A Case against the Phantom

[Lurker]

6 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

With your attitude we wouldn't need any other aircraft in DCS than the F-16, unless the F-35/F-22 becomes possible...

 

What a rude and presumptuous thing to say! 

 

The thread is literally called A case against the Phantom. I don't even own the DCS F16, although I will admit, THAT is it was a great design. Oh and just so you know, my favorite fixed wing aircraft is another Navy bird, the F14. That was truly, a brilliant design. Way ahead of it's time, and from an objective perspective (if cost was no concern) probably the best aircraft the Navy ever fielded. If a modernized version were still fielded, it would wipe the floor with the Bugs and Superbugs in use today. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Lurker

[QuiGon]

30 minutes ago, Lurker said:

What a rude and presumptuous thing to say! 

The thread is literally called A case against the Phantom. I don't even own the DCS F16, although I will admit, THAT is it was a great design.

 

I'm sorry, but then I do not understand your case at all. I thought it's all about the Phantom being a poor performing fighter and that it wouldn't be a good choice for a DCS module because of that.

 

30 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Oh and just so you know, my favorite fixed wing aircraft is another Navy bird, the F14. That was truly, a brilliant design. Way ahead of it's time, and from an objective perspective (if cost was no concern) probably the best aircraft the Navy ever fielded. If a modernized version were still fielded, it would wipe the floor with the Bugs and Superbugs in use today.

 

You have a very narrow view on what makes a good fighter jet. The F-14 was a piss poor design from a maintainance point of view and this is the reason it got killed while the (Super-)bug still lives. And even a modernized Tomcat would have a hard time against the Lightening II that is in use today.

[Lurker]

So instead of apologizing for being rude, you are doubling down using bogus and overblown mediacentric "facts" and while once again claiming that I have a narrow view of what makes a good fighter jet. Yeah, I'm outa here. Enjoy your echo chamber. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Well, someone tinkled in his cheerios.

[DSHornet]

On 9/3/2021 at 4:19 AM, Kang said:

Guess everyone who insists on that line of thought can wait for the Typhoon to be released and afterwards simply stop bothering with anybody else is developing for a long time at least.

That's basically the average DCS player. If they can't put 8+ AMRAAMs on it so they can fire them all at one target and miss, it's a bad airframe

[EnvyC]

What am I even reading. Nothing here makes me want the Phantom less, never mind the completely subjective nature of the topic.

[TLTeo]

15 hours ago, DSHornet said:

That's basically the average DCS player. If they can't put 8+ AMRAAMs on it so they can fire them all at one target and miss, it's a bad airframe

To be pedantic, that's your average airquakey loud DCS player, which I don't think is representative of the player base at al. Per ED's data, most of the community flies SP rather than MP to begin with. It's just that the "muh capabilities" crowd is much louder than the silent majority.

[QuiGon]

On 9/17/2021 at 12:46 PM, Lurker said:

So instead of apologizing for being rude, you are doubling down using bogus and overblown mediacentric "facts" and while once again claiming that I have a narrow view of what makes a good fighter jet. Yeah, I'm outa here. Enjoy your echo chamber. 

 

I'm sorry that you feel offended, but I'm not aware that I've said anything rude?

It seems you just have a hard time taking different opinions than your own and feel attacked by that?

Edited September 18, 2021 by QuiGon

[Jetguy06]

I'm just chiming in here, guys, but I think quite a few people here are missing the point. This post wasn't meant for anyone who has commented so far. It wasn't meant to crap all over the Phantom and say it was a bad aircraft, a poor performing fighter, or even a bad choice for a DCS module. It's to point out to those, however few, that might think the Phantom is better than it is.

 

I would love a Phantom in DCS. If I had my way, we'd get four variants:

 

1. USN/USMC Vietnam era (B)

2. USAF Vietnam era (C or D)

3. USN/USMC Post-Vietnam era (J N or S)

4. USAF Post-Vietnam era (E or the one I would do certain unspeakable things for, a Wild Weasel G)

 

Bear in mind, this is coming from a young(er) guy, 31 years old, on the cusp of GenX and Millenial, whose two favorite aircraft in DCS are the A-10C and the F-16. I love aircraft of all eras, and when I'm feeling like a trip back in time, I want to fly a Phantom or something of a similar era. If I want to get things things done on a modern battlefield, it's the "flying computers" for me because, you know, best tools for the job and all...

