A Vietnam era F-4 ?

[Kageseigi]

9 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

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.

Alas, the dreamer side of me just wants DCS and Arma to get merged somehow. Then we could get the S.O.G. Prairie Fire assets! Hmm, I wonder if ED could sweet talk Savage Game Design into releasing an asset pack for DCS (if there wasn't an exclusive deal for Arma)?

Other than that, I suppose this is one aspect in which ED could really start to consider building up a modding community. While the development of actual flyable aircraft may need to be kept tightly regulated, I would imagine there are more than enough people who would love creating the other content just for the community's enjoyment.

[Dragon1-1]

8 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

“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. 

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

MiG-19P has no countermeasures, either. Sure enough, it's not the most popular module, but I feel it has to do with it being a MiG and being a bit abandoned by RAZBAM. The -21bis does, if you load them. The bis is also notoriously outdated, and Mag3 is actively considering a new MiG-21 module (very likely a Vietnam variant). Just, you know, after the Corsair. Whenever they're going to finish that.

If there are Vietnam servers, with period-accurate aircraft, people will use those modules there. Remember, on what is essentially a late 60s battlefield those missiles are not going to be game-breakers for guns only aircraft. AIM-9B is only a little better than guns, and if you restrict Phantom's use of Sparrows (besides the SAMs, the only worthwhile radar missile in that war), the MiG-19S is going to be scary, just like its other variant. In fact, early variants are better suited to a typical newbie's "turn and pull" fighting style than late models, which typically turn into energy fighters, even if the type didn't start as one.

Edited June 6, 2024 by Dragon1-1

[Bucic]

On 5/22/2024 at 5:58 PM, 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.

Early gun muzzle? Could you please add a word of explanation? Is it about newer vs older muzzles for the cannon or some English expression?

[Kalasnkova74]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

MiG-19P has no countermeasures, either. Sure enough, it's not the most popular module, but I feel it has to do with it being a MiG and being a bit abandoned by RAZBAM. The -21bis does, if you load them. The bis is also notoriously outdated, and Mag3 is actively considering a new MiG-21 module (very likely a Vietnam variant). Just, you know, after the Corsair. Whenever they're going to finish that.

If there are Vietnam servers, with period-accurate aircraft, people will use those modules there. Remember, on what is essentially a late 60s battlefield those missiles are not going to be game-breakers for guns only aircraft. AIM-9B is only a little better than guns, and if you restrict Phantom's use of Sparrows (besides the SAMs, the only worthwhile radar missile in that war), the MiG-19S is going to be scary, just like its other variant. In fact, early variants are better suited to a typical newbie's "turn and pull" fighting style than late models, which typically turn into energy fighters, even if the type didn't start as one.

 

If there are Vietnam servers…which don’t exist yet. 

If we look at the popular servers that do, early model MiGs would get whacked hard. The value proposition of a Fishbed-C or guns only Farmer drops fast if it’s only useful for one server/map style. Players like to use their modules wherever they want (odd behavior for paying customers!) , and it’s a better experience all around if modules are somewhat adaptable- even if that means sacrificing a degree of historical accuracy. I think a Block 45 F-4E is a better choice than a Block 39 that was BLC, had an earlier RWR and used the earlier non-Midas IV gun shroud that caused compressor stalls when it fired. 

[Mr_sukebe]

My opinion is:

- If pilots want truly balanced, go fly the same aircraft against each other

- part of the basis for DCS aircraft is to not consider balance, but to focus on accuracy

- linked to the above, that’s only an issue if a player considers what might be historically accurate to be unfair.  Personally, I don’t care.  Last time I was multiplayer on open servers was using the 190A8.  At the time, it was probably the worst dogfighter on the server.  So what?  I went off to conduct ground strikes.

- if a server is trying to provide a vague level of balance, that can be done by restricting weapons, fuel and equipment available.  That’s not a problem that sits with ED, it’s with the owners of the server

- we talk about balance, but does that really exist in most wars?  Usually not.

In WW2, the Me262 might have made it to some squadrons, but it had an average engine life of just 25 hours and was ridiculously outnumbered

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

If there are Vietnam servers…which don’t exist yet. 

If we look at the popular servers that do, early model MiGs would get whacked hard. 

So would the F-4 (any version), seeing as the servers in questions are full of Fox 3 slingers that eat anything older for breakfast (this does annoy Redfor players who don't have an FF module with Fox 3). And yet, there's market for older aircraft. Those who just want to win will get an F-14, a Hornet or the Viper. 

BLC is a matter of hard/soft wing. Hard wing would definitely be an interesting aircraft to fly, even if that'd mean sacrificing some modern conveniences. Soft wing will work better (though not well) in turn and burn dogfights that people tend to get into, but hard wing is faster and accelerates better. Most Phantoms got upgraded with a soft wing, but there's a reason Japan didn't do it. They would each have a role they can play.

