Is the Phantom a dogfighter?

[Voyager]

On 11/7/2023 at 6:12 AM, Bremspropeller said:

Neither the 21bis, nor the F-4E are the initial design iterations of the jets. Those would be the MiG-21F and F4H-1.

The F4H-1 was designed to defend the carrier in anyweather and dropping some dumb bombs onto the target when neccessity arose. The -21F was essentially a MiG-19 with an engine that wouldn't explode every time you looked at it the wrong way. Well, not quite, as the R-11 also had it's fair share of teething troubles that needed resolving.

[...]

So, the version that was first ordered was configured for all weather fleet defense, but it turns out the Phantom had a pretty wild development cycle. 

Joe Baugher had a good write up on his page: McDonnell YF4H-1 Phantom II
http://joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_1.html

Essentially, MD was trying to build a better F3H Demon as an unsolicited proposal and ended up doing a very modular design so they could cover as many bases as possible. And pretty much every configuration they put together ended up being a mission it did. 

Honestly, it could easily have ended up as an Me-210 like disaster, so it's really impressive the design team was actually able to pull off a successful multi-role aircraft to the degree that they did. 

[CrazyGman]

On 11/8/2023 at 3:15 AM, WinterH said:

I was also considering 80-88 Iran-Iraq War there, but to be honest not %100 sure if Iraq had Bis then either, I'm inclined to believe they had, but not sure.

Answer yes, but like with the Cubans in Angola they were probably pretty heavily restricted.

 

[irisono]

To be clear, I have no plans to purchase the F-4 module. At least not until the Phantom's main adversary's FM is corrected. As is well known, the FM of the Mig-21 is completely messed up. All the future phantom jockeys (and they will be numerous) are going to be furious when the Mig-21 performs its UFO feats in simulated Vietnam, Middle East or Cold War scenarios. Frustration and the great anger are inevitable.

[Omega417]

That's an odd opinion to take, but you do you holmskillet.

[Bremspropeller]

13 minutes ago, irisono said:

To be clear, I have no plans to purchase the F-4 module. At least not until the Phantom's main adversary's FM is corrected. As is well known, the FM of the Mig-21 is completely messed up. All the future phantom jockeys (and they will be numerous) are going to be furious when the Mig-21 performs its UFO feats in simulated Vietnam, Middle East or Cold War scenarios. Frustration and the great anger are inevitable.

10 mile Sparrow shot in the face

[Omega417]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

10 mile Sparrow shot in the face

The only visual IDing I will be doing is visually identifying your wreckage on the ground.

[irisono]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Bremspropeller:

10 mile Sparrow shot in the face

Easy to say, but difficult to do with the performance of the Sparrow variants of the time and the UFO behavior of today's DCS Mig-21.

[Bremspropeller]

18 minutes ago, irisono said:

Easy to say, but difficult to do with the performance of the Sparrow variants of the time and the UFO behavior of today's DCS Mig-21.

Uncle Sam's gonna give you four Sparrows and a backseater. The MiG's got a radar with booze-coolant which the crew chief's probably peed out two weeks ago.

Plus you can always part the MiG-pilot's hair with your tailhook. Be creative and don't let ole Col. Robin down.

[SgtPappy]

4 hours ago, irisono said:

To be clear, I have no plans to purchase the F-4 module. At least not until the Phantom's main adversary's FM is corrected. As is well known, the FM of the Mig-21 is completely messed up. All the future phantom jockeys (and they will be numerous) are going to be furious when the Mig-21 performs its UFO feats in simulated Vietnam, Middle East or Cold War scenarios. Frustration and the great anger are inevitable.

I mean I can see where you're coming from.

But also note that there are a lot of modules whose performance are either off (MiG-21, and until recently the Viggen) or unknown publicly (M2k, F/A-18C). It can be a downer but personally, I think it's a limitation we have to deal with - no matter what, most planes will not be exact or accurate.

I'm hoping that the performance of the F-4 will be accurate enough that we will still see the 2-circle advantages it holds vs the MiG-21 even if in real life, the gap may be even bigger.

There will be frustration even if everything was perfectly correct. So maybe just wait and see what the community thinks of the F-4 and make your decision then. Deciding right now that it isn't worth your time may not be any more logical than those who believe they'll wipe the floor in MP.

