Phantom -- Anti-Ship Missions

[Mike Force Team]

Hello, Heatblur,

Will there be any updates to the Phantom to allow its use for anti-ship missions?  When I find online information, I see information that discusses conflicts going from the Vietnam War until the first Persian Gulf War involving the F-4s and assorted MIGs.  Yet, I do not find any online information that elaborates on dedicated anti-ship missions.  

Mike Force Team

[Kalasnkova74]

29 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

Hello, Heatblur,

Will there be any updates to the Phantom to allow its use for anti-ship missions?  When I find online information, I see information that discusses conflicts going from the Vietnam War until the first Persian Gulf War involving the F-4s and assorted MIGs.  Yet, I do not find any online information that elaborates on dedicated anti-ship missions.  

Mike Force Team

The IRIAF (Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force) employed the F-4D & F-4E in anti-maritime ops during the Iran/Iraq war. They mainly fired Mavericks at the rudder of Iraqi tankers, causing them to lose steerage and run aground. Directly hitting the tankers IRL yielded little results since - funny enough-tanker ships are expensive and thus built to resist fire. 
 

The anti ship capability of US-spec F-4Es like the one we’re getting is of that capability. Some foreign Phantom II users like Israel , Turkey, Germany, Greece and South Korea feature local modifications for anti ship missiles. Not sure how many of those mods, if any, will make their way to DCS

Edited February 12, 2024 by Kalasnkova74

[Mike Force Team]

@Kalasnkova74Thank you for your response. Hopefully the Heatblur Phantom will allow us to carry Mavericks. 

It would be great if the F-4 could carry the Harpoon ASM.

Mike Force Team 

Edited February 12, 2024 by Mike Force Team

[Stackup]

2 hours ago, Mike Force Team said:

Yet, I do not find any online information that elaborates on dedicated anti-ship missions.

That would be because it was never intended to be a dedicated anti-ship aircraft, especially not in USAF service and not in the USN either as the A-6 had that role at that time. 

On the otherhand, it does have access to an extensive array of conventional ordinance such as mk80 series and rockeye cluster bombs as well as guided munitions like the Maverick, Bullpup, and laser guided bombs which can be used quite effectively against ships.

 

1 hour ago, Mike Force Team said:

Hopefully the Heatblur Phantom will allow us to carry Mavericks. 

It can, and it has carried them in every gameplay video released by Heatblur and even fired them in the wild weasel video they released 2 weeks ago. 

They show the AGM-65D directly at 3:42 and there's a dedicated section in the manual that might be worth a look.  https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/stores/air_to_ground/missiles/maverick.html

 

1 hour ago, Mike Force Team said:

It would be great if the F-4 could carry the Harpoon ASM.

It can't.  They did test mount a Ma-31 AsM (license-built KH-31) at some point, but this just wasn't ever the intended role of the Phantom.  It was primarily a fleet-defense interceptor designed to shoot down Soviet bombers.  The air to ground role was expanded during and after Vietnam with the Marines and Air Force, but they didn't waste their time with specialized anti-ship operations/weapons as the Navy already had the A-6 and A-7 to fulfill that role and it's the Navy's job to sink ships.  The A-6 will have the Harpoon whenever we end up getting that.

Edited February 13, 2024 by Stackup
Ma-31 specifically not Kh-31 pictured

[G.J.S]

27 minutes ago, Stackup said:

 

That is the MA-31 (or MH-31), a handful were purchased by the USN as target drones for ship bourne defence trials (all since expended I believe?).

The F-4 has only a limited anti-ship capability, utilising Maverick as stated, or dumb bombs. Only really useable against very lightly armed vessels, or civvy craft.

[Kalasnkova74]

9 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

That is the MA-31 (or MH-31), a handful were purchased by the USN as target drones for ship bourne defence trials (all since expended I believe?).

 

correct. None were used for armament: the MA-31s were license built KH-31 ASMs. Turned out the only aircraft conveniently available that could haul one were F-4s. 

