F4 PHANTOM

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, Mizzy said:

For me, it has to be a F4-B or the UK F4 variant. I can't stand the long nose snout versions with a prolonged second snout underneath the big snout. Vietnam and UK are the best variants and maybe a 'Kickstart' Vietnam funding campaign is the only way to get the F4 in DCS. I am in for £1000.

Mizzy 

If someone is doing an F-4B they might as well toss in an F-4C and D for the USAF and the J as well. The C and B are the most similar USAF and Navy Phantoms. This is why I keep saying we need multiple Phantom II modules. Some people like your self want the British Phantoms or any Round nosed version, we have a lot of people saying we need the F-4E , and we have people who want and expect a US Naval Phantom. Then you have people like myself who can't decide which version they want the most. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by upyr1

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

11 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah, I know. I'd just prefer more of a 70's-early 80's version. I really don't think another TGP wunderwaffle is really needed.

Given the glacial development and deployment times of military hardware, the Block 53 isn't going to be that far removed from the 70s. If you don't want to use the PaveTack, don't. Our MiG-21bis is a vintage of around 1977, so it's a similar time period. So is the MiG-23MLA, IIRC.

The US, also, did employ the Pave Knife TGP on F-4s and A-6s during Vietnam. Not extensively, but they were available to a selection of F-4s.

Edited December 10, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Given the glacial development and deployment times of military hardware, the Block 53 isn't going to be that far removed from the 70s. If you don't want to use the PaveTack, don't. Our MiG-21bis is a vintage of around 1977, so it's a similar time period. So is the MiG-23MLA, IIRC.

The US, also, did employ the Pave Knife TGP on F-4s and A-6s during Vietnam. Not extensively, but they were available to a selection of F-4s.

 

It all gets back to the "cosplay" aspect. And how much "nerfing" can be done. Like we have people arguing that our block50 F16 from 2005 is a "realistic" stand in for a Block15 F16A if you remove "aamrams and JDAMs". Its a laughable assertion, even with all the advanced weapons removed its still way too good, and server owners have to come up with meme ish tricks to try to disable things like JHMC's and datalink (and TBH they largely can't). And that doesn't even begin to touch on stuff like radars or better TWR etc.

But its down to the approach developers take, and thus far the trend is toward "moar power!"

 

[WinterH]

In this case though, Block 53 is literally late 70s-early 80s variant, including any potential TGPs it can have. After block 58 I think, F-4Es had an update to their radar, but as far as I know not a big one, and it still didn't have look down capability for example. Aside from that, RWRs, navigation/attack systems, and most of the ordnance remained very similar between mid 70s F-4E to those with ARN-101 updates, but even an ARN-101 bird would probably still be good representative of 80s-90s Israeli, Turkish, and Greek Phantoms I think. But they would be somewhat different compared to Iranian ones at that point.

I often roll my eyes at "latest greatest" variant being tried to be developed by many devs as most people ask for those, but in case of F-4E, Block 53, maybe even 58 would both be a very happy medium. They would fit in beautifully with F-5E, Viggen restricted to AJ 37 level, MiG-21Bis, and upcoming MiG-23MLA, A-7E, A-6E, and also Mirage F1CE. With some ordnance restrictions, it can be a fit with A-4E, MiG-19P and F-8F too, as it still has essentially the same radar it had back in Vietnam War. Restrict air to air missiles to AIM-7E and AIM-9J/P, and you have a very nice 70s fighter bomber that fits greatly with many modules. No restrictions, you have a nice old school but still capable striker for later 70s and 80s with some self defense capability in a pinch, and still a decent striker in early 90s even if second fiddle by that point. 75-85 F-4E is just really the variant that can fit the best to the most DCS scenario potentials/servers/missions/campaigns/what-have-you.

So it really isn't nearly as crazily different as in comparing a Block 50 F-16C to Block 15 F-16A. A Vietnam era F-4E for example, wouldn't be as good a fit to anything even just after the end of Vietnam War.

[Harlikwin]

13 hours ago, WinterH said:

It's anything but wunderwaffe though, and I very much prefer we get a TGP phantom. Even the lantirn on tomcat hella more advanced than either TGP we may get for phantom. But lately I too lean somewhat closer to one block earlier that had Pave Spike and more old-school analog navigation and bombing computers. Still though, block 53 with ARN-101 wouldn't be any sort of wunderwaffe really. And an oldie, early TGP is a new thing to experience in DCS, and the best thing is, if you don't mount it, you have a non TGP F-4.

Pave Tack on F-4 is already early 80s, but Pave Spike has been a thing on F-4s since 75 or so.

Yeah I wouldn't mind a pave-spike version. 

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

In this case though, Block 53 is literally late 70s-early 80s variant, including any potential TGPs it can have. After block 58 I think, F-4Es had an update to their radar, but as far as I know not a big one, and it still didn't have look down capability for example. Aside from that, RWRs, navigation/attack systems, and most of the ordnance remained very similar between mid 70s F-4E to those with ARN-101 updates, but even an ARN-101 bird would probably still be good representative of 80s-90s Israeli, Turkish, and Greek Phantoms I think. But they would be somewhat different compared to Iranian ones at that point.