[diego999]

Forcing AI MiG-21s to not drop their fuel tanks or using afterburner can help in making them more in line with reality.

It's a cheap trick really, but it's better than watching them pull sustained 9G without losing speed.

For human-piloted MiG-21s, the FM is decent enough I think.

Edited December 5, 2023 by diego999

[Dragon1-1]

It's an old module, and I think all MiGs besides the 29 suffer from issues with AI FM being too simplified. Once GFM comes out they should hopefully act more reasonably.

That said, the bis isn't really the MiG the Phantom is known for fighting. The F-4E mostly fought PFMs and their various relatives, a lighter and more nimble aircraft than the bis, though inferior in thrust.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[Goose489]

In real life, the F-4 Phantom is going to get smacked by migs if the pilot isn't very good.

[Goose489]

we learned that in the Vietnam war.

[Smyth]

Since I have been vocal in criticizing the DCS MiG-21bis FM, I want to add my $0.02 on this topic:

• $0.01 -> The player controlled -21 FM in DCS turns better than it should under some conditions, but it is not super OP like the AI -21 FM. Even compared to the somewhat unrealistic DCS -21, a realistic F-4E will have have a comfortable sustained turn-rate advantage and good enough handling to capitalize on that. Meanwhile the DCS -21 will perform better at low speed. Not realistic, but from a game design perspective this should actually be pretty balanced in multiplayer.
• $0.02 -> I want to fly a realistic F-4E. I want to fly a realistic MiG-21bis. For better or worse, this is the only game where either of those things might happen within the next few years. At the moment it looks like the realistic F-4E is happening first. I will take what I can get.

[Saguanay]

Gonna love seeing the F-4 jocks trying to survive whenever the MiG-17 shows up.

[MysteriousHonza]

6 hours ago, Goose489 said:

In real life, the F-4 Phantom is going to get smacked by migs if the pilot isn't very good.

Yeah...

 Well that applies to literally every jet ever... F15s with not so good pilots got defeated by well trained and experienced F4 crews in training numerous times. Experienced MLD pilots defeated not so experienced ones in mig29s numerous times too. 

Being good to be not killed is no news.

[irisono]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb Bremspropeller:

Uncle Sam's gonna give you four Sparrows and a backseater. The MiG's got a radar with booze-coolant which the crew chief's probably peed out two weeks ago.

Plus you can always part the MiG-pilot's hair with your tailhook. Be creative and don't let ole Col. Robin down.

Well, we flew with’m in "Bolo" and caught seven of them. But these were real Migs flown by brave jocks and not extraterrestrial flying objects controlled by supernatural Martians.

[jaguara5]

F-4E vs Mirage F1C. Epic dogfight duo over the Aegean for 2 decades  between the 2 neighbors (thank God though the red button was never pressed).     It hasn't to be only Phantom vs Mig.  

[Gunfreak]

3 hours ago, jaguara5 said:

F-4E vs Mirage F1C. Epic dogfight duo over the Aegean for 2 decades  between the 2 neighbors (thank God though the red button was never pressed).     It hasn't to be only Phantom vs Mig.  

F4 and F1 did face each other in a hot war too. Iran-Iraq was was the longest sustained conflict with the F4 after Vietnam. 

The F4 did epic things in that war, both ground and air war stuff.

And I feel the pain when it comes to the MiG21. Same deal with the MiG15.

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Gunfreak

[Hiob]

12 hours ago, Goose489 said:

we learned that in the Vietnam war.

Out of curiosity - was that before or after the Phantoms were equipped with guns?

[SgtPappy]

7 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Out of curiosity - was that before or after the Phantoms were equipped with guns?

If you ever feel inclined, I recommend Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965-1972 by M. Michel III. Great read about basically everything you'd want to know about how the F-4 performed in Vietnam.

Spoiler alert: the gun did not change anything. The USAF slightly improved into Linebacker II from better tech and raw experience. But what really made the difference was training - for the USN anyway. The USAF didn't catch up with its training syllabus or tactic reforms until after Vietnam.

[Goose489]

1 hour ago, SgtPappy said:

If you ever feel inclined, I recommend Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965-1972 by M. Michel III. Great read about basically everything you'd want to know about how the F-4 performed in Vietnam.

