Add Historically Supported Equipment to the U.S. Navy F-4J & F-4S Phantom II (PART 2)

๐ˆ๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฎ๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง

This suggestion focuses on historically documented equipment that was available for the U.S. Navy F-4J and U.S. Marine Corps F-4S Phantom that is currently missing from WarThunder. The proposed additions are supported by official documentation and are intended to improve historical accuracy rather than alter game balance.

๐€๐/๐€๐‹๐„-๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ• ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฆ๐ž๐š๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž ๐๐จ๐

The most significant omission is the AN/ALE-37 external countermeasure pod.

War Thunder already includes this pod on the A-6E TRAM and a few other aircraft, so its model and functionality already exist in-game. However, the F-4J and F-4S cannot equip it despite official documentation confirming compatibility.

Evidence

Screenshot 2026-07-15 125352

The May 1984 F-4S External Store Loading Manual lists the AN/ALE-37 as an approved external store and identifies the stations on which it could be carried. The same manual also confirms compatibility alongside other common stores, including:

  • AIM-7 Sparrow missiles
  • AIM-9 Sidewinders
  • External fuel tanks
  • Bombs
  • Rocket launchers

Why it should be added

The F-4J and F-4S have relatively limited internal countermeasure capacity. Allowing players to equip the AN/ALE-37 would provide a historically accurate way to increase survivability at the cost of an external station.

Since the pod is already implemented on another aircraft, this would extend an existing piece of equipment to aircraft that were historically cleared to use it.

๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ•๐ŸŽ-๐†๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ง ๐Ž๐ฎ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ ๐–๐ข๐ง๐  ๐…๐ฎ๐ž๐ฅ ๐“๐š๐ง๐ค๐ฌ

Another missing feature is the option to carry 370-gallon fuel tanks on the outer wing stations.
The same May 1984 F-4S External Store Loading Manual lists these tanks as approved stores and specifies their authorized mounting locations.

Why this should also be added

The additional fuel would also benefit longer missions in Air Simulator Battles and Air Realistic Enduring Confrontation by increasing endurance and reducing the need to return to base as frequently.
More importantly, it would give players access to another historically documented loadout option.

Screenshot 2026-07-15 135511

๐ˆ๐ง๐ฏ๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐€๐ˆ๐Œ-๐Ÿ—๐‹ ๐‚๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐›๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐…-๐Ÿ’๐‰

Official documentation confirms that the U.S. Navy F-4J was cleared to use the AIM-9L. Based on this evidence, I believe it would be a worthwhile addition only for the F-4J in the U.S. tech tree.

I am not suggesting that the F-4S receive the AIM-9L, as it already has access to the slightly improved rear-aspect AIM-9H Sidewinder that the F-4J doesnโ€™t have.

The F-4S also has some advantages over the F-4J, including:

  • Leading-edge maneuvering slats
  • Better low-speed handling

Because of these improvements, many players choose to purchase the F-4S and skip the F-4J entirely, as there is little incentive to play it unless youโ€™re progressing through the tech tree as a free-to-play player, or youโ€™re simply a dedicated Phantom enthusiast.

Equipping the F-4J with the historically documented AIM-9L would give it a meaningful distinction while making the stock grind less frustrating, without diminishing the F-4Sโ€™s role as the superior airframe.

๐€๐ฅ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ง๐š๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž ๐€๐ˆ๐Œ-๐Ÿ—๐‹ ๐๐š๐ฅ๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž ๐Ž๐ฉ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง

If there are concerns that giving these aircraft AIM-9Ls would make them too effective in certain situations, a possible compromise would be to limit them to carrying only two AIM-9Ls instead of four. For example, the missiles could be restricted to a single pair mounted on one set of wing pylons, rather than allowing a full loadout.

Screenshot 2026-07-15 143235

๐–๐ก๐ข๐œ๐ก ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐œ๐ก๐š๐ง๐ ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ค๐ž ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ž๐ž ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐?
  • Provide both the F-4J and F-4S with the AN/ALE-37 countermeasure pod, 370-gallon outer wing fuel tanks, and AIM-9L Sidewinders.
  • Provide both the F-4J and F-4S with the AN/ALE-37 countermeasure pod and 370-gallon outer wing fuel tanks, but only the F-4J gets AIM-9Ls.
  • Provide both the F-4J and F-4S with the AN/ALE-37 countermeasure pod and 370-gallon outer wing fuel tanks only.
  • No changes.
0 voters

If youโ€™re also frustrated by this, donโ€™t forget to like and share, as it will help bring attention to these forgotten aircraft that desperately need to be revised!