 

Anyway, I can see what OP is saying here. It's a great and capable aircraft, but as an FYI for those out there, however few they may be, it's not perfect and has its flaws, though very full of character. I read the title more as, "Keep Your Expectations for an Awesome Aircraft in Check, Here's Why..."

 

Anyway, I've typed enough for tonight. Have a good one, guys and gals!!

Edited September 19, 2021 by Jetguy06

[Northstar98]

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

Now, I know that the moment you all read that title, you're going to be furiously slamming on the keyboard nasty things to me about how I dare insult the F-4.

Indeed, how dare you!

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

However, this post is about why the Phantom may not be the plane you think it is, and why I think it might be a bit over-rated.

Well, speaking for myself, I'm not into the Phantom because of its capabilities,

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

This is not a Phantom bashing post, this is just a way to explain to people that there is a reason that in the fighter role, better planes were introduced, and, most importantly, why the F-4 wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Meh, it was a Cold War icon, has huge historical appeal, was very prolific (at least the E), it was used by the nation I'm from and I used to live (albeit briefly) right next to a former Phantom base in Scotland (RAF Leuchars).

I'm also most interested in the mid-to-late Cold War, which is perfect for the Phantom, and we hardly have any full-fidelity modules of the more 'mainstream' (I don't know how to put it, but hopefully you understand what I mean) aircraft from that era (only the Mirage 2000C, and even that's kinda at a stretch), though there are more on the way.

That and then SF2 and that makes me want a Phantom massively, especially when it's basically the perfect counterpart to another aircraft we have in DCS, the MiG-21bis.

On a related note, and this is kinda a big one for me, it can fit with REDFOR modules that are actually doable.

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

1. Avionics

Depending on which version of the F-4 you're sitting in, you're most likely going to be sitting in an aircraft cockpit that wouldn't look out of place in the late stages of WW2 or Korea. You don't have a HUD, you don't have any form of fly-by-wire or assistance avionics, it's all basic kit in there. Sure, the pilot has a rudimentary radar display up front, but that's about as good as it gets. The RIO gets some more stuff to mess with, but it would very much require that both the RIO and PIC be well in tune to make it all work. It was the 60s after all.

Perfect!

I'm a fan of early HUDs (think A-7E), but I don't mind simple gunsights.

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

2. Not that great a fighter

The combat record in the early days of the Vietnam war speaks for itself, the Phantom just wasn't that great a fighter. Missile technology of the time period was mostly miss, and you didn't have a gun to fall back on. You ran out of missiles, it was time to RTB.

Meh, I'm not really that interested in such early Phantoms anyway, as we're just lacking the assets, and the appropriate map is hugely unlikely owing to the size of it, the detail that would be required, and the large density of objects (especially trees). I'll crosspost my breakdown of eras here and I'll pop it in the spoiler below:

