Phantom vs XXX

[Victory205]

Yes, thank you. I wanted to make sure, because I keep seeing these videos from Tornado pilot talking about how the little critter basically sweeps the skies of all adversaries, and how the AIM54 has no capability against fighters and can be ignored.

I got to know a German Tornado pilot who was stationed in the states doing primary flight training. We compared a few notes from time to time. The wing loading is so high on that thing that I’m surprised that it can make it around the landing pattern while still keeping sight of the landing strip. 

Figured that the F4 would out maneuver it.

The Buccaneers we intercepted were over water, the RIO had no problem locking them, but I could see their wakes on the smooth Mediterranean water from over ten miles away. As you shared, it would be tough getting a gun solution on them without tying the record for lowest flight altitude, especially with our gun canted up several degrees.

With the exception of perhaps the Omani Mercenary Jaguar pilots (one of them hit the range safety officer’s truck with his tailpipes), the British are the world wide kings of flying low. When you smile, all of you have bugs in your teeth.

[G.J.S]

13 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

Yes, thank you. I wanted to make sure, because I keep seeing these videos from Tornado pilot talking about how the little critter basically sweeps the skies of all adversaries, and how the AIM54 has no capability against fighters and can be ignored.

I got to know a German Tornado pilot who was stationed in the states doing primary flight training. We compared a few notes from time to time. The wing loading is so high on that thing that I’m surprised that it can make it around the landing pattern while still keeping sight of the landing strip. 

Figured that the F4 would out maneuver it.

The Buccaneers we intercepted were over water, the RIO had no problem locking them, but I could see their wakes on the smooth Mediterranean water from over ten miles away. As you shared, it would be tough getting a gun solution on them without tying the record for lowest flight altitude, especially with our gun canted up several degrees.

With the exception of perhaps the Omani Mercenary Jaguar pilots (one of them hit the range safety officer’s truck with his tailpipes), the British are the world wide kings of flying low. When you smile, all of you have bugs in your teeth.

You can make a bomber out of a fighter, but it just don't work the other way round! 

Its because of that wing loading that it is so stable down in the weeds when swept - absolutely rock steady. But then that is what the airframe as a whole was designed for - fast and low hell bent on the target - not turning with a fighter. Best defense? - hike your skirt and run like f**k! 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by G.J.S

[G.J.S]

28 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

With the exception of perhaps the Omani Mercenary Jaguar pilots (one of them hit the range safety officer’s truck with his tailpipes), the British are the world wide kings of flying low. When you smile, all of you have bugs in your teeth.

Wouldn't be this would it??

 

Some other images . . 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by G.J.S

[Victory205]

Ha! That’s probably it! Are you familiar with the story, embellished as it may or may not be?

[G.J.S]

1 minute ago, Victory205 said:

Ha! That’s probably it! Are you familiar with the story, embellished as it may or may not be?

I've heard of it. A Jag mate who spent time in Oman mentioned a few 'incidents' - like an airfield beat up that went through one of the hangers!

Another almost slicing off the port wing by hitting a pole (pole was only 16 feet in height, 9 feet thereafter).

They had their own "Star Wars Canyon" down there also - unsure of its exact location but some of the switchbacks were rather sporty apparently. 

[Victory205]

A hilarious, great story teller from VF14 who was in my NFWS class diverted into Oman with his wings stuck at 68. He came into the break, hit the auto switch and nothing…

Tanked him up, and sent him to the beach.

He lands at 185 knots, no problem, taxi’s in, shuts down, opens the canopy and say, “Ya’ll are Mercenaries, ain’t cha?”

While he was there, the story he got was that the Jaguar’s RadAlt was calibrated perfectly for 360 KIAS. Fly 360, and it showed the exact distance from the lowest point on the aircraft to the deck.

They had a bombing sortie set up, so as the RO was trundling out to the range in a Toyota pickup (evidently not!), his impatient buddy in the air decides to “thump” him for snitz and giggles….except he’s saving a little gas by flying at 300 KIAS.

His pass was made at a higher alpha, cocked up a bit, and BAM! The ventrals hit the car. The RO was trapped for a bit, until the pilot circled back, saw what happened, and radioed for a rescue mission armed with a crow bar to open the sardine tin enough to let him out.

