Does it have datalink?

[Inf]

Just wondering if the F4 will have datalink, and if so, will it be on the same LINK4 network as our Tomcat friends?

[JB3DG]

I think only the F-4S had some sort of datalink and I don't think it was anything like the Tomcat.

[Biggus]

US Navy Phantoms did.

A squadron's worth of F-4Bs were modified with a two way pre-Link 4 system in the early 60s.  These were eventually redesignated F-4G and served in the Vietnam war.  Eventually these aircraft were returned to standard F-4B configuration (and as we all know, the G designation was later used again for the USAF Wild Weasels).

The F-4J used Link 4A with their AN/ASW-25A receivers.  These were retrofitted into F-4Bs and were therefore present in both F-4Ns and F-4Ss.  These were coupled with the AFCS so that the aircraft could be remotely steered by a controller.  If the crew was maintaining control themselves, there would be a steering dot for a single contact inserted in alternating video frames with the radar.  There was also a unit in the cockpit that displayed a limited number of possible commands to the crew.  This datalink also provided for ACLS when coupled with the approach power compensator.  However this was the only mode where throttle control was not directly controlled by the crew.  There was no offboard throttle control in that regard.  It was a very controller-centered capability.  The Phantom could not send information to other aircraft via Link 4.

It's a very limited boost to situational awareness overall.  Very reliant on a controller to provide both data and voice command.  The Tomcat had a slightly different datalink system using Link 4C, which was two-way.  That and the TID are real situational awareness enhancements that the Phantom didn't ever have.

There's a great section about Link 4 in the F-4J/N/S Tactical Manual from 1972, it's well worth a read.

USAF variants, I don't believe they used any form of datalink.

[303_Kermit]

1 hour ago, Biggus said:

US Navy Phantoms did.

A squadron's worth of F-4Bs were modified with a two way pre-Link 4 system in the early 60s.  These were eventually redesignated F-4G and served in the Vietnam war.  Eventually these aircraft were returned to standard F-4B configuration (and as we all know, the G designation was later used again for the USAF Wild Weasels).

The F-4J used Link 4A with their AN/ASW-25A receivers.  These were retrofitted into F-4Bs and were therefore present in both F-4Ns and F-4Ss.  These were coupled with the AFCS so that the aircraft could be remotely steered by a controller.  If the crew was maintaining control themselves, there would be a steering dot for a single contact inserted in alternating video frames with the radar.  There was also a unit in the cockpit that displayed a limited number of possible commands to the crew.  This datalink also provided for ACLS when coupled with the approach power compensator.  However this was the only mode where throttle control was not directly controlled by the crew.  There was no offboard throttle control in that regard.  It was a very controller-centered capability.  The Phantom could not send information to other aircraft via Link 4.

It's a very limited boost to situational awareness overall.  Very reliant on a controller to provide both data and voice command.  The Tomcat had a slightly different datalink system using Link 4C, which was two-way.  That and the TID are real situational awareness enhancements that the Phantom didn't ever have.

There's a great section about Link 4 in the F-4J/N/S Tactical Manual from 1972, it's well worth a read.

USAF variants, I don't believe they used any form of datalink.

It's worth to mention, that in late '60 Navy had a very little concept what to do with Datalink. The EC-121 were quite rare (US Navy possess just 5 of them?) and very imperfekt. IFF was still an issue. Since 1968 system enabled the operators to distinguish MiG types and a color code system for them entered the air operations vernacular: "Red Bandits" (Mig-17s); "White Bandits" (MiG-19s); "Blue Bandits" (MiG-21s), and "Black bandits" (MiGs low on fuel), but suffered low refresh rate and poor radio comm. 
Practical detection range of 100 miles (160 km), enough to cover the Hanoi urban area and the main MiG base at Phúc Yên. A major disadvantage of this arrangement, however, was that most MiG contacts were beyond the 70 miles (110 km) range of the Big Eye's APS-45 Height Finder radar, so that they were unable to provide this data to USAF strike forces. Furthermore, technical shortcomings in the EC-121D's systems precluded either controlling a fighter intercept or identifying a specific flight under attack.

