probad Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I would want an A-6 or A-7 before a naval F-4. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einherjer Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Has someone said A-6? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummingbird Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Personally i'll take a carrier hook over a gun. In my opinion with the upcoming carriers it will make for alot of interesting missions compared to what we have now.. Gun is nice, but we need more naval aircraft :) We're getting the F-14 and F-18 with hooks so no need to worry about that :) As for teh F-4 I definitely prefer the F-4E with the slats and gun, strongly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MethWolf Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 We're getting the F-14 and F-18 with hooks so no need to worry about that :) As for teh F-4 I definitely prefer the F-4E with the slats and gun, strongly so. We're getting those planes which is exactly why we need a naval F-4 to match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattebubben Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 If someone is making a F-4 they really should make a F-4E. Not only was it the most exported but also the most produces. the Naval variants on the other hand where produced in small numbers and where not exported (other then to the UK) The Optimal would ofc be one army and one navy variant (E and J probably) but with only one variant im really hoping for a E. But as always everyone is allowed to have their own opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummingbird Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 We're getting those planes which is exactly why we need a naval F-4 to match To match? Why? Makes no sense. I see absolutely no reason for getting the naval version when we already are getting two US carrier aircraft. Besides the F-4E is the most versatile of all the Phantoms as well as being the most extensively used world wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MethWolf Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 In part because a lot of the work on carrier landings is going to be out of the way, but also because for coop and mission possibilities are greatly expanded when you have the ability to launch multiple aircraft out of the same carrier. Not that any of this matters in the least (lol they're not making any F-4 variants), but why not flesh out USN/USMC aircraft? Having all the aircraft on a (1983-1993ish) carrier at DCS level would be a result much greater than the sum of its parts or any individual aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummingbird Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 What work is going to be out of the way that wouldn't be solved with the F-14A/B & F/A-18C ? I just really don't see the reason for not getting the F-4E instead, esp. considering its versatility and world wide service record, it's definitely the most worthwile version IMO. Also don't be too sure that LNS won't make it, there are hints on their website that they might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharDee MacDennis Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I have a couple questions about the implementation of the Pave Spike laser designator (used on the D and E versions). My understanding is that it was steered manually by the WSO with a joystick; that is to say it would have no ground stabilization function and the WSO would have to be constantly controlling the pod. If this is correct, what do you think the control layout would be on a F-4 module? I'd imagine you would for sure need fine and coarse corrections to keep the Pave Spike on a target so that would rule out keyboard controls like you'd find for the KA-50 and A-10C (for those without a HOTAS :joystick:). If indeed LNS produces an F-4 can we assume the jester ai's role in operating the pave spike would be a veiled (if slightly imperfect) ground stabilization function? I think the prospect of operating a more primitive manually tracked targeting pod would be very exciting for people coming from the A-10C, and i believe there's some great potential for crew interaction with the pilot announcing his maneuvering intentions so the WSO can compensate with the Pave Spike during an egress from target. This video is from an F-111 with the Pave Tack laser designator, (The wikipedia article lists Korean F-4s as using the Pave Tack which is interesting) I assume it also lacks a ground stabilization. This is the type of interaction i'd like to imagine you'd see in a DCS F-4 multiplayer environment, with the pilot dropping the bomb, controlling the egress whilst feeding the time to impact to the WSO who is glued to a CRT monitor with sweaty fingers gripping his joystick. Particularly the bit at 1:07 :megalol: [ame] [/ame] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 As for teh F-4 I definitely prefer the F-4E with the slats and gun, strongly so. Just to note that the Navy F-4S also comes with slats. And smokeless engine. i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattebubben Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 If a navy variant a S would be ok (being a late 70s upgrade of the F-4J) For me when it comes to the variant to be modeled i will always vote for the most produced / wide spread variant I.E the most influential variant. And thats what makes me want the F-4E the most of all of the F-4 variants. As and example. There were 522 F-4Js made with 302 of those converted into the S variant in the late 70s. In comparison over 1300 F-4E with even more if you include F-4E variants like the F and the EJ etc. (the Number of J's can be increased a bit if you add the British variants that where based on the J variant but there were still more then twice as many F-4Es without even including the export variants) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tirak Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Just to note that the Navy F-4S also comes with slats. And smokeless engine. Bloc 53 E Phantoms also have slats and a smokeless engine... and Maverick capability :pilotfly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzles Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) Also don't be too sure that LNS won't make it, there are hints on their website that they might be. Hummingbird, you've been around long enough to know that's not a hint