Why so much negativity? A Phantard Speaks.

[Aussie_Mantis]

I've seen a bit of negativity surrounding the date of release due to the lack of news as well as about the variant, so I wanted to pump some positivity and hype back into the forums. I'm honestly pretty pumped for the F-4E and it's pushed me into the Big, Scary World of DCS and the world of No Mouse-Aiming(tm) and No Keyboard Control(c. 2008, Eagle Dynamics). 

Dear Heatblur,

Thanks for putting out the F-4E! This module's been a motivating factor to get into DCS and I'm pleased as punch that you guys are making it. Thanks for putting out what is sure to be one sick-ass ride! The F-4E's been my favorite Phantom variant and probably by far the one that's the best as a multirole and one of the best for the air-to-air arena, equipped with TISEO, targeting pods, CAA, AIM-7s, AIM-9s and all the bells and whistles one could hope for. Back when I was a kid, the F-4 Phantom was one of my favorites- and I hope that this new module makes this plane a new favorite for a bunch of others too! 

I'm looking forwards to flying the most maneuverable, best-outfitted Phantom variant ever produced, and possibly the forerunner to the entire multi-role integrated sensors/weapons platform philosophy that we see in modern US Aircraft. The upgrade variants touted has got me pretty hyped! Overall, it looks like we're going to get pretty much the definitive F-4 Phantom- more so, I'd argue, than the USN variants that focused more on being purely interceptors and never managed the sheer level of upgrading and technological integration that the USAF did on their late-model E aircraft. I'm hyped as hell to use the AGM-65s on their first ever deployable platform, as well as using its air to air abilities and maybe experiencing the TISEO for myself. Sure, it's not perfect- The Mavs that we'll get will have a tendency to do the "Maverick Dance", and so will the walleyes and HOBOS- and the Pave Spike sure as hell isn't the best pod. CAA is nice to have but it sure as heck ain't pulse doppler, and not having HMCS like F-4S and F-4J is gonna be a be a bit of a drag-

But damn you sir, I am an F-4E Sim Pilot and I shall be so till the day I die! You ain't s**t without Slats and a Gun!

Godspeed, (Future) Spook Pilots!

 

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Aussie_Mantis

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

It's always key to remember that dates for DCS shouldn't be seen as commandment. My word to the Phantom Phanatics would be that us Fishbed Afishianados (there are 10s of us) had quite the roller coaster of emotions leading up to the MiG-21's release, even flirting with potential cancellation.

[Lt_Jaeger]

I will be happy as soon as I can land and take off my favorite plane from the Aircraftcarrier. Make no mistake though, as soon as the E is out, I will take her for a ride. I don't care about all these bells and whistles mentioned, I just want to "fly" the most beautiful ugly plane ever build. 

 

For that date chasing. I think it's kinda fun. Sure, I would prefer to have the Modul in my hands sooner rather than later, but I also can wait a little longer, I still have my current favorite ride, the Tomcat, to offer me comfort. 

That's said, merry Christmas to all. 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Lt_Jaeger

[RevampedGrunt]

I am able to cope with playing another particular aircraft game for the F-4 while I wait for a better representation to come out, but I would definitely like to play a more realistic game with the F-4. I'm quite excited to see what all the community makes revolving around the F-4 (livery, mods, missions). 

[fille_swe]

Take your time, plenty of good modules to fly while waiting

[Manhorne]

1 minute ago, fille_swe said:

Take your time, plenty of good modules to fly while waiting

LOL..But none of the other modules are a PHANTOM!!!!!

[exhausted]

Are you sure? The F-4E was one of the slowest variants and the later naval variants and British -K/M probably have significant maneuverability advantages.

[bucklehead]

@exhausted The F-4E is a great variant with a great history, variety of weapons and mission sets.  I and many others are excited for the F-4E, and hope that your preferred USN and British variants eventually appear. 