So Data link was there, but I doubt if they were transmitting something more than data from "Mother" (and that's by far is the best case)

With my best regards
Green Ugly Fellow

[Biggus]

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

It's worth to mention, that in late '60 Navy had a very little concept what to do with Datalink. The EC-121 were quite rare (US Navy possess just 5 of them?) and very imperfekt. IFF was still an issue. Since 1968 system enabled the operators to distinguish MiG types and a color code system for them entered the air operations vernacular: "Red Bandits" (Mig-17s); "White Bandits" (MiG-19s); "Blue Bandits" (MiG-21s), and "Black bandits" (MiGs low on fuel), but suffered low refresh rate and poor radio comm. 
Practical detection range of 100 miles (160 km), enough to cover the Hanoi urban area and the main MiG base at Phúc Yên. A major disadvantage of this arrangement, however, was that most MiG contacts were beyond the 70 miles (110 km) range of the Big Eye's APS-45 Height Finder radar, so that they were unable to provide this data to USAF strike forces. Furthermore, technical shortcomings in the EC-121D's systems precluded either controlling a fighter intercept or identifying a specific flight under attack.

So Data link was there, but I doubt if they were transmitting something more than data from "Mother" (and that's by far is the best case)

With my best regards
Green Ugly Fellow

I disagree that the Navy had "very little concept" about the purpose of datalinks.  SAGE was already quite successful for the USAF, I suspect the Navy knew exactly what they were doing when they began developing their own systems.

Technology-wise, I'm not sure what you're expecting.  You're focusing on one campaign with severe operational, geographic and meteorological constraints, discussing one platform that is not going to be usefully relevant to control of shipboard fighters, criticizing a different system for not being able to detect and identify contacts and then concluding that the datalink isn't useful.  Vietnam is an interesting conflict to study when it comes to air warfare, but it's not the whole picture.

The AN/ASW-25A was a one-way datalink.  By definition, data was only transmitted one way.  Either a ship or an E-1 or E-2 transmitted data to the fighter.  The fighter could not transmit data.  The fighter could be maneuvered by the datalink, or it could be maneuvered by the crew according to directions transmitted to the fighter by the controller in the Tracer/Tracker/ship.  It was battle-tested and was found to be useful enough to be incorporated in future USN Phantom production, and retrofitted to existing USN Phantoms.  The tactical manual I referenced was written after Topgun was established and it devotes an entire chapter to it's usage.

The purpose was to make fighter control more efficient.  You mentioned detection and IFF:  Getting human eyeballs into a position to visually identify contacts is your IFF.  That's just one element.

[303_Kermit]

On 5/15/2023 at 1:11 PM, Biggus said:

The AN/ASW-25A was a one-way datalink.  By definition, data was only transmitted one way.  Either a ship or an E-1 or E-2 transmitted data to the fighter.  The fighter could not transmit data.  The fighter could be maneuvered by the datalink, or it could be maneuvered by the crew according to directions transmitted to the fighter by the controller in the Tracer/Tracker/ship.  It was battle-tested and was found to be useful enough to be incorporated in future USN Phantom production, and retrofitted to existing USN Phantoms.  The tactical manual I referenced was written after Topgun was established and it devotes an entire chapter to it's usage.

MiG -21 shall also have such system. It's best described as flight command director and was also one way. Elements of the system are visible in cockpit of MiG-21bis in DCS but nobody has / had any idea how to implement it into DCS.

I am concentrating on specific cases and situations since it's always best way to built proper opinion. "Scratch the paint and see what's below. Next paint? Also scratch it". Technology those days was very ineffective. Sometimes totally useless. Example? Bullpup missile. On the paper great idea. Missile can be fired outside the range of enemy AAA. In the reality of North Vietnam, disaster heated by a pilots. Low speed of missile, aircraft has to fly whole the time in straight line while being under fire. In the time when missile finally hits the target , the plane is also quite close to it. Practical value of a combat system and weaponry mus be always verified. Else one create a virtual aberration - not simulation.

