F-4E Air to Air Weapons/Capabilities Discussion

[Smyth]

On 6/14/2023 at 5:40 AM, SgtPappy said:

It would be possible to ignore the 1000 lb gain between the first two STR plots in the manual and just interpolate STR as a function of drag index but you'd get some error from ignoring the weight change.

However, it may be more accurate to apply this method to the F-4J plots which I still have to find (I only have a screenshot of 1 plot but I imagine there are more). The one plot I have shows 37500 lbs with a full 4x4 A2A loadout. This weight seems to be a common "control" point that a lot of the data is centered around in all three manuals (F-4C, F-4E, NATOPS F-4J). If we're lucky, there will be another plot at the same weight but maybe clean or just 4 Sparrows and then you can more accurately apply the drag index interpolation. I'll have to dig more to see if I can find the other plots. I might know a guy.

If the F-4J plot is from NAVAIR 01-245FDB-1T, it unfortunately only includes F-4J and F-4B in the same condition. To make an estimate though, I think in this case it is sufficient to scale the sustained g numbers in the Air Force manuals by gross weight (after converting turn rate to normal force first as required), then convert back to turn rate with ϵ = sqrt(Ny^2 – 1)*g/v. When I did this for myself I just used the early F-4E as a stand-in for the F-4J (thrust, empty weight, and fuel capacity are identical), but we can compare to the F-4J plot as well to validate those results.

Here is what I have at 10kft:

• Early F-4E at 40930lb with 4SP: 10.7deg/s
• Early F-4E at 42290lb with 4SP+4Aim4: 10.1deg/s
• Early F-4E at 40930lb with 4SP+4Aim4: 10.5deg/s*

*calculated/scaled value

Because 1F-4C-1-1 uses one plot to represent either 4 Falcons or 1 gunpod with ~450lb difference between them there is definitely some error, but at least this gives an idea.

Now scaling F-4E down to same weight as Navy F-4J graph to validate assumptions:

• F-4J at 37500lb with 4SP+4SW: 11.7deg/s
• Early F-4E at 37500lb with 4SP+4Aim4: 11.5deg/s*

Next a reference point for the slatted F-4E:

• Slatted F-4E at 42780lb with 4SP: 11.3deg/s

And lastly to answer the original question: How light does the F-4J (or early F-4E) need to be to match a later F-4E with slats?

• Slatted F-4E (blk50 new built) at 50% usable fuel, 41480lb with 4SP: 11.7deg/s*
• Slatted F-4E (blk41 conversion) at 50% usable fuel, 40480lb with 4SP: 12.0deg/s*
• Early F-4E (blk36 unmodified) at 50% usable fuel, 40210lb with 4SP: 10.9deg/s*
• Early F-4E (blk36 unmodified) at 25% usable fuel, 36980lb with 4SP: 11.9deg/s*

 

If this means anything, it seems to be that small changes from stores drag make less of a difference in a sustained turn than the weight they add. Fuel state on the other hand makes a big difference, so an F-4J at 25% fuel can approximately match a slatted F-4E at 50% fuel (speaking only of peak sustained turn rate). Of course by the same token a slatted F-4E at low fuel is playing in a whole different league.

[Bremspropeller]

How do the B and J compare in that chart? The B should be lighter but at slightly less thrust.

[SgtPappy]

6 hours ago, Smyth said:

And lastly to answer the original question: How light does the F-4J (or early F-4E) need to be to match a later F-4E with slats?

• Slatted F-4E (blk50 new built) at 50% usable fuel, 41480lb with 4SP: 11.7deg/s*
• Slatted F-4E (blk41 conversion) at 50% usable fuel, 40480lb with 4SP: 12.0deg/s*
• Early F-4E (blk36 unmodified) at 50% usable fuel, 40210lb with 4SP: 10.9deg/s*
• Early F-4E (blk36 unmodified) at 25% usable fuel, 36980lb with 4SP: 11.9deg/s*

 

If this means anything, it seems to be that small changes from stores drag make less of a difference in a sustained turn than the weight they add. Fuel state on the other hand makes a big difference, so an F-4J at 25% fuel can approximately match a slatted F-4E at 50% fuel (speaking only of peak sustained turn rate). Of course by the same token a slatted F-4E at low fuel is playing in a whole different league.

