f4 phantom radar range

• Remember me Not recommended on shared computers

Forgot your password?

• DCS: F-4 Phantom

Radar/Sensors Discussion

By Czechnology November 8, 2022 in DCS: F-4 Phantom

Recommended Posts

Czechnology.

Read the title. I know we're getting the AN APQ-120, what do we know about the radar system? I've not found much good documentation on it. Any good range figures? Was it as terrible about ground clutter as I keep hearing? We have any good radars in DCS that can be used as a vague simulacra?

TISEO, are we getting that? Just one or both of the Phantoms we're getting, if we're getting it at all?

Link to comment

Share on other sites.

LanceCriminal86

7 hours ago, Czechnology said: Read the title. I know we're getting the AN APQ-120, what do we know about the radar system? I've not found much good documentation on it. Any good range figures? Was it as terrible about ground clutter as I keep hearing? We have any good radars in DCS that can be used as a vague simulacra? TISEO, are we getting that? Just one or both of the Phantoms we're getting, if we're getting it at all?  

TISEO will the be the second E that comes with DMAS and factory slats etc. TISEO was on the '71+ serial jets. First released jet will be the older 66-69 serials with retrofitted slats.

Heatblur Rivet Counting Squad™

VF-11 and VF-31 1988 [WIP]

VF-201 & VF-202 [WIP]

The AN/APQ-120 is a pulse radar and it displays the raw returns (with little filtering). You will need to distinguish between ground clutter and actual targets. The AI (range setting) goes up to 50 nmi, inside AI range you can make an STT lock provided the return is large enough. The manual even reports the ability to spotlight (manually guide the antenna) targets even further, the range scale goes all the way up to 200 nmi.

Community A-4E-C

17 hours ago, JNelson said: The AN/APQ-120 is a pulse radar and it displays the raw returns (with little filtering). You will need to distinguish between ground clutter and actual targets. The AI (range setting) goes up to 50 nmi, inside AI range you can make an STT lock provided the return is large enough. The manual even reports the ability to spotlight (manually guide the antenna) targets even further, the range scale goes all the way up to 200 nmi.

Have any resources to read on this info? Interested in the "spotlight" thing especially.

1 hour ago, Czechnology said: Have any resources to read on this info? Interested in the "spotlight" thing especially.

I’d assume the spotlight feature is similar to what modern jets like the F-18 and F-16 have. It’s basically a super narrow search pattern so you can try to get a track on something. When compared to the Tomcat, I think it’s similar to the super search function that we have already. All of this could be wrong however since I’m not too knowledgeable on the Phantom’s systems.

-Tinkerer, Certified F-14 and AIM-54 Nut | Discord: @dsplayer

Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Lots of Storage, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro Modules: F-14, F/A-18, JF-17, F-16C, Mirage 2000C, FC3, F-5E, Mi-24P, FC3, AJS-37, AV-8B, A-10C II, AH-64D, MiG-21bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, P-51D, Mirage F1, L-39, C-101, SA342M, Ka-50 III, Supercarrier, F-15E Maps: Caucasus, Marianas, South Atlantic, Persian Gulf, Syria, Nevada

Mods I've Made:  Modern F-14 Weapons Mod  |  Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack  | Mirage F1 Weapons Mod  | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix  | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14  

Might be what he's talking about, but they made a clarification between manually guiding/spotlighting the radar and STT. I've done a good bit of reading on the F-4 but haven't seen any good details on the radar other than the cliff notes, pulse radar with poor low alt performance, 30-40 miles reliable range.

5 minutes ago, DSplayer said: I’d assume the spotlight feature is similar to what modern jets like the F-18 and F-16 have. It’s basically a super narrow search pattern so you can try to get a track on something. When compared to the Tomcat, I think it’s similar to the super search function that we have already. All of this could be wrong however since I’m not too knowledgeable on the Phantom’s systems.

Also, to open a second line of discussion, the RWR. What info do we have on the RWR we'll be getting for the different versions?

Whatever you can find, it's the APR-36/37. When built most Es after the first batch through mid '68 had the APS-107, but the performance was considered to be terrible, and after VN jets were upgraded with APR-36/37.

It looks like the older Phantoms had the 25/26, and really late ones had ALR-46 but I believe the APR-36/37 are currently what's planned from the release posts.

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said: Whatever you can find, it's the APR-36/37. When built most Es after the first batch through mid '68 had the APS-107, but the performance was considered to be terrible, and after VN jets were upgraded with APR-36/37.   It looks like the older Phantoms had the 25/26, and really late ones had ALR-46 but I believe the APR-36/37 are currently what's planned from the release posts.  

I'm quite excited to see what is in store with the APR-36/37 and its limitations.

The Israelis were apparently unable to detect CW launch signals from the SARH SA-6, which is odd since I thought that X-band signal was right in the range of the stock APR-36/37. So I wonder if we'll have similar problems with the SA-6 and more modern systems in the game.

Of course I might also be missing something or taking that historical tid bit out of context... not much info on what they did to solve the issue within the two days of the start of the Yom Kippur war.

8 hours ago, Czechnology said: Might be what he's talking about, but they made a clarification between manually guiding/spotlighting the radar and STT. I've done a good bit of reading on the F-4 but haven't seen any good details on the radar other than the cliff notes, pulse radar with poor low alt performance, 30-40 miles reliable range.  

I mean it is a pulse radar with little filtering, so low alt performance should be terrible due to sidelobe and clutter issues. Look down should in general be bad, but its going to be better at higher altitudes and lower grazing angles. Its also gonna depend alot on the target/aspect/strength of return. Best case its gonna be fine at med/high alt in lookup/co-alt situations. 

2 hours ago, SgtPappy said: I'm quite excited to see what is in store with the APR-36/37 and its limitations. The Israelis were apparently unable to detect CW launch signals from the SARH SA-6, which is odd since I thought that X-band signal was right in the range of the stock APR-36/37. So I wonder if we'll have similar problems with the SA-6 and more modern systems in the game. Of course I might also be missing something or taking that historical tid bit out of context... not much info on what they did to solve the issue within the two days of the start of the Yom Kippur war.  