[SgtPappy]

5 hours ago, exhausted said:

Are you sure? The F-4E was one of the slowest variants and the later naval variants and British -K/M probably have significant maneuverability advantages.

Depending on how technical we want to get, strictly speaking the F-4K/M had the lowest maximum speeds of around Mach 1.9 clean IIRC due to the extra drag of the larger intakes/fuselage and Spey engine limitations. The slatted F-4E was a close second at Mach 2.05 clean.

We also have both data and anecdotes for the F-4J and F-4E. The sustained and instantaneous turn rate data from NAVAIR and USAF TO's are all in another thread (https://forum.dcs.world/topic/292414-phantom-vs-xxx/page/3/), so we know that the F-4E with slats, sparrows and 60% fuel sustains turns the same as a light F-4J at ~23% fuel armed with sidewinders and sparrows. We also know that the addition of the extra drag of pylons and sidewinders minimally affects turn rate by interpolation within either manual.

At the same clean load and weight, the F-4E has significant instantaneous turn rate advantages per the same manuals. Interpolate within the manuals for different weights and you'll find the slightly heavier F-4E will still outturn the F-4J on the max lift curve.

That said, the British Phantoms have a very high T/W ratio (but with more drag) and a slightly lower base empty weight than the F-4E block 48+ makes it a bit ambiguous if it would be more maneuverable or not in a constant G turn. Based on the similar wing loading and the aforementioned F-4J/E comparison, we know the UK Phantoms cannot have a better instantaneous turn rate than the slatted F-4E at the same fuel load. I'll have to sift through the British Phantom manuals when I get back from vacation.

Anecdotally, hot rod F-104A pilots with maneuvering flaps mentioned that only the F-4E with slats could outturn them - although they could outmaneuver the draggier F-4E in the vertical. British crews believed the British Phantoms to be the most expensive, worst performing Phantoms built! Might be a bit of an exaggeration lol.

The affect of the slats are great and I expect that the lighter F-4F and F-4S would have been the best turning Phantoms ever built.

[G.J.S]

1 minute ago, SgtPappy said:

Depending on how technical we want to get, strictly speaking the F-4K/M had the lowest maximum speeds of around Mach 1.9 clean IIRC due to the extra drag of the larger intakes/fuselage and Spey engine limitations. The slatted F-4E was a close second at Mach 2.05 clean.

We also have both data and anecdotes for the F-4J and F-4E. The sustained and instantaneous turn rate data from NAVAIR and USAF TO's are all in another thread (https://forum.dcs.world/topic/292414-phantom-vs-xxx/page/3/), so we know that the F-4E with slats, sparrows and 60% fuel sustains turns the same as a light F-4J at ~23% fuel armed with sidewinders and sparrows. We also know that the addition of the extra drag of pylons and sidewinders minimally affects turn rate by interpolation within either manual.

At the same clean load and weight, the F-4E has significant instantaneous turn rate advantages per the same manuals. Interpolate within the manuals for different weights and you'll find the slightly heavier F-4E will still outturn the F-4J on the max lift curve.

That said, the British Phantoms have a very high T/W ratio (but with more drag) and a slightly lower base empty weight than the F-4E block 48+ makes it a bit ambiguous if it would be more maneuverable or not in a constant G turn. Based on the similar wing loading and the aforementioned F-4J/E comparison, we know the UK Phantoms cannot have a better instantaneous turn rate than the slatted F-4E at the same fuel load. I'll have to sift through the British Phantom manuals when I get back from vacation.

Anecdotally, hot rod F-104A pilots with maneuvering flaps mentioned that only the F-4E with slats could outturn them - although they could outmaneuver the draggier F-4E in the vertical. British crews believed the British Phantoms to be the most expensive, worst performing Phantoms built! Might be a bit of an exaggeration lol.

The affect of the slats are great and I expect that the lighter F-4F and F-4S would have been the best turning Phantoms ever built.

Sgt.Pappy, yes the UK F-4 was slower, but acceleration wise we could accelerate much more rapidly than other variants, top end speed suffered though. Officially limited to M1.8, I’ve heard of crews seeing M2 - but it was a struggle to attain that.

