F4 PHANTOM

[QuiGon]

23 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

I'm honestly unsure what makes you think ED are the one making the Phantom. Why would they be lying on purpose? Why wouldn't they just avoid the question?

There were quite some details lost in translation in that interview with Kate and this might have been one of those things.

Edit: I just checked the enligsh summary again (as I speak no Russian and don't no where to find the original interview anyways), and even there it is not said that the Phantom will definitely be made by a 3rd party. It just says "probably". And again, that's just the english summary by a forum member for a Russian interview. It can happen very easily that little nuances can be translated falsely and result in a quite different meaning.

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by QuiGon

[Northstar98]

25 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

I'm honestly unsure what makes you think ED are the one making the Phantom. Why would they be lying on purpose? Why wouldn't they just avoid the question?

Didn't they pull this (though not to the same degree) with the Apache?

[WobblyFlops]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Didn't they pull this (though not to the same degree) with the Apache?

I don't think so, they never explicitly denied that the secret module would be the Apache. They denied some things (heavy, redfor jet, F-4) that were clearly not the 'facemelter' and Nineline always skirted around the Apache issue. Later he mentioned that it was very difficult to not talk about the Apache in any way and he couldn't even use Apache gifs on the Discord to avoid people realizing that it will be the secret module. People just suspected it wouldn't be an Apache because they said it would be something completely new and the Apache had been in development before, although that was a 90s era A model.

 

15 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

There were quite some details lost in translation in that interview with Kate and this might have been one of those things.

Okay, if we want to disregard this interview what about BN's comments on the Discord? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/543014378643914752/926055209543811092/Screenshot_2021-12-30-11-12-25-81_572064f74bd5f9fa804b05334aa4f912.jpg

 

[QuiGon]

11 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

Okay, if we want to disregard this interview what about BN's comments on the Discord? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/543014378643914752/926055209543811092/Screenshot_2021-12-30-11-12-25-81_572064f74bd5f9fa804b05334aa4f912.jpg

I was not aware of this comment. Imho that's a much clearer indicator against an ED made Phantom, although the wording "current plans" still offers some room for speculation. Maybe these plans just became "current" with the release of the 2022 and beyond video

As I said before: We can just wait and see

Edited January 10, 2022 by QuiGon

[TLTeo]

On a more practical note, ED have never used the end of these videos to tease someone else's products, it's always their own. There's no reason to think this time would be different.

[QuiGon]

14 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

On a more practical note, ED have never used the end of these videos to tease someone else's products, it's always their own. There's no reason to think this time would be different.

Indeed, I would be very suprised if they would do that, as they have almost no control over the development progress of such a module. That's why I mentioned it here as well:

5 hours ago, QuiGon said:

I also don't think ED would do such a teaser in their own trailer for a 3rd party module.

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by QuiGon

[WobblyFlops]

2 hours ago, QuiGon said:

I was not aware of this comment. Imho that's a much clearer indicator against an ED made Phantom, although the wording "current plans" still offers some room for speculation. Maybe these plans just became "current" with the release of the 2022 and beyond video

 

There are always ways to see what we want to see, but in my opinion it's better if we don't expect an ED F-4E and be pleasantly surprised if we end up getting it instead of some Naval variant.

[QuiGon]

4 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

There are always ways to see what we want to see, but in my opinion it's better if we don't expect an ED F-4E and be pleasantly surprised if we end up getting it instead of some Naval variant.

Oh, I'm prepared to be wrong. I do think it's gonna be an ED/Belsimtek module, but like a 60/40 chance of it being true.

Edited January 10, 2022 by QuiGon

[Heatloss]

On 1/8/2022 at 12:01 PM, divinee said:

In the end, radar would be quite a small problem because it wasn’t that good even in the J

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. 85% cumulative probability of detection against a 5m^2 target was 37 nautical miles in wide search, for look up, down, and co-altitude target detection, and in head-on in narrow search (guided intercept with datalink), 60 nmi for look up/down/co-alt. This is on the original AWG-10, not even the slightly digitized 10A and fully digitized 10B. This puts detection ranges significantly above N008, and just below Zhuk. I'd say that's pretty solid, wouldn't you?

