exhausted

Pay no mind to people ignoring your question and telling you to make your own. Start with Chuck's Guide and fill the holes as you see fit https://chucksguides.com/aircraft/dcs/av-8b/

How dare you tell the truth! Well, if Russia claims Crimea, and I claim Russia, then Crimea is mine and I personally give ED permission to render it.

CH-53 > chinook

Agree. I'm ignoring the latest round as it is obvious that no matter how people respond it will only degenerate further. Best wishes and apologies. Bad mix of views and personalities, I guess. I'm not going to point fingers or try to steer blame, since as much as I hoped for a less aggressive and more focused discussion, it takes two to tango and I participated in this hairy mess. Cheers, happy new years and best wishes for 2023.

Thank you for your continued interest but not everyone has the time to meet every requirement you set, just because you set them. I'm trying to handle questions, but you have to work with the flow of the conversation. This is where we are, if you need help keeping up.

You would probably need to take a gander through materials that get into the history of a few squadrons to get an idea of how they operated within the structure of the Marine Corps and the Navy. For example, were their methods officially sanctioned or did they need to improvised, and if so, then what were they trying to achieve in that moment? My instinct would be, from reading Olds and hearing Steve Ritchie, is there was a key divergence where the Air Force was forced to compensate where its bureaucracy proved unresponsive (for which pilots risked serious punishment). You can hear how, on one hand, the Air Force's bureaucracy made squadron commanders resort to remediation training with the Aussies, Navy and Marines - in theater. But, on the other hand, they intervened when training was improving and the result was the combat squadrons continued to be underprepared. This is what I believe drove the design of the F-4E; the aircraft is compensating for doctrinal inadequacies and is overall worse off for it. And the story continues, that since the Air Force was turning the page on TAC by introducing the F-15 and F-16, they continued to weigh the F-4E down without regard for its abilities as a fighter. The story of the -J and -S are not plagued with compensating for, what was effectively bad training, and they exploited the airframe's strengths as an effective fighter under their training and operational doctrines.

The exact number of Israel's aerial victories in air to air combat is disputed, as are Iran's. Even more so than US victories, which is why I favor doing an apples to apples comparison of the F-4E and the F-4J in US service. It makes sense, since the Marine Corps and the Navy both did a lot of air to ground, which is IIRC where you said the Air Force focused with the F-4E. Then comparing the two during the timeframe they were both actively used in air to air combat is also a fair way to compare. If you really want to get granular, then you may want to compare the exact number of each type available in theater at the peak of their victories, to get a victory to airframe ratio. Then you can look at the number of airframes actually serviceable during that time. You could also look at the number of airframes versus total completed sorties. All these would figure into a more complete picture and the results would probably be surprising all around.

Advocating is not totalitarianism. Have you not seen the effort to marginalize and erase my viewpoint? If I can deal with that then surely a pack of people who only want to see things their way can deal with an opinion they don't like without the attacks. I can deal with the attacks, it's just outside the purview of our discussion. I don't know what type of resolution you seek, but silencing others' opinions is probably not realistic.

Thank you, but this is getting very far off topic. I wish you the best.

The market has a voice. I'm in the market, so I have a voice. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but that's how the marketplace of goods and ideas works. Obviously, bullying and trying to overwhelm ideas and opinions hasn't had the effect people wanted. You don't need to list sources for everything - in fact sources have only come up 1-2 times in this thread, and they really haven't been persuasive: the reason is most of the sources are such common knowledge that the utility of listing them is quite low. For the most part, I've read the listed secondary sources and have even seen the primary sources used in them have been seriously questioned in the historical community. Anyway, it's just an idea.

I think we are saying they posted that they would be adding it and it has not been added to the game. It seems that it may be canceled now? Relates back to the F-4J because the record of post-release adds is quite thin. Maybe they are thinking that people will be too excited to fly the F-4E as Iranians to care about the -95GR? null

Ah, I wasn't sure about the Iranian F-14A being canceled. That's a bit of a let down, and sort of why I expect the Phantom module to begin and end with a couple F-4E variants. Given the record of follow ups, I would not expect a naval version realistically ever. Good on them for the late F-14A though - I do believe it's the only addition ever made on a DCS module out of quite a few (MiG-19S, Harrier II+, to name some).