More modern systems for sure. But who knows if it will be modeled. Stuff like 70's era SA-10 were using basic LPI/LPD techniques even back then. But ED's modeling of SAM radars and actual SAM guidance techniques for even stuff like the single digit sams is not good, esp the SA-2 and the SA8, i.e. in terms of not modeling actual guidance modes or the optical trackers correctly. And honestly I do not think it is a priority for them to fix it. 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

HAVE DOUGHNUT-Tactical (Vol II) (published 1 August 1969, declassified 23 Mar 2000, and released publicly 29 October 2013 through the George Washington University's National Security Archive) discusses the APQ-72 (F-4B), APQ-109 (F-4D), APQ-120 (F-4E) and AWG-10/APG-59 (F-4J) performance vs. the MiG-21.  Some summations:

The APQ-109 acquired the MiG-21 on average 5-10% further away possibly due to the difference in beam width and redesigned radar reflector.

Head-on co-altitude, average detection was 20NM with an average lock-on achieved at 15NM. [1]

Tail aspect detected at 25NM and tracked at 17NM on average. [1]

Abeam, detection averaged 35NM and tracked at 28NM. [1]

Ground clutter at lower altitudes complicated the radar tracking problem.  Both the APQ-109 and APQ-120 were practically blind looking down, and using the auto-acquisition mode in a look-down scenario is also not useful as it only sweeps 12,500 feet, leaving no-time for a forward quarter shot. [2]

The F-4B's APQ-72 performed comparably, but aspect was not provided:

5-15K Feet saw a max detection of 32NM, and an average 20-25NM.  Track range maximum was 18NM and average 15NM.  [3]

15-30K Feet saw a maximum detection of 40NM, average of 30-35NM.  Track range was 27NM max and 25NM average.  [3]

The F-4J's APG-59 fared far better in Pulse Doppler modes; apparently the pulse mode was worse at high altitudes.

The APG-59 averaged 45NM forward-quarter detection with a maximum range of 62NM, and on two occasions, the F-4J spotted the MiG-21 immediately upon takeoff from 15K feet (look-down), detecting, acquiring, and tracking by 50NM. [4]

There's some things to keep in mind, of course; I have no idea how they tweaked the APQ-120 (if at all) from 1969 to the mid-1970s (roughly the period the first F-4 Headblur releases is supposed to be representing); the document mentions an expanded auto-acquisition mode to 30,000 feet would be desirable, but this still doesn't change the limitations of a pulse radar looking down, and I don't know if "desirable" became a requirement and actually happened..  Also, if the F-4E is coming with AIM-7Es, it's good to have SA earlier on, but your engagement range is still less than the average head-on tracking range of the APQ-120.  Also, although this shouldn't need to be stated, a large fighter or a bomber would be seen further away.

Suffice to say, I don't plan on being able to see a MiG-21 rooting around in the dirt from long ranges, at least until a model with a PD radar is released.

1. Defense Intelligence Agency, HAVE DOUGHNUT-Tactical (Vol II), 1 August 1969 (Declassified 23 Mar 2000), 1-33.

2. DIA, HAVE DOUGHNUT, 1-34.

3. DIA, HAVE DOUGHNUT, 2-36.

4. DIA, HAVE DOUGHNUT, 2-37.

Rig: i9 10900KF @5.3GHz | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 3600MHz | ASUS ROG STRIX RTX 3090 24GB OC | ASUS Maximus XII Formula | 2x 2TB Intel SSD6 NVMe M.2 | VKB F-14CG on Gunfighter III Base | TM Warthog HOTAS | TM Rudder Pedals | HP Reverb G2

Hangar: FC3 | F-86F | F-5E | F-14A/B | F-15E [Pre-Ordered] | F-16C | F/A-18C | Mirage 2000C | JF-17 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19P | MiG-21bis | AJS-37 | AV-8B | L39 | C-101 | A-10C/CII | Yak-52 | P-51D | P-47D | Fw 190 A-8/D-9 | Bf 109 | Spitfire | I-16 | UH-1 Huey

It's interesting that according to this video the F-4 has better radar lookdown performance than the DCS F-16 or F-18.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

On 11/9/2022 at 4:42 PM, SgtPappy said: I'm quite excited to see what is in store with the APR-36/37 and its limitations. The Israelis were apparently unable to detect CW launch signals from the SARH SA-6, which is odd since I thought that X-band signal was right in the range of the stock APR-36/37. So I wonder if we'll have similar problems with the SA-6 and more modern systems in the game. Of course I might also be missing something or taking that historical tid bit out of context... not much info on what they did to solve the issue within the two days of the start of the Yom Kippur war.  

I would be very cautious with Israeli combat reports. They're seriously confusing. I do believe it's on purpose. Nothing strange about it to be honest. There are full of stories, when you never know what plane pilot flew. You may only assume or suppose, that it's Phantom, because pilot once says "we" and on the other time during the same story says "me". Glory to the Kheil HaAvir, but they're not quite... Most reliable source of information. They're rather a source of various MiG-parts.

On 11/10/2022 at 2:07 AM, Exorcet said: It's interesting that according to this video the F-4 has better radar lookdown performance than the DCS F-16 or F-18.

F-4J has Pulse doppler radar . Navy had much better device since they resigned from M-61A1 Vulcan in the nose. That's why, without gun in the nose their radar has bigger antenna and it's a quite different device, than USAF F-4E Pulse radar. F4E posese a ground clutter filter. It helps detecting airborne tgts if they fly lower, but not close to the ground, by limitting and separating signals that comes back from the same direction, but after different time period. So If AGL is big enough you may detect someone who flies lower. Most cases however MK 1 Eyeball will be more effective considering detection range of APQ-120 I'm amazed by something another. 9:57 "There was a water in Datalink compartment". F-4J had datalink on board? My best regards Kermit

Possibly a Link 4 for carrier landings.

I wonder what the firing of the Fox1 will look like in the F4, does the target get a warning immediately after the Fox1 is launched?

In DCS it is the case that every launch of a Fox1 triggers an RWR missile warning.

Does the Aim7 see the back radiation from the target on 20-30nm? or is it first guided into the vicinity with data link/radio signals?

7 hours ago, 303_Kermit said: I would be very cautious with Israeli combat reports. They're seriously confusing. I do believe it's on purpose. Nothing strange about it to be honest. There are full of stories, when you never know what plane pilot flew. You may only assume or suppose, that it's Phantom, because pilot once says "we" and on the other time during the same story says "me". Glory to the Kheil HaAvir, but they're not quite... Most reliable source of information. They're rather a source of various MiG-parts.

Agreed but it's such a mystery, I cant help but to wonder what's true! At least from a RWR perspective.

