Naval Phantom Variant

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, F1GHTS-ON said:

Despite USN F-4s not carrying gunpods (although as mentioned in another post the UK 's 4th branch of the military did on their -J's), any DCS short nosed F-4 is clearly going to get covered  F-4C/D skins by a very sizeable number of players. So whilst not historically accurate in USN service, I would hope expect a gunpod option. (Historical accuracy...... you ALL know you're going to try and land the -E on the carrier whilst we wait for the naval phantom.)

I'm with you on that - if the ordinance was cleared for an aircraft - it should be permitted - even if it was never used or was used only on export examples. I'd love to have a UPK-23-250 on the Mi-24 someday or a CRV-7 high velocity rocket pod on the F/A-18/CF-188 someday... even if they were only used on export examples.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

At a glance, what are the key differences between the Navalized Phantoms and the land-based Phantoms outside of the different gear, tires, and the continued lack of internal gun?

[TLTeo]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

At a glance, what are the key differences between the Navalized Phantoms and the land-based Phantoms outside of the different gear, tires, and the continued lack of internal gun?

The naval aircraft had a pulse doppler radar with a bigger dish, no guided weapons, different (somewhat better) model Sidewinders (until the L/M rolled around), some had some semblance of early HMD (although obviously the HOBS capability of early Sidewinders leave much to be desired). I'm not sure how the air to ground capability compares (e.g. whether they had bombing computers of any type).

So basically, they should be somewhat better at air to air (even factoring in the lack of gun and/or sucky gunpod) but somewhat worse at air to ground.

[exhausted]

On 1/28/2022 at 6:38 AM, silverdevil said:

the naval version sacrificed the gun for a better radar which was one of the first look down types. and much bigger.

The naval version was original version, designed without the gun. Gun wasn't added until ten years after the Phantom went into service.

[Bremspropeller]

BLC hasn't been mentioned yet. Got deleted with the slats on the S.

Same as with the USAF-models (C thru E) which had BLC before the incorporation of slats.

The early block Es had the system deleted during the slat-retrofit. Pretty similar as with the mod to the slats on the S. There are detail-differences between the E and S slats, though. Looks like they were modded to provide more lift around the boat.

https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/f-4s-wing.html

And more on the general topic here:

https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/you-cant-tell-phantoms-without-score.html

The first 43 S airframes didn't have slats installed right away but got them retrofitted.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[Uxi]

Hoping to be able to do an "F-4V" with three gunpods. 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/remembering-vmfa-122-f-4v-the-usmc-phantom-ii-featuring-a-unique-three-gun-pod-configuration/amp/

 

Otherwise hoping for a later model F-4N or ever F-4S to better fit the rest of our planes. 

[LanceCriminal86]

5 hours ago, Uxi said:

Hoping to be able to do an "F-4V" with three gunpods. 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/remembering-vmfa-122-f-4v-the-usmc-phantom-ii-featuring-a-unique-three-gun-pod-configuration/amp/

 

Otherwise hoping for a later model F-4N or ever F-4S to better fit the rest of our planes. 

The J actually had more overlap and cruises around the Tomcat's service than either the N or S. N and S basically means the Midway and Coral Sea, that's about it, and only up through like '86.

Timewise the J is almost a no-brainer at this point. And it sounds like the details needed to do an S may be a lot tougher to get hands on.

[Bremspropeller]

I'd dealy love the B and N, though. In Grey Ghosts, a pilot said he actually preferred the N over the S as it was lighter. I want them all

When talking Phantoms, don't forget the Leathernecks! Marines Phantoms matter, too.

[Southernbear]

What people need to also understand is context.

While the effectiveness of A2A missiles during the 60s and Vietnam was considered less then desirable there was a huge disparity between Air force and Navy training with these weapons. To keep it short and sweet, where the Air force taught you how to "fire" the weapon against a target the Navy actually taught you how to "use" the weapon against a target. The US Navy focused much more on the Air to air capabilities of their missiles where as the Air force saw them as essentially one press pony's where you press the button...and if you don't see the big kaboom then you fire another one.

In terms of weapons used the Navy saw much higher kill ratio to weapons expended and its also why Navy F-4s never adopted an Internal or even external Air to air gun with the closest you get being the Mk.4 Gunpod but even then the Colt 20mm were less then great at Air to air work. 