[Stackup]

27 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

MA-31s were license built KH-31 ASMs

That explains it

[LorenLuke]

If anything, the best weapon might be some of the bombs it carries. We won't get Man-in-the-loop capability until the DMAS version, but one of the Walleye IIs would probably be one of the better weapons to use, especially once we get the datalink pods.

[Smyth]

Walleye is as close to a dedicated anti-ship weapon as US Navy tactical aircraft had in the 60s-70s. While USAF only adopted it for a short time on F-4D/E for use against ground targets, there will be nothing to stop you from using it for its original mission from an Air Force airframe.

[WinterH]

6 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Phantom II users like Israel , Turkey, Germany, Greece and South Korea feature local modifications for anti ship missiles.

Not entirely sure, but I don't think even these have dedicated anti ship weapons. Turkish 2020 Terminators have Popeyes and locally made SOM with about 100 and 250 kms ranges but they are more land attack missiles. Perhaps German ICE and Greek AUP had Harpoon but I don't think I've ever seen it mentioned for those. Coupd be feasible I guess, with them having a radar AFAIK based on the early Hornet radar.

I think Japanese EJ-Kai may have had yhe capability to use Japan's anti ship missile, also found on F-2s but again not sure. 

With the two F-4E's we'll get, the options to attack ships will be Mavericks and bombs, guided bombs included. Just don't try to go against really teethy ones I guess

Though to be fair, some less capable and older warships could be feasible. 

[Bozon]

10 hours ago, Mike Force Team said:

Will there be any updates to the Phantom to allow its use for anti-ship missions?  When I find online information, I see information that discusses conflicts going from the Vietnam War until the first Persian Gulf War involving the F-4s and assorted MIGs.  Yet, I do not find any online information that elaborates on dedicated anti-ship missions. 

I think I mentioned this somewhere on the forum before - the USAF considered the use of the F-4E in the anti-ship role, but came to the conclusion that ships are extremely difficult to sink on land.

[DOL]

The JASDF F-4EJ was capable of carrying the ASM-2 anti-ship missile.
And it was painted blue to fly over the sea.

[Mike Force Team]

Hello to everyone,

Thank you for the responses.  I understand the F-4 was not intended to do anti-ship missions.  Instead, one has to use the Maverick or the dumb bombs to sink the enemy ships.

Mike Force Team

[doedkoett]

Anti-ship mission and dedicated anti-ship weapons are two different things. Even the Viggen, that could use two different anti ship missiles, was prepared to engage shipping with the use of dumb bombs and rockets.
Remember that the Argentines attacked the Royal Navy in 1982 not only with Exocet-missiles, but also using Skyhawks loaded with dumb bombs. It took skill and bravery on the part of the pilots, but they did inflict heavy damage on several RN ships.
If the job needs to be done, sometime you will have to use the tools that you have, not the tools that you´d want.

[TLTeo]

On 2/13/2024 at 6:54 AM, WinterH said:

Perhaps German ICE and Greek AUP had Harpoon but I don't think I've ever seen it mentioned for those.

As far as I know, in Germany the anti-shipping mission was flown by either the F-104 or Tornado carring Kormoran missiles

[Gunfreak]

Well the Shrike can hit ships (in real life that is) but only by accident and the 70kg warhead isn't gonna do much damage 

[Silver_Dragon]

On 2/14/2024 at 11:01 AM, TLTeo said:

As far as I know, in Germany the anti-shipping mission was flown by either the F-104 or Tornado carring Kormoran missiles

 

On 2/13/2024 at 5:54 AM, WinterH said:

Not entirely sure, but I don't think even these have dedicated anti ship weapons. Turkish 2020 Terminators have Popeyes and locally made SOM with about 100 and 250 kms ranges but they are more land attack missiles. Perhaps German ICE and Greek AUP had Harpoon but I don't think I've ever seen it mentioned for those. Coupd be feasible I guess, with them having a radar AFAIK based on the early Hornet radar.