Thanks for doing the work, Smyth! And a big thanks for confirming that the public only has one official F-4J plot in existence!

I was trying hard to find a digital copy but it seems the only seller doesn't ship the CD version to Canada   

I attempted this scaling/extrapolation method last year on the slatted F-4E at SL as well and found similar results - large gains for a clean, 50% fuel slatted F-4E overlaid on my older plot below.

 

4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

How do the B and J compare in that chart? The B should be lighter but at slightly less thrust.

 

I happened upon this in a post by John Chesire. The F-4B/C are actually pretty capable, being so darn light and very much come close to the slatted F-4E with 60% fuel and 4 Sparrows per 1F-4E-1.

Per the 1F-4C-1, the F-4C (and therefore B) weight about 42300 lbs full fuel, clean and 29500 lbs operating weight (no fuel). 50% fuel clean weight would be 35900 lbs and adding 4 Sparrows and 4 AIM-9D's (estimating that their associated pylons weigh the same as the USAF ones) would be ~39140 lbs so with this plot, we can estimate the F-4B is carrying about 37% fuel. Maybe Smyth can confirm if this is from the same manual.

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by SgtPappy

[Bremspropeller]

Good stuff, thanky you guys!

The "later" F-4B would be heavier, I presume, thanks to all the gear stuffed in during Project Shoehorn?

[SgtPappy]

48 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Bon truc, merci les gars!

Le "plus tard" F-4B serait plus lourd, je présume, grâce à tout l'équipement fourré pendant le projet Shoehorn ?

I think the 1F-4C-1 manual might have all that gear already.

The earliest F-4B weight and characteristics data shows a slightly lighter weight by about 900 lbs. This is probably the lightest a combat F-4 could get:

https://www.avialogs.com/reader2.php?jid=4600

So the earliest F-4B pretty much has the same turning capability as a later slatted F-4E. It's also a fair bit faster and higher flying. The trade-off for the weight creep, as usual, is a big jump in capability and survivability.

[Smyth]

16 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

I happened upon this in a post by John Chesire. The F-4B/C are actually pretty capable, being so darn light and very much come close to the slatted F-4E with 60% fuel and 4 Sparrows per 1F-4E-1.

Per the 1F-4C-1, the F-4C (and therefore B) weight about 42300 lbs full fuel, clean and 29500 lbs operating weight (no fuel). 50% fuel clean weight would be 35900 lbs and adding 4 Sparrows and 4 AIM-9D's (estimating that their associated pylons weigh the same as the USAF ones) would be ~39140 lbs so with this plot, we can estimate the F-4B is carrying about 37% fuel. Maybe Smyth can confirm if this is from the same manual.

Yeah, that's from the same manual.

I did also enter the F-4C data into the same spreadsheet I made for F-4E/J. My conclusion is that the F-4B/C/D on equal fuel state has no significant difference in sustained turn to the F-4J or non-slatted E. My attempt to extrapolate the USAF data all the way down to 37500lb to match the Navy graphs under-predicts by the same ~0.2deg/s for both the F-4B and F-4J, however that is still much less than the difference to the slatted E as seen below:

• F-4C at 40160lb with 4SP + 4Aim4: 10.1deg/s
• F-4C at 37500lb with 4SP + 4Aim4: 10.8deg/s*
• F-4B at 37500lb with 4SP + 4SW: 11deg/s

*calculated/scaled value

Now for apples-to-apples comparison with the slatted bird at 10kft:

• F-4C with 50% fuel at 38920lb with 4SP: 10.9deg/s*
• Early F-4E w/ 50% fuel, 40210lb with 4SP: 10.9deg/s*
• Slatted F-4E w/ 50% fuel, 40480lb with 4SP: 12.0deg/s*

An even earlier/lighter F-4B and a later/heavier TISEO-equipped F-4E would close the gap somewhat, but comparing the average F-4B/C to the average F-4E, the slatted airframe appears to win convincingly.

