F-4G interview

[upyr1]

Makes me wonder if the G would be possible

[Kalasnkova74]

On 4/5/2025 at 11:57 PM, upyr1 said:

Makes me wonder if the G would be possible

Logistically? Nope.

Looking at the task, HB would first need to build a “Starbaby” AI EWO who could track, sort, and engage threat radars using the APR-47 sensor and engagement suite.

Even if we assume detailed documentation on this system is freely available - which, far as I know, it’s not- that would be a MASSIVE development effort. 

Assuming that box is checked, the F-4s flight model would need to be changed to accommodate the black boxes which replaced the gun, and - most important - the DCS game needs to be updated to feature more realistic and threatening IADS. Real life air defense battalions didn’t just constantly radiate , and would play tricks like launching from one site and timing radar guidance from a different site to delay RWR detection. ED would have to update the whole game to feature more potent IADS. 
 

Finally, developers would need to code new EW aircraft to take advantage of these changes. Best of luck here- even the long-decommissioned F-4G doesn’t have easily obtainable documentation, and many other EW systems players would want to fly remain classified to this day. 

[MagicSlave]

I would settle for visual model only. Like the Aerges' Mirage F1 module has external models for different variants that do not have any additional functions.

Sent from my FP4 using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Logistically? Nope.

Looking at the task, HB would first need to build a “Starbaby” AI EWO who could track, sort, and engage threat radars using the APR-47 sensor and engagement suite.

I follow up interview with "Starbaby", where he goes over the back rear cockpit 

and one about the front cockpit

3 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Even if we assume detailed documentation on this system is freely available - which, far as I know, it’s not- that would be a MASSIVE development effort. 

I figure there are two ways to get the G. The first is obviously the flyable model and the second would be as an AI asset. I'll address the AI Weasel first. The AI G would clearly be the easist to get. At the minimum this would simply involve Heatblur adding an F-4 with the ability to carry STARMS and HARMS. (To be blunt if that's the only way to get the G, I'd be fine.) If ED were to change anything to DC core for the AI G it would be two things. First would be to model the difference between a RWR (Radar warning receiver) and RWHR (Radar warning and homing receiver). They should have modeled this with the F-16 and the second would be to have the Weasel report sam locations (automatically or via coms menu)

 

 

3 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Assuming that box is checked, the F-4s flight model would need to be changed to accommodate the black boxes which replaced the gun, and - most important - the DCS game needs to be updated to feature more realistic and threatening IADS. Real life air defense battalions didn’t just constantly radiate , and would play tricks like launching from one site and timing radar guidance from a different site to delay RWR detection. ED would have to update the whole game to feature more potent IADS. 
 

An improved IADs is needed no matter what. I'm not sure wether it is deadlier or not, due to the fact it isn't as well molded as it could be. The first issue would be as you pointed out have the SAMs turn their radars on and off. As well as proper stand by and reactivation time. We also need to simulate flak crews diving for cover when attacked. Then of course we got the various tricks will need to be modeled. 

 

3 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Finally, developers would need to code new EW aircraft to take advantage of these changes.

Even if the improvements are only AI I've been asking for this for a while. I get it there is good reason we might never have a flyable Weasel or ECM plane but 

3 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Best of luck here- even the long-decommissioned F-4G doesn’t have easily obtainable documentation, and many other EW systems players would want to fly remain classified to this day. 

That's true which is why in this post and others I have stated that I'd be happy if we just got an AI G. Now as for getting flyable G here are the issues I see. 

• Documentation is what is available, good enough? I don't know
• EW modeling- Right now there isn't a lot of ambiguity modeled, and there are a lot of systems I don't think we'll be able to get audio files for. Without ambiguity or the sound files the G basically becomes an R with an HTS and we don't use the systems on the right side of the cockpit. It won't be the full experience for the EWO's seat. You'd still end up with a SEAD powerhouse for the 1980s.

Both issues bring us back to my suggestion for an AI G. At the minimum, we have an F-4 that has AGM-88s and STARMs; in the ideal situation,  we have ED and HeatBlur work on an AI system that simulates a mixed ship formation with a G.   

4 hours ago, MagicSlave said:

I would settle for visual model only. Like the Aerges' Mirage F1 module has external models for different variants that do not have any additional functions.

