F-4E is USAF variant.

[Victory205]

There are very good reasons to start with the E version, and yes, there will be a J. The devs have their own aircraft carrier and love working around the boat. They do a great job too.

I bleed blue and gold, and I’ll be pre-ordering the F4E as soon as it’s available. The history of USAF Phantoms during Viet Nam make it more than worthwhile, and I already have a Robin Olds legacy mustache. 

[Victory205]

5 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

The Navy variants are hands-down the prettiest ones! With the big radar noses and smoother lines. 

That said, the F-4E's we're getting have always been my favourite. I don't think it's the same as starting with a Navy variant B-25 which in comparison was obscure and rare. The F-4E is the most-produced, most ubiquitous version that saw the most combat and produced the most kills and aces. But that's me being nit picky!

What? The Navy didn’t fly B25’s!  

If you are going to project yourself as a superior, too good for the Air Force Naval Aviation Diva, shouldn’t he at least know that it’s called a PBJ?

”Fighter Pilot”, by Christina Olds is a worthwhile read. Amazing leader.

[exhausted]

23 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

The Navy variants are hands-down the prettiest ones! With the big radar noses and smoother lines. 

That said, the F-4E's we're getting have always been my favourite. I don't think it's the same as starting with a Navy variant B-25 which in comparison was obscure and rare. The F-4E is the most-produced, most ubiquitous version that saw the most combat and produced the most kills and aces. But that's me being nit picky!

I used that comparison, because I don't think the PBJs were obscure or rare. They were in use by some 16 squadrons, all meant for one theater during WWII. In all honesty, there were probably more local variations on F-4E models than there were of PBJ models.

[SgtPappy]

23 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

What? The Navy didn’t fly B25’s!  

If you are going to project yourself as a superior, too good for the Air Force Naval Aviation Diva, shouldn’t he at least know that it’s called a PBJ?

”Fighter Pilot”, by Christina Olds is a worthwhile read. Amazing leader.

Ah of course, the ol' Peanut Butter and Jelly Mitchell! It's still a B-25 variant though, is it not?

I'll be sure to check out that book. Most of mine have been technical so far and I think I want to see a bit more memoirs and research on air crew.

9 minutes ago, exhausted said:

I used that comparison, because I don't think the PBJs were obscure or rare. They were in use by some 16 squadrons, all meant for one theater during WWII. In all honesty, there were probably more local variations on F-4E models than there were of PBJ models.

Apologies, I did not mean to downplay the contribution, but was simply implying from a numbers perspective, the PBJ is less numerous than the B-25 which spanned multiple theatres. The F-4E saw many more operators and was made in larger numbers so the parallelism didn't really apply. But it's neither here nor there, just a minor thing.

[exhausted]

It's cool... I am not of the opinion that raw production numbers should be the sole determinant factor, especially when F-4Es came in more flavors than there were 'official variants' of the F-4. It looks like they clipped away the Phantom's best features and made the appeasement choice. I guess you could always use this -E variant to fly for Egypt, Israel or Iran to make it more interesting. However, I will be abstaining from this round. In a few years, maybe there will be a proper tailhook variant.

Edited February 5, 2022 by exhausted

[SgtPappy]

39 minutes ago, exhausted said:

It's cool... I am not of the opinion that raw production numbers should be the sole determinant factor, especially when F-4Es came in more flavors than there were 'official variants' of the F-4. It looks like they clipped away the Phantom's best features and made the appeasement choice. I guess you could always use this -E variant to fly for Egypt, Israel or Iran to make it more interesting. However, I will be abstaining from this round. In a few years, maybe there will be a proper tailhook variant.

 

Indeed, raw numbers are not enough, but there are also the things I mentioned earlier service records, kills, aircrew who flew them etc. I can't wait for the F-4J as well because that would complete the Vietnam-era Phantom set and heck - landing on carriers is so much fun in DCS. The F-4S sounds cool but I'm not as excited since the J is the Vietnam-era variant and has a PD radar.