I'm not in charge of anyone else, period. And it's not my job to advocate for the F-4E, for which I clearly don't wish to. I want to see the F-4J, and I'm not sure we will. I do not plan to purchase the -E model. I think the F-4E is a radical departure from the Phantom, with added weight and gimmicky features. When hardwing F-4Es are compared with hardwing F-4Js, that F-4J seemed to outperform the F-4E. When slat wing F-4Es are compared with slat wing F-4Ss, the F-4Ss seems to outperform the F-4E. In terms of historical use in the air to ground role, the F-4J has a very good record I won't shy away from. In the air to air role, the F-4J has a better record in US service than the F-4E. I am not afraid of those facts. If you disagree, then you can advocate for your position. I will keep mine.

I'm amazed at the ability for people to take things personally - they are already getting what they want with the specific model they want, and they don't want to hear anyone say anything different. I'm not doing any flaming; my opinions are just opinions - they aren't inherently negative. I'm for the F-4J, and I've included a lot of information why. Those facts and that information do not become negative just because you disagree with them. There is plenty of room for disagreement where comparisons can be fairly made and there is room for discussion where probative information can be given. What isn't discussion is people making personal attacks and wanting to silence anybody who disagrees with them. We have to untangle those concepts, since there is plenty of disagreement on which Phantom should be released.

This is still the forum to speak about the Heatblur F-4E, right? You don't have to like opinions you disagree with, but you can't cross certain lines either. You only need to look back to see my opinion is not unique or without support. This subforum is the exact proper place to discuss the upcoming Phantom modules, and that's what we are trying to do. I will continue to focus attention on the Naval variants since the Phantom was designed to be a shipborne aircraft. I really am sorry if that upsets you, but things be how they do.

I can only ask that you use history to back up your points. It's not trolling for the side using that information, despite your best efforts to frame it that way. Sorry not everyone agrees with you, but at least you can be happy you have some supporters if that makes things better. People don't express viewpoints to become popular, they express them because history tells an interesting story that largely should have an impact on how we interpret our today. I've incorporated history in every post with my viewpoint. You may not like it, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

Production numbers aren't everything. Being prolific also includes productivity. There are other versions that have far more missions under their belt, and thus more contributions. Those comparisons never included the -S with slats - they only compared USAF slat-wing Phantoms with earlier hard wing variants. Doesn't even matter though, since tactics schools like Top Gun still produced a more substantial kill count with Js than the USAF did with Es.

Frankly, a slow and sluggish Air Force version with a downgraded radar is the last thing people want out of a Phantom. "Countries used the F-4E" is fine, even if it isn't particularly persuasive given each countries' modifications make their Es fairly unique all their own. Sorry you don't like opinions that don't agree with yours, but not everyone is going to support or care about the F-4E, and this is for a lot of reasons: paltry record and negative comparisons to more prolific versions.

I would absolutely call the F-4E inflexible. Pilots who fought against all the USAF, USMC and USN during the Cold War called the Air Force the most inflexible in the air (quoted from video below); it is not hard to see how that characteristic was built into the design of the F-4E. And that other stuff about "prolific records by other countries" is just so unfocused: we aren't getting representations of the F-4s operated by other nations, and nobody knows the actual record of Israeli jets in action. Even if we did, those aircraft have extensive modifications, from the way they can take fuel to their weapons. Last, you have to remember the F-4G isn't the F-4E - I read Magnum! and I absolutely support a player-controlled Wild Weasel Phantom!!

I haven't disregarded the F-4E at all; in fact, I've acknowledged its uninteresting history and have used that information to deduce that a naval Phantom would better serve the purpose of adding the F-4 platform to DCS. Diminishing the list of it's "most prolific users" to those that used the F-4E model is sort of silly on my end, since the Navy and Marine Corps used the Phantom to its fullest extent, in every conceivable role, from sea and land. The Air Force was always limited in its operations, particularly in terms of doctrine. It just isn't interesting to model a type designed for the Air Force's inflexibility.