on their website and was there since they launched the site. LN have previously said it's just background art, and iirc the only thing linking it to LNS is that Cobra worked on the Milvis model used in the image before LNS existed. Wouldn't mind an F4 though, although my preference would be for an earlier 'nam era version. Edited February 25, 2016 by Buzzles Fancy trying Star Citizen? Click here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MethWolf Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 What work is going to be out of the way that wouldn't be solved with the F-14A/B & F/A-18C ? no, that's it, the work is going to be solved by the other jets, so you hopefully wouldn't lose much time making it able to land on a boat. I just really don't see the reason for not getting the F-4E instead, esp. considering its versatility and world wide service record, it's definitely the most worthwile version IMO. The reason for getting it instead is because it fits in with the other aircraft we're getting better. I understand your opinion is different than mine, but that doesn't give it primacy: service record and export sales aren't the only driving force behind how developers pick aircraft. Plus, the name of the company is Leatherneck. Maybe they'd make a USMC aircraft because they have a Marine? Also don't be too sure that LNS won't make it, there are hints on their website that they might be. Plenty of other "hints" too, enough to last us years before you would get to the F-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummingbird Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 The reason for getting it instead is because it fits in with the other aircraft we're getting better. But we already have non carrier aircraft, that's why I don't understand your reasoning :) Also why do they need to "fit" together in this way (carrier capability) ? It's different aircraft after all, and LNS's only aircraft so far is not a carrier aircraft either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) Bloc 53 E Phantoms also have slats and a smokeless engine... and Maverick capability :pilotfly: True, but then again I never said they didn't. My post was just trying to note that some of those touted F-4E features got down to at least some of the Navy Phantoms as well. Mavericks and LGB's and EOGB's were already established as being F-4E (and/or G) exclusives making it probably the most flexible choice for DCSW. Edited February 26, 2016 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probad Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 the definitive f-4 to have is a gunless f-4 so we can experience the same frustration as the real pilots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) the definitive f-4 to have is a gunless f-4 so we can experience the same frustration as the real pilots The Navy pilots didn't seem to mind after they got proper A2A training and the much improved Sidewinder variants (unlike their Air Force counterparts) - one of the major causes for needing a gun was the rather high minimum range of those early Sidewinders (plus their poor reliability and narrow engagement envelope combined with the inflexible USAF flight formation and apparently often selfish flight leaders). Edited February 26, 2016 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterH Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Seriously, E all the way. Only reasons for a navy variant would be : - Carrier ops, which is %100 meh for me, I just don't care about it personally. And there are lots of carrier capable aircraft in works or in pipeline to satiate everyone. - Experiencing Vietnam, and Vietnam only. It needs to be noted that we have exactly zero Vietnam aircraft currently. Even the F-5E by belsimtek is, one of the blocks later than Vietnam unless I am mistaken. F-4E however, is relevant to Iran, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Japan, Greece, USAF. If we do get an eventual and currently hypotethical DCS : F-4, and it includes both naval variants and the E, awesome!! If though it will be a single variant, and that single variant is anything but E, that would be very sad, to say the least :). Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V DCS-Dismounts Script Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBot Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 One thing has to be said against the F-4E though, that thing is butt ugly :) At least the other Phantoms have a mean looking nose (especially when not equipped with the IRST fairing). The Navy Phantoms do not win a beauty contest either with the front gear extended for take-off though. Still, the F-4E would be in good company as an awesome but ugly aircraft together with the MiG-21bis and F-5E :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterH Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I can only say "beauty is in eye of beholder" :D. I think long nose E & G look much better than older phantoms, my opinion anyway :). Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V DCS-Dismounts Script Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBot Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) Eww. Of course the Brits just had to top it :) Edited February 26, 2016 by MBot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) One thing has to be said against the F-4E though, that thing is butt ugly :) At least the other Phantoms have a mean looking nose (especially when not equipped with the IRST fairing). The Navy Phantoms do not win a beauty contest either with the front gear extended for take-off though. Thanks for bringing that up. I wanted to, but I felt it would compromise my attempts at making "serious" arguments. :) Totally agree, the long nose in combination with that tiny radome really looks butt ugly. Makes me wonder how the F-111 stole the Aardvark name from it. Perhaps Phinocchio would be an appropriate name for that atrocity done to its front.. Edited February 26, 2016 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattebubben Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 [ame] [/ame] Buy them fast while they last!!! There are only a limited supply of them. Personally i took two!!! Mine even came with Free WSOs and Sidewinders! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probad Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 i always thought the E nose gave it a wolfish look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts