Why so much negativity? A Phantard Speaks.

[exhausted]

11 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

1. 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”. 
 

2. 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.

 

 

1. On your first point, while the Air Force employed various degrees of gadgetry to overcome their deficit performance, history shows the Navy and Marine Corps trained heavily to improve air to air performance through doctrinal emphases on tactics. Even in Vietnam, you will see a mish-mash of gadgets on the Air Force's F-4 fleet. These were to a smaller degree present on the Navy and Marine Corps side, but the story is a bit more interesting for their emphasis on training and tactical solutions.

On your subpoint to excuse the F-4E's underperformance, being due to the emphasis on mud moving, well it's not an excuse at all. There's this other branch that used F-4Js almost exclusively for ground attack: the United States Marine Corps. You will not only find the Navy's F-4Js outperformed the Air Force's F-4Es in the air, but the Marine Corps' F-4Js outperformed the Air Force's F-4Es on the ground. The Air Force Phantoms simply weren't trained or trusted to make passes where the Marines routinely bombed. 

2. You mention the Navy entered Vietnam from each direction, but so did the Air Force. The Air Force routinely followed the coast north from bases in RVN. Furthermore, the Air Force isn't excused because of lack of fuel, given that both branches had adequately available fuel from tanker aircraft operating in the area. The Air Force routinely refueled right before entering North Vietnam, and refueled immediately after exiting North Vietnam.

All this is to suggest the F-4J and the F-4E can be fairly compared by their performance in both air to air and air to ground roles, and the history will show the Navy and Marine Corps squadrons flying F-4Js outperformed their Air Force brethren flying F-4Es, and this prospectively would translate into the F-4J, or even S, giving DCS players a richer experience from the diversity of scenarios and operational functions, than an F-4E being confined shore bases and relying on gadgetry.

Edited December 29, 2022 by exhausted

[SgtPappy]

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

 

1. On your first point, while the Air Force employed various degrees of gadgetry to overcome their deficit performance, history shows the Navy and Marine Corps trained heavily to improve air to air performance through doctrinal emphases on tactics. Even in Vietnam, you will see a mish-mash of gadgets on the Air Force's F-4 fleet. These were to a smaller degree present on the Navy and Marine Corps side, but the story is a bit more interesting for their emphasis on training and tactical solutions.

On your subpoint to excuse the F-4E's underperformance, being due to the emphasis on mud moving, well it's not an excuse at all. There's this other branch that used F-4Js almost exclusively for ground attack: the United States Marine Corps. You will not only find the Navy's F-4Js outperformed the Air Force's F-4Es in the air, but the Marine Corps' F-4Js outperformed the Air Force's F-4Es on the ground. The Air Force Phantoms simply weren't trained or trusted to make passes where the Marines routinely bombed. 

Do you have a source for the Marines' superiority in A2G performance over the USAF Phantoms? What metrics are used to measure this? 

While I agree that overall the USN training was superior, you've changed the discussion to another thing entirely.

The original argument was that the slatted F-4E was more maneuverable overall than the F-4J during the Vietnam War time frame. That's why I consider it my favourite Vietnam War jet. Thats all there is to it. Then you went on about how the F-4J's more interesting history somehow made the F-4E's maneuverability not applicable ... or something... which confused me.. so Kalasnkova47 stated that an aircraft's maneuverability and aerodynamic performance are independent from its service history.

That is to say, ok cool the F-4J had a super awesome history. It doesn't mean the slatted F-4E is suddenly discounted from that war just because it did less. Imagine going up to one of the Rivet Haste crews and telling them that their time in the F-4E shouldn't count because they barely did anything (as if 640 combat hours is nothing for ~24 jets).

Quote

All this is to suggest the F-4J and the F-4E can be fairly compared by their performance in both air to air and air to ground roles, and the history will show the Navy and Marine Corps squadrons flying F-4Js outperformed their Air Force brethren flying F-4Es, and this prospectively would translate into the F-4J, or even S, giving DCS players a richer experience from the diversity of scenarios and operational functions, than an F-4E being confined shore bases and relying on gadgetry.

Yes.. that's what I was saying. You can compare the F-4E - any of them that saw combat in Vietnam - to any F-4J that saw combat in Vietnam.

About the diversity of scenarios, I'm just going to assume you're trolling. The two planes are different and both deep as everyone has been saying but you've ignored it every time. Carrier capability is one thing, but the plethora of weapons and delivery profiles that the USAF Phantoms carry and use add just as much depth as CV ops. Relying on less "gadgetry" as you put it does not necessarily correlate to a deeper experience.

 

10 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Around the boat or on CAP, the F-4 was always way more fuel critical than the F-8.

Forgot to ask about this one. Why was the F-4 more fuel critical than the F-8? I know it has two engines but it has more than enough fuel to make up for it and Navy Phantoms carried at least 1 drop tank most of the time right?

Was it just the types of missions they were flying that caused this?

Edited December 29, 2022 by SgtPappy

[Kalasnkova74]

22 minutes ago, exhausted said:

 

1. On your first point, while the Air Force employed various degrees of gadgetry to overcome their deficit performance, history shows the Navy and Marine Corps trained heavily to improve air to air performance through doctrinal emphases on tactics. Even in Vietnam, you will see a mish-mash of gadgets on the Air Force's F-4 fleet. These were to a smaller degree present on the Navy and Marine Corps side, but the story is a bit more interesting for their emphasis on training and tactical solutions.