Of course, while the sustained turn of the F-4B/C/D may be identical to the un-slatted F-4E/J, instantaneous turn would scale directly with gross weight. The F-4B/C with a 1500lb+ advantage will definitely be closer to the slatted F-4E. I don't think many people realize that the wing loading of 68.9lb/sqf for an F-4C with 4x Aim-9B is precisely equal to the wing loading of a Mig-21bis with 2x R3S at 50% true usable fuel calculated from both aircraft's official manuals. To the decimal place. If the Phantom is the "triumph of thrust over aerodynamics" then I don't know what to call every other contemporary supersonic all-weather fighter. The "defeat of insufficient thrust by even worse aerodynamics" maybe?

To summarize the difference between versions of the F4 on equal fuel state:

1. Sustained turn: B/C/D = J < E/S
2. Instant turn: J < B/C/D < E/S
3. Speed and climb: E/S < B/C/D < J

As you also noted, everything comes with a trade-off -- there is no free lunch in engineering. In the end I think the slatted E will be the most competitive in DCS multiplayer, however part of me really hopes HB makes the F-4B as their next module rather than a J or S, so we can experience its original design without the later compromises.

(As a footnote, I would love to see a performance manual for the British turbofan hard wing Phantoms to compare, but IDK if one exists anywhere in the public domain.)

Edited June 17, 2023 by Smyth
to clarify which points are estimated

[Aussie_Mantis]

On 6/17/2023 at 1:09 AM, SgtPappy said:

I think the 1F-4C-1 manual might have all that gear already.

The earliest F-4B weight and characteristics data shows a slightly lighter weight by about 900 lbs. This is probably the lightest a combat F-4 could get:

https://www.avialogs.com/reader2.php?jid=4600

So the earliest F-4B pretty much has the same turning capability as a later slatted F-4E. It's also a fair bit faster and higher flying. The trade-off for the weight creep, as usual, is a big jump in capability and survivability.

something I haven't seen mentioned here- people are talking a lot about F-4B and F-4E in BFM, right?

I can't believe people, when comparing F-4B/J and F-4E...

 

forget about the fact that to do BFM in an F-4B/J... you have to have a massive gun pod the size and weight of a 370gal (USAF/RAF SUU-16/A or SUU-23/A) or 600 gal (USN mk 4) fuel tank. How much drag and weight that would add, I do not know. But it certainly wouldn't help the Phantom.

Keeping that in mind and the fact that I don't think many pilots are going to be willing to fly without a gun, I think the difference might be more pronounced.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[Omega417]

But you don't need the gun to BFM, if you don't have sidewinders you shouldn't be getting into BFM anyway.

[G.J.S]

2 hours ago, Omega417 said:

But you don't need the gun to BFM, if you don't have sidewinders you shouldn't be getting into BFM anyway.

It’s the “condom” mentality - better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Most, if not all engagements invariably descend into a phone booth, especially if there are more than 1 opponent. 
If you don’t go equipped then already you are at a disadvantage.

[SgtPappy]

7 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

something I haven't seen mentioned here- people are talking a lot about F-4B and F-4E in BFM, right?

I can't believe people, when comparing F-4B/J and F-4E...

 

forget about the fact that to do BFM in an F-4B/J... you have to have a massive gun pod the size and weight of a 370gal (USAF/RAF SUU-16/A or SUU-23/A) or 600 gal (USN mk 4) fuel tank. How much drag and weight that would add, I do not know. But it certainly wouldn't help the Phantom.

