F-4 Phantom Who Wants it Poll

[Hummingbird]

Mig-21 eats the F-4 PII alive. In fact, any aircraft can eat the F-4 alive.

 

The slatted F-4E would be a good match for the MiG-21, the MiG would definitely not eat that one alive.

[Tirak]

Mig-21 eats the F-4 PII alive. In fact, any aircraft can eat the F-4 alive.

 

 

Thank you for clearly knowing nothing about the F-4, the door is that way, please use it.

[Farlander]

Dr. 1 vs. F-4E 2020 let's see how that turns out.

 

Can you excuse the pun?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Can you excuse the pun?

 

:joystick: Why didn't I notice that?

[BlackLion213]

Mig-21 eats the F-4 PII alive. In fact, any aircraft can eat the F-4 alive.

 

The F-4, especially the unslatted F-4s, definitely confirmed the need for proper DACT training. If flown improperly (which means intuitively for the F-4), it's easy to get into big trouble against a whole range of aircraft.

 

This book has a lot of great stories (concerning both the F-4B/J and F-14A):

 

http://www.amazon.com/ROGER-BALL-ODYSSEY-MONROE-FIGHTER/dp/1605280054/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454217988&sr=8-1-fkmr2&keywords=roger+ball+austen

 

John "Hawk" Smith started his career as an F-4B RIO, before the days of DACT. His first deployment was a total eye-opener concerning their real capabilities. Back in 1965, Phantoms only fought other Phantoms in training. The Phantom crews, flying the best fighter in the world (they believed), were very confident in their ACM capabilities.

 

So Hawk's first cruise involved an international exercise in the Mediterranean against the French Air Force flying Super Mysteres and Mystere IVs. During this exercise, the USN had a dreadful exchange rate against the French - partly because the French created rules that favored them (and still cheated, bouncing Phantoms during case III recoveries or in marshall) and because the Phantom crews were doing the intuitive thing - fighting at the horizontal and not managing their energy very well.

 

Hawk thought that their poor showing was really a matter of biased rules, etc. But later in the cruise, he and his pilot broke the rules and engaged a pair of A-4Cs from their airwing in a friendly hassle. From his account, it took about 90 seconds before the Phantom was in heavy buffet, at less than 200 knots, and getting shots called by the A-4s every 3-4 seconds. The worst part - Hawk looks back at these A-4s calling shots and realizes that they never even broke cruise formation! He was pretty demoralized seeing his Phantom flogged repeatedly by a pair of attack pilots. You may say that this pilot clearly didn't know what he was doing - and you'd be right. The problem was that NONE of the Phantom pilots in the fleet really knew how to fight their aircraft to it's strengths.

 

However, all this would change when the Phantom crews developed real tactics and learned the relative strength of the aircraft. The Phantom crews learned to keep the fight in the vertical, use rudder reversals at the top of their climb, and stay away from horizontal maneuvers at low or medium airspeeds.

 

John "Masher" Carrier also laid it out in an excerpt from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Grumman-F-14-Tomcat-Reminiscences-Service/dp/0760339813/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1454218955&sr=8-3&keywords=Bye+Bye+Baby

 

He flew the F-8, F-4, and F-14 in service.

"Fly it (the Phantom) like an F-8 and you'll lose the fight. Fly it pure vertical with hard turns at both ends and you'll win. For my my first 500 hours I was saying - No wonder we always thrashed this thing. For my second 500 hours I was saying - How did we EVER thrash this thing?"

 

BTW - I would REALLY love a Phantom module (second for me to only the F-14), especially the F-4B with 60s carrier ops. Would be huge fun.

 

But as you can see from these stories, there are reasons why someone might view the Phantom as beatable in the ACM arena. It did take time to find the best way to fight it - then it was very capable.

 

-Nick

[scarecrow101]

I would buy a fully clickable F-4 in a heart beat.

[Farlander]

What version would be of similar production year to the Bis? If we get an F-4 it would be great to have it be the same era.

[Tirak]

What version would be of similar production year to the Bis? If we get an F-4 it would be great to have it be the same era.