Spoiler

• Early WWII has a single aircraft and absolutely nothing else (I-16)
• Late WWII is possibly the most flushed out era in DCS with:
  • A fairly equal number of peer-to-peer BLUFOR and REDFOR modules, done to a similar level of quality, with more on the way.
  • 2 dedicated maps, with a 3rd on the way (though hardly anything for that map as of yet).
  • A dedicated asset pack, with plenty of vehicles and air defences, of course there's stuff missing (especially ships, but also a few US air defences)
  • The era where numerous new technologies came to first:
  • VT AA shells.
  • Completely overhaulled damage model.
  • Torpedoes (both aerial, surface and submerged launch, even if the latter 2 are somewhat broken).
  • Submerging submarines.
  • Improved AI (wrt. ditching)
• Early Cold War (1946 - 1960):
  • For full-fidelity modules you've got the F-86F, MiG-15bis, MiG-19P and a G.91R on the way.
  • Only ground units are exclusively REDFOR, with 2 air defences units (AZP S-60 and the ZSU-57-2), 1 tank (PT-76B) and 1 APC (MT-LB). That's it, there's absolutely nothing else apart from what you can recycle from WWII.
  • No map.
  • No naval assets.
• Mid Cold War (1961 to 1975):
  • Only has 3 full-fidelity modules, 1 of them a trainer (F-5E-3, MiG-21bis and L-39C), though there is also the F-8J on the way.
  • Maybe a couple of AI aircraft (F-4E).
  • Quite a few REDFOR air defences, with the S-75M/SA-2d, S-125M/SA-3b, S-200V/SA-5b, 9K33/SA-8a and the 9K31/SA-9a. There is also Rapier (though without Blindfire for the UK). We have a couple of REDFOR vehicles, though hardly any BLUFOR vehicles (can only think of the Land Rovers, maybe the Chieftain Mk.7/L and the Leopard 1A3), there are however a few REDFOR vehicles (T-55A, BMP-1, BMD-1, BTR-RD, BRDM-2).
  • No map.
• Late Cold War (1976 to 1989):
  • Only the Mirage 2000C as a full fidelity module (and only just, our 2000C is 1989 at the earliest), though there is an early F-14A (suitable for pre 1994 missions) in the works, as well as an A-6E (variant depending, TRAM and WCSI fit here) and an A-7E. There is also a 9-12 MiG-29 in a 'hope-to' state. Here is where we also have the C-101, L-39ZA and the Mi-8MTV-2 and (without 9M120), the Mi-24P too (though it has Lipa removed). Finally, there's the Christen Eagle 2 and Yak-52 (though both unarmed).
  • All of the FC3 aircraft apart from the F-15C, and if you exclude R-77, the 9-13S MiG-29S.
  • There's a few more AI aircraft (mostly REDFOR - Tu-22M3, MiG-23MLD, MiG-25, Su-17M4).
  • The majority of air defence systems: MIM-23B I-HAWK PIP Phase 1, Rapier FSA for the UK, Roland 2, Gepard, M163A2 (?) and MIM-72G for BLUFOR; for REDFOR we've got the 2K12M3/SA-6b, S-300PS/SA-10b, 9K35M3/SA-13, 9K37M1/SA-11, the 9K38/SA-18 (though uses the 9M342 missile of the 9K338/SA-24 from the mid 2000s) and the 9K330/SA-15a.
  • The majority of REDFOR ground vehicles, and a few BLUFOR ground vehicles.
  • 1 map (Caucasus) (?) - though is wholly unsuitable for BLUFOR vs REDFOR Cold War missions.
  • The majority of REDFOR naval assets, but no BLUFOR assets.
• 90s:
  • Heatblur's current offerings: the AJS 37 and the current Tomcats (though with LANTIRN the Tomcats are late 90s/early 2000s), there's the J-11A too and there's also possibly the A-6E (depending on what variant HB does) as well as a few more AI aircraft (namely the Tu-160). Here's is also where the Ka-50, Gazelle and the WIP Bo-105PAH-1A1 fits.
  • There's a few more air defences present (MIM-104C Patriot PAC-2, 2K22M/SA-19).
  • Probably the majority of BLUFOR ground vehicles as well as a few more REDFOR.
  • We finally have a map (Caucasus) but the only conflict of this timeframe in the region that the map covers is the 1991-1992 South Ossetia War and the 1992-1993 War in Abkhazia, which AFAIK didn't have much of an air war going on.
  • The remaining REDFOR naval assets (excluding the CAP naval assets, and the Pr. 636 Improved Kilo), as well as the Type 148 Tiger-class [La Combattante IIa], given that it has TRS 3035 Triton-G, Cutlass B1 ESM and Scorpion ECM antennae it's a later fit from the early 90s. This is also where HB's Forrestal fits in, as it is (pedantically speaking) a post SLEP 90s fit (Phalanx Block 1 as opposed to Block 0).
• 2000s:
  • For modules we have the most popular BLUFOR modules: A-10C, F-16CM and the F/A-18C (the F-14A/B reaches into here too). The F-15C fits here, and so does the 9-13S MiG-29S with the R-77, the AH-64D Block II and the MB.339A MLU will also fit here.
  • There's a couple more AI aircraft (namely the F-15E).
  • There are only 3 more air defence systems, that being NASAMS II, the HQ-7b Self-Propelled and the 9K338/SA-24.
  • The rest of the BLUFOR naval assets, as well as the CAP naval assets.
  • As for maps from a purely pedantic perspective, there aren't any that strictly fit here, though most payware terrains could be made to fit around here as well as the Marianas, even if they are generally newer (only one I'm unsure about is Syria).
• 2010s:
  • For modules we have the later A-10C, AV-8B N/A, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the GREENFOR JF-17. There's also the OH-58 and technically the Mi-24P but only due to the removal of Lipa, otherwise we would have a Mi-24P from the 90s (though only from 9M120 Ataka, without 9M120 we would have a mid 80s Mi-24P, just missing Lipa - this aircraft is rather unique in that it really hasn't changed much since it was produced, only thing I'm unsure about is engines)
  • We have maybe a couple more AI aircraft (namely the Su-34)
  • A few more ground vehicles (ZTZ96B, ZBD-04A, T-72B3 and BTR-82A).
  • Here are where the SoH/PG, Syria and Marianas map strictly fit around, though this is arguably more pedantic.
• And finally onto the 2020s:
  • Only the Eurofighter Typhoon (seeing as it's a Luftwaffe Typhoon, but being heavily teased with the MBDA Meteor, which only entered Luftwaffe service in 2021) and absolutely nothing else.

