Potential solution for the F-4C Phantom II

[tripod2008]

@AlvisWisla

Also, this image is an F-4D:

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.

FP F-4C/D USAF 435 TFSq, 8 TFWg

@Nick_Cloud

The problem is that the F-4C in game is supposed to picture the plane in the very early Vietnam configuration.

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

[AlvisWisla]

Indeed, careful tho there are people false flagging this entire topic.

[oom1992]

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 ?

@tripod2008

-4D( F-4D aircraft began arriving to Ubon approximately April 1967)

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

@tripod2008

Mid

From USA tech tree might be F-4E post vietnam war in 1977

[tripod2008]

@oom1992

but F-4C equipped chaff pod in mid 1960’s

The Strategic Chaff deployment pod, the AN/ALE-38 is an option.

@oom1992

F-4D Early in folder with F-4C and BR 10.7, my guess

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.

[Sandsmann]

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.

[oom1992]

@tripod2008

as the Early -4E is fairly similar to the F-4D

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

@tripod2008

& Late variant

I suppose might be F-4E (Block 60), place to early rank VIII before F-15A (MSIP)

McDonnell-Douglas F-4E/L Phantom II - Late Serving Air Force Phantom

poll poll This is a (re)submission for an F-4E late in it’s service life with the USAF or ANG. Operated until 1991 by the USAF, the F-4E was a very important milestone aircraft. Even after improved and more advanced fighter aircraft entered service, the F-4E was kept as a backline plane, just in case. F-4E/L /L here stands for Late, as is found in Typhoon Mk Ib/L. Represented in a mid-80s configuration. [image] F-4E 74-1048, a Block 60 Phantom, on display in the 1980s. Background The…

[BOMBAY9997042]

didnt it have jamming pods as well?

[tripod2008]

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).

Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (1962)

[BOMBAY9997042]

is that a b47 I see?

[tripod2008]

It’s an A-3, so it’s closer to the B-66.

Douglas A-3 Skywarrior

[TankerDman]

Bait

[HighRiskNoReward]

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.

[Pangolin_Fan]

@BOMBAY9997042

didnt it have jamming pods as well?

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.

@HighRiskNoReward

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.

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?

[quartas121]

Well tbh heli’s have more IR reduction than planes by a good bit so I would imagine that helps

[BOMBAY9997042]

@Pangolin_Fan

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.

I was referring to real-life, and was asking cause I couldn’t remember. sorry if that caused any confusion

[Pangolin_Fan]

I believe it had ALQ-71 and ALQ-87 ECM pods.

[tripod2008]

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;

@tripod2008

---

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;

Anti-Radiation Missiles - Technical data and discussion

The developers have confirmed that they are looking into adding Anti-Radiation Missiles (ARMs) to War Thunder; but have doubts about their accuracy and whether they could target the SPAA we have in game. I’ve created this topic to collect information about the various anti-radiation missiles that could be added, and to generally discuss how ARMs could work in game. In real life some ARMs could only lock on to a fairly narrow range of radar frequencies. Personally I expect that if Gaijin impleme…

[Red_Air]

No, and I doubt they’ll put air-air nukes in.

[Red_Air]

Special pods (Pave Spike, ECM) take up a Sparrow well on the Phantom, so keep that in mind on the later models.