Sorry I seem to have touched an exposed raw nerve for you, but if you are going to accuse me of anything, it should be inspiring you to get off your bum to do something before the year's end, and for that I congratulate you. Nobody is trying to force your worship of any plane the way you are trying to evangelize your adoration for the F-4E onto everyone else. Now I was joking there, but on a serious note, I would like to point out that it's one thing to admit you like the F-4E for personally-held reasons, but quite another to elevate it by disregarding the history of Marine and Navy Phantoms. There were more mission profiles for the -J than just "intercept and TARCAP:" interdiction, strike, every flavor of CAS, escort, BARCAP, etc; F-4Js even protected the B-52s. The doctrinal differences also resulted in completely different experiences the way the F-4J was used in its native environment; in US service, tactics in the F-4J seem to have developed more aggressively and seems to have resulted in more kills than the F-4E. This would translate well into a proper F-4 module. Now, the main reason not everyone is placating the F-4E fans is that it is not the best way to represent the historic fighter's involvement in missions from sea and from shore. In fact, knowing that follow-on modules in DCS are basically never going to happen, not everyone is going to agree with you that the F-4E is the single best way to represent the iconic naval fighter design. Let's turn the logic around to see if we are following: pushing the F-4E is like announcing a B-17 module for the Channel Map, only to find the developer has settled on the PB-1W and is teasing future plans to add the B-17G at a later date.

1. On your first point, while the Air Force employed various degrees of gadgetry to overcome their deficit performance, history shows the Navy and Marine Corps trained heavily to improve air to air performance through doctrinal emphases on tactics. Even in Vietnam, you will see a mish-mash of gadgets on the Air Force's F-4 fleet. These were to a smaller degree present on the Navy and Marine Corps side, but the story is a bit more interesting for their emphasis on training and tactical solutions. On your subpoint to excuse the F-4E's underperformance, being due to the emphasis on mud moving, well it's not an excuse at all. There's this other branch that used F-4Js almost exclusively for ground attack: the United States Marine Corps. You will not only find the Navy's F-4Js outperformed the Air Force's F-4Es in the air, but the Marine Corps' F-4Js outperformed the Air Force's F-4Es on the ground. The Air Force Phantoms simply weren't trained or trusted to make passes where the Marines routinely bombed. 2. You mention the Navy entered Vietnam from each direction, but so did the Air Force. The Air Force routinely followed the coast north from bases in RVN. Furthermore, the Air Force isn't excused because of lack of fuel, given that both branches had adequately available fuel from tanker aircraft operating in the area. The Air Force routinely refueled right before entering North Vietnam, and refueled immediately after exiting North Vietnam. All this is to suggest the F-4J and the F-4E can be fairly compared by their performance in both air to air and air to ground roles, and the history will show the Navy and Marine Corps squadrons flying F-4Js outperformed their Air Force brethren flying F-4Es, and this prospectively would translate into the F-4J, or even S, giving DCS players a richer experience from the diversity of scenarios and operational functions, than an F-4E being confined shore bases and relying on gadgetry.

Are you referring to the slatted F-4E, which entered Vietnam in Sept 1972, with some 3 months of warfare under its belt? Or the Israeli F-4, which had several modifications the devs will never implement into DCS? Either way, it's hard to say they represent "the most maneuverable variant in service," when they were also slower and had an insignificant historical footprint in warfare before more powerful and more nimble variants entered serve with the Marines and the Navy. Gauging their success, the F-4J shot down more MiGs than the F-4E during and after 1972, despite the presence of more F-4Es in the AOO. The F-4E does not have any kills before 1972, but the F-4J does. The F-4J also has the last kill of the war, in January 1973. Perhaps, the -J really does present an apples to apples comparison that shows a more interesting history with a more noteworthy record.

The F-4G would be an awesome addition to DCS as it would expand warfare into a new and fascinating area of air warfare.

Not to mention the F-4J without slats should have better turning performance than an F-4E without slats, and an F-4S with slats should have better turning performance than a later-F-4E with slats. In each apples to apples comparison, the F-4E is outperformed by naval variants. This is to be expected: the Air Force wanted a bomb truck in the -E and the Navy and Marine Corps primarily wanted a fighter in the B, J, N and S.