On your subpoint to excuse the F-4E's underperformance, being due to the emphasis on mud moving, well it's not an excuse at all. There's this other branch that used F-4Js almost exclusively for ground attack: the United States Marine Corps. You will not only find the Navy's F-4Js outperformed the Air Force's F-4Es in the air, but the Marine Corps' F-4Js outperformed the Air Force's F-4Es on the ground. The Air Force Phantoms simply weren't trained or trusted to make passes where the Marines routinely bombed. 

 

The F-4E hardly “underperformed”. If SEA lends doubt of its capabilities - and I don’t suggest it does - they can be decisively laid to rest with a review of the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war. It’s an excellent case study as the Israelis flew the exact same F-4Es operated by the USAF.  Thanks to Operation Nickel Grass , US aircraft were flown directly to Israel as attrition replacements. They put ‘em to capable use, clocking double digit kills with them. 
 

Insofar as the mud moving part goes, I’d certainly hope a USAF interdiction bombing wing isn’t being used for close air support! Those are two entirely different missions, skill sets, and operating environments. As evidenced by the Marines’ relatively paltry MiG kill count. Should we conclude USMC F-4 Phantoms were “crippled” for lack of MiG kill stats? I wouldn’t.

The F-4S and F-4E are neither more or less capable compared to each other. 

[F-2]

7 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

The F-4E hardly “underperformed”. If SEA lends doubt of its capabilities - and I don’t suggest it does - they can be decisively laid to rest with a review of the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war. It’s an excellent case study as the Israelis flew the exact same F-4Es operated by the USAF.  Thanks to Operation Nickel Grass , US aircraft were flown directly to Israel as attrition replacements. They put ‘em to capable use, clocking double digit kills with them. 
 

Insofar as the mud moving part goes, I’d certainly hope a USAF interdiction bombing wing isn’t being used for close air support! Those are two entirely different missions, skill sets, and operating environments. As evidenced by the Marines’ relatively paltry MiG kill count. Should we conclude USMC F-4 Phantoms were “crippled” for lack of MiG kill stats? I wouldn’t.

The F-4S and F-4E are neither more or less capable compared to each other. 

Well in terms of radar the F-4S is vastly more capable the the E.

[Kalasnkova74]

1 minute ago, F-2 said:

Well in terms of radar the F-4S is vastly more capable the the E.

Not when it’s unserviceable, which was a problem during initial fielding of the AWG-10 in SEA. In fairness the USAF radar had its issues as well on introduction. 
 

Bottom line, the F-4S has neither superior or inferior service history relative to the F-4E. Nor was the F-4E somehow crippled in comparison to the F-4S. Obviously some of the kit is better on the -S; but the F-4E had a gun. 

[F-2]

3 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Not when it’s unserviceable, which was a problem during initial fielding of the AWG-10 in SEA. In fairness the USAF radar had its issues as well on introduction. 
 

Bottom line, the F-4S has neither superior or inferior service history relative to the F-4E. Nor was the F-4E somehow crippled in comparison to the F-4S. Obviously some of the kit is better on the -S; but the F-4E had a gun. 

The F-4S was well after the initial fielding with far more reliable components.

 

Quote

Interesting that you found my old post up there.

I was an MOS 6657, airborne missile fire control technician on F-4J and F-4S Phantom II's during my six-year tour in the Marine Corps.

In the top photo, the radar antenna (LRU-1, LRU=Line Replaceable Unit)) has no IFF antennas (Identification, Friend or Foe). On the port side of the antenna (or right side as you're looking at it) is a rectangular funnel-shaped object, which is the CW illuminator feedhorn. The main KPA (Klystron Power Amplifier) is 1525 watts, and the CW illuminator KPA is around 900 watts. It was necessary to provide the illuminator KPA for the AIM-7 Sparrow missiles' guidance, as even though the illuminator KPA was rated at a much lower power than the main KPA, the most the main KPA could be on for TX/RX was less than a 50% duty cycle, reducing it's effective power to well below that of the CW KPA. Signal from the CW KPA was also fed via coaxial cable to the rear of the four onboard missile stations, for the Sparrows to get a "lock" on. Early Sparrows had mechanical tuners, which were problematic; one ordinance technican found that you could get them "unstuck" using a large hammer, which action caused the rest of us more cautious and sane types to scatter in all directions.

The APG-59/AWG-10 radar had three basic modes:
1) Short Pulse - a 0.65 uSEC pulse triggered the transmitter to send out the same length pulse. This was the 10 NM mode.

2) Chirp - A 0.65 uSEC pulse was sent through a "delay line" - basically, an inductor which was grounded on one end. This caused the inductor to "ring" as a struck bell, and would cause the transmitter to fire for approximately 65 uSEC. Upon returning, the signal would be fed back across this same delay line, which would compress the pulse back down to about 0.8 uSEC pulsewidth prior to being fed to the receiver (LRU-2A8, bottom starboard side). This meant a slight loss in resolution, but a huge gain in range due to the increased return signal.

