F-4 BVR Tactics

[SuperKermit]

Considering the F-4s absent look-down shoot-down capabilities (flying high and fast probably does not work) I wonder what the actual BVR tactics for the Phantom would be.

Could somebody knowledgeable please elaborate?

[Nodak]

Think your going to have to be a bit specific about what time period your asking about, the Phantom E covers well over 50 years, the air war scene has changed and evolved just a little bit over that span.

[lmp]

There are a lot of factors that can influence how you (and your enemies) fight. Aircraft capabilities are one thing, but the mission objectives, presence of other threats (SAMS?) and assets (AWACS?), weather, time of day or range requirements may push the fight up or down. Going low might help your enemy become harder or even impossible to engage at BVR ranges, but at the same time it limits their endurance, missile kinematics and speed. Also, while some other 3rd gen fighters may have better LDSD capabilities, I wouldn't exactly call them stellar. I'm expecting that after the Mirage F1 gets its radar overhaul engaging low flying targets in it should become interesting. The Flogger also shouldn't be able to see very far down low.

That said, I expect to see a lot more WVR fights than we do in the AMRAAM era. Certainly the Fishbed and Tiger drivers will want to exploit the weaknesses of the Phantom's radar and get in close.

[Dragon1-1]

First of all, look up Fox 1 tactics. Flying high and fast does work, although you don't want to go higher than your opponent, so first of all, just go fast. Which is exactly what Phantom does really well (although hard wing ones are best at it). The F-pole maneuver is quite effective, but be prepared to merge with the opponent, because in Fox 1 era, getting a kill in BVR was far from assured, and the fight would naturally close quite quickly. Also, keep in mind you get just four Sparrows (and that's two more than most opponents), meaning there's not much room for multiple passes. MAR is still a thing, and so is banzai/skate decision point, but banzai is going to happen more often, giving you a neutral merge into BFM (either that, or one of you decides to blow through and RTB).

[Lurker]

F4 BVR tactics: Detect bogey out of visual rage using your radar. Fly into visual range to get bandit confirmation, engage within visual range. 

Edited March 21 by Lurker

[Kalasnkova74]

16 hours ago, SuperKermit said:

Considering the F-4s absent look-down shoot-down capabilities (flying high and fast probably does not work) I wonder what the actual BVR tactics for the Phantom would be.

Could somebody knowledgeable please elaborate?

DCS will differ considerably from F-4E real world tactics.
 

In real life, the U.S. side had to satisfy two factor identification, meaning two sources confirming an aircraft was hostile (controlling agency call out plus visual / BVR Combat Tree + controller / Controller + Visual , etc). Typically , this meant a visual ID plus radar, but the radar was negated once the F-4 got close enough for a visual.

Further, successful AIM-7 employment in real life was far more reliant on ground missile maintenance and servicing than anything the crews did during launch. 5 kill ace Steve Ritchie (and his WSO) personally inspected and reviewed the maintenance history of every Sparrow bolted to his F-4: the results of that curation speak for themselves. Many others in the 555th did the same. Some USAF (and USN) crews found out that even just carting the AIM-7s from the ammo shack to the jet could damage the weapons due to the fragile electronics and rough pathways between the flightline and the shack. 
 

These points mean the tactics U.S. pilots used in real life will be little help to most DCS conditions. A BVR contact - radar or APX-80 (Combat Tree) - plus DCS-perfect AIM-7s not subject to damage from ground handling = much deadlier effects in game vs real life.
Also, players don’t get get court martialed and kicked out of the game for shooting at a friendly .
 

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

DCS will differ considerably from F-4E real world tactics.

Not really. DCS tactics will approximate what the F-4 was supposed to use IRL. Remember that it was originally designed to fight a Soviet invasion of Europe. As such, IFF would not have been an issue and Sparrows would have been maintained in temperate conditions with normal checkups after shipping. The Phantoms would be facing Soviet fighters equipped with their own Fox 1s, meaning that closing in for VID would be suicidal. As such, these tactics is what they practiced in exercises, and would have been used in a Cold War gone hot scenario.

Now, Vietnam saw the F-4 used in ways that it was never intended for. For one, the Fox 1 threat didn't exist at all. Also, the skies were saturated with friendly aircraft, and due to how air operations were planned, with carrier fighters coming from the east and USAF from the west, point of origin criteria were not particularly helpful (in Europe, anything taking off from the east was likely Russian). For that reason, VID requirements were established, and Sparrow ran into envelope concerns. Not helping was Vietnam's harsh jungle environment, which did a number on the missiles in a way that Europe didn't.

