A Vietnam era F-4 ?

[Christophe D]

Hi,

I bought the F-4E thinking it will be perfect aircraft for a future Vietnam map (not interested in the "Frankenstein" offline and online setups), also not interested at all in the modern air-to-ground armament.

Simple question : is a Vietnam era F-4E in preparation ?

[doedkoett]

AFAIK the most vietnam-ish F-4 is the one that (hopefully) will be released today. Later in EA we´ll get the one with TISEO.

[Qcumber]

1 hour ago, Christophe D said:

Simple question : is a Vietnam era F-4E in preparation

I think the F-4E represents the major use of the F-4 in Vietnam. The most important question is when will we get a Vietnam map. I am hoping this will be soon and one of the new "green" maps hinted at by Wags. It will be a big map though. The same size as the Afghanistan map. 

[LanceCriminal86]

The F-4Es presented in the module are pretty far off from the Vietnam jets. You could maybe get away with a 1974+ reignition of hostilities type thing but these jets have late 70s RWR, slats that had only shown up at Linebacker II, and the DSCG. 

Most Vietnam Es were hard wing, early gun muzzle, DVST screen, and either no RWR or some APR-36/37.

[Qcumber]

16 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

The F-4Es presented in the module are pretty far off from the Vietnam jets. You could maybe get away with a 1974+ reignition of hostilities type thing but these jets have late 70s RWR, slats that had only shown up at Linebacker II, and the DSCG. 

Most Vietnam Es were hard wing, early gun muzzle, DVST screen, and either no RWR or some APR-36/37.

Do you have a good guide on this as the F4E HB manual, and most online secondary sources that I can find, say that the F4E was introduced into Thailand in 1967 with more delivered into active duty in 1968. I am not sure of the ratio of F4E vs F4Ds over that period and throughout the war. 

[LanceCriminal86]

20 hours ago, Qcumber said:

Do you have a good guide on this as the F4E HB manual, and most online secondary sources that I can find, say that the F4E was introduced into Thailand in 1967 with more delivered into active duty in 1968. I am not sure of the ratio of F4E vs F4Ds over that period and throughout the war. 

Yes the E was used in Vietnam, but not *this* E as presented in the DCS module. To get some ideas of the upgrades Joe Baugher's page is a good start as it walks through some of the upgrades.

Mainly as said the slat retrofit kits didn't start being applied until after Linebacker II in late '72. The ALR-46 in the module was retrofitted somewhere from the mid to late 70s, same with the ALE-40 flare dispensers, and the upgraded DSCG screens and interface was again somewhere 72-74 and on.

It also has a few under the hood changes that were done into the 80s, but the above would be the big differences from a Vietnam E.

[Qcumber]

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

To get some ideas of the upgrades Joe Baugher's page is a good start as it walks through some of the upgrades.

Thanks for the link. I can't believe I had not seen this website before. A great resource. 

[Robi-wan]

On 5/23/2024 at 3:51 AM, Qcumber said:

Do you have a good guide on this as the F4E HB manual, and most online secondary sources that I can find, say that the F4E was introduced into Thailand in 1967 with more delivered into active duty in 1968. I am not sure of the ratio of F4E vs F4Ds over that period and throughout the war. 

If you want a really good explanation, Marshall Michel's book Clashes [Chapter 8 Stalemate] explains how a "new" 555th TFS showed up in SEA with new LES equipped airplanes in November 1972, prior to Linebacker II.

[Kalasnkova74]

On 5/22/2024 at 2:59 AM, Qcumber said:

The most important question is when will we get a Vietnam map. I am hoping this will be soon and one of the new "green" maps hinted at by Wags. It will be a big map though. The same size as the Afghanistan map. 

A truly representative Southeast Asian theatre map will be substantially larger than the Afghanistan map.