Just curious, what features were clipped when going to the F-4E? The F-4E added a lot of functionality but I see the J as a complement, not overall superior in features and capability.

[Bremspropeller]

The J didn't need the features of the USAF variants. The Navy always had enough attack aircraft to not be pressed into using the F-4 as their primary tactical bomber. The Navy - just during the 60s alone - had the A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 in dedicated attack/ strike roles. The A-3 and A-5 were quickly pushed into different primary missions once it became obvious that high flying bombers weren't a thing anymore. As a funny side-note: The F-4 could carry a higher bombload than the early A-4s, hence they were used in the AG role, too. PGMs weren't a necessity, though.

Another note: The PD radar in the J had reliability issues in the beginning and often wasn't "up". The radar in the B was more reliable. The issues got resolved later on.

[SgtPappy]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

The J didn't need the features of the USAF variants. The Navy always had enough attack aircraft to not be pressed into using the F-4 as their primary tactical bomber. The Navy - just during the 60s alone - had the A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 in dedicated attack/ strike roles. The A-3 and A-5 were quickly pushed into different primary missions once it became obvious that high flying bombers weren't a thing anymore. As a funny side-note: The F-4 could carry a higher bombload than the early A-4s, hence they were used in the AG role, too. PGMs weren't a necessity, though.

Another note: The PD radar in the J had reliability issues in the beginning and often wasn't "up". The radar in the B was more reliable. The issues got resolved later on.

Interesting. I'm going to see what I can dig up on F-4J mods. I heard the Vietnam War ones had lots of those issues with the radar even though it was more capable when it worked.

That said, the argument wasn't whether the F-4J needed features or not - the statement put forth was that the F-4E was apparently a featured-clipped F-4 compared to the J and my question is how? It can't be launched off carriers and has no PD radar. It's a little slower due to the slats. That's all I can think of as a trade-off to all the other stuff the USAF and customers wanted.

[Bremspropeller]

53 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

That said, the argument wasn't whether the F-4J needed features or not - the statement put forth was that the F-4E was apparently a featured-clipped F-4 compared to the J and my question is how? It can't be launched off carriers and has no PD radar. It's a little slower due to the slats. That's all I can think of as a trade-off to all the other stuff the USAF and customers wanted.

The E is a lot more versatile than the J and the E comes with a whole lot more AG capability. Initially the E wasn't the preferred A-A version for the AF in SEA (that was the D with it's larger radar, hence it got Combat Tree). Only the slats reversed that role-assignment.

What I wanted to bring across was that while the AF developed their versions into a role that was more pleasing to all kinds of customers (read multirole), the Navy optimized their versions for their special use-case, which is mostly fleet-defense and secondary attack. They already had enough dedicated attack aircraft, so PGM-integration (etc.) didn't make all that much sense in their more constrained budget. And that didn't attract too many customers to their versions.

The FG.1 and FRG.2 are the exceptions to the rule here. Both were developed in close conjunction with the J's development.

[Kirk66]

On 2/1/2022 at 4:45 PM, 352nd_Hoss said:

Navy Phantoms had Sea Legs...... beefier landing gear. If you remember McNamara tried to push the F-111 off on the Navy and Marine Corp, like they did with the Phantom. The USN was more interested in the Tomcat, now it's the Lightning II. The F-15 variants "Dash" letter has to do with the country we sell it to...... F-15SA, Saudia Arabia, F-15I, IDF, etc.........

I may be wrong but I thought the USAF jets had the same main gear as the Navy (why change?) except for the bigger lower pressure tires - which were also on the Marine F-4B/Js, I think. Nose gear strut may be different - didn't the Navy struts extend for takeoff? I know the Brits' F-4s had a longer extending nose strut, at least. USAF nose struts didn't extend, for sure.