Bet that cost him a lot of beer.

[G.J.S]

12 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

A hilarious, great story teller from VF14 who was in my NFWS class diverted into Oman with his wings stuck at 68. He came into the break, hit the auto switch and nothing…

Tanked him up, and sent him to the beach.

He lands at 185 knots, no problem, taxi’s in, shuts down, opens the canopy and say, “Ya’ll are Mercenaries, ain’t cha?”

While he was there, the story he got was that the Jaguar’s RadAlt was calibrated perfectly for 360 KIAS. Fly 360, and it showed the exact distance from the lowest point on the aircraft to the deck.

They had a bombing sortie set up, so as the RO was trundling out to the range in a Toyota pickup (evidently not!), his impatient buddy in the air decides to “thump” him for snitz and giggles….except he’s saving a little gas by flying at 300 KIAS.

His pass was made at a higher alpha, cocked up a bit, and BAM! The ventrals hit the car. The RO was trapped for a bit, until the pilot circled back, saw what happened, and radioed for a rescue mission armed with a crow bar to open the sardine tin enough to let him out.

Bet that cost him a lot of beer.

 Yep, that’s practically what I heard. 

[TLTeo]

Speaking of the comparison with the Tornado, I never really understood why they made the ADV rather than just put that same radar on an updated Phantom, give it better avionics, AMRAAMs et al a-la the German ones. Seems like you would get almost the same capability (less range and worse cockpit visibility, possibly better high altitude performance?) for way less cost.

From what I heard, the Italian Air Force wasn't exactly thrilled with the ADVs they loaned despite having operated the IDS for ~15 years at that point. The early 90s-early 00s period when they were flying those and Starfighters for air to air has been nicknamed "the crossing of the desert"

[some1]

25 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Speaking of the comparison with the Tornado, I never really understood why they made the ADV

Support the local industry. After all, Tornado is more British than the Phantom, even the one with RR engines. 

If they simply wanted the best interceptor for the money, they should have probably just buy F-15's instead of developing the whole platform. But that would mean more money sent abroad. Unpopular and less beneficial in the long term. 

 

Great stories guys, thanks for sharing 

Edited February 7, 2022 by some1

[TLTeo]

51 minutes ago, some1 said:

Support the local industry. After all, Tornado is more British than the Phantom, even the one with RR engines. 

Sure but it's not like the Tornado was the only option - they could have put more money aside for the Typhoon, upgraded the Lightning/Jag/Harrier/Sea Harrier...

[G.J.S]

2 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Sure but it's not like the Tornado was the only option - they could have put more money aside for the Typhoon, upgraded the Lightning/Jag/Harrier/Sea Harrier...

Lightning would be a no-go, no matter what you upgraded it with. At the time Tornado appeared it was already outmoded.

Jaguar? The aircraft that relies upon the circumference of the earth to help it get airborne? (Just a good natured ribbing to the Jag mates). The only really shining examples were the capabilities of the Indian DARIN birds. But again, was already outmoded toward the end.

Either of puffer-jets? There was supposedly great promise in the PCB work, but after systems, there isn’t really much else to make it more potent. 
In all cases, the amount of revenue that would be spent to make any of them more relevant in the modern battle space, would be more than enough to kickstart a new platform entirely.

Edited February 7, 2022 by G.J.S

[Hummingbird]

The ADV apparently featured automatic wing sweep (nowhere near as capable as that on the F14 though, as IIRC it only worked up to 3 G), and I've heard (no idea if its true) that the Tornado with wings fully foward (25 deg) it would outturn the F4 slightly.

Will have to look for performance charts, can't remember if I have some on the tornado. 

[TLTeo]

Only the Saudi ones iirc, but that kinda proves my point. If you're introducing a new front line fighter in the late 80s that can maybe barely out turn a Phantom, something went wrong. I get that it's supposed to be an interceptor first and all that, but I always found that to be pretty narrow minded.

Back to the Phantom - I wonder how the comparison with the Mig-23 will actually work out in game (whenever that's released too of course). There's plenty of people who buy the whole "the ML and especially MLD series were basically early Vipers" which just makes zero sense to me. They would have been better, but Vipers? Really?