The aerial component of what’s colloquially called the “Vietnam War” included territory from Thailand in the East all the way to Hainan Island in the west , and ranged from the southern tip of the Vietnamese peninsula all the way to the Chinese border. Accurately modeling this theatre means creating a MASSIVE map, and ED can’t leave out anything to save room. Drop Thailand and Laos, and that eliminates accurate representation of the USAF A-1E / F-105/F-100F/ F-4 wings operating from Thailand. If ED includes Thailand, may as well include Cambodia and Laos too (including Koh Tang island). Hainan Island should be added because that Chinese island was the site of multiple skirmishes between Communist Chinese and USAF/USN aircraft, including the first aerial engagement between USN F-4Bs and MiG-17s around 1965. 

So with the “less publicized” theatres included , it’s going to be massive. 

[EnzoF98]

8 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Thailand in the East all the way to Hainan Island in the west

You've got your map upside down buddy

[1qsb28]

On 5/22/2024 at 10:58 AM, LanceCriminal86 said:

Most Vietnam Es were hard wing, early gun muzzle, DVST screen, and either no RWR or some APR-36/37.

I would really like to see an APR-36/7.  The old Billboard and Strobe based RWRs have probably had more more missiles thrown an them than any other RWR in history, and would add an extra/interesting challenge to interpreting the threats being faced.  I realized they went with the new hardware to have a system that's useful against a larger threat library, but I just have a soft spot for the old strobe displays.

[Christophe D]

 

3 hours ago, 1qsb28 said:

I would really like to see an APR-36/7.  The old Billboard and Strobe based RWRs have probably had more more missiles thrown an them than any other RWR in history, and would add an extra/interesting challenge to interpreting the threats being faced.  I realized they went with the new hardware to have a system that's useful against a larger threat library, but I just have a soft spot for the old strobe displays.

I fully agree with you,  I've never understood players who ask for relatively old planes to be included in the game, but always with the most modern weaponry they can carry.

I'd like to see for instance in DCS a very early F-4B or a very early F-15A.

Same for the Crusader, the most "early" F8F used in Vietnam.

Btw, for a COMBAT aviation sim, it should always be the variants of the aircraft shown that actually fought that should be chosen, not late variants or worse. “Frankenstein” variants like the F-86F we currently have.

[Kalasnkova74]

33 minutes ago, Christophe D said:

 

I fully agree with you,  I've never understood players who ask for relatively old planes to be included in the game, but always with the most modern weaponry they can carry.

I'd like to see for instance in DCS a very early F-4B or a very early F-15A.

 

I too share your wish for historically accurate , older aircraft. But the businessman in me also understands why we don’t. 

Even with the modernized aspects of the F-4E block 45 we have, players are having a tough time adapting to the Phantom IIs unique traits vs modern stuff in the game. An F-4B/ F-4C paid module would just be a bridge too far for most players. Even us die hard fans would have a tough go making one work in a modern PvP server, and someone coming from an F/A-18 /F-16/MiG-29 would be utterly boned. It’s a recipe for flame wars and pissed off comments to the developer for selling a “useless” module. 

[SabreDancer]

5 hours ago, Christophe D said:

 

I fully agree with you,  I've never understood players who ask for relatively old planes to be included in the game, but always with the most modern weaponry they can carry.

I'd like to see for instance in DCS a very early F-4B or a very early F-15A.

Same for the Crusader, the most "early" F8F used in Vietnam.

Btw, for a COMBAT aviation sim, it should always be the variants of the aircraft shown that actually fought that should be chosen, not late variants or worse. “Frankenstein” variants like the F-86F we currently have.

It's a bit off topic, but what is Frankensteined about the F-86? Until now I thought it to be a faithful F-86F-35, with the correct -35 cockpit, LABS, non-slatted 6-3 wing and additional late 50s update to carry sidewinders as historically occurred.

[LanceCriminal86]

4 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

I too share your wish for historically accurate , older aircraft. But the businessman in me also understands why we don’t. 

Even with the modernized aspects of the F-4E block 45 we have, players are having a tough time adapting to the Phantom IIs unique traits vs modern stuff in the game. An F-4B/ F-4C paid module would just be a bridge too far for most players. Even us die hard fans would have a tough go making one work in a modern PvP server, and someone coming from an F/A-18 /F-16/MiG-29 would be utterly boned. It’s a recipe for flame wars and pissed off comments to the developer for selling a “useless” module. 