Sent from my FP4 using Tapatalk
 

The G would be the opposite scenario since there is a lot of difference in functionality but there isn't much difference in appearance  

 

 

 

[aaronwhite]

21 hours ago, upyr1 said:

An improved IADs is needed no matter what. I'm not sure wether it is deadlier or not, due to the fact it isn't as well molded as it could be. The first issue would be as you pointed out have the SAMs turn their radars on and off. As well as proper stand by and reactivation time. We also need to simulate flak crews diving for cover when attacked. Then of course we got the various tricks will need to be modeled. 

Pure speculation on my part, but given the AI improvements and the importance they've placed on the dynamic campaign, along with them posting that survey a little while ago gauging interest in a SAM simulator (or something like that, I'm trying to remember the specifics) it makes me think they're almost certainly going to be improving the IADS and SAM systems to become more realistic. They've already added some things into the Mission Editor that let you make the SAMs do a little more than just turn on at mission start and wait to be destroyed, but there's still a gap between what we've got now in the stock game and what something like Skynet IADS can add to the game. 

But I have to imagine it's something they are working on to make more realistic, since realism in the SAM threat is going to be one of the biggest parts of the dynamic campaign outside of the AI planes and vehicles moving in realistic ways. 

And to echo what others have said, I would honestly be fine settling for an AI F-4G where it can run whatever default EW AI protocols that ED hopefully work into the game for AI SEAD and DEAD packages, but I can also understand that being a lot of extra work for Heatblur. But if they ever wanted to throw together a Go Fund Me to collect some funds to donate to paying one of their 3D modelers and texture artists for a little extra work to modify the F-4 we have into the F-4G, I'd certainly toss some money their way just to have it as an AI asset to throw into missions. 

[upyr1]

On 4/14/2025 at 2:33 PM, aaronwhite said:

Pure speculation on my part, but given the AI improvements and the importance they've placed on the dynamic campaign, along with them posting that survey a little while ago gauging interest in a SAM simulator (or something like that, I'm trying to remember the specifics) it makes me think they're almost certainly going to be improving the IADS and SAM systems to become more realistic. They've already added some things into the Mission Editor that let you make the SAMs do a little more than just turn on at mission start and wait to be destroyed, but there's still a gap between what we've got now in the stock game and what something like Skynet IADS can add to the game. 

But I have to imagine it's something they are working on to make more realistic, since realism in the SAM threat is going to be one of the biggest parts of the dynamic campaign outside of the AI planes and vehicles moving in realistic ways. 

I'd love to see Skynet IADS become the default 

On 4/14/2025 at 2:33 PM, aaronwhite said:

And to echo what others have said, I would honestly be fine settling for an AI F-4G where it can run whatever default EW AI protocols that ED hopefully work into the game for AI SEAD and DEAD packages, but I can also understand that being a lot of extra work for Heatblur. But if they ever wanted to throw together a Go Fund Me to collect some funds to donate to paying one of their 3D modelers and texture artists for a little extra work to modify the F-4 we have into the F-4G, I'd certainly toss some money their way just to have it as an AI asset to throw

into missions. 

Another video with Starbaby, this time he is talking abit about the Weasel's RWHR system while it is clearly not enough information to do an FF module (I don't think we'll ever get that information), it does give us a clue on the basics of how the system worked and a starting point to EW changes.  It appears that with the way EW is modeled now that only 2/5 of the EWO's tools could possibly be modeled as there simply isn't any ambiguity, and your RWR gets radars right all the time. 

with out these changes to EW modeling the closest thing to a G would amount to the E with something like the F-16's harm targeting system. With these changes, I think a G would still be iffy since you would need the data on the radar beams. As I stated before I don't expect anything beyond an AI G. Ideally I'd love to see ED make the following changes to the current AI.

• Differntiate between Weasels and non-Weasels. A Weasel would know the range to emiting radars while a non-weasel would only know the range if a radar has been assigned a target in the mission editor 
• The ability to form mixed flights with weasels and non-weasels
• have weasels call out the location of radars 

  

 

[Slick_441]

I know there's a mod to fit HARM's on the E, but would native support be something that Heatblur could implement as a compromise (perhaps with the DMAS upgrade)? Obviously this is not accurate to the model we have, but online servers have the ability to block that capability if they're going for realism.