Keeping that in mind and the fact that I don't think many pilots are going to be willing to fly without a gun, I think the difference might be more pronounced.

 

This is more of a scientific exercise - an engineer's perspective. It doesn't actually have to have practicality in BFM for it to be valid. I think being curious and passionate about any aspect of aircraft, their performance and technicalities shouldn't be gate-kept. Nothing really has to be "believed" here. Not sure if that was your intent in your reply, but it's just something I thought I'd mention because this analytical perspective tends to be shut down a lot in general. It's just data and data is interesting.

What Smyth and I are bringing to light is how effective the slats are by illustrating how a very light F-4B/J can barely match a heavier F-4E with slats and similar amounts of loadout parasitic drag. Isn't that a nice thing that we can look at and think "huh, pretty neat"? And to your point, now we can conclude definitively, if the F-4B/J needed to carry a gun pod, it's definitely going to be worse in a sustained turn. This is one of many conclusions we can draw from our nerdy, seemingly neurotic or pointless calculations.

 

4 hours ago, G.J.S said:

It’s the “condom” mentality - better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Most, if not all engagements invariably descend into a phone booth, especially if there are more than 1 opponent. 
If you don’t go equipped then already you are at a disadvantage.

On the flip side of the condom mentality - and as mentioned - if your enemy has sidewinders and no gun, you should still understand whether or not a better sustained turn rate is a tool which they could use to get behind you and shoot you down despite not having a gun. It's a possibility that should be prepared for, even if it seems unlikely. I'd rather be prepared for my enemy not having a gun = having better performance than assume they have a gun pod and therefore I'll win the turn fight handily. Obviously you know way more than myself, but this is my mentality when doing these analyses.

Edited June 21, 2023 by SgtPappy

[Omega417]

5 hours ago, G.J.S said:

It’s the “condom” mentality - better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Most, if not all engagements invariably descend into a phone booth, especially if there are more than 1 opponent. 
If you don’t go equipped then already you are at a disadvantage.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that. But i also dont intend to follow Vietnam ROE and intend to launch AIM7s at max range, and if im out of those and heaters im going to open the range. I know my limitations, I suck in turn fights so i dont want to get in them. 

[Bozon]

4 hours ago, Omega417 said:

Don't get me wrong, I understand that. But i also dont intend to follow Vietnam ROE and intend to launch AIM7s at max range, and if im out of those and heaters im going to open the range. I know my limitations, I suck in turn fights so i dont want to get in them. 

These are not Fox-3s.

Aim-7s of that era will get you into a turn fight - you fire the aim-7 from a fairly short range, fast closure, and have to keep nose roughly in the direction of the enemy to guide it. By the time it hits/misses you don’t have time to turn 180 and increase the range again - you are in WVR fight.

[Smyth]

15 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

forget about the fact that to do BFM in an F-4B/J... you have to have a massive gun pod the size and weight of a 370gal (USAF/RAF SUU-16/A or SUU-23/A) or 600 gal (USN mk 4) fuel tank. How much drag and weight that would add, I do not know. But it certainly wouldn't help the Phantom.

Keeping that in mind and the fact that I don't think many pilots are going to be willing to fly without a gun, I think the difference might be more pronounced.

I understand that the F-4B and F-4J cannot engage in a gunfight. Not just without a gunpod, but (in US service at least) practically not ever because they did not carry gunpods for air-to-air combat. On the other hand USN Phantoms were 110% expected to perform BFM. Both Sparrow and Sidewinder in that era were mostly useful in close range (~1mile or less) tail-aspect shots, and a tail aspect Fox1/2 shot requires winning a turn fight first. This is all emphasized heavily in cold-war USN training documents.

My main point of course is that the slatted F-4E was improving the subsonic turn performance of an aircraft that was never actually "un-maneuverable" as originally designed and flown. With that being said the ACM performance of a gun-less F-4B/C/D is still relevant and important. I know the lack of cannons may be a deal-breaker to some DCS players but it isn't for me. If my real life were on the line I might feel differently, but fortunately it isn't so I can freely look forward to "flying" a simulated F-4B or F-4J.

