F-4E learning curve

[bfr]

I'm expecting something slightly tougher than the F-14, which was definitely a shock to the system having come from the more modern jets. Especially how it would quite gladly let (and often willingly assist) you kill yourself and your RIO if you got a bit heavy on the stick.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

This might help with getting prepared:

 

[303_Kermit]

On 12/13/2023 at 8:09 PM, Kalasnkova74 said:

Harder, significantly. People used to 4th Generation tech and tactics will have to adapt to an iron sight, manually flown jet. Precision will be a factor of pilot skill at dropping bombs, not a setting on the MFD.

Air to air will be even tougher. Adapting from “match lift vector and PULL” tactics on 4th Gen aircraft to “manage energy and use the vertical” will be a gulf too large to bridge for some. I expect a small social media backlash after release of people accustomed to Flankers and Hornets declaring the Phantom “useless in a dogfight”. Especially when people depart controlled flight because they’ve spent their flight sim time flying computer controlled aircraft that never let them go out of control. 
 

 

Oooohhh.... "Please allow me to retalk" as a classic said
How hard F-4 may be? Lets see... from the beginning of aerial dogfight some around in 1916, every next fighter generation was better, but also more demanding from a pilot. WW2 pilot had to be better, faster and more fit than WW1 pilot. Bigger speeds, bigger "G", less time to aim , less time to act, AAA more deadly and more precise. Also pilot has to know much more about tactics and techniques. Bigger distances with bigger speeds - navigation far more complicated.
'50 - yet bigger speeds, and G and very specific problems of transonic speeds. Pilot of MiG-15 or Sabre must be healthier, smarter, and better skilled. 
'60 - new threats. SAM, AAA, AiM, no more altitude advantage saves life. And you have to be prepared to fight in day and night - not like the guys before. Also you have to flight and fight in every weather conditions.
Dogfight in late '60 is so complicated, that never in history of aerial warfare so much depends from pilot. Vietnam war is a culmination of it. Need a proof? check aerial victories table. 
Piston Driven A-1 scores victory over Jet+AFB MiG-17. Gen I , outdated (according to user and producer) MiG-17 causes massive problem for modern Gen III Phantom. or Crusader. Never before or after, planes so different posed such equal threat. Death literally can come from everywhere. And the planes themself are not perfect, oh no - F-104, MiG-19, Su-15, and the most difficult and sophisticated of them all.  Phantom II. Only plane in history of aviation with slats... on vertical stabilizator (don't worry not our version), Able to break in half during straight flight due to oscillation caused by specific steering feedback , by specific speeds, and specific position of center of gravity. Changes in plane reactions to steering input depending from AoA (Tomcat pilots know what I'm talking about, right?) CW planes show what you're worth as a pilot.

Nah... It's going to be easy peasy...

Every plane after ('70, '80, '90...) came with more help to pilot. Full aspect missiles allow dogfights to be simpler. Just missile exchange on flight head on. Better missile wins, not better pillot. Computers on board navigate without an error, Datalink sees everything, Fly By Wire makes every pilot skill equal. You don't have to feel your plane with 6-th sense. You won't stall even if you're sensitive as a rhino. And even if you don't know any BFM or ACM? It doesn't matter, if your missiles have enough range. Even best pilot in his MiG-21 won't ever come close. Even if he's a real expert in his plane and you only have 2 weeks experience in your F-16, learned notch, crank, TWS. 

Oh... and if you wan't to be a Mav. you don't actually has to know how to land on carrier. F-18 will do it for you. Just find a proper button sequence.

I am actually expecting huge amount of "bug" reports, about features actually being very carefully modeled features.
Quotes I found about Phantom :
"Phantom is a Pilots plane... You have to fly it". 
"In MiG-21 - 10 pilots will perform the same evolution in 10 different ways. In Phantom you may yourself perform the same evolution 100 times and result may be different every time you try."

