything I've read about this is that it wasn't actually used IRL. IT was trialed, it had its share of problems, and no one really used it is what I have gathered. 

[Heatloss]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

So everything I've read about this is that it wasn't actually used IRL. IT was trialed, it had its share of problems, and no one really used it is what I have gathered. 

Everything I've read about it is that it was trialed on the eagle and tomcat, but determined to be too expensive and a hassle to use for those platforms, and that they had other features that made VTAS less worth it.

However, I've seen that it was deployed to the entire J,N, and S fleet to great effect. If you check the F-4S SACs as late as 1984, they list VTAS in equipment, which aligns with everything I've read about its employment.

 

3 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

But I'm talking about Phantom pilots that transitioned to the Tomcat, who are making the night and day performance statements. Including F-4 Reserve pilots who came back from a joint exercise with the AF wearing a bunch of F-15 kill markers on their old F-4N models. Yes, it's an illustration that a poorly flown Eagle could get its lunch eaten by a Phantom, but a properly flown one should have no problems beating even a very experienced Phantom every time. In this instance the Reserve squadrons happened to be stocked with experienced Navy fleet pilots, many RAG instructors and TOPGUN grads. When they transitioned to the F-14 in 1987 the feedback I have gotten is that the Tomcat changed everything, BVR and BFM.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-us-navy-f-4s-scored-plenty-of-kills-against-then-brand-new-usaf-f-15s-in-mock-air-combat/

 

I still want an F-4, J or S. But I'm fully aware that it wasn't the tightest turning jet, even with the various slat changes.

There's no question the tomcat had an advantage in a one circle fight. That was by far its greatest advantage, until the 14B, which was the dogfighter of top gun lore. Check EM charts for the F-4E and the F-15A and C. The maneuverability in NASA, USAF, and third party EM and turn performance charts I can find have the 15A/C and the slatted F-4E as even. Key word, slatted. The J had a sustained of around 12/second, which was better than most MiG-23s, and better than early 21s, but not 14A, 15, or the MLD.
The greatest weaknesses of the slatted phantoms in a dogfight was the lack of rearward visibility and worse performance in the vertical.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Heatloss
Missed my spacebar once.

[Heatloss]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

So everything I've read about this is that it wasn't actually used IRL. IT was trialed, it had its share of problems, and no one really used it is what I have gathered. 

I'll also add in that VTAS II was developed due to issues that pilots had with the Granny Glass VTAS I (coincidentally that equipment can be seen in my forum profile picture).
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtassafe.htm here is a decent article which mentions explicitly that "[VTAS II], in sizes medium and large, is presently being flown in the fleet." VTAS I had issues which were identified on early usage between flight tests, and, if I remember correctly, limited combat deployment. VTAS II cannot be as easily visually identified, as it uses a secondary visor beneath the normal sun visor to reflect the image. It has a cable coming out of the back for power, but otherwise it looks much like a standard flight helmet of the era.

[Heatloss]

3 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

But I'm talking about Phantom pilots that transitioned to the Tomcat, who are making the night and day performance statements. Including F-4 Reserve pilots who came back from a joint exercise with the AF wearing a bunch of F-15 kill markers on their old F-4N models. Yes, it's an illustration that a poorly flown Eagle could get its lunch eaten by a Phantom, but a properly flown one should have no problems beating even a very experienced Phantom every time. In this instance the Reserve squadrons happened to be stocked with experienced Navy fleet pilots, many RAG instructors and TOPGUN grads. When they transitioned to the F-14 in 1987 the feedback I have gotten is that the Tomcat changed everything, BVR and BFM.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-us-navy-f-4s-scored-plenty-of-kills-against-then-brand-new-usaf-f-15s-in-mock-air-combat/

 

I still want an F-4, J or S. But I'm fully aware that it wasn't the tightest turning jet, even with the various slat changes.

Also, I missed something here. Yes, the N beating the 15A is down to pilot performance. VTAS may have made a slight difference, but the 4N is still a 4B with slight updates and modernization. As far as I am aware, it retained the same questionable vacuum tube APG-72 radar of the F-4B, while mainly changing up the aerodynamics, engines, and cockpit ergonomics.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Heatloss said:

Everything I've read about it is that it was trialed on the eagle and tomcat, but determined to be too expensive and a hassle to use for those platforms, and that they had other features that made VTAS less worth it.

