Heatblur F-4 Phantom

[Bozon]

From what I’ve read, the Israeli air force did not think much of the Syrian Mig-23MLD that defected as a dog fighter. During the test flights program they were very impressed by its power, the systems it carried and how reliable it was. In a drag race it noticeably out accelerated and out run the F-16A.
 

However as a dog fighter they thought of it as in the class of the Phantom II, and noted that it had a rather poor views from the cockpit. Someone above in the thread mentioned that this specific Mig-23MLD was more akin of MLA - I can’t say anything about that, but I highly doubt that adding some fins transformed the Mig-23 into something that could rival the F-16. The Israeli air force had some “good” experience vs. the older models of the 23 during the 1982 Lebanon war, and there it was food for the F-16 and F-15s.

 

[Airhunter]

Sure, MLA/D were good but keep in mind those would face Tomcats and Eagles at that point in time. The late F4 wasn't the main a2a platform anymore. And even then, the F4's had some advantages in avionics, electronics, SA and missiles - IF they used the 7F and potentially M (which I dont know given the timeframe). The F4J/S was also very capable in most arenas, reltively speaking and it would come down to pilot skill, tactics and relative WEZ's. 

 

The ML/MLA aero. manual is out there and available so there should be no speculation anymore. 

 

There is a reason why the VVS did not actually get any off the line MLD's and the Mig-29 prodution soon replaced it. It was mostly outdated the moment it appeared. 

Edited October 2, 2021 by Airhunter

[TLTeo]

At this point we can just agree to disagree and move back on topic, the conversation is going nowhere.

 

Both USAF and USN variants or riot.

[captain_dalan]

19 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

...I've seen the 16 deg charts and much like the tomcat it turns "tight", unlike the tomcat-A it has the thrust to keep that going...

 

No, just no...... you lost me there. Look at the chart carefully, it's a sea level chart, for wings at 16 degrees forward. The manual doesn't specify how or why, but fighting at this setting is strongly discouraged. It would be like fighting in the F-14 with the full flaps down. Possibly even worse. Even so, say you did decide to risk structural failure of the wing roots or the pivot points and not just flaps like you would in the F-14, the following should be taken into account:

 

-F-14A in 4x4 MiG-23 in 2x4 air to air loads, all air speeds are indicated

1. The 23 chart is for sea level, the F-14 chart is for 5000ft. There's a roughly 16% difference in performance (lift to drag ration to be precise) based just on air density;

2.a. The MiG caps at a max lift at just bellow 18 deg/s at 330 knots. That's at lift limit. At this point it bleeds 200ft/s. 

2.b. At 5000ft, the F-14 caps (max lift) at 22.5 deg/s at 330 knots at which point it bleeds more then 800ft/s. At 18deg/s it looks to be bleeding a bit more then 300ft/s. Looks like the MiG has a chance, right?
2.c. F-14A adjusted for altitude, caps at over 26deg/s. The -200ft/s excess power adjusted is at 19.7deg/s. At 330 knots, while the mig is flying it's wings off grasping for every last knot of airspeed it can get before stalling (which is not going to happen as it's supposed to be mechanically limited in how much AoA it can pull), the F-14 is matching it or out-turning it, and comes up with more energy after that. This is without tapping into the extra lift at the cost of more energy, that is opting to tighten the turn to get into or spoil a firing solution.

3.a. The MiG ASL sustains 16.6 deg/s at 350 knots
3.b. The F-14A at 5000ft sustains 15.5 deg/s at 330-340 knots. It looks like the MiG is winning, right? 
3.c. The F-14A ASL, sustains 18 (17.9899)deg/s at 330-340 knots. It sustains at the MiG's lift limit. 

4. The only advantage the MiG has is in climb-unloaded acceleration. The +200ft/s and +400ft/s show clear superiority here. Are you gonna be able to exploit it? Are willing to risk accelerating with the wings full forward and exceed allowed speed for that setting? Can you fly with one hand switching from throttle to wing sweep and managing a dogfight out of that cockpit in real time? How much force is required to move the handle? How fast you can react and change your wingsweep as the airspeed changes? As the altitude changes? As you are pulling 6-8g for your life? 

5. This was all at the absolute 'best' and most risky wing sweep. The manual doesn't recommend this setting except for the slowest of slow adversaries. I'd guess helos and the like. Are you gonna enter the merge at that slow of an energy state? What if you need to dive? Get those wings back and you nowhere near an F-14. Wings at 33? you can tangle with F-4's all day long. And mind you, that's a setting recommended for only the most experienced of pilots. Get them at 44 degrees? Well now you are in the Phantom ball park, and not necessarily outperforming it either. Depending on which F-4 you are fighting, you actually may be losing.