The issue is rooted in there not being a cohesive "era" of modules and assets for the bulk of Vietnam combat timeframes, so any added Vietnam jet is going to get dragged in against much later aircraft. If DCS actually could commit to a Vietnam era from 64-72 with flown and AI assets that actually match 100%, most of the issues would go away. The Cold War has this same problem, where the current E and upcoming DMAS should thrive as a fighter-bomber or frontline fighter for a partner nation, the assets against it just aren't really time matching except the MiG-21 Bis, as I believe it's actually a variant that is close in age to our Phantom. There's just not enough proper 70s-80s air, ground, and sea assets or modules to really get the Red and Blue forces where they need to be.

The F-4E can exist on modern servers too, as they are quite literally just being retired and still serving. Not all the Phantoms out there have new radar and modern electronics, the Korean ones were fairly close to original and their DMAS jets as well, plus Iran's are unlikely to be much different from a DSCG. Their TISEO equipped jets would be closer to the DSCG but with the camera system. But their age is going to show in a modern context just as in reality, their RWR and radars are just not designed in any way close to what people are used to, and are not designed to detect modern threats.

[Kev2go]

26 minutes ago, SabreDancer said:

It's a bit off topic, but what is Frankensteined about the F-86? Until now I thought it to be a faithful F-86F-35, with the correct -35 cockpit, LABS, non-slatted 6-3 wing and additional late 50s update to carry sidewinders as historically occurred.

the F40 slatted wing type  retrofits predate  the  T.O for the Aim9b upgrade, so its unusual seeing a USAF F86F35 with aim9 capability  but with korean war era 6-3 wing instead of the F40 wing type.. Also the F86F-35 didnt see use in Korea AFAIK. The latest block for korean era war should of been the F86F30, which had a different cockpit layout. So in short there aught to have been 2 variations of the F86F sabre.

Edited June 5, 2024 by Kev2go

[Christophe D]

7 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

the F40 slatted wing type  retrofits predate  the  T.O for the Aim9b upgrade, so its unusual seeing a USAF F86F35 with aim9 capability  but with korean war era 6-3 wing instead of the F40 wing type.. Also the F86F-35 didnt see use in Korea AFAIK. The latest block for korean era war should of been the F86F30, which had a different cockpit layout. So in short there aught to have been 2 variations of the F86F sabre.

 

Thanks for the details 

Edited June 5, 2024 by Christophe D

[SabreDancer]

21 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

the F40 slatted wing type  retrofits predate  the  T.O for the Aim9b upgrade, so its unusual seeing a USAF F86F35 with aim9 capability  but with korean war era 6-3 wing instead of the F40 wing type.. Also the F86F-35 didnt see use in Korea AFAIK. The latest block for korean era war should of been the F86F30, which had a different cockpit layout. So in short there aught to have been 2 variations of the F86F sabre.

 

Indeed, the -35 arrived just after the end of the war as far as I know, and definitely didn't fight there; a -15 or -30 would be lovely. It interestingly mirrors this thread, where our F-4E is an actual variant but not the one used in the war it is most associated with.

Going back on topic, I like the Aerges approach to this situation with the F1EE. You can toggle between the older BF RWR and the newer, 90s ALR-300 upgrade depending on which era you want to model, and I could see that same approach working for the APR-36. It still admittedly wouldn't be a period-correct Vietnam plane, but it would be a nice step in that direction.

Edited June 5, 2024 by SabreDancer

[Kalasnkova74]

54 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

The issue is rooted in there not being a cohesive "era" of modules and assets for the bulk of Vietnam combat timeframes, so any added Vietnam jet is going to get dragged in against much later aircraft. If DCS actually could commit to a Vietnam era from 64-72 with flown and AI assets that actually match 100%, most of the issues would go away.