3) Pulsed Doppler - the most powerful mode. The transmitter would fire for approximately 40 uS, and then the system would receive for approximately 40 uS. The PRF (Pulse Repetition Frequency) would be varied constantly to avoid a phenomenon known as "target eclipsing" (when the transmitter is on while the return signal comes back.)

Back to the LRU-1 photo at the top: Notice that there is a rectangular panel about 1/3 of the way down the antenna? That is the Beam Spoiler, and was used for PPI/MAP mode (Plan Position Indicator) - it would extend about 1" to "spoil" the radiation pattern to scan the ground. On the scope, the sweep would scan back and fourth 120º (+-60º) and the bottom of the scan would be fixed, the top (furthest away) would look like a Japanese fan, or a section of pie, if you will.

In combat modes, the sweep was vertical, traversing the entire screen.

In the 2nd picture, the eight black T-shaped items on the front of the antenna are IFF antennas. They are white on one end (the top) of the "T" to indicate the polarity of the antenna; as putting some of them on backwards would foul up the signal.

The feedhorn is the long projection from the center of the antenna. At the forward end, there are thin fiberglass covers epoxied over the feedhorn, enabling the waveguide system to be pressurized with dry air to 14 lbs/in2 so that the RF energy wouldn't arc (short out) in the waveguide. The feedhorn directed the transmitted energy back against the dish, and received the signal the same way. When the RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) initiated a lock, the feedhorn support would begin to rotate at 66 RPM, causing slight rotational shifts in the position of the feedhorn; this was known as "nutating the feedhorn." This shifting would cause the radar to "paint a donut" around the target. The radar would detect the difference in signal return around the "donut", and re-orient the antenna so that the signal strength was equal all around.

The antenna was controlled by servos and resolvers, but driven by hydraulic pressure. The Phantom's hydraulic system was pressurized to 3,000 PSI, but the antenna's supply was regulated down to 1,200 PSI.

Of all the radars' modes, PD (Pulse Doppler) was the mode that was the hardest to get used to, and somewhat more difficult to fix.

In PD mode, targets were not displayed in range, but in terms of closing velocity, or Vc! Targets near the top of the scope were closing very rapidly, while targets near the bottom were going away. The range was about 1,600 knots closing to about 500 opening. In order to determine the range, the pilot or RIO would have to lock on to the target, and then a range gate would appear as a blip to show range.

The AWG-10A was a big improvement; LRU's 15,16,and 17 (analog computers) in the turtleback (panel 19 behind the RIO) were changed, the new LRU's 15 and 16 were digital, LRU-17 deleted. The analog
version described the missile's envelope as a truncated cone, which was grossly inadequate. The AWG-10A's missile envelope was more like a mushroom, if you will - and much more accurately described the lethal zone of the missiles.

Back to the 2nd picture: the "6" equipment rack is down. LRU-6A2 is on the bottom, LRU-6A1 on top. The 6A1 dealt mostly with antenna control, the 6A2 with the CW illuminator.

To the left (forward) is the "5" equipment rack, and just behind the X-frame is the "4" equipment rack.
On the top of the "4" rack is LRU 4A1, down from there is LRU-4A2, and on the bottom is the LRU-4A3
Inside the LRU-4A2 are 290 crystal ovens, each a different frequency, which resonated to signal returns in the PD mode, thus giving the Vc (velocity closing) range (roughly -500kts to 1500kts)

I realize now that I misspoke in my prior post - it was the 4A1A7 board, not the 4A3A7, that needed to be changed for frequency selection. The 4A3A7 board had it's own problems - there was a block of Zener diodes, which if blown, would cause an effect known as "picket fencing" on the display; the PRF would change every 60 ms causing the display to have vertical streaks on it.

VTAS - (Visual Target Acquisition System) In later versions, VTAS was implemented. The pilot wore a special helmet with four IR transmitters on it, and there were IR receivers mounted around the pilot's cockpit. The pilot's helmet had a reticle; he would extend it over his right eye, and look at the target while pressing half-action on the acquisition switch on his stick. The radar would sweep out in range, and acquire the target. As far as I can remember, this only worked in 10-mile range, or "short pulse". But, like I said - it's been a long time since I've worked on them.
 

Quote

You're welcome - although, in retrospect, I incorrectly corrected my first post! (are you confused yet, because I am null) The numbering system for the WRA's/LRU's (same thing) was just a little bit confusing, because on the port side of the radar, the numbers increased from forward to aft, (eg: antenna=LRU 1, then LRU 4 was the entire pallet (but never removed as an entire unit), LRU 5 (never entirely removed as such) and LRU 6. Then, on the 4 pallet, 4A1 was the topmost 3rd, 4A2 was the center unit, and the 4A3 was on the bottom. You can see on the 4A1 and 4A3 units what looks like ribs, those are actually removeable "boards", sort of the shape of a watermelon slice. They're held in place by one (slotted and hex-head) captured screws, one on top and one at the bottom.