[Omega417]

8 hours ago, Bozon said:

These are not Fox-3s.

Aim-7s of that era will get you into a turn fight - you fire the aim-7 from a fairly short range, fast closure, and have to keep nose roughly in the direction of the enemy to guide it. By the time it hits/misses you don’t have time to turn 180 and increase the range again - you are in WVR fight.

If we are getting Es the wiki value for those is 27NMI, thats plenty of standoff distance for me.

[G.J.S]

1 hour ago, Omega417 said:

If we are getting Es the wiki value for those is 27NMI, thats plenty of standoff distance for me.

Wikipedia can sometimes be entertaining.

 

27NM is likely on a head on, high launch alt, minimal manoeuvre target (I.e; perfect test point).

Good rule of thumb would be to halve the range against a target likely to evade, to give yourself and the missile a good chance of success.

[Omega417]

41 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

Wikipedia can sometimes be entertaining.

 

27NM is likely on a head on, high launch alt, minimal manoeuvre target (I.e; perfect test point).

Good rule of thumb would be to halve the range against a target likely to evade, to give yourself and the missile a good chance of success.

Im just saying, even half that is still a standoff. If they dont maneuver they die, if they do maneuver they cant get a solution on me. Id rather waste 3 Fox 1s to get him into a poor state to kill with a heater than get in a turn fight just for the sake of using the gun.

[Aussie_Mantis]

14 hours ago, Omega417 said:

Im just saying, even half that is still a standoff. If they dont maneuver they die, if they do maneuver they cant get a solution on me. Id rather waste 3 Fox 1s to get him into a poor state to kill with a heater than get in a turn fight just for the sake of using the gun.

Not really saying that you have to have a gun, it's just that to me, not having a gun is a bit of a dealbreaker. I'd rather have it than rely solely on the heaters, but it seems we'll have AIM-9Ls and AIM-7Fs from the get-go if the dev shots so far are indicative of what F-4E we're getting, it seems we'll have AIM-9PL/Ps and AIM-7Fs- so you and @Smyth are probably ultimately going to be right. I'm just used to F-4Es from other flight sims and I enjoy the ability to have a gun alongside my regular 9L/7F combo.

That notwithstanding, you shouldn't have to get into a gunfight in most cases but I personally find them fun, and seeing as this is a game as @G.J.S points out, I'm going to relish the ability to be able to have a knife fight in a phonebooth, even if not optimal. As Smyth said- this is a game, and I will ergo be doing what I want to have fun with. Full guns-a-go-go, and damn the pod nay-sayers. 

 

20 hours ago, Smyth said:

I understand that the F-4B and F-4J cannot engage in a gunfight. Not just without a gunpod, but (in US service at least) practically not ever because they did not carry gunpods for air-to-air combat. On the other hand USN Phantoms were 110% expected to perform BFM. Both Sparrow and Sidewinder in that era were mostly useful in close range (~1mile or less) tail-aspect shots, and a tail aspect Fox1/2 shot requires winning a turn fight first. This is all emphasized heavily in cold-war USN training documents.

My main point of course is that the slatted F-4E was improving the subsonic turn performance of an aircraft that was never actually "un-maneuverable" as originally designed and flown. With that being said the ACM performance of a gun-less F-4B/C/D is still relevant and important. I know the lack of cannons may be a deal-breaker to some DCS players but it isn't for me. If my real life were on the line I might feel differently, but fortunately it isn't so I can freely look forward to "flying" a simulated F-4B or F-4J.

You raise an interesting point about USN training here to be honest, but I personally wonder if that would differ if the F-4B/J had access to an internal gun. I don't think howver I've ever said that the Phantom was inherently "un-maneuverable", though. I disagree with the popular culture myth of the "Phantom Brick" as far as it goes, seeing as they were plenty capable of a dogfight when pushed into it.