[divinee]

13 hours ago, Heatloss said:

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. 85% cumulative probability of detection against a 5m^2 target was 37 nautical miles in wide search, for look up, down, and co-altitude target detection, and in head-on in narrow search (guided intercept with datalink), 60 nmi for look up/down/co-alt. This is on the original AWG-10, not even the slightly digitized 10A and fully digitized 10B. This puts detection ranges significantly above N008, and just below Zhuk. I'd say that's pretty solid, wouldn't you?

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

[Heatloss]

10 hours ago, divinee said:

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

If you mean that it could serve as a stand-in for a 4B or 4C, no. 4D maybe, if you ignored the different heatseekers, lack of AIM-4, and lack of ordnance. 4E definitely not. You'd also be missing some radar modes for the 4D and have a few too many modes in the 4J. So no, I'd say it's a poor placeholder, for many reasons including the radar.

[divinee]

3 hours ago, Heatloss said:

If you mean that it could serve as a stand-in for a 4B or 4C, no. 4D maybe, if you ignored the different heatseekers, lack of AIM-4, and lack of ordnance. 4E definitely not. You'd also be missing some radar modes for the 4D and have a few too many modes in the 4J. So no, I'd say it's a poor placeholder, for many reasons including the radar.

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.

Edited January 13, 2022 by divinee

[QuiGon]

5 hours ago, divinee said:

So if you would get only one model to represent the Phantom you think that E would be the best option?

I also think, that the E would be the best option in this regard, as it represents most of the cabailities that Phantoms had across the variants.
 

5 hours ago, divinee said:

In that case we wouldn’t have perfect situation. Only what’s less bad for everyone.

Of course it wouldn't be perfect. It would be much better to have a naval variant in addition to the E, but even thad wouldn't be perfect. The only perfect situation would be to have EVERY variant of the Phantom, but that definitely won't ever happen.

Edited January 13, 2022 by QuiGon

[Northstar98]

49 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

I also think, that the E would be the best option in this regard, as it represents most of the cabailities that Phantoms had across the variants.

And was the most prolific, most numerous variant, and one that can conceivably fit DCS completely as it is (just missing a more suitable map for USAF Phantoms, like for instance, central Europe).

Edited January 13, 2022 by Northstar98

[WinterH]

Again, any naval phantom can in no way, shape, or form represent F-4E, which is the great majority of the Phantom history all over the world, from USAF service in Vietnam and beyond, to far east in South Korea and to some degree in Japanese services, brief stint in Australia, Greece and Turkey both, and in Middle East with Israel, Iran, and Egypt. Especially Israeli, Iranian, and Turkish phantoms has seen plenty of operational action over the decades.

Moreover, in a DCS sandbox environment, aside from historical scenarios, it could work both as a decent if not amazing air to air BVR fighter, and a fairly decent dogfighter (up until F-4S naval Phantoms didn't get E's slats), as well as an attacker a plethora of strike capabilities in 70s-80s scenarios, and even as a supporting underdog up to 90s. A mid to late 70s F-4E would still represent a Vietnam era one decently for air to air and air to ground missions with just some loadout restrictions as well.

A naval F-4 would, in contrast, only be a better interceptor with its radar, SEAM mode Sidewinders etc, but even then, historically as a second fiddle to F-14 anytime post Vietnam, with only USN/USMC service, arguably also a brief stint with RN, and little operational history to show for after the 'Nam. It can take off from a boat though, I suppose, worth all the sacrifices for that right? /s

Getting both, eventually, would be really nice, very cool even. But a naval bird on its own, can only represent a bare minority of what Phantom is, at the expense of majority of it.

Edited January 13, 2022 by WinterH

[divinee]

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

[Manhorne]

Well if my input had any weight (which it does not ) I would much rather have a Naval Phantom than any other except maybe for a F-4G Wild Weasel being a close second. I do not see why there is no reason we cannot get both a Naval and a land based Phantom. and I suspect that at least one of the future Forestall class carries will be setup in an earlier Phantom era configuration to make the "purest" happy... In the end we will have to see what is going to be revealed and hopefully that will be sooner than later...