On the starboard side, the LRU 2A1 was the transmitter control box, on the top of the package. It was long and relatively thin, shaped rather like a piece of wall to floor molding, only thicker (and aluminum) Below that was "the hat" - a large aluminum cover that was held on with what seemed like a zillion #8 Phillips-head screws. This "hat" was the cover for the pressurized (air, to 14 lbs/in2) transmitter power supply compartment.
There were two separate power supplies, one for the CW illuminator KPA, and one for the main KPA. I believe the LRU 2A2 CW supply put out 22,000 volts, and the main 2A3 supply put out 25,000 volts - at high power. Those supplies were about the size of a loaf of bread each, but were VERY heavy. There were high-power rectifier tubes in those supplies that had large cooling fins on the bottom - as a matter of fact, they made very cool ashtrays when the tubes went bad (I had one for many years, and the wife threw it out!! Arrrgh!)
 

Could you comment more on that radar, per example:

a) How many radar modes did the RIO has for air combat (BVR and ACM) and how were the scan patterns in azimut and elevation (bars).

There were six "bars" that I remember. I don't recall the starting bar, but if the bars were numbered as such:
1
2
3
4
5
6
I believe the vertical scan pattern went something like: 2,4,1,5,6,3
It wasn't quite what one would expect. I don't recall it changing the bar scan pattern - but remember, the last time I worked on those things was 27 years ago.

As far as modes - they could select PULSE, PD (both ACM modes) A/G (which was the ground mapping feature, 120º PPI (Plan Position Indicator) mode) and I believe T/C or TERRAIN - this last very obscure feature was very difficult for aircrew to understand; it was supposed to indicate to them the likelyhood of collision with terrain features when proceeding at high speed, low altitudes (eg:bombing runs). The antenna scan pattern was that of a "+" - Full Up, Full Down, Center, Full Port, Full Starboard, Center (repeat) The scan displays on both scopes was also a "+". However, a number of crashes occurred while using this mode, and it's use was discouraged by modifying a card in the LRU-10 (Cockpit Display Unit, aft cockpit, port side, just under the canopy rail) to display a large "X" on the screen. As mentioned above, the pilot could select DOGFIGHT mode, which would override the RIO's controls, select short pulse, 10 mile range, and enable VTAS acquisition by sweeping out the range gate upon the pilot's pressing the lower button on his joystick.

The RIO had his own joystick, mounted to the right of the scope and above it. The RIO's stick was about the size of a screwdriver handle, or straight sausage-shaped on a ball mount. It had an "action" button under the middle finger, and a thumbwheel on the top. The thumbwheel controlled the antenna's elevation. The elevation was indicated on the scope as a short horizontal blip on the right side of the screen. Pressing the button halfway down was called "half-action", this would cause the antenna to be slaved to the RIO's stick, and would initiate 60ms PRF switching to prevent target eclipsing.

There was also the "taboo" mode, "EMERGENCY". This mode was to be used ONLY if you were in actual combat, and you had a transmitter failure. This mode overrode all of the thermal sensors, and a number of other protection circuits. Selecting this mode might enable the transmitter to work for a short period of time, but at the likely cost of destroying a number of radar components. When a RIO selected this mode, it tripped a red flag on the knob, which could only be re-set by removing the knob with a small Allen-type wrench. That was one of the very first things we would check after a flight - if that flag was out, the RIO got a trip up to the Skipper's office for an ass-chewing. 

There may be more modes that I've forgotten. The last couple of years I was on active duty, we got F-4S's with the AWG-10A's in them, then I transferred to VMFA-122 which had the older F-4J's with AWG-10's again. One can't remember everything from 27 years ago null

 

 

b) You commented that the PD mode was the most difficult to use and based on velocity closure (range rate) and not in range vs azimut. That means something like "VS" mode on AN/APG-68 I mean, that's a HPRF mode isn't?. Do you remind any interesting peculiarity of those modes, per example how did they worked according to different clutter environments and target profile?, was that mode only LD or it was also available as a Look up option?

PRF was approximately 40ms in PD mode; but remember there still was minute adjustments made to the PRF at the end of every scan, and it would switch every 60ms during half-action or acquisition.

One interesting aspect of the PD mode was the ground clutter notch. This looked rather like an inverted arch. The faster the aircraft was travelling, the taller and narrower the arch was. It was, literally, a "black hole" - the radar would not "see" anything in that notch. It would take digital signal processing to make use of that ground clutter return, which wasn't until later. Remember, the electronics in the AWG-10 were quite crude by today's standards - their idea of an integrated circut back then was a collection of discrete components surrounded by a black cube of epoxy. This is also what made it so difficult to repair, and gave it a low MTBF.

 

 

c) Can you comment on the MTBF of the radar set, compared to other radars on Phantom and vintage aircraft you know?, it introduced LRU philosophy?, how it was to mantain?, would be delighted (and guess most of us) to hear more about your job ;D

The MTBF on the original AWG-10 radars we had was quite dismal; if an aircraft was still "up and up" (airframes/radar) for three "hops" (sorties) it was golden. Remember, these aircraft were doggone old by the time I got to operational squadrons back in 1975; they were all Vietnam Veterans, and had seen MANY launches/recoveries from aircraft carriers, and were very high-time airframes. A single F-4J Phantom had 15 miles of wire in it. That's a lot of wiring to maintain. Much of it involved the radar. And the radar had quite a few electro-mechanical relays. One of our most frustrating "gripes" would be, "Radar breaks lock under G's" to which we could only reply "G-force simulator on back order." They wouldn't let technicians fly in the backseat - so we couldn't begin to troubleshoot it.