4 Likes

In Part 3, Iโ€™ll be covering the German Phantoms, but not the F-4 ICE.

1 Like

IMG_6762

Excluding the fuel tanks Iโ€™m strongly opposed to any of these additions without a BR increase. The F-4J and especially S are already excellent 12.0s, any significant increase in capability without a corresponding increase in BR is simply powercreep and compression that the game absolutely does not need.

1 Like

Youโ€™re also strongly opposed to the idea of more countermeasures?

Yes. One of the main weaknesses/balancing factors of the F-4J/S especially compared to the British Phantoms is the paltry countermeasure count. Being able to carry an additional six AN/ALE-37s on pylons 1/9 would add a whooping 1,440 countermeasures- 24x the current amount. F-4s would never stop spamming flares!
Now if a BR increase to even just 12.3 was to accompany them, I would be in favour of any and all of these additions.

@Smin1080p_WT Could we get a Developer note on this?

1 Like

Why would anyone want to carry that many, and why would the devs even give players the option? Think about it rationally.

I never said Iโ€™d want it to carry that many in the first place. At most, Iโ€™d like the option to carry one on each side, maybe two if Gaijin is feeling generous.

In-game, these are modeled as small-caliber countermeasures, so the increase would be noticeable, but I think youโ€™re seriously overestimating how much of a difference it would make.

Why would anyone want to carry an obscene amount of countermeasures? Are you serious?

By advocating for artificially restricted loadout options, itโ€™s evident the claim that this is โ€œintended to improve historical accuracy rather than alter game balanceโ€ is a bald-faced lie.
Youโ€™re not advocating for historical accuracy, youโ€™re just asking Gaijin to buff an aircraft you like. Artificially limited compatibility for a historical ordinance is no better than complete absence of that ordinance; Iโ€™d even say itโ€™s worse.

1 Like

I think youโ€™ve misunderstood what I was trying to suggest.

I never said the AIM-9L should be added without considering its impact on battle rating or overall balance. In fact, I deliberately avoided making any BR recommendations because that would be a separate discussion. Iโ€™m well aware of how capable the AIM-9L is, which is why I suggested limiting the F-4J to carrying only two of them rather than allowing a full load.

I also think the concern about the countermeasures is being overstated. Even with the proposed AN/ALE-37 pod, the F-4J and S would simply be brought closer to the capabilities of several aircraft it already faces, such as the Mirage F1, JA37D, and Tornado F.3. The proposal is based on documented compatibility, not on giving the aircraft an unrealistic advantage.

As for the F-4J receiving changes instead of the F-4S, that was intentional. The F-4S is already the more capable aircraft in-game thanks to its slats. Giving the F-4J a historically documented capability, if the evidence supports it, would help distinguish the two aircraft rather than making the F-4S obsolete.

My suggestions arenโ€™t about favoring one nation or buffing an aircraft simply because I like it. The aim is to identify historically documented equipment that has been overlooked and make a case for its inclusion. Iโ€™d make the same argument for any aircraft, regardless of which nation it belongs to, if the historical evidence supported it.

For F-4J, unchange battle rating and not received AIM-9L

I want gaijin add F-4S (with AIM-9L) for researchable vehicles tech tree to early rank VIII before F/A-18 Hornet group someday

That would be an unnecessary copy-and-paste addition to the game, so I donโ€™t agree with it. It would be an incredibly controversial addition because the last thing we need is more pointless copy-and-paste vehicles.

Give it everything but move it up to 12.3 at least, they are already pretty powerful for 12.0 and giving them enough countermeasures to face arh missiles will eliminate the worry about full up tiers to 13.3.

Thatโ€™s my mistake for not making it clear, but I never said it should stay at 12.0 with a full loadout of AIM-9Ls because that would make it too strong compared to other aircraft in certain situations. On the other hand, limiting it to two wouldnโ€™t exactly be game-breaking and would be limited to the F-4J which would help people with the awful stock grind and also make it standout a little bit compared to that F-4s. As for the extra countermeasures, thatโ€™s simply a quality-of-life improvement that would help the aircraftโ€™s survivability.

It is not a suggestionโ€ฆ This is a true fact, unless of course this is supposed to be a draft.
70fxez

Bootleg posting as a sort

mmm historic weapons for both F-4 and Mig-23 would be great

I say yes to flares, even tho the flight performace would suffer a bit its way better than 60 flares and slightly better airframe

For the 9L i say no, mostly bc it would mean being 12.3 and being honest the f4s/j radar would not be effective at a higher br

I just posted part 3

I honestly think they should go up a BR step already.