Bremspropeller

8 hours ago, 303_Kermit said: I'm amazed by something another 9:57 "There was a water in Datalink compartment". F-4J had datalink on board?

"Gray Ghosts" pg 121:

Quote "A carry-over from the limited F-4G experiment was the AN/ASW-25 data-link, though the Fleet was still not ready to utilize this gear when the aircraft entered service in 1967. William D. Knutson, CO of VF-33 pointed out that " neither the E-2A Hawkeye nor the carrier was really up to speed on using it for control. It was not used in combat. "

It's not just for automated carrier-landings, but also for giving steering-cues or -commands for such equipped aircraft. Seems like the trouble wasn't on the F-4J's end, though.

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

6 hours ago, Hobel said: I wonder what the firing of the Fox1 will look like in the F4, does the target get a warning immediately after the Fox1 is launched? In DCS it is the case that every launch of a Fox1 triggers an RWR missile warning. Does the Aim7 see the back radiation from the target on 20-30nm? or is it first guided into the vicinity with data link/radio signals?

Aim-7 doesn't have a DL (at least the early ones, IDK about the last ones like the P). The earlier ones in fact were limited by radar TX power rather then their max aero ranges. 

Does anyone know the relationship between the AWG-9 in the F-14 and the AWG-10 in the F-4J? Surely the Phantom unit came first… But then why are they not chronologically numbered?

6 hours ago, r4y30n said: Does anyone know the relationship between the AWG-9 in the F-14 and the AWG-10 in the F-4J? Surely the Phantom unit came first… But then why are they not chronologically numbered?

For the numbering, I'm guessing because the AWG-9 entered development before the AWG-10; the AWG-9 conceptually started with the F6D Missileer program and actually began development for the F-111B.  Something else, the AN/AWG-9 designator applies to the F-14A/B's radar while the AN/AWG-10 designator is the F-4J's fire control (or missile control) system working with its AN/APG-59 pulse doppler radar (the F-14's fire control system is the AN/AWG-15).  I'm not nearly as well read on the F-4 as I am the F-14, but even the HAVE DOUGHNUT Tactical manual separates AWG-10 performance from APG-59 performance specifically WRT fire control (e.g., "The capability of the AWG-10 missile control system was partially degraded by the inherent weakness associated with the tactical employment of the pulse doppler mode of the APG-59 radar" [1]).

I'm aware that some folks use the AWG-10 designator to refer to the F-4J's radar, but that doesn't seem correct - rather the AWG-10 is the fire control system used in conjunction with the APG-59 radar.  Either way, I'll let a Phantom Phanatic explain because they could do a lot better than me.

1. Defense Intelligence Agency, HAVE DOUGHNUT-Tactical (Vol II), 1 August 1969 (Declassified 23 Mar 2000), 2-37.

On 11/9/2022 at 7:57 AM, Czechnology said: Have any resources to read on this info? Interested in the "spotlight" thing especially.

On 11/9/2022 at 9:18 AM, DSplayer said: I’d assume the spotlight feature is similar to what modern jets like the F-18 and F-16 have. It’s basically a super narrow search pattern so you can try to get a track on something. When compared to the Tomcat, I think it’s similar to the super search function that we have already. All of this could be wrong however since I’m not too knowledgeable on the Phantom’s systems.

There is no pattern when you spotlight, the antenna will simply point where you put the antenna hand control azimuth and elevation. There are two modes for the spotlight which first requires a little explanation.

For angle tracking the beam must be conically scanned (beam goes in a circular path around the antenna axis). This is achieved by nutating the antenna feedhorn at around 60 Hz. This is necessary for these old radars which use conical scanning as apposed to monopulse for steering their antenna when tracking a target. This effectively widens the beam on average to around 6.7 degrees compared to 3.7 degrees. Most of the modes have the radar nutating by default as this generally gives a wider search area at the cost of a lower average power per unit solid angle.

The two spotlight modes are engaged with the action switch above AI ranges (100 nmi, 200 nmi):

• Half action - spotlight mode with nutation (6.7 degrees)
• Full action - spotlight mode without nutation (3.7 degrees)

Technically you can use spotlight at AI ranges and below but this is just called acquisition and a full action will command an automatic track.

• 1 month later...

Aussie_Mantis

On 11/8/2022 at 5:28 PM, Czechnology said: Read the title. I know we're getting the AN APQ-120, what do we know about the radar system? I've not found much good documentation on it. Any good range figures? Was it as terrible about ground clutter as I keep hearing? We have any good radars in DCS that can be used as a vague simulacra? TISEO, are we getting that? Just one or both of the Phantoms we're getting, if we're getting it at all?  

Trawling through this, nobody's mentioned CAA. Phantoms with AN/APG-120(V)10 or above radars will have CAA, which helps with boresight acquisitions while trying to counter ground clutter, most effective when looking down at about 10 degrees.

From what I know and have tried of the F-4E in other sims, your missiles have an effective range of maybe 10 nautical miles in a headon. Maybe less, dependent on altitude. Do not  rely on the radar's ability to look down, it's terrible at best and sub-par at worst, but of course, it helps if the target you're scanning for is massive or heading towards you at high closure. Sparrows should work best at decently high closure rates of ~1300-1400 feet per second, fired at ~7.5nm-10nm if it's the E variant, 10nm-17nm if the F variant. Reliability is meh. The radar's honestly going to be the bigger problem- trying to look or lock down low or  while low (below ~10000 feet) is going to be tantamount to suicide..

On 12/19/2022 at 12:50 PM, Aussie_Mantis said: Trawling through this, nobody's mentioned CAA. Phantoms with AN/APG-120(V)10 or above radars will have CAA, which helps with boresight acquisitions while trying to counter ground clutter, most effective when looking down at about 10 degrees.   From what I know and have tried of the F-4E in other sims, your missiles have an effective range of maybe 10 nautical miles in a headon. Maybe less, dependent on altitude. Do not  rely on the radar's ability to look down, it's terrible at best and sub-par at worst, but of course, it helps if the target you're scanning for is massive or heading towards you at high closure. Sparrows should work best at decently high closure rates of ~1300-1400 feet per second, fired at ~7.5nm-10nm if it's the E variant, 10nm-17nm if the F variant. Reliability is meh. The radar's honestly going to be the bigger problem- trying to look or lock down low or  while low (below ~10000 feet) is going to be tantamount to suicide..  

There is a post about the CAA here: 

• 2 months later...

