F-4J(UK) Phantom II. Historically Accurate Missile Loadout and Quality of Life Improvements (PART 1)

[HazelPam7769]

@Stockholm_Blend

Just like that, if F-4J from USN service has a record of mounting an extra countermeasure pod, then we also can ask it in the same goddamn ‘technical compatibility’ standards.

It would be better to use AIM-9L and Skyflash SuperTEMP, but if Gaijin denies it, we can use a historical AIM-7F with Gaijin’s own rules as plan B.

Okay, my bad. I was starting to get the impression you were against giving the F-4J(UK) extra countermeasures because you were liking that guy’s posts, even though he doesn’t really know how bad the aircraft is since he’s never actually played it.

It’s a good plan. They might never accept the AIM-7F because it was never used operationally. I can see the HMD being added. The Skyflash SuperTEMP bug report has already been accepted, but that was almost two years ago, so they probably need reminding to actually implement it. The same goes for the AIM-9Ls, countermeasures, and drop tanks. I’ll probably need to submit another bug report for all of that.

[HazelPam7769]

Having 90 countermeasures is a huge improvement over 60. With the F-4J(UK), you have to spend most matches multipathing just to compensate for its painfully low countermeasure count.

The FGR.2 is more of a fallback option in case, for whatever reason, they refuse to add the extra countermeasures to the F-4J—which they absolutely should. Even then, there’s no need to replace the aircraft outright. They could simply add it as a modification, perhaps called “No. 74 FGR”, which would give you access to the improved configuration.

That said, I’d still rather they just update the F-4J itself, because in its current state it’s in a pretty rough spot.

[Flame2512]

The RAF produced the standard series of air publications for the F-4J(UK), a lot of the maintenance manuals, etc. were just the US manuals with the cover page replaced (going so far as to retain the NAVAIR document number on pages after the cover page). However the RAF flight manuals do seem to be more original with a different layout to the US manuals.

I checked all of these manuals, and unfortunately none of them suggest the F-4J(UK) was modified to use AN/ALE-40 dispenses.

Spoiler

[HazelPam7769]

This is why I mentioned the FGR.2 in the first place. The F-4J did carry the AN/ALE-37 in real life while it was in USN service, using Gaijin’s logic here, it should be able to receive it in-game. If, for whatever reason, the AN/ALE-40 can’t be added, then the AN/ALE-37 would be a decent second option. That said, the aircraft needs something to increase its performance because of how terrible it is.

I’m also fully aware that this sounds like it completely goes against the title, but these suggestions are really about fixing the aircraft within reason.

[Stockholm_Blend]

@Flame2512

The RAF produced the standard series of air publications for the F-4J(UK), a lot of the maintenance manuals, etc. were just the US manuals with the cover page replaced (going so far as to retain the NAVAIR document number on pages after the cover page). However the RAF flight manuals do seem to be more original with a different layout to the US manuals.

Copy&Paste which isn’t from Gaijin, but from Military /j

[Stockholm_Blend]

@HazelPam7769

Okay, my bad. I was starting to get the impression you were against giving the F-4J(UK) extra countermeasures

I am against changing F-4J(UK) to F-4M, not about adding extra countermeasures pods.
Glad that you noticed. ;)

@HazelPam7769

because you were liking that guy’s posts, even though he doesn’t really know how bad the aircraft is since he’s never actually played it.

Eeeeeh, even though he didn’t play F-4J(UK), but I reckon he probably knows better than me about british air tree generally.

He probably knows how bad F-4J(UK) is; he might just prefer to have a Saudi Arabian Tonka instead of the F-4M(Premium) idea, and dislikes the idea of ‘phasing out F-4J(UK) from tech tree’.

And well, who really needs to play F-4J(UK) when everyone can notice it is straight worse than F-4J(USN) and F-4S, and we can know about it just by comparing paper stats and loadouts. /j
It is just crystal clear.

Only Gaijin doesn’t know, and


Setting F-4J(UK) in the same 12.0 BR with F-4J/S in Air Sim.

While vastly superior F-4K/M (compared to JUK) is staying 11.3BR in air sim because of “lack of AIM-7F and such”

Quite frustrating and ridiculous status.

Gaijin probably believes that they just mindlessly C&Ped F-4J(USN) for JUK so JUK can access to AIM-7F, VTAS HMS, and other USA exclusive weaponry.
When truth is F-4J(UK) shares worst point of both F-4J(USN) and F-4K/M(UK)

J79 engine and 60CM counts from F-4J (Spey phantoms have slightly better thrust than J79 phantoms, and having 90CM just like F-4E does)
Skyflash(DF) is worse than AIM-7F, no napalm for base bombing, no HMS, and cannot use 6x Sparrow loadout from F-4K/M.
But still shares the same BR with F-4J/S in every gamemode.

As you already know and described before, F-4J(UK) in this game is nothing more than a bastard child of F-4J(USN) and F-4K/M(FAA/RAF).

Worse than F-4J/S(USN) and F-4K/M(FAA/RAF) in both fighter jet and base bomber, but somehow stuck in 12.0BR.

This is just pure nonsense.

Well, we can also talk about how Gaijin ruined Skyflash/SuperTEMP/AIM-7M’s inverse-monopulse seeker by making every SARH missile, including conical scanning ones, work as inverse-monopulse-ish standard (IRL, Skyflash were straight better than the original AIM-7E-2, and had better low-altitude accuracy than AIM-7F, but lost its main feature by Gaijin, thankfully), but this is just another can of worms, though.

