Best plane to 'train' for the Phantom?

[Dragon1-1]

F-5 is good for practicing the "bomber" part of "fighter-bomber" mission description of the Phantom. It's got the same kind of sight, which means you have to dial in the mils yourself, and fly the numbers. It's possible that in the F-4, the GIB will be able to make it somewhat easier by setting the mils and calculating the numbers in question, but you'll still have to put bombs on target the old-fashioned way.

The F-14 is great if you want to get a feel for working with Jester, and for getting an idea about the radar. Also, landing the F-14A on the boat without DLC should be a somewhat similar experience, but this only goes so far. 

To my knowledge, nothing is quite like the F-4 as far as flight dynamics go, but it's basically a terrible turn fighter with great engines. Fighting in the Phantom will be a challenge, since basically everything that came out of Mikoyan bureau can outturn it, including the Duck, but it can climb and run races with the best of them. Most of the aircraft we have in DCS are at least competent in a turn fight, the Phantom, if you try to do much turning, will run out of speed pretty fast... and regain it just as fast once you unload and firewall the throttles instead of playing the MiG's game. Of course, that's if you manage not to spin out at high AoA or get a missile up your tailpipe in the meantime. 

[Victory205]

And, if the period missiles are modeled, you’re going to finally learn to maneuver to the rear quarter for sidewinder employment. No more roll to put the lift vector on, put your feet on the instrument panel, and pull until you can get an AIM9L/M face shot. Additionally, the F4J won’t have a gun!

It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.

[SgtPappy]

5 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

And, if the period missiles are modeled, you’re going to finally learn to maneuver to the rear quarter for sidewinder employment. No more roll to put the lift vector on, put your feet on the instrument panel, and pull until you can get an AIM9L/M face shot. Additionally, the F4J won’t have a gun!

It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.

Yessss this is one of the things I'm really looking forward to! It will be a unique experience that until now has only been partially simulated mainly with the F-5 on the blue side. 

Combat will be so viceral in a different way than 80s or modern servers - the lack of 1 circle face-shooting fights and lots more dogfighting and guns kills... I've ben waiting for this for years!

[Kev2go]

3 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

Yessss this is one of the things I'm really looking forward to! It will be a unique experience that until now has only been partially simulated mainly with the F-5 on the blue side. 

Combat will be so viceral in a different way than 80s or modern servers - the lack of 1 circle face-shooting fights and lots more dogfighting and guns kills... I've ben waiting for this for years!

although Il happily be using Aim9P4/5 or Aim9L/M for general multiplayer servers 

 

 

[SgtPappy]

58 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

although Il happily be using Aim9P4/5 or Aim9L/M for general multiplayer servers 

 

 

Same here. The servers that historically reflect wars like Vietnam and the Middle East wars of the 60s and 70s would have weapon restrictions, but the Phantom (or at least some version of it) will be right at home in more modern environments using all-aspect heaters, countermeasures and PGM's. There's so much potential for this module.

[Nexus-6]

6 hours ago, Victory205 said:

And, if the period missiles are modeled, you’re going to finally learn to maneuver to the rear quarter for sidewinder employment. No more roll to put the lift vector on, put your feet on the instrument panel, and pull until you can get an AIM9L/M face shot. Additionally, the F4J won’t have a gun!

It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.

Since it's Heatblur, I have very little doubts about the accuracy of whatever nuance they'll throw at their F-4 module(s).  If the real world WEZ restricted pilots to a narrow cone aft of the target, then I'm sure the DCS facsimile will do the same.

[Dragon1-1]

It's more on missiles (which are largely on ED's side) than on the aircraft. A good start would be getting an older AIM-9P which would actually be rear aspect like it should be. That said, I'm sure both early Sidewinder and the Falcon will be realistically modeled. As in, the former will only work at low G from the rear, and the latter won't work at all, except when the stars align and you did enough good deeds for divine intervention to come into play (you know a missile is bad when Robin friggin' Olds couldn't even get it to guide).  

Which reminds me of two more good training aids:
MiG-19: Excellent way to wean yourself off from face shot dogfighting. The R-3 will straight-out refuse to guide on anything cooler than a jet engine, and it doesn't like G loads at all. Of course, flying the MiG-19 up the other guy's tailpipe is somewhat easier because it can actually turn worth a damn. If you don't have a Tiger, you can also practice old style ground attack with it.

Viggen: This one is very unlike the Phantom except in one important way: the MCLOS missiles. Rb05 is a good stand-in for AGM-12 Bullpup, should we get that one with our Phantom. I don't know which version carried those, but they were deployed on Phantoms and HB had already made one MCLOS missile, so they could leverage the experience. Plus, it's a sweet feeling when you finally hit something with one of those.  

[MBot]

6 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

7 hours ago, Kev2go said:

although Il happily be using Aim9P4/5 or Aim9L/M for general multiplayer servers 

 

 

Same here. The servers that historically reflect wars like Vietnam and the Middle East wars of the 60s and 70s would have weapon restrictions, but the Phantom (or at least some version of it) will be right at home in more modern environments using all-aspect heaters, countermeasures and PGM's. There's so much potential for this module.

