When we get a Navy Phantom it should have the VTAS helmet mounted sights

[SgtPappy]

12 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's already there, under "random failures", though it's not always fully developed. However, I think that the ability to script them should also be considered. Not in MP, but SP campaigns can make good use of this. 

An accurate simulation of how Tomcats were around Gulf War and onward would indeed have a lot of things crapping out. 

I knew this was a thing.. not a lot of people believed me but it would be nice to experiment and try this at least on missiles if possible (if the choice exists) to reflect missile failure rates of the time.

[Dragon1-1]

It's difficult because missile failure rates were highly variable, they typically worked better in Nevada than they did in Vietnam, and I suspect during exercises in Europe they also didn't fail nearly as much. Missile failures would be nice but that would have to be done right.

Honestly, given the complexity and limited information, I expect they'll miss plenty of time. Most of the early missiles' bad reputation stems from out of parameters launches, which was easy, since those parameters were fairly strict.

[Biggus]

Perhaps one day DCS will be at a point where in a dynamic campaign, the way you treat your equipment will have consequences for further missions.  Along with some factoring for the environment the campaign is taking place in.  Add in some proper squadron or air wing management and it'll be an incredible experience.  I live in hope.

[LanceCriminal86]

On 3/12/2023 at 1:25 AM, Biggus said:

Worked well with everything from the AIM-9D through to at least the -9L and probably -9M on the heater front (22 degree off boresight due to missile gimbal limits) and all the Sparrows that were ever loaded onto a 1972ish- onward Navy Phantom.  I believe it was usable to around 60 degrees when slaving the radar to the helmet.

I'm not so sure I'd agree with @LanceCriminal86 that it was gone that quickly, I've seen plenty of stories of it being used well into the 80s.  It looked very much to me like something that some squadrons made good use of and other squadrons practically deleted it.

Stories are one thing, evidence is another. I'd need specific cruises, squadrons that used them into the 80s because by then fewer Navy squadrons had Phantoms. Marines maybe held onto them longer, but a few F-4 group discussions indicated VTAS were a headache to maintain and didn't stay around long. And other references indicated the Navy effectively divesting by '79.

 

VTAS helmets stick out, I'm just not seeing them in cruise books, pre-/post cruise photos. Yes, the boxes are still in the jets but it doesn't work without the helmets.

[Biggus]

It could well have been a Marines thing.  Given that it required repeated applications of dessicant, I can imagine that shipboard maintenance could have been quite painful.  I'll keep my eyes out for pics.

[LanceCriminal86]

10 hours ago, Biggus said:

It could well have been a Marines thing.  Given that it required repeated applications of dessicant, I can imagine that shipboard maintenance could have been quite painful.  I'll keep my eyes out for pics.

I know VF-51 were one of the squadrons that used them, I've seen a VTAS converted back to APH/HGU style like mine from them. I've been again seeing the VTAS boxes in canopies with VF-31 and 103 on Sara, but no helmets. One of the docs said 500 sets of VTAS were acquired between Navy and Marines, starting to wonder if maybe more West Coast squadrons had them. People have asked the Reserve squadrons, and at least 201 and 202 pilots and crews said they didn't have them in their Ns and Ss.

[Aussie_Mantis]

On 3/14/2023 at 1:13 PM, Biggus said:

It could well have been a Marines thing.  Given that it required repeated applications of dessicant, I can imagine that shipboard maintenance could have been quite painful.  I'll keep my eyes out for pics.

Well, seeing as it's the Marines, and the marines get the arse end of any US Procurement program... and seeing as the F-4S entered widespread USMC service in the late 80s... some USMC units had the F-4J. I don't think  they would have used them. In addition to that, it'd have been a pain in the ass having VTAS sets for F-4J/S squadrons but not the F-4B/N squadrons that were most of USMC's numbers at any given point.

[Biggus]

9 minutes ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Well, seeing as it's the Marines, and the marines get the arse end of any US Procurement program... and seeing as the F-4S entered widespread USMC service in the late 80s... some USMC units had the F-4J. I don't think  they would have used them. In addition to that, it'd have been a pain in the ass having VTAS sets for F-4J/S squadrons but not the F-4B/N squadrons that were most of USMC's numbers at any given point.