Edited February 8, 2022 by TLTeo

[WinterH]

41 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Back to the Phantom - I wonder how the comparison with the Mig-23 will actually work out in game (whenever that's released too of course). There's plenty of people who buy the whole "the ML and especially MLD series were basically early Vipers" which just makes zero sense to me. They would have been better, but Vipers? Really?

I feel like it should probably be F-4E with slats will be somewhat better in dogfighting, especially if at least AIM-9P5 is a possibility, but MLA will be the better BVR bird despite having a lot fewer missiles. MLA can theoretically turn pretty well with wings fully swept forward, but that takes away its main party trick: speed and acceleration, and is apparently highly unstable at that setting. Also wing sweep wasn't anything like in F-14. It was manual, and I seem to remember it not being possible at higher G loads. 45 degrees middle position seems to be "set it there and forget about it" wing sweep for dogfights in MiG-23 as it was apparently the best compromise in speed/maneuverability/stability. Thus, I feel like it will be even harder to handle than Phantom in a dogfight, and there's the famous situation with 70s Soviet canopies. Not that Phantom's canopy is brilliant, but MiG-23 seems especially bad in that regard. That said, MiG may still prove to be better in high speed fights. Experiences of IRL Phantom pilots practicing vs MiG-23 as shared by them in this thread seem to agree with my assumptions for the most part .

On the flipside, when it comes to BVR, MiG-23MLA will have the better radar, that is probably easier to use (not sure), look down capability, and R-24 will be at least as good as, most likely better than AIM-7E-3 Sparrows. Then, there's IRST capability, even if proves to be marginally useful, it can still sometimes get silent detection/shooting ability in favor of the MiG, especially together with IR guided and all aspect capable R-24T.

Finally, MLD is actually a good leap further in most ways than even MLA: more aerodynamic refinements did actually finally make it somewhat dogfight happy apparently, and radar was apparently even somewhat better than early MiG-29 radars, and it got countermeasures as default, as opposed to a rarity in MLA's case, it had Beryoza RWR, and it could use R-73s. But we are getting MLA after all, and looking at some numbers and some pilot anectodes, I feel like F-4E can do well in dogfighting against it. Though, if we only get AIM-9J or P-3 as the top IR missiles, then R-60M can prove a significant issue despite what I've said above, as it proved to be in case of Mirage F1 with rear aspect only missiles vs MiG-23 with R-60M.

I feel like F-4E vs: Mirage F1, F-5E, MiG-21Bis, AJS 37 will all potentially be quite interesting anyway :)! MiG-19 too, as well as hopefully upcoming MiG-17. Not to mention F-8, Mirage III, man so many great Cold War coolness is coming up!

[Kirk66]

On 2/5/2022 at 4:41 PM, SgtPappy said:

Some pilots have mentioned that they would put one engine to idle and the other to min burner to minimize the smoke. I would assume if one of the F-4's we're getting smokes, it will be the earlier block Phantom and we'll have to remember to do the same thing if we really want to avoid being detected. 

Because I'm insane, a part of me hopes they both smoke but it would make sense to have the later one smokeless since that modification came around ~1975 or so. 

Although smokeless was overall better, the older diesel J-79 could be used for tactical deception. Run hot in Mil (leaving a huge smoke trail, then go tac burner (one engine at idle, other full AB) - which kills the smoke, then do a big altitude/heading change (usually down) to get away from the lingering smoke trail. If the bandit didn't catch that the trail had ended,  you could sometimes get an unobserved entry Fox 1 Fox 2 Guns separate...  Worked against earlier non-radar fighters (F-5s, A-4s, etc.) but obviously not against modern radar-equipped fighters. To beat them you had to be more creative in your cheating!

Vulture

[Kirk66]

One point that hasn't been mentioned much in the hard wing (Navy and early C and D) vs soft wing (Es, late Navy?) turning capability is the fact that with the hard wing jets you had to be REAL careful when turning hard and slow; a sudden departure was not far away so the natural tendency was to stay fast and turn as little as possible.  The slatted E, on the other hand, could be flown a lot closer to the edge before deciding to go it's own way.  Which was good, since it was now too slow to get away! 