Even in the 1980s, frontline USAF F-4E were only using rear-aspect AIM-9P and AIM-7E.

[The_Chugster]

Is there an alternative to the Tomcat for learning 60s/70s BVR avionics and techniques?

[SgtPappy]

5 hours ago, MBot said:

Even in the 1980s, frontline USAF F-4E were only using rear-aspect AIM-9P and AIM-7E.

Something tells me that the general MP server audience will enable the most modern weapons and won't do historical accuracy which is fine. Personally the more historically-inspired servers will be my main place to play.

[MBot]

2 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

Something tells me that the general MP server audience will enable the most modern weapons and won't do historical accuracy which is fine. Personally the more historically-inspired servers will be my main place to play.

I wouldn't be surprised if our version of the F-4E wasn't wired for AIM-9L/M at all. In which case the AIM-9P is the most everybody gets.

[some1]

2 hours ago, The_Chugster said:

Is there an alternative to the Tomcat for learning 60s/70s BVR avionics and techniques?

Load F-15 with AIM-9P and AIM-7E. Remove the gun ammo. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by some1

[Kev2go]

14 hours ago, MBot said:

I wouldn't be surprised if our version of the F-4E wasn't wired for AIM-9L/M at all. In which case the AIM-9P is the most everybody gets.

If we are getting a  late model phantom such as dmas  modded version included , I'd expect it should be capable of arming all aspect winders. Considering they served till the 90s.

According to documentation all aspect aim9p4/p5 is compatible with same aero3b launchers that rear aspect aim9p( and earlier are mounted on) .  And also lau105s documented for aim9l/m in  F4E manuals.

 

 

22 hours ago, MBot said:

Even in the 1980s, frontline USAF F-4E were only using rear-aspect AIM-9P and AIM-7E.

Sounds like it would of been quite limited in combat given that even mig21,s were getting r60m, if that was the case, although i think muntions are generally included in DCS regardless of how common or uncommon it was as long as its documented. in 2005. Hornets would no longer be using AGM62. and virtually no Hornet would have ATFLIR given thier low availability at the time and prioritization for Super Hornets. 

 

Also an image of a f4g with Aim7F

 

 

Same a2a weapons capability as the f4e.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Kev2go

[MBot]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

Also an image of a f4g with Aim7F

Same a2a weapons capability as the f4e.

Yes, you are right, the technical capability exists. I found this excellent post on the subject:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/175680-aim-7-question/&tab=comments#comment-1636945

Summary: Author photographed AIM-9P-3, AIM-7E-2 and AIM-7F at Ramstein Air Base in the 80s but photographed AIM-7F actually loaded to F-4E only once.

 

On the subject on of AIM-9L I found these pictures:

Judging by the Hill camo, these pictures have probably been taken around 1990.

[Bremspropeller]

Fun Fact: The lower aircraft is actually a german F-4E, which was bought by Germany from USAF stocks for training F-4F crews at George AFB, later Holloman AFB.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Fighter_Squadron

How to tell the Es apart from the Fs? One indicator is the fiscal year (all german Fs should be in the 72 range, but don't quote me on that) and the other one is the colour of the nose when painted in Hill Grey. A black nose denotes an F. So does german camo.

Hill Grey and black nose (and 1972 fiscal year range). => F-4F

German Norm 81 camo and black nose. => F-4F

Standard Hill Grey, 1975 fiscal year and (hard to see) TISEO pod on the port wing. => F-4E

The Fs won't have the slatted stabilator of the E either, but that detail is often hard to see.

F-4F

Slatted stabilator (of a retrofitted F-4B in this case).

 

Another interesting note in those pictures is the use of the F-15 tank on the centerline, which at some time happened with the USAF and Luftwaffe Phantoms. The Eagle tanks had a higher g-rating. The Navy/ Marine Corps held on to the original tanks.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[Northstar98]

Looking at the external stores limitation table in a -1 for USAF F-4Es (circa 1984, revised 1990), the AIM-7F is listed, but it mentions with AN/AWM-19, which I understand to be a test set for the Sparrow control system according to this.

AFAIK, AIM-7E and AIM-7F use the same seeker technology (conical scanning with CWI, like the AIM-7E-2/E-3).

As for Sidewinders only the AIM-9B/E/J/N/P/P-4 are mentioned EDIT: nope, further down the table the AIM-9L/M is mentioned.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Northstar98

[WinterH]

18 hours ago, MBot said:

I wouldn't be surprised if our version of the F-4E

Our versions of F-4E actually  We are to get a 72-74 ish bird, probably with DSCG, and an ARN-101 DMAS bird, either late 70s or up to 80s maybe. In any case, the worst case scenario, a AIM-9P version with an improved seeker should be possible as an all aspect missile option, as well as quite a few rear aspect ones. If it really was a possibility, a less poo-poo Sparrow version then AIM-7E, obviously in addition to the E itself, would also be welcome. Perhaps these will be possibilities for the DMAS bird. Guess we'll see as Heatblur shares more as time goes

[Bremspropeller]

Wasn't the main difference between the E and E-2 Sparrows the shortened time-interval at which the missile would accept steering and fuzing?