My best regards

GUF

[Biggus]

Fair point of view.  I'd argue that it was a relatively tiny space of time that took us from the Bullpup to the Maverick, though.  If it's in that manual and has any amount of space devoted to it, it was probably pretty useful.

[WarbossPetross]

2 часа назад, 303_Kermit сказал:

MiG -21 shall also have such system. It's best described as flight command director and was also one way. Elements of the system are visible in cockpit of MiG-21bis in DCS but nobody has / had any idea how to implement it into DCS.

The Tomcat also has a panel at the back seat with lamps indicating orders from command that are sent over the datalink. And yes, none of the above would work until we have a dynamic campaign engine and an actual, functional ATC that understands what's going on and gives us informed orders.

[Omega417]

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

 Sometimes totally useless. Example? Bullpup missile. On the paper great idea. Missile can be fired outside the range of enemy AAA. In the reality of North Vietnam, disaster heated by a pilots. Low speed of missile, aircraft has to fly whole the time in straight line while being under fire. In the time when missile finally hits the target , the plane is also quite close to it. Practical value of a combat system and weaponry mus be always verified. Else one create a virtual aberration - not simulation.

I mean, it was designed and produced before other guidance schemes and before radar guided AAA and SAM threats were considered legitimate. It is an improvement over WW2 methods and could reduce the number of aircraft required to destroy a single target. But yeah its use at the end of its life cycle was not good.

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

MiG -21 shall also have such system. It's best described as flight command director and was also one way. Elements of the system are visible in cockpit of MiG-21bis in DCS but nobody has / had any idea how to implement it into DCS.

Not our MiG-21. The Lazur datalink was only on PVO versions of the MiG, we have the VVS version with the RSBN system. It would require an AI controller to guide the aircraft, anyway, unless it was MP-only.

[Temetre]

The Mig-21 style datalink is basically GCI remote controlling the plane via autopilot, isnt it? I think some Viggens and other planes also had features like that.

Thats quite different form datalink sharing information to increase situational awareness or even directly enhance combat capability. Very limited use-case probably, and can be jammed.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Temetre

[Dragon1-1]

Not via autopilot, that was on Su-15 and F-106. Lazur was only one step away from that, though, in that it illuminated lights showing the pilot exactly what to do. Supposedly, VVS MiG drivers looked down on PVO pilots for only being trained to follow the datalink commands and flying like remote-controlled robots as a result. Of course, this comes from a defecting VVS pilot, I'm sure PVO also had things to say about the VVS, too. 

In the US, SAGE did more or less the same thing, but I think only the Delta Dart was actually automated. Datalink for increased SA was a much later invention, especially as it required  both electronics and display systems capable of actually showing the information.

[Temetre]

Am 18.5.2023 um 22:54 schrieb Dragon1-1:

Not via autopilot, that was on Su-15 and F-106. Lazur was only one step away from that, though, in that it illuminated lights showing the pilot exactly what to do. Supposedly, VVS MiG drivers looked down on PVO pilots for only being trained to follow the datalink commands and flying like remote-controlled robots as a result. Of course, this comes from a defecting VVS pilot, I'm sure PVO also had things to say about the VVS, too. 

Thx, so it was even more basic than that^^

Am 18.5.2023 um 22:54 schrieb Dragon1-1:

In the US, SAGE did more or less the same thing, but I think only the Delta Dart was actually automated. Datalink for increased SA was a much later invention, especially as it required  both electronics and display systems capable of actually showing the information.

Yeh first when I saw this topic I thought it was about that kinda SA datalink. IIRC the F-14 just did it by putting displaying datalink targests on the radar screen.

[Dragon1-1]

No, it put it on the TID, a significantly more advanced display than your typical radar screen, which is placed above it on the RIO seat. TID has a lot more in common with MFDs on the Hornet than it has with the radar scope on the F-5. This is why it's able to display datalink targets and FCR tracks, not just radar returns. A radar screen functions in a completely different way, this may seem surprising, but in the era of analog electronics, those two displays had little in common other than being based on the oscilloscope principle. To (over)simplify it, the radar display is an analog oscilloscope, while the TID is an analog, monochromatic computer monitor.

