divinee

Looks like that my charts are from the slatted version

My understanding is that J is not that much better at turning than E with slats. S though is propably superior to E with slats because of the better thrust. I haven't found sustained numbers for the J or S but -79 manual for E says about 14.5deg sustained in SL with 4x AIM-7 and 42777lb. Test flight was done in 1973 so those numbers are propably without slats (not 100% sure because the charts don't mention that). Let's continue the discussion in

I created this topic to compare different F-4 versions to different aircrafts. The main point is to learn how to fly phantom against various enemy aircrafts. This topic will be a continuation from the page 8 and 9 discussion of the "Announcing the F-4 Phantom for DCS World!" @BIGNEWY @NineLine maybe you can move those posts here if possible? Edit: We don't want to start to argue which aircraft is better and please keep the discussion civil.

We really should make ”Phantom vs XXX” topic and move these posts into that. Lots of good info and it would be shame that it gets lost here edit: maybe moderators can help with that?

These are quite interesting comparisons. Can you show us some numbers?

Thank you for the link. There seems to be quite a lot of good info

Thank you for the correction. Yeah I was familiar with the Rivet Haste, but i haven't found info about the Combat Tree in Rivet Haste program and that information seems to be under the rock . Can you share some sources where I can read more about those?

That’s what i’ve also read. Only some D’s had combat tree in Vietnam. Though the information is quite limited so i’m not 100% sure..

I’d like to have source for that order? They said that E will be first and then they will start to make other version.

I’d recommend ”Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club” by Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

Then this whole topic is in a wrong place among many other topics

You guys think too negatively.. If someone makes Vietnam map, wouldn’t that be great? If you are not interested in that, there are lots of other people willing to pay for it and you are still losing nothing. If HB is planning to do more phantoms, the propability that we are getting Vietnam era version in a couple years timeframe is quite great and we need a map for that. Also Vietnam map would be excellent from the sales point of view (lots of Vietnam era fans here). Would be crazy not to make it. ED is improving the core all the time so i wouldn’t keep Vietnam map as impossible to model or run. I’m not saying that HB should do that map and we have other companies specialised in those.

Absolutely the best possible solution! My wallet is ready..

There's nothing wrong what he said. If people start arguing about whether it's possible or not to make D at this moment, then it's just stupidity as HB have made the situation quite clear. Still I can say that if HB decides to make D one day, it will be instabuy for me.

Yeah i completely agree that we really need more than one model. I would buy all, any day

Yeah, those were the times when Phantom was still the best platform available. Those early E’s what Israel was using to get most a/a kills -69 to mid seventies were quite a lot off different machines than ~1500lbs heavier later blocks which had pods etc. The model what belsimtek was making was around ~block 50.

I don’t think that the J or even B would be so bad placeholder for other models. For me the naval variants are the most iconic variants of the phantom so i’d like to get one (doesn’t matter whether it’s B, J, S or N) and i could use it for the replacement for C, D or E. Other way around it’s not possible because USAF versions didn’t have carrier capabilities. I’d change daylight targeting pod, mavericks and shrikes any day to possibility to have carrier ops. We will have those with A-6 and A-7. Phantom’s Vietnam war lasted from -64 to -73 so it’s quite a big part of it’s service and where it made it’s reputation. Just another almost dedicated ground pounder for Persian Gulf or Syria without carrier capabilities feels a little waste. That’s just my opinion and everyone is entitled to have one. In the end we should be happy with any variant we can get. At least i will be

So if you would get only one model to represent the Phantom you think that E would be the best option? In that case we wouldn’t have perfect situation. Only what’s less bad for everyone.

You think that the increase is so big that it’s impossible to use J as a ”placeholder” for other versions?

But we aren’t getting F-4 right now so the present situation shouldn’t limit what devs are making. The developers should aim for the situation which exists roughly at the time of release (no one knows when, but i’m guessing -23-24). Also Phantom would be excellent motivator for other developers to start making stuff for vietnam. If heatblur is making the phantom i have no doubt that they are making some assets for it also. You are absolutely right that Phantom really needs more than one version to represent it’s career like it deserves.

In the end, radar would be quite a small problem because it wasn’t that good even in the J Also, E would be even worse to simulate any other version and if we get only one version, we have to think that kind of stuff. Hopefully we get more than one.. Late E is just a ground pounder and it would be quite a shame to get version which wasn’t the ”high point” of it’s career. If we’d get more than one, then it would be nice to have Late E but with only one i’d rather have older iconic versions.

ED told that they are not making phantom and that it is possibly made by 3rd party. Off course they can change their mind and start doing that but if some 3rd party started development it would be a little bit slap in the face to take that F-4 back to ED Second thing is that developers cannot make all the modules to fit current maps and timelines. If they keep doing that, it will start to limit quite a bit. Also we have no info what maps etc developers are planning to do in the future. I wouldn’t wait phantom until -23-24 and there is plenty of time to announce new maps. Third point i have is that if they make E model, it cannot do carrier ops but if they do navan version like J it can do carrier ops AND ”simulate” USAF versions just without internal gun. That would be a terrible thing for the purists but in the bigger picture that would propably satisfy more people.

About the gunsight..

Do you have any info about what they changed from the landing gear and arresting hook? Looking from the pictures and comparing naval and USAF variants i cannot find any differences in landing gear and arresting equipment. Briddles attachment points have blanc plates on top of those slots in land based variants. I'm just curious to find more info about those.

Yeah that's the case in real life. In DCS context, HARM's are insanely good because of the SAM AI and absence of IADS, like said earlier. In real life, it also depends on the type of the mission. If the mission is to suppress air defences and allow strike flight to get in and out, HARMs are quite a good. If the enemy turns off their radars and strike gets to AO, SEAD mission is success. If the point is to invade enemy country and get the air superiority, the CBU's and stuff are the weapon of choice and DEAD is the only choice. Those differences in philosophies must be taken into account when reading those books and when "building" the context. Persian gulf war was never total invasion of the enemy country so HARM's did quite fine to accomplish the SEAD mission. Second Iraq's war was total invasion and the only choice to get air superiority was total destruction of all enemy air defences (also Iraq's air defences were already in a quite bad condition when comparing to Persian Gulf war, allowing DEAD flights to get into AO more easily). Also one good books is "Magnum! The Wild Weasels in Desert Storm" ISBN 9781473899001 and "The Hunter Killers" ISBN 9780062375124 Those books you suggested are quite good. Hampton is just a little bit "braggy" in Viper Pilot for my taste but still a good book