Bottom line, no. People have tried. They were told by the Soviets they could turn with the F-14. The Soviets told them wrong. Either because they themselves didn't know or as part of their marketing campaign. At this point it doesn't matter. Stick to fighting Mirage F1's and F-4 and you'll do fine. Go against 4th gens, even an F-14A, and you stick to slashing fly low tactics. Or don't. And see what happens. 

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

At this point we can just agree to disagree and move back on topic, the conversation is going nowhere.

 

Both USAF and USN variants or riot.

I'm for a NAVY bird, i'm not really into AF ops. Boat or bust for me! And bring on them 23's as well. it's always more fun  fighting superior opposition. 

[WinterH]

10 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

I'm for a NAVY bird, i'm not really into AF ops. Boat or bust for me!

A boat F-4 is entirely pointless, useless, and a horrible missed opportunity for me.

[captain_dalan]

7 minutes ago, WinterH said:

A boat F-4 is entirely pointless, useless, and a horrible missed opportunity for me.

There have been quite a few wars waged due to this issue. Even more so then over women! Alas, some were not even proxy!  

[TLTeo]

Hence my post make both or someone, somehow, will find reasons to riot. Personally I would be happy with both, but I can see why both arguments have merit

[WinterH]

Both would be amazing, naval only would make me turn to Khorne

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

At this point we can just agree to disagree and move back on topic, the conversation is going nowhere.

 

Both USAF and USN variants or riot.

 

Agreed.

[Airhunter]

Personally I don't care about the shore  / USAF versions. Anyone can land on a runway, in his sleep, with half a wing. If they do the 4J/S we can actually have both worlds in the form of VMFA and VFA squardons.  So I guess if you want to get really nit-picky about foreign versions, a2g armament and whatnot there is no reason the J and S, potentially even the B, would not fit both worlds. Nothing is stopping you from not flying a J from a boat.  

[Manhorne]

I will take whatever Phantom they are willing to make at this point. I would prefer a Navy Phantom or a F-4G if it has to be land based but everyone wants "The Gun" so they want an "E". As much as I want a Navy one I really do not see them making it. It will probably be an "E" if they make one at all.  No one even knows if HB is the one who will make a Phantom or have even considered making one. And as it stands now with so many aircraft in the pipeline unfinished unless it has been in development in secret the last couple of years it will be 4 to 5 years before we will even see it if they start on it now. Its all very disappointing as to why we do not have a Phantom now. At this point I will be surprised if we ever see one at all.

[Heatloss]

On 9/28/2021 at 4:02 PM, TLTeo said:

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.

I'm not claiming at all that it was capable of taking on anything newer than a MiG-23MLD and winning.

Also please for the love of god read about the glove vanes. I know without looking what chart you're seeing for the 14A turn performance. That is estimated performance before any serious flight tests had been done. They were very, very wrong.

[Heatloss]

On 9/27/2021 at 8:06 PM, 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.

I've never heard someone speak poorly about SEAM assisted AIM-9 launches before. Which is EXACTLY what VTAS was doing. Except it connected to your head instead of a radar lock.

The Tomcat carried SEAM over, and it was maintained instead of VTAS because it was far, far, far cheaper, 90% as good, and required less training to use.

 

The 9H was already one hell of a missile. Uncaging before launch became a thing as early as the 9G. I'm pretty sure it was there on the 9D as well, but I can't remember at the moment. That meant you could lock the target in boresight, hold the uncage switch, and let the missile follow your target. Made launches far easier, and nobody ever complained about that working to my knowledge. Hell, when lead calculation replaced proportional navigation of the AIM-9s with the 9L, missile turn performance mattered very little. The 9L and M have the same seeker head angle limitations as the 9D (CORRECTION, THEY HAVE GREATER LIMITATIONS. 22 DEGREES FOR 9G AND 9H, AND 40 FOR 9L AND M.) and very similar G limitations to the 9H, which the 9L was built on.

 

Hell, Look at how well the superfalcons, which used lead calculating guidance instead of proportional navigation did on the F-106, especially with properly trained pilots who understood the fire control systems, unlike Robin Olds(not blaming him as much as I'm blaming SAC's complete lack of care of informing the USAF of how to train pilots to us the AIM-4D).

