Mitsubishi F-4EJ Kai Super Phantom

[_David_Bowie_ 1,554]

Summary of arguments and rebuttals

 

Picture of the JDAM on the F-4EJ Kai?
it is just for display.

 

Is the ADTW's F-4EJ's new antenna is GPS antenna?
It's been installed since 1988, so that is not a GPS antenna.

 

A picture of the F-4EJ Kai with the XGCS-2?
Just performing aerodynamics and separation tests with dummy bomb, not real bomb.

 

F-4EJ Kai's GCS-1?
No ground attack ability due to seeker's performance

 

F-4EJ Kai's AGM-62 or AGM-65?
When producing the F-4EJ, all equipment was removed, and no functions were added even in EJ Kai.

[コタリ 2,732]

1 minute ago, LordMustang said:

You're comparing weapons specifically designed for engaging ground targets with a weapon designed for attacking naval targets. This does not mean that one is better than the other, they are designed for completely different goals.

Wow I never realized unmodified Mistrals were designed to attack ground targets. The more you know I guess. You also completely ignore every other point I make about how sea and land based targets aren't radically different target environments and how the level of IR radiation needed to be put out by the ground to disrupt a GCS would literally make every single IR thermal system in the world useless.

[コタリ 2,732]

16 minutes ago, Optical_Ilyushin said:

Of note, the AGM-65F's warhead is semi armor piercing instead of shaped charge, and has a distinctly greater bursting charge when compared to the shaped charge counterparts.

That shouldn't be much of an issue since it has more explosive mass than a Mk82, so anything it hits will be dead regardless.

Edited October 20, 2021 by AnimeThighs

[LordMustang 7,405]

12 minutes ago, AnimeThighs said:

You also completely ignore every other point I make about how sea and land based targets aren't radically different target environments and how the level of IR radiation needed to be put out by the ground to disrupt a GCS would literally make every single IR thermal system in the world useless.

Do you think there is no significant difference between a naval vessel in a sea backdrop and a ground target in a ground surface backdrop, considering employment of these weapons?

 

16 minutes ago, AnimeThighs said:

Wow I never realized unmodified Mistrals were designed to attack ground targets

How does a Mistral tracking a ground target prove that an anti-ship weapon can do so as well?

[コタリ 2,732]

6 minutes ago, LordMustang said:

Do you think there is no significant difference between a naval vessel in a sea backdrop and a ground target in a ground surface backdrop, considering employment of these weapons?

6 minutes ago, LordMustang said:

How does a Mistral tracking a ground target prove that an anti-ship weapon can do so as well?

Do you not see the irony or contradiction in these statements? Do you unironically believe that there is less difference between air vs ground employment than sea vs ground employment. This has got to be a joke right?

 

"The sea and land are 'significantly' different environments and its impossible to cross employ these weapons."

 

"How does a weapon being employed in a radically different environment than it was designed for signify that weapons can be used in environments they weren't specifically designed for."

[SturmWerwolf 793]

7 hours ago, LordMustang said:

The JDAM will be removed from F-4EJ/Kai. More details should follow later.

 

Regarding the GCS-1, there is no information that it can succesfully detect and track ground targets. Detecting a heat signature of a ground target can be significantly more difficult than detecting ships. If there is information regarding this, or more specifics regarding the seeker performance, it could be considered.

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Fireraid233 said:

Well I guess this means Japan won't have any sort of guided munitions against ground then rip.

Yep ... Good work guys. 

 

You got the JDAMs removed, before they even had a replacement ready. Now the F-4EJ Kai will have nothing and probably won't for a good while.

 

@LordMustang @Optical_Ilyushin Don't worry I'm not blaming you guys. More so the people that pushed for their removal before Gaijin had a proper replacement ready.

Edited October 20, 2021 by SturmWerwolf

[LordMustang 7,405]

14 minutes ago, AnimeThighs said:

Do you unironically believe that there is less difference between air vs ground employment than sea vs ground employment. This has got to be a joke right?

All these environments provide different design challenges, and as a result different weapon systems. Without knowing the specifics of each weapon system, you can't simply assume that because Y happened to work in environment X once, that Z also works in environment X.

 

I relayed the message from the developers and I relayed what information is needed. This discussion is fruitless, as it won't provide the required information.

[Optical_Ilyushin 5,554]

40 minutes ago, AnimeThighs said:

Do you not see the irony or contradiction in these statements? Do you unironically believe that there is less difference between air vs ground employment than sea vs ground employment. This has got to be a joke right?

 

"The sea and land are 'significantly' different environments and its impossible to cross employ these weapons."

 

"How does a weapon being employed in a radically different environment than it was designed for signify that weapons can be used in environments they weren't specifically designed for."

