Announcing the F-4 Phantom for DCS World!

[QuiGon]

13 hours ago, Temetre said:

So is the IRL F-4E just completely "overpowered", for a gamey term, to most other aircraft of the day until the F-Tens drop?

Yes, there's a reason why it became such a big success. Of course it had some weaknesses as well, especially the early variants, but overall it was the best 3rd gen fighter that existed.

[addman]

Phantom vs MiG-23 is going to be really interesting.

[Biggus]

11 hours ago, Temetre said:

Random question, as someone thats excited in the F4 for some cold war liberation campaigns, but doesnt know much about the aircraft:

Whats the F-4Es weakness, compared to contemporaries, ignoring F14/15? To elaborate:

Just reading up about the thing sounds like its some fantasy-plane. Its an interceptor that can fly very fast, got good range, great AA and AG loadouts, the slat-variant can even outturn a lot of interceptors of the day. Biggest issue seems to be "its a bit difficult to fly/control", which is alleviated by being a two seater. Thats not even talking about Avionics and weapons, with solid BVR weapons, early LGBs, Mavericks and various computers.

So is the IRL F-4E just completely "overpowered", for a gamey term, to most other aircraft of the day until the F-Tens drop? Or is there some nuance im missing?

 

I read your question and it's surprised me how difficult it is to answer this question.

You're missing the time aspect.  Which then influences the technology aspect.

So it comes down to how historically accurate your campaigns are going to be.  The F-4E will be relatively dominant in air to air until the very late 1970s when the late Floggers come into service.  Those are extremely capable opponents, and if you're trying to remain historically accurate, you aren't going to have anything better than an AIM-7E2 until the second half of the 1980s.  You won't have an all-aspect heater until just before Desert Storm.  At any point past around 1984, you'll want to be very careful about picking your fights.  And by the time you do have -9Ls and -7Fs, you'll be facing R-27s in greater numbers.  Even the R-23Rs are a threat - on paper they should have slightly longer reach than your Sparrows.  But the Flogger should be more susceptible to problems with clutter in look-down situations than the AI one seems to currently be.  The side with the best tactics will win the day, as always.

On the strike side, you'll have precision strike capability from the factory in 1974 with the Pave Spike pod, but depending again on how historically accurate you're going to be, they only made 156 of them and it took a bit of time for them all to be made, so perhaps not every squadron had a pod for every bird at that point in time.  Then around 1978, you get the DMAS birds arriving, and they're like proto-mudhens.  And if DCS had LORAN, they'd have been even better.  So for moving mud, the F-4E was an absolute monster at any point from 1974 onwards.  Even without a pod, squadrons that valued the AN/AJB-7 would put in the maintenance time and found the system worked with respectable accuracy with iron bombs, though this wasn't true of every squadron apparently.

Historically, it should be a very capable aircraft in general for the late Cold War.  Had the USAF elected to send better variants of Sparrow and Sidewinder to the Phantom squadrons, it'd have been a bit more dominant until the very late 1980s.

But yes, a 1974 F-4E with weapons it didn't get until the sunset of it's service in an environment where there are no reliability issues will be a very formidable module.

[WinterH]

15 hours ago, Temetre said:

Random question, as someone thats excited in the F4 for some cold war liberation campaigns, but doesnt know much about the aircraft:

Whats the F-4Es weakness, compared to contemporaries, ignoring F14/15? To elaborate:

Just reading up about the thing sounds like its some fantasy-plane. Its an interceptor that can fly very fast, got good range, great AA and AG loadouts, the slat-variant can even outturn a lot of interceptors of the day. Biggest issue seems to be "its a bit difficult to fly/control", which is alleviated by being a two seater. Thats not even talking about Avionics and weapons, with solid BVR weapons, early LGBs, Mavericks and various computers.

So is the IRL F-4E just completely "overpowered", for a gamey term, to most other aircraft of the day until the F-Tens drop? Or is there some nuance im missing?

Eh, as a Phantom fan, that is way overblown in my opinion.

Being two seater does nothing to alleviate tricky flying characteristics, it takes away load of working some of the (ancient and frankly janky) avionics and gives an extra pair of eyes to look outside, but the thing is still as tricky to fly and pilot still has to do that. But to be fair, pretty much nothing from the period is easy to fly anyway.

In a dogfight vs contemporaries, it is roughly equal-ish really, but even MiG-21 is going to be easier to get the best out of I think, same goes for the F-5. Mirage F1 proved to be surprisingly tricky but that may well be flight model being in an early state. Israel, having F-4Es and Mirage IIIs, most often used old Mirages in the air to air role from what I know for example.

As for the avionics, they are super cool especially for the period, and are also utter jank  Solid BVR weapons sounds like a solid overstatement to me. AIM-7F seems to be the top possibility, and Mirage's Super 530F is somehat better than that, and so will the upcoming MiG-23MLA's R-24R will be, only the margin will be greater in favor of R-24 I think. F-4E's radar will be mediocre for air to air, especially in BVR it will have a lot of limitations like no look down capability. Also unlike Mirage F1 or MiG-23MLA, or even F-5E-3 to some degree, it won't have a good close in quick acquisition mode afaik. MiG-23MLA will also have an overall better air to air radar that is easier to use, has a better range, and can do at least some look-down.

Naval F-4s do fix these issues in air to air, but give up the gun, and only catch up to F-4Es especially lower speed maneuverability pretty late, and they also completely give up all the advanced air to ground capabilities from F-4E. Speaking of those capabilities, earlier mavericks are (unlike in DCS) so-so, F-4's bombing computer was so much loved in Vietnam, pilots just used bombing tables or flat out "used the force" instead, and the targeting pods (while for me will be awesome for that reason alone) were super janky. Pave Spike, the pod we'll get for the first variant, is a day-time TV only system with low resolution, and thus low magnification/range, no automatic target tracking capability to speak of, and only quick cueing options are "look left/right/ahead".

Between 1974-1984ish, F-4E was one of the very few, perhaps even only aircraft that could do both decent-ish air to air AND fairly advanced for the time multirole air to ground. But that same period also had pure AA and pure AG platforms that were just plain better in those jobs. By then, F-14 was already a thing, in a short while F-15 too, and 80s brought along the whole rest of the 4th gen fighters.

Yes, it could do both air to air and air to ground quite good, unlike most other aircraft of the period. But there were many that were at least as good or better in air to air, also many that were at least as good or better in air to ground. So don't see how that makes F-4E "OP" until the 4th gen arrived, and frankly, one can argue 4th gen already didn't take long to arrive after F-4E's "coming of age" with slats, less smokey engines, better AA missiles, better air to ground technologies during mid 70s.

I also think it was the overall best 3rd gen fighter, just not by that much, and neither its flight characteristics, nor BVR capabilities, or indeed air to ground capabilities were quite as magical as you seem to think.

Edited April 19, 2023 by WinterH

[Temetre]

@QuiGon Yeh, it really sounds like the plane is ahead of the time, even in a 1970 variant. But im sure there some "buts" ive missed. Its always more complicated than that with fighter planes, there are no easy answers. 

@addman Im so looking forward to flying Phantomes against Mig 15/19/21/23. Probably all enemies requiring different tactics, which should be interesting with the powerful yet jank cold war gear of an F-4!

 

@Biggus Thx, thats a good point of perspective. I know its really hard to put an aircraft like this into its context.

Im definitely noticing that a lot of the advanced upgrades are more a mid 70s to 80s thing, when stuff  like the F-Tens and later Mig29/Su27 arrive. I knew about some stuff, but specifically the Slat-upgrade only arriving in 1972 is news to me. I thought that was equipped from the get go with the F-4E in 65 or so, but its actually just two years before the F-14 hits.

And the Mig-23 radar, despite limitations, being more powerful and easier to use is interesting as well. Doubly so together with the missile being better than same era Aim-7s.

I imagine the earlier Aim-7 was quite good against Mig-21s before that tbf. I wonder about the bombing computer; in the A4-Skyhawk mod, the LABS computer was pretty amazing in how easy to use and accurate it was, especially with MK-20s. But IRL pilots probably got a lot more training with bomb tables and stuff.

 

@WinterH Also thanks for the big writeup! Yup, theres always more to planes, they are always big compromises. So I assumed Im just ignorant towards the flaws. Sometimes asking naive questions helps getting good answers^^

Interesting to hear that a Mig-21 is easier to fly, even if its maybe limited in other ways. The Mig-21 was so fun to fly in quick interception followed by short early heatseeker dogfights, so that it made me really excited for other CW planes like the F-4.

But its also why the Mirage F-1 seemed a bit less appealing to me, with the worse turning; but Id happy to hear if thats just an artifact of the early flight model. Wanna try that plane sometime in the future after the F-4, it looks pretty high quality and the different variants are really cool.

The BVR stuff is interesting. I wasnt aware the Mirage F-1 and Mig-23 actually got better missiles and radars for the time period (tho Super-530 is a bit later). So here we got a clear downside.

Its also clearer to me now that the F-4E gets slats and higher end equipment later than I thought. But hey, that means just more reason to consider how to limit myself and the enemies.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Temetre

[Biggus]

25 minutes ago, Temetre said:

@Biggus I imagine the earlier Aim-7 was quite good against Mig-21s before that tbf. I wonder about the bombing computer; in the A4-Skyhawk mod, the LABS computer was pretty amazing in how easy to use and accurate it was, especially with MK-20s. But IRL pilots probably got a lot more training with bomb tables and stuff.

Well to be honest, the AIM-7E was abysmal in combat in reality.  This is where DCS will probably diverge from reality.  The weapon worked well in testing, but due to the fragile nature of the analog technology, poor handling by ground crew and logistics personnel and less-than-optimal pilot training, it had a less than stellar reputation.  I would be surprised if DCS were to model any of this, and to be fair I think it's a can of worms that will need to be addressed at some point when we have dynamic campaigns with a decent logistics simulation.  Credit where it is due though, it was the weapon the USAF used to gain most of their kills in Vietnam.  But they spent a lot of missiles per kill, I vaguely recall the pk was around 11%.

The comparison to the Skyhawk for bombing is an excellent one.  The system was quite similar in operation.  Radar boresighted at 35 mils on the gunsight, place gunsight on target and I believe the pilot originally had to request the WSO to lock.  However, if the system was not maintained, the antenna would wander a bit.  I recall one documentary where a pilot was commenting that after locking, he could see it moving.  But later when he went to another squadron, the system worked well.  There were also quite a few other bombing modes and there's going to be plenty of options when it comes to delivering iron on target with the DSCG bird.  Later, ARN-101 came along and could basically fly the plane from the chocks to the pickle point and then back to the chocks.  The USAF F-4 squadrons must have felt like they were living in Star Wars.

[BIGNEWY]

9 minutes ago, Biggus said:

Well to be honest, the AIM-7E was abysmal in combat in reality.  This is where DCS will probably diverge from reality. 

If you have better public data than we do please PM me we are always happy to re-evaluate what we have. 

thank you

[Temetre]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Biggus:

Well to be honest, the AIM-7E was abysmal in combat in reality.  This is where DCS will probably diverge from reality.  The weapon worked well in testing, but due to the fragile nature of the analog technology, poor handling by ground crew and logistics personnel and less-than-optimal pilot training, it had a less than stellar reputation.  I would be surprised if DCS were to model any of this, and to be fair I think it's a can of worms that will need to be addressed at some point when we have dynamic campaigns with a decent logistics simulation.  Credit where it is due though, it was the weapon the USAF used to gain most of their kills in Vietnam.  But they spent a lot of missiles per kill, I vaguely recall the pk was around 11%.

The comparison to the Skyhawk for bombing is an excellent one.  The system was quite similar in operation.  Radar boresighted at 35 mils on the gunsight, place gunsight on target and I believe the pilot originally had to request the WSO to lock.  However, if the system was not maintained, the antenna would wander a bit.  I recall one documentary where a pilot was commenting that after locking, he could see it moving.  But later when he went to another squadron, the system worked well.  

Yeah the reliability aspect is always very difficult to handle. Eg the 11% of the Aim-7, thres always so many questoins: which variant was it, how did the situation happen, how was the training, etc. Even before you reach maintenance concerns, it seems very difficult to judge weapons effectiveness.

Kinda gotta think of the Aim-4, where I heard wildly contradicting stuff. Apparently the F4 had abysmal results with it, but reading into it, that was partially because the Phantom was missing the necessary avionics to fully use it. Probably also lack of training, and it being used against things that arent slow big bombers. Or how everyone said the Aim-54 Phoenix was bad, but then you read about Iran (which tbf is hard to get good data on), and it looks actually really effective, even if used by a less experienced air-force.

I certainly dont envy the devs for having to make heavy decisions like this, though ED/3rd parties seem usually pretty good at balancing things.

 

On then the maintenance aspect... tbh, Im a casual that would prefer if ED at lest assumes good maintenance standards. Playing limited time and training would be frustrating with failures beyond flaws of normal operation. It also seems inapprioriate to assume eg overstretched Vietnam logistics, when you might fly a bunch of well maintained fresh Israeli F4s in your setting.

I dont want to dismiss the idea though, but If we want a failure/low maintenance system, it would be much better to spin it off into an optional system. Could even be interesting to consider emergency plans and actually look into failure-checklists. Or make decisions eg between high tech and less reliable strike weapons, or more reliable dumb bombs. Or what I would be curious about, a scenario where BVR is available, but the reliability of BVR is questionable due to maintenance, paralleling IRL scenarios where dogfighting made a surprising comback.

That could create so much interesting strategy, risk-assessment and decisions making, which probably was a big thing in IRL conflicts. But its of course also a very big thing to ask for, a feature like this would be extremely difficult to implement over so many planes and developers. I dont think we can even set a server/mission date limit for loadouts currently? (but now im just rambling on i feel xD )

Zitat

There were also quite a few other bombing modes and there's going to be plenty of options when it comes to delivering iron on target with the DSCG bird.  Later, ARN-101 came along and could basically fly the plane from the chocks to the pickle point and then back to the chocks.  The USAF F-4 squadrons must have felt like they were living in Star Wars.

Yeh im really looking forward to that stuff. Learning planes in DCS is like a history lesson to me. The two F4-E variants are probably going to be a great show of an early cold war plane, and how upgrades in 70s and 80s changed it, with some of the primitive predecessors to the "magical" tech Ive got in my F-16/18. Or the ability to limit myself to lower tech weapon systems for an earlier cold war experience.

Same reason im gonna get the Mirage F1 at some point. Spans a big timespan from early CE to the M variant with MFD.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Temetre

[Nodak]

21 hours ago, Temetre said:

Random question, as someone thats excited in the F4 for some cold war liberation campaigns, but doesnt know much about the aircraft:

Whats the F-4Es weakness, compared to contemporaries, ignoring F14/15? To elaborate:

Just reading up about the thing sounds like its some fantasy-plane. Its an interceptor that can fly very fast, got good range, great AA and AG loadouts, the slat-variant can even outturn a lot of interceptors of the day. Biggest issue seems to be "its a bit difficult to fly/control", which is alleviated by being a two seater. Thats not even talking about Avionics and weapons, with solid BVR weapons, early LGBs, Mavericks and various computers.

So is the IRL F-4E just completely "overpowered", for a gamey term, to most other aircraft of the day until the F-Tens drop? Or is there some nuance im missing?

 

Think many will get a surprise when it comes to fuel consumption with careless use of afterburners, you can pretty much burn through a double digit percentage of your internals in 60 seconds of use.

[Temetre]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Nodak:

Think many will get a surprise when it comes to fuel consumption with careless use of afterburners, you can pretty much burn through a double digit percentage of your internals in 60 seconds of use.

Though Id imagine both dry thrust and afterburner time should be much better in the Phantom than in the Mig-21? Feels like from the numbers it should be closer to the F-16, if a bit less.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Temetre

[Gunfreak]

6 hours ago, Biggus said:

Well to be honest, the AIM-7E was abysmal in combat in reality.  This is where DCS will probably diverge from reality.  The weapon worked well in testing, but due to the fragile nature of the analog technology, poor handling by ground crew and logistics personnel and less-than-optimal pilot training, it had a less than stellar reputation.  I would be surprised if DCS were to model any of this, and to be fair I think it's a can of worms that will need to be addressed at some point when we have dynamic campaigns with a decent logistics simulation.  Credit where it is due though, it was the weapon the USAF used to gain most of their kills in Vietnam.  But they spent a lot of missiles per kill, I vaguely recall the pk was around 11%.

The comparison to the Skyhawk for bombing is an excellent one.  The system was quite similar in operation.  Radar boresighted at 35 mils on the gunsight, place gunsight on target and I believe the pilot originally had to request the WSO to lock.  However, if the system was not maintained, the antenna would wander a bit.  I recall one documentary where a pilot was commenting that after locking, he could see it moving.  But later when he went to another squadron, the system worked well.  There were also quite a few other bombing modes and there's going to be plenty of options when it comes to delivering iron on target with the DSCG bird.  Later, ARN-101 came along and could basically fly the plane from the chocks to the pickle point and then back to the chocks.  The USAF F-4 squadrons must have felt like they were living in Star Wars.

Some of the problems with the AIM7 was the Rules of engagements demanded visual IFF, at which point the early Sparrows were out of their comfort zone.

 

In a DCS environment, the player can sneak up on a MiG21 and take their time and do the whole four Mississippi and fire off a sparrow at the ranges it's ment to be used and from all aspects. While the MiG21 probably will only have rear aspect not very good heat seakers (if we go for late 60s early 70s scenario) this will of course change if the period is later half 70s or 80s.

[Temetre]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Gunfreak:

Some of the problems with the AIM7 was the Rules of engagements demanded visual IFF, at which point the early Sparrows were out of their comfort zone.

 

In a DCS environment, the player can sneak up on a MiG21 and take their time and do the whole four Mississippi and fire off a sparrow at the ranges it's ment to be used and from all aspects. While the MiG21 probably will only have rear aspect not very good heat seakers (if we go for late 60s early 70s scenario) this will of course change if the period is later half 70s or 80s.

Vietnam also was a lot of hit and run attacks, wasnt it? Probably ment a lot of missiles shot from less than optimal positions.

[SgtPappy]

13 hours ago, Temetre said:

Im definitely noticing that a lot of the advanced upgrades are more a mid 70s to 80s thing, when stuff  like the F-Tens and later Mig29/Su27 arrive. I knew about some stuff, but specifically the Slat-upgrade only arriving in 1972 is news to me. I thought that was equipped from the get go with the F-4E in 65 or so, but its actually just two years before the F-14 hits.

And the Mig-23 radar, despite limitations, being more powerful and easier to use is interesting as well. Doubly so together with the missile being better than same era Aim-7s.

 

Just to add to the excellent information already provided, I'd also like to mention that the F-4E with slats showing up in late 1972 in the final stages of the Vietnam War with the "new" 555th TFS was a very mature version of the F-4 while the earliest of F-14A and F-15A blocks had a lot of hiccups to fix at the time when they were still prototypes. Of course despite this, when they worked properly, they really were next generation in terms of performance. To me, what makes this F-4E version special is that it was the best version of the F-4E to fight in wars (Vietnam, Israel in 1973) where it was the best over all in the world. After 1973, the F-14A, F-15A, Mirage F1, MiG-23 started showing up and IMO, the F-14/F-15 completely outclassed the new fighters entering service. The MiG-23MS - the first mass produced version - did not have a radar as capable as the 1977 circa MiG-23ML/MLA. And indeed the first examples of the MiG-23 to see combat was the MF variant in 1974 which had no BVR missiles and a MiG-21 radar.

The AIM-7E-2 at this time also yes, had a poor hit rate - only improving over the legacy AIM-7 by around 2% - but Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965–1972 (and probably the infamous Ault report - I'd have to read it again to confirm) admits that a LOT of the missed missiles also had to do with shots out of parameters or switches being in the wrong position, leading to duds on top of the lack of reliability. I've seen figures as high as 30% of missed missiles was from these factors, but I'd have to dig deeper to be sure.

 

13 hours ago, Temetre said:

Interesting to hear that a Mig-21 is easier to fly, even if its maybe limited in other ways. The Mig-21 was so fun to fly in quick interception followed by short early heatseeker dogfights, so that it made me really excited for other CW planes like the F-4.

If we end up making servers with period-accurate combat until and including 1973 tech, say good bye to chaff and flare launchers on either the F-4E or MiG-21 and very limited R-3R/S missiles on the MiG. The F-4 would be at a significant advantage here, being able to use AIM-9D's (if Israeli) or J's (probably similar/exactly the same as AIM-9P's as far as DCS is concerned).

However to get good traffic, I imagine servers would understandably need to compromise a bit by having technologically similar jets for balanced gameplay and accessibility and sort of forgo time frames.

 

13 hours ago, Temetre said:

But its also why the Mirage F-1 seemed a bit less appealing to me, with the worse turning; but Id happy to hear if thats just an artifact of the early flight model. Wanna try that plane sometime in the future after the F-4, it looks pretty high quality and the different variants are really cool.

The BVR stuff is interesting. I wasnt aware the Mirage F-1 and Mig-23 actually got better missiles and radars for the time period (tho Super-530 is a bit later). So here we got a clear downside.

From quick and rough checks of weights, dimensions and uninstalled, sea level engine thrust, the Mirage F1 appears to be inferior to the F-4E in thrust to weight ratio with a similar wing loading, aspect ratio and wing sweep while also having leading edge slats (the Mirage has half span slats and half span LE flaps), though it seems to be faster. It does not surprise me too much if it were to actually turn worse instantaneously and sustained.

Also note that the S530F, while maybe a much faster missile than the AIM-7E-2 was a 1978ish missile - by which time the contemporary would have been the AIM-7F which equipped F-14's and F-15's and would equip some F-4E squadrons. The AIM-7F is still slower but it is loads better in performance and reliability than the AIM-7E variants. All this to say I guess is that the better MiG-23MLA and DCS Mirage F1 variants and weapons aren't really contemporary to this F-4E chronologically (but they would be for the later DMAS F-4E) - but rather they'd showed up when the likes of the Tomcat and Eagle were on the scene.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by SgtPappy

[Gunfreak]

Also until the A7 arrived in DCS, the F4 will be the undisputed ground punder plane until the 4th gen planes(and A10 but that's a different category of plane) arrive in just the amount of ordnance it can carry. None of the red force planes or the French stuff can measure up) if you just want lots of dumb bomb. It will still beat the F16/18 and be about equal to the Strike Eagle.

[Biggus]

18 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

If you have better public data than we do please PM me we are always happy to re-evaluate what we have. 

thank you

With all due respect, you've selectively quoted me without the context and missed my point entirely.

Does DCS model the effect of dragging a cart of Sparrows across half a mile of perforated steel plate to the revetment, often destroying the circuitry?  Does DCS model ground crew testing the missiles before uploading them?  This stuff mattered.  If you don't model this, then DCS has to diverge from reality and the missile will perform better than it did historically.

And let me say that I do not expect DCS to model this.  But reliability of systems is something that I do hope ED spends some time on when the dynamic campaign is out beyond early access.

12 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Some of the problems with the AIM7 was the Rules of engagements demanded visual IFF, at which point the early Sparrows were out of their comfort zone.

Absolutely.  Firing out of their envelope was a significant factor.

[Temetre]

vor 49 Minuten schrieb Biggus:

Does DCS model the effect of dragging a cart of Sparrows across half a mile of perforated steel plate to the revetment, often destroying the circuitry?  Does DCS model ground crew testing the missiles before uploading them?  This stuff mattered.  If you don't model this, then DCS has to diverge from reality and the missile will perform better than it did historically.

Idk, gotta disagree on that one:

1. DCS is a game, so obviously it diverges from reality. Youre not actually flying a real plane in a war, its nothing like the real thing, no matter how amazing of a simulation DCS is. Always important to remember.

2. DCS isnt a vietnam war simulator, it doesnt even got a map for Vietnam. So its illogical to ask for it to strictly replicate Vietnam war aspects.

3. Even if above wasnt true, the problem with the effect of bad maintenance is that its extremely difficult to tell. How would you even know much of the 11% KP rate came from maintenance flaws, tactical situations or pilot error? Any random failure chance would be a guess on the side of ED, and clearly not realistic to the level that you seem to demand.

Please dont get me wrong, I kinda get what youre asking for, and Im not trying to tell you that youre wrong for that or so. Its just that its insanely difficult, or maybe impossible to even do in a way thats realistic to that level. These are the things you can spend weeks or months on game/tech design, and in the end come to the conclusion that you cant replicate details like that. And even, in the unlikely case that you managed to do an amazing level of fault-simulation, what you did will likely only work for one specific time, place and strategical environment. Take it to any other place and its unrealistic again.

Idk if the USAF even has enough data to give out to make a simulation thats truly realistic to Vietnam standards. And if they had, its probably classified, considering the Aim-7 is still in limited use and they generally dont publicise all data.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Temetre

[WarbossPetross]

2 часа назад, Gunfreak сказал:

Also until the A7 arrived in DCS, the F4 will be the undisputed ground punder plane until the 4th gen planes(and A10 but that's a different category of plane) arrive in just the amount of ordnance it can carry. None of the red force planes or the French stuff can measure up) if you just want lots of dumb bomb. It will still beat the F16/18 and be about equal to the Strike Eagle.

I think I have some idea of what to expect in the A-A department, but I have no clue about the A-G. Can you tell me the difference in A-G capabilities between the Phantom, A-6 and A-7 that we're getting? Like, in gameplay terms?

Edited April 20, 2023 by WarbossPetross

[Temetre]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb SgtPappy:

Just to add to the excellent information already provided, I'd also like to mention that the F-4E with slats showing up in late 1972 in the final stages of the Vietnam War with the "new" 555th TFS was a very mature version of the F-4 while the earliest of F-14A and F-15A blocks had a lot of hiccups to fix at the time when they were still prototypes. Of course despite this, when they worked properly, they really were next generation in terms of performance. To me, what makes this F-4E version special is that it was the best version of the F-4E to fight in wars (Vietnam, Israel in 1973) where it was the best over all in the world. After 1973, the F-14A, F-15A, Mirage F1, MiG-23 started showing up and IMO, the F-14/F-15 completely outclassed the new fighters entering service. The MiG-23MS - the first mass produced version - did not have a radar as capable as the 1977 circa MiG-23ML/MLA. And indeed the first examples of the MiG-23 to see combat was the MF variant in 1974 which had no BVR missiles and a MiG-21 radar.

The AIM-7E-2 at this time also yes, had a poor hit rate - only improving over the legacy AIM-7 by around 2% - but Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965–1972 (and probably the infamous Ault report - I'd have to read it again to confirm) admits that a LOT of the missed missiles also had to do with shots out of parameters or switches being in the wrong position, leading to duds on top of the lack of reliability. I've seen figures as high as 30% of missed missiles was from these factors, but I'd have to dig deeper to be sure.

Good point, its a good addendum that early F14/F15 also had their troubles, while were talking about a highly polished F4 variant. You almost never see the early F-tens in games, let alone hear about them. Even DCS usually goes for later workhorse variants.

For that reason Im very curious about the early F14 variants coming, IIRC the early A-GR and iranian Tomcat is still WIP. Gonna be cool to fly among the F-4Es I imagine  

vor 8 Stunden schrieb SgtPappy:

If we end up making servers with period-accurate combat until and including 1973 tech, say good bye to chaff and flare launchers on either the F-4E or MiG-21 and very limited R-3R/S missiles on the MiG. The F-4 would be at a significant advantage here, being able to use AIM-9D's (if Israeli) or J's (probably similar/exactly the same as AIM-9P's as far as DCS is concerned).

However to get good traffic, I imagine servers would understandably need to compromise a bit by having technologically similar jets for balanced gameplay and accessibility and sort of forgo time frames.

Of course, everything is a compromise. Im also palying a lot of DCS liberation when trying to get a handle on aircraft.

vor 8 Stunden schrieb SgtPappy:

From quick and rough checks of weights, dimensions and uninstalled, sea level engine thrust, the Mirage F1 appears to be inferior to the F-4E in thrust to weight ratio with a similar wing loading, aspect ratio and wing sweep while also having leading edge slats (the Mirage has half span slats and half span LE flaps), though it seems to be faster. It does not surprise me too much if it were to actually turn worse instantaneously and sustained.

Also note that the S530F, while maybe a much faster missile than the AIM-7E-2 was a 1978ish missile - by which time the contemporary would have been the AIM-7F which equipped F-14's and F-15's and would equip some F-4E squadrons. The AIM-7F is still slower but it is loads better in performance and reliability than the AIM-7E variants. All this to say I guess is that the better MiG-23MLA and DCS Mirage F1 variants and weapons aren't really contemporary to this F-4E chronologically (but they would be for the later DMAS F-4E) - but rather they'd showed up when the likes of the Tomcat and Eagle were on the scene.

Aight, shame if the Mirage F-1 is just a bit less agile. Certainly wont ruin the module, but might make it a bit more limited in its roles I feel.

But thats why the F-4 has priority to me, thatll likely be a plane you can spend a long time on. 

 

[Gunfreak]

2 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

I think I have some idea of what to expect in the A-A department, but I have no clue about the A-G. Can you tell me the difference in A-G capabilities between the Phantom, A-6 and A-7 that we're getting? Like, in gameplay terms?

 

Don't know the exact details. But A6 and A7 will both be 80s modeles so probably have more fancy stuff.

All 3 can carry a silly amount of bombs. The F4 can carry 18 500lb or 750lb bombs with fuel tanks and I think 24 with no tanks. The A7 can carry something ludicrous like 30 500lb bombs with no tanks on. Almost the same as 3 B17s. 

 

 

[WarbossPetross]

6 минут назад, Gunfreak сказал:

Don't know the exact details. But A6 and A7 will both be 80s modeles so probably have more fancy stuff.

All 3 can carry a silly amount of bombs. The F4 can carry 18 500lb or 750lb bombs with fuel tanks and I think 24 with no tanks. The A7 can carry something ludicrous like 30 500lb bombs with no tanks on. Almost the same as 3 B17s.

And what about radar bombing? The teen series have a ground radar that more or less allows them to operate without the targeting pod. Do these planes have something similar or maybe it's just basic terrain avoidance stuff like, say, on the A-4E mod?

[Biggus]

 

40 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Idk, gotta disagree on that one:

1. DCS is a game, so obviously it diverges from reality. Youre not actually flying a real plane in a war, its nothing like the real thing, no matter how amazing of a simulation DCS is. Always important to remember.

2. DCS isnt a vietnam war simulator, it doesnt even got a map for Vietnam. So its illogical to ask for it to strictly replicate Vietnam war aspects.

3. Even if above wasnt true, the problem with the effect of bad maintenance is that its extremely difficult to tell. How would you even know much of the 11% KP rate came from maintenance flaws, tactical situations or pilot error? Any random failure chance would be a guess on the side of ED, and clearly not realistic to the level that you seem to demand.

Please dont get me wrong, I kinda get what youre asking for, and Im not trying to tell you that youre wrong for that or so. Its just that its insanely difficult, or maybe impossible to even do in a way thats realistic to that level. These are the things you can spend weeks or months on game/tech design, and in the end come to the conclusion that you cant replicate details like that. And even, in the unlikely case that you managed to do an amazing level of fault-simulation, what you did will likely only work for one specific time, place and strategical environment. Take it to any other place and its unrealistic again.

Idk if the USAF even has enough data to give out to make a simulation thats truly realistic to Vietnam standards. And if they had, its probably classified, considering the Aim-7 is still in limited use and they generally dont publicise all data.

 

You're quoting a reply without considering the context, which was a reply where I was taken out of context.

I literally said this immediately following the part you've quoted:

1 hour ago, Biggus said:

And let me say that I do not expect DCS to model this.  But reliability of systems is something that I do hope ED spends some time on when the dynamic campaign is out beyond early access.

I'm not pretending to have all the answers for this.  I'd like to see some maintenance and reliability things implemented at a campaign designer level optionally when the dynamic campaign rolls out and leave it up to the designer to decide how to scale it all.  I consider it somewhat important for immersion.  That's all.