As we know rwr sounds are going to be made by Heatblur for F-4 and F-16 Handoff mode so this video might get helpful.

in this video you can hear all kinds of sounds and on 12:40 they even simulate sa-3 sound for rwr cos they have this radar simulator (use headphones)

Kalasnkova74

On 11/9/2022 at 9:42 AM, SgtPappy said: I'm quite excited to see what is in store with the APR-36/37 and its limitations.  The Israelis were apparently unable to detect CW launch signals from the SARH SA-6, which is odd since I thought that X-band signal was right in the range of the stock APR-36/37. So I wonder if we'll have similar problems with the SA-6 and more modern systems in the game. Of course I might also be missing something or taking that historical tid bit out of context... not much info on what they did to solve the issue within the two days of the start of the Yom Kippur war.  

In summary, this was because the brand new SA-6 was not detectable by Western defensive avionics engineered for earlier systems. As such , I’d expect the F-4E’s module’s RWR to detect the Gainful’s guidance system. Page 48 of a USAF paper submitted on the October 1973 conflict outlines this further : 

“ On 6 October 1973, the S.A-6 was being employed for the first time anywhere in the world, and it was not affected by the ECM, chaff, or flares then employed by the IAF'.

The Israeli ECM equipment was designed for the S.A-2 and S.A-3 and not for the wider frequency band over which the SA-6 radar operated. Even if the ECM were effective, the SA - 6 could have been launched under optical control.

Chaff, which the IAF used extensively, also had to be tuned to the proper frequencies,IOW . cut to the proper lengths.The Israeli flares were intended to divert the SA-7; they could not affect the command plus semi-active radar homing guidance of the SA-6 .”

Mobius_11804

Hi there, since there were so many grey-nosed german F-4's in the trailers, i've got a litte curious.

The grey nose indicated the ICE Upgrad to the F-4F with the Huges APG-65 RADAR and henceforth AMRAAM capability.

Recently Browsing    0 members

• No registered users viewing this page.
• Existing user? Sign In
• All Activity
• Leaderboard
• Create New...

• Search forums

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.

• Research Topics
• Avionics and Military/Naval electronics

APQ-50/72/100/109/120 detection range?

• Thread starter lancer21
• Start date 10 January 2010

ACCESS: Top Secret

• 10 January 2010

Hello everyone , new user , happy to be here! Great site , been following it for quite a while, and decided to join, so much interesting info and discussions here! Now, as my topic title suggests , i'd like to ask if someone has some datas on these radars, at least some summary data on their detection range against fighter and bomber RCS targets ? Surprisingly, even if the F-4 is an old bird, cant find much reliable info on its various radars, tried few places , but no luck so far. Also , if i understand correctly , none of the above radars have LD/SD capability , except the AWG-10/11/12 sets, right ?( and if anyone have dats on their characteristics too , i'd be grateful) Thank you for your help!  

• 20 January 2010

Well after alot of browsing , i did found a good old harpoon PDF document containing various radar data ...its not 100% accurate , but thats all i got , i read there that the APQ-120 is credited with a max detection range of 50nm, and the APQ-100/109 with 40nm...i'll just post what i got, harpoon gives the range for various size target ( large, medium , small , v. small in that order ) APQ-120 AI 50/35/26/11/3 APQ-100 AI 40/25/19/8/2 APQ-109 same ...is anyone able to confirm these datas please? Thank you. BTW extermely surprising that harpoon credits Cyrano-IVM with JUST 30nm !!! but thats another issue...  

ACCESS: Confidential

• 1 February 2010
• 4 February 2010

ACCESS: Restricted

• 5 February 2010

APQ-72 given as 56 km vs MiG-17 and 25-30 miles vs BQM-34 drone.  

• 12 February 2010

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator.

1) targets vary in RCS at different angles 2) detection range varies in different conditions 3) detection of targets is not 100% reliable. 4) performance of analogue radars depends on how well they are tuned and maintained. Its not like the target is at 90.1km away and you definitely can't detect it, but then next sweep its at 89.9km and you can detect it with 100% certainty. Radar X might have 10% chance of detection for a given size target at 90km, 50% chance of detection at 70km, 90% chance of detection at 50km. If you wanted, you could claim it has a range of anywhere between 50km and 90km - do you go with the maximum possible range, the average range, or the range where you can be almost certain to detect the target? Westinghouse brochures for the APG-66 quoted range for a 90% chance of detection, but when the figures were repeated elsewhere, most writers used only the range value. If a rival company wanted their radar to appear superior, they could quote the range for 50% chance of detection, or quote the maximum range ever seen during testing, and seem to have a longer range radar, but it might not be really any better. So finding a single agreed range figure is a fruitless task....  

Conical Scan or Monopuls APQ-50/72/100/109/120 Do they still using conical scan or are these monopuls radars?  

You've read this topic on AWG-10, right? http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,149.0.html  

• 25 January 2011

Hehe, after a year i got into the "Phantom radars" fever again. ;D It's late, but may i ask , is the above reply ment to me or the poster above ( i did go thru the AWG-10 topic , although in all honesty i don't understand 90% of the technical stuff posted there. :-[ Off course i did found the 60nm vs 5 sqm RCS target range figure, quite impressive for those years i guess).  

• 1 February 2011

overscan said: Its not like the target is at 90.1km away and you definitely can't detect it, but then next sweep its at 89.9km and you can detect it with 100% certainty. Radar X might have 10% chance of detection for a given size target at 90km, 50% chance of detection at 70km, 90% chance of detection at 50km. If you wanted, you could claim it has a range of anywhere between 50km and 90km - do you go with the maximum possible range, the average range, or the range where you can be almost certain to detect the target? Westinghouse brochures for the APG-66 quoted range for a 90% chance of detection, but when the figures were repeated elsewhere, most writers used only the range value. If a rival company wanted their radar to appear superior, they could quote the range for 50% chance of detection, or quote the maximum range ever seen during testing, and seem to have a longer range radar, but it might not be really any better. So finding a single agreed range figure is a fruitless task.... Click to expand...