Most of our maps are not in the jungle, nor are they set up in a way that invalidates point of origin criteria for IFF purposes. They are, however, equipped with Fox 1 capable redfor fighters. This means the first set of tactics is going to be in use.

[Panny]

If this is stating the obvious, then my apologies.

So much will be dictated by how much situational awareness you can reasonably build. The choice of you going into a BVR engagement where you're employing >5nm rely on knowledge of the threat likely before radar detection. The radar can probably detect a fighter sized target up to 25nm, but you're reaching for optimal circumstances. Add ground clutter on both sides, then you having to descend to enter a look-up situation and your detection range will reduce due to the interference(and be harder in general to manage). You have contact(s) on scope, this is further complicated if you have a wingman and you have to issue a sort and hope that the scope can pick out two contacts. Say if you're eagle eyed you get a lock at 15nm, and at worst 10nm(if you didn't spot by then you're not going to really have a 'bvr' opportunity). You're then going to have to check that it is a good lock and you haven't locked something erroneous(so you may have to break lock and start again). Once you're sure you have a good lock, remember to IFF if you didn't during search, if it's an AIM-7E you're carrying you'll have to count to 4 before employing(assuming a vc of 1200 between you and threat, you've closed nearly a mile and a half in that time); 2 seconds for F/M.  For the former missile you'll have to try and get within rmax(and LAR if interlock isn't out) which may not be many miles, which means you're either shooting and blowing through or going to get into a dogfight. F/M may give you a better opportunity thanks to its better range.

The circumstance above assumes that you have a GCI and you know what to look for in the first place. Your RWR could probably help you very vaguely, but not much given it's older gen.

I think, as evidenced by reports like Project Red Baron, so much of whether you win or not is dependent on situational awareness, and employing in a BVR context with the Phantom will probably be dependent on having some support from a controller. Following that you're next thing is probably ensuring that you/WSO is really on it with the radar, knows how to manage it to get a good search probably. 

 

Just basing off the AIM-7E in game(you can mod it onto the F-14), even when you go very high and fast to get an rmax shot I think you'd be exceptionally lucky to get a scenario in which you can skate. I suspect planning for and owning banzai will be the way to go. If the Sparrow gets the kill, then great, otherwise hopefully it gave you better angles against the bad guy

 

I know this isn't tactics per se, but it's worth recognising the number of steps and consideration that have to go into it to get some sort of bvr opportunity

[Cab]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Not really. DCS tactics will approximate what the F-4 was supposed to use IRL. Remember that it was originally designed to fight a Soviet invasion of Europe.

More accurately, it was originally designed for fleet air defense for the U.S. Navy.

[bfr]

7 hours ago, Lurker said:

F4 BVR tactics: Detect bogey out of visual rage using your radar. Fly into visual range to get bandit confirmation, engage within visual range. 

 

and maybe loose off a Sparrow as a futile gesture for the purposes of light foreplay before the knife fight begins.

[Dragon1-1]

14 minutes ago, Cab said:

More accurately, it was originally designed for fleet air defense for the U.S. Navy.

I was thinking about USAF variants (and the context in which they were meant to be used), but as far as the original design for the Phantom goes, it was actually a fighter-bomber for the USN, which then got repurposed into a fleet defense interceptor... and back into a fighter-bomber in the end. This is why it has such a prodigious number of hardpoints, dedicated interceptors at the time usually had only four at most. Usually this sort of back and forth would produce a fighter that was good at nothing, but somehow, they made one of the few aircraft which really were good at everything, at least by the standards of the time.

[Gunfreak]

By the time the E showed up over Vietnam, the AWACS  had improved immensely. So no need for visual ID. They were vectored in by AWACS and engaged. As far as I know all F4E kills in Vietnam was through AWACS.

So as a US F4E unless role-playing older F4s you'll do BVR as you would with an F15C or F18 armed with sparrows.

I'm unsure how the Israelis, Iranians etc used their F4Es. If they top used AWACS or ground vectoring.

 

[Silver_Dragon]

2 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

By the time the E showed up over Vietnam, the AWACS  had improved immensely. So no need for visual ID. They were vectored in by AWACS and engaged. As far as I know all F4E kills in Vietnam was through AWACS.

So as a US F4E unless role-playing older F4s you'll do BVR as you would with an F15C or F18 armed with sparrows.

I'm unsure how the Israelis, Iranians etc used their F4Es. If they top used AWACS or ground vectoring.

 

USAF on Vietnam deploy the EC-131. UsNavy the E-1 Tracker & E-2 HawkEye.

[Gianky]

On 3/20/2024 at 5:40 PM, SuperKermit said:

Considering the F-4s absent look-down shoot-down capabilities (flying high and fast probably does not work) I wonder what the actual BVR tactics for the Phantom would be.