My entire point has been that we can expect some weapons to function better in DCS than reality, because the real-life hardware was subject to damage that we do not need to worry about in a simulator.

[Temetre]

vor 38 Minuten schrieb Biggus:

I'm not pretending to have all the answers for this.  I'd like to see some maintenance and reliability things implemented at a campaign designer level optionally when the dynamic campaign rolls out and leave it up to the designer to decide how to scale it all.  I consider it somewhat important for immersion.  That's all.

My entire point has been that we can expect some weapons to function better in DCS than reality, because the real-life hardware was subject to damage that we do not need to worry about in a simulator.

Aight, then my bad, looks like I misunderstood you.

What threw me off was the "diverges from reality", which sounded like you were asking to have absolute realism. If you just ment the problem should be at least vaguely simulated (and configurable) to acchieve realism in an area thats been ignore till now, then thats totally reasonable indeed. Does indeed fit together with the logistics factor you mentioned.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Temetre

[SgtPappy]

4 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Also until the A7 arrived in DCS, the F4 will be the undisputed ground punder plane until the 4th gen planes(and A10 but that's a different category of plane) arrive in just the amount of ordnance it can carry. None of the red force planes or the French stuff can measure up) if you just want lots of dumb bomb. It will still beat the F16/18 and be about equal to the Strike Eagle.

Yea, what other jet can carry 4 sparrows, 4 sidewinders, two drop tanks AND 12 Mk 82s at the same time? I dont even think the Strike Eagle could since the outer two hard points were deleted from the F-15 until just recently.

[Kalasnkova74]

On 4/19/2023 at 9:15 AM, Temetre said:

Kinda gotta think of the Aim-4, where I heard wildly contradicting stuff. Apparently the F4 had abysmal results with it, but reading into it, that was partially because the Phantom was missing the necessary avionics to fully use it. Probably also lack of training, and it being used against things that arent slow big bombers. Or how everyone said the Aim-54 Phoenix was bad, but then you read about Iran (which tbf is hard to get good data on), and it looks actually really effective, even if used by a less experienced air-force.

 

The problem with realistically modeling Missile p/k in DCS based on real life data  is that the real life data is ironically unreliable. 

The AIM-4 is an excellent case study of this. It was built to be used with a Hughes guidance system. Cutting edge stuff for the early 1950s. The idea was an interceptor (F-101B/F-102/F-106) would be vectored into a head on attack against incoming Soviet nuclear bombers flying over the north pole. At supersonic closure speeds it’s impossible for a human to arm and effectively employ a weapon, so the Hughes guidance computer would calculate the head on interception data and launch the AIM-4 based on the highest probability of a direct hit. This is why the missile wasn’t built with a proximity fuse; a Tu-95 Bear is a big tough plane, and if you want to take it down you NEED to hit it to get the kill. A damaged bomber that gets 50% of its nuclear payload to the target = millions dead and mission failed. 
 

So USAF Air Defense Command uses the Falcon and is fairly happy with it. Meanwhile the USAF is essentially ordered by Robert McNamara to buy the Navy’s F-4B Phantom II, which becomes probably the best decision McNamara ever made in the SecDef chair. With the Navy’s Phantom II comes the Navy’s missiles, in this case the AIM-9B Sidewinder. This didn’t sit well with the USAF leadership when discussions started on a follow up version. The Navy owned the Sidewinder program, which triggered an intra service feud over the Sidewinders future. The political row ended with USAF generals basically telling the Navy to ‘take their Sidewinder and shove it’. 
 

They set about bastardizing the bomber interceptor AIM-4 to work with the Phantom II. The Phantom II didn’t have the necessary avionics, so all the launch steps and parameters had to be implemented manually (including triggering the seeker cooling). It’s a heat seeker, the Sidewinders a heat seeker, plug N play right? (or so thought the Generals). 

Which was like bringing a scoped hunting rifle to a sword duel. The AIM-4 was never built to be used against fighters, a fact Col Robin Olds famously verified over the skies of Vietnam. That decision by USAF Systems Command to lobotomize the AIM-4 ruined the Falcons reputation for all time.

It had an abysmal combat PK:  but if DCS modeled an F-101B (for one example) with the AIM-4 they couldn’t use that Vietnam data as a guide to model the missiles performance on the Voodoo because it’s an entirely different avionics setup. 
 

Lengthy example, but hopefully it gets the point across. Just because an AIM-4/AIM-7/etc scored a 10% PK in Vietnam doesn’t mean that’s what it should score all the time. 

 

[Biggus]

@Kalasnkova74, that was an excellent example of what I was trying to get across.

Anybody interested in this sort of thing would probably find the Ault report and the Red Baron reports quite fascinating.