F-4E Air to Air Weapons/Capabilities Discussion

[Temetre]

vor 17 Minuten schrieb Northstar98:

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). Though regardless, the AIM-7M isn't listed in a 1984 revised 1990 -1.

One comment (I think from HB devs?) was also that the F-4E radar would be the limitation in this regard, so a the inverse-monopulse seeker wouldnt really make much of a difference if modelled.

With the manual Id just note that manuals arent always complete. And as said, a situations where you go up for A2A missions against Mig-23 MLAs with R-24s using an F-4E is fictional anyway. This kind of mission would obviously warrant different loadouts than strike missions, and it would depend on available ammunition stocks.

vor 17 Minuten schrieb Northstar98:

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.

Yeh, you have to limit the weapons to sparrows ofc^^

IIRC the radar is also massively underperforming and lacks a lot of features if it was supposed to be a -63(V1). Let alone the datalink, which probably is the biggest factor in the 2003 upgrade, beside the armament.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Temetre

[Northstar98]

26 minutes ago, Temetre said:

One comment (I think from HB devs?) was also that the F-4E radar would be the limitation in this regard, so a the inverse-monopulse seeker wouldnt really make much of a difference if modelled.

Well, I'm not sure what the advantage would be, both the 7F and 7M have the same rocket motor according to this, in the files the M has better countermeasure resistance and a few other parameters that show differences (namely height_error_k/max_h/max_vel), they're both defined with the same warhead too (here's the .lua for the 7F and here's the one for the 7M).

31 minutes ago, Temetre said:

With the manual Id just note that manuals arent always complete.

True, but then we need to find evidence that it was carried and/or employed on F-4Es. There's nothing stopping them from being employed/carried on the face of it (after all the AIM-7M has a HOJ mode that doesn't require monopulse encoding from the jammer), but that's not to say it actually happened. Though in any case, even if we only get up to the F, we aren't really losing much.

[Temetre]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Northstar98:

Well, I'm not sure what the advantage would be, both the 7F and 7M have the same rocket motor according to this, in the files the M has better countermeasure resistance and a few other parameters that show differences (namely height_error_k/max_h/max_vel), they're both defined with the same warhead too (here's the .lua for the 7F and here's the one for the 7M).

Interesting. First glance shows the M has a PN_coeff, makes me wonder if it has different guidance?

Maybe the differences are limited, but there are some. Also I wouldnt be surprised if the earlier Aim-7s get an update when the F-4 comes.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Northstar98:

True, but then we need to find evidence that it was carried and/or employed on F-4Es. 

Do we? That seems more like a dogmatic idea, not necessarily a requirement, especially if they are rated for the missiles. Or if there is no extra reqirements or changes needed.

As said, were already breaking historical accuracy by having F-4Es fight MLAs. DCS isnt just about reenacting exact history. In fact, if 7Ms work on the plane, it might be well unrealistic to not use them when going against dangerous opponents like MLAs with R-24s.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Temetre

[Northstar98]

20 hours ago, Temetre said:

Interesting. First glance shows the M has a PN_coeff, makes me wonder if it has different guidance?

AFAIK they both should use proportional navigation, which in general should be taken as a given seeing as their seekers can only measure doppler and angular position, but not range.

20 hours ago, Temetre said:

Do we? That seems more like a dogmatic idea, not necessarily a requirement, especially if they are rated for the missiles. Or if there is no extra reqirements or changes needed.

Dogmatic?

Generally aircraft capabilities and features should be backed up by something, rather than just making them up.

And with DCS, almost everything whether a new feature for an aircraft or reports for bugs/issues or usually need substantiating before they get looked at.

Quote

As said, were already breaking historical accuracy by having F-4Es fight MLAs.

Maybe (though consider that F-4Es of the kinds we're getting were retired in the early-ish 90s), but this relates to mission design where DCS is a sandbox (and the limitations with available aircraft, maps and other assets mean replicating historical/historically inspired events with consistent and coherent units and theatres very difficult), the aircraft themselves do not follow the same rules - it isn't all or nothing.

That isn't me saying no to the M, I don't know either way, but there should be something substatiating it, like there is for other weapons.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Northstar98

[SuperEtendard]

18 hours ago, Temetre said:

 And as said, a situations where you go up for A2A missions against Mig-23 MLAs with R-24s using an F-4E is fictional anyway.

It depends on what scenario you want to portray. If you want Germany 1985 it will be this massive mix of planes meeting and doing their different tasks, older and newer like I talked before.

If you want to go for a bit of an extreme example, on the favor of the 23, you could have MiG-23MLA with R-24 vs Mirage F1 with Magics only (no radar missiles) as that's what happened in the Angolan War, or an extreme example against the 23, post desert storm 90s Iraq vs UN no fly zone enforcement against amraam equipped F-16C / F-15C.