Could somebody knowledgeable please elaborate?

How about you have a look at what Karon writes? He's not a professional, but he wrote a lot of great articles for the F-14 from the RIO point of view, many of them about interception and BVR combat, all of them based on RL material, conversations with SMEs and a healthy dose of guesswork! He has a new section about the F-4 and will keep writing about it.

https://flyandwire.com/the-f-4e-weapon-systems-officer/

Edited March 22 by Gianky

[Bozon]

The combination of the radar and the early fox-1s means that BVR is not much beyond WVR. The nature of fox-1s necessitates that you keep closing the distance while guiding the missile, so by the time the guidance has finished you are already WVR.

The fox-1s allowed the F-4E to enter WVR combat with an advantage vs. most contemporary fighters that lacked fox-1s. This is by forcing them to notch the missile, so the WVR fight starts with the opponent recovering from the notch, while the F-4E is pointed at them and has kept all its speed.

Somewhat similar to Mig-21Bis and its R3R, only a lot better and earlier to the Bis.

[Kirk66]

Technically with the F-4E's pulse radar and CW guidance for the earlier AIM-7s, you are not "notching" anything; the radar and missile simply do not care. What you have to do is defeat the missile kinematically, or break the radar lock via chaff and ECM.

But the point that the Fox-1 got you  into the fight with an advantage is dead on - your target, if it survived, would be lower on energy and ripe for a follow on missile or high aspect gun shot.

And yes, by the time the AIM-7 hit, you were close enough to watch the impact and results. 

Vulture

[SuperKermit]

Am 22.3.2024 um 14:00 schrieb Gianky:

How about you have a look at what Karon writes? He's not a professional, but he wrote a lot of great articles for the F-14 from the RIO point of view, many of them about interception and BVR combat, all of them based on RL material, conversations with SMEs and a healthy dose of guesswork! He has a new section about the F-4 and will keep writing about it.

https://flyandwire.com/the-f-4e-weapon-systems-officer/

 

Karons site is fantastic! Thx for pointing out.

Many valuable comments above - thx to everybody contributing!

From my understanding everything that applies to the F-14s BVR tactics is also valid for the F-4 with the peculiarity that - in order for the pulse radar to be able to acquire a target - one would need to stay at or below target altitude, right?

Edited March 25 by SuperKermit

[Gianky]

6 minutes ago, SuperKermit said:

Karons site is fantastic! Thx for pointing out.

You're welcome, SuperKermit.

Another great content creator for DCS is Mike Solyom, with his YouTube channel "The Ops Center". He illustrates aerial warfare, mostly from the USAF point of view. He's covering BVR combat right in these weeks.

The Ops Center By Mike Solyom - YouTube

[lmp]

1 hour ago, SuperKermit said:

From my understanding everything that applies to the F-14s BVR tactics is also valid for the F-4 with the peculiarity that - in order for the pulse radar to be able to acquire a target - one would need to stay at or below target altitude, right?

Keep in mind that targets won't magically become invisible the second they go below the horizon:

https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/systems/radar/overview.html

If you're not so low that sidelobe clutter becomes a serious issue and the mainlobe clutter is sufficiently far behind the target, you should be able to see and track it. Same is true in case of the other pulse radar planes we have, the MiG-21 and F-5 aren't completely blind when looking down either.

[Schmidtfire]

I have done plenty of BVR with AIM-7 in the Tomcat. If we talk strictly DCS, it's gonna be a lucky shot (or a totally unaware target) to score a hit at 10nm.
Sweet spot under most conditions seems to be around 7-3nm.

I expect to use Boresight and CAA modes a lot, dumping countermeasures and cranking like crazy. True BVR engagements I think will be reserved
for high altitude intercepts and such. Maybe the occasional bomber or transport aircraft.

[Karon]

Thanks @Gianky & @SuperKermit!

I cannot say much right now, but the greatest issue coming from modern modules or even the Tomcat is the APQ-120. As you can read from the manual, it is shockingly less powerful than the AWG-9 and lacks many features we are used to. At the same time, it is a very good radar, the first full solid-state system, that had to fit into the limited room available in the nose of the F-4E.
Besides that, the other big issue is the GCI. In DCS is extremely poor and both too good (too precise) and awful to use (spamming requests is necessary, it is not proactive, minimal information given). 3rd gen fighters, or aircraft with limited radars, really benefit from good controllers, and I recommend flying with a human one.

