Is a F-4G too classified?

[Dragon1-1]

23 minutes ago, streakeagle said:

That makes sense, as almost everything else in DCS World is the last/best variant rather than what actually saw extensive frontline use.

It's the most relevant variant when you consider the timeline of LOMAC campaigns. DCS descended from a line of sims set in the 90s in northern Black Sea, and if you saw a SA-2 there, it wouldn't be the variant they had in Vietnam. 

[upyr1]

21 hours ago, streakeagle said:

The B-52 we have in game is very different from the B-52 of the Vietnam era. Completely different engines, very different nose and tail. Yet, as an AI aircraft it looks and acts like a B-52, especially with period correct liveries. Overall, the airframe is the same.

We need a tail gun  

21 hours ago, streakeagle said:

The A-7 was based on the aerodynamics of the F-8, but are physically totally different airframes neither one can adequately perform the others' role. The physical differences between the B-66 and the A-3 are minor for game purposes no different than the generations of the B-52. An A-3 in a B-66 livery orbiting near a Hanoi strike providing stand-off jamming would not be an obvious difference until you get close enough to see the tail and nose differences. The 3-view from a distance would be almost indistinguishable unless you could make out the engine pods. Right now, I am stuck with using an S-3 as a tanker/standoff jammer stand-in for the EKA-3 and the B-66. I would prefer to have both in the game, but the EKA-3 can be dressed up to act as a B-66. Whereas a B-66 was not a tanker nor was it carrier based. So, if I can only have one, I would gladly take the EKA-3 and happily use it as a B-66.

My issue was when you said the B-66 and A-3 were basically the same plane and later compared their relationship to the F-4B and F-4C.  Whether or not the A-3 could be used as a stand-in for the B-66 at least as AI is a different story they had different noses and slightly different wings however as far as the AI is concerned I don't think the AI flight model is detailed enough to model the differences and it would be frustrating if we got a completely accurate EB-66 as it was a horrible POS that was more likely to crash from a flameout than get shot down.  Having said that, depending on the cockpits I'd love to have an A-3 and B-66 module. 

On 1/9/2024 at 7:01 PM, Kalasnkova74 said:

Here’s a SAM simulator video from YT showing an S75 Dvina. Coding all the radars, SAM systems and sensors, connections and modes alone is a HUGE task. Hell, just coding the S75 throughly enough to be relevant would be equal effort as HB’s F-4E project. 
 

Even if we handwave the massive logistical task of building player-useable RedFor SAM modules, the other side of the equation has to be built also. IRL, making an F-4G meant taking apart an F-4E at Ogden logistics center and rebuilding it with the APR sensor suite. The meat puppets up front needed a dedicated transition course just to learn the basics of using the F-4G. 
 

All that means HB would have to start from scratch modeling the F-4G (flight model is different from the F-4E because of the APR-47’s avionics in the nose, reducing nose authority vs the standard F-4E) , and intellectually the same goes for the people paying money to participate. Think learning to fly the jet is hard? Try doing that effectively AND understanding the Electromagnetic Spectrum so in a turn with the RWR going off you know which threat to prioritize or ignore. It’s a lot more brainpower than pointing the radar at a blip & launching an AIM-120 in the bozosphere.

Bottom line- making an F-4G (or any EW aircraft) needs a solid groundwork of full fidelity, player controllable SAMs+ long range radars AND common behavior logic in DCS so  all the other modules experience the same realistic threats. It’s a lot of work, and I can easily see how this project just isn’t gonna pay the bills vs the cost.

I remember this back in the early 2ks, I'm wondering who did the SAM simulator I'd love it if they could turn this into a DCS module 

Edited January 16, 2024 by upyr1

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I remember this back in the early 2ks, I'm wondering who did the SAM simulator I'd love it if they could turn this into a DCS module 

I suspect it was that guy that they tried to recruit to do the IADS module, and he/they  bailed.

 

[upyr1]

49 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

I suspect it was that guy that they tried to recruit to do the IADS module, and he/they  bailed.

 

I wouldn't be surprised. It's a shame he didn't do it. 

[Harlikwin]

41 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I wouldn't be surprised. It's a shame he didn't do it. 