 

Why settle for an old version, when if you get a new one, like say the ICE, you could always just slap on older weapons and make due, while those of us who wanted to use Phantoms in the modern servers could as well :P

[BlackLion213]

What version would be of similar production year to the Bis? If we get an F-4 it would be great to have it be the same era.

 

That would probably be the F-4E and the F-4J. They went into service a bit earlier, but seem the closest match from what I can see.

 

Why settle for an old version, when if you get a new one, like say the ICE, you could always just slap on older weapons and make due, while those of us who wanted to use Phantoms in the modern servers could as well :P

 

Why settle for a new one when you can get the old one? ;)

 

I like learning how to do things the "old fashion way" and experiencing the aircraft as it was operated during it's own era. If I want to use 90s and later weapons in a modern-ish battlefield, I'd rather fly a Hornet, B Tomcat, or Eagle. Just my preference.

 

Though I understand the desire to have a modernized aircraft like this on the MP servers. It just seems like a narrower use-case for the creation of the module and passing on an opportunity to try out aviation in the 1960s.

 

Just my opinion though.

 

-Nick

[Custard]

What version would be of similar production year to the Bis? If we get an F-4 it would be great to have it be the same era.

F-4E I guess.

 

Why settle for an old version, when if you get a new one, like say the ICE, you could always just slap on older weapons and make due, while those of us who wanted to use Phantoms in the modern servers could as well

The wrong opinion tbh, trying to shoehorn old jets into a 4th gen setting where they would underperform is silly when you could have them in their prime, fighting planes they were meant to fight and did fight in real life.

 

Edit: I swear some people would try and argue for amraams on a Sopwith camel if it was in DCS so it could be "competitive in the multiplayer environment".

Edited January 31, 2016 by Custard

[Tirak]

F-4E I guess.

 

 

The wrong opinion tbh, trying to shoehorn old jets into a 4th gen setting where they would underperform is silly when you could have them in their prime, fighting planes they were meant to fight and did fight in real life.

 

Edit: I swear some people would try and argue for amraams on a Sopwith camel if it was in DCS so it could be "competitive in the multiplayer environment".

 

Um, mate, the F-4ICE can use Amraams, that was the point of the upgrade. Believe it or not some of us enjoy using these platforms online, where the opposition we'll face are all carrying amraams. Until servers start switching over to earlier war restrictions and we get enough aircraft to fight in those enviornments, the multiplayer scene is modern combat, and as such, I'd rather that an aircraft that I adore can actually have a fighting chance despite its handicaps, rather than be cannon fodder for the next few years until the other third parties get around to releasing modules of the right years.

 

Realistic combat and strict adherence to actual history, make for very boring games, and I find the attitude of people like you, who believe in limiting options so you can play in your littler sandbox to be annoying at the best of times.

[Custard]

Believe it or not some of us enjoy using these platforms online, where the opposition we'll face are all carrying amraams.

Which is a self defeating idea, of course there will be nothing but amraam slingers if people go out of their way to make relatively obscure ARH capable variants of legacy airframes and neglect their prime timelines. The F-4E is a 60s/70s airframe and to claim it doesn't have era appropriate contemporaries in DCS is being willfully ignorant at best.

Until servers start switching over to earlier war restrictions and we get enough aircraft to fight in those enviornments, the multiplayer scene is modern combat, and as such, I'd rather that an aircraft that I adore can actually have a fighting chance despite its handicaps, rather than be cannon fodder for the next few years until the other third parties get around to releasing modules of the right years.

Currently in game or under development are the MiG-21, F-5E, Mirage F1 & AJS 37 (which is nigh identical to the 70s AJ 37 if you restrict its loadout). All of these are mid '70s birds, and will likely all be in the game before the F-4. Is this really not enough opponents to fight?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Realistic combat and strict adherence to actual history, make for very boring games, and I find the attitude of people like you, who believe in limiting options so you can play in your littler sandbox to be annoying at the best of times.

 

Then why are you playing a sim, since that's the end goal?

[Tirak]

Which is a self defeating idea, of course there will be nothing but amraam slingers if people go out of their way to make relatively obscure ARH capable variants of legacy airframes and neglect their prime timelines. The F-4E is a 60s/70s airframe and to claim it doesn't have era appropriate contemporaries in DCS is being willfully ignorant at best.