[Bozon]

1 hour ago, divinee said:

…Just another almost dedicated ground pounder for Persian Gulf or Syria without carrier capabilities feels a little waste.….

The E has more A2A kills than all the other types combined. That is in addition of being the best ground pounder.

Just saying.

[Mike Force Team]

When the F-4 is available, at some time in the future, this plan can be used in the Persian Gulf map area.  It can be used for Wild Weasel missions, CAP, and interdiction.  This Viet Nam era plane served the Allied Forces in the First Persian Gulf War.

[divinee]

15 minutes ago, Bozon said:

The E has more A2A kills than all the other types combined. That is in addition of being the best ground pounder.

Just saying.

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.

[upyr1]

15 hours ago, divinee said:

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.

 

No, I don't think it would be possible to represent the F-4 with one model. The bare minimum would be two, if you wanted to the least amount of work those would be the B and C which from my understanding were basically twins except for the controls in back. The J and E would IMHO be the defitinve versions though I would also like the gunless USAF phantoms. So as I keep saying instead of arguing about which would be the best single model it would be better to answer the question how many Phantoms would you be willing to buy?

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by upyr1

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Manhorne said:

Well if my input had any weight (which it does not ) I would much rather have a Naval Phantom than any other except maybe for a F-4G Wild Weasel being a close second. I do not see why there is no reason we cannot get both a Naval and a land based Phantom. and I suspect that at least one of the future Forestall class carries will be setup in an earlier Phantom era configuration to make the "purest" happy... In the end we will have to see what is going to be revealed and hopefully that will be sooner than later...

As I keep stating the minimum number of Phantoms would be two one USAF and one Naval. The two reamining questions are which versions and hypothetically if the mystery team producing the Phantom released a bunch of F-4 modules just to cover as many variants as possible how many would you buy and which ones? I expect to see multiple models It's hard for me to decide which ones I would do. 

[Harlikwin]

12 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

No, I don't think it would be possible to represent the F-4 with one model. The bare minimum would be two, if you wanted to the least amount of work those would be the B and C which from my understanding were basically twins except for the controls in back. The J and E would IMHO be the defitinve versions though I would also like the gunless USAF phantoms. So as I keep saying instead of arguing about which would be the best single model it would be better to answer the question how many Phantoms would you be willing to buy?

 

 

Yup. I think at a minimum you need a USAF one and Naval one. TBH they are different enough to be their own "module" so it will be interesting what actually comes of the "mystery" announcement. The E or various versions of it were the most prolific, but given the whole naval focus of HB and their ties/access to that community, it may likley be a naval one comes first. 

[Nexus-6]

16 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

"...how many Phantoms would you be willing to buy?"

 

 

All of 'em. 

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, WinterH said:

Again, any naval phantom can in no way, shape, or form represent F-4E, which is the great majority of the Phantom history all over the world, from USAF service in Vietnam and beyond, to far east in South Korea and to some degree in Japanese services, brief stint in Australia, Greece and Turkey both, and in Middle East with Israel, Iran, and Egypt. Especially Israeli, Iranian, and Turkish phantoms has seen plenty of operational action over the decades.

Moreover, in a DCS sandbox environment, aside from historical scenarios, it could work both as a decent if not amazing air to air BVR fighter, and a fairly decent dogfighter (up until F-4S naval Phantoms didn't get E's slats), as well as an attacker a plethora of strike capabilities in 70s-80s scenarios, and even as a supporting underdog up to 90s. A mid to late 70s F-4E would still represent a Vietnam era one decently for air to air and air to ground missions with just some loadout restrictions as well.

A naval F-4 would, in contrast, only be a better interceptor with its radar, SEAM mode Sidewinders etc, but even then, historically as a second fiddle to F-14 anytime post Vietnam, with only USN/USMC service, arguably also a brief stint with RN, and little operational history to show for after the 'Nam. It can take off from a boat though, I suppose, worth all the sacrifices for that right? /s

Getting both, eventually, would be really nice, very cool even. But a naval bird on its own, can only represent a bare minority of what Phantom is, at the expense of majority of it.

 

This is why I keep saying that ideally there needs to be at least 3 Phantom models. ( One US Navy, one USAF, and a Royal Phantom)