F-4E as a CAS Asset: Thoughts

F-4E: Limitations

In primis, since the Controller was unfamiliar with the Phantom, I had to list the limiting factors affecting the F-4, mostly dictated by its age.
The F-4 is an old aircraft, introduced more than 65 years ago. The version currently represented in DCS is the F-4E-45MC, which, for the most part, represents an early-to-mid 1970s aircraft with a few minor exceptions. Therefore, it suffers from noticeable limitations compared to modern aircraft, such as the 2000s / 2010s Hornet and Fighting Falcon. Let’s see a few points:

• The F-4E-45MC lacks precise, direct attack modes such as CCIP. Although Dive Toss is quite accurate, and several other methods to employ ordnance exist, each has pros and cons and may not be as effective depending on the situation. The mentioned Dive Toss, for example, requires a pop-up or to attack from a certain altitude to capture the target’s location with the APQ-120, thus increasing the aeroplane exposure, even if briefly.
• Severe limitations of the AN/ASN-63 Inertial Navigation System. Limited to four digits and some luck, the accuracy of such coordinates is down to circa 10 km. Moreover, the CEP of the INS is up to an additional five km. Even if the errors were lower, there is no way to perform a strike on the given coordinates. Moreover, holding areas, and references from the Echo point should consider those limitations as well.
• Corollary to the previous point, the F-4E has no CCRP delivery option either.
• Daylight and good weather restrictions. Although illuminating flares exist and can be used, the limits of the avionics make operations in bad weather or at night much more difficult and dangerous. The Pave Tack that will ship along DMAS and other upgrades has FLIR capability, but this feature propels the Phantom to mid-to-late 1980s.
• Lack of laser-spotting capability. The current F-4E can carry a Pave Spike, but it has no Pave Penny or similar tools to capture and slew its pod onto the laser cast by friendly assets.
• Linked to the previous point, deconfliction between assets may require additional considerations, since geographical delimitations are assessed visually: there is no Datalink or anything similar to an “SA page” in our F-4E.
• The workflow in the Phantom II is much more demanding than in most modern aircraft. The presence of a second human helps to maintain control and makes the execution safer and smoother. However, there are no HOTAS or MFDs to streamline processes. It’s all switches and knobs, there is no modern HUD, and the avionics is analogue. On the other hand, our F-4E already has shortcuts to switch between a number of functions and modes, something that older Phantoms did not have.

The points just listed are just a minor subset of the limitations of the platform. These features, or lack of, and peculiarities, should be understood by both crews and the controller.

Overcoming Difficulties

Despite the mentioned limitations, the Phantom II is an incredible air-to-ground asset; it is simply not what most DCS players expect. Ergo, some effort is required to make it shine.

• Route planning and navigation play an important role. Since the avionics is limited, planning, map, compass, chronometer, pre-planned INS fix updates, and the identification of visual landmarks constitute an integral step of this process.
• Targets should be ideally marked somehow, even if only with tracers.
• As an alternative, or to integrate the previous point, “talk-on” ensures target identification and correlation. The drawback is that a human controller is necessary to fulfil this task.

If the basic conditions are satisfied, the Phantom II can really shine, no matter its age. This aeroplane, in fact, brings speed, payload, and flexibility to the table. A solid crew can perform low-level sorties with TOT precise down to the minute, which is much more than the average Hornet player can do. The lack of technology, in fact, removes the “information spoon-feeding” side of the equation, forcing the crews to improve or fail.

CAS Mission Plan: Options

An in-depth study of gameplans is work in progress, but it is beyond the purpose of this discussion and the event flown. To keep things simple, we identified two main options:

1. the first and simplest is to establish an orbit at a pre-briefed holding area, then, when tasked by the JTAC, approach the target area, and receive information through talk-on.
2. the second, and more interesting, is a low-level approach. This is definitely trickier as the talk-on phase must be quick and on-point, as the fighter aims to expose itself only briefly during the pop-up.

Since the area was purposely clear of enemy air defences, option one was selected.
Next, it was time to define the details of the delivery method. The most precise means of employing ordnance in the F-4E is a dive toss. However, this mode cannot be used if long or short drops must be avoided, and we will see why in a dedicated discussion. The FAH restriction, acronym for Final Attack Heading, is the bracket of headings the attacking aircraft must satisfy, primarily to avoid friendly fire situations or hazards. However, pop-up attacks intrinsically create an offset of circa 60° from the initial heading. If the fighter is instead leaving a holding point, the inbound heading might not satisfy the Final Attack Heading, and an offset should be created. This should be taken into account in order to successfully achieve a positive outcome.
These and many more variables should be discussed during the planning of the mission, to ensure commonality of modus operandi and intent.

The Training Sortie

The mission expected the Phantoms to depart, switch directly from Tower to the JTAC controllers, thus skipping Approach, and then manoeuvre towards one of the pre-briefed holding areas.
Per sé, the sortie went fine: it was really straightforward. The most important point driven home is the necessity of talk-on, something that most controllers and crews cannot do thoroughly. However, at the end of the day, plain English or any common language can do just fine. The only drawback of non-standard comms, is that the radio channel gets saturated really quickly. Here is an example.

In this situation, we had to hold for several minutes because we couldn’t get positive clearance from the Controller. Again, in such an introductory training scenario this was not really a problem, but it is still a point worth improving. This is, in fact, why we train and learn in the first place, isn’t it?

Conclusions

I hope this brief discussion has been useful to you as a brainstorming exercise, and to perhaps introduce aspects that players of modern modules usually do not consider when they cooperate with, or transition to, the mighty F-4E Phantom II.

Leave comments and feedback in the Discussion Forum thread.