A setting I'm quite the fan of is Iran-Iraq war, with a mix of different 23 models (MF + ML), MiG-21bis, Mirage F1 with Super 530 vs F-5E, F-4E (slat + non slat), F-14A with AIM-9J/P / AIM-7E / AIM-54A.

23MLD vs F-16A for Soviet - Pakistani tensions in Afghanistan is interesting too.

There's lots of possible scenarios, both real, plausible what ifs, etc. Depends on what people want to do.

Trying to go for absolute match ups is more of a team deatchmatch arena / war thunder view than anything.

Edited July 10, 2023 by SuperEtendard

[Bremspropeller]

4 hours ago, SuperEtendard said:

If you want to go for a bit of an extreme example, on the favor of the 23, you could have MiG-23MLA with R-24 vs Mirage F1 with Magics only (no radar missiles) as that's what happened in the Angolan War, or an extreme example against the 23, post desert storm 90s Iraq vs UN no fly zone enforcement against amraam equipped F-16C / F-15C.

Good perspective SuE! I think those considerations are coming short within this thread.

On top of that, in the single instance where the 23 could actually capitalize on it's superior FQ capabilities against the F1CZ (which were constrained to only Magic 1s and V3B Kukris of similar capabilities at that time), it was an R-60, taken into the face, that put one F1CZ out of the fight. Both sides were relying heavily on tactics in order to denying the opponents their advantage. For the F1s that often meant flying low, radar on stby, waiting for a pop-up cue by GCI.

"Clear cut" advantages many times aren't when meeting real ops factors. That's what makes some of those scenarios so interesting.

[Temetre]

Am 10.7.2023 um 06:17 schrieb SuperEtendard:

Trying to go for absolute match ups is more of a team deatchmatch arena / war thunder view than anything.

Tbh im a bit confused where you got that from. Nobody was suggesting an absolute match.

The point was that in terms of time-frame, Aim7E matches R-23, and Aim7M matches R-24.

Otherwise yup, its purely scenario dependant, and either goes.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Temetre

[Temetre]

Am 9.7.2023 um 23:08 schrieb Northstar98:

AFAIK they both should use proportional navigation, which in general should be taken as a given seeing as their seekers can only measure doppler and angular position, but not range.

There is a lot of different ways to use PN though. Even the most basic analogue PID controller can be tuned, and those missiles got pre-programmed flght profiles. 

So maybe theres differences, because the files look different? Idk. And as said, theres a possibility of updates around the F-4E release and beyond, especially for earlier Sparrows.

Am 9.7.2023 um 23:08 schrieb Northstar98:

Dogmatic?

Generally aircraft capabilities and features should be backed up by something, rather than just making them up.

And with DCS, almost everything whether a new feature for an aircraft or reports for bugs/issues or usually need substantiating before they get looked at.

Maybe (though consider that F-4Es of the kinds we're getting were retired in the early-ish 90s), but this relates to mission design where DCS is a sandbox (and the limitations with available aircraft, maps and other assets mean replicating historical/historically inspired events with consistent and coherent units and theatres very difficult), the aircraft themselves do not follow the same rules - it isn't all or nothing.

That isn't me saying no to the M, I don't know either way, but there should be something substatiating it, like there is for other weapons.

Aim-7M uses exactly the same interface as Aim-7F, as far as I know? Im note sure if an F-4E would even require a software update to carry an Aim-7M. 

I was under the impression that the F-4E was even rated for the Aim-7M, but Ive not seen clear evidence for that.

And as said lastly, if you got Aim-7Ms and F-4Es going up in A2A focussed missions against Mig-23s with R-24, its a no brainer to equip the planes with it. Thats just how war works, you dont throw away an advantage. That would be quite jarring. And if we just talk realism, the 7M had a bunch of upgrades over the 7F, even if DCS doesnt simulate it.

 

I dont think its all or nothing, thats kinda my point: Theres a lot of arguments for adding it, and not having the 7M would be limiting in choice of scenario. Were not asking for something weird like R-27s to be added here.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Temetre

[Northstar98]

20 hours ago, Temetre said:

Aim-7M uses exactly the same interface as Aim-7F, as far as I know? Im note sure if an F-4E would even require a software update to carry an Aim-7M.

It does for the former (I think) and I don't think it does for the latter, I'm not exactly sure how the AIM-7Ms autopilot works (whether it's given data from the aircraft or it just does it on its own).

20 hours ago, Temetre said:

I was under the impression that the F-4E was even rated for the Aim-7M, but Ive not seen clear evidence for that.