As for the aerodynamic analyses by @SgtPappy and @Smyth, I'm not sure why you have the impression, but I'm not calling the calculations nerdy. I'm just a little miffed that manuals for F-4B/J don't have anything about the Mk 4 gun pod being carried.

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[Snappy]

21 hours ago, Smyth said:

I understand that the F-4B and F-4J cannot engage in a gunfight. Not just without a gunpod, but (in US service at least) practically not ever because they did not carry gunpods for air-to-air combat. 

Hm not sure I understand what you are trying to say.Can you explain please?

Do you think the gun pods could not be used for air-to-air?

Or that no gun pods were carried at all by F-4B/J? 

I don’t think the statement “The F-4B and F-4J cannot engage in a gunfight” is correct in that absolute way you put it.

The Zuni rockets were also not carried for air to air, still an A-4 Skyhawks shot down a Mig with them AFAIK.It’s not the norm, but “cannot” . I don’t agree.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Snappy

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, Snappy said:

Hm not sure I understand what you are trying to say.Can you explain please?

He's just pulling our sea-legs over not having an internal gun.

[Smyth]

1 hour ago, Snappy said:

Do you think the gun pods could not be used for air-to-air?

Or that no gun pods were carried at all by F-4B/J?

What I'm trying to say is that the US Navy F-4 was never flown as an aircraft that "needs a gunpod" in real life, but rather as an aircraft that "does not have a gun". It is an important difference because it changes how performance data should be read.

The explanation I've found for the specific Navy doctrine against A-A gunpod employment is that the Mk4 gunpod was not reliable under g-forces, just like the similar Colt Mk12 cannons that were little more than nose ballast in the F-8. In addition, the USN did not participate in the Aim-4D debacle, and never had an urgent motivation to improvise an air-to-air solution from air-to-ground stores like the USAF briefly did. Therefore the most realistic comparison of the turning performance of an F-4B vs. historical opponents does not include a gunpod. In a game of course it can and is an interesting question (see below).

2 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

You raise an interesting point about USN training here to be honest, but I personally wonder if that would differ if the F-4B/J had access to an internal gun. I don't think howver I've ever said that the Phantom was inherently "un-maneuverable", though. I disagree with the popular culture myth of the "Phantom Brick" as far as it goes, seeing as they were plenty capable of a dogfight when pushed into it.

I don't think you did either @Aussie_Mantis, I just bring it up because I still hear the "flying brick" repeated constantly as if it is common knowledge. If anything I am arguing against my former self because I used to believe the F-4 brick myth until I started reading IRL data and first-person accounts more closely.

2 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

I'm just a little miffed that manuals for F-4B/J don't have anything about the Mk 4 gun pod being carried.

Fortunately the F-4C is pretty much an F-4B with tundra tires, and the USAF F-4C manuals provide an approximation. They just treat the 1700lb SUU-16 or 4x Aim-4/9 (with pylons and launchers works out to ~1400lb) as the same loading. This is even more accurate for the 1400lb Mk4 than it is for the SUU-16/23. At 10kft that means:

• F-4C at 40620lb with 4SP + SUU-16: 10.1deg/s
• F-4C at 38796lb with 4SP: 10.6deg/s

So about 0.5deg/s and of course a ~5% loss of instantaneous g-force just due to weight. Not a big deal against other 60s jets that the F-4B/C/D comfortably out-performs, but maybe not so great against the 70s jets in DCS (Mig-21bis, F-5E, Mirage F1, and maybe in 2wk Mig-23ML) that are close to equal to start.

Important footnote: for those who really want to meme hard, the GPU-5/A 30mm pave claw pod was supposedly an *officially approved* air-to-air weapon for the F-4E in the 80s. Heatblur the ball is in your court...