No such thing as "carefree handling" back in the good old days.

As far as Gs, with external fuel you were pretty limited unless you had the later F-15 external tank, or the original Navy hi-G 600 cl tank. And even then they had to be empty. Practically, it was a 5 to 6 G jet. Except - clean, over the field (literally), enough fuel for one engagement: 8 Gs available and down low that one engagement was fun - if short. Then everybody landed min fuel.

Vulture

Edited February 8, 2022 by Kirk66
typo

[TLTeo]

To clarify - I didn't mean that people in this thread said that the MLD was as good as a Viper, just that it's a comment commonly thrown around by its fanboys mostly based on a specific quote from iirc an Israeli evaluation likely taken completely out of context.

Re the BVR comparison - I'm not sure the 23 will be significantly better tbh. It may have some (limited, because MTI) look down/shoot down capability, but the worload will be significantly higher without a RIO (even with Jester really), and I would be surprised if the R24/23 were really that much better than the AIM-7F/E (I vaguely remember some charts on the forum somewhere showing that the 27 was a decent-ish improvement over the 24, but I may be mistaken). The late AIM-9Ps aren't that awful either. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Edited February 8, 2022 by TLTeo

[SgtPappy]

3 hours ago, TLTeo said:

To clarify - I didn't mean that people in this thread said that the MLD was as good as a Viper, just that it's a comment commonly thrown around by its fanboys mostly based on a specific quote from iirc an Israeli evaluation likely taken completely out of context.

Re the BVR comparison - I'm not sure the 23 will be significantly better tbh. It may have some (limited, because MTI) look down/shoot down capability, but the worload will be significantly higher without a RIO (even with Jester really), and I would be surprised if the R24/23 were really that much better than the AIM-7F/E (I vaguely remember some charts on the forum somewhere showing that the 27 was a decent-ish improvement over the 24, but I may be mistaken). The late AIM-9Ps aren't that awful either. I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

In addition to Gypsy's stats, I also had read about the R-23/24 having almost twice the rocket burn time of the AIM-7E (5 sec vs 2.9 sec which I may have mentioned elsewhere), so assuming even similar motor impulse, I do not have much confidence that the AIM-7E will be anything other than an all-aspect dogfight missile in servers that restrict heaters to the more historical rear-aspect only versions. 

I can see some forgoing them entirely for AIM-9P5's (or the AIM-7F if allowed) if the option is there.

4 hours ago, Kirk66 said:

Although smokeless was overall better, the older diesel J-79 could be used for tactical deception. Run hot in Mil (leaving a huge smoke trail, then go tac burner (one engine at idle, other full AB) - which kills the smoke, then do a big altitude/heading change (usually down) to get away from the lingering smoke trail. If the bandit didn't catch that the trail had ended,  you could sometimes get an unobserved entry Fox 1 Fox 2 Guns separate...  Worked against earlier non-radar fighters (F-5s, A-4s, etc.) but obviously not against modern radar-equipped fighters. To beat them you had to be more creative in your cheating!

Vulture

Absolutely badass!

[Kirk66]

19 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

In addition to Gypsy's stats, I also had read about the R-23/24 having almost twice the rocket burn time of the AIM-7E (5 sec vs 2.9 sec which I may have mentioned elsewhere), so assuming even similar motor impulse, I do not have much confidence that the AIM-7E will be anything other than an all-aspect dogfight missile in servers that restrict heaters to the more historical rear-aspect only versions. 

I can see some forgoing them entirely for AIM-9P5's (or the AIM-7F if allowed) if the option is there.

Absolutely badass!

All this discussion about radar missile range ignores the fact that usually you will not be able to shoot BVR, unless you have full GCI (which of course was standard Soviet doctrine).  If forced into a WVR melee with limited electronic ID capability, the AIM-7E-3 becomes a significant player - giving you a decent front aspect shot prior to the merge if you wingman can give you a "bandit" call in time. Hence the "eyeball/shooter" tactics we used back in the day. During one of my WSEP AIM-7 shots, we missed our first shot (fingers - shot the sim plug instead of the real missile; oops!) so as the drone (Firebee) was running low on range time, we setup for a close commit, turned in with about 10 miles separation, got a quick contact on the drone, locked him up then called the shot after the fastest 4 seconds of my life (you had to wait, by counting, 4 seconds from lock to shoot). The 7 came off the jet at min range, took one hard turn, and center punched the Firebee. That was awesome - nothing but a puff of smoke and a parachute left.