[upyr1]

22 hours ago, Slick_441 said:

I know there's a mod to fit HARM's on the E, but would native support be something that Heatblur could implement as a compromise (perhaps with the DMAS upgrade)? Obviously this is not accurate to the model we have, but online servers have the ability to block that capability if they're going for realism.

I just don't see this as an acceptable path for the G. What made the G was the APR-47 which enabled the crew to get the range of a radar. Some of the system I expect is still classified. Looking at the videos and other sources there are 5 basic components to the APR-47's displays.

PPI- which shows the location and range of the detected radars. It sounds like it basically acts like the Viper's HTS though different symbology. I don't see why this couldn't be modeled.

Attack scope- sounds like something in DCS

Panscope- lower right screen shows the radars being detected by the Phantom. I'll label iffy.

Osilicope- I expect is too classified

Audio- I expect too classified.

Even if you could come up with a perfectly workable G using open sources some of the APR-47's systems would never be used. Which is why I said that  real question is wether or not something that was basically the F-4 with an HTS would be acceptable.

[Slick_441]

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I just don't see this as an acceptable path for the G. What made the G was the APR-47 which enabled the crew to get the range of a radar. Some of the system I expect is still classified. Looking at the videos and other sources there are 5 basic components to the APR-47's displays.

PPI- which shows the location and range of the detected radars. It sounds like it basically acts like the Viper's HTS though different symbology. I don't see why this couldn't be modeled.

Attack scope- sounds like something in DCS

Panscope- lower right screen shows the radars being detected by the Phantom. I'll label iffy.

Osilicope- I expect is too classified

Audio- I expect too classified.

Even if you could come up with a perfectly workable G using open sources some of the APR-47's systems would never be used. Which is why I said that  real question is wether or not something that was basically the F-4 with an HTS would be acceptable.

Completely agree. I'm just asking for HARM's on the E model for the fun factor. Like something in the special options menu. I don't expect to ever see a G modelled, sadly.

 

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, Slick_441 said:

Completely agree. I'm just asking for HARM's on the E model for the fun factor. Like something in the special options menu. I don't expect to ever see a G modelled, sadly.

 

A realistic way to get an E with HARMS would be to have some variant that I would term a Phantom 2K. The Israelis actually used the term for their upgrade in the 1990s that kept their Phantoms in service until 2010 or so. The Germans did an upgrade called ICE about the same time and the Turks have their Terminator upgrade. I think we could do a G if ED and HB were happy with modeling the APR-47 as something similar to the Viper's HTS with different symbology. I'll point out with the way EW is modeled in DCS the subsystems of the APR-47 that are probably still classified wouldn't be used if even there was enough open source information to do it 100% correctly. 

 

[TacticalOni]

So I've had a long ponder about this as well, and I even spent some time looking around at available documentation from the F-105G's systems and even got to look through the AGM-78 system as present in the back cockpit of that aircraft to get a feel for what it may actually require to make a weasel airplane in DCS. Here's what I found and potential caveats or solutions. 

1. The RHAW/RWR system on an F-4G
-Caveat: It's super classified and anyone that knows how it works would tell you but then have to kill you.
-Solution?: The HTS pod exists on the F-16C using a single-player "lite" version of the APR-47's logic. You zoom around, you detect radars, the system does some mathing and triangulating, and voila, your solution builds to a degree of accuracy that allows you to fire on it, you pick it out, and Magnum. In my mind you can fudge a fairly decent F-4G just by making an invisible HTS Pod attachment with a goofy little FS2004 2d screen popup that lets you as the player use it. It's not going to make the savant syndrome realism purists happy but nothing ever does. 
I mean, come on, we can work with this:
null


2. There exists online a single photo of an IDF Kurnass with an AGM-78 strapped to it.  
-Caveat: the IDF is not super keen to share if its an actual functional weapons system or if they tacked the bad boy onto the pylon to scare the bajeebus out of their neighbors post 1973 and it actually doesn't work. 
-Solution: In the discussions I've had with other people who sincerely despise radar dishes and their associated missile systems, the "throw it on even though it doesn't actually work" idea is the most logical, but there is hearsay anecdotal reports we've found (totally legit) say that the IDF figured out how to make an AGM-78 processor that didn't need any further input from the pilot other than treating it like a Shrike, pointing it at the radiation source, and making 1400lbs disappear from your wing. 
OR
The IDF in the spirit of kitbashing all sorts of stuff from one thing into another (Like the M-51 Sherman, or Sho't Kal, or Tiran) perhaps they fit an AGM-78 panel into the backseater position by ripping out a bunch of stuff they felt the GIB didn't need like the engine instruments or whatnot. This is why I was looking at the F-105G's back cockpit to get an idea of what the system needed to function, and the AGM-78 is a pretty slick piece of kit. 