Spoiler alert: the gun did not change anything. The USAF slightly improved into Linebacker II from better tech and raw experience. But what really made the difference was training - for the USN anyway. The USAF didn't catch up with its training syllabus or tactic reforms until after Vietnam.

I was going to say the same thing. The gun didn't change anything because

1. it didn't have self-leading sights.

2. the gun did not hold very much ammo.

3. the mig could get inside the F-4's turn almost every time.

4. the pilots were not trained very well on how to dogfight.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Goose489

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, SgtPappy said:

If you ever feel inclined, I recommend Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965-1972 by M. Michel III. Great read about basically everything you'd want to know about how the F-4 performed in Vietnam.

Spoiler alert: the gun did not change anything. The USAF slightly improved into Linebacker II from better tech and raw experience. But what really made the difference was training - for the USN anyway. The USAF didn't catch up with its training syllabus or tactic reforms until after Vietnam.

While these points are true, then-Colonel Robin Olds pointed out in an interview that other - and more important factors- explain why the USAF didn’t match the USNs kill ratio. 

First, the USAF Phantoms had to travel almost 900 miles from Thailand over Laos to North Vietnam. That gave so much warning to the VPAF that the 8th TFW command post may as well have phoned Hanoi for official advance notice. So the VPAF had plenty of time to launch and position MiGs for a high speed pass. Further, this mean USAF Phantoms were fuel critical from combat zone entry, because they had to fight and save enough gas for the 900 mile trip back to base. Get it wrong and you might be heading to the Hanoi Hilton (or a painful death by the Pathet Lao) after flaming out. Even saving enough for a tanker track might not be enough if you’re waiting for four (or more) similarly fuel starved USAF Phantoms or Thuds to tank off. These reasons resulted in many USAF Phantom pilots - Olds included- being forced to bypass sure MiG kills to save fuel. By the time an engaged flight of USAF Phantoms launched AIM-4/AIM-7/AIM-9 the flight typically was bingo, scratching the opportunity for a close range gun kill. 

Meanwhile, the USN operated out of the Gulf of Tonkin with substantially closer distances. So the VPAF had commensurately less alert of USN Phantom II sorties, especially if they ingressed at low level. That reduced the possibility of an aft attack used so well against USAF flights. The USN pilots also had greater fuel flexibility to engage MiGs , and their Search and Rescue (SAR) situation was somewhat better than the USAF provided they got out to sea. 
Now layer in the other elements (TOPGUN,  better IR missiles for the USN, fluid pair tactics etc) and the better kill stats by the USN are evident.

[Bremspropeller]

So basicly, Col. Olds wrote an ad for carrier aviation.

[Goose489]

52 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

While these points are true, then-Colonel Robin Olds pointed out in an interview that other - and more important factors- explain why the USAF didn’t match the USNs kill ratio. 

First, the USAF Phantoms had to travel almost 900 miles from Thailand over Laos to North Vietnam. That gave so much warning to the VPAF that the 8th TFW command post may as well have phoned Hanoi for official advance notice. So the VPAF had plenty of time to launch and position MiGs for a high speed pass. Further, this mean USAF Phantoms were fuel critical from combat zone entry, because they had to fight and save enough gas for the 900 mile trip back to base. Get it wrong and you might be heading to the Hanoi Hilton (or a painful death by the Pathet Lao) after flaming out. Even saving enough for a tanker track might not be enough if you’re waiting for four (or more) similarly fuel starved USAF Phantoms or Thuds to tank off. These reasons resulted in many USAF Phantom pilots - Olds included- being forced to bypass sure MiG kills to save fuel. By the time an engaged flight of USAF Phantoms launched AIM-4/AIM-7/AIM-9 the flight typically was bingo, scratching the opportunity for a close range gun kill. 

Meanwhile, the USN operated out of the Gulf of Tonkin with substantially closer distances. So the VPAF had commensurately less alert of USN Phantom II sorties, especially if they ingressed at low level. That reduced the possibility of an aft attack used so well against USAF flights. The USN pilots also had greater fuel flexibility to engage MiGs , and their Search and Rescue (SAR) situation was somewhat better than the USAF provided they got out to sea. 
Now layer in the other elements (TOPGUN,  better IR missiles for the USN, fluid pair tactics etc) and the better kill stats by the USN are evident.

All that is correct except I disagree with the gun kills. They did not have the ammunition or the self-leading gunsight to hit the target consistently.