[Southernbear]

In terms of what F-4s I'd like to see:

Confirmed: Early and late F-4Es as well as at least 1 USN version

This would come out to be the F-4E Block 37/45 and F-4E Block 53 as the later version and I guess to match Forrestal and the years of our new F-4Es, then an F-4J as our Navy plane

Ideally I'd like to see 2 of each branch....I personally feel the early F-4E is pretty redundant but considering the late will get DMAS I guess its needed for people who want to do Vietnam era F-4E things. Aside from this tho I would have preferred to see an F-4C and early F-4E with of course the F-4B and F-4J as our Navy options. 

Something else I thought of is it would have been cool to see the late F-4E in a separate package. My hypothetical would have been USAF pack: F-4C or D and an F-4E, USN Pack: F-4B and F-4J, but then something like "Phantoms of the Future" pack where we have the very late ANG F-4E with the DMAS ect, maybe an F-4F ICE and maybe even an F-4EJ Kai or given their work on the Viggen, a Greek F-4E with the BK-90s and stuff. 

Likewise they could then if they wished have a "Phantoms Abroad" thing and have maybe an FG.1, FGR.2, F-4F or F-4F KWS for the mid 70s and 80s F-4s from around Europe ect that people want. 

[Bananabrai]

On 1/28/2022 at 12:38 PM, Northstar98 said:

I'm guessing it'll be the S or J, which best fits their Forrestal.

So far, from what I've found the differences between the B and J are:

• F-4B has a pulse-only RADAR (AN/APQ-72) whereas the J has a pulse-doppler RADAR (AN/APG-59 w/ AN/AWG-10) with full LDSD capability.
• F-4B has an IRST system (AN/AAA-4) under the nose, this was deleted in later Phantoms
• F-4B has J79-GE-8A/8B engines, F-4J has J79-GE-10 engines with slightly more thrust (~5% improvement in max thrust)
• F-4J has VTAS (super early HMD) allowing for off-boresight targeting for AIM-9s (I'm guessing variants with SEAM).
• F-4J has larger main landing gear tyres, resulting in wing bulges.
• F-4J has drooping ailerons.
• F-4J has a zero-zero ejection seat.

Can you or anyone make that delta list between J and S?

[TLTeo]

12 hours ago, Southernbear said:

even then the Colt 20mm were less then great at Air to air work

I always love how people call the Crusader "the last of the gunfighters", except only three of its 19 kills were with guns, and 15 were Sidewinders.

Edited February 7, 2022 by TLTeo

[Cab]

41 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

I always love how people call the Crusader "the last of the gunfighters", except only three of its 19 kills were with guns, and 15 were Sidewinders.

 

Very true but that's still three more than the Navy F-4's  

[Bremspropeller]

Just like with the B => N, such a list for the J => S is really hard, because they are for all intents and purposes the same airplanes, brought up to a similar standard with some additional features - most of which slowly crept into the late Js (similar to the late Bs vs N). The S is basicly a SLEP package on top of the J. One feature was extended fatigue life (similar to the N upgrade).

The most decisive difference were the slats, yet the first 43 S-models didn't have them at first, so there goes our little list 

Here's a "late J" of VF-21 with lots of bells and whistles (I think the fwd canopy rail shows a VTAS installation), ECM antennas are in place on the intakes. Choice of photo is no accident - I love this paintscheme with the wraparound, streaking black nose.

Let's take a late 60s J and an early 80s S for reference each:

• AWG-10 vs AWG-10B (the latter has digitized components and would actually work)*
• ECM ALQ-126*
• a second UHF radio
• structural strengthening for prolonged fatigue life
• slats
• smokeless engines*
• SEAM** and VTAS*

The list isn't necessarily complete. One asterisk means this has been an incremental upgrade, also available to later J models. Two asterisks means that SEAM was tied to the AIM-9G/H and is not an aircraft feature itself. VTAS could slew the radar-antenna to the point selected by the helmet-visor. Hence, Sparrows and Sidewinders (through SEAM) could be fired-off bore, which reduced the maneuvering handicap of the F-4J/N/S vs the contemporary late 70s fighters.