I trained in Cs at Luke (some of which still had Mig kill stars on them!) and they were pretty close to an F-4B - BLC flaps, short nose, etc. They were actually nicer to fly than the later slatted E's in my opinion; faster on the deck and a lot more stable on final approach (which makes sense). Just don't use any aileron at high AOA! New WSOs were told to keep their knees together when their student pilot was maneuvering at high AOA to force him to use the rudder to roll by limiting sideways movement of the stick - rudder worked so well you could do 4-point rolls using rudder only. But if you let some aileron creep in out of habit the jet would depart rather aggressively in the opposite direction!

I'm really looking forward to see how well all the Phantom's quirks are modelled in DCS.

Cheers,

Vulture

On 2/4/2022 at 1:48 PM, Sarge55 said:

I know zip about Phantoms.

Just noticed the fuel tanks are mounted outboard in the photo above.  Where as the new planes all load them inboard. Anyone know why?

A lot has to do with where the landing gear is located - most modern jets have the main gear mounted on the fuselage, leaving room anywhere on the wings for stores. The F-4s main gear extends almost all the way to the fold, so the external tanks (or stores) have to be out there to clear the gear. Note that the inboard pylons are forward of the landing gear; any store mounted on them cannot extend back past the rear of the pylon.

Vulture

[Bremspropeller]

The FG.1 (F-4K) had about twice the strut extension of the F-4B/J/N/S.

Check this FG.1 on USS Independence next to a VF-33 F-4J.

That double-extended strut just doesn't look right

The F-4B/N had the same tyres with the Marines as with the Navy. They'd both use higher pressures at the boat and lower pressures when shore-based. The J had the broader tyres of the AF models and hence also had the bulged wing.

F-4B

J(UK)

A raggedy-bum J. You can just barely make out the bulge on the inner wing. It really is hard to come up with pictures that show the bulge clearly.

[Victory205]

1 hour ago, Kirk66 said:

... Just don't use any aileron at high AOA! New WSOs were told to keep their knees together when their student pilot was maneuvering at high AOA to force him to use the rudder to roll by limiting sideways movement of the stick - rudder worked so well you could do 4-point rolls using rudder only. But if you let some aileron creep in out of habit the jet would depart rather aggressively in the opposite direction!

I'm really looking forward to see how well all the Phantom's quirks are modelled in DCS...

I used to brace my elbows against the canopy rails to ensure that the stick was centered when possible.

Do you own the Heatblur F14 module? What you describe about adverse yaw/roll is modeled in the F14. It’s a little less immediate that it was in the aircraft, but it’s there. I’m confident that they will get it into the F4 Flight Model as well. It will be challenging to get the nose slice and departure characteristics replicated though.

I do hope that they refrain from providing AIM9L’s and restrict the F4 to older Aim9’s that will set up fights against threat platforms with Atolls. Having to maneuver to the rear quarter will make the Phantom experience far more interesting. The so called “rate fight” junkies are going to learn what real vertical maneuvering and rudder reversals are about.

[SgtPappy]

37 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

I used to brace my elbows against the canopy rails to ensure that the stick was centered when possible.

Do you own the Heatblur F14 module? What you describe about adverse yaw/roll is modeled in the F14. It’s a little less immediate that it was in the aircraft, but it’s there. I’m confident that they will get it into the F4 Flight Model as well. It will be challenging to get the nose slice and departure characteristics replicated though.

I do hope that they refrain from providing AIM9L’s and restrict the F4 to older Aim9’s that will set up fights against threat platforms with Atolls. Having to maneuver to the rear quarter will make the Phantom experience far more interesting. The so called “rate fight” junkies are going to learn what real vertical maneuvering and rudder reversals are about.

Did you fly in AF F-4's as well? 

I agree with you there - I really want mission designers to use those kinds of missiles that actually were used and were available during the 70s: R-3 Atolls, rear-aspect only AIM-9J/P's etc. I think the most popular servers that will only become busier when the Phantom comes out will stick to that mindset too. 