This is the main issue, it's all well and good to say what could happen and what's feasible, but what's the evidence it was actually done? Again, I'm not saying no, I'm asking what's the evidence for AIM-7Ms being fitted to F-4Es?

20 hours ago, Temetre said:

And as said lastly, if you got Aim-7Ms and F-4Es going up in A2A focussed missions against Mig-23s with R-24, its a no brainer to equip the planes with it. Thats just how war works, you dont throw away an advantage. That would be quite jarring. And if we just talk realism, the 7M had a bunch of upgrades over the 7F, even if DCS doesnt simulate it.

But the primary advantage of the AIM-7M over the 7F is something the Phantom can't utilise. Many of those other improvements (aside for the improved fuse which DCS doesn't model and the autopilot) come from the inverse-monopulse seeker (the better low-altitude capability and the improved ECM resistance for instance), to take advantage of those you would need an illuminator with monopulse encoding, which the Phantom doesn't have. You'd be much better off sticking an AIM-7M on an F-15A/C than an F-4E.

EDIT: To avoid confusion, let me clarify: it doesn't need monopulse encoding to guide, but it does need monopulse encoding to actually take advantage of the inverse-monopulse seeker.

Also, if nighthawk2174 is correct here, then there's evidence the AIM-7M is incompatible with CW illumination, which is the only illumination method the F-4E has available.

I don't agree with "quite jarring" either, as said, the advantages the M would have over the F on an F-4E would be much more minor and real life doesn't have to be properly matched, in real life it's not a simple 1v1 between one aircraft type and another.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Northstar98

[Biggus]

@KlarSnow informed me in one of the threads here that the F-4E was perfectly capable of supporting the AIM-7M, that it was listed in a 1990s 1F-4G-1 (which was functionally identical to the F-4E for the purposes of using the missile), and anecdotally I've seen some discussions between former Phantom guys discussing it.

I've redacted the names of the individuals in this quick screen grab, but I'll say that one of them has been interviewed at length on the 10% True podcast so I'd consider him vetted pretty well.

[Northstar98]

Erm, hang on...

In that very exchange above, the first commenter states that it "didn't integrate well at first" though a fix was found but wasn't in the TO summary.

So, not only is it kinda dubious to say "it's perfectly capable" (if something was "perfectly capable" of supporting it, why did it not "integrate well at first" and why did it need a solution to make them so? Worse (so long as I'm reading it right) the 3rd commentator states that they tried for 3 months unsuccessfully to get it to work (so I take it this wasn't a trivial fix)) but also to say that the F-4G and F-4E are identical in this regard - they have the same radar, yes, but this exchange makes it clear that the G was modified to be capable of employing it and that this fix wasn't mentioned in the technical order summary. So Ms merely being listed in a 1990 F-4G-1 isn't evidence that the E is similarly capable, especially when a revised 1990 1F-4E-1 (i.e the relevant manual) doesn't list them.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Northstar98

[Biggus]

I didn't actually say a 1990 F-4G TO.  I said "1990s".  If I recall correctly, it was a 1993 publication.  That date meshes with the dates mentioned in the group.  Also note that "integrate well" does not necessarily mean "unable to be used".  I'm sure we'd all agree that the F-4E/G was "perfectly capable" of carrying the -7F, but it also needed some work to be considered "integrated well".

The implication I'm making is that there's no reason why the F-4E would be unable to support a Sparrow that an F-4G was able to, given equal effort to integrate it.  E and G are equal in hardware and software in terms of air to air FCR.  The question remains the one you yourself stated:  What's the evidence that the F-4E carried the AIM-7M?  Without seeing a later -1 or -34, it's hard to judge.  I'm inclined to say that at least for the USAF, the -7M on the F-4E probably didn't happen, but I think there's a case to be made that if it was used on the G, it should be mission-editor-selectable for an E purely because we don't necessarily use our modules only in historical scenarios.

 

[Northstar98]

14 hours ago, Biggus said:

I didn't actually say a 1990 F-4G TO.  I said "1990s".  If I recall correctly, it was a 1993 publication.

Fair enough, though it doesn't really change much. Especially seeing as, if I'm not mistaken, the F-4E was retired around this time.

14 hours ago, Biggus said:

Also note that "integrate well" does not necessarily mean "unable to be used".

Well, the 3rd commentor (at least if I'm reading them right), states that they tried for 3 months to "get it to work", which implies that it didn't work, which in turn implies that it was "unable to be used".

14 hours ago, Biggus said:

I'm sure we'd all agree that the F-4E/G was "perfectly capable" of carrying the -7F, but it also needed some work to be considered "integrated well".

Yes, we would, because there's plenty of evidence the F-4E was made capable of employing the -7F, there isn't for the M.

