F-4E Air to Air Weapons/Capabilities Discussion

[Aussie_Mantis]

What's the verdict against some of the other DCS REDFOR planes in BFM? MiG-19, Mirage, VIggen spring to mind- Viggen should be a bit of a challenge to say thr least, mixing it up with a farmer I'm not sure about, Mirage F1C should be pretty similar overall

[SgtPappy]

8 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

What's the verdict against some of the other DCS REDFOR planes in BFM? MiG-19, Mirage, VIggen spring to mind- Viggen should be a bit of a challenge to say thr least, mixing it up with a farmer I'm not sure about, Mirage F1C should be pretty similar overall

I replied to this question in the Phantom vs XXX thread here.

[Temetre]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb HWasp:

I think, against human opponents, the F-4 won't have too much success in BVR, even against 21s because of the radar. People will either stay low or dive once engaged and loose the lock. 

After that, in WVR, it's a huge beast with smoking engines, and that will be more important than exact turn rates imo. 

Usually, the one who spots the enemy first, wins.

Wouldn't be surprised if the F-5 would be more successful in air to air in practice. At least in DCS.

I think people are way underrating the F-4E and overrating the Mig-23. Its kinda weird, because nobody is expecting miracles from the F-4E in A2A, but the 23 is treated like its flawless perfection.

In reality, the 23s radar doesnt make its missiles fly further, they are very limited in range. You might shoot in BVR, but youre gonna be WVR when - if - the missile hits. Especially if you shoot low. The lockdown is gonna be very limited, and lets not forget that the F-4E has more missile to waste. Maybe the -23 will have a bit of an edge, but its not an Aim-120 duel where radar and speed are everything.

Im also a bit dubious about missile performance. The R-24 will go up against the Aim-7M, and the latter can keep up with R-27R/ER.

With WVR i cant agree at all; if size was everything, then the Mig-21 would be an amazing dogfighter. And the Mig-23 is likely worse, itll have big trouble getting its nose on anything for a kill, especially with its low speed AoA limiter.

 

While im not sure how itll translate, the IRL track record of the Mig-23 is pretty terrible, even the few ML(D) uses. Otoh the F-4E Phantom is pretty stellar, as soon as the US developed new strategies to counter soviet interceptions. Phantom served a long time, while the 23 couldnt even fully replace the 21.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Temetre

[HWasp]

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

I think people are way underrating the F-4E and overrating the Mig-23. Its kinda weird, because nobody is expecting miracles from the F-4E in A2A, but the 23 is treated like its flawless perfection.

In reality, the 23s radar doesnt make its missiles fly further, they are very limited in range. You might shoot in BVR, but youre gonna be WVR when - if - the missile hits. Especially if you shoot low. The lockdown is gonna be very limited, and lets not forget that the F-4E has more missile to waste. Maybe the -23 will have a bit of an edge, but its not an Aim-120 duel where radar and speed are everything.

Im also a bit dubious about missile performance. The R-24 will go up against the Aim-7M, and the latter can keep up with R-27R/ER.

With WVR i cant agree at all; if size was everything, then the Mig-21 would be an amazing dogfighter. And the Mig-23 is likely worse, itll have big trouble getting its nose on anything for a kill, especially with its low speed AoA limiter.

 

While im not sure how itll translate, the IRL track record of the Mig-23 is pretty terrible, even the few ML(D) uses. Otoh the F-4E Phantom is pretty stellar, as soon as the US developed new strategies to counter soviet interceptions. Phantom served a long time, while the 23 couldnt even fully replace the 21.

 

I didn't even mention the 23, but ok...

My point was, the lack of look down capability of the radar can and will be used against it by non BVR planes like the 21, so that might make it difficult to avoid WVR, where the chances get even at best.

Regarding the 23, the main advantage I expect to see is it's speed and acceleration.

The MiG-23 has insane acceleration going through the Mach (there is an interview with an American pilot who flew the 23UB and F-22 as well, and he said, it beats even the F-22 in transsonic acceleration. And that is just a UB...)

My money will be on our 23MLA in a head on Fox-1 joust that usually happens in DCS, when some sort of GCI is present, because speed and altitude advantage are key there. I think they are actually even more important than in a Fox3 scenario.