 

The claim that VTAS was too "heavy and bulky" seems downright ridiculous to me. Have you ever handled one of those in the VTAS configuration? The difference in weight is practically none. The biggest hassle is the little wire sticking out the back. The issues with VTAS came with the normal weight of the helmet causing point of aim to shift in high G maneuvers, which just led to further improvements in helmet fitting.

 

Now for the edit. After some searching, I finally found a source that can explain some of this. The weight difference was little, maybe a few ounces at most on the helmet, still clocking in at far lower than the 4 and a half pounds of JHMCS, but there was bulk added for sure. It appears based on the source I read that one major concern was that pilots that were not careful could smack the helmet into the side of the cockpit and damage the IR emitters. A few pilots found it to be more hassle than it was worth, and would simply fly the planes with a standard APH-6 helmet sans the VTAS equipment. However, a large number of pilots loved it, and continued to use it for the service life of the aircraft.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Heatloss
Found a source that doesn't agree with my initial point. Second edit is for being incorrect on 9D seeker head angle limitations.

[Bremspropeller]

The way I remember it, VTAS was just swinging the radar-dish around and locking the target, while SEAM offered the missile slaving to the radar lock.

You'd need them both to get a proper "helmet visor" in today's sense.

 

6 hours ago, Heatloss said:

Hell, Look at how well the superfalcons, which used lead calculating guidance instead of proportional navigation did on the F-106, especially with properly trained pilots who understood the fire control systems, unlike Robin Olds(not blaming him as much as I'm blaming SAC's complete lack of care of informing the USAF of how to train pilots to us the AIM-4D).

 

That is a really good point that's often not made, unfortunately.

IIRC, the Falcons had quite a good seeker on top of the guidance. It only lacked a properly sized warhead a proxy-fuse. And easier switchology, so the bubbas could figure it out easier.

[TLTeo]

And more than two minutes worth of coolant...although I'm not sure whether that was fixed later on.

[Harlikwin]

9 hours ago, Heatloss said:

I've never heard someone speak poorly about SEAM assisted AIM-9 launches before. Which is EXACTLY what VTAS was doing. Except it connected to your head instead of a radar lock.

The Tomcat carried SEAM over, and it was maintained instead of VTAS because it was far, far, far cheaper, 90% as good, and required less training to use.

 

The 9H was already one hell of a missile. Uncaging before launch became a thing as early as the 9G. I'm pretty sure it was there on the 9D as well, but I can't remember at the moment. That meant you could lock the target in boresight, hold the uncage switch, and let the missile follow your target. Made launches far easier, and nobody ever complained about that working to my knowledge. Hell, when lead calculation replaced proportional navigation of the AIM-9s with the 9L, missile turn performance mattered very little. The 9L and M have the same seeker head angle limitations as the 9D and very similar G limitations to the 9H, which the 9L was built on.

 

Hell, Look at how well the superfalcons, which used lead calculating guidance instead of proportional navigation did on the F-106, especially with properly trained pilots who understood the fire control systems, unlike Robin Olds(not blaming him as much as I'm blaming SAC's complete lack of care of informing the USAF of how to train pilots to us the AIM-4D).

 

The claim that VTAS was too "heavy and bulky" seems downright ridiculous to me. Have you ever handled one of those in the VTAS configuration? The difference in weight is practically none. The biggest hassle is the little wire sticking out the back. The issues with VTAS came with the normal weight of the helmet causing point of aim to shift in high G maneuvers, which just led to further improvements in helmet fitting.

 

Now for the edit. After some searching, I finally found a source that can explain some of this. The weight difference was little, maybe a few ounces at most on the helmet, still clocking in at far lower than the 4 and a half pounds of JHMCS, but there was bulk added for sure. It appears based on the source I read that one major concern was that pilots that were not careful could smack the helmet into the side of the cockpit and damage the IR emitters. A few pilots found it to be more hassle than it was worth, and would simply fly the planes with a standard APH-6 helmet sans the VTAS equipment. However, a large number of pilots loved it, and continued to use it for the service life of the aircraft.

 

 

You got some sources on the use of it? From what I heard third hand was that it wasn't really used, but if it actually was I'd like to see the sources on it. 

[Heatloss]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

You got some sources on the use of it? From what I heard third hand was that it wasn't really used, but if it actually was I'd like to see the sources on it. 

Yes. It's been a long time, but yes. I'll try to track them back down but it may take days or weeks. I'm a busy guy, as you can probably guess from my sporadic responses.

 

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The way I remember it, VTAS was just swinging the radar-dish around and locking the target, while SEAM offered the missile slaving to the radar lock.