For the -7F it's backed up in relevant manuals and in the conversation you linked and there's little to no evidence that it wasn't or was in some way incapable of employing it (so far the only thing is you saying they needed work to be considered integrated well). I'm not sure exactly when -7Fs came to F-4Es (they aren't listed in a '79 -1 but are in an '86 revised '90 -1).

At the moment, it's a hypothetical weapon on the E - the only evidence is that the G was specially modified and it's hypothetically possible that the same modifications could've been applied to the E (though so far no evidence that actually happened). And aircraft being compatible with weapons after special modifications could go for just about every weapon going, weight, drag and space permitting.

14 hours ago, Biggus said:

E and G are equal in hardware and software in terms of air to air FCR.

Apart from whatever modification was made to support the M (which presumably involved the radar).

14 hours ago, Biggus said:

but I think there's a case to be made that if it was used on the G, it should be mission-editor-selectable for an E purely because we don't necessarily use our modules only in historical scenarios.

Well, non-historical scenarios are practically all you've got - we don't have the assets, module and map coherency to really do otherwise. But even so, you could say the same thing about everything.

Again, I'm not putting my foot down against it here, but I find it difficult to justify it without supporting evidence, especially when DCS should be about trying to implement aircraft as realistically as possible.

I guess we'll have to leave it up to HB.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Northstar98

[Biggus]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, the 3rd commentor (at least if I'm reading them right), states that they tried for 3 months to "get it to work", which implies that it didn't work, which in turn implies that it was "unable to be used".

I would not read that '3 months' literally meaning every single weapons guy spending every minute of the working day for 90 days, it was likely more sporadic bursts.  "Get it to work" is a pretty loaded statement and there's plenty of room for interpretation, but given that it's in the 1993 manual, evidently they did get it to work and were able to use it within a relatively short time.  Retirement from combat use was 1996 for the E, btw.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Yes, we would, because there's evidence the F-4E was made capable of employing the -7F - it's backed up in relevant manuals and in the conservation you linked and there's little to no evidence that it wasn't or was in someway incapable of employing it (so far the only thing is you saying they needed work to be considered integrated well). I'm not sure exactly when -7Fs came to F-4Es (they aren't listed in a '79 -1 but are in an '86 revised '90 -1). However there isn't evidence that the same is true for the E and the -7M, only that if you specially modified an E it could be made compatible with it, as was done with the G around the timeframe the F-4E was retired. But you can say the same for just about every weapon, size and weight permitting.

It took until just before Desert Storm for the F-4Gs to have the -7Fs launch envelope integrated into the FCR.  They'd been carrying it for a long time by that point.  But it wasn't completely integrated for the better part of a decade.

We don't exactly have mountains of evidence for -7F usage.  We've got two sources in the public domain supporting it.  Both of which were dated at the very latest a couple of years prior to the events related in that conversation.  There's a 1995 F-4E -34 that would be extremely helpful in this conversation, but as I said, I'm of the opinion that the lack of appropriately dated and publicly available documentation means that we can't form a definitive answer and so we have to wait and see.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Apart from whatever modification was made to support the M (which presumably involved the radar).

Whatever modification was made to the G could equally have been applied to the E.  There's no hardware or software reason that it couldn't.  There could be budgetary reasons, doctrinal reasons, chronological reasons, etc.  But up until that modification took place, they were identical systems.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Again, I'm not putting my foot down against it here, but I find it difficult to justify it without supporting evidence, especially when DCS should be about trying to implement aircraft as realistically as possible.

I guess we'll have to leave it up to HB.

I completely understand your point of view, it's generally one that I share.  I think HB will come to the correct conclusion, whatever that may be.  If there is no evidence that the -7M was integrated on the E at any time in USAF service, that's fine by me.  If there's evidence that, say, South Korean F-4Es received the missile around the mid to late 1990s but it did not see service with the USAF Phantoms, perhaps there's a grey area that might have some wriggle room for options.  It's really a very minor issue in the grand scheme, and the average Flogger driver won't really know the difference between eating a Mike or a Foxtrot.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Biggus

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Biggus said:

I would not read that '3 months' literally meaning every single weapons guy spending every minute of the working day for 90 days, it was likely more sporadic bursts.

Good, because I didn't read it that way and I never suggested otherwise. All I said was "I take it wasn't a trivial fix".

1 hour ago, Biggus said:

"Get it to work" is a pretty loaded statement and there's plenty of room for interpretation

I guess there is, but all I have to go on here is what was said in the conversation. If I'm trying to "get something to work" that kinda implies that at the moment it isn't working  and that's all I said.

1 hour ago, Biggus said:

Retirement from combat use was 1996 for the E, btw.

Appreciate the correction, I had early/mid 90s in my head.