"We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training." - Archilochus

With my best regards
Green Ugly Fellow

Edited February 1, 2024 by 303_Kermit

[leonardo_c]

On 1/31/2024 at 2:55 AM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

This might help with getting prepared:

""stay in command of your phantom, don't spin in, it's an inglorious way to go"

epic.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

2 hours ago, average_pilot said:

After all, the only reason these machines exist is killing people and destroying property

I choose to believe their primary purpose is a deterrent. Then, if all else fails and only then, yes dropping warheads on foreheads.

[Kalasnkova74]

46 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

I choose to believe their primary purpose is a deterrent.

A noble sentiment, but the F-4 Phantom II did more than saber rattle in the Cold War. As thousands of paramilitary Laotians, Vietnamese, and Arab militaries discovered the hard way. 
 

Like it or not these airplanes did not deliver flowers, and killed many people in the air to air and air to ground mission regimes.

[=475FG= Dawger]

Fighters have become easier, not harder over time. Imagine thinking that flying a WWI box kite into deadly combat is easier than a mid-century multicrew supersonic fighter-bomber. 
 

While this might be true in “simulation” it ain’t so in real life. It just points out the glaring deficiencies in “simulation “. 

[markturner1960]

On 12/16/2023 at 4:38 PM, HWasp said:

While older planes certainly need a bit more skill, learning and patience to operate, they can have a great advantage in this regard:

Usually here one switch does one thing, and even if there seems to be more stuff on the surface, there is less complexity altogether.

I have too many modules, and I often realize, after not flying a 4th gen for some time, that I can't remember the DMS left short + TMS down long + China hat forward + boat switch aft + blink twice + clap 3 times HOTAS command I would need for the mission... maybe it's just me.

I never forget, how to operate the MiG-21 or the F-1, all I need is usually 5 mins of aerobatics, to build back muscle memory. That's much more fun for me compared to relearning the HOTAS.

So, learning curve is steeper but useful knowledge is less perishable I think.

True, true true………I have the F15SE in my hanger but have hardly flown it, simply because, on top of learning the Apache, I also fly the F1, F5, Harrier & F14……. These older jets with the exception of the harrier are easier to learn, with of all of those, the F14 taking the most effort due to having the back seat as well, which is a module in itself……I am expecting the F4 to be a similar but slightly easier beast to learn and will probably be flying it almost exclusively with the F14 when it comes out.

I have come to realise that 6 levels of sub pages on an MFD is not actually fun………

Edited February 3, 2024 by markturner1960

[pii]

On 12/21/2023 at 8:58 AM, javelina1 said:

I've been doing just this, flying the Turkey a lot.  Figuring it will help with learning the Rhino.

I'm getting ready by flying the Apachee  I hope that f-4 can hover!

[Temetre]

vor 21 Stunden schrieb =475FG= Dawger:

Fighters have become easier, not harder over time. Imagine thinking that flying a WWI box kite into deadly combat is easier than a mid-century multicrew supersonic fighter-bomber. 
 

While this might be true in “simulation” it ain’t so in real life. It just points out the glaring deficiencies in “simulation “. 

Well put. I always like to point out how much of the combat is about the environment. Sure the F-18 gives you a ton of situational awareness, but you will absolutely need that awareness when you deal with modern SAMs and missiles. When you sit in a 70s scenario in a Phantom or Mirage F1, you wont face as many scary things. And heck, those two for example are well ahead of most of the competition (like Mig-21s).

The "easy of flying" really isnt that big of a deal. Ive learned flying in IL2 Sturmovik, flying WW2 fighter aircraft. Only difficult thing is visibility while landing imo. F-4 is probably gonna be luxury compared to that.

Edited February 3, 2024 by Temetre

[MysteriousHonza]

On 12/13/2023 at 8:09 PM, Kalasnkova74 said:

Harder, significantly. People used to 4th Generation tech and tactics will have to adapt to an iron sight, manually flown jet. Precision will be a factor of pilot skill at dropping bombs, not a setting on the MFD.