At higher altitudes the accel rates fell off, but medium alt to low alt, the UK F-4 was blisteringly quick. As for cost - they most certainly were the most expensive variants ever built! Ridiculously so, more Phantoms could have been purchased (J or even S birds which would have more than met requirements) for the same outlay. As for worst performing, I would disagree, for the UK requirement, they met the desired points (at the time). The vertical was our playground - meat on the table!

[F-2]

11 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

Depending on how technical we want to get, strictly speaking the F-4K/M had the lowest maximum speeds of around Mach 1.9 clean IIRC due to the extra drag of the larger intakes/fuselage and Spey engine limitations. The slatted F-4E was a close second at Mach 2.05 clean.

We also have both data and anecdotes for the F-4J and F-4E. The sustained and instantaneous turn rate data from NAVAIR and USAF TO's are all in another thread (https://forum.dcs.world/topic/292414-phantom-vs-xxx/page/3/), so we know that the F-4E with slats, sparrows and 60% fuel sustains turns the same as a light F-4J at ~23% fuel armed with sidewinders and sparrows. We also know that the addition of the extra drag of pylons and sidewinders minimally affects turn rate by interpolation within either manual.

At the same clean load and weight, the F-4E has significant instantaneous turn rate advantages per the same manuals. Interpolate within the manuals for different weights and you'll find the slightly heavier F-4E will still outturn the F-4J on the max lift curve.

That said, the British Phantoms have a very high T/W ratio (but with more drag) and a slightly lower base empty weight than the F-4E block 48+ makes it a bit ambiguous if it would be more maneuverable or not in a constant G turn. Based on the similar wing loading and the aforementioned F-4J/E comparison, we know the UK Phantoms cannot have a better instantaneous turn rate than the slatted F-4E at the same fuel load. I'll have to sift through the British Phantom manuals when I get back from vacation.

Anecdotally, hot rod F-104A pilots with maneuvering flaps mentioned that only the F-4E with slats could outturn them - although they could outmaneuver the draggier F-4E in the vertical. British crews believed the British Phantoms to be the most expensive, worst performing Phantoms built! Might be a bit of an exaggeration lol.

The affect of the slats are great and I expect that the lighter F-4F and F-4S would have been the best turning Phantoms ever built.

I didn’t even know we had charts for the British Phantoms. I’m curious how capable they where.

 

 

if we want to know what was the very best turning Phantom , this is something of a cop out but the IsraelI PW1120 powered phantom had a degree and a half sustained turn rate advantage over an equivalent E.

[SgtPappy]

41 minutes ago, F-2 said:

I didn’t even know we had charts for the British Phantoms. I’m curious how capable they where.

 

 

if we want to know what was the very best turning Phantom , this is something of a cop out but the IsraelI PW1120 powered phantom had a degree and a half sustained turn rate advantage over an equivalent E.

Apologies if I mislead. I don't know if we have the UK Phantom charts.

I need to look in the manuals I have to confirm if those charts exist. 

Edited December 27, 2022 by SgtPappy

[F-2]

1 minute ago, SgtPappy said:

Apologies if I mislead. I don't know if we have the UK Phantom charts.

I need to look in the manuals I have to confirm of those charts exist. 

No prob, I’m impressed that even manuals are available. It would be nice to know if I should hope the Naval Phantom is a S or a M/K.

 

I’m interested if either come close to this bad boy. 

 

 

 

[SgtPappy]

13 hours ago, G.J.S said:

Sgt.Pappy, yes the UK F-4 was slower, but acceleration wise we could accelerate much more rapidly than other variants, top end speed suffered though. Officially limited to M1.8, I’ve heard of crews seeing M2 - but it was a struggle to attain that.