I too would like a better SAM/IADS simulation in DCS...

Amusingly in a recent interview Wags said the player base though the current sams are "too hard"... LOL...

[upyr1]

14 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

I too would like a better SAM/IADS simulation in DCS...

Amusingly in a recent interview Wags said the player base though the current sams are "too hard"... LOL...

Some people like me need help getting good. 

[Temetre]

Am 15.1.2024 um 23:26 schrieb streakeagle:

That makes sense, as almost everything else in DCS World is the last/best variant rather than what actually saw extensive frontline use.

Are we playing the same game? Almost no full fidelity module in DCS is the most modern version. Most of them are the most heavily used variants in fact.

Also late 60s isnt even close to the best variant of the SA-2, they had like 90s upgrades and stuff.

vor 16 Stunden schrieb Harlikwin:

Amusingly in a recent interview Wags said the player base though the current sams are "too hard"... LOL...

Tbf Id like to know what exactly was ment there. If were talking IR-sams, manpads or the general SA/reaction time of SAMs, then they are kinda OP. Let alone anti air guns.

Or my personal nemesis, that nighttime iron sight anti-air T72 turret gunner shooting down my F-14 

Edited January 17, 2024 by Temetre

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Temetre said:

Are we playing the same game? Almost no full fidelity module in DCS is the most modern version. Most of them are the most heavily used variants in fact.

Also late 60s isnt even close to the best variant of the SA-2, they had like 90s upgrades and stuff.

Tbf Id like to know what exactly was ment there. If were talking IR-sams, manpads or the general SA/reaction time of SAMs, then they are kinda OP. Let alone anti air guns.

Or my personal nemesis, that nighttime iron sight anti-air T72 turret gunner shooting down my F-14 

 

Yeah, there was no specificity to it, but yes I'm pretty sure we've all fallen to the guns of Roland the headless BMP-2 gunner. But I assume he meant the radar guided sams.

As for the module choices/eras it depends but I'd say its a mix. Like the 21bis; its a good choice IMO saw tons of service, but its not the famous F-13 of either vietnam or the arab israeli wars. Similar story for the F14's we currently have, basically very late 80's versions or 90's versions. Minimal relevance to cold war F14's or the F14 that saw the most combat, the iranian ones (yes someday these are coming). ED's half swiss/half nellis halfbreed F5E, totally irrelevant in either context, or their F86 hybrid (too late for korea). F4E early/late, is a pretty goated decision as its super relevant to the 2nd half of the cold war, but its not a VN bird. The ED F-teens or the 10C, largely irrelevant aside from bombing mud huts, earlier "A" versions IMO would have sold just as well  and people would pay for upgrades, it remains to be seen if they will pay for "downgrades".   

[Temetre]

vor 37 Minuten schrieb Harlikwin:

Yeah, there was no specificity to it, but yes I'm pretty sure we've all fallen to the guns of Roland the headless BMP-2 gunner. But I assume he meant the radar guided sams.

As for the module choices/eras it depends but I'd say its a mix. Like the 21bis; its a good choice IMO saw tons of service, but its not the famous F-13 of either vietnam or the arab israeli wars. Similar story for the F14's we currently have, basically very late 80's versions or 90's versions. Minimal relevance to cold war F14's or the F14 that saw the most combat, the iranian ones (yes someday these are coming). ED's half swiss/half nellis halfbreed F5E, totally irrelevant in either context, or their F86 hybrid (too late for korea). F4E early/late, is a pretty goated decision as its super relevant to the 2nd half of the cold war, but its not a VN bird. The ED F-teens or the 10C, largely irrelevant aside from bombing mud huts, earlier "A" versions IMO would have sold just as well  and people would pay for upgrades, it remains to be seen if they will pay for "downgrades".   

Mig-21s in Vietnam were more of a minor factor in the war, no matter how interesting that bit of history is historically and especially to americans. Otoh, Mig-21Bis was built in the thousands, it might actually be the most produced variant of the Mig-21, and its interesting for not being an export model. 