The 23 can always be a lot faster unless the F-4 comes prepared, already high and supersonic.

Afaik radar ranges are pretty close except look down and low altitude, where the 23 has the advantage clearly.

The 23 will also be able disengage from the fox1 fight with better chances if needed, while the F-4 can't do that unless the 23 runs out fuel.

I don't know, who treats the 23 as flawless perfection, I always only see the opposite, everyone thinks it's complete trash based mainly on the MS version.

We'll see how it will turn out...

[SgtPappy]

4 hours ago, Temetre said:

I think people are way underrating the F-4E and overrating the Mig-23. Its kinda weird, because nobody is expecting miracles from the F-4E in A2A, but the 23 is treated like its flawless perfection.

In reality, the 23s radar doesnt make its missiles fly further, they are very limited in range. You might shoot in BVR, but youre gonna be WVR when - if - the missile hits. Especially if you shoot low. The lockdown is gonna be very limited, and lets not forget that the F-4E has more missile to waste. Maybe the -23 will have a bit of an edge, but its not an Aim-120 duel where radar and speed are everything.

Im also a bit dubious about missile performance. The R-24 will go up against the Aim-7M, and the latter can keep up with R-27R/ER.

With WVR i cant agree at all; if size was everything, then the Mig-21 would be an amazing dogfighter. And the Mig-23 is likely worse, itll have big trouble getting its nose on anything for a kill, especially with its low speed AoA limiter.

 

While im not sure how itll translate, the IRL track record of the Mig-23 is pretty terrible, even the few ML(D) uses. Otoh the F-4E Phantom is pretty stellar, as soon as the US developed new strategies to counter soviet interceptions. Phantom served a long time, while the 23 couldnt even fully replace the 21.

 

I agree with most of your points. We have anecdotes from @G.J.S and other published accounts of the MiG-23 never really impressing anyone. As you mentioned, the MiG-23 also has an AoA limiter because of its lack of stability especially with the wings at the 16 degree sweep position. Do I believe the F-4E will be overall dominant in BFM than the MiG-23MLA? Yes. How about with all missiles involved? I'm less sure, but as you mentioned, the F-4 can carry more AIM-7's so it will be close.

All of that said, there are a couple things that should be taken into account. 

For one thing, we have a plethora of F-4E data so we can reasonably understand a lot of its capabilities. The MiG-23 information is not quite as available and all that I have of it is in Russian. Therefore it's hard to be absolutely sure about its turning capabilities.

Some of the points you make also negatively affect the F-4. For example, while the R-24 is no AIM-7M, there is data out there that shows it has a similar kinematic envelope than the AIM-7E-2 (see attached graphs of the R-24R and the AIM-7E-2 envelopes). You mention that the R-24R range is short so its not really a dominating factor in a BVR fight. True, but the AIM-7E-2 has the same disadvantages. The MiG-23 has a radar barely capable of lookdown... yes, but the F-4E's is worse if not on par with help of an experienced WSO. Note that the MiG is blisteringly fast - faster at all altitudes than the F-4E and that's not something to ignore. If we get to carry the AIM-7F, then that's a big advantage for the F-4 though the MiG can simply run away.

Finally, even with its stability issues and flight envelope placards, we don't know how it will be used in DCS - where one might be able to ignore AoA limiters and structural limitations to wring extra performance out of the jets. How many people use flaps and manual wing sweep in the F-14 for that edge in a dogfight? Now how many real pilots would risk damage or death in the same way?

One thing that I like to mention however, is that the MiG-23MLA/R-24R combo is a 1980's system which first fought in 1985 against F-15's and F-16's while the slatted F-4E/AIM-7E-2 is from 1972 and fought in Vietnam and the Middle East in '73 before the arrival of the 4th gen fighters. They aren't strictly contemporary.

Edited July 4, 2023 by SgtPappy

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb HWasp:

I didn't even mention the 23, but ok...

LOL my bad, you said 21 and I read 23 and read it differently^^

vor einer Stunde schrieb HWasp:

My point was, the lack of look down capability of the radar can and will be used against it by non BVR planes like the 21, so that might make it difficult to avoid WVR, where the chances get even at best.