At higher altitudes the accel rates fell off, but medium alt to low alt, the UK F-4 was blisteringly quick. As for cost - they most certainly were the most expensive variants ever built! Ridiculously so, more Phantoms could have been purchased (J or even S birds which would have more than met requirements) for the same outlay. As for worst performing, I would disagree, for the UK requirement, they met the desired points (at the time). The vertical was our playground - meat on the table!

Thanks GJS, I agree with you on the worst performing part too, hence why I believed it was a bit of an exaggeration. I read the quote from a Phantom pilot in the Owner's Workshop manual series. I don't remember their name but they said this on the heels of the praise they gave the Phantom for its other qualities.

Edited December 27, 2022 by SgtPappy

[exhausted]

22 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

Apologies if I mislead. I don't know if we have the UK Phantom charts.

I need to look in the manuals I have to confirm if those charts exist. 

 

Not to mention the F-4J without slats should have better turning performance than an F-4E without slats, and an F-4S with slats should have better turning performance than a later-F-4E with slats. In each apples to apples comparison, the F-4E is outperformed by naval variants. This is to be expected: the Air Force wanted a bomb truck in the -E  and the Navy and Marine Corps primarily wanted a fighter in the B, J, N and S. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by exhausted

[SgtPappy]

13 hours ago, exhausted said:

Not to mention the F-4J without slats should have better turning performance than an F-4E without slats, and an F-4S with slats should have better turning performance than a later-F-4E with slats. In each apples to apples comparison, the F-4E is outperformed by naval variants. This is to be expected: the Air Force wanted a bomb truck in the -E  and the Navy and Marine Corps primarily wanted a fighter in the B, J, N and S. 

 

Agreed. Technologically, and aerodynamically, apples to apples the Navy Phantoms are way better for air combat. No gun, no bells and whistles for all the A2G work. 

Problem for me personally is the question of chronology and combat experience - when it entered service, the F-4J was way better IMO than any USAF F-4 but then the F-4E got slats, TISEO, and its more reliable (but less capable) radar etc before the end of the Vietnam War and the F-4J did not. Then the F-4S entered service with slats when the F-14A and F-15 were already seeing combat.

To me that's like the F8F Bearcat entering service just after WW2 - no longer really a WW2 plane, and not as good as its post-war contemporaries. Chronologically, the F-4S isn't apples to apples. 

Similarly, the F4U-1D and P-51D were similar in technology level and time frame. But the superior F4U-4 entered service and saw combat during WW2, while the P-51H didn't get to do much if at all. So I would not choose the P-51D over the F4U-4 for WW2 if I was given the choice. No reason to arbitrarily limit myself to the P-51D and F4U-1D.

Had it seen combat with slats before the end of the Vietnam War, the F-4S would probably be my top choice. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by SgtPappy

[exhausted]

12 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

Agreed. I don't think anyone questions that the F-4S was probably the ultimate air combat Phantom during the Cold War.

If a J comes out, I'll likely be flying both quite often even if the E is my favourite.

Problem for me personally is the question of chronology and combat experience - the F-4S entered service so late, the F-14 was already in service - the Phantom's status in general as the air to air king was sadly over. The F-4E was the most maneuverable version that saw combat before it was made less relevant in air to air by these new jets which were seeing combat around 1979/1980. The time frame doesn't make it apples to apples from this context.

Had it seen combat with slats before the end of the Vietnam War, the F-4S would probably be my top choice. 

Are you referring to the slatted F-4E, which entered Vietnam in Sept 1972, with some 3 months of warfare under its belt? Or the Israeli F-4, which had several modifications the devs will never implement into DCS? Either way, it's hard to say they represent "the most maneuverable variant in service,"  when they were also slower and had an insignificant historical footprint in warfare before more powerful and more nimble variants entered serve with the Marines and the Navy. 

Gauging their success, the F-4J shot down more MiGs than the F-4E during and after 1972, despite the presence of more F-4Es in the AOO. The F-4E does not have any kills before 1972, but the F-4J does. The F-4J also has the last kill of the war, in January 1973. Perhaps, the -J really does present an apples to apples comparison that shows a more interesting history with a more noteworthy record.