The iranian F-14s saw the most combat, but theyre the odd ones out. Theyre not US-Navy carrier aircraft, which is the purposeful design of the plane, and only make up a fraction of the >700 F-14s built. Neither can you claim an 80/90s F-14 A/B is the most modern one.

As for the F-16, they were around for Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq War and make up to this day one of the most used modern fighter jet in the world? Maybe not always in the most recent C-version, but having a modern networked 2000s jet is obviously pretty relevant as well. Still not the most modern version of it btw, those models are almost 20 years old now.

 

Gotta be honest, a lot of the time people say "DCS always has the newest and coolest variant", those people then ask for early and rather unique variants of the planes instead. That just makes no sense, not even as a hyperbole. Even if you ignore the weird implication that earlier variants are somehow inherently more relevant than newer variants.

Edited January 17, 2024 by Temetre

[Harlikwin]

58 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Mig-21s in Vietnam were more of a minor factor in the war, no matter how interesting that bit of history is historically and especially to americans. Otoh, Mig-21Bis was built in the thousands, it might actually be the most produced variant of the Mig-21, and its interesting for not being an export model. 

The iranian F-14s saw the most combat, but theyre the odd ones out. Theyre not US-Navy carrier aircraft, which is the purposeful design of the plane, and only make up a fraction of the >700 F-14s built. Neither can you claim an 80/90s F-14 A/B is the most modern one.

As for the F-16, they were around for Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq War and make up to this day one of the most used modern fighter jet in the world? Maybe not always in the most recent C-version, but having a modern networked 2000s jet is obviously pretty relevant as well. Still not the most modern version of it btw, those models are almost 20 years old now.

 

Gotta be honest, a lot of the time people say "DCS always has the newest and coolest variant", those people then ask for early and rather unique variants of the planes instead. That just makes no sense, not even as a hyperbole. Even if you ignore the weird implication that earlier variants are somehow inherently more relevant than newer variants.

 

I mean it depends on what you want to do. If you want to drop bombs on mud huts the 14B certainly did that. But as you say its primary role was fleet air defense for the entire cold war. And the "A" variant we have is from the last 3 years of the cold war (and I'm being generous). So clearly if mission/historical relevance is the metric the -95 as well as the iranian -95 would be the far more "relevant" fit. 

The 2005+ viper we have? Lol what did it do? Bombed some mud huts? Yup for sure. But you cannot use it as a "stand-in" for a 80's F16A where it got famous, or even for a 91 era viper. At best it sort of fits for the 2003 iraq invasion, I'll grant that but thats pretty much it. Thats where alot of people get off the bus and frankly I do too. And the same exact logic applies to the 2003 hornet. So if mud hut bombing in SP is your thing, thats great, and for alot of the DCS community it does seem that JDAM'ing toyotas is "peak DCS" but not for me. 

Also "modern" in terms of DCS, no way is ED doing a blk60 viper with modern "things". Hell our 2003 Hornet is missing MSI which is  rather important, and from a systems modeling standpoint its probably one of the most broken jets in DCS (can't use CCIP without GPS, lol, gimme a break).

 

 

 

[Kalasnkova74]

13 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

The 2005+ viper we have? Lol what did it do? Bombed some mud huts? Yup for sure. But you cannot use it as a "stand-in" for a 80's F16A where it got famous, or even for a 91 era viper.

Not trying to be snarky, but why not ? Air forces routinely use entirely different aircraft as “stand-ins” for other aircraft. Among other cases, the USN NAWDC flies F-16s as substitutes for anything from MiG-29s to Su-27s. Small potatoes by comparison to fly a later block F-14 as a substitute for an early Iranian iteration.

Coming back to topic, I think the threads run its course and clearly proves that more core work on IADS logic & options is needed before an F-4G - or any other EW aircraft- makes sense in DCS. 
 

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Not trying to be snarky, but why not ? Air forces routinely use entirely different aircraft as “stand-ins” for other aircraft. Among other cases, the USN NAWDC flies F-16s as substitutes for anything from MiG-29s to Su-27s. Small potatoes by comparison to fly a later block F-14 as a substitute for an early Iranian iteration.

Coming back to topic, I think the threads run its course and clearly proves that more core work on IADS logic & options is needed before an F-4G - or any other EW aircraft- makes sense in DCS. 
 