The BIT box (LRU-8) was a troublesome piece of equipment (BIT=Built-In Test) - it was driven by a film strip with written instructions and frame numbers to tell you where it was in the test, and a grid of (logical) 1's or 0's (either black or see-through) that drove a series of either phototransistors or photoresistors, which controlled a "relay tree" above the antenna that would select various circuits to test. This thing was a nightmare in itself. The AWG-10A BIT box was infinitely better; it was all digital, and markedly faster.

When my 1st squadron got the very first F-4S's with the AWG-10A radars in them, we found them to be VERY reliable in comparison - we were getting 10, 20, 30 or more hops between repairs. However, the first time we went to swap out a computer (LRU15 or LRU16, can't remember which) in the turtleback (behind the RIO) we discovered that the computer harness had been made too short! We got the cables off OK, but they just wouldn't go back on the new computer. They'd made an error in measuring the "jig" used to build the cables.

The F-4S's had other teething problems. They changed from the old flammable hydraulic fluid to a new, non-flammable hydraulic fluid; however the old O-ring seals were not compatible with this new fluid. Well, they supposedly replaced all of the O-rings when the airframes were rebuilt, but they missed a few in the turtleback area, causing eventual massive hydraulic leaks and our squadron to nearly lose an aircraft after losing all hydraulic pressure during approach.[/quote]

 

 

d) Did the radar interfaced with advanced con scan Sparrow (AIM-7F) and monopulse Sparrow (AIM-7M) missiles?...

I left the Corps before those missiles were available. The Sparrow missiles I worked with connected to the missile umbilical using a 32-pin shear "wafer". When the missile was ejected from the rack (by firing what amounts to a blank shotgun-shell type device) the wafer would actually shear in half; one side would remain attached to the missle, the other half would stay with the harness. I have a couple of these "wafers" left from my tour in the Corps; I was using them to build Sparrow missile simulators so the aircrew could practice locking on the radar and firing when the missile was inside the envelope. Don't have any photos - yet. They're rather crude, we didn't have any circuit card material available - just soldered together a dozen resistors, capacitors and diodes along with a fuse holder, then potted the whole thing.

 

 

Thanks a lot for any answer and for the last post.

You're welcome - hope this is enough for the moment. It's after midnight here, it's been an event-filled day, and I have more to accomplish before hitting the rack.

From the secret projects forum on APG-59

[SgtPappy]

18 minutes ago, F-2 said:

The F-4S was well after the initial fielding with far more reliable components.

 

From the secret projects forum on APG-59

The F-4S is the ultimate Phantom IMO. But it's just from a different era since it showed up way after Vietnam. Sure it'd be great to have it but some seem to think it's the right choice and the F-4E is the wrong choice despite the fact that the slatted F-4E saw butt loads of combat within its own era when it was top dog.

If the F-4S came first I wouldn't be upset, but to suggest the F-4E is wrong choice is ... delusional.

Edited December 29, 2022 by SgtPappy

[F-2]

Just now, SgtPappy said:

The F-4S is the ultimate Phantom IMO. Bt it's just from a different era since it showed up way after Vietnam. Sure it'd be great to have it but some seem to think it's the right choice and the F-4E is the wrong choice despite the fact that the slatted F-4E saw butt loads of combat within its own era when it was top dog.

If the F-4S came first I wouldn't be upset, but to suggest the F-4E is wrong choice is ... delusional.

Did I suggest that? If I did it wasn’t intended.They simply mentioned they would like to do a Naval Phantom at some point and I said I thought the F-4S seemed to be the most capable choice.

[SgtPappy]

1 minute ago, F-2 said:

Did I suggest that? If I did it wasn’t intended.They simply mentioned they would like to do a Naval Phantom at some point and I said I thought the F-4S seemed to be the most capable choice.

No. Sorry I didn't mean to suggest it was you. I was just trying to summarize that despite the F-4S' fantastic capability, a lot of the discussion in the thread is discrediting the F-4E in the context of its relevance in Vietnam and other conflicts like the YomKippur/October War.

[Bremspropeller]

7 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

Forgot to ask about this one. Why was the F-4 more fuel critical than the F-8? I know it has two engines but it has more than enough fuel to make up for it and Navy Phantoms carried at least 1 drop tank most of the time right?

Was it just the types of missions they were flying that caused this?

The F-8 had an exceptionally high fuel fraction. It carried around over 9000lbs of fuel internally in the later variants (after the rocket pack was deleted with the F8U-2N/ F-8D, which almost gave another 1000lbs of fuel on top of the earlier 8000'ish), compared to the F-4 with over 12000lbs (about comparable to the Honet*).

The F-4 could carry three bags (usually the 600gal centerline-bag for the Navy), but those came at the cost of drag and at least the first couple of versions suffered from heavy g-limits and tiny jettison-windows.

The F-8 never flew with external gas operationally. The F-8J could carry two 300gal bags, though (I have only seen flight-test pictures).

Think about it this way: The Phantom has two single spool turbojets while the Crusader has one twin-spool turbojet on 75% of the internal fuel.

 

If you think the Mirage F1 is doing well on internal fuel right now, imagine having 200USgal more fuel, a more efficient engine and an even better L/D ratio.