I really should change my personal text

• 23 July 2014

Detection limits, A/N APQ-109: A/A search/aquisition B-sweep: 40 nm (if memory serves) A/G PPI-sweep: 200 nm I suppose the reason for the short A/A range is the low power/high prf rate upon target lockon. With the old conical scan sets, the high prf and short pulse of the locked-on mode allowed accurate angle, range and range rate tracking. Regarding LD/SD, the set could certainly look down, but missile firing solutions for old-school AIM 7's & AIM 9's calculated by the A/N APA-165 system didn't allow much angle deviation. Regarding A/G missiles and smart bombs, the F4 C/D platforms were pretty robust, and allowed for many mods to accommodate a wide variety of fire control modalities which integrated with the A/N APQ-109. I guess this has been de-classified by now...right?  

Phantom tech

I was a radar technician stationed in Thailand during the Vietnam war. I was testing out operation of a system on the flight line, something I didn't have very many opportunities to do. Using the B sweep mode set for a hundred miles range I picked up a Target about 70 miles out which I can only assume from its size was a B52. I locked on and tracked him approximately 2 to 3 minutes before I was jammed by electronic countermeasures.  

• 26 December 2021

Here are some extracts from the F-4E plus contract summary (credit Ron Downey via Aviation Archives): http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2016/01/f-4e-plus-contract-proposal-summary.html It lists the performance McDonnell Douglas was willing to guarantee for the AN/APQ-120 radar system. This is obviously from before the F-4E entered service, so it is unclear how the radar actually performed against these guarantees, but I thought I would share it as it's the first official(ish) numbers I've stumbled across for AN/APQ-120 performance. The contract proposal also mentions the Coherent On Receive Doppler System (CORDS), which was meant to provide look-down capability for the F-4E. In practice they could never get CORDS to work reliably so development of it got scrapped 1968.  

Attachments

• 25 January 2022

I have found some good info in a declassified pdf about the Have Doughnut MiG-21 testing. Real world average detection range for APQ-109/120 head on vs MiG-21 is 20nm aquisition and 15nm tracking, from tail-on is 25/17, and from abeam is 35/28. Edit: According to the report, APQ-109 has a 5-10% range detection/tracking advantage re the APQ-120 (so annoyingly for me they haven't listed separate figures for 109/120, just averaged the figures as shown above) There is also info for APQ-72 and APG-59, but have to study those chapters later (i'm way late into the night perusing that report)  

• 26 January 2022

I've edited above with some additional info. Figures for APQ-72 are: At low to medium 5000- 15000ft altitude, detection at max 32nm, average 20-25nm. Tracking at max 18nm, average 15nm. At medium to high 15000-30000ft altitude, detection at max 40nm, average 30-35nm. Tracking at max 27nm, average 25nm. For APG-59, in pulse mode figures (not mentioned) were slightly less compared to APQ-72, the latter was a bit better at high alt, while the former a bit better at low alt. APG-59 in pulse-Doppler mode, front quarter average detection in excess of 45nm, with a maximum of 62nm. Couple of tests resulted in the MiG being detected, aquired and tracked at 50nm and 15,000ft.  

• 27 January 2022

Having found out these very interesting figures, i'm wondering now if there's any info as to the weight of these radars? I've read somewhere that the APQ-120 weighs 290kg (approx 640lb), while in the AWG-10 topic it says that radar weighs between 650 and 750lb (340kg), not sure why the weight difference. Really, the reason i'm trying to find this kind of info is that i want to find out how contemporary american and soviet radars compare ( i'm not knowledgeable into the deep technicals of it, so the basic numbers like range weight etc have to do for me), i'm trying to compare apples to apples as much as possible. Very interesting the 3 different detection range aspects for the APQ-109/120, namely head-on, tail-on and beam-on, each showing successively longer ranges. Perhaps diverting a bit too much here, but does anyone know if the pretty well known russian radar ranges figures (for radars like S-23, Oryol, Smerch etc) refer to head on aspect and are they average figures, in which case should it be assumed that tail-on or beam-on figures should be roughly increased as for the APQ-109/120, and same for maximum possible ranges?  

• 4 February 2023

The F4D AN/APQ 109 - AN/APA 165 RADAR package consisted of the following components (to the best of my faded memory): RT & CW units, synchronizer, modulator, power supply, TIC, antenna, antenna manual controller, RADAR system pressure pump, display electronics, HUD, front & back screens. I'm just guessing, but all these components must have weighed in at about 650 lbs. (I have no guess on the weight of the mounting infrastructure & hardware.)  

lancer21 said: Perhaps diverting a bit too much here, but does anyone know if the pretty well known russian radar ranges figures (for radars like S-23, Oryol, Smerch etc) refer to head on aspect and are they average figures, in which case should it be assumed that tail-on or beam-on figures should be roughly increased as for the APQ-109/120, and same for maximum possible ranges? Click to expand...

lancer21 said: Having found out these very interesting figures, i'm wondering now if there's any info as to the weight of these radars? I've read somewhere that the APQ-120 weighs 290kg (approx 640lb), while in the AWG-10 topic it says that radar weighs between 650 and 750lb (340kg), not sure why the weight difference. Click to expand...

Similar threads

• Started by flateric
• 12 July 2012
• Started by stealthflanker
• 6 April 2021

• Started by overscan (PaulMM)
• 28 September 2019
• 24 September 2017
• 12 October 2021
• This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register. By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Accept Learn more…

In 1963, Westinghouse was awarded a contract to build the AWG-10 Missile Control System for the F-4 Phantom. The AWG-10 provides search and track data to launch both all-weather Sparrow and Sidewinder guided missiles. This was the first multi-mode radar set that included pulse-doppler look-down capability as well as a comprehensive built-in-test (BIT) system.

• Get Involved
• Host an Event

Thank you. You have successfully signed up for our newsletter.

Error message, sorry, there was a problem. please ensure your details are valid and try again..

• Free Timed-Entry Passes Required
• Terms of Use

Navigation menu

Personal tools.

• View source
• View history
• Ground vehicles
• WT on YouTube
• Official Forum
• War Thunder
• Recent changes
• Random page
• What links here
• Related changes
• Special pages
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Page information

In other languages

F-4e phantom ii.

• 1 Description
• 2.1.1 Details
• 2.1.2 Engine performance
• 2.2 Survivability and armour
• 2.3 Modifications and economy
• 3.1 Offensive armament
• 3.2 Suspended armament
• 4.1.1 Notable Air RB enemies
• 4.2 Ground Realistic
• 4.3 Pros and cons
• 8 External links

Description

The F-4E Phantom II is a rank VII American jet fighter with a battle rating of 11.0 (AB/RB) and 10.7 (SB). It was introduced in Update 1.97 "Viking Fury" .