If playing as RIO in the F-14 is a walk in the park once you get used to it, in the F-4E is quite a full-time job, as building SA is fundamental but time-consuming. On the one hand, we have a Pulse radar, so TA is not a factor any more; on the other, we have the ground clutter. You can practice this with the F-14 by using PSRCH only, set to 50 nm 1B and without cheating with the Gain knob. In the F-4E is even more interesting as the radar simulation is outstanding. You will immediately see how tricky the process is, especially if you do not want the target to know your position and intentions, and therefore you proceed without a lockon. Flipping the perspective, in fact, if you start locking left and right, you are only improving the target's SA.

So, BVR. Since the F-4E comes with modern Sparrows, it is totally doable; the question is whether it is worth it. The -45 was introduced in the early/mid-70s, and in DCS, we have only the F1 (mid-70s in Spanish service) and the MiG-21bis (1972) landing in a similar time frame. The AIM-7E is better, kinematics-wise, than its equivalent of the 50s and 60s. If we include the whole decade of the 70s, then we find that the S530F (1979) and R40R (MiG-25, 1972) accelerate better than the AIM-7F (1976), but they are not vastly superior. So, can you expect a BVR engagement in a '70s setting? Sure. But I doubt it will be common. For instance, an AIM-7F takes ~30" to cover 10-12 nm and arrives slower than M2. Any offset or manoeuvre by the target will thrash the missile. I expect a lot of FOX-1s from very far to push the target into a defensive stance, or so people may think (mostly depends on the target's SA - if they recognise a FOX-1 from 20nm, they will basically shrug and carry on), but the odds of success will be minimal against fighters. At the end of the day, I would approach this similarly to any other engagement: work on obtaining superior SA, respect the MAR, and improve crew and section coordination.




More data here: https://flyandwire.com/2023/07/27/missiles-kinematics-part-ii-cold-war-era/

@Kirk66 Unfortunately "notching" is one of the aspects where DCS' missile simulation diverges the most from RL

[Kirk66]

MAR? What's that - that hadn't been invented when the F-4 was slingin' Fox-1s! Seriously, that is a MUCH later concept that really is hard to apply when you are locking on at 15 miles and shooting at maybe 10 if lucky, but more likely less since you have to ID your target. Then you have to guide that skinny wingman to impact. Once you commit to a front aspect AIM-7, you pretty much are committed to at least a hi-aspect merge/blowthrough.

You kids crack me up...

Vulture

Edited March 26 by Kirk66

[Karon]

19 minutes ago, Kirk66 said:

MAR? What's that - that hadn't been invented when the F-4 was slingin' Fox-1s! Seriously, that is a MUCH later concept that really is hard to apply when you are locking on at 15 miles and shooting at maybe 10 if lucky,

You kids crack me up...

Vulture

 

Welcome to the great mashup of videogame-playing-desktop-pilots Sir! Take sources from US Navy, Air Force, sprinkle them with Brits and other NATO/Commonwealth countries spanning from the 50s to the day before yesterday, and this is the result. Bonus points if something sounds cool
On the bright side, these acronyms help a lot to shorten discussions by acting as de facto brevities

Quote

but more likely less since you have to ID your target

Neg Sir, the IFF in DCS is *magic* and based on the coalition. Even a British Focke-Wulf does not return as spades when interrogated with APX-80 or -76. Which is a huge shame as it kills a great part of gameplay. Hopefully, the work on the MiG-29A's IFF will see a more thorough implementation later applicable across the game because, at the moment, Spades = Bandit/Hostile.

Quote

Once you commit to a front aspect AIM-7, you pretty much are committed to at least a hi-aspect merge/blowthrough.

Against fighters, yeah, but, in theory, employing at 12nm and using cranking as a displacement turn should leave enough room for a counterturn, depending on V_C and how the target reacts. Versus less agile targets, say, a pair of Tu-95: FOX-1, crank, at timeout, start the counterturn on the second bomber

Also, I'd love to see the AI (or even players) avoiding a merge with a blowthrough. It is a concept hardly applicable to DCS, unfortunately.

[Kirk66]

So yeah, we did practice front-stern reattacks: get on the CATA, shoot at Rmax, hard crank cold hold until if felt right, then hard to the nose for a second shot. Worked great in the sim...and even sometimes in the jet! Just as often we would try for a no-lock stern conversion, low to high and run hot, and try for an unobserved Fox-2 from low 6. Surprising how often that fooled young Eagle (and Tomcat) drivers who thought everybody locked on at 30 miles....And yeah, perfect IFF is a wonderful thing. No doubt, it's going to be fun!

 

 

[bies]

When it comes to identification: such extensive two factor identification was proper in assymetrical warfare over Vietnam, escalation control not to shoot Soviet/Chinese aircraft etc. Not for near-pear opponent, like NATO vs WarPac over Europe.