[SgtPappy]

10 hours ago, exhausted said:

Are you referring to the slatted F-4E, which entered Vietnam in Sept 1972, with some 3 months of warfare under its belt?

Gauging their success, the F-4J shot down more MiGs than the F-4E during and after 1972, despite the presence of more F-4Es in the AOO. The F-4E does not have any kills before 1972, but the F-4J does. The F-4J also has the last kill of the war, in January 1973. Perhaps, the -J really does present an apples to apples comparison that shows a more interesting history with a more noteworthy record.

The slatted F-4E of Nov 1972 (Rivet Haste jets) indeed had no air to air kills. But its combat service and contribution was small but not insignificant as you seem to be implying. My point is it was there,  it saw combat and should not be discounted. I seem to remember others pointing out that A2G work should not be ignored and that's true. Again for the record, I agree that the J has a more interesting air combat history than the Rivet Haste birds, but A2A is only half the story.

 

Quote

Or the Israeli F-4, which had several modifications the devs will never implement into DCS?

I actually do prefer the Israeli F-4E's that shot down some 86 jets within two and a half weeks in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War (a total of 115 since 1969) before the 4th generation jets entered service, bringing the F-4E total higher than the F-4J. These were stock F-4E block 35 to 52, btw. Some of them delivered during Nickel Grass were straight from US stocks. These birds had anything but an insignificant contribution to the F-4 record and especially to the Israelis... I agree that I probably wouldn't count field mods as a good representation of the jet but all those mods came after the Yom Kippur War.

 

Quote

Either way, it's hard to say they represent "the most maneuverable variant in service,"  when they were also slower and had an insignificant historical footprint in warfare before more powerful and more nimble variants entered serve with the Marines and the Navy. 

Also we've already established with actual plots and data that the F-4E at the same loadout and fuel has both better ITR and STR than the J. By definition it is more nimble. I'm not sure what you are trying to articulate with this argument. The J is probably better in the vertical but that's not really more nimble if the F-4E has both ITR and STR advantages. Not sure if I would call an SR-71 nimble even though it can fly higher and faster than anything else... nor would i call the faster P-51 more nimble than the much slower A6M5. the F-4E is simply the most maneuverable Phantom version that saw combat. Full stop. And that's fine.. the F-4J is better at many other things.

I'd like to point out this isn't a competition for which jet is better, or which one had more impact, simply why I prefer the E and why I think it's fair to compare it to the J and S from a historical stand point.

Still, it's only fair that I apologize if it sounded like I was implying that the J was not as worthy due to its record. I just wanted to illustrate which jets were seeing combat at a given time frame.

Edited December 28, 2022 by SgtPappy

[Kalasnkova74]

11 hours ago, exhausted said:

Are you referring to the slatted F-4E, which entered Vietnam in Sept 1972, with some 3 months of warfare under its belt? Or the Israeli F-4, which had several modifications the devs will never implement into DCS? Either way, it's hard to say they represent "the most maneuverable variant in service,"  when they were also slower and had an insignificant historical footprint in warfare before more powerful and more nimble variants entered serve with the Marines and the Navy. 

Gauging their success, the F-4J shot down more MiGs than the F-4E during and after 1972, despite the presence of more F-4Es in the AOO. The F-4E does not have any kills before 1972, but the F-4J does. The F-4J also has the last kill of the war, in January 1973. Perhaps, the -J really does present an apples to apples comparison that shows a more interesting history with a more noteworthy record.

There’s two points to note. First, maneuverability is not necessarily correlated with wartime kill performance. Tactics, roles, training, and assignments count for a lot more. Kill stats are not correlated with airframe performance or capability. 
 

Take for example that the USAF F-4Es were mainly tasked with air to ground missions in Linebacker, replacing the departed F-105s. The USAF reserved  the air to air MIGCAP mission for F-4Ds flown by well trained aviators & equipped with Combat Tree IFF interrogators. Obviously pilots ordered to engage enemy aircraft will log more kills then ones whose job is “bomb this target and go home”. 
 