Air to air will be even tougher. Adapting from “match lift vector and PULL” tactics on 4th Gen aircraft to “manage energy and use the vertical” will be a gulf too large to bridge for some. I expect a small social media backlash after release of people accustomed to Flankers and Hornets declaring the Phantom “useless in a dogfight”. Especially when people depart controlled flight because they’ve spent their flight sim time flying computer controlled aircraft that never let them go out of control. 
 

 

If you understand basics of AA combat of Fox1s and rear aspect IR missiles combined with basics of pulse radar, its waaaaay easier jet. There is a lot of things you need to know on top of basics for modern jets, different modes, MFD pages, hud symbology, radar symbology, TGP symbology and own weapon symbology. 
In this case, phantom is extremely easy to operate and understand. And lets be honest, older weapon combat is easier too. 

[Kalasnkova74]

2 hours ago, MysteriousHonza said:

If you understand basics of AA combat of Fox1s and rear aspect IR missiles combined with basics of pulse radar, its waaaaay easier jet. There is a lot of things you need to know on top of basics for modern jets, different modes, MFD pages, hud symbology, radar symbology, TGP symbology and own weapon symbology. 
In this case, phantom is extremely easy to operate and understand. And lets be honest, older weapon combat is easier too. 

Thats the point. Systemically it’s “simple” - but simple isn’t the same as easy.

Taking off, landing, and flying Vipers/M2000/ Hornets /Fulcrums/Flankers is relatively simple thanks to computers. Not so straightforward with the F-4E where AoA and rudder use matter. It also plays a part when bombing: no more punching buttons into a MFD to laze a target. While the F-4E will have Maverick and Pave Spike, you’re also dealing with manual bomb delivery with tables and mil depression in the sight. 
 

Air to air visual fights will also require analogue knowledge alien to the “yank and bank” crowd accustomed to 9G sustained turns and 1/1 thrust. Do the DCS yank and bank with an F-4E and you’ll be strafe bait.(cue Growling Sidewinder vid declaring the F-4E hopeless in a dogfight….)

Even shooting the Sparrow effectively changes, because you don’t have helpful cuing and range indicators in the HUD (a gunsight ranging circle ain’t the same thing). It’s all dials, gauges and lights. 
 

Older tech does not automatically equal easier. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, MysteriousHonza said:

If you understand basics of AA combat of Fox1s and rear aspect IR missiles combined with basics of pulse radar, its waaaaay easier jet. There is a lot of things you need to know on top of basics for modern jets, different modes, MFD pages, hud symbology, radar symbology, TGP symbology and own weapon symbology. 
In this case, phantom is extremely easy to operate and understand. And lets be honest, older weapon combat is easier too. 

This is pretty much backwards. Modern fighters strive to make everything as easy as possible to free up the crew for important headwork. Only non-pilots would think MFD pages, hud symbology, radar symbology, TGP symbology and own weapon symbology make a jet “harder”. 

That’s all basic proficiency level stuff and all put there to make life simpler and enhance SA. 

The only reason simmers think modern jets are “harder” is because so much of what is really involved in flying is totally missing from the game. 

[bfr]

51 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Thats the point. Systemically it’s “simple” - but simple isn’t the same as easy.

Taking off, landing, and flying Vipers/M2000/ Hornets /Fulcrums/Flankers is relatively simple thanks to computers. Not so straightforward with the F-4E where AoA and rudder use matter. It also plays a part when bombing: no more punching buttons into a MFD to laze a target. While the F-4E will have Maverick and Pave Spike, you’re also dealing with manual bomb delivery with tables and mil depression in the sight. 
 

Air to air visual fights will also require analogue knowledge alien to the “yank and bank” crowd accustomed to 9G sustained turns and 1/1 thrust. Do the DCS yank and bank with an F-4E and you’ll be strafe bait.(cue Growling Sidewinder vid declaring the F-4E hopeless in a dogfight….)

Even shooting the Sparrow effectively changes, because you don’t have helpful cuing and range indicators in the HUD (a gunsight ranging circle ain’t the same thing). It’s all dials, gauges and lights. 
 

Older tech does not automatically equal easier. 