3. IADS Simulation in DCS is about as deep as a puddle. (Currently)
-Caveat: Well, its a video game, nobody needs to actually know and learn what the PRF of a Fan Song versus a Flat Face is, all we need to simulate is the beam hitting the player's aircraft, locking onto it, and the little bloopydoop sound the RWR makes when that happens, there you go, mission accomplished. 
-Solution: It's a video game, nobody needs to actually know and learn what the real PRF of a Fan Song versus a Flat Face is. All we need to do is provide some numbers that are either guesstimated to a reasonable degree of believability, or completely made up so we aren't selling state secrets.

So with that in mind the question becomes
-What can we make of what we know and already have?
and
-Can we reasonably simulate an F-4G? 

Here's my proposal:
-Using the logic provided by the HTS pod's sheer existence in DCS, it seems one can pretty fairly model the APR-47 into DCS in terms of purely threat detection being projected on a HSI-type display. Instead of having a cursor, one would have to then model in using the Next/Prev switch the 47 system uses to determine which emitter you're looking at. 
Ok, you're looking at a radar. Now what? 
-According to the workflow Starbaby was really kind enough to establish, the EWO/WSO/Bear would then classify the radar based on PRF and frequency, which as I mentioned before are either guesstimated or completely made up so the secret squirrels don't find our nuts. They could also listen in to the radar's raw tones, which is already kind of present in the F-4E's RWR system using (at least a few months/a year ago) the Handoff button, to listen to the tones being emitted by the radar, it wouldn't be a huge leap to me to put together a small soundfile library of raw radar pulses if your WSO is into that kind of celestial music. It's not a requirement, just a nice to have thing. 
-For the AGM-78, you then have to dial that info in using some spur-style thumbwheels on the panel (That's how it is in the F-105G anyway) both PRF and Freq, configuring the system to tell the missile exactly what it's "listening" for, there's some other dials to set the target height and azimuth. A couple of gauges have needles that will point at the emitter so you can verify it's looking at the same thing you are. Then you press TGT-HO, and tell the pilot it's good to go, Magnum. 
-For the HARM you just select the stupid radar, press TGT-HO, and Magnum. At that point the backseater's only job is really to determine what is the biggest threat, verify that threat, and point the missile, then the pilot, at it. 
-From there to finish building an F-4G, you have to put the little diamond marker on the HUD up so the pilot can see it on the glass (which IRL was just a little secondary projector separate from the gunsight) 
-I feel like the APR-47's system in total is actually not too far removed from many systems we already have in DCS, and that the only thing that needs to be done is massaging all those parts into an engaging simulation. 

Part of me wants to think that one could even build Jester to have "phantom panels" that only he can see and operate. He is supposed to be community moddable to a point, so why couldn't there be, perhaps, a "Weasel Script" for Jester that turns him into the APR-47, gives him that capability, and you, as the pilot, just have to follow his guidance like he's a WSO turning knobs and hitting switches. I've brought this up before and was basically told that Jester is not some kind of panopticon and he doesn't have the ability to manipulate switches that aren't actually in the cockpit or magically see and track radars like an RWR can, but an Oni can dream, and I wasn't specifically told no. 

I'm not one of those pie-in-the-sky guys who goes "hurr durr its easy to code why hasn't it happened yet" and I would love to pick up coding myself to try and make it work as a mod or as part of a "Weasel Script" for Jester. I know it would take a fair amount of work and its not easy or maybe even possible. 
But as we get further removed from that level of technology I feel like we are only getting closer to it being a possibility. 