Obviously succeeding decades/eras will carry-over plenty of assets and modules from previous decades/eras.

 

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

It took the pilots getting creative and the military realizing that guns were still needed for that to change, and even then, the Phantom still struggled against its opponents. Many of which were much more nimble than the Phantom, due to their smaller size. Yes, if the Phantom got a solid lock, and the machine spirit blessed the missile, you'd get a kill. But, that was unfortunately, not the case in most air to air engagements.

The overall kill ratio is still on the side of the Phantom AFAIK, but even so, capabilities is not the chief reason why I like aircraft.

If I only cared about capabilities I would've bought the Hornet and then waited for the Typhoon and nothing else.

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

3. A flying brick

Ask anyone who's flown the F-4 and transitioned to a newer, more capable aircraft, and they'll tell ya what the change felt like. While one or two might say they prefer the Phantom as an aircraft, you'd be hard pressed to find any combat pilot who would say they'd rather have it over the newer aircraft in a fight.

Isn't this the same for basically everything though?

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

Reasons vary, but some of the key ones revolve around its engine performance and its maneuverability. When you bled energy in a Phantom, it took a while to get it back, and issue rarely found in most fighters, even at the time it was introduced. This fact led to a lot of Phantom pilots who thought they were in the better plane being forced to take the HH-3 Express or spend the rest of the Vietnam War in the Hanoi Hilton.

Be that as it may, you already have my answer here, I'm not too bothered about capabilities in relation to to other aircraft, and the pros to me of the Phantom outweigh the cons, I still really want it even in spite of the cons.

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

4. It's hard to miss

One key fact about the Phantom is that compared to many fighters of its era, the damn thing is huge for a fighter. Something not lost on Phantom pilots when they suddenly saw telephone poles coming up at them. Couple that with its weight, and lack of energy recovery, and in the dogfight against something smaller and more maneuverable, and you could find yourself in trouble really quick.

Well, personally, I don't really see the problem with the Phantom being large, the F-14 and Su-27 are too, though they don't have the same performance concerns (though they are essentially a generation newer).

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

5. Good luck seeing out

Pilots of the Tomcat can attest to this, but having that ring on the front of your canopy can be a major pain in the backside when trying to do... well... anything. This coupled with the fact that the canopy is covered in bars and it's a wonder that the flight crew could even see in the thing. This likely resulted in cases where Phantoms would be killed by something that a pilot in any other aircraft before or since would've been able to spot.

I absolutely agree, and when I see cockpit photos my first thought is "how the hell do you see out of this thing?" and when talking about the RN specifically "I would petrified trying to land this on aircraft carriers the size of a custard cream".

But again, this isn't going to sway me, and ultimately the MiG-21 suffers from a similar issue.

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

6. A true piece of its time

The F-4 is a relic of the time it was built for. And while some air forces have upgraded their Phantoms to suit modern threats, it still took a lot of work that more recent aircraft wouldn't have to undergo. For example, on a modern jet, if you want a jammer to be fitted, you merely have to hook it up to a designated location, and flick a switch. The F-4 would have to specifically modified for the equipment to be fitted, and this meant doing a lot of work to get something fitted to the plane. Same happened with the gun pods. The first pods had no lead-computer like the later ones, and even that was more akin to the equipment used on the F-5 to aim the gun.

I kind of don't get this as being an argument against it, because doesn't it apply for basically everything?

Sure it's a relic for the time it was built for, but the time it was built for is the time I'm going to set all of my scenarios in, and I'm averse to modernised Phantoms as I see them as somewhat of an anachronism. The Phantom is a Cold War aircraft and that's exactly where it belongs.