 

There are certainly differences in the design challenges for an infrared seeker when it comes to target discrimination based upon the background environment it needs to deal with.

 

Spoiler

 

Above you can see a motorcycle left out on a sunny day. With exception for the shadows, the rest of this picture is showing uniform temperature as the area has reached thermal equilibrium. In spite of this, various materials appear "hotter" or "colder" based upon material properties, geometry, and surface texture. While perhaps a crude example, it showcases how terrain variability can obfuscate and confuse an infrared seeker when tasked to perform target discrimination.

 

So far as I am aware, the only infrared homing systems which are designed to handle ground targets are ones which employ imaging infrared technology, i.e. use of image recognition software to perform target discrimination, at which point the actual intensity/emissivity of the target is less relevant (although it is still important) than the software being capable of recognizing "target shaped objects" with the camera.

 

Systems which employ this would include the Javelin and the Type 91 improved (SAM-2B). Incidentally, the bog-standard Type 91 and the Type 93 employ visible band image homing, which is in effect the same idea of recognizing "target shaped objects" but with a camera in the visible light spectrum.

 

Spoiler

 

Here is an image of an oil slick taken by a thermal imaging camera suspended above a barge. As you can see, water, which has a high emissivity, appears much brighter than the oil or the buoys, in spite of the fact that these materials could be reasonably assumed to be at thermal equilibrium.

 

Because of this particular characteristic of water, you can even design an IR seeker to uniquely take advantage of this background in a manner which would not translate to operation against targets on land, however due to a lack of information on the details of the GCS-1's seeker behavior, I cannot comment if it is specialized to take advantage of these particular traits.

[Nacho5944 181]

You know, I have a brilliant idea since realism is something we've thrown out the window several times for the sake of balance and it's not something I'm particularly picky about since this is just a game made for entertainment. Replace the JDAM's with GCS-1 and give it the ability to attack ground targets with boresight targeting like the placeholder GCS-1 has, but only give us 4 GCS-1's to balance it with other aircraft that have guided weapons. Ta dah, problem solved, let's all go home and have a cold beer and stop being so passive aggressive with each other.

[Wiggly_Armed_Man 2,383]

Can we just be content with not getting any guided munitions for the F-4EJ? Everyone who has looked into the GCS-1 before knew that it wasn't guaranteed to actually function against land-based targets with no examples of it being done in real life and it purely being meant to be a anti-ship bomb. Once you find out that the seeker seeks its targets by comparing the ship's IR signature to the ocean's, the possibility becomes even more iffy.

 

I don't think giving it a ahistorical AGM-65F or a broken GCS-1 is the right choice.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Wiggly_Armed_Man

[Optical_Ilyushin 5,554]

25 minutes ago, Wiggly_Armed_Man said:

Can we just be content with not getting any guided munitions for the F-4EJ? Everyone who has looked into the GCS-1 before knew that it wasn't guaranteed to actually function against land-based targets with no examples of it being done in real life and it purely being meant to be a anti-ship bomb. Once you find out that the seeker seeks its targets by comparing the ship's IR signature to the ocean's, the possibility becomes even more iffy.

 

I don't think giving it a ahistorical AGM-65F or a broken GCS-1 is the right choice.

 

Personally I'd be happy to see them introduce it as an LOAL IR bomb with the caveat that it only guides against targets in the water, the idea being it'll be droppable as a dumb bomb against targets in general, but with the ability to slap targets in the water should the opportunity present itself. Of course it would be largely not a change over just the existing M117 and Mk 82, but I also just want to perform anti-shipping attacks in custom battles.

 

Beyond that, the P-3 Orion or Kawasaki P-1 would be the best candidates for standoff weaponry in ground forces.

[Wiggly_Armed_Man 2,383]

16 minutes ago, Optical_Ilyushin said:

 

Personally I'd be happy to see them introduce it as an LOAL IR bomb with the caveat that it only guides against targets in the water, the idea being it'll be droppable as a dumb bomb against targets in general, but with the ability to slap targets in the water should the opportunity present itself. Of course it would be largely not a change over just the existing M117 and Mk 82, but I also just want to perform anti-shipping attacks in custom battles.

 

Beyond that, the P-3 Orion or Kawasaki P-1 would be the best candidates for standoff weaponry in ground forces.

The P-3 and P-1 would be nice to see as the end-of-the-line for the heavy bombers, though I have my doubts that they won't just fall victim to the same issue that the B-29 and Tu-4 have against missiles despite its countermeasures; and it won't have anything to defend itself against the faster jet aircraft it would be facing making passes on it. In ground RB  and SB the problem would be even worse with long-range SAMs like the Tunguska or the ADATS.