The mighty F-4E Phantom II is a famous US aircraft from the Vietnam War era and a reliable workhorse of many militaries around the world. Powered by two General Electric J79-GE-17 jets, each producing an incredible 8,010 kgf on maximum afterburner, the F-4E boasts high speed and a solid climb rate. Leading-edge "Agile Eagle" slats increase its turning capability and somewhat mitigate the reputation of the Phantom family as flying bricks. In the weapons department, the F-4E has access to AIM-7E-2 Sparrows for medium-to-long range combat, AIM-9J Sidewinders for close-in work, and an enormous array of ground attack ordnance including AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles and AGM-62 Walleye glide bombs. This multi-role vehicle is a supremely capable ground attacker and a competitive fighter, though in air combat pilots must account for its lack of a pulse-Doppler radar.

General info

Flight performance.

Engine performance

Survivability and armour.

The survivability features of the F-4E Phantom II have grown compared to its predecessor with an armour plate and missile countermeasures attached.

By this stage in the high-rank battles, all the fuel tanks are self-sealing. While this will assist with any fuel tank punctures from machine gun calibre weapons, the presence of fast-firing autocannons and missiles mean that these self-sealing tanks are only an accessory to the overall survival of the aircraft.

The addition of an armour plate is a minor benefit as it is only an 8.5 mm steel plate just below the forward fuel tank in the fuselage. This is only thick enough to block a glancing shot to the fuselage. Its most effective use seems to when the F-4E Phantom II as it is pulling up from an attack run, as it is in that angle where the armour plate can potentially block any shot threatening the fuselage fuel tanks and engine. However, considering the small size it is made up of and the large plane overall, this armour plate should not be relied upon for the overall survival of the aircraft.

The biggest change from previous version is the countermeasure flares, which are greatly useful at deterring incoming infrared-homing missiles like the Sidewinders or R-60s . To utilise the flares, one must turn off their engine afterburners to eliminate that as a significant source of heat, deploy the flares in a suitable manner, then bank away from the flares to that the missile lock onto the remaining heat source rather than the plane's engine.

A survivability feature shared with its predecessor is the Radar Warning Receiver (RWR). The RWR will ping the player in the source of any incoming radar scans, and will also notify if the radar source have achieved a lock-on with the player. Keep an eye on this as it may signify to the player that an enemy semi-active radar homing missile may be launched soon and evasive actions should be taken.

Modifications and economy

Offensive armament

The F-4E Phantom II is armed with:

• 1 x 20 mm M61A1 cannon, chin-mounted (640 rpg)
• 1 x 20 mm M61A1 cannon + 90 x countermeasures

Due to this cannon's high rate of fire, trigger discipline is a must.

Suspended armament

The F-4E Phantom II can be outfitted with the following ordnance:

Usage in battles

The F-4E Phantom II is well-suited for most in-game situations. For attacking ground targets, the plane is armed with an assortment of bombs, rockets, and missiles. And against air targets, players may employ the vehicle's deadly air-to-air missiles and frontal cannon(s). If desired, three externally-mounted gunpods may be equipped, but note that these may not be useful in certain situations. Although they will undoubtedly increase the vehicle's destructive capabilities, they also appreciably hinder flight performance through induced drag. In many situations, one front-facing cannon is all that is required to dispatch an opponent aircraft. As for the missiles, the ones used by this plane are average at its rank, comparable to the R-60 missiles equipped by the MiG-21MF (Germany) and the MiG-21SMT (albeit with worse manoeuvrability). The AIM-9J missiles are most effective when fired from between 1 to 3 km away from the target. Any closer and they will struggle to track and likely veer off target for a miss.

The F-4E has one of the highest rates of climb out of any vehicle in the game. This is however where most of its performance advantages end. Due to its weight, the Phantom has rather mediocre acceleration, and not the best top speed. It is not advised to dogfight anything other than Starfighters and other Phantom variants, as the F-4 has a very poor turn rate. Although the aircraft has better energy retention than most of its opponents, it still bleeds considerable amounts of speed while turning, which can't be regained very quickly due to the aircraft's heavy weight. It also performs quite poorly at low speeds, which is also caused by its weight.

In air realistic battles, it is recommended to take a balanced fuel load of 20 or 30 minutes, depending on how aggressive you fly (this will also allow you to liberally use the afterburner without fear of premature fuel exhaustion). The most useful default Air RB armament for the F-4E are the 4 AIM-9Js or 4 AIM-7E-2s, though both missiles can be used under a custom loadout setting. As the F-4E's dogfighting abilities are rather lacklustre, the Sparrows may prove more useful in the long run compared to the AIM-9J Sidewinders. The best strategy is to accelerate to a speed of roughly 900-1,100 km/h on the deck and then zoom climb to altitude (5 km or higher), where the pilot should accelerate to the highest speed possible. Lock on to targets with your radar and use your Sparrows to shoot down enemy aircraft when in range; and remember to keep an eye on your RWR as being at altitude makes you an easy target for the long range missiles prevalent at this tier. Sparrows should ideally be launched above Mach 1 to take maximum advantage of their range and manoeuvrability. After using up all your Sparrows, return to base to rearm, with the Sidewinders (if brought along) used moreso for self-defense rather than as a primary weapon. Because of its poor flight characteristics, the Phantom will struggle in one-on-one fights, making it vital to keep your teammates around and to avoid dogfighting whenever possible. The Phantom should target enemies turnfighting its friendlies, as not only will the enemy be distracted and slow, but it provides you a chance to save your teammate, who in turn may down another enemy chasing you later in the match.

To reiterate, dogfighting should be avoided as much as possible. The Phantom was designed around missiles, so they will naturally be your main way of getting kills, with the gun being a backup weapon for opportune targets. Furthermore, most of the enemies you will face at 11.0 or above can and will be able to easily manoeuvre around you, if they haven't already fired a high performance AAM at you. Although if one has unlocked the triple SUU-23/A gunpods, that is an almost surefire way to earn at least one kill in the classic head-on (in addition to its usefulness in attacking ground targets, possibly being the best option in Air Realistic).