1 hour ago, Biggus said:

It took until just before Desert Storm for the F-4Gs to have the -7Fs launch envelope integrated into the FCR.

Okay, but without it the E otherwise has the ability to fire it? (I swear I remember reading something about DLZs being presented on the scopes for Sparrows after some OFP in the -34 I have, possibly OFP P005 or something I'm - I'll take another look), I'm not sure exactly what the 3rd commentator is on about, but he's mentioning things like tuning, so I presume the issue is somewhat larger than just DLZs.

1 hour ago, Biggus said:

We don't exactly have mountains of evidence for -7F usage.  We've got two sources in the public domain supporting it.  Both of which were dated at the very latest a couple of years prior to the events related in that conversation.

I never said mountains, I said there's evidence for the -7F being integrated and being capable of being employed on the E but as of yet (and I'll shut my stupid mouth when we do) none for the M on the E.

1 hour ago, Biggus said:

We've got two sources in the public domain supporting it.  Both of which were dated at the very latest a couple of years prior to the events related in that conversation.

The -34 I have is a circa '79 revised '86 and mentions the -7F (including a prohibition on mixing 7Es with Fs). All pages where the 7F makes an appearance is change 20 which is dated for '86, so at the latest it's more closer to just over half a decade, rather than just a couple of years. But regardless, this doesn't really change any point - I never specified when, just that there's evidence that it was.

1 hour ago, Biggus said:

There's a 1995 F-4E -34 that would be extremely helpful in this conversation, but as I said, I'm of the opinion that the lack of appropriately dated and publicly available documentation means that we can't form a definitive answer and so we have to wait and see.

Fully with you there - no quarrel.

1 hour ago, Biggus said:

Whatever modification was made to the G could equally have been applied to the E.  There's no hardware or software reason that it couldn't.  There could be budgetary reasons, doctrinal reasons, chronological reasons, etc.  But up until that modification took place, they were identical systems.

I never stated otherwise (all I said was that they became different after modification), but I stated this same line of reasoning can be true for many weapons, making line drawing more difficult - that might be a slippery slope, but I thought was something that should be mentioned.

1 hour ago, Biggus said:

It's really a very minor issue in the grand scheme, and the average Flogger driver won't really know the difference between eating a Mike or a Foxtrot.

I completely agree - as I said, some of the principal advantages the M brings over the F cannot be utilised by illuminators without monopulse encoding, which the Phantom doesn't have. I'm not sure how the autopilot works, but apart from those 2, from a DCS perspective, the missiles are essentially identical.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Northstar98
God -> Good

[Aussie_Mantis]

What are the kinematic differences between AIM-7F and AIM-7M? I feel like they're kinda under-explored in most communities seeing as most communities of flight sim enthusiasts don't really take interest in mid-cold-war hardware and comparing that to late-cold-war stuff.

[Temetre]

Am 13.7.2023 um 11:51 schrieb Biggus:

@KlarSnow informed me in one of the threads here that the F-4E was perfectly capable of supporting the AIM-7M, that it was listed in a 1990s 1F-4G-1 (which was functionally identical to the F-4E for the purposes of using the missile), and anecdotally I've seen some discussions between former Phantom guys discussing it.

I've redacted the names of the individuals in this quick screen grab, but I'll say that one of them has been interviewed at length on the 10% True podcast so I'd consider him vetted pretty well.

Klarsnows bottomless pit of knowledge to the rescue

Thanks, I knew I heard people talk about that but wasnt entirely sure what the source was.

[Temetre]

vor 18 Minuten schrieb Aussie_Mantis:

What are the kinematic differences between AIM-7F and AIM-7M? I feel like they're kinda under-explored in most communities seeing as most communities of flight sim enthusiasts don't really take interest in mid-cold-war hardware and comparing that to late-cold-war stuff.

Warning, Wikipedia stuff, so take it with a pinch of salt:

Zitat

 

Improved versions of the AIM-7 were developed in the 1970s in an attempt to address the weapon's limitations. The AIM-7F, which entered service in 1976, had a dual-stage rocket motor for longer range, solid-state electronics for greatly improved reliability, and a larger warhead. Even this version had room for improvement, leading British Aerospace and the Italian firm Alenia to develop advanced versions of Sparrow with better performance and improved electronics as the BAe Skyflash and Alenia Aspide, respectively.

The most common version of the Sparrow today, the AIM-7M, entered service in 1982 and featured a new inverse monopulse seeker (matching the capabilities of Skyflash), active radar proximity fuse, digital controls, improved ECM resistance, and better low-altitude performance. It was used to good advantage in the 1991 Gulf War, where it scored many USAF air-to-air kills. Of 44 missiles fired, 30 (68.2%) hit their intended targets resulting in 24/26 (54.5%/59.1%) kills. 19 kills were obtained beyond visual range.^[10]

 

 

My thought from that is, if true, then the missiles behaviour should be different even if the kinetmatic performance in itself is the same.