Agreed. A lot of things in fancy jets are there because it ultimately makes the pilot's job easier or increases awareness. I struggled with the F-14 at first because of the lack of information in the HUD (oh what i'd give for even the Sparrowhawk HUD as an update!), and the F-4 is even lower tech in that regard.  I literally tore a wing off because I got a bit grabby and there wasn't a computer in the middle to say 'no' (and I lost count of the number of spins I ended up in!).  To get a mental picture of BVR contacts then you're relying on the (usually AI) guy in the back telling you or you have to hop in the back to look at the scope.  Even the way the front canopy is structured (and it'll be similar issues on an F-4) caused occasional problems with visibility at key moments because of the struts in your forward eyeline that just aren't an issue in a Hornet or Viper.

[MysteriousHonza]

9 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Thats the point. Systemically it’s “simple” - but simple isn’t the same as easy.

Taking off, landing, and flying Vipers/M2000/ Hornets /Fulcrums/Flankers is relatively simple thanks to computers. Not so straightforward with the F-4E where AoA and rudder use matter. It also plays a part when bombing: no more punching buttons into a MFD to laze a target. While the F-4E will have Maverick and Pave Spike, you’re also dealing with manual bomb delivery with tables and mil depression in the sight. 
 

Air to air visual fights will also require analogue knowledge alien to the “yank and bank” crowd accustomed to 9G sustained turns and 1/1 thrust. Do the DCS yank and bank with an F-4E and you’ll be strafe bait.(cue Growling Sidewinder vid declaring the F-4E hopeless in a dogfight….)

Even shooting the Sparrow effectively changes, because you don’t have helpful cuing and range indicators in the HUD (a gunsight ranging circle ain’t the same thing). It’s all dials, gauges and lights. 
 

Older tech does not automatically equal easier. 

You have wrcs for bombs, tv bombs are dropping automatically when in range. You get tone aoa so you don't have to watch aoa all the time, rudder use got significantly reduced with slatted phantoms. F4Es bfm capability is heavily underestimated by many and taking GS as source, jesus... Its STR is better than F5E or real 21bis, not that dcs abomination though. AoA capabilities are heavily improved in slatted phantom and if you wont carry tons of ordnance and actually bfm without sparrow and without full fuel load, you sit around 1:1 twr. For sparrow, you get DLZs that are way easier to interpret than modern ones with billion symbols on them and its right below sight glass in radar screen.

[Dragon1-1]

11 hours ago, bfr said:

To get a mental picture of BVR contacts then you're relying on the (usually AI) guy in the back telling you or you have to hop in the back to look at the scope. 

...or you can flip a switch display TID picture on your BDHI (instead of the HSI).  Which you should do whenever you're going into air to air. That makes BVR flow much better. The Phantom will have a radar screen in the cockpit, too.

[leonardo_c]

13 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Older tech does not automatically equal easier. 

 

Quote

Yeager: In airplanes of World War II vintage, the systems were simpler — you just had a fuel system and that
was it — but they were harder airplanes to fly. You had torque, trim, and the lack of boosted controls. Today’s
airplanes are more complex but they’re much easier to fly

and this was Yeager in early 90s, wonder what he would have to say today.

[Gunfreak]

On 2/5/2024 at 9:07 PM, MysteriousHonza said:

If you understand basics of AA combat of Fox1s and rear aspect IR missiles combined with basics of pulse radar, its waaaaay easier jet. There is a lot of things you need to know on top of basics for modern jets, different modes, MFD pages, hud symbology, radar symbology, TGP symbology and own weapon symbology. 
In this case, phantom is extremely easy to operate and understand. And lets be honest, older weapon combat is easier too. 

Having flown quite a bit of Sidewinder B dogfights, I can proclaim they are far harder to use than Sidewinder X and helmet.

Turn head, look at plane you want to die. Hit uncage and see it blow up.

In first person shooters you'd be banned for cheating if you had a rifle that could do that.

Edited February 7, 2024 by Gunfreak

[MysteriousHonza]

35 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Having flown quite a bit of Sidewinder B dogfights, I can proclaim they are far harder to use than Sidewinder X and helmet.