Regarding the 23, the main advantage I expect to see is it's speed and acceleration.

The MiG-23 has insane acceleration going through the Mach (there is an interview with an American pilot who flew the 23UB and F-22 as well, and he said, it beats even the F-22 in transsonic acceleration. And that is just a UB...)

My money will be on our 23MLA in a head on Fox-1 joust that usually happens in DCS, when some sort of GCI is present, because speed and altitude advantage are key there. I think they are actually even more important than in a Fox3 scenario.

The 23 can always be a lot faster unless the F-4 comes prepared, already high and supersonic.

Afaik radar ranges are pretty close except look down and low altitude, where the 23 has the advantage clearly.

The 23 will also be able disengage from the fox1 fight with better chances if needed, while the F-4 can't do that unless the 23 runs out fuel.

I don't know, who treats the 23 as flawless perfection, I always only see the opposite, everyone thinks it's complete trash based mainly on the MS version.

Ive seen a lot of people say that people do this, bot not a single person - on this forum and HB/RB discord - actually do that. In contrary, most of the time people who claim the F-4 is overhyped, they also tell you all about how the Mig-23 is amazing and superior in all ways. And some of that you did kinda:

To say in WVR the chances are "even at best" against a Mig-21 or so, is massively underestimating the F-4s dogfighting ability. The slatted one has rating speeds close to the 23 and enough nose-authority to go 35-40 degrees AoA (coming from vietnam era dogfighting brochure). Its not gonnA be an F-14, but if you think its bad, then you gonna get a bad surprise.

And the idea that any plane can just fly low and neutralize Radar+Aim-7s, or that acceleration (the only thing the Mig-23 is great at) determines any fight just seems like weird overgeneralizations. Its not even like the F-4 is slow or anything.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Temetre

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb SgtPappy:

I agree with most of your points. We have anecdotes from @G.J.S and other published accounts of the MiG-23 never really impressing anyone. As you mentioned, the MiG-23 also has an AoA limiter because of its lack of stability especially with the wings at the 16 degree sweep position. Do I believe the F-4E will be overall dominant in BFM than the MiG-23MLA? Yes. How about with all missiles involved? I'm less sure, but as you mentioned, the F-4 can carry more AIM-7's so it will be close.

All of that said, there are a couple things that should be taken into account. 

For one thing, we have a plethora of F-4E data so we can reasonably understand a lot of its capabilities. The MiG-23 information is not quite as available and all that I have of it is in Russian. Therefore it's hard to be absolutely sure about its turning capabilities.

Some of the points you make also negatively affect the F-4. For example, while the R-24 is no AIM-7M, there is data out there that shows it has a similar kinematic envelope than the AIM-7E-2 (see attached graphs of the R-24R and the AIM-7E-2 envelopes). You mention that the R-24R range is short so its not really a dominating factor in a BVR fight. True, but the AIM-7E-2 has the same disadvantages. The MiG-23 has a radar barely capable of lookdown... yes, but the F-4E's is worse if not on par with help of an experienced WSO. Note that the MiG is blisteringly fast - faster at all altitudes than the F-4E and that's not something to ignore. If we get to carry the AIM-7F, then that's a big advantage for the F-4 though the MiG can simply run away.

Finally, even with its stability issues and flight envelope placards, we don't know how it will be used in DCS - where one might be able to ignore AoA limiters and structural limitations to wring extra performance out of the jets. How many people use flaps and manual wing sweep in the F-14 for that edge in a dogfight? Now how many real pilots would risk damage or death in the same way?

One thing that I like to mention however, is that the MiG-23MLA/R-24R combo is a 1980's system which first fought in 1985 against F-15's and F-16's while the slatted F-4E/AIM-7E-2 is from 1972 and fought in Vietnam and the Middle East in '73 before the arrival of the 4th gen fighters. They aren't strictly contemporary.

100% agree that theres is a lot of open questions. Thats part of what Im trying to say, theres so many open questions and people just look for easy answes. Im even open to the idea that the Mig-23 is better in BVR, theres technical point supporting that (if no historical performance) and its a more recent plane in terms of radar and airframe. 