One more thing about the slats that hasn't been mentioned yet. The slats took away the BLC on the E which in turn necessitated a TE-flap travel reduction to 30°, yet the TE-flaps stayed the same on the S and would go down to 60° with BLC. The drooping ailerons also stayed.

Here's an early 'Freelancer' S with slats and the inboard droops activated. The J had those de-activated as production-standard and Bs would have them de-activated during their life in the fleet (that includes the N)***. Note, the RAT is out of it's compartment, just in front of the BuNo and the VF-21 stencil. The ACLS radar-reflector seems to be out, to (in front of the nose-gear). Maybe a maintenance check-flight?

ACLS-reflector: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2017/08/f-4-phantom-acls-radar-reflector.html

This 'Charger' Sierra-model shows the definitve configuration. If you're really looking hard, you can also spot the ACLS-reflector.

If you want to go down a nerdfest rabbit-hole, check on the different inboard and outboard wing pylons between the AF and Navy versions.

___

*** The C, RF-4C and D always had all the droops activated. The early pre-slat E and the RF-4E had the same configuration as the J with deactivated inner droops

Edited February 7, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[LanceCriminal86]

39 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Just like with the B => N, such a list for the J => S is really hard, because they are for all intents and purposes the same airplanes, brought up to a similar standard with some additional features - most of which slowly crept into the late Js (similar to the late Bs vs N). The S is basicly a SLEP package on top of the J. One feature was extended fatigue life (similar to the N upgrade).

The most decisive difference were the slats, yet the first 43 S-models didn't have them at first, so there goes our little list 

Here's a "late J" of VF-21 with lots of bells and whistles (I think the fwd canopy rail shows a VTAS installation), ECM antennas are in place on the intakes. Choice of photo is no accident - I love this paintscheme with the wraparound, streaking black nose.

Let's take a late 60s J and an early 80s S for reference each:

• AWG-10 vs AWG-10B (the latter has digitized components and would actually work)*
• ECM ALQ-216*
• a second UHF radio
• structural strengthening for prolonged fatigue life
• slats
• smokeless engines*
• SEAM** and VTAS*

The list isn't necessarily complete. One asterisk means this has been an incremental upgrade, also available to later J models. Two asterisks means that SEAM was tied to the AIM-9G/H and is not an aircraft feature itself. VTAS could slew the radar-antenna to the point selected by the helmet-visor. Hence, Sparrows and Sidewinders (through SEAM) could be fired-off bore, which reduced the maneuvering handicap of the F-4J/N/S vs the contemporary late 70s fighters.

One more thing about the slats that hasn't been mentioned yet. The slats took away the BLC on the E which in turn necessitated a TE-flap travel reduction to 30°, yet the TE-flaps stayed the same on the S and would go down to 60° with BLC. The drooping ailerons also stayed.

Here's an early 'Freelancer' S with slats and the inboard droops activated. The J had those de-activated as production-standard and Bs would have them de-activated during their life in the fleet (that includes the N)***. Note, the RAT is out of it's compartment, just in front of the BuNo and the VF-21 stencil. The ACLS radar-reflector seems to be out, to (in front of the nose-gear). Maybe a maintenance check-flight?

ACLS-reflector: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2017/08/f-4-phantom-acls-radar-reflector.html

This 'Charger' Sierra-model shows the definitve configuration. If you're really looking hard, you can also spot the ACLS-reflector.

If you want to go down a nerdfest rabbit-hole, check on the different inboard and outboard wing pylons between the AF and Navy versions.

___

*** The C, RF-4C and D always had all the droops activated. The early pre-slat E and the RF-4E had the same configuration as the J with deactivated inner droops

I think that should be ALQ-126 for the ECM no?

[Bremspropeller]

You're right, fixed it.

[Southernbear]

The difference is between the J and S is its to my knowledge only the S had the new more powerful smokeless engines as well as the Navy equivalent of Agile Eagle slats...ofc their fouler flaps on the S but you get the point. 

16 hours ago, TLTeo said:

I always love how people call the Crusader "the last of the gunfighters", except only three of its 19 kills were with guns, and 15 were Sidewinders.