[exhausted]

Another reason why I'll be skipping the module until a proper tailhook model.

[Biggus]

The closest we have in DCS today is the Mirage 2000's TAF datalink, which is a bit more informative to the crew due to the TID-like presentation.  It's still steering information on a single contact to plot an intercept.  You'll only gain SA on that single contact.  The real place that SA was gained with the Link 4A system was in the E-2, especially when visual ID was required for IFF.  And in the days of early AWG-10s where they'd often break during the sortie, being able to steer a fighter into a firing solution with their fox-2s was probably well worth the effort.

The utility of the system within DCS is questionable without a better AI controller scheme and without player controller tools, though.  The datalink in the F-14 was capable of steering the aircraft remotely just like the Phantom.  It's not modelled within DCS.  I'm hopeful that at some point all this will be worth adding to the sim.

[Dragon1-1]

ACL is very much modeled in DCS F-14. This is the only condition when the F-14 is steered remotely, and the same for the naval Phantoms equipped with the system. Remote control is not used for interception, it's only for landing on the boat in low visibility. This was done through the datalink, and sure enough, you need to set it up for ACL to work.

[Biggus]

I'd completely overlooked ACL, you're right.  I was very much just thinking about the vector mode.

[Temetre]

Am 20.5.2023 um 22:41 schrieb Dragon1-1:

No, it put it on the TID, a significantly more advanced display than your typical radar screen, which is placed above it on the RIO seat. TID has a lot more in common with MFDs on the Hornet than it has with the radar scope on the F-5. This is why it's able to display datalink targets and FCR tracks, not just radar returns. A radar screen functions in a completely different way, this may seem surprising, but in the era of analog electronics, those two displays had little in common other than being based on the oscilloscope principle. To (over)simplify it, the radar display is an analog oscilloscope, while the TID is an analog, monochromatic computer monitor.

Yeah, I just ment the basic idea of overlaying tracks on a radar display^^

Can well imagine that the F-5 doesnt even got the right screen for that, with its old cold war radar scope.

 

Btw, If you know and dont mind the question: I assume the only "screens" on the rear cockpit of an F-4E would be the radar and RWR, or is there more? And what is the thing on the front screen, is that just a copy of the radar screen? Or can it show more?

Edited May 21, 2023 by Temetre

[Aussie_Mantis]

On 5/22/2023 at 7:07 AM, Temetre said:

Yeah, I just ment the basic idea of overlaying tracks on a radar display^^

Can well imagine that the F-5 doesnt even got the right screen for that, with its old cold war radar scope.

 

Btw, If you know and dont mind the question: I assume the only "screens" on the rear cockpit of an F-4E would be the radar and RWR, or is there more? And what is the thing on the front screen, is that just a copy of the radar screen? Or can it show more?

 

I can answer these questions! Hold my beer!

The front cockpit is a carbon copy of whatever the rear screen is displaying, but there should be a button if we're in the "RIVET HASTE" configuration for the pilot to switch the radar into "AUTOMATIC ACQUISITION MODE", which is independent of the rear pilot and can give it a (sources vary on the range) either a 5nm or 10nm range where it does exactly that and automatically acquires whatever it sees first. It's the predecessor to all the other US planes' boresight modes.

The F-4E has the same cold war era radar scope style as the F-5, so don't expect much from it. It also has some issues gaining locks on targets at range and usually doesn't do too well beyond ~37nm from what I've heard. It's a miracle if you pick up anything at 50, let alone the 200nm that the radar is slated to be able to do.

The Radar screen is multifunctional. In the Good Ol Days when the F-4's best sighting system was a manually operated doo-dad called "The Zot Box", which was bolted to the side of F-4D canopies- pictured here:

you used to have to manually aim the whole thing while the plane entered a pylon turn, and buddy lase for the other poor bastard while using the radar control stick... on the other side of the cockpit. The Pave Knife pod made it so that you could directly use the main radar screen for it instead. Pave Spike, the (slightly) unreliable pod that we use on this F-4E that had a few issues keeping track of things (in its early variants) has the same schema where it displays everything on the main screen. Mavericks also do the exact same thing and display on the main screen- in fact, it's the predecessor to the modern US system of MFDs. 