The N had VTAS.  VF-41 and VF-84 used the system on their 1975 Med cruise.

You're assumptions I wouldn't.  I've got an account of a guy in VMFA-235 using it with the F-4S.  Others are less specific but if they're talking about using it with a -9L, it's going to be late in the career of the Phantom.  The hard part is finding photographs.

[Aussie_Mantis]

4 minutes ago, Biggus said:

The N had VTAS.  VF-41 and VF-84 used the system on their 1975 Med cruise.

You're assumptions I wouldn't.  I've got an account of a guy in VMFA-235 using it with the F-4S.  Others are less specific but if they're talking about using it with a -9L, it's going to be late in the career of the Phantom.  The hard part is finding photographs.

Not necessarily. AIM-9L was introduced around '78 into the fleet. Could have been from a rotation around then?

Edited March 15, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[Elf1606688794]

On 3/7/2023 at 1:12 PM, exhausted said:

It's true: Phantom maniacs have waited too long for their carrierborn baby. Though I don't know how you reasoned a little stamped metal ring on a helmet is equal to a "full glass and high-tech" aircraft. I'm trying to stay in the confines of reason here 

I'm a Phantom maniac and I can't wait for the land based versions. You Navy scum think you talk for everyone.  

[exhausted]

2 hours ago, Elf1606688794 said:

I'm a Phantom maniac and I can't wait for the land based versions. You Navy scum think you talk for everyone.  

No doubt others crave the landlubber's model. I can only hope the beast gets cat gear some day.

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, Elf1606688794 said:

You Navy scum think you talk for everyone.

 

*muffled keelhauling noises intensify*

[Biggus]

13 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Not necessarily. AIM-9L was introduced around '78 into the fleet. Could have been from a rotation around then?

 

Same guy talking about the difference slats made in exercises against CF-5As.  I'm inclined to say '81 at the earliest.  It's a pity that nobody had small handheld devices with high resolution cameras in their pockets in the 1980s.

Is this a good thread to speculate about the Link 4 implementation in the J/N/S?  Tactical manual has a pretty good description of how it looked in the cockpit, much like a mostly text version of the Mirage 2000's TAF, but with a steering dot inserted into the radar video.

[LanceCriminal86]

18 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Well, seeing as it's the Marines, and the marines get the arse end of any US Procurement program... and seeing as the F-4S entered widespread USMC service in the late 80s... some USMC units had the F-4J. I don't think  they would have used them. In addition to that, it'd have been a pain in the ass having VTAS sets for F-4J/S squadrons but not the F-4B/N squadrons that were most of USMC's numbers at any given point.

If anything the Marines are just as likely to have had them, based on the chatter and groups I've been through. On the flight gear side I've seen at least one Marine pilot mention he still had his somewhere in the attic years back, and the Phantom group chatter included Marine pilots and maintainers that had discussed the above mentioned issues of reliability. The photos again definitely show the boxes in a lot of jets, but how long the system was maintained is the question. There are periods where the Marines were not completely bereft of funding, but often yes, highly expensive/maintenance heavy systems were not retained.

I will try to find the few active use VTAS photos out there from Phantoms but it's a pretty small list/number from last time I asked some of the big hitters in the gear collector circle. It's extremely likely the helmets or at least the VTAS hardware were more tightly controlled and in most cases found they way back to Honeywell, as when all the helmets and stuff were getting DRMOd out of Pt Mugu, my helmet included, VTAS hardware was not among the various things showing up at auction. Or if it did, someone's sitting on it or it got scrapped.

Here's the mentioned VF-51 helmet, my helmet shows the same hole locations filled in/taped over. Without the VTAS bits on there, it just looks like a regular APH or HGU family helmet as they shared the base shell anyways:

Ah, found some of the pics I was looking for, VMFA-323 apparently 79-80 including on cruise with Coral Sea and VMFA-531 from the same:

No idea on the squadron 100%, maybe 154?