However, I've seen that it was deployed to the entire J,N, and S fleet to great effect. If you check the F-4S SACs as late as 1984, they list VTAS in equipment, which aligns with everything I've read about its employment.

 

 

 

I've read that article, but at the same time I haven't read anything about it being used operationally much. The F4 navy guy I knew decades ago mentioned it not being used, so my bias leads in that direction on the subject.

 

[LanceCriminal86]

4 minutes ago, Heatloss said:

I'll also add in that VTAS II was developed due to issues that pilots had with the Granny Glass VTAS I (coincidentally that equipment can be seen in my forum profile picture).
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtassafe.htm here is a decent article which mentions explicitly that "[VTAS II], in sizes medium and large, is presently being flown in the fleet." VTAS I had issues which were identified on early usage between flight tests, and, if I remember correctly, limited combat deployment. VTAS II cannot be as easily visually identified, as it uses a secondary visor beneath the normal sun visor to reflect the image. It has a cable coming out of the back for power, but otherwise it looks much like a standard flight helmet of the era.

 

I actually have a VTAS helmet that was converted back to a "regular" helmet, and the gentleman who used it verified the VTAS system was too bulky to be comfortable and effective. It introduced a lot of extra neck strain, which was not ideal in high-g dogfights. The VTAS II didn't improve much over the I in that regard, and a lot of that is why the setup died with the Phantom. It was tested on the Tomcat and this helmet was apparently used in some of those flights with VX-4 both in Phantoms and Tomcats in the early/mid 70s, I believe following AIMVAL/ACEVAL. You can see the VTAS boxes in a few VX-4 photos that I've seen but can't seem to find right now.

VTAS also died out because the AIM-9 at the time just wasn't ready for it, I believe missile performance in terms of the seeker and maneuverability just didn't  match up to the ability to use the sight to get a lock during a tight circling fight. The JHMCS and AIM-9X though apparently finally brought the concept to fruition, albeit some 30-40 years after it was tested and rolled out in limited use.

[Harlikwin]

Just now, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

I actually have a VTAS helmet that was converted back to a "regular" helmet, and the gentleman who used it verified the VTAS system was too bulky to be comfortable and effective. It introduced a lot of extra neck strain, which was not ideal in high-g dogfights. The VTAS II didn't improve much over the I in that regard, and a lot of that is why the setup died with the Phantom. It was tested on the Tomcat and this helmet was apparently used in some of those flights with VX-4 both in Phantoms and Tomcats in the early/mid 70s, I believe following AIMVAL/ACEVAL. You can see the VTAS boxes in a few VX-4 photos that I've seen but can't seem to find right now.

VTAS also died out because the AIM-9 at the time just wasn't ready for it, I believe missile performance in terms of the seeker and maneuverability just didn't  match up to the ability to use the sight to get a lock during a tight circling fight. The JHMCS and AIM-9X though apparently finally brought the concept to fruition, albeit some 30-40 years after it was tested and rolled out in limited use.

 

That first bit about weight/strain/droop mirrors what I heard from my F4 pilot friend.

 

And yeah what you say about the 70's or early 80's Aim9 makes a ton of sense, not alot of additional off-boresight capability compared to normal there.

 

[Uxi]

2 hours ago, Heatloss said:

Also, I missed something here. Yes, the N beating the 15A is down to pilot performance. VTAS may have made a slight difference, but the 4N is still a 4B with slight updates and modernization. As far as I am aware, it retained the same questionable vacuum tube APG-72 radar of the F-4B, while mainly changing up the aerodynamics, engines, and cockpit ergonomics.

Reminding me of the Super Phantom project and probably get 80-90% of the performance of F-15 program without the huge expense (and/or leads to full F-22 procurement by the late 80s or early 90s).

[LanceCriminal86]

12 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

That first bit about weight/strain/droop mirrors what I heard from my F4 pilot friend.

 

And yeah what you say about the 70's or early 80's Aim9 makes a ton of sense, not alot of additional off-boresight capability compared to normal there.