For pretty much every bomb/weapon type, the WSO will actually aim the weapon, while the pilot has the weapon release authority. LGB, maverick, HOBOS, et cetera.

People often underestimate how revolutionary the F-4E was for its time after the right upgrades- and how it laid the base work for many, many other US planes afterwards.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[Temetre]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Aussie_Mantis:

I can answer these questions! Hold my beer!

The front cockpit is a carbon copy of whatever the rear screen is displaying, but there should be a button if we're in the "RIVET HASTE" configuration for the pilot to switch the radar into "AUTOMATIC ACQUISITION MODE", which is independent of the rear pilot and can give it a (sources vary on the range) either a 5nm or 10nm range where it does exactly that and automatically acquires whatever it sees first. It's the predecessor to all the other US planes' boresight modes.

The F-4E has the same cold war era radar scope style as the F-5, so don't expect much from it. It also has some issues gaining locks on targets at range and usually doesn't do too well beyond ~37nm from what I've heard. It's a miracle if you pick up anything at 50, let alone the 200nm that the radar is slated to be able to do.

The Radar screen is multifunctional. In the Good Ol Days when the F-4's best sighting system was a manually operated doo-dad called "The Zot Box", which was bolted to the side of F-4D canopies- pictured here:

you used to have to manually aim the whole thing while the plane entered a pylon turn, and buddy lase for the other poor bastard while using the radar control stick... on the other side of the cockpit. The Pave Knife pod made it so that you could directly use the main radar screen for it instead. Pave Spike, the (slightly) unreliable pod that we use on this F-4E that had a few issues keeping track of things (in its early variants) has the same schema where it displays everything on the main screen. Mavericks also do the exact same thing and display on the main screen- in fact, it's the predecessor to the modern US system of MFDs. 

For pretty much every bomb/weapon type, the WSO will actually aim the weapon, while the pilot has the weapon release authority. LGB, maverick, HOBOS, et cetera.

People often underestimate how revolutionary the F-4E was for its time after the right upgrades- and how it laid the base work for many, many other US planes afterwards.

Thank you, I love those little tidbits about the history. The zoot box is hilarious xD 

I was never too familiar with the F-4 Phantom, besides knowing of its general significance. But the more I hear of the F-4 and its system, the more impressed I am. Feels like the F-4E version isnt just a classic fighter bomber, but one of the first truly multirole aircraft, more like something along the lines of a Strike Eagle. Good range/speed, high altitude and BVR capability, high payload, guided weapons. Even some limited dogfight/ACM capability.

Still gonna be fun to experience what the limits of the F-4 are, learning aircraft in DCS is always fun. It almost sounds too good for a 1975 upgrade of a 50s aircraft

Also Im really looking forward to get to see and use all those analogue systems. I already liked that aspect of the F-14, but that plane was ofc inherently more limited, being mainly air-superiority. Not just pods, but the F4 with all those electro/optical weapons look really fun. Apparently USAF F-4s also got a control stick in the back, which sounds nice; not saying im gonna fly+bomb from the rear, I wanna use Jester. But its surely gonna help to learn and understand the systems that way.

[Aussie_Mantis]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Thank you, I love those little tidbits about the history. The zoot box is hilarious xD 

I was never too familiar with the F-4 Phantom, besides knowing of its general significance. But the more I hear of the F-4 and its system, the more impressed I am. Feels like the F-4E version isnt just a classic fighter bomber, but one of the first truly multirole aircraft, more like something along the lines of a Strike Eagle. Good range/speed, high altitude and BVR capability, high payload, guided weapons. Even some limited dogfight/ACM capability.