You'd need them both to get a proper "helmet visor" in today's sense.

 

 

That is a really good point that's often not made, unfortunately.

IIRC, the Falcons had quite a good seeker on top of the guidance. It only lacked a properly sized warhead a proxy-fuse. And easier switchology, so the bubbas could figure it out easier.

VTAS used the same circuits as slaving the seeker to the dish, except without moving the dish. I'll try to find the circuit diagram at some point here too.

 

Out of 10 falcons fired in Vietnam, all 10 were fired out of the envelope. 8 didn't hit, and 2 failed due to other errors. Likely a seeker ran out of coolant. In tests, the lack of a proxy fuse hardly limited it. It was a perceived issue rather than an actual issue. The warhead in the superfalcons (G and F) also about the same size as early sidewinders. The 4D was impact and didn't really need the larger warhead. There were tests where the fuse failed and the missile ripped apart the target anyways, if memory serves.

Fun fact, it had a boresight, sidewinder-esque mode which used proportional navigation for the entire flight instead of terminal guidance. You needed to press one button on the stick or throttle quadrant, I don't remember which one, and it would swap to this mode with the seeker caged at boresight. This was available on the F-4D and E. No pilot in southeast Asia was aware of it to the best of my knowledge.

[Heatloss]

6 hours ago, TLTeo said:

And more than two minutes worth of coolant...although I'm not sure whether that was fixed later on.

I don't remember if that was corrected before the pylons on the F-4E, which I believe fixed it. But that may be very wrong. On proper pylons, such as the ones on the F-102, 106, 101, et cetera, they could cool for as long as twenty minutes.

[TLTeo]

6 minutes ago, Heatloss said:

I don't remember if that was corrected before the pylons on the F-4E, which I believe fixed it. But that may be very wrong. On proper pylons, such as the ones on the F-102, 106, 101, et cetera, they could cool for as long as twenty minutes.

Cool (pun indented, hehe)! For the Century Series aircraft, was that all Falcons, or just the G and F? Speaking of, this kinda makes me want an F-102 and/or 106 module even more (and especially a Draken since those also carried Super Falcons). And to try to stay on topic, it's a (admittedly somewhat weak) argument for doing an E over a C/D for the USAF birds.

Edited October 4, 2021 by TLTeo

[Heatloss]

21 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Cool (pun indented, hehe)! For the Century Series aircraft, was that all Falcons, or just the G and F? Speaking of, this kinda makes me want an F-102 and/or 106 module even more (and especially a Draken since those also carried Super Falcons). And to try to stay on topic, it's a (admittedly somewhat weak) argument for doing an E over a C/D for the USAF birds.

 

I believe that was all of them. Cooling was provided by the pylon except for a short time that would be used for guidance. It's possible on the phantoms the falcons used the guidance liquid nitrogen to cool on the rail.

 

I love the F-106. With IRST and radar locks checking one another through the fire control system, it provided a rudimentary way for the pulse system to see through clutter and different forms of ECM. Despite low reliability with early MA-1 systems, it was worth its weight in gold when it was needed. Integration with SAGE was quite neat too. Would make for an interesting GCI facet to a F-106 module.

 

There are great reasons to do the 4E. I'd like to see a 4E, 4D and 4S. That would be ideal in my mind.

The ultimate multirole, the falcon slinger, and the ultimate dogfighter of the line. The 4D could also perform most of the same tasks as a 4B or 4C in game.

[LanceCriminal86]

8 minutes ago, Heatloss said:

 

 

The claim that VTAS was too "heavy and bulky" seems downright ridiculous to me. Have you ever handled one of those in the VTAS configuration? The difference in weight is practically none. The biggest hassle is the little wire sticking out the back. The issues with VTAS came with the normal weight of the helmet causing point of aim to shift in high G maneuvers, which just led to further improvements in helmet fitting.

 

Does it matter? The only VTAS helmets I know of are at the Smithsonian, Pensacola, or very restricted personal collections. And if you ask folks that did use them they seem to be split into those that were fine with it as you claim, and those that wanted little to do with it (what I've heard along with the owner of this helmet). Compare an APH-6C to a D and you can feel the difference of the dual visor system. You can again feel a difference trying on an HGU-33, and from there an HGU-55 type helmet. Reading through documents about changes to helmets always noted efforts to reduce weight, which in turn reduces fatigue both in normal flight and under high G stress. My VTAS was the HGU-30A with what was essentially a PRK-37 shell so the same as an HGU-33, with the VTAS I system on it. I can't find any details as to what the VTAS I system weighed (alone or total with helmet), but since you seem so versed in them perhaps you can clarify the exact weight difference.