Usually they also allow the R-60 as well which is technically more of an 80's missile and personally I'd prefer for them to restrict to only Atolls but at least they're making the all-aspect R-60M unavailable. I'm sure if the AIM-9L/M is available for the F-4, it will see a lot more usage in more modern servers the same way the MiG-21bis with all-aspect missiles is used quite often in, say, Blue Flag 80's or even modern. I believe designers prefer to have all weapons available and then restrict at the mission-designer level which might be the better choice for a gaming community.

[Nexus-6]

50 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

I do hope that they refrain from providing AIM9L’s and restrict the F4 to older Aim9’s that will set up fights against threat platforms with Atolls. Having to maneuver to the rear quarter will make the Phantom experience far more interesting. The so called “rate fight” junkies are going to learn what real vertical maneuvering and rudder reversals are about.

This is what makes the Cold War jets way more fun to me. Sure, I get that you want things like JHMCS in the real world. But in the context of a video game? That's boring.

Edited February 6, 2022 by Nexus-6

[Victory205]

1 hour ago, SgtPappy said:

Did you fly in AF F-4's as well? 

I am referencing the F14 high alpha characteristics. All of the fourth gen non-fbw swept winged aircraft are similar in terms of adverse yaw with lateral stick inputs as alpha increases. The A4 was similar to the F4 and F14 and A7, etc. They differ in amplitude and things like buffet onset, etc, as well as departure characteristics and recovery inputs. 
 

The F4 should be a blast to fly. 

[Victory205]

Agree!

A lot of gadget freaks today that love to play with buttons. 
 

Getting the parameters correct for an accurate hit while Manual bombing is more interesting than CCIP in my view. LGB, Lantirn etc just isn’t that appealing in a game. Real world to get a mission complete, save the good guys and erase the bad guys? Absolutely! 

[exhausted]

On 2/5/2022 at 12:06 PM, SgtPappy said:

Indeed, raw numbers are not enough, but there are also the things I mentioned earlier service records, kills, aircrew who flew them etc. I can't wait for the F-4J as well because that would complete the Vietnam-era Phantom set and heck - landing on carriers is so much fun in DCS. The F-4S sounds cool but I'm not as excited since the J is the Vietnam-era variant and has a PD radar.

Just curious, what features were clipped when going to the F-4E? The F-4E added a lot of functionality but I see the J as a complement, not overall superior in features and capability.

That still has too much to do with sheer numbers, in terms of those measures. The Air Force probably had more kills out of numbers alone, whereas the Navy had an actual fighting training program that produced a higher k:d ratio in the Vietnam-era timeframe you keep referencing. Even well into Vietnam, the Air Force did not appreciably prioritize fighter training, out of fear of training accidents affecting the SAC budget. Air crew is a sheer numbers issue as well, and it's hard to determine whether the Air Force had more -E crews than the Marine and Navy term had of -J crews, especially since deployment rotations were measured completely differently.

So, if you are talking about earlier service records then this should be the most persuasive reason to prioritize the Navy and Marines' variant, which is how the Phantom was conceived. These branches introduced the Phantom into service much earlier and introduced the type into active service in much high numbers, much earlier than the Air Force in Vietnam. And, the issues with the -E have already covered in depth, so other than the diminished a-a radar performance, probable fuel trade offs and enormous doctrinal differences unique to the -E versus the -J, then I don't want to beat a dead horse. 

[SgtPappy]

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

That still has too much to do with sheer numbers, in terms of those measures. The Air Force probably had more kills out of numbers alone, whereas the Navy had an actual fighting training program that produced a higher k:d ratio in the Vietnam-era timeframe you keep referencing. Even well into Vietnam, the Air Force did not appreciably prioritize fighter training, out of fear of training accidents affecting the SAC budget. Air crew is a sheer numbers issue as well, and it's hard to determine whether the Air Force had more -E crews than the Marine and Navy term had of -J crews, especially since deployment rotations were measured completely differently.