 

No, it's a way of playing you don't like, which obviously makes it wrong, yeah, sure.

 

Currently in game or under development are the MiG-21, F-5E, Mirage F1 & AJS 37 (which is nigh identical to the 70s AJ 37 if you restrict its loadout). All of these are mid '70s birds, and will likely all be in the game before the F-4. Is this really not enough opponents to fight?

 

No Mig-19, No Mig-17, no it's not enough.

[Custard]

No Mig-19, No Mig-17, no it's not enough.

lmao

[WinterH]

...and I find the attitude of people like you, who believe in limiting options so you can play in your littler sandbox to be annoying at the best of times.

 

Well, as some of that folk, I guess we can say the feeling is mutual then :).

 

Realistic combat and strict adherence to realism makes the simulation genre itself. Litter sandbox part was especially colorful, and extra classy :thumbup:

 

Now, actually I did kind of agreed Tirak, in that I too would appreciate some later über upgraded oldie birds, like Bisons, Lancers, ICE or 2020 Phantoms, ROSE or ASTRAC Mirages etc. But, I'd first prefer to get a proper variant, to fight among it's proper adversaries. 3rd gen era is already getting pretty colorful in DCS. In F-4s case, my personal preference would be 70s or 80s F-4E. It would be a hard nut to crack for MiG and an earlier Phantom may be a closer match but, F-4E is just too iconic to leave, being one of the few truly multirole aircraft of it's time.

[King_Hrothgar]

I'm all for modern upgrades of older aircraft, but only after a mainstream model is made first. The F-4E or F-4J is what I'd like, after that I'm all for going nuts with some oddball upgrades the Turks or Iranians are running to squeeze more life out of an otherwise hopelessly obsolete aircraft. With that said, the F-4's are a little lower on my wishlist. I'd prefer to see the Russian/Chinese side get a bit of love first.

[Custard]

It would be a hard nut to crack for MiG and an earlier Phantom may be a closer match but, F-4E is just too iconic to leave, being one of the few truly multirole aircraft of it's time.

With period appropriate armament the F-4E wouldn't be too bad.

 

AIM-7E/F & AIM-9J/L when ED? :P

[Tirak]

Well, as some of that folk, I guess we can say the feeling is mutual then :).

 

Realistic combat and strict adherence to realism makes the simulation genre itself. Litter sandbox part was especially colorful, and extra classy :thumbup:

 

Now, actually I did kind of agreed Tirak, in that I too would appreciate some later über upgraded oldie birds, like Bisons, Lancers, ICE or 2020 Phantoms, ROSE or ASTRAC Mirages etc. But, I'd first prefer to get a proper variant, to fight among it's proper adversaries. 3rd gen era is already getting pretty colorful in DCS. In F-4s case, my personal preference would be 70s or 80s F-4E. It would be a hard nut to crack for MiG and an earlier Phantom may be a closer match but, F-4E is just too iconic to leave, being one of the few truly multirole aircraft of it's time.

 

People like you get it, we all have a way that we sim. Some people like you like the full on historical part that goes with high fidelity modeling, then there's players like me who like to have the high fidelity modeling then fit it into any scenario we feel like, and would prefer as many options open as possible. Both are fully valid ways of playing, and I have no beef with people like you.

 

My problem comes when pinheads come along and say "No, your opinion is wrong, you can't play that way and have fun." Well the hell I can't.

[BlackLion213]

Realistic combat and strict adherence to actual history, make for very boring games, and I find the attitude of people like you, who believe in limiting options so you can play in your littler sandbox to be annoying at the best of times.

 

You seem fine criticizing the preferences of others.

 

My problem comes when pinheads come along and say "No, your opinion is wrong, you can't play that way and have fun." Well the hell I can't.

 

So why are you so worked up about other users criticizing your preferences?

 

Also, no one here is restricting you ability to play anything, nor is anyone here actually deciding what kind of aircraft are chosen for development. The 3rd parties choose their aircraft for development based on what info they can obtain, their own interests/passion, and perceived popularity of a given variant. No regular user on this forum is in a position to dictate what version of an aircraft gets developed, so relax a bit??