Vietnam servers will exist when we have a map and more aircraft for the era. Right now, DCS seems to be doing best in a hypothetical 80s timeframe, but that doesn't mean earlier models aren't worth making.

[Kalasnkova74]

48 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

- we talk about balance, but does that really exist in most wars?  Usually not.

In WW2, the Me262 might have made it to some squadrons, but it had an average engine life of just 25 hours and was ridiculously outnumbered

Good points. It’s worth noting I’m concerned about module viability for paying customers, not so much “balance”. As you correctly note, balance is not the goal in realistic warfare. 
 

An F-4E vs F-16 matchup is imbalanced, but people will still do it and have fun - especially if the F-4E is flown skillfully. While there’s technical differences, they’re not wide enough to preordain the outcome beyond any hope of overcoming them for the F-4E.
 

However, a MiG-21Bis vs F-4B (or F-4E block 45 vs MiG-19C ) matchup will be much less fun. An F-4B is not gonna beat a MiG-21BiS or a Mirage F-1, and a MiG-19C would be terribly outclassed by the latter two (and the F-4E in game) . The technical differences are a LOT harder to overcome in those fights. A skilled pilot in the technologically inferior aircraft still isn’t likely to win. Thats not a good place when the “technologically inferior” aircraft costs money AND there’s higher specification options for the same prices.

 

For the skeptical, F-16s did in fact lose to Phantom IIs in real life :

F-4E 68-0378 of the 141 TFS, 108 TFW, New Jersey ANG based at McGuire AFB during an ACM (Air Combat Maneuvering) det at Luke AFB.

During this deployment, The NJ F-4 crews had several successful ACM flights against the Luke Based F-15 and F-16 aircraft. They took to marking the "Kills" on the side of the aircraft in chalk. 

This was done to remind the pilots of the "advanced" F-15 and F-16's that the "Old" F-4's could emerge victorious in a fight with a skilled pilot controlling her.

These were great looking jets with the tigers painted on the nose!

For the full story: https://www.deviantart.com/f16crewchief/art/Bart-Simpson-Falcon-Hunter-145151191

Edited June 6, 2024 by Kalasnkova74

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

and a MiG-19C would be terribly outclassed by the latter two (and the F-4E in game) .

Outclassed in what? MiG-21bis is much heavier, turns worse, and while it can carry the R-60, that missile's all aspect capabilities are mediocre at best. The F-4E can try to kill a MiG-19 in BVR (if the server isn't heaters only), but outside that, the -19 will run circles around it. Which is exactly what happened in Vietnam, VPAF didn't have many of those, but they made good use of ones they had. Face shots with Sidewinders that we have on the Phantom aren't reliable, either. While its range leaves something to be desired, the MiG-19 is phenomenally agile,  surprisingly easy to fly, and it out-accelerates the F-4 in some regimes. At low skills level of both pilots, it's the Phantom that'll be a beautifully modeled ball of flames by the end of the fight.

It's MiG-19S, BTW. Or, МиГ-19C. Write either Latin or Cyrillic, don't mix them. There's no such animal as a MiG-19C. NATO reporting name for the -19S is Farmer-C, but that's it. The aircraft used in Vietnam was actually J-6 (the Chinese version of MiG-19S), but the differences were relatively minor. Either way, it's actually a better day fighter than the -19P we have.

For that matter, F-4B's primary disadvantage would be that it has no internal gun nor a proper gunsight, making use of gunpods difficult and pretty much forcing it to rely on Sidewinders. In hands of an average player, would likely lose to all the aircraft you mentioned due to its hard wing requiring a very different fighting style. Sure, it has Sparrows, but they can be dodged, and BVR in that era would often end in a WVR engagement, where older MiGs can wipe the floor with the Phantom unless the Phantom jock really knows what he's doing.

Edited June 6, 2024 by Dragon1-1

[Kalasnkova74]

15 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Outclassed in what? MiG-21bis is much heavier, turns worse, and while it can carry the R-60, that missile's all aspect capabilities are mediocre at best. The F-4E can try to kill a MiG-19 in BVR (if the server isn't heaters only), but outside that, the -19 will run circles around it. Which is exactly what happened in Vietnam, VPAF didn't have many of those, but they made good use of ones they had.