[Optical_Ilyushin 5,554]

3 minutes ago, Wiggly_Armed_Man said:

The P-3 and P-1 would be nice to see as the end-of-the-line for the heavy bombers, though I have my doubts that they won't just fall victim to the same issue that the B-29 and Tu-4 have against missiles despite its countermeasures; and it won't have anything to defend itself against the faster jet aircraft it would be facing making passes on it. In ground RB  and SB the problem would be even worse with long-range SAMs like the Tunguska or the ADATS.

 

I honestly don't expect them to do well in air RB whatsoever; good luck trying to perform base bombing with mavs, I'm sure that'll go swell.

 

With that said however, for their applicability to combined arms, I think that these are assets which will be utterly terrifying against tanks and ships, with the latter being a particular quality Japan needs assets for, due to a lack of potent heavy bombers with high payloads (currently, heavy bombers define naval CAS thanks to their high payloads and ability to use bombsights, as these qualities emphasize the ability to delete battleships better than any other, and allow users to do so with comparatively lower risk when compared against dive bombing or torpedo attack runs of any sort).

 

Granted of course, such maritime patrol craft won't be usable in naval until much later on due to BR limits, I think it'd be nice to see them in preparation, rather than waiting for naval to reach the appropriate BR only to then wait for the aircraft to get added.

[Wiggly_Armed_Man 2,383]

14 minutes ago, Optical_Ilyushin said:

I honestly don't expect them to do well in air RB whatsoever; good luck trying to perform base bombing with mavs, I'm sure that'll go swell.

 

With that said however, for their applicability to combined arms, I think that these are assets which will be utterly terrifying against tanks and ships, with the latter being a particular quality Japan needs assets for, due to a lack of potent heavy bombers with high payloads (currently, heavy bombers define naval CAS thanks to their high payloads and ability to use bombsights, as these qualities emphasize the ability to delete battleships better than any other, and allow users to do so with comparatively lower risk when compared against dive bombing or torpedo attack runs of any sort).

 

Granted of course, such maritime patrol craft won't be usable in naval until much later on due to BR limits, I think it'd be nice to see them in preparation, rather than waiting for naval to reach the appropriate BR only to then wait for the aircraft to get added.

They would be useful in naval, probably moreso than anywhere else. I wouldn't mind seeing them added if only for eye-candy atm, or as CDK models in preparation. Hopefully if it is added, Gaijin might start experimenting with ASMs and the larger purpose of the F-4EJ kai upgrade might then come into the game.

[Fireraid233 4,274]

Does the P-1 have an ECM pod or anyway to jam radar? That could help against SAM SPAA

[Optical_Ilyushin 5,554]

39 minutes ago, Fireraid233 said:

Does the P-1 have an ECM pod or anyway to jam radar? That could help against SAM SPAA

 

So far as I can tell no, but it's got a pretty spicy ESM suite, allowing it to detect and identify radar emissions.

[MD_mudhen 31]

Actually, I would like to appeal for EJ kai to get GCS-1 to be use on ground rb. There are tons of historical inaccuracies in this game already (cough recent german mig cough), as well as since gaijin stop caring for historical accuracies for a long time anyway. Think about it, Japan wont be getting a new top tier jet for at least the next 5 years(F-2/F-15J which the game will take a huge time to be ready for them), if even f4ej kai cant get usable decent guided munitions for grb, japan will have 0 guided munition against ground for very very long time, all whilst every other country will slowly get their guided missile/bombs to enjoy. I'll appeal that for once historical inaccuracies to be look past this time for japan so that they can be  more or less on fair and equal grounds with most other countries who will eventually get their guided ground attack munitons

 

thank you for reading

Edited October 21, 2021 by _FraiN

[Optical_Ilyushin 5,554]

51 minutes ago, Wiggly_Armed_Man said:

They would be useful in naval, probably moreso than anywhere else. I wouldn't mind seeing them added if only for eye-candy atm, or as CDK models in preparation. Hopefully if it is added, Gaijin might start experimenting with ASMs and the larger purpose of the F-4EJ kai upgrade might then come into the game.

 

Ground in theory would see the most immediate benefit, in part because naval's nowhere close to a BR bracket where the P-1 or P-3 would be capable of joining in, and ground would also stand to gain much from acquiring access to mavericks.

[丨ō益ō丨 123]

So... since we're leaning hard on the historical accuracy... since I'm reading the JASDF never purchased the Aim-7E-2... do we remove it...