Still gonna be fun to experience what the limits of the F-4 are, learning aircraft in DCS is always fun. It almost sounds too good for a 1975 upgrade of a 50s aircraft

Also Im really looking forward to get to see and use all those analogue systems. I already liked that aspect of the F-14, but that plane was ofc inherently more limited, being mainly air-superiority. Not just pods, but the F4 with all those electro/optical weapons look really fun. Apparently USAF F-4s also got a control stick in the back, which sounds nice; not saying im gonna fly+bomb from the rear, I wanna use Jester. But its surely gonna help to learn and understand the systems that way.

"Limited dogfight" is a bit of a misnomer. It's a lot better than you realise within the context of fellow gen 3s. It has pretty good Rate/Maneuver characteristics IRL and the slats allow it to outrate earlier MiG-21s, though according to the RU DCS forums' currently corrupted and unviewable graphs, apparently it can overpower the MiG-21bis in a straight rate fight or in a vertical.

In real life, at least, if it holds a maneuver that looks like an Egg in the vertical- shallow 2G climb, and then sharp turn at the apex- it can easily get the better of the MiG-21bis by pure engine power alone.

You're entirely right, though. The F-4E is the first aircraft that was probably truly "multirole". It had a lot of revolutionary tools to help it- such as TISEO, the TV camera allowing for visual ID, as well as Combat Tree, the IFF interrogator that could interrogate both USSR and US IFF systems for a clear picture in the sky, much like later planes can now. It also had the first HOTAS setup for Air-to-Air Override, which you're probably familiar from on the F-16- push one button on your HOTAS and it immediately switches into Air to Air mode without needing to reconfigure every single control and weapon selection switch on the plane. It also had a three-way switch for your pinky, which you might know from the A-10: Forwards for Sparrow, Middle for sidewinder, and fully back for guns. It also pioneered the whole "Why don't we put all the bomb switches on the same panel?" approach to aircraft design.

The cockpit organisation is pretty good and if you've flown the F-16, it might be familiar: Engine and warning lights on the right side, weapons, speedo and radar altimeter on the left, radar screen in the middle. 

The F-4 also used some nifty multitasking- for instance, AGM-65s were locked onto targets by using the same paddle switch- yes, it had one- for the Nose Wheel Steering. When switched onto Nose Wheel Steering mode in the air, it could be used to slew mavericks onto the target, though I'm not sure whether this was the pilots' thing or a Backseater thing.

Other first-ish stuff are fully self-sealing fuel tanks (earlier aircraft, including F-4Es before block 24 and all preceding F-4B/C/D/J/N/Q aircraft had only the wing ones self-sealing), all-digital RWR, RWR with regular iconography (later blocks of AN/ALR-46 were not like early F-4E RWR and were more like the F-5E's RWR where enemy radars are actually shown on a display and not as lines + audio tone), "SHOOT" cue lights for Sparrows (common to all F-4s), One single control switch for all bomb fuzes (some previous aircraft had you fuse them for each hardpoint), and separated JETTISON controls from the actual drop controls (you used to have a wheel that said something like BOMB JETT - BOMB DROP - ROCKET FIRE - ROCKET DROP - GUNS - etc etc, F-4E puts them on two separate dials).

The amount of improvement, especially if compared to F-4Js and F-4Ds, is immense. Some people insist that the F-4E is a bomb truck, but really it isn't. It's probably the best at all 3 roles overall due to its ease of actual use.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[Temetre]

*heavy breathing*

Hell yeah thats sounds great! Ive heard contradictory things with Mig-21Bis vs F-4E performance, but with that it seems to point in the Phantom being a better performing aircraft. Which sounds pretty good to me, considering the Mig-21 was already surprisingly agile for a 3rd gen aircraft apparently (certainly fun to fly!). Ding a trial on that thing was what made me really interested in DCS cold war, beside the Skyhawk.

Ive read that the F-4E can direct Agm-65s both from the WIO and pilot seat, was apparently quite unique. Not sure if there was a stick for slewing on the throttle or so? The plane manual only seems to have info about stick, for some reason.

Generally tho the controls sound like theyre gonna be very fun to learn.

Zitat

The amount of improvement, especially if compared to F-4Js and F-4Ds, is immense. Some people insist that the F-4E is a bomb truck, but really it isn't. It's probably the best at all 3 roles overall due to its ease of actual use.