F-4 crews practiced close in dogfight radar lock on techniques - this before all the fancy VS and BST auto acq modes. Pilot would attempt to stabilize the bandit in elevation while in a lag turn, the call it out "30 high, 10 left"; the WSO would set the stab-out radar elevation by feel (3 thumbwheel ups, or whatever), come inside, lock up the target, and call "1, 2, 3, 4 SHOOT". So as long as the pilot could hold a lag position in a turn long enough for a lock, the shot was there. Not as easy as an off boresight AIM-9M with an HMD, but the warhead was a lot bigger!

We honestly were a lot more worried about late Mig-21s than Mig-23s. Perhaps ignorance was bliss...

Vulture

[SgtPappy]

41 minutes ago, Kirk66 said:

All this discussion about radar missile range ignores the fact that usually you will not be able to shoot BVR, unless you have full GCI (which of course was standard Soviet doctrine).  If forced into a WVR melee with limited electronic ID capability, the AIM-7E-3 becomes a significant player - giving you a decent front aspect shot prior to the merge if you wingman can give you a "bandit" call in time. Hence the "eyeball/shooter" tactics we used back in the day. During one of my WSEP AIM-7 shots, we missed our first shot (fingers - shot the sim plug instead of the real missile; oops!) so as the drone (Firebee) was running low on range time, we setup for a close commit, turned in with about 10 miles separation, got a quick contact on the drone, locked him up then called the shot after the fastest 4 seconds of my life (you had to wait, by counting, 4 seconds from lock to shoot). The 7 came off the jet at min range, took one hard turn, and center punched the Firebee. That was awesome - nothing but a puff of smoke and a parachute left.

F-4 crews practiced close in dogfight radar lock on techniques - this before all the fancy VS and BST auto acq modes. Pilot would attempt to stabilize the bandit in elevation while in a lag turn, the call it out "30 high, 10 left"; the WSO would set the stab-out radar elevation by feel (3 thumbwheel ups, or whatever), come inside, lock up the target, and call "1, 2, 3, 4 SHOOT". So as long as the pilot could hold a lag position in a turn long enough for a lock, the shot was there. Not as easy as an off boresight AIM-9M with an HMD, but the warhead was a lot bigger!

We honestly were a lot more worried about late Mig-21s than Mig-23s. Perhaps ignorance was bliss...

Vulture

Keep the stories coming - these sound epic! That WSO locking up the bandit manually is something I can't wait to try when I'm in the backseat. That leads me to wonder: say you were in a good position to just use the front seat 5 nm "boresight" lock, did you have to wait the full 4 seconds before firing as well?

I realize I may not have been clear in my missile vs missile comments. The point I was trying to make was limited only to the context of DCS as a game and the strategies that players develop in-game that do not reflect real-world strategy. I prefer when the combat reflects real-world events as closely as possible, but in a game with perfect IFF, players who consistently over-G their jets, nearly all-seeing GCI (especially with humans vectoring other human flights to bandits) and understandably simple ECM warfare modeling, you end up at a disadvantage in the game sometimes if you wait for VID. This is why servers that try to make VID more important are really my jam but I get it's not for everyone (hence my question about TISEO earlier).  

Now maybe one day in the far future, we'll get all the above set to maximum realism - including the reportedly terrible low altitude air conditioning system that will really put on the sweat  I've heard even getting that system to work required skill and technique!