[upyr1]

On 4/19/2025 at 9:55 PM, TacticalOni said:

So I've had a long ponder about this as well, and I even spent some time looking around at available documentation from the F-105G's systems and even got to look through the AGM-78 system as present in the back cockpit of that aircraft to get a feel for what it may actually require to make a weasel airplane in DCS. Here's what I found and potential caveats or solutions. 

1. The RHAW/RWR system on an F-4G
-Caveat: It's super classified and anyone that knows how it works would tell you but then have to kill you.
-Solution?: The HTS pod exists on the F-16C using a single-player "lite" version of the APR-47's logic. You zoom around, you detect radars, the system does some mathing and triangulating, and voila, your solution builds to a degree of accuracy that allows you to fire on it, you pick it out, and Magnum. In my mind you can fudge a fairly decent F-4G just by making an invisible HTS Pod attachment with a goofy little FS2004 2d screen popup that lets you as the player use it. It's not going to make the savant syndrome realism purists happy but nothing ever does. 

 

On 4/19/2025 at 9:55 PM, TacticalOni said:

I mean, come on, we can work with this:
null


2. There exists online a single photo of an IDF Kurnass with an AGM-78 strapped to it.  
-Caveat: the IDF is not super keen to share if its an actual functional weapons system or if they tacked the bad boy onto the pylon to scare the bajeebus out of their neighbors post 1973 and it actually doesn't work. 
-Solution: In the discussions I've had with other people who sincerely despise radar dishes and their associated missile systems, the "throw it on even though it doesn't actually work" idea is the most logical, but there is hearsay anecdotal reports we've found (totally legit) say that the IDF figured out how to make an AGM-78 processor that didn't need any further input from the pilot other than treating it like a Shrike, pointing it at the radiation source, and making 1400lbs disappear from your wing. 
OR
The IDF in the spirit of kitbashing all sorts of stuff from one thing into another (Like the M-51 Sherman, or Sho't Kal, or Tiran) perhaps they fit an AGM-78 panel into the backseater position by ripping out a bunch of stuff they felt the GIB didn't need like the engine instruments or whatnot. This is why I was looking at the F-105G's back cockpit to get an idea of what the system needed to function, and the AGM-78 is a pretty slick piece of kit. 

The AGM-78 was standard (pun intended) for the 105G and 4G until the 1980s I'd expect the buttons used to get the AGM-79 ready for launch would be available through open source materials. 

On 4/19/2025 at 9:55 PM, TacticalOni said:

3. IADS Simulation in DCS is about as deep as a puddle. (Currently)
-Caveat: Well, its a video game, nobody needs to actually know and learn what the PRF of a Fan Song versus a Flat Face is, all we need to simulate is the beam hitting the player's aircraft, locking onto it, and the little bloopydoop sound the RWR makes when that happens, there you go, mission accomplished. 
-Solution: It's a video game, nobody needs to actually know and learn what the real PRF of a Fan Song versus a Flat Face is. All we need to do is provide some numbers that are either guesstimated to a reasonable degree of believability, or completely made up so we aren't selling state secrets.

I don't know what we could get in the way of open source information but a lot of this would be set dressing (for now) as DCS doesn't model radar ambiguity so the computer will always have the right SAM. 

On 4/19/2025 at 9:55 PM, TacticalOni said:

So with that in mind the question becomes
-What can we make of what we know and already have?
and
-Can we reasonably simulate an F-4G? 

Here's my proposal:
-Using the logic provided by the HTS pod's sheer existence in DCS, it seems one can pretty fairly model the APR-47 into DCS in terms of purely threat detection being projected on a HSI-type display. Instead of having a cursor, one would have to then model in using the Next/Prev switch the 47 system uses to determine which emitter you're looking at. 
Ok, you're looking at a radar. Now what? 
-According to the workflow Starbaby was really kind enough to establish, the EWO/WSO/Bear would then classify the radar based on PRF and frequency, which as I mentioned before are either guesstimated or completely made up so the secret squirrels don't find our nuts. They could also listen in to the radar's raw tones, which is already kind of present in the F-4E's RWR system using (at least a few months/a year ago) the Handoff button, to listen to the tones being emitted by the radar, it wouldn't be a huge leap to me to put together a small soundfile library of raw radar pulses if your WSO is into that kind of celestial music. It's not a requirement, just a nice to have thing. 
-For the AGM-78, you then have to dial that info in using some spur-style thumbwheels on the panel (That's how it is in the F-105G anyway) both PRF and Freq, configuring the system to tell the missile exactly what it's "listening" for, there's some other dials to set the target height and azimuth. A couple of gauges have needles that will point at the emitter so you can verify it's looking at the same thing you are. Then you press TGT-HO, and tell the pilot it's good to go, Magnum. 
-For the HARM you just select the stupid radar, press TGT-HO, and Magnum. At that point the backseater's only job is really to determine what is the biggest threat, verify that threat, and point the missile, then the pilot, at it. 
-From there to finish building an F-4G, you have to put the little diamond marker on the HUD up so the pilot can see it on the glass (which IRL was just a little secondary projector separate from the gunsight) 
-I feel like the APR-47's system in total is actually not too far removed from many systems we already have in DCS, and that the only thing that needs to be done is massaging all those parts into an engaging simulation. 