Historically, I would note the Aim-7E will go against the R-23. That missile looks a lot more questionable than the R-24, with limits like a big minimum range and claims it can attack targets maneuvering with up to 5G. But im not too familiar with the 7E-2 either. R-24 (as the Mig-23 MLA) is an early 80s weapon, so Aim-7M would be the correct opponent.  And at least the DMAS will carry the Aim-7M, probably DSCG as well. So idk if it makes much sense comparing R-24 to 7E.

Yup, the radar is gonna be rough on the F-4, tho its gonna take hands on experience to find out how much (especially with human/AI WSO being a factor). I was more pointing out the "fly low and the radar doesnt do anything", which seems like a stranage assumption to make. And historically the Aim-7s did kill a ton of migs (unlike the R-23/24 or even the improved R-27). 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Temetre

[HWasp]

14 minutes ago, Temetre said:

LOL my bad, you said 21 and I read 23 and read it differently^^

Ive seen a lot of people say that people do this, bot not a single person - on this forum and HB/RB discord - actually do that. In contrary, most of the time people who claim the F-4 is overhyped, they also tell you all about how the Mig-23 is amazing and superior in all ways. And you kinda did that:

To say in WVR the chances are "even at best" against a Mig-21 or so, is massively underestimating the F-4s dogfighting ability. The slatted one has rating speeds close to the 23 and enough nose-authority to go 35-40 degrees AoA (coming from vietnam era dogfighting brochure). Its not gonnA be an F-14, but if you think its bad, then you gonna get a bad surprise.

And the idea that any plane can just fly low and neutralize Radar+Aim-7s, or that acceleration (the only thing the Mig-23 is great at) determines any fight just seems like weird overgeneralizations. Its not even like the F-4 is slow or anything.

 

First you come up with the MiG-23, that I didn't even mention in my post, you originally replied to, then this, as if I was some kind of 23 fanatic... strange way to discuss things that is for sure.

Look, I don't really care that much. I'll fly both modules for sure, and then I'll see, which one is better.

 

If you don't have a Doppler radar or some kind of MTI for look down capability, then surprise, surprise, flying low does neutralize the radar in most cases and therefore the Aim-7. You know, that the F-4E does not have a Doppler radar right?

Have you seen this chart before?

 

[Temetre]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb HWasp:

First you come up with the MiG-23, that I didn't even mention in my post, you originally replied to, then this, as if I was some kind of 23 fanatic... strange way to discuss things that is for sure.

Look, I don't really care that much. I'll fly both modules for sure, and then I'll see, which one is better.

Well you did start talking about as if the Mig-23 is always gonna be in a superior position because of acceleration. 

vor 15 Minuten schrieb HWasp:

If you don't have a Doppler radar or some kind of MTI for look down capability, then surprise, surprise, flying low does neutralize the radar in most cases and therefore the Aim-7. You know, that the F-4E does not have a Doppler radar right?

I know the F-4E got a less advanced (in A2A) radar, but the Mig-23 also doesnt got a doppler radar if you wanna be exact. Its one of the first soviet BVR and lockdown capable radars.

And thats the kinda stuff, you say "neutralize the radar in most cases", which is such a giant, generalized statement that it seems ludicrous. Why did so many Migs in Vietnam die to Aim-7s then? Didnt they just fly low and become invincible to Sparrows?

vor 15 Minuten schrieb HWasp:

Have you seen this chart before?

Ah yes, soviet assumptions over american planes prove soviet plane superiority? (also this seems really whack, F-16A didnt even have a BVR radar)

Like I dont wanna be too snarky, but come on. Also the soviets competency seems very questionable in estimating american aircraft, considering how bad their planes performed against western aircraft in most situations. The Mig-23 was supposed to replace the Mig-21 and be more agile, and they actually failed at both goals. Clearly their assumptions didnt always work out.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Temetre

[HWasp]

5 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Well you did start talking about as if the Mig-23 is always gonna be in a superior position because of acceleration. 

I know the F-4E got a less advanced (in A2A) radar, but the Mig-23 also doesnt got a doppler radar if you wanna be exact. Its one of the first soviet BVR and lockdown capable radars.

