It pains me somewhat, but report has been written;
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).
To be fair, iirc it is theoretically possible to have a 1972 produced airframe that was updated with maverick capability but not DMAS
and maverick capability was added before DMAS so it could be a depiction from within that time period
however GBU15 was nevver added to non DMAS airframes so that is a major discrepancy with our F4E
still doesnt excuse a lot of there denied reports though, because they are not even trying to keep it as a consist-ant block or time period
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.
I thought DMAS was an 80s electronics refit?
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.
What does KS stand for in that F-4E info sheet?
Korea?
I would think SK would be the designation for south korea. Not KS (i may be wrong).
SK is not on that aircraft delivery schedule list though, KS is.
Yeah
Nvm i just looked it up it is South Korea.
I still havent been able to download the flight manual linked here Aviation Archives: F-4E Flight Manual (Rescanned)
and would appreciate it if someone either found it on a different file sharing site or who already had it sent it some other way
When you use this as proof on the bug reports, they will instead say it is a mash-up of F-4E blocks.
Either way bug reports are still a joke, gaijin needs to be punished for not taking its community seriously
it doesnt work for me and the newest one I have is from 1990.
yeah I have that one two
at least I think so, if its a full copy I dont but have the partial one
I know this is an F-4E thread, but did the F-4D ever recieve the ALR-46 rwr or was it to obsolete at that time?