_____

*The J79s should be more thirsty than the F404 and the F-4 airframe should have lower L/D than the F-18, so you'll most probably go through the internal fuel quicker than in the Hornet.

 

======================

Some more food for thought on the F-4E vs F-4J/S discussion (which is a bit misguided IMHO):

The Corps and Navy never bothered using PGMs on their Phantoms, as they had dedicated platorms for this job: The A-4 and A-6 in the Corps, the A-4/A-7 and A-6 in the Navy. The Corps and Navy mostly used unguided ordnance during CAS (Corps) or Flak Supression (Navy). The Navy at some point figured out that a fully bombed up F-4 could carry more explosives than an A-4, their dedicated light attacker and supposedly this started a shift in air wing compositions (somebody with more knowledge might shoot this hypothesis down, though).

There seems to be a general undertone that the F-4 was a bit too slick to be an accurate (dive)bomber. Might have had to do with the Phantom aircrew's thoughts on dropping bombs and being a crime against their fighter heritage. Haven't heard thoseissues from the Marines, though, so it might have been an attitude-thing with the Navy dudes.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[Aussie_Mantis]

8 hours ago, exhausted said:

 

1. On your first point, while the Air Force employed various degrees of gadgetry to overcome their deficit performance, history shows the Navy and Marine Corps trained heavily to improve air to air performance through doctrinal emphases on tactics. Even in Vietnam, you will see a mish-mash of gadgets on the Air Force's F-4 fleet. These were to a smaller degree present on the Navy and Marine Corps side, but the story is a bit more interesting for their emphasis on training and tactical solutions.

On your subpoint to excuse the F-4E's underperformance, being due to the emphasis on mud moving, well it's not an excuse at all. There's this other branch that used F-4Js almost exclusively for ground attack: the United States Marine Corps. You will not only find the Navy's F-4Js outperformed the Air Force's F-4Es in the air, but the Marine Corps' F-4Js outperformed the Air Force's F-4Es on the ground. The Air Force Phantoms simply weren't trained or trusted to make passes where the Marines routinely bombed. 

2. You mention the Navy entered Vietnam from each direction, but so did the Air Force. The Air Force routinely followed the coast north from bases in RVN. Furthermore, the Air Force isn't excused because of lack of fuel, given that both branches had adequately available fuel from tanker aircraft operating in the area. The Air Force routinely refueled right before entering North Vietnam, and refueled immediately after exiting North Vietnam.

All this is to suggest the F-4J and the F-4E can be fairly compared by their performance in both air to air and air to ground roles, and the history will show the Navy and Marine Corps squadrons flying F-4Js outperformed their Air Force brethren flying F-4Es, and this prospectively would translate into the F-4J, or even S, giving DCS players a richer experience from the diversity of scenarios and operational functions, than an F-4E being confined shore bases and relying on gadgetry.

 

Oh, you... you know, your near-constant negativity about the F-4E Phantom is one of the things that inspired me to make this post, right?

Putting aside the fact that you peddle your own versions of the historical narratives and doctrine of the USAF regarding the F-4, and the fact that you entirely disregard years' worth of USAF tactical development and improvement over the course of Vietnam and beyond, as well as entirely misunderstanding the F-4E's role and configuration to the point of disregarding the piles of evidence that other members have given...

If I'm being honest, nobody on this forum could care less about your constant negativity about the  F-4E and your worship of the F-4J and F-4S, to the point of your previous complete apathy towards the rich histories of any other force that used the F-4 other than the US Navy, which frankly, I find disrespectful to an extreme. If you want actual diversity of scenarios and operational functions, fly the F-4E. At least it can fly more mission profiles than just intercepts and TARCAP. 

Otherwise, I'm not really sure why you even bother. This is an F-4E forum. This is about the F-4E. The USN isn't the only user of the Phantom and honestly, if you really want to push the angle of the USN F-4J "mattering" more? The F-4E was used by more nations than the F-4J and its derivatives ever were.

Please stop being such a negative nancy. We're getting an F-4E, I'm sure an F-4J comes later, but your opinion does not matter to most of us and trying to force us to swallow it only sours you and your reputation.


The F-4J NEVER, EVER outperformed the AIr Force's F-4Es on the ground up north or even in any of the conflicts afterwards. The truth is that the F-4E, as a multirole fighter-bomber, is  both better in concept and execution than the Navy's half-baked attempts at including some sort of bombing ability in the F-4J. I'm sure I would very much enjoy using a manually adjustable mil sight or using LABS when I can just use a TV-guided munition, laser-guided bomb, a Bullpup or a Maverick instead- or in later variants, quite literally just aim, wait, and then drop with the CCIP function introduced by the DMAS bombing computer. Your points that I have read, time and time again about the US Marine Corps and US Navy somehow being whiz kids who can hit a mortar size target while the USAF can't apparently hit the broad side of a barn just land wrong to the point of sheer lunacy. I've read the diaries and talked with pilots who headed north with the Air Force and the Navy. You're really just being delusional about the skill differential- if it existed at all. The USAF and USN were both extremely dedicated forces and extremely good at their job, and your comments about the US Air Force's pilots frankly disrespect the veterans who flew, fought, and died in some foreign field of Not-America and turned into shooting stars shooting past Thud Ridge Up North.