“Gameplay improvement just like how they didn’t implement malfunctioning of APHE fuze. Nobody will likes when their SARH missiles act stupidly after nerfing these by making conical-scanning seekers” They probably make excuses. pff.

[HazelPam7769]

Have you tried submitting bug reports for the AIM-9Ls using all the information you’ve gathered?

YES. Have you received any news on this?

[HazelPam7769]

𝙏𝙤 𝙨𝙪𝙢𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙨:

• 𝗞𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙-𝟰𝗝(𝗨𝗞) 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗱𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗳𝗹𝗮𝗴𝗲.
  
• 𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗚𝗥.𝟮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗙-𝟰𝗝(𝗨𝗞) 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀, 𝗔𝗜𝗠-𝟵𝗟 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝗸𝘆𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗵 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗧𝗘𝗠𝗣.
• 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙-𝟰𝗝(𝗨𝗞)'𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
• 𝗔𝗱𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗽 𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗺𝘀.
• 𝗥𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗚.𝟭’𝘀 𝗕𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝟭𝟭.𝟳.

𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘀, 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴.

𝙁𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝘿𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣: 𝙄𝙢𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘽𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝙋𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙤𝙢 𝙇𝙞𝙣𝙚

• ✅ 𝗜 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀
• ❌ 𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀

[Dzhkグ]

@HazelPam7769

Do you guys know who might be doing this spam flagging? Someone seems to be really mad at me for making these, I’m not going to point fingers, and I think I might know who it is judging from the poll up at the top.

I’m not sure, sorry man.

Maybe ask one of the mods for help?

[HazelPam7769]

Do you know any?

[Dzhkグ]

@MightyBaozi is a Forum mod, so he maybe able to help.

Also you can find a list of all the Forum mods here, if needed.
https://forum.warthunder.com/u?group=Forum%20Moderators&order=topic_count

[kingoftigertank]

Nope have no clue, had no idea anyones posts were getting flagged

[MightyBaozi]

For stuff like this please PM a Forum moderator, it’s best not to flood the thread with explanations.

[HazelPam7769]

Thanks, it’s been a pretty common problem in most of these posts. I know I haven’t been perfect either, and I’ve probably been a bit annoying at times, so I really appreciate the help. Sorry about the inconvenience.

[HazelPam7769]

There’s just one last hurdle guys: convincing Gaijin that AIM-9Ls aren’t the overpowered superweapon they seem to think they are. At this battle rating, they’d only provide a modest improvement to the aircraft’s overall effectiveness and not transform it into something overpowered.

The Tornado F.3 already carries AIM-9Ls at the same battle rating, so there’s already a precedent for it.

Planned Battle Rating Changes (August 2026)

What kind of efficiency are we talking about here? Gaijin moved the F-104s up because they were considered efficient for grinding and making Silver Lions. Is that the same reasoning here? If it is, that’s not a good justification for increasing an aircraft’s battle rating. The F-4J(UK) has struggled ever since it was added in 2022, and the FGR.2 is simply outdated at this point. In their current state, there’s very little reason for anyone to play them. So far, I’ve only come across one person…

[Stockholm_Blend]

@HazelPam7769

The Tornado F.3 already carries AIM-9Ls at the same battle rating, so there’s already a precedent for it.

You just forgot that Tornado F.3 are having infamous for turning even worse than Phantoms, even though it is 4th gen.

[HazelPam7769]

The aircraft that replaced the Phantoms will end up sitting at a lower BR than the FGR.2, that’s only if the AIM-9Ls and other missiles are added.

Being on the forums since June has accomplished absolutely nothing. If anything, it’s only reinforced my belief that Gaijin doesn’t care about Britain or even fixing relatively simple issues, like the Challenger DS.

[Morvran]

@HazelPam7769

Gaijin doesn’t care about Britain

Congratulations, you are learning

Let me introduce you to Britain Tax:

Tornado GR1 Mk103 Engines

[tornado-alarm-1] The Tornado GR1 in-game has an extremely unusual nerf that makes absolutely no sense. It has notably weaker engines than the other 8 Tornado IDS aircraft for a reason that makes absolutely no sense. The official reason that has been given is this: So the intended reason for the GR1 to have the Mk101 engines, was to increase the differences between the GR1 and GR4, whilst simultaneously ignoring the large number of pre-existing differences. What is worse, is that this excuse …

@HazelPam7769

like the Challenger DS

Still waiting 3+ years for its 20 round ready rack.

[HazelPam7769]

Even without the ready rack, simply giving the Challenger DS and MK.3 the optional additional armour, just like the first Challenger 2 you unlock in game, would be an incredibly uncontroversial change. Most players would see it as a positive historical correction rather than a balance issue.

Even if the ready rack were added as well, you’d essentially be a slower M1 Abrams. It wouldn’t be overpowered in the slightest. It’s frustrating that simple historical improvements like this continue to be ignored. God forbid someone wants to get their money’s worth from both the premium and tech tree versions by submitting actual historical evidence for a change that would make them far more enjoyable to play.

With these changes, the Challenger DS and Mk.3 would finally be on a similar level to the Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, and T-80UD. These additions wouldn’t make them overpowered because they would simply allow them to compete properly with their counterparts.

[HazelPam7769]

You should definitely talk about the ready rack in the br changes discussion