 

 

The concept certainly was ahead of its time, and the fact they were able to get the head tracking with early IR, which is basically the same exact tech we use for head-trackers in sims now is pretty cool. 

 

I found one of the pics, take a look along the canopy rails:

 

Like the HUD and ACLS and a few other technologies, (had it been fully adopted and added to Tomcats) I feel like it's the kind of thing someone like Victory205 would step in and tell us works way better in DCS than the real thing ever did. And then 2-3 people would argue about it with him.

 

And I get that performance charts are important for trying to compare the general performance of aircraft. But it seems that there's more to it than what those charts show as to where the actual performance of the F-4, be it a slatted E or later N/S, in comparison to NATO jets or COMBLOC for that matter of the 70s and 80s. I know we had many secretive programs testing captured/acquired Soviet aircraft against ours, and maybe someday there will be gobs of data that could be gleaned if they ever get to see the light of day. But I think there are plenty of very good reasons the F-4s were relegated to reserve and non front-line postings over the years as Eagles, Tomcats, and Vipers continued to be built.

 

Turn the clock back to Vietnam and wasn't the whole reason TOPGUN was created to learn and teach tactics to combat smaller and more nimble opponents, namely the Mig-17 and Mig-21? Weren't the strategies taught to focus on wingman coordination and using the Phantom's thrust in the vertical rather than turning circle? I recalled that being a big part in the shifts in kill ratios for Navy, Marine, and AF Phantoms, using the other advantages the jet possessed. And I can't recall where the heck I saw it but there was talk about the slats on the later F-4s not necessarily being a 100% win either, trading off turn rate for increased drag and less acceleration as you unload? Lots of back and forth but where are the F-4 J/N/S charts for sustained turn rates? I saw someone try to extrapolate numbers by playing with the weight of the slatted AF E models and he claimed his numbers would have the F-4S turning at the same rate as an F-14.

 

I like the idea of the challenge that fighting newer and more nimble jets would present an F-4J/N/S (or E for those afraid of boats/swimming) pilot during the Cold War, but I also can see where having feckless AI wingmen would kill any notion of fun. So until that gets sorted out and AI start using actual FMs with stall mechanics, maybe it's better if the Phantom in any form stays down the road. 

[F-2]

1 hour ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

I actually have a VTAS helmet that was converted back to a "regular" helmet, and the gentleman who used it verified the VTAS system was too bulky to be comfortable and effective. It introduced a lot of extra neck strain, which was not ideal in high-g dogfights. The VTAS II didn't improve much over the I in that regard, and a lot of that is why the setup died with the Phantom. It was tested on the Tomcat and this helmet was apparently used in some of those flights with VX-4 both in Phantoms and Tomcats in the early/mid 70s, I believe following AIMVAL/ACEVAL. You can see the VTAS boxes in a few VX-4 photos that I've seen but can't seem to find right now.

VTAS also died out because the AIM-9 at the time just wasn't ready for it, I believe missile performance in terms of the seeker and maneuverability just didn't  match up to the ability to use the sight to get a lock during a tight circling fight. The JHMCS and AIM-9X though apparently finally brought the concept to fruition, albeit some 30-40 years after it was tested and rolled out in limited use.

VTAS III had one more small revival in the F-16 AFTI program. You could look at a target on the ground and the automatic maneuvering attack system. The computer would accurately toss the weapon while maneuvering. It would also be used in the air like the IFFC tested on the F-15. By the time the AFTI was used as a test bed for high off boresight missiles in the mid 90s VTAS was replaced by what ever helmet they had used on the A-16 in the gulf war.

 

but tangent aside the military was still using VTAS in some form until 1987 when AFTI phase ii ended.

 

[LanceCriminal86]

I'll have to dig it up, but now that I think of it wasn't VTAS or at least the underlying system used for the Apache's helmet tracking system? 

[Bremspropeller]

7 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

I like the idea of the challenge that fighting newer and more nimble jets would present an F-4J/N/S (or E for those afraid of boats/swimming) pilot during the Cold War, but I also can see where having feckless AI wingmen would kill any notion of fun. So until that gets sorted out and AI start using actual FMs with stall mechanics, maybe it's better if the Phantom in any form stays down the road. 