After all, digital controls will likely change the function of the control logic, thats basically impossible to avoid. A different seeker and new proximity fuse might also change how the missile operates, and thus would also affect the sofware programing decisions.

Youd also think that the makers/militaries just got smarter and more experienced at missile logic, so newer missiles should just be better. Aim-7M/MH are supposedly also the same missile, but got updated software.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Temetre

[Top Jockey]

Hello everyone,

I suppose this is the right thread for my question, judging by the title.

Regarding the AIM-9 SEAM (Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode) in the F-4 Phantom II, could anyone share some insight, on which airframe variants / missile versions used it, and how was this mode employed by the pilot as the Phantom did not had much in terms of HUD symbology ?

 

Thank you.

[Northstar98]

@Temetre The reason why I brought that point up is because there are some users that like to make wishlists for items wholly outside of the scope of our modules and some of these items would require a relatively large amount of developer workload (research, implementation whatever) - though to be clear the AIM-7M isn't one of them. In and of itself - that's not problematic in the slightest - everyone should and have a right to post whatever they like, so long as it follows the rules of the forum.

The problem is, some of these people get rather, passionate about it and sometimes the discussion devolves into a massive flaming argument that I think would be best avoided. I think a good way to avoid it is to have a very clear and well defined scope for modules and be consistent with the rules (whatever those rules are).

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

1. The question is if the Aim-7M should be added to the F-4E. The slippery slope isnt just a different argument, but what makes it dishonest, is how its thrown in as if its a meaningful point, but completely leaves it to the imagination.

I said that it makes drawing the line more difficult - I haven't left it completely up to the imagination. Maybe I could've spent more effort on clarifying precisely what I meant, but this was a minor point as it doesn't really relate to the Phantom, as I've explained above. I don't think the AIM-7M will cause the world to crash around our ears, I've just experienced the massive arguments that rely on similar argumentation and I think it would be better if those were avoided.

I think having a well defined and clear scope is important, not only for the reason I gave above, but also because it's good practice regardless, to avoid scope and feature creep. Especially when we have more than enough trouble getting modules completed as is, without needing to expand that scope.

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

2. So what is the potential damage? I think the implication is "Bad things might be added if HB adds the Aim-7M", but what would that even be? Is it about Aim-120s? Or R-27s? Nuclear weapons? Will we mount droppable Mig-21s under our wings? All possible with how completely empty that argument was.

No, I don't think bad things will happen if HB adds the AIM-7M - that's utterly absurd. I said that stating "we should get 'x' because it's reasonable 'y' aircraft can be modified to support it" makes the scope less defined (which it does) and that can be potentially problematic 1.) it's often used as fuel for those arguments I spoke of, 2.) it potentially leaves modules more vulnerable to scope creep and developers would be best to avoid that.

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

And secondly, why would this happen, how would the slope work? Adding the Aim-7M still doesnt create any force to push HB towards adding anything else. They are not beholden to any fan-protest from a vocal minority that wants R-27s or so, they can decide for themselves. 

Yes, developers don't have to be beholden to a fan protest and they can make their own decisions and put their foot down -  that doesn't mean "the force/push" doesn't exist, if it didn't these people probably wouldn't rely on those exact same arguments to support their points.

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

4. The argument is denying Heatblurs (or other devs) ability to make rational decisions. You can just decide if the Aim-7M is a reasonable additional, and decide if the R-27 would be a reasonable addition. Seperately, in an intelligent way. 

No it absolutely isn't, in any way. I have absolutely no idea where you got that from and if I'm "offended" by anything here, it's people making ridiculous straw men that don't even remotely follow from anything I've actually said.

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

5. Are you concerned over the slippery slope because it would impeded hyperrealistic scenarios? That ship has sailed long ago anyway. That famous vietnam era scenario would require limits to the loadouts to be realistic, and flying this american F-4E under Israeli colors against egypt is already out of the scope of the specific plane simulated.

Nope. I don't care what other people do in their own scenarios - the scenarios are sandbox by design, just about everything goes, there's no invalid way to play the game.

And liveries... Always the liveries... You realise that developers provide paint kits for their modules? So that people can make any livery they like, regardless of how fictional or realistic they are. They have no effect on anything apart from what an aircraft looks like and once the paint kit is out, you can argue that developer workload gets shifted and lessened. I mean, what you are doing here is basically following the very same specious "x" is unrealistic, so "y" should be unrealistic too argument I spoke about and you've provided part of a debunk of this in your previous point.