Edited February 9, 2022 by SgtPappy

[AnarchyZG]

20 hours ago, Kirk66 said:

All this discussion about radar missile range ignores the fact that usually you will not be able to shoot BVR, unless you have full GCI (which of course was standard Soviet doctrine).  If forced into a WVR melee with limited electronic ID capability, the AIM-7E-3 becomes a significant player - giving you a decent front aspect shot prior to the merge if you wingman can give you a "bandit" call in time. Hence the "eyeball/shooter" tactics we used back in the day. During one of my WSEP AIM-7 shots, we missed our first shot (fingers - shot the sim plug instead of the real missile; oops!) so as the drone (Firebee) was running low on range time, we setup for a close commit, turned in with about 10 miles separation, got a quick contact on the drone, locked him up then called the shot after the fastest 4 seconds of my life (you had to wait, by counting, 4 seconds from lock to shoot). The 7 came off the jet at min range, took one hard turn, and center punched the Firebee. That was awesome - nothing but a puff of smoke and a parachute left.

F-4 crews practiced close in dogfight radar lock on techniques - this before all the fancy VS and BST auto acq modes. Pilot would attempt to stabilize the bandit in elevation while in a lag turn, the call it out "30 high, 10 left"; the WSO would set the stab-out radar elevation by feel (3 thumbwheel ups, or whatever), come inside, lock up the target, and call "1, 2, 3, 4 SHOOT". So as long as the pilot could hold a lag position in a turn long enough for a lock, the shot was there. Not as easy as an off boresight AIM-9M with an HMD, but the warhead was a lot bigger!

We honestly were a lot more worried about late Mig-21s than Mig-23s. Perhaps ignorance was bliss...

Vulture

IIRC USAF never had 2nd gen MiG-23 ML/MLA/MLD which improved greatly on the earlier model flaws in many respects (lighter about 1200kg, thrust increased by ~22%, better avionics, look down shoot down radar, IRST, higher allowed G load) and I expect MiG-23MLA to be at least on par with F-4E (in DCS) in terms of air-to-air engagements (except combat load of course).

 

MiG-23MLD with further improved aerodynamics would probably outclass F-4E in most if not all aspects when it comes to air to air combat.

Edited February 10, 2022 by AnarchyZG

[G.J.S]

15 minutes ago, AnarchyZG said:

IIRC USAF never had 2nd gen MiG-23 ML/MLA/MLD which improved greatly on the earlier model flaws in many respects (lighter about 1200kg, thrust increased by ~22%, better avionics, look down shoot down radar, IRST, higher allowed G load) and I expect MiG-23MLA to be at least on par with F-4E (in DCS) in terms of air-to-air engagements (except combat load of course).

 

MiG-23MLD with further improved aerodynamics would probably outclass F-4E in most if not all aspects when it comes to air to air combat.

 

There’s a reason the MiG-23 wasn’t as feared as the MiG-21.

The best iteration was the -27, principally a ground attack platform.

Even with aerodynamic improvements - it only presented a moderate challenge in WVR. If it kept its speed up, then it could use ‘slashing attacks’ and stand a chance of not being disassembled rapidly, but once it starts to turn aggressively the speed comes off, and whilst turning - is very hard to regain. That’s where the -23 fell short.

The MiG-23 (all flavours) is a ‘hit and run’ fighter, unless it catches something worse than itself. If the MiG gets caught before he can run and is made to turn, it’s only a matter of time.

The MiG-21 was more of a threat, and yet it was supposed to be superseded BY the -23!.

Edited February 10, 2022 by G.J.S

[AnarchyZG]

Perhaps I'm misreading the data (note this is ML, not MLD)?
Seems pretty close to me in what is claimed by many to be the worst MiG-23 aspect (sustained turn), also note that F-4 chart seems to be clean F-4 while MiG-23ML chart is loaded with 2 R-23s (I'm guessing 7G is the structural limit with R-23s)

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by AnarchyZG

[divinee]

1 hour ago, AnarchyZG said:

Perhaps I'm misreading the data (note this is ML, not MLD)?
Seems pretty close to me in what is claimed by many to be the worst MiG-23 aspect (sustained turn), also note that F-4 chart seems to be clean F-4 while MiG-23ML chart is loaded with 2 R-23s (I'm guessing 7G is the structural limit with R-23s)

 

 

F-4 chart is without slats and with 4x sparrow and more than 7000lb of fuel.

[TLTeo]

There's an actual Phantom driver in this very thread talking about going up against Czech Mig-23MLs too...