If you really want to push the air to air angle- sure, the F-4E had less kills than the F-4J, but that implies you completely blind yourself to the fact that 41+45+23 makes 109, which is the kills that F-4Cs, F-4Ds and F-4Es made. The F-4J made thirty kills, the F-4B eleven. The USAF overall leads the USN in terms of air to air kills with the F-4 over Vietnam, because you apparently forget the fact that the USAF has three major F-4 variants that went into Vietnam. You push a false narrative about USAF training as if it never existed, which it does not. The USAF very much embarked on a similar training program to retrain its pilots, which lead to the present doctrines at Fighter School at Nellis, and saw fruit in Late Vietnam (though not yet results) in '72 as part of Rivet Haste, and later would bear true fruit with the Israelis as US-trained pilots tussled with their highly motivated, well-trained Soviet counterparts over Egypt in '70 and won, as well as when they took twenty-eight planes on with two F-4Es, and won.

Let us also not forget the contributions of the Wolfpack, of which famous names such as Robin Olds are often held in high regard- the man who helped brainstorm and ultimately executed the operation that shot down seven MiG-21s in a single day, knocking half of the early MiG-21 fleet in '67- training be damned!

But please, stop trying to w**k off the F-4J. We get that you like a different Phantom variant. I am pretty sure however that not many of us care for your attempts to force your tastes, your desires and your often completely spurious opinions onto us.

7 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

The F-4S is the ultimate Phantom IMO. But it's just from a different era since it showed up way after Vietnam. Sure it'd be great to have it but some seem to think it's the right choice and the F-4E is the wrong choice despite the fact that the slatted F-4E saw butt loads of combat within its own era when it was top dog.

If the F-4S came first I wouldn't be upset, but to suggest the F-4E is wrong choice is ... delusional.

 

Hear hear.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Aussie_Mantis

[divinee]

50 minutes ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Otherwise, I'm not really sure why you even bother. This is an F-4E forum. This is about the F-4E. The USN isn't the only user of the Phantom and honestly, if you really want to push the angle of the USN F-4J "mattering" more? The F-4E was used by more nations than the F-4J and its derivatives ever were.

No, it's F-4 forum which includes all the models Heatblur will make including naval models.

Edited December 29, 2022 by divinee

[Lt_Jaeger]

@Aussie_Mantishow comes you know what I (and maybe the rest of the forum users) want? 

 

Did I mentioned that I wait for the Navy F-4,whichever it will be. 

F4E will stand in for the transition from the F-14 so I hope it will be the early version. 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Lt_Jaeger

[divinee]

I'm very happy with all the variants we get altough i'd favor naval variants. Will be lots of fun with all those 

[SgtPappy]

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The F-8 had an exceptionally high fuel fraction. It carried around over 9000lbs of fuel internally in the later variants (after the rocket pack was deleted with the F8U-2N/ F-8D, which almost gave another 1000lbs of fuel on top of the earlier 8000'ish), compared to the F-4 with over 12000lbs (about comparable to the Honet*).

The F-4 could carry three bags (usually the 600gal centerline-bag for the Navy), but those came at the cost of drag and at least the first couple of versions suffered from heavy g-limits and tiny jettison-windows.

The F-8 never flew with external gas operationally. The F-8J could carry two 300gal bags, though (I have only seen flight-test pictures).

Think about it this way: The Phantom has two single spool turbojets while the Crusader has one twin-spool turbojet on 75% of the internal fuel.

 

If you think the Mirage F1 is doing well on internal fuel right now, imagine having 200USgal more fuel, a more efficient engine and an even better L/D ratio.

_____

*The J79s should be more thirsty than the F404 and the F-4 airframe should have lower L/D than the F-18, so you'll most probably go through the internal fuel quicker than in the Hornet.

This really puts it into perspective. Thanks!

I should've realized the fuel fraction was higher. Hopefully the F-8 comes out soonish so we can have them fly alongside our Phantoms.

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by SgtPappy

[SgtPappy]

3 hours ago, Lt_Jaeger said:

@Aussie_Mantishow comes you know what I (and maybe the rest of the forum users) want? 

Well you dont seem like the type that consistently puts others down or trolls about the F-4E being the wrong choice.

Most everyone have been respectful and I'm pretty sure that's all that Mantis is getting at.

[_BringTheReign_]

I am so happy that Heatblur is working on both USAF and Navy Phantoms - clearly that's the right decision, given how passionate we all are about our favourite versions! I can't wait to fly 'em all!

[RevampedGrunt]

I'm definitely more in favor of the E. I like have the ability to use the aircraft for more than one or two nations. Even if the E isn't as capable at a specific thing that the J or S is, it's still the most exported variant. That'll definitely make more settings possible compared to any of the navy variants. Personally, being able to use them for either Vietnam, Arab-Israeli war, something made up between the US and Iran, or West Germany and East Germany, makes it all the more worth it. 

[Uxi]

I'd be most interested in naval ops myself so F-4N or S but have always been fascinated by the stories of the IAF "Super Phantom" with the Pratt PW1120 engines, the APG-76, Kurnass avionics, etc. Supposedly capable of supercruise....  maybe a mod. 