A visor housing (by itself)

Another Marine helmet, VMFA-314:

VF-111 Group photo with a few VTAS II in the mix, makes sense with VF-51 also being a known Navy squadron that used them:

 

Going through the comments as I was digging up helmets it sounded like Marines/Navy were receiving the VTAS II around 1975, so it looks like '75-'79 is about the range to look at F-4J and N cruises. Actually sounds like VTAS was not retained in the F-4S, that everything but the boxes were removed. Lots of trails to try and follow, but consistently seeing it as a pain to maintain.

[Elf1606688794]

21 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

*muffled keelhauling noises intensify*

21 hours ago, exhausted said:

No doubt others crave the landlubber's model. I can only hope the beast gets cat gear some day.

I hope the navy models show up sooner rather than later.

I was a weapons mechanic on the E model so I'm ecstatic it's coming first.

[exhausted]

2 hours ago, Elf1606688794 said:

I hope the navy models show up sooner rather than later.

I was a weapons mechanic on the E model so I'm ecstatic it's coming first.

That must be very exciting. I wonder how many Iranian F-4E pilots and mechs are ecstatic about DCS: F-4E ... I am, by the way, grinning at how that must come off, but I truly don't mean to dampen your excitement lol

Just give me cat gear and a tailhook so I can put Marine Air online, please  

Edited March 16, 2023 by exhausted

[RustBelt]

We got IRAF Tomcats, IRAF Phantoms, IRAF Tigers.

Digital IRAF Simulator is on track! 

[Cab]

38 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

We got IRAF Tomcats, IRAF Phantoms, IRAF Tigers.

Digital IRAF Simulator is on track! 

IRIAF, I think, right?
 

And don’t forget the MiG-29

[exhausted]

2 minutes ago, Cab said:

IRIAF, I think, right?
 

And don’t forget the MiG-29

*Mirage F1 has entered the chat.

[RustBelt]

20 minutes ago, Cab said:

IRIAF, I think, right?
 

And don’t forget the MiG-29

Oh who can keep track. Throw a revolution and a peoples in there too for good measure.

[Cab]

38 minutes ago, exhausted said:

*Mirage F1 has entered the chat.

Yes! I forgot all about that one.

[Elf1606688794]

6 hours ago, exhausted said:

That must be very exciting. I wonder how many Iranian F-4E pilots and mechs are ecstatic about DCS: F-4E ... I am, by the way, grinning at how that must come off, but I truly don't mean to dampen your excitement lol

Just give me cat gear and a tailhook so I can put Marine Air online, please  

 

I'm nearly as excited for the Navy Phantom as I am for the E model. As a kid I wanted to be a naval aviator and if that had worked out I may have ended up in the F-4J.

When the naval Phantom gets here you can be my wingman.

[exhausted]

16 hours ago, Elf1606688794 said:

I'm nearly as excited for the Navy Phantom as I am for the E model. As a kid I wanted to be a naval aviator and if that had worked out I may have ended up in the F-4J.

When the naval Phantom gets here you can be my wingman.

OK, but only if you promise to fly like a fighter pilot and not like the product of TAC trying to save its budget from SAC by cutting training costs  

In all seriousness, if we were only ever going to get a version of the Phantom that can't land on carriers, then I was really hoping for an F-4D for its sexy shape and capabilities. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by exhausted

[MysteriousHonza]

On 3/7/2023 at 6:31 PM, 303_Kermit said:

. Don't ruin it by making just the latest version of it. Make a proper opponent for MiG-19, 21 and 23 (if someday Razzbam make it) not for MiG-29.

 

Good, according to this part. VTAS F-4J is fine against our latest variant of mig21 and F-4S with vtas is perfect against 2nd youngest mig23 variant which came in same year basically. F-4B is certainly NOT contemporary of our mig-21 and comming 23MLA. 

Edited March 21, 2023 by MysteriousHonza

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Good, according to this part. VTAS F-4J is fine against our latest variant of mig21 and F-4S with vtas is perfect against 2nd youngest mig23 variant which came in same year basically. F-4B is certainly NOT contemporary of our mig-21 and comming 23MLA. 

 

The b and c are better opponents for the 19.