 

I think a bundle of F-4J/S and a late 70s/ early 80s F-4E would be a great idea - if the E wasn't so different to the Navy birds...

 

If you think about it, unless the second-generation Floggers or Foxbats are coming into play, the Phantom could own the BVR and isn't all bad WVR, when the pilot knows what he's supposed to do.

 

As others have already stated, VTAS looks much better on paper than it did IRL. Most (if not all) VTAS sets were de-activated relatively soon.

[TLTeo]

19 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

VTAS also died out because the AIM-9 at the time just wasn't ready for it, I believe missile performance in terms of the seeker and maneuverability just didn't  match up to the ability to use the sight to get a lock during a tight circling fight.

Yep, even the AIM-9M/L aren't all that useful with a HMS, nevermind older missiles...

 

18 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

I recalled that being a big part in the shifts in kill ratios for Navy, Marine, and AF Phantoms, using the other advantages the jet possessed.

To be precise - Marine Phantoms didn't really go to North Vietnam or do a2a. Navy Phantoms post Top Gun improved their kill:loss ratio from ~2:1 to ~7:1. USAF didn't change anything about training, assumed the -E with the gun would magically fix everything, and stayed at ~2:1 even during Linebacker.

 

Regarding the Phantom's turning capability, someone posted the EM chart for a slatted E against the Mig-21bis and F-5E here

So the Phantom can do ~14 deg/s at 5000ft. By comparison, the -A model Tomcat sustain ~16 deg/s over a much wider speed range:

So yeah, claiming that the Phantom is going to be some amazing un-appreciated killer that can take on modern fighters is about as useful as claiming that the Tomcat can do the same. Both jets are old, were really really good in their prime, and as time went buy they were superseded by better, more modern jets. On a practical note, it's very interesting how the F-4 and Mig-23 diagrams from those two posts are so similar.

[nighthawk2174]

43 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

same. Both jets are old, were really really good in their prime, and as time went buy they were superseded by better, more modern jets. On a practical note, it's very interesting how the F-4 and Mig-23 diagrams from those two posts are so similar.

There is a Russian thread comparing the F4 to MIG-21, although it soon moved onto comparing F4 to MIG23 as people came to the conclusion that that was the more interesting match up.  I'll try to find it and post some of the stuff from there in here as there are Russian MIG-23 performance docs.  IIRC the 4C was superior to the M (barely) and the ML was superior to the 4C by a decent margin but not the 4E.

[Harlikwin]

Just now, nighthawk2174 said:

There is a Russian thread comparing the F4 to MIG-21, although it soon moved onto comparing F4 to MIG23 as people came to the conclusion that that was the more interesting match up.  I'll try to find it and post some of the stuff from there in here as there are Russian MIG-23 performance docs.  IIRC the 4C was superior to the M (barely) and the ML was superior to the 4C by a decent margin but not the 4E.

 

The 23 MLA/MLD were more or less slightly inferior to the viper kinematically, they would eat F4's for breakfast WVR. Though the earlier 23's like what MS the red eagles had was pure garbage aerowise.

 

[TLTeo]

11 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

The 23 MLA/MLD were more or less slightly inferior to the viper kinematically

Uuuuh there's supposed to be a huge difference between the MLA and MLD though, because one had the extra strake thingies near the intakes and the other didn't. I also find it highly unlikely that a single airframe could go from being more or less like an F-4, to being comparable to the Viper, with just some relatively minor updates. I wouldn't be surprised it was true in terms of e.g. climb, acceleration, etc, but turning performance? No way.

 

edit: in fact, the ML (shown in the link above) and MLA only differed in avionics.

Edited September 28, 2021 by TLTeo

[nighthawk2174]

Also if you want to really understand what happened in Vietnam I'd recommend two sources:

 

https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Tiger-Check-Automating-Air-Air/dp/1421423278

 

Just a few snipits:

-This is important as these early missiles had some serious limitations in terms of engagement envelope.  Large safety distances/min range distances/limited maneuverability/limited lock archs.

Edited September 28, 2021 by nighthawk2174