And thats the kinda stuff, you say "neutralize the radar in most cases", which is such a giant, generalized statement that it seems ludicrous. Why did so many Migs in Vietnam die to Aim-7s then? Didnt they just fly low and become invincible to Sparrows?

Ah yes, soviet assumptions over american planes prove soviet plane superiority?

Like I dont wanna be too snarky, but come on. Also the soviets competency is very questionable, considering how bad their planes performed against western aircraft in most situations. The Mig-23 was supposed to replace the Mig-21 and be more agile, and they actually failed at both goals. Clearly their assumptions didnt always work out.

 

 

I suspect, you don't have too much experience fighting human opponents in fox1 scenarios in DCS, because, then you'd know how important speed and altitude advantage is, given the radars and missiles are roughly in the same league.

Maybe during the Vietnam war, MiGs had to intercept US aircraft, that were not flying low? Come on, seriously... You must be joking at this point.

That soviet assumption chart has the F-15A on top, far far ahead of the MiG-23. Also the F-16A is shown to be better. I guess that clearly demontrates soviet superiority. lol   

I'm always eager to learn, so if you have some good data on APQ-120 being used at low alt against aircraft in the ground clutter, just post it, I have no problem with being proven wrong, but at this point you are the one throwing around extremely generalized statements.

[Temetre]

vor 18 Minuten schrieb HWasp:

I'm always eager to learn, so if you have some good data on APQ-120 being used at low alt against aircraft in the ground clutter, just post it, I have no problem with being proven wrong, but at this point you are the one throwing around extremely generalized statements.

What "extremely generalized statement" have I made about the F-4Es radar effectiveness against ground clutter?

Or I can save you the time and tell you, I didnt make a statement, I questioned yours. You are either confused or lying, so I dont see a point to continue this.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Temetre

[HWasp]

18 minutes ago, Temetre said:

What "extremely generalized statement" have I made about the F-4Es radar effectiveness against ground clutter?

Or I can save you the time and tell you, I didnt make a statement, I questioned yours. You are either confused or lying, so I dont see a point to continue this.

 

Dude... seriously...

You start this whole crappy argument about the MiG-23 when I didn't even mention it in the first place, then call me a liar just like this... What the hell is wrong with you?

Ok, let's have it your way, F-4 good MiGs bad, everyone is happy!

Have a nice day!

[Temetre]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb HWasp:

F-4 good MiGs bad

Jup, thats what im talking about. Getting offended just because the inferiority of the F-4 or superiority of the Mig-23 is questioned. Its pure projection, zero to do with what I wrote.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Temetre

[HWasp]

On 7/3/2023 at 5:44 PM, SgtPappy said:

I agree. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I do hope that the early F-4 will have that characteristic smoke.

Though I believe if the radar is used correctly, the F-4 crew may maintain more SA. I used to never use the radar in the F-5 but I've found my SA is much better when I turn it on and look where GCI/AWACS has vectored me. Split throttles or min burner for both engines could mostly eliminate the smoke (as the MiGs are also a little bit smokey and I've spotted them from a distance from smoke or long after burner tails). Also Jester has been invaluable for me in the F-14 during a merge. I think Jester 2.0 will be just as useful.

The AIM-7E is barely a BVR missile but I think it may find use as an all-aspect WVR weapon, like an R-3R on steroids. 

Some people will surely be turned off when they realize they're not wiping the skies of MiGs, but there will be others who will find out how to use the Phantom properly and be very successful, as is the case for every module in the right setting.

I've also started to use the radar on the F-5, even if I can't lock up a contact, somtimes it can help a lot.

I'm a bit worried about Jester though, because I always found it very slow to work the radar through it in the F-14. I hope they'll create a way to point the radar where I want more quickly, otherwise I think it'll be very difficult without PAL or anything similiar in the F-4.

Anyway, really looking forward to it!

[Karon]

Since you are talking about R-24 and AIM-7, this is how they look like in-game right now. At the end of the day, these values are what matters.
Hopefully, we will see a thorough upgrade to the new API by the time the Flogger arrives.