 

I'm with you on this all way would need is the displays to be consistent. The difference between what I we would do and what Star Baby would do is we'd look at this pannel 

and see its an SA-11 while a real EWO would look at that and think it might be an SA-11 then look at this panel listen in, and study the oscilloscope 

so its really a matter of figuring out what enough of the buttons did and populating enough data based on open source sources to give you an idea of what is going on. 

On 4/19/2025 at 9:55 PM, TacticalOni said:

Part of me wants to think that one could even build Jester to have "phantom panels" that only he can see and operate. He is supposed to be community moddable to a point, so why couldn't there be, perhaps, a "Weasel Script" for Jester that turns him into the APR-47, gives him that capability, and you, as the pilot, just have to follow his guidance like he's a WSO turning knobs and hitting switches. I've brought this up before and was basically told that Jester is not some kind of panopticon and he doesn't have the ability to manipulate switches that aren't actually in the cockpit or magically see and track radars like an RWR can, but an Oni can dream, and I wasn't specifically told no. 

I'm not one of those pie-in-the-sky guys who goes "hurr durr its easy to code why hasn't it happened yet" and I would love to pick up coding myself to try and make it work as a mod or as part of a "Weasel Script" for Jester. I know it would take a fair amount of work and its not easy or maybe even possible. 
But as we get further removed from that level of technology I feel like we are only getting closer to it being a possibility. 

This approach would require some weapons changes but we might have something. I know that if we could get a G I'd buy it 

[upyr1]

On 4/19/2025 at 9:55 PM, TacticalOni said:

 

On 4/19/2025 at 9:55 PM, TacticalOni said:

-Caveat: Well, its a video game, nobody needs to actually know and learn what the PRF of a Fan Song versus a Flat Face is, all we need to simulate is the beam hitting the player's aircraft, locking onto it, 

Looking at the frequency/RPF pannel I think I have an idea of what could work. 

Frequency- I've seen quite a few books saying a SAM operates in the ___ band and we do have the bands modeled with the Shrike seekers so all we would need is a radar operating at random frequencies in what ever band it is believed to be operating in.

PPS- pulses per second, I don't think we have this in DCS but I think you could probably 

They would help you figure the max range based on the formula 

R=2c⋅t

SPS -sweeps per second on radars with disks that physically spin, that would be easy to populate 

On 4/19/2025 at 9:55 PM, TacticalOni said:

-Caveat: Well, its a video game, nobody needs to actually know and learn what the PRF of a Fan Song versus a Flat Face is, all we need to simulate is the beam hitting the player's aircraft, locking onto it, and the little bloopydoop sound the RWR makes when that happens, there you go, mission accomplished. 

The goal here is to make the bloops and bleeps different for each radar type. We will probably will never know on some systems but we may have a good sound on some

 

On 4/19/2025 at 9:55 PM, TacticalOni said:

The IDF in the spirit of kitbashing all sorts of stuff from one thing into another (Like the M-51 Sherman, or Sho't Kal, or Tiran) perhaps they fit an AGM-78 panel into the backseater position by ripping out a bunch of stuff they felt the GIB didn't need like the engine instruments or whatnot. This is why I was looking at the F-105G's back cockpit to get an idea of what the system needed to function, and the AGM-78 is a pretty slick piece of kit. 

 

I'd like to see what you have found on the Thud and AGM-78 please post here