I think Japanese EJ-Kai may have had yhe capability to use Japan's anti ship missile, also found on F-2s but again not sure. 

With the two F-4E's we'll get, the options to attack ships will be Mavericks and bombs, guided bombs included. Just don't try to go against really teethy ones I guess

Though to be fair, some less capable and older warships could be feasible. 

Remember Heatblur has building a F-4E USAF 80s version, no a export version.

[Slick_441]

On 2/14/2024 at 4:06 AM, Gunfreak said:

Well the Shrike can hit ships (in real life that is) but only by accident and the 70kg warhead isn't gonna do much damage 

Was just about to ask about this, at least as far as taking out a ships ability to track targets or defend itself. Certainly won't be sinking anything lol.

Is the HARM or Shrike able track ship radars in DCS right now?

[TLTeo]

As far as I know yes, but it does essentially zero damage so it's not worth it.

[Silver_Dragon]

Meanwhile ARM missiles can target ships, the damage vs them dont "destroy" the radar.

[G.J.S]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Meanwhile ARM missiles can target ships, the damage vs them dont "destroy" the radar.

It used to be a valid tactic. A formation of F-4 could, as was done with Tornado, launch a barrage of ARM’s from one or two in your attacking formation - be it Shrike (F-4), or ALARM or HARM (Tonka), the follow up would be iron bombing either direct or lobbed in.

 

The axiom was “poke ‘em in the eye before you knee ‘em in the balls”.

Blind then batter.

The ARM’s would not severely damage the ship target, but would shred the emitters, effectively blinding or severely degrading their ability to track, thereby allowing the follow up to close and bomb (with limited ship defences).

[bfr]

9 hours ago, G.J.S said:

It used to be a valid tactic. A formation of F-4 could, as was done with Tornado, launch a barrage of ARM’s from one or two in your attacking formation - be it Shrike (F-4), or ALARM or HARM (Tonka), the follow up would be iron bombing either direct or lobbed in.

 

The axiom was “poke ‘em in the eye before you knee ‘em in the balls”.

Blind then batter.

The ARM’s would not severely damage the ship target, but would shred the emitters, effectively blinding or severely degrading their ability to track, thereby allowing the follow up to close and bomb (with limited ship defences).

And it would still be a valid tactic if DCS' damage model supported taking out individual systems on ships. Sadly it doesn't and its been a sore point since forever.  As it is then boats can basically fight on until they're on their way to the bottom.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, bfr said:

And it would still be a valid tactic if DCS' damage model supported taking out individual systems on ships. Sadly it doesn't and its been a sore point since forever.  As it is then boats can basically fight on until they're on their way to the bottom.

The actual Ship simplified damage model coming from LOMAC, and has plans on a future to convert to a "Advanced Ship damage models", but have many features to implement, as fire, flodding, air and underwater explosions vs ships and many more. That has similar to implemente the actual WW2 "Advanced Aircraft damage model" on modern aircrafts.

[bfr]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The actual Ship simplified damage model coming from LOMAC, and has plans on a future to convert to a "Advanced Ship damage models", but have many features to implement, as fire, flodding, air and underwater explosions vs ships and many more. That has similar to implemente the actual WW2 "Advanced Aircraft damage model" on modern aircrafts.

Yeah, I'm aware of the intention to change the damage model (and ASM warheads) to something better but it has been on the 'to do' list for quite a while now.  I hope it does happen as it would open a whole new side to the game versus the current situation where you seem to need an awful lot of firepower to put any decent-sized armed naval vessel out of the fight.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, bfr said:

Yeah, I'm aware of the intention to change the damage model (and ASM warheads) to something better but it has been on the 'to do' list for quite a while now.  I hope it does happen as it would open a whole new side to the game versus the current situation where you seem to need an awful lot of firepower to put any decent-sized armed naval vessel out of the fight.

That has a feature to long time, not near.