So, if you are talking about earlier service records then this should be the most persuasive reason to prioritize the Navy and Marines' variant, which is how the Phantom was conceived. These branches introduced the Phantom into service much earlier and introduced the type into active service in much high numbers, much earlier than the Air Force in Vietnam. And, the issues with the -E have already covered in depth, so other than the diminished a-a radar performance, probable fuel trade offs and enormous doctrinal differences unique to the -E versus the -J, then I don't want to beat a dead horse. 

You have some good points, I mean the Navy and USMC Phantoms came first and are sort of the "purest" of the Phantom designs as well. If we got the F-4B or J first I certainly wouldn't complain as they all have their advantages and we all have our favourite versions. 

And while agree that a numbers can't be the only driver to the decision of which modules should be prioritized, I think maybe you may be giving too little priority to sheer numbers as well. I mean if it's the most widely exported, saw combat by a myriad of different countries, touched the hearts of people of vastly different backgrounds and cultures, I'm sure you can also empathize with why a lot, maybe the majority of people wouldn't mind an F-4E first.

I've read pretty much every page of almost every thread here (can you tell I'm obsessed? ) and I haven't really seen anything about the F-4E's glaring disadvantages that made it "clipped" compared to the Navy or USMC birds, so it doesn't feel like really beating a dead horse. Rather I've just seen how F-4's in general are much older tech than the Viper or Hornet and that they are simply different than their Navy counterparts. Anyway, I'm getting a better understanding in all these great discussions so I'm happy to talk about it and learn more.

Edited February 7, 2022 by SgtPappy

[Kirk66]

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The FG.1 (F-4K) had about twice the strut extension of the F-4B/J/N/S.

Check this FG.1 on USS Independence next to a VF-33 F-4J.

That double-extended strut just doesn't look right

The F-4B/N had the same tyres with the Marines as with the Navy. They'd both use higher pressures at the boat and lower pressures when shore-based. The J had the broader tyres of the AF models and hence also had the bulged wing.

F-4B

J(UK)

A raggedy-bum J. You can just barely make out the bulge on the inner wing. It really is hard to come up with pictures that show the bulge clearly.

Good stuff! The poor old soft wing F-4E had so many bulges and junk attached (external mirrors, combat doc cameras, TISEO - really?) that it was barely supersonic...but still fun. We had to fight to get the useless combat doc camera fairings removed, and some squadrons took off one of the WSO external mirrors and moved the remaining one to the top (as pictured above); they were still only good for hero pics and checking to see if you were conning...and were beastly noisy at low level and high speeds!

I'm definitely going to scare the closest CAG by planting my E on the deck of a carrier as soon as I can (we used to practice "carrier landings" on the runway at Cubi Point, which had a carrier deck painted on it for FCLPs, I guess. Gave the Navy/Marine tower operators a giggle, I'm sure).

Vulture

[Kirk66]

6 hours ago, Victory205 said:

I used to brace my elbows against the canopy rails to ensure that the stick was centered when possible.

Do you own the Heatblur F14 module? What you describe about adverse yaw/roll is modeled in the F14. It’s a little less immediate that it was in the aircraft, but it’s there. I’m confident that they will get it into the F4 Flight Model as well. It will be challenging to get the nose slice and departure characteristics replicated though.

I do hope that they refrain from providing AIM9L’s and restrict the F4 to older Aim9’s that will set up fights against threat platforms with Atolls. Having to maneuver to the rear quarter will make the Phantom experience far more interesting. The so called “rate fight” junkies are going to learn what real vertical maneuvering and rudder reversals are about.

Yep, been teaching myself how to crash trap on a carrier lately; after a bunch of rampstrikes I finally figured out the jet sticks out 40 feet behind the pilot and managed a 3 wire. What a blast.  The tom does remind me of a bigger, more complicated Rhino in a lot of ways.