[Bremspropeller]

The hard wing F-4 isn't a brick at all when flown to it's strengths, but keep in mind that in this game a good deal of opponents will know how to BFM and fly their aircraft a lot more aggressively than historical adversaries did. Don't be surprised if you're not geting historical outcomes.

Same is true for the slatted jet.

Then there's the out-of-this-world AI MiG-21, of course.

 

[SgtPappy]

9 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Not really saying that you have to have a gun, it's just that to me, not having a gun is a bit of a dealbreaker. I'd rather have it than rely solely on the heaters, but it seems we'll have AIM-9Ls and AIM-7Fs from the get-go if the dev shots so far are indicative of what F-4E we're getting, it seems we'll have AIM-9PL/Ps and AIM-7Fs- so you and @Smyth are probably ultimately going to be right. I'm just used to F-4Es from other flight sims and I enjoy the ability to have a gun alongside my regular 9L/7F combo.

That notwithstanding, you shouldn't have to get into a gunfight in most cases but I personally find them fun, and seeing as this is a game as @G.J.S points out, I'm going to relish the ability to be able to have a knife fight in a phonebooth, even if not optimal. As Smyth said- this is a game, and I will ergo be doing what I want to have fun with. Full guns-a-go-go, and damn the pod nay-sayers. 

 

You raise an interesting point about USN training here to be honest, but I personally wonder if that would differ if the F-4B/J had access to an internal gun. I don't think howver I've ever said that the Phantom was inherently "un-maneuverable", though. I disagree with the popular culture myth of the "Phantom Brick" as far as it goes, seeing as they were plenty capable of a dogfight when pushed into it.

As for the aerodynamic analyses by @SgtPappy and @Smyth, I'm not sure why you have the impression, but I'm not calling the calculations nerdy. I'm just a little miffed that manuals for F-4B/J don't have anything about the Mk 4 gun pod being carried.

 

 

No harm no foul, bud. I didnt mean to imply you were calling us nerds. We ARE nerds lol.

From your post I just wasn't sure if you you didn't understand why we were doing the comparison at all.

[MysteriousHonza]

On 6/21/2023 at 3:06 PM, Omega417 said:

If we are getting Es the wiki value for those is 27NMI, thats plenty of standoff distance for me.

Thats wikipedia. We do have charts, they have this range (its wrong on wiki, its slightly above 20nm) under very high speed closure and very high alt against nonmaneuvering target. At alts youre gonna use AIM-7E. its effective range wont be even 5nm. Against 4.5G turning fighter at alt of 5000feet its around 4nm max range. At 25000 feet Rmax goes slightly above 5nm max range.

Edited June 23, 2023 by MysteriousHonza

[Omega417]

On 6/23/2023 at 5:30 PM, MysteriousHonza said:

Thats wikipedia. We do have charts, they have this range (its wrong on wiki, its slightly above 20nm) under very high speed closure and very high alt against nonmaneuvering target. At alts youre gonna use AIM-7E. its effective range wont be even 5nm. Against 4.5G turning fighter at alt of 5000feet its around 4nm max range. At 25000 feet Rmax goes slightly above 5nm max range.

 

If I YEET an AIM-7 at them and they don't maneuver, I gets a kill. If they do maneuver, they are no longer able to target me and I can trash my first missile for a better solution with another 7 or a heater. Win-Win.

 

In the Hornet, I almost always Yeet my first 120 just a few seconds outside of max range, knowing the range is going to get a lot closer in head-on engagements. Gets them turning and not targeting me.

[G.J.S]

3 hours ago, Omega417 said:

If I YEET an AIM-7 at them and they don't maneuver, I gets a kill. If they do maneuver, they are no longer able to target me and I can trash my first missile for a better solution with another 7 or a heater. Win-Win.

 

In the Hornet, I almost always Yeet my first 120 just a few seconds outside of max range, knowing the range is going to get a lot closer in head-on engagements. Gets them turning and not targeting me.

Will only ever (mostly) work on a 1v1.

Any more than that, and you are just going Winchester quicker.