Here we come to a dilemma DCS can’t solve. Because the Southeast Asian conflict is a punch bowl of different aircraft technologies. You’ve got Royal Australian F-86s in the same theatre as F-4Bs, F-4Cs vs MiG-21 F-13s & MiG-17s/J-5s in the mid 60s. 

Then as time went on through the mid-1970s you have F-4Es and F-4Js serving alongside F-4Bs and F-4Ds. Meanwhile the VPAF flew MiG-21F-13s , -21 PFs, -21PFMs plus MiG-19s. It’s a messy combination because you can have technological disparities in both directions. An F-4B vs MiG-21 PFM fight ain’t fair for the U.S. player , but neither is an F-4E vs MiG-19C duel for the VPAF side. 

In fact, the current pairing of “1980s spec” F-4E and MiG-21BIS is more balanced than the reality of what a legitimate Vietnam-period setup would be. If DCS went down that path you’d get a toxic War Thunder dynamic where skill would be irrelevant. Either you’d have the right missiles/radar to properly fight your opponent, or you’d be royally screwed from the word go.

[LanceCriminal86]

It's not a popular opinion but I'm of the mind that until Vietnam can be done "right", I'd rather not do it. It's worth doing right but it will take a concerted effort of ED and 3rd parties to fill the voids of modules and AI assets. You'd need focused timeframes to match a map that can cover both USN and USAF operations at a minimum. The FF modules would need to be as closely aligned for those timeframes as possible, which in itself is difficult. You of course need aircraft to fly on both sides, but as DCS' achilles heel continues to be, you need assets to make those eras feel alive. The AI side of aircraft, helicopters, ground models like trucks and AAA and infantry, ships, firebases are all essential. But those mean time/$$$ for folks to make them, and then have it be comprehensive enough to be worth the customer's $$$. It would need to be a major expansion with promised FF modules, and have them all aligned to complement each other.

Otherwise, I'd rather see the Cold War years of the mid-late 70s to the end in early 90s be focused, both for historical and "What If" Red Storm Rising style scenarios.

[Kalasnkova74]

7 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

It's not a popular opinion but I'm of the mind that until Vietnam can be done "right", I'd rather not do it. It's worth doing right but it will take a concerted effort of ED and 3rd parties to fill the voids of modules and AI assets.

Catch is, doing “Vietnam right” is probably not financially viable. Let’s take the MiG-21-F-13 for example. Say some poor developer spends years making a simulation grade MiG-21 Fishbed -C. The moment those paying customers take the airplane into a Cold War server, they’re gonna get wrecked. Cue flame war and derogatory backlash to the developer for charging money to fly a “POS”. People are just gonna say “why bother” when the technologically superior MiG-21BiS is also available. 

The same problem applies to the MiG-19C- unless you’re a purist, you’re not paying money to fly an inferior jet. And you can’t run a profitable business on purists alone.

[Dragon1-1]

Not quite, both MiG-19S (trades the rather lousy radar for a third gun) and MiG-21F-13 (lightweight and nimble dogfighter) have their own advantages. They are not inferior, MiG-19S has more guns, can carry more rockets and it remains an excellent dogfigter, while the F-13 would be easier to win dogfights in for the average player, particularly on a guns only server, where its inferior missiles won't hurt it too much. MiG-21bis is a late, heavyweight variant, while its engine upgrades kept up with the increasing weight, it has small wings, and as such, it doesn't really like slow speeds. The F-13, while much more primitive, would be more maneuverable in tight turns, and IMO, it'd actually be a superior aircraft in MP context.

I think that many of the older airframes would have a lot of appeal. Some aircraft changed more, some less, but typically, the changes added weight and often drag, as well. A hard wing F-4 would fight very differently from the one we have, and some people might like it better.

On 6/5/2024 at 12:40 AM, Kalasnkova74 said:

So with the “less publicized” theatres included , it’s going to be massive. 