Vulture

[Kirk66]

6 hours ago, Victory205 said:

I used to brace my elbows against the canopy rails to ensure that the stick was centered when possible.

Do you own the Heatblur F14 module? What you describe about adverse yaw/roll is modeled in the F14. It’s a little less immediate that it was in the aircraft, but it’s there. I’m confident that they will get it into the F4 Flight Model as well. It will be challenging to get the nose slice and departure characteristics replicated though.

I do hope that they refrain from providing AIM9L’s and restrict the F4 to older Aim9’s that will set up fights against threat platforms with Atolls. Having to maneuver to the rear quarter will make the Phantom experience far more interesting. The so called “rate fight” junkies are going to learn what real vertical maneuvering and rudder reversals are about.

I never saw anything better than an AIM-9J on the F-4s I crewed; we shot 9Es for training and hoped to get 9Js or 9Ps if we went to war.  I really like the 7E-3s we fired; it was reliable and if in parameters was a killer!  

On a deployment to Wittmund flying with JG-71 we got to see how the early F-4F fared against our ARN 101 F-4Es. We had AIM-7s but AIM-9Js, while they didn't have a Fox 1 but did have an all-aspect Fox 2 with 9Ls. Radars were pretty similar (pre radar upgrade and AIM-120s), but they still had the diesel engines while ours were nice and pollution free... Result was totally different tactics as the Fs tried to run in and get close for a face Fox 2, while we would try to stiff arm them with Fox 1s and get in for a slashing gun shot while they were dodging the great white hopes. 

Vulture

[Kirk66]

3 hours ago, Victory205 said:

Agree!

A lot of gadget freaks today that love to play with buttons. 
 

Getting the parameters correct for an accurate hit while Manual bombing is more interesting than CCIP in my view. LGB, Lantirn etc just isn’t that appealing in a game. Real world to get a mission complete, save the good guys and erase the bad guys? Absolutely! 

Absolutely agree! In real life it should be boring...in a game it should be fun!

Vulture

[Victory205]

Fly the ball. Be the ball…

What time frame was that with the AIM-9J/P?

Similarly we were shooting up the inventory of G/H’s, but in the early 1980’s, always deployed with the 9L and later in the decade, 9M.

 

[SgtPappy]

1 hour ago, Kirk66 said:

Good stuff! The poor old soft wing F-4E had so many bulges and junk attached (external mirrors, combat doc cameras, TISEO - really?) that it was barely supersonic...but still fun. We had to fight to get the useless combat doc camera fairings removed, and some squadrons took off one of the WSO external mirrors and moved the remaining one to the top (as pictured above); they were still only good for hero pics and checking to see if you were conning...and were beastly noisy at low level and high speeds!

I'm definitely going to scare the closest CAG by planting my E on the deck of a carrier as soon as I can (we used to practice "carrier landings" on the runway at Cubi Point, which had a carrier deck painted on it for FCLPs, I guess. Gave the Navy/Marine tower operators a giggle, I'm sure).

Vulture

Did you feel like the TISEO wasn't worth the drag/handling penalty? I really enjoy how the TCS is modeled in DCS and I'm pretty excited to use it in the F-4E. Similarly @Victory205, did you find the TCS really useful when you trained/deployed?

It sounds like HB will give us a choice since their earlier F-4E will not have it.

[Kirk66]

20 hours ago, Victory205 said:

Fly the ball. Be the ball…

What time frame was that with the AIM-9J/P?

Similarly we were shooting up the inventory of G/H’s, but in the early 1980’s, always deployed with the 9L and later in the decade, 9M.

 

My fini flight was in late 87. We didn't have the rails necessary for 9L/Ms; we still had Aero-3 without the fin retainers needed for the gucci 9Ls, so were stuck with E/J/Ps. Don't recall ever seeing a USAF E with the L rails - but I think the Wild Weasel Gs finally got them.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Kirk66