[SgtPappy]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Wasn't the main difference between the E and E-2 Sparrows the shortened time-interval at which the missile would accept steering and fuzing?

Yes, among other differences like clipped wings (which allowed the servos to adjust the wings to higher AoAs, allowing the missile to pull more instantaneous G), fusing and missile flight orientation (no longer flew with one set of wings level and the other straight vertical, but rather looked like an "X" in flight). All were meant to give it better A2A capability.

[MBot]

On 1/29/2022 at 2:48 PM, WinterH said:

Our versions of F-4E actually  We are to get a 72-74 ish bird, probably with DSCG, and an ARN-101 DMAS bird, either late 70s or up to 80s maybe. In any case, the worst case scenario, a AIM-9P version with an improved seeker should be possible as an all aspect missile option

You are right, but I am not aware of any air-air related changes with ARN-101. Shouldn't air-air be identical with and without ARN-101 (both version served concurrently)?

Also I wonder if the USAF every acquired any all-aspect AIM-9P4/5 at all. I know Switzerland got their AIM-9P4 in 1990 and P5 in 1991. I have doubts that the USAF still got new AIM-9P at this point. From the pictures I have found, AIM-9L/M actually seemed to arrive at the few F-4E remaining by that time.

Edited January 30, 2022 by MBot
Typo, I meant all-aspect

[Kev2go]

23 hours ago, MBot said:

You are right, but I am not aware of any air-air related changes with ARN-101. Shouldn't air-air be identical with and without ARN-101 (both version served concurrently)?

Also I wonder if the USAF every acquired any rear-aspect AIM-9P4/5 at all. I know Switzerland got their AIM-9P4 in 1990 and P5 in 1991. I have doubts that the USAF still got new AIM-9P at this point. From the pictures I have found, AIM-9L/M actually seemed to arrive at the few F-4E remaining by that time.

 

 

p4/5 arent rear aspect anymore. they are using all aspect seeker heads. So yes whilst you have older generation rocket motor and still have Aim9P body aerodynamics. the p4/5 have all aspect seeker heads.

from what i read P4 is based on Aim9L seeker head, wheras the p5 has Aim9M  seeker tech with improved flare resistance.

 

not sure what exact color schemes the p4 or p5 should have if it varies from year to year since there seems to be variation, the only reliable way to tell is to have a close enough look at the tip of the missile to distnguish via more pointy seeker head, and maybe the color of missile head.

 

 

 

 

aim9p4

 

 

Aim9P5

 

p4 or p5

 

 

http://thecombatworkshop.blogspot.com/2017/10/sidewinder-overview-part-iv-aim-9jnp.html

 

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

On 1/29/2022 at 6:36 AM, MBot said:

Yes, you are right, the technical capability exists. I found this excellent post on the subject:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/175680-aim-7-question/&tab=comments#comment-1636945

Summary: Author photographed AIM-9P-3, AIM-7E-2 and AIM-7F at Ramstein Air Base in the 80s but photographed AIM-7F actually loaded to F-4E only once.

 

On the subject on of AIM-9L I found these pictures:

Judging by the Hill camo, these pictures have probably been taken around 1990.

 

 

I also found  some additional pictures of the Aim9L

 

  an F4E phantom from 110th TF / 131 TFW photographed May of 1988

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/295983/68-0338/AF68-338

 

Also another phantom  with what looks to be an Aim9L from Texas based squadron aircraft # 68-0-389  

 

but here is link ( though its an RF4-E)

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=alamy+F4E+389&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiv-rWGwtr1AhW1kIkEHbkvDnQQ_AUoAXoECBUQAw&biw=2560&bih=1329&dpr=1#imgrc=oatqIO3NL2IIJM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MBot]

2 hours ago, Kev2go said:

p4/5 arent rear aspect anymore

Sorry I miswrote, I wanted to say all-aspect. I am not sure if the USAF ever adopted the P4/5. At least all the USAF F-4E photos with P Sidewinders I have seen so far show P-3 (non-metallic guidance section).

[grant977]

The very fun thing to watch is if we get the Air Force variant with no guns and only wired for the aim4 falcon and aim 7s…

[Fangs Out]

On 1/27/2022 at 7:16 PM, Victory205 said:

And, if the period missiles are modeled, you’re going to finally learn to maneuver to the rear quarter for sidewinder employment. No more roll to put the lift vector on, put your feet on the instrument panel, and pull until you can get an AIM9L/M face shot. Additionally, the F4J won’t have a gun!

It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.

Right, which also give a beautiful duo on RedFor and Blu-For . A F-4J vs F-4E dogfight would be interesting. Also I'm excited for an unique style of sensor management compared to Modern aircraft (Viper and Hornet )