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

I think its to people outside of the development team, who want to strictly control what developers does with their game and planes. Who do not trust them to make the right decisions, who want to force Heatblur to not even do reasonable things, to protect them from then going on to hurt themselves and their product. That slippery slope is legit condescending.

Wow.

How the hell do you go from me saying "'x' should get 'y' because it's reasonable that 'x' can be modified to be compatible with 'y' makes drawing the line more difficult (which is not only true and the reason why this is problematic because it leaves modules more vulnerable to scope creep and gives more ammunition to the massive flaming arguments I spoke of, ironically one I fear I'm getting into), to me being someone who wants to strictly control what developers do with their game and doesn't trust them to make the right decisions?

1. This idea that DCS should be about depicting aircraft as realistically possible (I assume this is what you're going for), isn't my idea - it is literally the goal set out in the game's own description.
2. I have never tried to force Heatblur or anyone else to do anything - I gave a minor counter, to one point and that's it.
3. The idea that I think developers are some how incompetent and cannot be trusted to make decisions without me couldn't be any more baseless. It's like you're straw-manning my point, to poison the well, about something that isn't even true, that doesn't even remotely follow from anything I've said in this entire exchange. I'm starting to think this misunderstanding might have maybe some malicious intent to it and maybe not just a simple misunderstanding...

And do you not realise, that if you're making this leap, you can make exactly the same leap about every wishlist item ever? It wouldn't be any less ridiculous, but you could do it...

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

Issue is that people dont think about what you are saying usually, its just driven by emotions.

Hmmm...

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

Forgive me for being a bit snarky, but it sometimes feels like people have PTSD from the absurd F-18 paddle drama and somehow transfers that to slippery slope arguments about equipment.

I'm fine with you being snarky - I'd be being a hypocrite if I didn't.

What I'm not okay with, is people taking what I'm saying and then making some ridiculous, baseless caricature of it, especially when they try to make up the thoughts I have in my head and ascribing some alterior motive to it all - generally my patience for those kind of arguments wears pretty thin, pretty fast.

[Karon]

5 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

What are the kinematic differences between AIM-7F and AIM-7M? I feel like they're kinda under-explored in most communities seeing as most communities of flight sim enthusiasts don't really take interest in mid-cold-war hardware and comparing that to late-cold-war stuff.

In DCS, none. There are three categories of AIM-7s: E2, F/M and MH/P. Kinematically, each category is identical. I posted a couple of charts in the previous pare, and more in the AIM-54 thread, Tomcat section.

[Temetre]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Northstar98:

@Temetre The reason why I brought that point up is because there are some users that like to make wishlists for items wholly outside of the scope of our modules and some of these items would require a relatively large amount of developer workload (research, implementation whatever) - though to be clear the AIM-7M isn't one of them. In and of itself - that's not problematic in the slightest - everyone should and have a right to post whatever they like, so long as it follows the rules of the forum.

The problem is, some of these people get rather, passionate about it and sometimes the discussion devolves into a massive flaming argument that I think would be best avoided. I think a good way to avoid it is to have a very clear and well defined scope for modules and be consistent with the rules (whatever those rules are).

I said that it makes drawing the line more difficult - I haven't left it completely up to the imagination. Maybe I could've spent more effort on clarifying precisely what I meant, but this was a minor point as it doesn't really relate to the Phantom, as I've explained above. I don't think the AIM-7M will cause the world to crash around our ears, I've just experienced the massive arguments that rely on similar argumentation and I think it would be better if those were avoided.

I think having a well defined and clear scope is important, not only for the reason I gave above, but also because it's good practice regardless, to avoid scope and feature creep. Especially when we have more than enough trouble getting modules completed as is, without needing to expand that scope.

No, I don't think bad things will happen if HB adds the AIM-7M - that's utterly absurd. I said that stating "we should get 'x' because it's reasonable 'y' aircraft can be modified to support it" makes the scope less defined (which it does) and that can be potentially problematic 1.) it's often used as fuel for those arguments I spoke of, 2.) it potentially leaves modules more vulnerable to scope creep and developers would be best to avoid that.

Yes, developers don't have to be beholden to a fan protest and they can make their own decisions and put their foot down -  that doesn't mean "the force/push" doesn't exist, if it didn't these people probably wouldn't rely on those exact same arguments to support their points.

No it absolutely isn't, in any way. I have absolutely no idea where you got that from and if I'm "offended" by anything here, it's people making ridiculous straw men that don't even remotely follow from anything I've actually said.

Nope. I don't care what other people do in their own scenarios - the scenarios are sandbox by design, just about everything goes, there's no invalid way to play the game.