Personally, here's my personal wishlist of Phantom variants, in descending order:

1. USAF F-4E Phantom II, circa 1981 - 1986 - owing to the expanded A2G loadout and early TGPs (Pave Spike and later (1983) Pave Tack), though approximating earlier Phantoms would be pretty easy with weapons restricting and having earlier weapons available, seeing as (AFAIK), most of it stayed the same (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going off of limited information here (C:MO database)).
2. USN F-4S Phantom II, cicra late 70s/early 80s - this is the Phantom variant that best fits the era that HB's Forrestal-class is depicting (which is at least early 80s).
3. USN F-4J Phantom II, circa 70s - this was the Phantom variant actually based on the Forrestal-class carriers at the time (though our Forrestal is in a fit that is early 80s at the earliest).
4. RAF F-4M Phantom FGR.2 or RAF F-4K Phantom FG.1, circa 1984, while these are my favourite Phantom variants, they are more niche, and the above are more suitable.

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

7. It was a bit over-hyped

While it is true that most of the air to air kills were achieved in the F-4, it should be noted that the majority of F-4 Sorties flown were to deliver bombs and napalm, compared to aircraft that were dedicated to that role, the Phantom suffered. It wasn't as accurate with the bombs and rockets as the Intruder or Corsair, and that meant that it ran a heavy risk of hitting allied forces on the ground if it was required to get in close. And without a proper bomb site, many Phantoms had to fly low to make sure their bombs could hit their target, which exposed the aircraft to heavy ground fire, and likely resulted in many F-4 crews taking a trip to Hanoi on the bamboo express. But this is to be expected of a plane ultimately designed by people who don't know a thing about combat.

Sounds good to me, though the F-4E I listed does get access to Paveway II, early AGM-65s, early TGPs (Pave Spike and Pave Tack).

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

So, while this post is fairly negative against the F-4, I should end by saying that if you're ok with all of this, then the F-4 is going to be an aircraft you'll want.

Sure is.

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

However, this post is meant to show that maybe it isn't the be all end all fighter that people claim it to be.

Well, not sure where I've been hearing that, but okay.

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

Phantoms for example weren't sent to Vietnam because they were the best fighter ever, they were sent because it's what we had at the time.

Well, if you're interested in making missions that have a consistent timeframe, then having aircraft of that timeframe is what matters when choosing what aircaft to include.

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

But at the end of the day, whoever ends up making the F-4, it's your money, so spend it however you please.

I hope to god it's HB.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Northstar98
Corrected Forrestal

[WRAITH]

Who said I am up set  I am ready to go........

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by WRAITH

[bies]

You just listed every possible reason why i want F-4 Phantom (or F-8 Crusader, A-7 Corsair, A-6 Intruder, A-4 Skyhawk, MiG-23, MiG-17, Mirage F.1) even more:

Non fly-by-wire flight control manual stick and rudder feeling very alive flight model reacting on all my inputs, requiring actual skill to fly and fight and not to depart during maneuver contrary to modern 2000s aircraft.

Rudimentary avionics requiring skill and practice to use and interpret with steam gauges, vacuum tubes, analog radar contrary to modern 2000s aircraft.

Unguided and first simple guided weapon requiring skill and experience to use, puting the thing on the thing manually in both A/A and A/G at short range within visual and lots of merges contrary to effortless automatic JSOW/AMRAM spam on datalink from dozens of miles not even seeing the targets.

 

It's going to be comparably effective to the F-14 in relation to it's 1960s period threats like MiG-17, MiG-19, MiG-21, Su-7 etc. plus A/G component. P-51 is going to be helpless against the F-16 in 1980s, F-16 is going to be helpless against the F-22 in 2000s etc.

Edited September 29, 2021 by bies

[Karon]

Late to the topic, but:

On 8/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Tank50us said:

The RIO gets some more stuff to mess with, but it would very much require that both the RIO and PIC be well in tune to make it all work. It was the 60s after all.

If you look at a syllabus from the 70s for the F-4 and the P-825 version 2002, what do you notice? Quick answer: they are very, very close in terms of contents. The main difference is that the RIO/WSO has more to do and a good human AIC / GCI is required (I never used an AI AWACS anyway) to provide the information that the avionics does not give you but, besides that, the basic stuff is very similar: BDHI, drift, Maths.

 

Where do I sign / throw money at?

[Nodak]

And lets not forget the elephant in the room, tactical nuclear delivery at Mach 2.0 plus air refueled from land or sea any weather any time.  Nope, phantoms never made anyone sweat.