Yeah. I suppose what might give a false impression as well, compared to other fighters, is if you dont consider the scale. The real downside of the F-4 might have been the cost; being this big, with good agility, all the avionics, two pilots, that mustve been quite expensive.

Most 3rd gen interceptors/fighters like F-104, Mirage 3/F-1, Mig-23/21 seem very lightweight, lighter than an F-16. And then the F-4E empty weight is heavier than an F-15. Seems to follow that "bigger is better logic", without being quite as extreme as an F-14.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Temetre

[Aussie_Mantis]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

*heavy breathing*

Hell yeah thats sounds great! Ive heard contradictory things with Mig-21Bis vs F-4E performance, but with that it seems to point in the Phantom being a better performing aircraft. Which sounds pretty good to me, considering the Mig-21 was already surprisingly agile for a 3rd gen aircraft apparently (certainly fun to fly!). Ding a trial on that thing was what made me really interested in DCS cold war, beside the Skyhawk.

Ive read that the F-4E can direct Agm-65s both from the WIO and pilot seat, was apparently quite unique. Not sure if there was a stick for slewing on the throttle or so? The plane manual only seems to have info about stick, for some reason.

Generally tho the controls sound like theyre gonna be very fun to learn.

Yeah. I suppose what might give a false impression as well, compared to other fighters, is if you dont consider the scale. The real downside of the F-4 might have been the cost; being this big, with good agility, all the avionics, two pilots, that mustve been quite expensive.

Most 3rd gen interceptors/fighters like F-104, Mirage 3/F-1, Mig-23/21 seem very lightweight, lighter than an F-16. And then the F-4E empty weight is heavier than an F-15. Seems to follow that "bigger is better logic", without being quite as extreme as an F-14.

 

The stick for slewing Mavs was a hat switch on the main control stick that doubled as trim and nose wheel steering.

As for the aircraft itself, a lot of it is coloured by the fact that early on in its life, trying to pull at high AoA lead to the aircraft stalling out at anywhere above ~21 degrees due to an effect called Adverse Yaw, where the wing shape caused a stall on one side, and therefore the plane would suddenly roll in the opposite direction of the intended direction. Many training programs and workarounds (including rolling with rudder only) had to be invented to fix this, but apparently, slats fixed that. I'm not sure about that though.

As for the size, keep in mind that the F-4E has a thrust to weight of ~1.27 unloaded at optimum velocity (1400km/h) while the MiG-21bis has the same at about ~1.32 when on the Emergency Afterburner set that can only be used at high altitude and even then for only 3 minutes unless you want to turn the engine into slag.

The MiG-21bis- a 1972 plane- also suffers from silly things such as compressor stalling if you adjust the throttle too fast- something that, you know, you might do in the middle of a pitched dogfight, as well as having been solved by the US in the 1950s- and has a wing shape that bleeds energy extremely quickly. The F-4E meanwhile uses an almost completely lifting body design and conserves energy much better.

There's also minor facts like how the F-4E can engage and destroy targets up to 20-30nm away while the MiG-21 can't hit anything beyond 10 on a good day. You know, just minor things. Within visual range in the 1 circle, the MiG-21 has the advantage, but in terms of an actual sustained fight, in theory at least, the F-4E should win.

As for the MiG-23, the MiG-23 is a joke within visual range. I wouldn't underestimate its BVR capabilities, though.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[Temetre]

Yeh, the Mig-21 in DCS also suffers from adverse yaw, though I think only at 30 AoA or so. Not that you wanna go there really.

Slatted "Agile Eagle" F-4 should be a lot of fun then. Now its waiting for Heatblur...

 

vor 12 Minuten schrieb Aussie_Mantis:

As for the MiG-23, the MiG-23 is a joke within visual range. I wouldn't underestimate its BVR capabilities, though.

Yeh, thats pretty much what I heard. Flying in a straight line its good at, it can do some vertical stuff, anything else is pure misery. Doesnt even got a dynamic wing sweep like F-14, which seems kinda to kill the point of swing wings.