Actually it could carry AIM-7E/E-2 and is even certified to use the navy pylons to carry 6 of them.
It could carry AIM-9D as well.
ANG in later years used AIM-9J and AIM-9P variants as well.
And of course it could carry ECM and IRCM pods.
Imagine those planes stay in service till 1990 and they’ve received various upgrades in their service.
The problem is that the F-4C in game is supposed to picture the plane in the very early Vietnam configuration.
Yes this particular airframe is an F-4D.
It’s the Unit, that is the important bit here; the tail-code indicates it’s a member of the 435th Tactical Fighter Squadron, which is known to have operated the F-4C (December 1965 – September 1974) & -4D( F-4D aircraft began arriving to Ubon approximately April 1967), which dates the image to being within a finite period of time and so proves the overlap.
As per This report It’s quoted as being deployed to Vietnam in 1972, which overlaps the F-4C’s service.
Also it’s already been reported (Accepted as a suggestion), based on its presence in the relevant Stores loading section. So depending on where the Early / Mid / Late cutoff is positioned (and how it interacts with the F-4D / -4E) an argument could be made.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/oMtFeXFxd9Kf
1 Like
Indeed, careful tho there are people false flagging this entire topic.
Personally, F-4C in 1965 pre AIM-7E service 3 years and pre AIM-9J
Not increase battle rating again. but F-4C equipped chaff pod in mid 1960’s ?
Gaijin just add F-4D Early with AIM-7E Sparrow, AN/AVQ-10 Pave Knife pod, GBU-8, GBU-10/B Paveway I Laser-guided bomb, AGM-12C & AGM-12D and dumb bomb & unguided rcoket
F-4D Early in folder with F-4C and BR 10.7, my guess
From USA tech tree might be F-4E post vietnam war in 1977
The Strategic Chaff deployment pod, the AN/ALE-38 is an option.
I think it would depend on if Gaijin plans on Splitting the F-4E in to an Early & Late variant(as the Early -4E is fairly similar to the F-4D), or add the F-4G (W/ the Late -4E option leaving the door open to the Late A-7E for similar Anti- Radiation coverage) to Check the box for off a '80’s / '90s USAF configured F-4.
The F-4C had illumination flares, Though i am not sure if those would help against IR missiles at all unless you are gliding with the throttle at 0.
Would be neat to get them anyway for night time custom battles.
F-4E Early no leading-edge slats and the early targeting pod but Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground armaments like F-4D Early
I suppose might be F-4E (Block 60), place to early rank VIII before F-15A (MSIP)
didnt it have jamming pods as well?
Yes, but as with most podded systems that the US uses, they are almost entirely focused on dealing with Ground Based Threats, Systems that deal with Aerial threats tended to be integrated into the airframe (e.g. AN/ALQ-51 or -55).
is that a b47 I see?
It’s an A-3, so it’s closer to the B-66.
Bait
1 Like
I don’t think the IR jamming pod would make any difference. You can see how well the jamming pod works for the su-39, it would be similar for the F-4C.
The jamming feature only kind of helps the su-39 because it makes the missile go for flares easier, but since the phantom doesn’t have any flares, the jamming pod as gaijin modeled it, would only make the missile twitch a bit while tracking the phantom. So only helps in slightly decreasing the range of the missile, but will get hit anyway when the missile is fired well within range.
Warthunder doesn’t have ECM yet, although I don’t it’d be helpful as radar missiles aren’t really a major threat to the F-4C.
IRCM on the Mi-28 and Ka-52 make it practically impossible for IR missiles to hit. Why would it work any different on planes?
Well tbh heli’s have more IR reduction than planes by a good bit so I would imagine that helps
I was referring to real-life, and was asking cause I couldn’t remember. sorry if that caused any confusion
I believe it had ALQ-71 and ALQ-87 ECM pods.
1 Like
I’ve got a source [1979] that lists for the (R)F-4C/D/E;
- ALQ-71
- Denies datalink / communication channels, Low Band Counterpart to ALQ-72 pod, and are often paired for complete (effectively provides Early 'Nam contemporary) band coverage.
- ALQ–72
- Defeats ranging circuits for X band radars(see referenced Track Breaking section of the video below), as such reduces their range. High Band Counterpart to ALQ-71 pod.
- ALQ-87
- S/C/X (NATO)band / D thru I band Barrage Jamming capabilities, preset by ground crew before flight based on expected threat.
- ALQ-101(V), & -(V)6
- Noise & Repeater Jammer and has some counter-radar fusing systems to cause preemptive functioning of missile warheads, prior to intercept.
- ALQ-101(V)-8, -9
- Supports Extended bandwidth configurations that can cover additional Frequency bands, or tradeoff coverage for extended functional power output increasing range.
- ALQ-119(V)-4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9, -10, -11, -12,-14
- S/X/C-Band, Noise / Deception / Jamming Pod.
An additional note is that the DCS F-4E also includes the ALQ-131 as well.
(High def image, more specific info can be found on the green plates on the pods in the image)
How relevant functions the Pod(s) can be seen;
So all in all there is wide range of capabilities that could be provided to best meet threats, though with the way BR’s and expected threats for the US F-4’s they won’t really do all too much. Since we don’t have command guided SAMs, and SARHs aren’t quite that prevenient in the (9.0 ~11.0 range).
A depreciated compiled list of Band coverage of systems can be seen in the following topic;
1 Like
No, and I doubt they’ll put air-air nukes in.
Special pods (Pave Spike, ECM) take up a Sparrow well on the Phantom, so keep that in mind on the later models.