And liveries... Always the liveries... You realise that developers provide paint kits for their modules? So that people can make any livery they like, regardless of how fictional or realistic they are. They have no effect on anything apart from what an aircraft looks like and once the paint kit is out, you can argue that developer workload gets shifted and lessened. I mean, what you are doing here is basically following the very same specious "x" is unrealistic, so "y" should be unrealistic too argument I spoke about and you've provided part of a debunk of this in your previous point.

Wow.

How the hell do you go from me saying "'x' should get 'y' because it's reasonable that 'x' can be modified to be compatible with 'y' makes drawing the line more difficult (which is not only true and the reason why this is problematic because it leaves modules more vulnerable to scope creep and gives more ammunition to the massive flaming arguments I spoke of, ironically one I fear I'm getting into), to me being someone who wants to strictly control what developers do with their game and doesn't trust them to make the right decisions?

1. This idea that DCS should be about depicting aircraft as realistically possible (I assume this is what you're going for), isn't my idea - it is literally the goal set out in the game's own description.
2. I have never tried to force Heatblur or anyone else to do anything - I gave a minor counter, to one point and that's it.
3. The idea that I think developers are some how incompetent and cannot be trusted to make decisions without me couldn't be any more baseless. It's like you're straw-manning my point, to poison the well, about something that isn't even true, that doesn't even remotely follow from anything I've said in this entire exchange. I'm starting to think this misunderstanding might have maybe some malicious intent to it and maybe not just a simple misunderstanding...

And do you not realise, that if you're making this leap, you can make exactly the same leap about every wishlist item ever? It wouldn't be any less ridiculous, but you could do it...

Hmmm...

I'm fine with you being snarky - I'd be being a hypocrite if I didn't.

What I'm not okay with, is people taking what I'm saying and then making some ridiculous, baseless caricature of it, especially when they try to make up the thoughts I have in my head and ascribing some alterior motive to it all - generally my patience for those kind of arguments wears pretty thin, pretty fast.

You know what? That wasnt what I ment, and I probably couldve put it a lot better. I think the slippery slope argument was really stupid, but there was no personal attack intended.

But theres really no point going on with that specific topic after that start, would be a waste of time for either of us.

[Northstar98]

5 minutes ago, Temetre said:

You know what? That wasnt what I ment, and I probably couldve put it a lot better.

That's alright, I was in the middle of typing up a reply to your first message, so this is somewhat of a relief.

5 minutes ago, Temetre said:

I think the slippery slope argument was really stupid

You can think it's really stupid, but it is something that happens. Ironically we were almost doing exactly what I described in my last post (it's not exactly far-fetched).

7 minutes ago, Temetre said:

but there was no personal attack intended.

Fair enough, but please in future stick to things that I actually said.

I'm fine if you think I'm wrong, being stupid or being ridiculous - by all means call me out.

If you haven't understood what I said or want something clarified - that's fine, I'm all too happy to provide one.

What I'm very much not okay with is taking what I'm saying then making up things that I never stated or implied.

 

But I'm happy to move on (as I'm sure everyone else is) - no harm done.

[Temetre]

vor 32 Minuten schrieb Northstar98:

That's alright, I was in the middle of typing up a reply to your first message, so this is somewhat of a relief.

Yeah, middle of the post I was like "wtf am i even doing here, im getting way too much into this". I was way overthinking the whole topic, halfway missing the point I wanted to make, and its no surprise my post was hard to follow, let alone seemed like a personal attack.

Sorry for that! 

[Aussie_Mantis]

7 hours ago, Top Jockey said:

Hello everyone,

I suppose this is the right thread for my question, judging by the title.

Regarding the AIM-9 SEAM (Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode) in the F-4 Phantom II, could anyone share some insight, on which airframe variants / missile versions used it, and how was this mode employed by the pilot as the Phantom did not had much in terms of HUD symbology ?

 

Thank you.

Hey, a question I can answer!

The F-4 used SEAM on most missiles throughout its career, and depending on which air force was using it, was available on anything from USN AIM-9G/H variants (Israel) to the AIM-9J/N/P USAF variants (USAF, Iran, South Korea, Sp... I'm not going to write the full list. Sod off.) and the AIM-9L/Ms that the F-4E saw in its sunset service.

 

SEAM worked like it did on the F-4J and other F-4s before it- you just locked a target with your radar and the missile would automatically slew around to it. Then you waited for missile tone and voila. It'd work just like missile locks work for any other gen 4 plane, except you're using solely the radar screen, and the shoot cue on the big "Meatball" on the reflector sight. The meatball doesn't actually move around, but it would give you a valid range cue.

 

VTAS on F-4Js would use it with a primitive HMD to use the CW Radar Beam to slew the IRM seeker around. In real life, due to complications with the helmet itself, it wasn't particularly popular due to being a heavy piece of kludge. Ingame, if the F-4J is added, there probably wouldn't be an issue.