 

ᵃⁿᵈ ᵍᵉᵗ ᵗʰᵉ ᵃᶦᵐ⁻⁷ᶠ ᶦⁿˢᵗᵉᵃᵈ

 

p̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶e̶r̶f̶ ̶g̶a̶i̶j̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶k̶s̶

 

 

[SturmWerwolf 793]

Gaijin gave you the JDAMs, it was at least something. Players weren't content and pushed for their removal before the update, when they don't have any replacement ready. Developing a proper replacement takes time and resources (not to mention it might not even arrive for quite sometime).

 

"Be careful what you wish for you might just get it".  

 

The only thing they could do is still add the JDAMs back, although it probably too late now.

 

@Smin1080p Would still have the final say I assume.

[Nacho5944 181]

"Players" yeah no it was like two people, I'm pretty sure the rest of us were fine with it having JDAM's because we know that balance comes before historical accuracy because this is a game to have fun first and foremost. Honestly I was practicing with them a lot on the dev server to try and get really accurate with them on small ground targets, guess all that effort was wasted.

[コタリ 2,732]

@Optical_Ilyushin There should be no issue with the EJ Kai receiving Mavericks since as Grom puts it; It just needs to be possible to use, which it is. Can you please pass this possibility onto the devs as this would make the Japanese Phantom more in line with the F-4E and F-4F with their Mavericks.

 

Edit: This would also open the EJ Kai to receiving AGM-62's as well.

Edited October 21, 2021 by AnimeThighs

[AngelPipes 31]

1 hour ago, Optical_Ilyushin said:

 

Ground in theory would see the most immediate benefit, in part because naval's nowhere close to a BR bracket where the P-1 or P-3 would be capable of joining in, and ground would also stand to gain much from acquiring access to mavericks.

Big practice target for atgm and not the best aa rockets like italian mistrals lol

[_David_Bowie_ 1,554]

48 minutes ago, AnimeThighs said:

@Optical_Ilyushin There should be no issue with the EJ Kai receiving Mavericks since as Grom puts it; It just needs to be possible to use, which it is. Can you please pass this possibility onto the devs as this would make the Japanese Phantom more in line with the F-4E and F-4F with their Mavericks.

 

Edit: This would also open the EJ Kai to receiving AGM-62's as well.

Developers will only accept if technically possible, and F-4EJ Kai is technically cannot use AGM-65.

 

You're just spitting ideas out with no evidence. Is there any evidence that the main weapon computer J/AYK-1 could use the AGM-65 or AGM-62?

 

If they made the AGM-65 &  AGM-62 usable on the Phantom, why didn't they say anything? There is no mention of the AGM-65 at any JASDF public event, in any book, or in the newspaper.

 

You can see, there is no evidence. You're the only one claiming that the F-4EJ Kai can use AGM-65 & AGM-62. 

[SturmWerwolf 793]

11 minutes ago, _David_Bowie_ said:

Developers will only accept if technically possible, and F-4EJ Kai is technically cannot use AGM-65.

 

You're just spitting ideas out with no evidence. Is there any evidence that the main weapon computer J/AYK-1 could use the AGM-65 or AGM-62?

 

If they made the AGM-65 &  AGM-62 usable on the Phantom, why didn't they say anything? There is no mention of the AGM-65 at any JASDF public event, in any book, or in the newspaper.

 

You can see, there is no evidence. You're the only one claiming that the F-4EJ Kai can use AGM-65 & AGM-62. 

That's not the point. The devs probably put alot of work into JDAMs. Now the exact historical replacements will take more development time and resources. You gotta consider those factors, they'll have ten nations (with the addition of Israel to the line up). They now need to balance resources between the three "major" nations US, Germany and Russia and the other seven more or less "minor" nations with each future update. Leaving the F-4EJ Kai without anything for possibly upto a year or even more. I don't think anyone wants that.

[Mako_Reizei1 275]

3 hours ago, _FraiN said:

Actually, I would like to appeal for EJ kai to get GCS-1 to be use on ground rb. There are tons of historical inaccuracies in this game already (cough recent german mig cough), as well as since gaijin stop caring for historical accuracies for a long time anyway. Think about it, Japan wont be getting a new top tier jet for at least the next 5 years(F-2/F-15J which the game will take a huge time to be ready for them), if even f4ej kai cant get usable decent guided munitions for grb, japan will have 0 guided munition against ground for very very long time, all whilst every other country will slowly get their guided missile/bombs to enjoy. I'll appeal that for once historical inaccuracies to be look past this time for japan so that they can be  more or less on fair and equal grounds with most other countries who will eventually get their guided ground attack munitons

 

thank you for reading

 

german mig? gaijin only care about technical aspect not historical and since there no info whether gcs-1 could track ground vehicle, they can implement it as so while the MIG was able to carry r-3r but the german ones cannot though didnt they removed r-3r for MIG-21 SPS anyway? and change it to r60 with countermeasure pod.