“Developers answer is that the in-game F-4E is a 1972 model without the DMAS upgrade, AN/AAQ-8 were added after 1972, so this is not a bug.”
As, If it’s a non-DMAS airframe, circa 1972; earlier airframes have yet to be refit with AGM-65 capability by that point (Note: No serials are listed in the Effectivity; Retrofit column for entry ECP 708R2 (add, AGM-65), only production effectivity on DMAS Block Aircraft (Block(s) 45+), on a manual dated to 1973), let alone the addition of the GBU-15.
There are no non-DMAS equipt(DVST or DSCG) aircraft produced in 1972 (production of Block -44 ends in '69), so it can’t be inversely interpreted for the intended configuration to be a '72 production aircraft.
I’d personally suggest at least that if the intent was to retain the F-4E’s '72 configuration and access to PGMs; the Pave Spike(AN/ASQ-23A/A, the -23A/A revision added automatic Laser / LORAN / Radar based, updated INS sight stabilization), and assorted SALH LGBs; Such as:
GBU-1/B (BOLT-117), 750lb M117E1 + SALH kit
GBU-10/B (Paveway I), 2000lb Mk.84 + SALH kit
GBU-11/B, 3000lb M118E1 + SALH kit
GBU-12/B (Paveway I), 500lb Mk.82 + SALH kit
Be replaced in kind in order to permit the F-4E to retain some level of PGM capability, and avoid needing to lower the BR (though this would conflict with the role of any potential addition of the F-4D, but as apparently it’s not planned its not an issue).
Alternately adjust the intended configuration to either a later date, or a DMAS equipt F-4E.
Somewhat hopeful that this resolves, an with an actual configuration specified so it can be corrected, and an additional USAF F-4 can be added (be that an F-4D, F-4E or F-4G doesn’t really matter, to me).
As referenced above, DMAS equipt airframes began production in '69, F-4E Blocks 50~56 were produced in '72, and by '73 AGM-65 capability was not yet being refit, and was only implemented on production aircraft beginning '71.
Yes, but not by the arbitrarily specified '72 cutoff that Gaijin are using which is a contributing factor to configuration issues.
Non-DMAS aircraft refit with AGM-65 functionality comprise select airframes beginning with Block 36 ~ 44, as such would be ineligible for both the AGM-62 (all of 5x Block 30 F-4Es) as well.
Additionally the entire program falls well beyond the '72 cutoff as well, having only been conceptualized as a PIP of the GBU-8 in '74, and an IOC date of Mid '83.
Its more so that with an outstanding report, awaiting response that relates to a potential change in intended configuration, using it to deny reports in the intervening time instead, may well lead to more work in future. Depending on the outcome of the internal report. (however old it is).
And unless the denied reports are also being tabulated there is a chance that they would never be reopened should a permissive configuration be adopted.
It is, but USAF F-4E deliveries ceased in '74 with block 62 airframes and not all airframes that were still in service were refit with DMAS, Which is partially why there is a sperate delineation being made between specified Block, and the configuration being Circa '72 for example.
It matters partially because the actual configuration of production aircraft changed, with each block and not all changes were refit to all aircraft, and so By specifying a Non-DMAS aircraft it indicates for example. That as of Block -48, TISEO was included for specific airframes, and refit to others later.
And as specified a non DMAS aircraft as of '72 has some particular configuration, which is separate to what would go on to become DMAS equipt airframes.