If you want any sense of realism here are the following reasons:
Different FM/weapons/pods (weapons/pods can be limited ofc)

JHMCS

Far more capable radar

Far more capable RWR/CM/ECM 

More capable Nav/INS etc. (usually not a big deal because the bulk of the DCS MP community are F10 map cripples, so nav system modeling while actually really important IRL seldom matters in DCS MP)

Datalink (this can sometimes be disabled but it takes work on the mission makers part)

Taking something like a F16A blk15 (early)

Less TWR/different FM. It did have  a CCIP/CCRP capability, not quite as sophisticated as our "C", the only "smart weapons" it could generally use were GBU's (ground/buddy lased only) and "A/B" model mavs  were what more or less existed in the 70s/80's (note we don't have those in DCS). Using mavs also meant basically looking into your lap due to the radar screen placement. And for A/B mav models the effective range was like 1-2 miles at best. APG-66 was more primitive and shorter range and lacking the A/G functionality of the 68. RWR was way more primitive and less capable as well, it carried less CM's. Obviously no DL or JHMCs which are major force multipliers for AA/AG. Add to this the inferior ergonomics and more complex operation by not having MFDs. 

So all in all vastly less capable than a F16C blk50. Yes, every MP server in DCS basically takes off the aamrams and then variously "nerfs" the weapons/pods/systems on the jet, but you can't get around the fact even at its "most nerfed" its still more capable than an F16A in both AA and AG stuff. 

The same exact argument totally applies to the F18C, and I don't even want to talk about comparing the A10C and an 80's A10 without even CCIP/CCRP.

And yes going back to the topic at hand yeah we need a decent SAM/EW spectrum upgrade before ECM/EW makes sense in DCS. 

[HwSpring]

I would like to see F4G one day - and would be happy to purchase it. I wouldn't say no to AI version either (that and Prowler). 

[upyr1]

On 12/19/2022 at 3:03 AM, Zergburger said:

we would need real radar simulations in order for the F-4G to be viable. For example, part of the back seat electronics include what is essentially an oscilloscope to view the waveform of any radar being seen by the EW suite, and you can dynamically select any of them on the fly. If you want to get an idea of how poorly suited the F-4G would be to the current version of DCS:World, take a look at this:

 

Here is a follow up 

Some parts of the system I think would actually work with DCS as it is now. These components would be the most open 

[PhantomHans]

On 12/21/2023 at 7:08 PM, Slick_441 said:

What about a module preset option that would allow us to use the AGM-88 and AN/ALQ-184 Long if so desired? Servers can already restrict certain weapons, so 'retro' servers can still restrict to the Shrike. The HARM firing process would also be a compromise, basically you'd be firing a Shrike model that looks and performs as close as possible to the AGM-88 in speed, range and tracking ability.

I call it the "F-faux G"  

At a certain point we're going to have to do things like this if we ever want to see F-4G's, EA-6B's or other heavily classified airframes in DCS and I'm okay with that. 

I'd be all on board with this, or doing an F-4G that was 'front seat only'.

 

I accept that at some point we're going to have to abstract or guess at things that simply can't be known.

 

Just be honest that you're doing it and don't lie and pretend you arent.

[upyr1]

On 4/20/2025 at 9:28 AM, PhantomHans said:

I'd be all on board with this, or doing an F-4G that was 'front seat only'.

 

I accept that at some point we're going to have to abstract or guess at things that simply can't be known.

 

Just be honest that you're doing it and don't lie and pretend you arent.