Speed vs Time:

And Range vs Impact Speed:

[HWasp]

1 hour ago, Karon said:

Since you are talking about R-24 and AIM-7, this is how they look like in-game right now. At the end of the day, these values are what matters.
Hopefully, we will see a thorough upgrade to the new API by the time the Flogger arrives.

Speed vs Time:

And Range vs Impact Speed:

Thanks!

I think the R-24 in game now is still from the Lock-On era, just as old as the MiG-23 model. I'm sure they'll update it for the module's release.

[SuperEtendard]

On 7/4/2023 at 1:23 PM, Temetre said:

Historically, I would note the Aim-7E will go against the R-23. That missile looks a lot more questionable than the R-24, with limits like a big minimum range and claims it can attack targets maneuvering with up to 5G. But im not too familiar with the 7E-2 either. R-24 (as the Mig-23 MLA) is an early 80s weapon, so Aim-7M would be the correct opponent.  And at least the DMAS will carry the Aim-7M, probably DSCG as well. So idk if it makes much sense comparing R-24 to 7E.

 

One thing to note with Phantom air to air missiles in the 80s is that they didn't get prioritized with the latest stuff, they kept up with their older stocks while the new missiles were for the 4th gens for the most part

You can find plenty of photos of in service F-4E/Gs still equipped with live rear aspect AIM-9J/Ps and AIM-7E throughout the 80s and even the 90s

[Bozon]

2 hours ago, SuperEtendard said:

One thing to note with Phantom air to air missiles in the 80s is that they didn't get prioritized with the latest stuff, they kept up with their older stocks while the new missiles were for the 4th gens for the most part

You can find plenty of photos of in service F-4E/Gs still equipped with live rear aspect AIM-9J/Ps and AIM-7E throughout the 80s and even the 90s

Once F-15/16 took over air superiority roles, the F-4E were not expected to engage in air combat - they were relegated purely to strike roles. This is why of the 83 air to air kills of the 1982 Lebanon war, only 1 was by a Phantom, and that one broke away from the F-15s that were escorting it and raced towards a low Mig it spotted before the F-15s would steal the kill…

[Temetre]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb SuperEtendard:

One thing to note with Phantom air to air missiles in the 80s is that they didn't get prioritized with the latest stuff, they kept up with their older stocks while the new missiles were for the 4th gens for the most part

You can find plenty of photos of in service F-4E/Gs still equipped with live rear aspect AIM-9J/Ps and AIM-7E throughout the 80s and even the 90s

Sure, but same way we could say that the newest Mig-23 MLA with the new R-24s probably arent very common in 1985, compared to respective older versions.

And if you'd send out F-4s vs Mig-23s (let alone with R-24s), I would imagine they will be equipped with Aim-7Ms either way. The 7E equipped Phantom probably had them as backup weapons on strike missions?

Edited July 9, 2023 by Temetre

[SgtPappy]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Sure, but same way we could say that the newest Mig-23 MLA with the new R-24s probably arent very common in 1985, compared to respective older versions.

And if you'd send out F-4s vs Mig-23s (let alone with R-24s), I would imagine they will be equipped with Aim-7Ms either way. The 7E equipped Phantom probably had them as backup weapons on strike missions?

 

I don't think the AIM-7M was ever used on the F-4E, even though it may have been an approved loadout. They did however carry AIM-7F's and AIM-9L's at some point which would still be pretty deadly. I can see the later F-4E with these weapons, TISEO and DMAS be a little more threatening on the 80's servers.

[SuperEtendard]

13 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Sure, but same way we could say that the newest Mig-23 MLA with the new R-24s probably arent very common in 1985, compared to respective older versions.

By that point they should be fairly common, think that mass production of the ML/MLA ended in 82, with a bit over a thousand made, and by 85 they were finishing the 23MLD fleet conversions. In regards to the earlier versions a tad over 1000 23Ms were made in the decade prior so it would depend on how many of those were still left in frontline service.

There were the warsaw pact countries with 23MFs too which were similar to 23Ms, and some others with 23MLs but with R-23s for the most part iirc, and then the older stock of MiG-21s for both vvs/pvo and warpac, which could go as old as 21PFs or maybe F-13s even.

European nato allies also had some older planes like F-5As, F-104s, E.E. Lightnings, Mirage IIIs / 5s too.

