exhausted

That's fine, there's even demand for DCS: I-16 and Yak-52. I would never suggest there is no audience for those choices. I'll be skipping the F-4E, but if we ever see a proper naval variant then I'll jump on it. Well, the Air Force flew the F-4Gs after the Cold War, but that's not the version we are getting. I am not sure the F-4Es survived in service after 1991, except as target drones. Marine F-4Ss made it to 1992, and surely would have had a role in any Cold War scenario involving Europe. I would even say there is no exact science since even retired birds continue flying, such as the F-117s. Now, I can't really be sure of Heatblur's motives, but I would think that lack of anticipation that there would be such a preference for carrier capable F-4s would likely be the biggest reason. Who really knows?

I want to be sensitive here, but I still want to acknowledge that the US operated F-4s from the carriers literally all over the world. They performed deterrence the Med, operated off Cuba, Korea, Taiwan, USSR, China, Africa and of course Vietnam. They operated in more places than the Air Force took the F-4E. Then, there were the land based squadrons of F-4Bs, Js, Ns and Ss. I think it's time to put the idea that naval operations in the Phantom were a tiny footnote of its history. Quite the contrary, if it wasn't for the Navy then the Phantom never would have been and the Air Force would have been flying upgraded F-100s and F-104s over Vietnam until 1973. Literally every post-1945 map in DCS has a place for some type of Phantom naval ops.

You could add a carrier group to any map with 90 miles of water from the coast, and you missed Syria, Marianas and upcoming Kola.

Our map sizes are fine for the task -- the Marines and Navy operate both from land and sea. Yankee Station was 90 miles off the coast. The Marine base at Da Nang was 90 miles from the border and housed half a dozen F-4 squadrons (Bs and Js). I'm not sure where you are going with that track, especially since Heatblur is most known for bringing the F-14 to DCS.

You don't have to go in circles at all. There are F-14 versions promised but not released. This is very much a justification to believe that a distantly planned derivative of an unfinished module is even less likely. If you judge that to be 'more likely' then whatever metric you're using to determine that is fine. You can have your opinion and I'm not going to disregard it just because I disagree with it.

That's cool that you're individually enthusiastic and all, but you mention objective reality, well I have news because Heatblur is still trying (?) to fully deliver the F-14 after a few years. It is an older module and there's no end in sight. Argue with that all you want, but as long as you are grasping at objective reality, don't forget that vaporware is a significant portion of DCS and these modules all take several years. Either way, enjoy the F-4E all you want -- I'll enjoy it when the more iconic naval models get on scene.

I agree with his post. The Marine and Navy jets are by far the most recognizable Phantoms, being carrierborn masters of the air and the ground. I think that those who also share that concern have shown valid reasoning here. We are not at all saying Heatblur won't do eventually do a naval Phantom in the next 5-10 years, but I would be very surprised. For all the expected fanfare of the F-4, just don't be surprised if you see a lot of people holding off for a proper 'tailhook' version.

I hope for their safety and prosperity.

I don't want to say anything beyond the pale, so I'll tread carefully. I'm not sure if employment of russians in a "military simulator" during a time of untold war and bloodshed is a policy that is helping the arc of the game into areas with very high demand. How can that be safe?

What is the purpose of continuing to follow russian laws? I'm not saying they shouldn't follow laws just because russian doesn't. I'm simply asking what the hang up is and how to overcome it? Nothing is insurmountable.

This would have made plenty of sense, then they could have gone off and done the special variants people are asking for: J, S, E, G, K. I would tend to agree... promises or not, the devs are not bound to deliver anything that is not being sold or binding them contractually. All the info about doing a proper naval variant is purely speculative at this point.

Do you guys still fly Beta exclusively? I'm looking at groups on Stable.

Sure, thanks for wanting to understand. Imagine firing up a dogfight server and using those precious initial seconds to set your switches and trim your plane. But instead, you are blocked by the random appearance of your pilot's 'body'. Since my keybinds are usually custom and I never actually desire to use this, er, 'feature', I don't always have a keybind available to switch off the pilot body. The game seems to have a bug where pilot bodies can show up randomly during spawn, blocking switches and other important information. I use Stable exclusively. The 'feature' is an annoyance and I can't believe it's still a focus of such involved development when it is neither wanted, appreciate or reliably implemented. See the DCS L-39 for the worst possible implementation, so far.

If the body feature can be done flawlessly, then I have no problem with it. This feature has never been flawless and I'm perfectly happy not needing Shift+P, or any other keybind.

Choose F-5 instead?

It's a buggy feature. Sometimes it turns on randomly and I find there is no keybind set for it yet. It's really lousy to have in a multiplayer fight.

While the body may be a trivial improvement for some, it has almost a certainty of breaking immersion for most. I can look at my own darn arms and legs, lol. No need to "ooh" and "ahhh" at the figure in the cockpit.

first person 3d models for the pilot's own body are a terrible idea, efforts of which should be refocused elsewhere. It is not just inconvenient but it breaks immersion.

Right, so why don't we have a common sense ME exemption seems to be the question.

I want to put a lot of space between the current Block 50 and a Cold War variant. I'm thinking of the 10 for its little bitty tail. LOL 15, I don't care... 1 I don't care... 5 I don't care. Any of them are good. But let's get this bird going. Excellent candidate for modders to built. It would be a staple like tthe A-4 or C-130!

Can we start to consider the F-16A Block 10 again? This is a huge distinction from the F-16C we have now. This would be closer to the F-5 than the modern F-16, in fact. It would be able to add a lot of 1970s capability to what we have in the F-5, without compromising the need for skill.

Good choice of scheme, USMC air for the win

Good point. Can they even fire the DEFA cannon? Maybe they can make the ammo there.

Yes, I'll have to do that. i am a little disppointed about not being able to use the R530 but that's just life. I guess it gives you a real apples to apples comparison between the F1 and the F-5.

These are my thoughts as well. I have heard of their use against a drug trafficking region near the Afghan border. But, I really don't know what ordnance they are dropping. My idea is to design 6-7 missions in a short campaign where the player is allowed either the F-5 or the F1. Their mission is to inflict casualties in a flareup of tensions in 2019 where the US launches a half-cocked invasion that is so poorly planned it gives the Iranians more of opportunities than anticipate to inflict casualties on the US. This is meant to reflect a possible choice that one of the American leaders appeared ready to use at a point in history, but was in all likelihood doomed to fail. After 6-7 missions, it is meant to wrap up with both sides claiming victory. It'll have intercept, escort and strike missions.