From what I have seen I think the F-4G is probably one of the few Wild Weasels we could get. I'm talking about front and back seat

Looking at diagrams of the system, I think it might be possible 

This basically works like the HTS in the F-16 its just a matter of getting the buttons mapped right

Now we look here 

 

Frequency- exact numbers are classified but you could use something based on the different bands

The RPF is pulses for second- this is based on the radar's max range lower PPS indicates longer ranges

SPS sweeps per second that would change with the state, as would the FPS

the displays with a bunch of lines show the different radars tracking you and is divided up by band each horizontal line represents a different band, I belive L, S ,C, X, Ku, K and each spike is a radar 

then to the right we have the attack scope, which I believe is similar to the HARM display

There is also an oscilloscope more which would give us the power as well as an audio mode these last two items I believe would the hardest to get 100% right or at least close enough 

 

Edited April 27 by upyr1

[PhantomHans]

13 hours ago, upyr1 said:

From what I have seen I think the F-4G is probably one of the few Wild Weasels we could get. I'm talking about front and back seat

Looking at diagrams of the system, I think it might be possible 

This basically works like the HTS in the F-16 its just a matter of getting the buttons mapped right

Now we look here 

 

Frequency- exact numbers are classified but you could use something based on the different bands

The RPF is pulses for second- this is based on the radar's max range lower PPS indicates longer ranges

SPS sweeps per second that would change with the state, as would the FPS

the displays with a bunch of lines show the different radars tracking you and is divided up by band each horizontal line represents a different band, I belive L, S ,C, X, Ku, K and each spike is a radar 

then to the right we have the attack scope, which I believe is similar to the HARM display

There is also an oscilloscope more which would give us the power as well as an audio mode these last two items I believe would the hardest to get 100% right or at least close enough 

 

Whats the source for those diagrams?  Very interesting post BTW

[upyr1]

2 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

Whats the source for those diagrams?  Very interesting post BTW

 

I didn't take it but it appears to be screenshots from this video where an F-4G EWO is explaining roughly how the APR-47 worked. He doesn't go into a lot of detail, obviously, but just enough to provide us with the basic theory. @TacticalOni took the screen shots.

Anyway, I'd like @IronMike  to chime in on the threads about the G. The main questions I have for him are the following. First did HB at least consider doing the F-4G as a flyable asset? I understand if you can't answer any of them

If so, did they try to get their hands on the manuals and fail or did you get the manuals but simply took a business decision not to do it (for now)?

All the speculation about how we can fill in all radar information with open source data that might already be in DCS as well as what is actually modeled really won't do us any good if can't get information on what the buttons actually do 

Next wether or not ya'll have considered a flyable G is there any chance of getting an AI G? 

 

 

[Kalasnkova74]

On 4/26/2025 at 7:33 PM, upyr1 said:

From what I have seen I think the F-4G is probably one of the few Wild Weasels we could get. I'm talking about front and back seat

Looking at diagrams of the system, I think it might be possible 

This basically works like the HTS in the F-16 its just a matter of getting the buttons mapped right

Now we look here 

 

Frequency- exact numbers are classified but you could use something based on the different bands

The RPF is pulses for second- this is based on the radar's max range lower PPS indicates longer ranges

SPS sweeps per second that would change with the state, as would the FPS

the displays with a bunch of lines show the different radars tracking you and is divided up by band each horizontal line represents a different band, I belive L, S ,C, X, Ku, K and each spike is a radar 

then to the right we have the attack scope, which I believe is similar to the HARM display

There is also an oscilloscope more which would give us the power as well as an audio mode these last two items I believe would the hardest to get 100% right or at least close enough 

 

The flip side is the OPFOR behavior. Current IADS behavior is too simplistic to make an F-4G (or any SEAD specific aircraft) worth the effort, public info availability on the -G notwithstanding. This is of course in EDs court and not HBs. 
 

Real world IADS operators did tricky stuff like launch from one site while guiding from another, spoofing RWRs with fake lock on signals only to switch to another target or frequency, launching blind and activating the guidance radar only in the last phases of SAM flight, and so on. 

 

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

The flip side is the OPFOR behavior. Current IADS behavior is too simplistic to make an F-4G (or any SEAD specific aircraft) worth the effort, public info availability on the -G notwithstanding. This is of course in EDs court and not HBs. 
 

Real world IADS operators did tricky stuff like launch from one site while guiding from another, spoofing RWRs with fake lock on signals only to switch to another target or frequency, launching blind and activating the guidance radar only in the last phases of SAM flight, and so on. 

 

While I would agree with you 100% about ED needing to improve IADSAI, I still think even with the current state of IADSAI the G would still be awesome. So the first two questions are wether there is enough interest now and available information.