Then why does the F-4F ICE use them?
Because the F-4F ICE was an upgrade to give the F-4Fs that capability.
It had nothing to do with US phantoms
3 Likes
+1 Sure why not.
Excellent suggestion! You have my support. +1
The real question is where does it fall in capabilty. Even without AIM-9Ms, surely it is superior to the F-16A-10 in both A2A and A2G roles, given it has TGPs, LGBs, Shoot-down capability and SARHs. Because of that, wouldnt it need AIM-9Ms in order to defend itself from the other threats it will face in ground battles? Frankly i think the best option is to give it everything it is capable of and let its statistics determine its BR placement. Its the “late” after all.
4 Likes
The only F-4s in the world to use the Aim-120 was the F-4F ICE in Germany quite some time ago and the F-4E AUP for the Hellenic Air Force (which would only have 4 Aim-9Ls to go with its 4 Aim-120s) iirc.
However I do believe Aim-9Ms may be possible for a US F-4E (Late) variant, but I’d have to look into it and ask around for some sources. It’s likely, but not definite. (Also I knew you would be here haha, ofc you were one of the first people to check out a Late F-4E suggestion :P). The F-4E served in the US for quite a long time, so it wouldn’t surprise me if it did indeed use the Aim-9M.
Edit: the only other ARH F-4 that I can think of is either the F-4J fitted with an Aim-54 way back when for testing, or the F-4EJ Kai ADTW with the XAAM-4.
F-4EJ Kai ADTW suggestion link
Defiantly check this one out, it’s a great and well put together suggestion!
Mitsubishi F-4EJ Kai ADTW - The Super Kai Phantom
4 Likes
Those should be Li’s as well though shouldn’t they?
You would think they would want modern Sidewinders, but I haven’t been able to find anything that suggests they equipped it with anything past the standard Aim-9L. Wouldn’t surprise me given how many vehicles in some countries use old as heck missile and planes. Some countries still use the normal Aim-9P lmao…
Personally, I would stick it with 9Ls similar to the F-4EJ Kai. At best, maybe AIM-9P-5 (9M IRCCM on 9P). But I would avoid AIM-9Ms, and ideally also avoid 9P-5s, because it would be too good for air modes (which is where I’m more concerned about it’s placement). Although I need to mention that I’m somewhat thinking of it in an air-sim thought process, as that is my primary gamemode. At least in air, I picture the F-4E/L as a sort of counter to the MiG-23ML/A/D at 11.3/11.7, and 9Ms, and probably 9P-5s, would be too good for that area.
But, I don’t think it necessarily needs AIM-9Ms for self defense against threats in ground battles as it does have the Sparrows which the F-16 doesn’t get. However, the counter to having improved capability (A2G) to the F-16 is lackluster low-altitude A2A capability, which is where most dogfights happen in ground battles. Unlike the F-16, the F-4E’s radar sucks at detecting anything at low altitude, so unless you know where your target is already you will essentially be radar-blind. But in the close range situations of ground battles, I think the AIM-9L is fine.
Unless they somehow figure out mod-based BRs finally, I would say no AIM-9Ms.
Not really, with TISEO functioning correctly.
A massive plus 1 from me. This is badly needed not even as a gap filler but also for variety and excellent mutirole performance.
Luv muh phantoms
Massive +1, I was in support of the original suggestion on the old forum, glad its been re-written. America as the creator of the Phantom and user of the most diverse set of variants and modifications should just get more Phantoms throughout the tree
The 1990s manual for the F-4E block 63 states it can carry AIM-9M
If you don’t believe the reddit post (since the manual is not longer available), here’s a previous bug report on the F-4E using the same 1990s manual in which you can see AIM-9L and AIM-9M.
2 Likes
If we really want to go into more unique territory with this later Echo-Phantom, why not have it be one of the last production F-4Es, thus giving it the single-piece windshield?
5 Likes
Thanks man! Just saved me a bunch of time, glad to know I wasn’t loosing it haha
Are you sure that’s a “late production” version? Looking at it, it seems to be F-4E 68-0345, placing it as an F-4E-37-MC. That is a really early model, compared to the one I suggested, and if you notice it lacks the “doghouse” antenna on the spine that was fitted ~1977, and also lacks the TISEO.
From the DCS forums,
No F-4’s were actually produced from the factory with the one piece windscreen, as can be seen in the last McD produced F-4E (#5,057 which was a F-4E-67MC). You can see in this picture the standard framed multipiece windscreen. This F-4E went to Korea, btw.
The one piece windscreen was probably a one-off or limited modification done by the Missouri ANG, since they were close to the St. Louis plant where Phantoms were produced.
Here’s another one from arc forums.
It seems, to me, that it was a modernization test only applied to a few jets.
Although, for some reason, F4H-1 145310 had one during restoration work a few years back, although it looks like it was because the people who were restoring it simply couldn’t find an “original” windscreen. arcforums
But the F-4G at the NMUSAF has a one piece windscreen, which is odd.
1 Like
It could be that a separate vehicle from F-4E and 12.0 BR (Air AB, Air RB & Air SB) at rank 8.
F-4E/L (Blk 60) fill the gap in the heavy fighter line between F-4E and F-15A
3 Likes
Super late but even if TISEO is working properly you still won’t be able to BVR with it. Yes TISEO can tell the radar where to look but if the radar can’t differentiate between the ground and the target even if it’s being tracked by TISEO it won’t be able to guide a missle
That’s not how it works. The TISEO is providing the aspect information. from there, it is the flood horn, not the radar, that is providing guidance for the missile. From there it is the missiles own capacity to filter out ground clutter, not the host aircraft.
3 Likes