 

As I've said before and much like WinterH, I'm not bothered by the option to load non-prototypical weapons on an airframe for MP. I wouldn't do it, but it's fine if others want to - the developers can just put a check-box in the payload manager. It gets a bit weird for a high-fidelity sim like DCS to create things like HUD symbology and procedures for doing something that never happened. But there is also a game-mode for the avioncs - so why not add this as well?

 

In the end, it's up to the developer to decide what is best for their module. Calling people names on the forum gets your cause and interests no where.

 

-Nick

[Tirak]

You seem fine criticizing the preferences of others.

 

Of course, but I don't walk around saying you're wrong for having those preferences now do I? My issue doesn't come with people who want to play realistically, my issue comes when they insist that I shouldn't be allowed to play to my preferences.

 

Also, no one here is restricting you ability to play anything, nor is anyone here actually deciding what kind of aircraft are chosen for development. The 3rd parties choose their aircraft for development based on what info they can obtain, their own interests/passion, and perceived popularity of a given variant. No regular user on this forum is in a position to dictate what version of an aircraft gets developed, so relax a bit??

 

As I've said before and much like WinterH, I'm not bothered by the option to load non-prototypical weapons on an airframe for MP. I wouldn't do it, but it's fine if others want to - the developers can just put a check-box in the payload manager. It gets a bit weird for a high-fidelity sim like DCS to create things like HUD symbology and procedures for doing something that never happened. But there is also a game-mode for the avioncs - so why not add this as well?

 

In the end, it's up to the developer to decide what is best for their module. Calling people names on the forum gets your cause and interests no where.

 

-Nick

 

On the contrary, that is exactly what he indicated, that I shouldn't be able to fly upgraded 3rd gen fighters against 4th gen. I commented I would prefer them, he told me I was wrong for thinking such things, that's where the issue comes from, that's what makes him a pinhead, and that's why I commented as such. To the vast majority, like you and Winter, I have no issue discussing the merits of wanting an F-4J, or an F-4E, but that's because you two, and others like you, understand that there's no wrong preferences when it comes to aircraft.

[mattebubben]

Of course, but I don't walk around saying you're wrong for having those preferences now do I? My issue doesn't come with people who want to play realistically, my issue comes when they insist that I shouldn't be allowed to play to my preferences.

 

 

 

On the contrary, that is exactly what he indicated, that I shouldn't be able to fly upgraded 3rd gen fighters against 4th gen. I commented I would prefer them, he told me I was wrong for thinking such things, that's where the issue comes from, that's what makes him a pinhead, and that's why I commented as such. To the vast majority, like you and Winter, I have no issue discussing the merits of wanting an F-4J, or an F-4E, but that's because you two, and others like you, understand that there's no wrong preferences when it comes to aircraft.

 

Where exactly did he say you should not be able to have a upgrade F4 or upgraded third gen in general?

[Hadwell]

Dcs is pretty easy to mod, I think it's better to have a widely used, and because of that, more documented, and that means more realistic scenarios and funcionality too, version of a plane than one that was used in limited numbers or just for testing,

 

dcs, to me anyway, is about getting as close to real as possible, while not going so realistic its unplayable because internet airplanes aand tiny little 27" window into the world

[Tirak]

Where exactly did he say you should not be able to have a upgrade F4 or upgraded third gen in general?

 

Right here:

The wrong opinion tbh, trying to shoehorn old jets into a 4th gen setting where they would underperform is silly when you could have them in their prime, fighting planes they were meant to fight and did fight in real life.

[Hadwell]

If you want planes that historically fought each other, make your own missions, if you don't like servers like 104th, don't play on them.

 

I love flying the mig21 against f15s and su27s on the 104th, main reason I play dcs,

 

I would hate the mig21 if it was just another spamraam launcher, that's why I'm glad the f4e and f14 don't use aim120s, 1 spamraam launcher is enough, but with the f18 coming there will already be 2

 

Beauty of a sandbox... You choose what you fly and what your enemy flys, and if you want aim120s on an f4 I'm sure you can edit an .lua.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Hadwell