 

You’re correct about the Farmers performance in a dogfight. Yet, we should note the majority of A2A kills are ambushes, not 1v1 fights. In a MP context, the guns only MiG-19 would be outclassed at range by the F-4E (and everything else). Without RWR or countermeasures, an early MiG-19 is toast to any missile armed opponents (and would be blind to a BVR attack). Further, the fuel consumption is so high that combat endurance is terrible. It’s probably the one combat aircraft worse than the F/A-18 in this regard. The NVA were not fans of the MiG-19 for this reason (fuel starvation and subsequent crashes killed many of their pilots , including the one who shot down Oyster 2 crewed by Maj Lodge /Cpt. Locher) 

Outside of a restricted lobby (Vietnam or otherwise) , a new player couldn’t use the early MiG-19 competitively. Same issue affects the early F-4s and MiG-21F-13. That makes them terrible business prospects relative to later options. 

[LanceCriminal86]

4 hours ago, Bucic said:

Early gun muzzle? Could you please add a word of explanation? Is it about newer vs older muzzles for the cannon or some English expression?

 

[Dragon1-1]

22 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Outside of a restricted lobby (Vietnam or otherwise) , a new player couldn’t use the early MiG-19 competitively. Same issue affects the early F-4s and MiG-21F-13. That makes them terrible business prospects relative to later options. 

Excellent, now explain why you can't apply the very same reasoning to F-4E, which is beaten in BVR by the Tomcat and anything with a Fox 3, and the Sparrows that it can carry can barely be considered a BVR missile. Outside of a restricted lobby, it's nothing more than a bomb truck (admittedly a good one, it hauls more Mk82s than even the Mudhen). You can't use it competitively. While you're at it, explain why it doesn't apply to MiG-19P, which, while not particularly popular (probably because RAZBAM is dragging their feet on finishing it), is nonetheless a thing. And no, it's not a "late" variant, it's actually earlier than the S. It has all the problems you mention, no CMs, and its RWR has a single warning lamp and only works from behind. People still fly it, though obviously not against F-16 and Hornets (except in guns only, where it can very much kick a Viper's tail if a fight goes one circle).

FYI, the MiG-21F-13 came in 1960. On a server restricted to 60s aircraft, it'd be pretty much the top dog amongst day fighters, at least. Facing F-100s, F-8s, early F1s and the like, it'd easily dominate the sky. There was no BVR in that era (F1's Fox 1s don't have the range to be called that), and flares were uncommon, although with rear aspect missiles this wasn't as much of a problem as you might think. 

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Excellent, now explain why you can't apply the very same reasoning to F-4E, which is beaten in BVR by the Tomcat and anything with a Fox 3, and the Sparrows that it can carry can barely be considered a BVR missile.

You answered your own question. The F-4E has an amazing air to ground capability for the time; indeed it soldiers on in frontline service to this day for that mission. Iran used F-4Es not too dissimilar from the DCS version  to pound Daesh some years back. Modernized versions are only this year being retired from the Hellenic and South Korean Air Forces.

Further, an F-4E is still formidable as an air defense interceptor-  and as a SEAD/DEAD platform.  Even if every DCS air to air server shut down tomorrow, players could still get value from an F-4E module.
 

The MiG-19S/ MiG-21-F-13? Not so much. They’re dedicated air to air platforms, so if you can’t do air to air in a missile restricted server it’s a wrap.  With no handcuffs, an F-4E can still survive against a modern 4th gen asset & even prevail, if skillfully flown( see evidence in my last post).  A MiG-21F-13 in the same situation would get Sparrow’d into oblivion , and the same goes for the MiG-19S. Dont take my word for it. Just look at the Iraqi Air Force MiG-23 losses from lacking RWRs against the then-U.S. spec IRIAF . 
 

[Kalasnkova74]

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

 

For more detail: the first F-4E versions had a gun fairing that streamlined into the nose. Testing later showed that in certain flight parameters, gun gasses would get sucked into the intakes & trigger a compressor stall. Not a good thing when you’re shooting a MiG! (Although Amir Nahumi & Yossi Yavin seemed to work around the situation when it happened to them) 

The solution was reconfiguring the gun gas vent system (thus the nose vent on top displayed in the Hellenic Air Force F-4E in the 2nd picture) & extending the muzzle under the nose. The modification was called “Midas IV”, so you’ll see references to it named by that project.

 

 

[Bucic]

1 hour ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

 

For more detail: the first F-4E versions had a gun fairing that streamlined into the nose. Testing later showed that in certain flight parameters, gun gasses would get sucked into the intakes & trigger a compressor stall. Not a good thing when you’re shooting a MiG! (Although Amir Nahumi & Yossi Yavin seemed to work around the situation when it happened to them) 

The solution was reconfiguring the gun gas vent system (thus the nose vent on top displayed in the Hellenic Air Force F-4E in the 2nd picture) & extending the muzzle under the nose. The modification was called “Midas IV”, so you’ll see references to it named by that project.

 

 

I never knew F-5E had a slap-on gun like that even though I built a 1:72 model back in the 90s. Maybe it was some gun-less variant, F-4D perhaps. And a cheapo kit, that's for sure.