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, RevampedGrunt said:

I'm definitely more in favor of the E. I like have the ability to use the aircraft for more than one or two nations. Even if the E isn't as capable at a specific thing that the J or S is, it's still the most exported variant. That'll definitely make more settings possible compared to any of the navy variants. Personally, being able to use them for either Vietnam, Arab-Israeli war, something made up between the US and Iran, or West Germany and East Germany, makes it all the more worth it. 

As it happens, that’s one fight you don’t have to make up:

F-14 Tomcat pilot Lt William ‘Bear’ Ferran saw his AIM-7 Sparrow drifting slightly from left to right and then, shortly after motor burn-out, he noticed a fireball inside the translucent diamond projected on his HUD, marking Iranian F-4’s position.

Source

 

 

[F-2]

45 minutes ago, Uxi said:

I'd be most interested in naval ops myself so F-4N or S but have always been fascinated by the stories of the IAF "Super Phantom" with the Pratt PW1120 engines, the APG-76, Kurnass avionics, etc. Supposedly capable of supercruise....  maybe a mod. 

Mod would be fair, just like the F-16I mod.

[RevampedGrunt]

38 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

As it happens, that’s one fight you don’t have to make up:

F-14 Tomcat pilot Lt William ‘Bear’ Ferran saw his AIM-7 Sparrow drifting slightly from left to right and then, shortly after motor burn-out, he noticed a fireball inside the translucent diamond projected on his HUD, marking Iranian F-4’s position.

Source

 

 

All the better then. There's also South Korea vs North that can be done with them. The F-4E gives a lot of things to do, but having a naval variant eventually will be great. 

[exhausted]

18 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Oh, you... you know, your near-constant negativity about the F-4E Phantom is one of the things that inspired me to make this post, right?

Putting aside the fact that you peddle your own versions of the historical narratives and doctrine of the USAF regarding the F-4, and the fact that you entirely disregard years' worth of USAF tactical development and improvement over the course of Vietnam and beyond, as well as entirely misunderstanding the F-4E's role and configuration to the point of disregarding the piles of evidence that other members have given...

If I'm being honest, nobody on this forum could care less about your constant negativity about the  F-4E and your worship of the F-4J and F-4S, to the point of your previous complete apathy towards the rich histories of any other force that used the F-4 other than the US Navy, which frankly, I find disrespectful to an extreme. If you want actual diversity of scenarios and operational functions, fly the F-4E. At least it can fly more mission profiles than just intercepts and TARCAP. 

But please, stop trying to w**k off the F-4J. We get that you like a different Phantom variant. I am pretty sure however that not many of us care for your attempts to force your tastes, your desires and your often completely spurious opinions onto us.

Hear hear.

 

Sorry I seem to have touched an exposed raw nerve for you, but if you are going to accuse me of anything, it should be inspiring you to get off your bum to do something before the year's end, and for that I congratulate you. Nobody is trying to force your worship of any plane the way you are trying to evangelize your adoration for the F-4E onto everyone else.  

Now I was joking there, but on a serious note, I would like to point out that it's one thing to admit you like the F-4E for personally-held reasons, but quite another to elevate it by disregarding the history of Marine and Navy Phantoms. There were more mission profiles for the -J than just "intercept and TARCAP:" interdiction, strike, every flavor of CAS, escort, BARCAP, etc; F-4Js even protected the B-52s. 

The doctrinal differences also resulted in completely different experiences the way the F-4J was used in its native environment; in US service, tactics in the F-4J seem to have developed more aggressively and seems to have resulted in more kills than the F-4E. This would translate well into a proper F-4 module.

Now, the main reason not everyone is placating the F-4E fans is that it is not the best way to represent the historic fighter's involvement in missions from sea and from shore. In fact, knowing that follow-on modules in DCS are basically never going to happen, not everyone is going to agree with you that the F-4E is the single best way to represent the iconic naval fighter design. Let's turn the logic around to see if we are following: pushing the F-4E is like announcing a B-17 module for the Channel Map, only to find the developer has settled on the PB-1W and is teasing future plans to add the B-17G at a later date. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by exhausted

[Get_Lo]

21 minutes ago, exhausted said:

Let's turn the logic around to see if we are following: pushing the F-4E is like announcing a B-17 module for the Channel Map, only to find the developer has settled on the PB-1W and is teasing future plans to add the B-17G at a later date. 

 

Im sorry but that isnt even close to what is happening. F4E and its derivatives are more common and in a wider variety of theaters than the J

Edited December 30, 2022 by Get_Lo

[Lieuie]

Arguing which F-4 is the best interpretation is pointless as everyone is going to have a different answer based on their own proclivities. Some will say the most produced version, others the one which saw the most combat. Others still might want the ultimate version of the original version of the plane.

Each has valid points for wanting that. That however isn't going to change the fact that the one we will be getting is already determined.

Now Heatblur has also announced that they will make a naval variant as well which great news for all of us as more people will be able to attain a version of the plane close to their preferred choice. And since which naval variant will be if still not announced we can speculate which one it is going to be and which will be best to simulate in DCS.

But that's not what we're doing here. We are arguing between a version we will be getting soon™ and a version we might get at some point down the line. This isn't changing anything and isn't really helping anyone. Although I have learned a couple of things from your arguments I am getting exhausted by your aimless bickering. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

                                                  With love, Lieuie.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Lieuie