Turn head, look at plane you want to die. Hit uncage and see it blow up.

In first person shooters you'd be banned for cheating if you had a rifle that could do that.

 

Yeah and its absurdly harder to stay alive against 9X, not so much against 9B/R3S. Employment of them is easy, surviving too. 
If you want to fight in 9X bfm, you need more tactical setup and actually jam the WEZ of 90°off bore missile which is really hard. 
9B/R3S can currently go 60° left/right off tail pipe which is still too much but its not all aspect high off bore missile, not getting into its envelope is super easy. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 hour ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Yeah and its absurdly harder to stay alive against 9X, not so much against 9B/R3S. Employment of them is easy, surviving too. 
If you want to fight in 9X bfm, you need more tactical setup and actually jam the WEZ of 90°off bore missile which is really hard. 
9B/R3S can currently go 60° left/right off tail pipe which is still too much but its not all aspect high off bore missile, not getting into its envelope is super easy. 

You are trying too hard here.

Less chance of successful IRMD does not equal more difficulty. 

 

[303_Kermit]

1 hour ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Yeah and its absurdly harder to stay alive against 9X, not so much against 9B/R3S. Employment of them is easy, surviving too. 
If you want to fight in 9X bfm, you need more tactical setup and actually jam the WEZ of 90°off bore missile which is really hard. 
9B/R3S can currently go 60° left/right off tail pipe which is still too much but its not all aspect high off bore missile, not getting into its envelope is super easy. 

You just proved my point. Modern jets depend hard on modern technology. You can't fight Average pilot of F-16CM armed with AiM-9X and AiM-120B/C in your MiG-21bis with his R-60M and R-3R. Even if you're true ace.

During Iran Iraq war many Iraqi aces, trained by RAF died not even knowing that they were intercepted. Simply the first sign of F-14 appearance was an explosion of leading plane. '60  and '70 were only time in history of air combat when planes 10-20 years older compete successfully with most modern jets. It was possible because a much more depended from pilots. AiM-9B /R-3S was hard to use and very unreliable, and becoming a "gun solution" needed a serious skill. Hit a plane moving and maneuvering 500KTAS by a cannon, without computer calculated leading, using gyro sight at best. That is really hard.

 

Edited February 7, 2024 by 303_Kermit

[Gunfreak]

One thing that will be a lot harder will be Navigation. Basic INS, probably only 3 waypoints to be saved(like in the A4 or even the F14) 

I can't find the bathroom without an a digital HSD with all the waypoint on.

[G.J.S]

10 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

One thing that will be a lot harder will be Navigation. Basic INS, probably only 3 waypoints to be saved(like in the A4 or even the F14) 

I can't find the bathroom without an a digital HSD with all the waypoint on.

A challenge that should be relished. Back to basics, radio nav and dead reckoning to cross check INS accuracy. Logging pertinent points along your route (power stations, chimney stacks, dams, tank farms, road intersections, unique features) before lift off to double check that you are where you think you are. 
No longer chasing a symbol on a HUD.

 

It may sound ghastly to some, but believe me - it can be enjoyable.

[leonardo_c]

52 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

One thing that will be a lot harder will be Navigation. Basic INS, probably only 3 waypoints to be saved(like in the A4 or even the F14) 

there's tacan and vor, nothing else needed and way more entertaining that "following the magenta line"

good old dead reckoning.

Edited February 8, 2024 by leonardo_c

[Gunfreak]

8 minutes ago, leonardo_c said:

there's tacan and vor, nothing else needed and way more entertaining that "following the magenta line"

good old dead reckoning.

 

Not if any number bigger than 4 confuses you. I can barely remember what 4 preset coms channels I set up myself in the editor 10 minutes ago. What channel was AWACS on again? 3 or 4? was it on UHF or VHF? So expecting me to be able to have several numbers bigger than 4 in my head just doesn't work, I can look at the kneeboard, get a basic 3 digits radio frequency, and from I close the kneeboard to I'm gonna put the numbers in the radio(so like 3 seconds) I will have forgotten the 3 digit frequency.