Further, US naval crews enjoyed a situational awareness advantage over their USAF counterparts. The North Vietnamese opposition knew well in advance when USAF strike packages were coming and from what direction. They planned accordingly. But US Navy Phantoms could enter North Vietnam from any direction on the compass, which drastically cut their GCI’s capability to vector MiGs for a hit and run pass. USN Phantoms were also not as fuel limited, which meant more engagement time vs USAF crews who had to balance kill opportunities with the pragmatic need to save fuel for flying hundreds of miles over hostile territory before reaching home base. 
 

So, all that is to say that the F-4E’s kill statistics have no bearing on perceived superiority vs the F-4J.

 

[Bremspropeller]

14 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

Problem for me personally is the question of chronology and combat experience - when it entered service, the F-4J was way better IMO than any USAF F-4 but then the F-4E got slats, TISEO, and its more reliable (but less capable) radar etc before the end of the Vietnam War and the F-4J did not. Then the F-4S entered service with slats when the F-14A and F-15 were already seeing combat.

To me that's like the F8F Bearcat entering service just after WW2 - no longer really a WW2 plane, and not as good as its post-war contemporaries. Chronologically, the F-4S isn't apples to apples. 

That is bit of backward thinking, though. The reason why the F-4S came about was the ca$h-strapped Navy running into budget-issues with the F-14 and now having to make-do with a lot fewer fighters than initially envisioned (same for the Marines). Hence the urge to stretch the F-4 a few years farther. If there's SEAM+VTAS, the old girl will have a few tricks up it's sleave.

Also, at the time the F-4S came online, the meanest probable foe was a mid-range Flogger or a Foxbat. Both great on paper but somewhat lacky in practice. I wouldn't underrate an F-4S in the early 80s. It certainly has more to it than any contemporary bandit. That only changed when the Fulcrums and Flankers started to come about in numbers, which only happened just before Desert Strorm.

14 hours ago, exhausted said:

Or the Israeli F-4, which had several modifications the devs will never implement into DCS?

Not to be overly pendantic, but there were a good deal of USAF-stock, late-Block F-4Es flying during the latter half of the YKW in the IDF. Bells, whistles and TISEO.

14 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

Also we've already established with actual plots and data that the F-4E at the same loadout and fuel has both better ITR and STR than the J. By definition it is more nimble. I'm not sure what you are trying to articulate with this argument. The J is probably better in the vertical but that's not really more nimble if the F-4E has both ITR and STR advantages.

Let's not forget that the F-4 gained a good deal of weight during it's lifetime. The Js supposedly had a "heavy nose" compared to the earlier Bs and the Ns didn't have slats but still were a good deal lighter than the S and you'll find pilots who had a preference for that.

Fighting a MiG-17 with a J is certainly going to enhance some people's idea of BFM. Gone are the days of putting the lift-vector on the other guy and pulling until they're magicly appearing in one's HUD. And there won't be any magic tricks with the flap-handle...

2 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Further, US naval crews enjoyed a situational awareness advantage over their USAF counterparts. The North Vietnamese opposition knew well in advance when USAF strike packages were coming and from what direction. They planned accordingly. But US Navy Phantoms could enter North Vietnam from any direction on the compass, which drastically cut their GCI’s capability to vector MiGs for a hit and run pass. USN Phantoms were also not as fuel limited, which meant more engagement time vs USAF crews who had to balance kill opportunities with the pragmatic need to save fuel for flying hundreds of miles over hostile territory before reaching home base. 
 

The AF and Navy generally kept to their assigned Route Packs and the USN Packs were arguably a bit "easier", which also was the reason why they had less encounters with MiG-21s, that usually were used in the USAF RPs around Hanoi. By USN standards (certainly to former F-8 drivers), an F-4 was always short on gas.