Notable Air RB enemies

• MiG-21bis : the most advanced Soviet MiG-21, with amazing acceleration that can catch up to the F-4E quite easily, a good turn rate than can easily out-dogfight the F-4E, and flares to evade missiles. The German MiG-21bis-SAU has access to all-aspect R-60MK missiles as well. Neither has competitive radar-guided missiles however.
• JA37C Viggen : a Swedish powerhouse that boasts high low-altitude speed, good turning performance, similar weapons to the F-4E, and a Pulse-Doppler radar.
• Mirage IIIC / IIIE : armed with two of the best infrared missiles in the game, the R.550 Magic, and a long-range radar-guided missile with similar performance to the AIM-7. Strong short-term turning capabilities make them dangerous in snapshots. However, the former does not have countermeasures, and both have rather sluggish flight performance that is easily outran by the F-4E.
• Phantom FGR.2 / FG.1 : British Phantoms with more powerful engines, can out accelerate and outrun the F-4E. They also have pulse-Doppler radars and are superior in BVR. However, the F-4E beats these phantoms in a dogfight as they lack the F-4E's agile eagle slats.
• F-4EJ Kai : Japanese Phantom with an excellent pulse-Doppler radar and dangerous AIM-9L and AIM-7F missiles. However, similar to the British Phantoms. it lacks the F-4E's agile eagle slats and thus is beaten by the F-4E in a dogfight.
• F-4E Phantom II: This very aircraft, as a result you simply play around its weaknesses as described in the " Pros and cons " section.
• F-4J Phantom II : Equivalent naval American Phantom variant, sacrifices ATGM/GBU capability for superior AIM-7F SARH missiles and a PD radar, but lack of "agile eagle" wing slats means it is beaten by the F-4E in a dogfight.
• MiG-23M / MF / MLD : swing-wing fighters with potent missiles, good avionics, and superior agility to the F-4E on lower sweep settings. Avoid dogfighting and keep an eye out for sneak attacks with the R-23T/24T missiles. The MiG-23M and MiG-23MF have very limited countermeasures, which the F-4E can exploit with its large missile capacity. The MiG-23MLD has excellent speed and climb performance that can match or exceed the F-4E.
• J-7E : a light and nimble Chinese fighter with exceptional agility but no radar-guided missiles. Avoid dogfighting whenever possible.
• F-14A Early : Fourth generation fighter and American successor to the F-4, with the ultra-long range and fire-and-forget Phoenix missiles, superior radar and missiles, and vastly superior dogfighting performance. Acceleration and top speed is mediocre, however, and the F-4E can keep up with its speed.
• Mirage 2000C : French fourth generation fighter with vastly superior turn rate, acceleration, and missiles. It only has four missiles, however, as opposed to the F-4E's eight.
• F-16A : American fourth generation fighter with superior AIM-9L (and, in most cases, AIM-7F/Ms), superior PD radar, vastly superior turn rate and acceleration. Its top speed can be matched by the F-4E. Avoid dogfighting whenever possible.
• MiG-29 : Russia fourth generation fighter with R-60Ms, extremely dangerous R-27ER radar guided missiles, look-down radar, and vastly superior turn rate, acceleration and top speed. Generally should be avoided.

Ground Realistic

While the AA threat at this BR is significant, this aircraft can still find great utility if used properly and is among the top aircraft for CAS in the American tech tree when the appropriate modifications are unlocked. However, like most aircraft at this BR it has little utility in ground RB when stock/without countermeasures unlocked and even when spaded is still heavily pressured by SAMs, which on some maps can even immediately engage the aircraft as it spawns. In the ground attack role, while its 20 mm cannon can do significant damage against the thinly armoured topsides of most vehicles at this BR, the strafing runs required to do so put you at immense risk of being shot down by radar-guided AAA, any SAM, or even some tanks with proximity fused ammunition/ATGMs/autocannons. Due to this, CAS should be completely avoided in a stock F-4E.

As a result, you want to rely on quick strikes that put you in the line of fire for as little time as possible or long range attacks that eliminate the need to enter enemy AA range at all. The latter is most prominently done with its TV-guided munitions, the best of which are the AGM-62 Walleyes, GBU-8s and AGM-65 Mavericks. To significantly make use of these guided weapons, you often need to put several kilometers worth of distance between you and the target so you can properly aim, fire, and pull away (and optimally against a stationary target). All these weapons have two lock modes: point lock and track lock (you can tell what kind of lock you have by looking at the selected weapon name). Point lock means that the weapon has locked on to a point of the ground, and upon optimal conditions will hit that point. Track lock means that the weapon has locked on to an enemy vehicle, and under optimal conditions will follow its movement and hit it. Track locks are usually much more difficult to achieve, needing a much closer range, but is the more reliable option when attempting to destroy vehicles (oftentimes an unaware enemy will accidentally move outside the point lock of your weapon and dodge it).

• The AGM-62A Walleye is a guided bomb, meaning it has no power and glides to a target via gravity and launch speed of the aircraft. It is a smaller, lighter weapon than the heavier GBU-8.
• The GBU-8 HOBOS is also a guided bomb similar to the Walleye. Compared to the Walleye, it has a vastly heavier 2,000lb warhead, but is also heavier in weight.
• The GBU-15(V)1/B is another guided bomb that the F-4E has. It is very similar to the GBU-8, but cannot be launched at supersonic speeds, and so taking these over GBU-8s or AGM-65s are generally not recommended.
• The AGM-65B Maverick is an air-to-ground missile. This means it has a rocket motor that propels it for a short amount of time, making it more suitable for lower altitude launches where the guided bombs would not have enough altitude to glide to the target. The Maverick is also generally better than the guided bombs at obtaining and holding a track lock on enemy vehicles. In addition, more can be taken (3 can be taken in the place of one bomb). However, the AGM-65 can sometimes be unreliable, such as exploding randomly or losing lock, especially in the case of long range launches (<8 km). Compared to the guided bombs, the Maverick has an anti-tank HEAT warhead, which theoretically should destroy any vehicle it hits but sometimes can fail to kill heavily-armoured MBTs. In addition, being a HEAT warhead and not a bomb, the Maverick doesn't have the blast radius to score critical hits from near misses.