That's the interesting thing about a cold war gone hot scenario specially in the late 70s / early 80s there would be a lot of mixing of planes of different generations duking it out and ideally that would be featured in missions with their proper ratios rather than just go with the newest thing only and unrestricted.

Also a reason I really wish razbam went with a 23M or MF to be bundled with the MLA to have this earlier version that goes better along with the '74 F-4E and the Mirage F1 with R.530. A 23M/MF would have a more hands on radar management and trickier flight characteristics because of the higher weight and lower stability. Higher skill ceiling always appreciated

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

7 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

I don't think the AIM-7M was ever used on the F-4E

Unless I am mistaken, the F-4E can't even guide an AIM-7M so there's no point in carrying it. It would need a different radar...

[Temetre]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb Raven (Elysian Angel):

Unless I am mistaken, the F-4E can't even guide an AIM-7M so there's no point in carrying it. It would need a different radar...

That topic has been talked about a few times, the F-4E can apparently guide the -7M, the technology is apparently inherently backwards compatible or so.

[Temetre]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb SuperEtendard:

By that point they should be fairly common, think that mass production of the ML/MLA ended in 82, with a bit over a thousand made, and by 85 they were finishing the 23MLD fleet conversions. In regards to the earlier versions a tad over 1000 23Ms were made in the decade prior so it would depend on how many of those were still left in frontline service.

There were the warsaw pact countries with 23MFs too which were similar to 23Ms, and some others with 23MLs but with R-23s for the most part iirc, and then the older stock of MiG-21s for both vvs/pvo and warpac, which could go as old as 21PFs or maybe F-13s even.

European nato allies also had some older planes like F-5As, F-104s, E.E. Lightnings, Mirage IIIs / 5s too.

That's the interesting thing about a cold war gone hot scenario specially in the late 70s / early 80s there would be a lot of mixing of planes of different generations duking it out and ideally that would be featured in missions with their proper ratios rather than just go with the newest thing only and unrestricted.

Hm, looking it up, the MLA (as in the late ML) started mass production in 78 according to wikipedia. But what I was more going about was, the R-24 was only introduced in 1981. Aim-7M would be 1982.

So I feel if an F-4E and Mig-23 MLA are fully geared for air to air, they would likely have the same missiles? Small supplies of 7Ms and R-24s, with big bulks of 7E/F and R-23? Of course in reality planes like F-15 would do the A2A missions in hog the 7M supply, if its limited. But if we set up a scenario where those F-4s fight MLAs, I think theres strong arguments for having it use the 7M, assuming the Mig also gets R-24s.

But its definitely interesting to think about, I agree!  

Zitat

 Also a reason I really wish razbam went with a 23M or MF to be bundled with the MLA to have this earlier version that goes better along with the '74 F-4E and the Mirage F1 with R.530. A 23M/MF would have a more hands on radar management and trickier flight characteristics because of the higher weight and lower stability. Higher skill ceiling always appreciated

I think even our F-15C is basically 1985 standard, isnt it? That might be the appopriate enemy to go up against with the MLA, its a bit weird.

The 23M sounds like a mess, but it would be more timeframe appropriate with F-4, and certainly quite interesting to fly!

Edited July 9, 2023 by Temetre

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Unless I am mistaken, the F-4E can't even guide an AIM-7M so there's no point in carrying it. It would need a different radar...

It can guide it (though without monopulse encoding on its illuminator, you won't have the advantages of an inverse-monopulse seeker, though not that that's modelled in DCS EDIT: Actually, looking through the files, the AIM-7F is defined with larger height_error values, so maybe something along those lines is in fact modelled, at least somewhat). Though regardless, the AIM-7M isn't listed in a 1984 revised 1990 -1.

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

I think even our F-15C is basically 1985 standard, isnt it? That might be the appopriate enemy to go up against with the MLA, its a bit weird.

It's somewhat of a mess, if the manual is supposed to be believed it would be circa 2003 (AN/APG-63(V)1 and AIM-120C-5). But being heavily simplified you could basically do whatever with it with weapons restricting, especially given that it has much older weapons available to it.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Northstar98