 

Also because those Colt 20mms would routinely jam if fired with more then 2Gs on the airframe...not exactly inducive to air to air gunnery

[Nexus-6]

On 2/8/2022 at 2:55 AM, Southernbear said:

Also because those Colt 20mms would routinely jam if fired with more then 2Gs on the airframe...not exactly inducive to air to air gunnery

It'll be interesting to see if Magnitude models that with their F-8J.

[Biggus]

Some random J thoughts and old man ramblings:

There were a few variants of upgraded J models.  Obviously the S is the end-point, but there were two others that were sometimes known as Super Js.  The first was a very limited update program around 1975, with smokeless engines and AWG-10A radars (and very little documentation, I have only gathered snippets from crews in Phantom-oriented social media).  I believe that there were enough for two squadrons (and vaguely recall maybe VF-191 being one of the first users).  The second Super J variant was just the early hard-wing S.  The RAF F-4J was quite similar to the second Super J, and it would be quite an interesting variant to have, with the Skyflash being an exceptionally capable missile when it was introduced.

 

VTAS was a game changer but not necessarily in the way that we would consider today after having experienced it in the Viper or Hornet.  While you could certainly use it similarly to slave the radar and send a fox-1 (keep in mind you've got a 20 degree limit off bore), the biggest benefit was that you could pull lead on a bandit and then back off the G to within the limits of the D/G/H sidewinders.  There's an enormous caveat to VTAS though, and that's helmet weight.  While the actual increase in weight was not what you would consider enormous, when you load it up at 6.5G, the additional mass was often unwelcome.

 

A few comments in this thread have mentioned that weaponry is a little different and that it was (along with better training) part of the formula for success in the later stages of the Vietnam war, and I want to elaborate a little bit on what I've been able to piece together regarding what was in use at various times at sea.  Starting with fox-1s, you have the AIM-7E (which predated the introduction of the J), the AIM-7E-2 around 1969 and the AIM-7F from around 1978.  Not terribly different from the USAF although I've had a harder time finding evidence that suggests -7Fs were on USAF birds that early.  The -7Fs seem to have gone to Eagle squadrons, with the Phantoms mostly continuing with -E variants into the mid 1980s.  At no point was the AIM-7M integrated with any F-4s in US service, Navy or Air Force.

For fox-2s, the J entered service while the AIM-9D was in production.  AIM-9Bs may have been in limited use, but by 1971, you'd expect to see AIM-9Ds and -Gs (very similar to the D but with SEAM which was a bit of a game changer).  The G would go on to serve with the RAF for quite a few years (with their own modifications) and was a mainstay of the RAF and RN Phantom squadrons until there were greater quantities of Ls available in the mid-80s.  Mid to late 1972, the first AIM-9Hs started to arrive.  These were, in practical terms, -9Gs with solid state electronics, faster tracking rate and more powerful actuators.  The combination of better training, better missiles and better understanding of the parameters in which they worked enabled the USN to achieve something like a 48% PK in 1972.  Around 1979-1980, the AIM-9L started to appear on pylons on F-4Js at sea. 

Around 1983ish, the M was introduced.  It's very hard to look at pictures and differentiate between an L and an M, but given the in-production date of 1981 and the fact that the USN was very quick to provide the best available weapons to it's fleet defenders, I think it's fairly safe to conclude that the very last cruises of Phantoms at sea would have included the M.  Regardless, if you discount the M and compare it to the USAF equivalents, the USN had an all aspect fox-2 nearly a full decade before the USAF.  The USAF used the E, J, N and P on their Phantoms for the most part, although in the run up to the Gulf war, they finally received an all-aspect Sidewinder.  That may have been the AIM-9L/M, or it may have been a late P variant.  Here's an RF-4C in 1992 with an L/M. 

Foreign users often had -9Ls hanging from Echo launch rails from the early to mid 1980s though.

Fuel management is another interesting thing around the boat.  Maximum recovery weight is 40,000lbs.  Aircraft basic weight (including oils, unusable fuel and crew) for a J is listed as 31,785lb.  An empty McDonnell centreline tank, two AIM-7E-2s and four AIM-9Hs with pylons and launchers weigh in at 2,531lb.  There are probably some additional things not included in this calculation, but we'll keep things simple.  You will have around about 5684lb in margin for fuel.  In a Tomcat, that's not very concerning.  In a Phantom, that fuel is going to go quite quickly.  At 25,000ft and 0.64M, you'll be burning around 6200lb/hr.  It's not hideous, considering the age of the J79.  Once you enter the break though, you'll be burning enough to have maybe three passes at recovery before you're heading for the KA-3B (Heatblur plz).  And the F-4S is worse!  It's basic weight is a full 1,000lb more.  It will be very exciting to come home in the dark when you're landing on a carrier!