 

And I think the proof of the matter is already laid out: VTAS did not get carried over to the F-14 despite testing it. It died in Phantom squadrons and even there its effectiveness is suspect. With improvements to technology in seekers, missile maneuverability, head tracking technology, and lightweight materials like carbon fiber, the concept has now come into its own.

 

[Heatloss]

1 hour ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

Does it matter? The only VTAS helmets I know of are at the Smithsonian, Pensacola, or very restricted personal collections. And if you ask folks that did use them they seem to be split into those that were fine with it as you claim, and those that wanted little to do with it (what I've heard along with the owner of this helmet). Compare an APH-6C to a D and you can feel the difference of the dual visor system. You can again feel a difference trying on an HGU-33, and from there an HGU-55 type helmet. Reading through documents about changes to helmets always noted efforts to reduce weight, which in turn reduces fatigue both in normal flight and under high G stress. My VTAS was the HGU-30A with what was essentially a PRK-37 shell so the same as an HGU-33, with the VTAS I system on it. I can't find any details as to what the VTAS I system weighed (alone or total with helmet), but since you seem so versed in them perhaps you can clarify the exact weight difference.

 

And I think the proof of the matter is already laid out: VTAS did not get carried over to the F-14 despite testing it. It died in Phantom squadrons and even there its effectiveness is suspect. With improvements to technology in seekers, missile maneuverability, head tracking technology, and lightweight materials like carbon fiber, the concept has now come into its own.

 

First off, VTAS I was not a great system. It introduced too much clutter, lacked proper adjustments initially, and was quickly supplanted by VTAS II. VTAS II utilized reflection on one of the two visors in a dual visor system. HGU-37/P and HGU-46/P. I cannot tell you the exact weight differences, unfortunately. MDRs and FOIA requests have turned up blanks for the most part. Same with APX-80A/81.

 

As for dying off. We've been over this. SEAM WAS CARRIED OVER. THIS IS THE SIDEWINDER OFF BORESIGHT PORTION OF VTAS. IT WAS USED WITH RADAR IN BOTH THE TOMCAT AND THE PHANTOM. THE VTAS HELMET JUST ALLOWED THE PILOT TO CONTROL THE SEEKERHEAD MANUALLY INSTEAD OF SLAVING TO RADAR. SEAM WORKED VERY WELL AS EARLY AS THE AIM-9G. SEAM worked so well, in fact, that it was carried on to the 9L. For a long time, air force sidewinders did not have the option to use SEAM. I have heard references to it being integrated into the 9P4 and 9P5, but those are in passing and have no sources to back them up.

VTAS was binned because it was expensive. Radar only SEAM did 90% as well as VTAS SEAM, and you didn't have to get your helmet refitted every time you gained or lost a few pounds. Helmet fitting and VTAS calibration was a lengthy and expensive process for the navy. That is why they binned it, not effectiveness.

As for the reason my profile picture is VTAS I, it has nothing to do with it being the more effective VTAS system or anything(it's not). It's just recognizable, and I think it looks cool. Even if pilots hated "granny glass".

Edited October 5, 2021 by Heatloss

[Heatloss]

16 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The way I remember it, VTAS was just swinging the radar-dish around and locking the target, while SEAM offered the missile slaving to the radar lock.

You'd need them both to get a proper "helmet visor" in today's sense.

 

 

That is a really good point that's often not made, unfortunately.

IIRC, the Falcons had quite a good seeker on top of the guidance. It only lacked a properly sized warhead a proxy-fuse. And easier switchology, so the bubbas could figure it out easier.

Finally found a minute to drag out the F-4J tactical manual. NAVAIR 01-245FDB-1T, 1972.

[Heatloss]

9 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Cool (pun indented, hehe)! For the Century Series aircraft, was that all Falcons, or just the G and F? Speaking of, this kinda makes me want an F-102 and/or 106 module even more (and especially a Draken since those also carried Super Falcons). And to try to stay on topic, it's a (admittedly somewhat weak) argument for doing an E over a C/D for the USAF birds.

 

Boy, was I wrong. Went searching for information on AIM-7 as an Air to Ground weapon, ran across this. No time tonight to investigate further, but you might be interested. This is a manual dated 1970, with the black bar representing a change as of 1973.

[Bremspropeller]

Thanks Heatloss! So VTAS can actually do both, which is even cooler!

 

*pokes Heatblur with a stick* Come on, do some Heatblur-stuff!