Obtaining a lock can be difficult as the launch parameters for a reliable track lock with the TV-guided weapons put you in the range of most radar-guided SAMs due to the limited zoom of its seeker head. This is especially true with the advent of the highly advanced Pantsir-S1, with SAMs that vastly outrange your weapons. Therefore, in order to properly perform CAS, the SAM vehicles must first be destroyed. For the Pantsir, the most reliable strategy is quick pop-up strikes with the guided weapons. Upon spawning, immediately dive for treetop level as your airspawn is in range of the Pantsir's SAMs. Attempt to use terrain to stay hidden from the SAMs, which are likely located in the enemy's spawn area, while flanking left, right or behind the enemy's spawn. Once around 10 km away from the spawn, turn in and accelerate directly towards the enemy's spawn while staying low. Get as close as you can without being detected; at around 4-5 km, start rapidly climbing to around 500 m, and use the TV sight to attempt to locate any SAMs in the enemy's spawn. At 3-4 km, your TV-guided munitions have a better chance of tracking the enemy, and if you've located a SAM vehicle, launch your weapon. Quickly go defensive by turning away from the spawn while releasing chaff (also turn away if you haven't located any SAMs by 3 km). By any luck, your TV-guided weapon will destroy the SAM. You can circle around and rinse and repeat to attempt to destroy additional SAMs. Once you are sure there are no more SAMs, you can climb to a higher altitude to launch your ordnance against enemy tanks.

AGM-12C Bullpup missiles must be guided with your keyboard, thus highly reducing your situational awareness and aircraft movement while you attempt to guide the missile. Though Bullpups were powerful at lower BRs, at top tier and in a SAM prevalent environment, it is not recommended to use them.

Air-to-air ordnance can be taken, but in a limited amount. Sidewinders can generally be omitted for additional ordnance due to the prevalence of countermeasures at this BR. Additionally, they are of little use against many helicopters such as the Ka-50/52 which have IRCM and countermeasure dispensers that automatically activate upon a missile launch. What does work against helicopters is the radar-guided AIM-7E/E-2 Sparrow. Though the F-4E's radar unfortunately cannot lock on to low-flying aircraft, at top tier, oftentimes helicopters will be flying high enough to be locked onto. Due to the to helicopter's slow speed, the radar will still not lock on to the helicopter until at most <3 km, and sometimes will only lock as close as 1.5 km. At this close range, chaff launches and evasive manoeuvres from the helicopter will not be enough to fool the radar-guided missile. While the M61 cannon can be used to shoot down helicopters, they have tracking-assisted cannons which will likely destroy you if you are spotted. Thus Sparrows are the safer weapon choice against helicopters. Sparrows can also be used against strike drones, which are not hot and difficult to get a Sidewinder lock on. This air-to-air ordnance adds to the SP costs of air to ground loadouts, it's generally worth it to entirely omit or take a reduced loadout of said weapons.

Pros and cons

• Can carry up to eight missiles, allowing a total of four AIM-9Js and AIM-7E-2 (DF) for fighting either manoeuvring aircraft or at close-medium range head-on engagements respectively.
• Equipped with flares and chaff for evading enemy missiles
• Can carry a vast range of deadly ground attack ordnance (including fire-and-forget ATGMs and guided bombs)
• Deadly frontal armament with high burst mass and high damage
• Has a ballistic computer for assisting in the aim of cannons, rockets, and bombs
• Better manoeuvrability than most other Phantoms due to slats
• Best CAS payload out of all US Phantoms
• Susceptible to wing rip, especially when doing negative G manoeuvres or rolls
• Limited ammunition in the frontally-mounted cannon
• Large target for aircraft and AA alike
• Despite having slats, it is still a heavy aircraft which bleeds speed quickly and will struggle in dogfights versus more manoeuvrable opponents
• Two engines make for a strong heat signature, making it harder to dodge missiles
• Flight performance suffers immensely when carrying large amounts of ordnance
• Radar lacks pulse-Doppler or look-down capabilities, meaning it is difficult to lock and engage enemies below the horizon and/or at low altitudes with Sparrows
• In Air Battles, is often uptiered to top-rank where it can become vastly outclassed in speed, manoeuvrability, and firepower

The F-4E was initially designed as an incremental upgrade to the standard F-4C airframe used by the US Air Force. The aircraft carried a new radar in a redesigned radome, and more importantly, an internal M61 cannon mounted in the nose. As well, later-production aircraft featured the Agile Eagle upgrade, which gave the Phantom leading edge slats which improved manoeuvrability at the expense of top speed. The addition of an internal cannon was a highly anticipated upgrade, as it fixed a problem that F-4C squadrons faced when operating over Vietnam.

The first F-4Es entered service in the 1960s and were dispatched to serve in Vietnam, where they complemented the existing inventories of F-4C and D variant aircraft. The aircraft type was credited with 21 kills in Vietnam, most of which were achieved using the AIM-7E-2 'Dogfight Sparrow'. Several pilots achieved Ace status while flying the F-4 in Vietnam, including Charles B. DeBellevue, who was the highest-scoring American ace in Vietnam. The F-4 went on to form the backbone of the US fighter force for the bulk of the 1960s and 70s. As well, F-4E was flown by the USAF Thunderbirds Demonstration Team between 1969 and 1974. The large, noisy Phantom performed around the world until 1974, when rising fuel costs forced the Thunderbirds to convert to the smaller T-38 Talon.

The F-4E was exported to a variety of countries. Israel was the largest foreign user of the F-4 Phantom, having purchased 124 F-4 Phantoms from the United States betwen 1971 and 1974; the Israelis were credited with at least 115 kills using the F-4 Phantom during various conflicts. As well, Germany and Japan both procured modified versions of the F-4E, being the F-4F and F-4EJ, respectively. Other notable foreign users of the F-4E include Australia (24 aircraft), Egypt (35 aircraft), Greece (34 aircraft), and Turkey (40 aircraft).

During service, the Phantom gained a number of nicknames, including "Rhino" (referencing its titanium construction and long nose), "Double-Ugly", and even "The world's largest distributor of MiG Parts", referencing the 277 MiGs downed by the Phantom during various conflicts. The USAF retired the aircraft in 1996, and the aircraft was used as a target drone until 2016. The aircraft remains in service with Iran, Japan, South Korea, Greece and Turkey, 62 years after its maiden flight.

• Skins and camouflages for the F-4E Phantom II from live.warthunder.com.

• F-4 Phantom II (Family)
• Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 (Family)
• SAAB J35D Draken
• Dassault Mirage IIIC

External links

• Official data sheet - more details about the performance
• Technical Order 1F-4C-1 - Flight Manual for F-4C/F-4D/F-4E Aircraft
• USA aircraft
• Seventh rank aircraft
• Jet fighters
• Aircraft with arrestor gear
• Aircraft with airbrake
• Aircraft with drogue parachute
• Aircraft with flares
• With cockpit
• This page was last edited on 20 September 2023, at 21:47.