For what it's worth, it's 650km form Udon to Hanoi, and a square about 1500km from corner to corner would cover almost all of it. This is comparable to making the whole Afghanistan, so the new map tech can handle it. The catch, of course, is that not only all of that would have to be detailed area, but we're talking a lot of detail, seeing as Vietnam is heavily forested. ED had already stated they're going to make a Vietnam map, just that they'll do it when they're ready.

Edited June 5, 2024 by Dragon1-1

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Not quite, both MiG-19S (trades the rather lousy radar for a third gun) and MiG-21F-13 (lightweight and nimble dogfighter) have their own advantages. They are not inferior, MiG-19S has more guns, can carry more rockets and it remains an excellent dogfigter, while the F-13 would be easier to win dogfights in for the average player, particularly on a guns only server, where its inferior missiles won't hurt it too much.

 

Perhaps not inferior kinematically.  But tell that to some newbie paying $50+ for an aircraft they can’t use anywhere except in a guns-only server.  “Bruh chill your MiG-19S has way better P sub S” ain’t gonna fly when they get whacked by a Sidewinder with no countermeasures. 
 

People were ready to go Lord of the Flies around here when HB delayed the F-4E release ONE DAY. Good luck selling a less advanced variant of an aircraft already in the game at a profitable price. I can see the comments now :

 

“plz don’t buy F-13….no RWR , no flares, can’t use anywhere. Just get the BiS” 

[Kev2go]

12 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Perhaps not inferior kinematically.  But tell that to some newbie paying $50+ for an aircraft they can’t use anywhere except in a guns-only server.  “Bruh chill your MiG-19S has way better P sub S” ain’t gonna fly when they get whacked by a Sidewinder with no countermeasures. 
 

People were ready to go Lord of the Flies around here when HB delayed the F-4E release ONE DAY. Good luck selling a less advanced variant of an aircraft already in the game at a profitable price. I can see the comments now :

 

“plz don’t buy F-13….no RWR , no flares, can’t use anywhere. Just get the BiS” 

Even the "1974+" F4E block 45 has its limitations. The moment the F4E block that has TISEO , DMAS , and Pave tack comes out most will flock to that, because that will be alot more usable as a strike fighter for 1980s scenarios. Id wonder what the sales of the F4E module would be if  "1970s block 45" was the most modern iteration of the phantom promised.

 I think if HB does a separate  F4J module (or F4S for those wing slats) at some point id be willing to bet that will probably be alot better received for those who prefer to do dedicated AIr to Air over strike fighter stuff just because aircrew will have a pulse doppler radar to work with, and wont have to worry about being forced to merge all of the time because they couldn't  detect a mig due to ground clutter.

Edited June 6, 2024 by Kev2go

[Oldcrow Jr. 62]

Problem with all of this is more with the pilots and equipment vs the era that it's flown in. Most of the current jets have fly by wire, advanced radar and weapon systems. Compared to the F-4E to the current F-16's, FA-18's and others, it more of place piper on target, it dies. Lock up targets at BVR range, pull trigger, missile hits, target dies. Add in the precision JDAM's, LGB's and what not, and again pull the trigger and it dies. For a true 70's to 80's time period, it's like we have with the F-4E, you have to work to get in range, get within weapons parameters, and even with a near solid engagement envelope, the missile can fail to guide, or even hit the target. Same with bombing, off by a 10 knots, wings not level, dive angle not close, release, and miss by 50 to a 100 yards of the target.

I think even if we had that era of Cold War in terms of maps and aircraft, we'd need to have the pilots re-calibrate and get used to the 'non-precision" weapons, and no more "flying death stars". The lack of artificial situational awareness during this time, takes a lot of mental work to get a complete picture.

Me, I'd love to see that era. Flying downtown to hit a bridge defended by 100mm, 85mm, 57mm and 37mm AAA guns, with a few SA-2's thrown and I'd enjoy it.

But Kalasnkova74 does make a number of good points, and I mostly agree. But there are a lot of mid 80's to early 2010's  conflicts and hypothetical scenarios that could be played out with our current modules.

Just my two cent's worth...