Don't forget that escort missions and airspeeds could be heavily dictated by the strikers. Especially before the ramp-up of the A-6 and A-7, the A-4s were struggling to reach cruisable airspeeds for Phantoms when bombed up. Other escort-missions were just as bad: Vigilantes and Photo-Crusaders were very slick and always had the escorts as bottlenecks for mission-planning. Around the boat or on CAP, the F-4 was always way more fuel critical than the F-8.

 

====

What's probably usually not being discussed in the Navy vs USAF Phantom discussions is that the Navy had better heaters, starting with the AIM-9D. The IDF used Navy heaters on their AF Phantoms.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[SgtPappy]

31 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

That is bit of backward thinking, though. The reason why the F-4S came about was the ca$h-strapped Navy running into budget-issues with the F-14 and now having to make-do with a lot fewer fighters than initially envisioned (same for the Marines). Hence the urge to stretch the F-4 a few years farther. If there's SEAM+VTAS, the old girl will have a few tricks up it's sleave.

 

I think maybe the purpose of my argument has been lost. Allow me to clarify. All I meant to express was how I chose my favourite version of the Phantom. I was careful to not say that the F-4S was obsolete; I understand why the refurbishment process happened and that the F-4 was still a sizeable portion of the USN aircraft.

But for my own personal preference, I know that by the time the slatted F-4S was in service, the F-14A and F-15 were around. It sort of was like, why would I choose a Seafire III in 1946 when the Sea Fury was in service if given the choice? That's all it really is. Though thanks for clarifying the F-4S' history for the benefit of the discussion.

 

Quote

What's probably usually not being discussed in the Navy vs USAF Phantom discussions is that the Navy had better heaters, starting with the AIM-9D. The IDF used Navy heaters on their AF Phantoms.

This is a good point. The AIM-9D was a very good missile while the USAF AIM-9J was around in only tiny numbers for combat trial in the closing months of the US' involvement in Vietnam and wasn't used that well. The Israelis' use of the Navy missile is another reason I really like their Phantoms.

[Iron Sights]

One thing I really can count on is, when we get it, it’s going to be great. Heatblur tends to be on target with their modules. Given what they shown us so far, I’m excited.

[Bremspropeller]

14 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

I think maybe the purpose of my argument has been lost. Allow me to clarify. All I meant to express was how I chose my favourite version of the Phantom. I was careful to not say that the F-4S was obsolete; I understand why the refurbishment process happened and that the F-4 was still a sizeable portion of the USN aircraft.

But for my own personal preference, I know that by the time the slatted F-4S was in service, the F-14A and F-15 were around. It sort of was like, why would I choose a Seafire III in 1946 when the Sea Fury was in service if given the choice? That's all it really is. Though thanks for clarifying the F-4S' history for the benefit of the discussion.

You're certainly correct that by 1979 the F-4S wasn't she sharpest knive around anymore. I wasn't really directing this at you but at the general idea that the aircraft became long in the tooth. I'm just tying to tell the kewl kids that the old lady had a couple of grenades up her purse even at this time

As somebody else had written before: To model the F-4 during it's absolute heyday (early-mid 60s) would kind of require modelling it with only crappy missiles and using only crappy tactics.

 

[F-2]

F-4S might be the best plausible phantom for air quake barring the AMRAAM phantoms. Which is in its own right a good selling point. 

[SgtPappy]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

You're certainly correct that by 1979 the F-4S wasn't she sharpest knive around anymore. I wasn't really directing this at you but at the general idea that the aircraft became long in the tooth. I'm just tying to tell the kewl kids that the old lady had a couple of grenades up her purse even at this time

As somebody else had written before: To model the F-4 during it's absolute heyday (early-mid 60s) would kind of require modelling it with only crappy missiles and using only crappy tactics.

 

No worries, Brems!

I think thats why I'm so thrilled about the later E as well - later variants really worked out most of the kinks in tech before the era of all aspect heaters and proliferated aircraft-mounted ECM.