There's also CoG and vaccuum related issues to consider with fuel loads, and I'm looking forward to seeing how HB model it all.

 

I'm really looking forward to seeing how this module develops, regardless of which variants end up as full modules.  But I'd be shocked if the J wasn't one of them.

[Bremspropeller]

Lots of great info, thanks  @Biggus

I can only second that we'll need the KA-3B or EKA-3B (even though ECM isn't that much of a thing in the game). Heatblur, plz gib!

The good part is that the Phantom should be really stable in approach-configuration and the boarding-rates should be quite alright. The J79 is a quick-responding engine - should be about similar to the F404. Really looking forward to how the BLC is going to work out. Jerry Beaulier said it's almost like an elevator (the thingy on your building), when moving (walking) the throttles - should be in a way similar (though not the same) as with DLC.

The F-8J is going to be a different animal in the groove! Even though the big flap (and BLC) added more drag and somewhat took away the speed-control issues of the earlier models. The J57 is not a quick-responding motor, though. Fuel-control won't be an issue, as you'll have about 9klbs internal fuel when starting up. The F-4 has about 12klb, but it feeds two single-spool motors, which naturally is going to eat through the supply much quicker. Look at it this way: The F-8 has 1.5 times the gas per engine with better gas-mileage to begin with.

Fun times ahead, when both airplanes will be available in DCS!

Edited February 11, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[Biggus]

Really looking forward to the F-8 too!

Speaking of the groove @Bremspropeller, the case 1 recovery is nigh on identical to the Hornet and the Tomcat with one critical exception - ball call is at 1.5nm.  Unfortunately in DCS, the centred ball is always perfectly on glideslope, but in reality the further out you entered the groove, the less informative the ball was.  You could be quite high or low with that centred ball.

 

 

[Lurker]

Does DCS World even model the reliability issues of these older model Sidewinders and AIM-7s? Because if we are getting a Naval Phantom, (and the Crusader) then that should be a thing. 

[Victory205]

On 2/7/2022 at 9:26 AM, TLTeo said:

I always love how people call the Crusader "the last of the gunfighters", except only three of its 19 kills were with guns, and 15 were Sidewinders.

 

Joe Satrapa flew F8’s in SEA and his area of “expertise” was gunnery phase in VF101. He was also a huge gun nut, which famously cost him his right thumb. When he started the whole “Last of the Gunfighters” routine at the O Club, his peers would loudly point out that the Mig 17 carried no missiles, and had far more guns kills than any US Fighter, making the little Fresco the real “Last of the Gunfighters”.

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Victory205

[SgtPappy]

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

Does DCS World even model the reliability issues of these older model Sidewinders and AIM-7s? Because if we are getting a Naval Phantom, (and the Crusader) then that should be a thing. 

I've wondered this as well and I'm 99% sure I saw one of the dogfight servers use a script to cause random missile failures based on the mission designer's input number. I.e. someone fired an AIM-9X and the server created a message to all players "so-and-so fired an AIM-9X (failure rate = 50%". 

Maybe more experienced mission designers can confirm that this is in the Editor. I'd love to see this used in 1970's historic servers where we see missiles failing left and right (educated guess gives ~25-33% failure rates) and Pk will drop to the levels seen in real conflicts.

[G.J.S]

3 hours ago, Victory205 said:

Joe Satrapa flew F8’s and his area of “expertise” was gunnery phase in VF101. He was also a huge gun nut, which famously cost him his right thumb. When he starting the whole “Last of the Gunfighters” routine at the O Club, his peers would loudly point out that the Mig 17 carried no missiles, and had far more guns kills than any US Fighter, making the little Fresco the real “Last of the Gunfighters”.

 

Big Bertha.

(Journalist to Hoser, after the big toe transplant) - “it doesn’t look like a thumb, they did a great job”.

Hosers retort - “sure f#*£ing smells like one . . . “   

Edited February 11, 2022 by G.J.S