I often roll my eyes at "latest greatest" variant being tried to be developed by many devs as most people ask for those, but in case of F-4E, Block 53, maybe even 58 would both be a very happy medium. They would fit in beautifully with F-5E, Viggen restricted to AJ 37 level, MiG-21Bis, and upcoming MiG-23MLA, A-7E, A-6E, and also Mirage F1CE. With some ordnance restrictions, it can be a fit with A-4E, MiG-19P and F-8F too, as it still has essentially the same radar it had back in Vietnam War. Restrict air to air missiles to AIM-7E and AIM-9J/P, and you have a very nice 70s fighter bomber that fits greatly with many modules. No restrictions, you have a nice old school but still capable striker for later 70s and 80s with some self defense capability in a pinch, and still a decent striker in early 90s even if second fiddle by that point. 75-85 F-4E is just really the variant that can fit the best to the most DCS scenario potentials/servers/missions/campaigns/what-have-you.

So it really isn't nearly as crazily different as in comparing a Block 50 F-16C to Block 15 F-16A. A Vietnam era F-4E for example, wouldn't be as good a fit to anything even just after the end of Vietnam War.

Id also think something that could stand in for an Iranian F4E would be a good thing to finish out that nations planeset. 

[Rick50]

 

My desired Phantoms would be: 1960's era as top priority both Navy and Air Force and export variants, 1970's as next priority, and all other later Phantoms are to me a lower priority to me. Because by the 1980's it was not the tip of the spear anymore, the Eagles Tomcats and Falcons were top dog by then. No shade to the Phantoms of the day, still very capable jets, but there you have it! I understand mine might not be the most popular opinion, but that's ok. 

 

I want an Export variant, one that many nations used for a long time. I also want a USN carrier capable Phantom as well.

And that's why I want the E (International Jet of Mystery Have Gun Will Travel) ... and a crash-landing B for Carrier ops!

[Cdodders]

I would like the FG.1

[upyr1]

15 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

And that's why I want the E (International Jet of Mystery Have Gun Will Travel) ... and a crash-landing B for Carrier ops!

If you want the b you might as well ask for the c too.

[Rick50]

 

I'm not opposed to a  C....  or any other... I just want an E and B (edit from A) first to cover the most scenarios and history, and when C appears then the party really kicks off! If eventually we see all the later models, whether British or Royal Navy variants or a HARM Weasel or LGB pod variant, that's ok too, but it's the early ones that most interest me, back when the Phantom was new and shiny!!

(Ok maybe not shiny, as that might only be Japanese Phantoms!)

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Rick50
Edited because I meant to say "F-4B"

[Harlikwin]

34 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

 

I'm not opposed to a  C....  or any other... I just want an E and A first to cover the most scenarios and history, and when C appears then the party really kicks off! If eventually we see all the later models, whether British or Royal Navy variants or a HARM Weasel or LGB pod variant, that's ok too, but it's the early ones that most interest me, back when the Phantom was new and shiny!!

(Ok maybe not shiny, as that might only be Japanese Phantoms!)

Yeah thats my perspective, I want the model(s) I can reasonably cosplay the most nations with and are "nerfable" for online use. 

[upyr1]

57 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

 

I'm not opposed to a  C....  or any other... I just want an E and A first to cover the most scenarios and history, and when C appears then the party really kicks off! If eventually we see all the later models, whether British or Royal Navy variants or a HARM Weasel or LGB pod variant, that's ok too, but it's the early ones that most interest me, back when the Phantom was new and shiny!!

(Ok maybe not shiny, as that might only be Japanese Phantoms!)

I want as many variants as possible. The D and j are the ace makers. The b and c were the effective start  The E was the most used the g and ef-4c if possible would be awesome 

[Bozon]

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I want as many variants as possible. The D and j are the ace makers. The b and c were the effective start  The E was the most used the g and ef-4c if possible would be awesome 

E had by far the most A2A kills, more than all the other variants combined - just not with the USAF.

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, Bozon said:

E had by far the most A2A kills, more than all the other variants combined - just not with the USAF.

I figured that would be the case after adding in Iran and Israel. The e was as I said the most used. The G and EF-4C wild weasels would be cool. The Charlie weasel I believe shared an ew system with the g thud. The D though had some interesting history though. Not only did Ritchie, Bellevue and Feinstein become aces while in D's but also some of the first targeting pods and decent IFF systems were used by the D.  

Edited December 12, 2021 by upyr1

[Bremspropeller]

I'm not interested in a late E, as it's just a steam-gauge Strike Eagle. Yeah, I know, hit me.

I'm more interested in earlier versions - especifically those used during SEA. Which we're still missing a map for.

 

[Northstar98]

17 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'm not interested in a late E, as it's just a steam-gauge Strike Eagle. Yeah, I know, hit me.

*Whack*

17 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'm more interested in earlier versions - especifically those used during SEA. Which we're still missing a map for.

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in these versions as well, but there's just so much else missing which I fear will spoil the experience (much like the current early Cold War stuff that we have).

Now of course, you've gotta start somewhere, but righ now I feel as though a later E makes more sense given how DCS currently stands.

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'm not interested in a late E, as it's just a steam-gauge Strike Eagle. Yeah, I know, hit me.

*whacks with a shotgun*

Also, DCS: Vietnam is just not a thing feasible for near future, however, many other things a later F-4E would fit, are. Besides A Block 53 F-4E with weapon restrictions really isn't far off from a Vietnam one if one really wants to roleplay that, an earlier one however, can't fit into anything beyond 'Nam itself.

[Bremspropeller]

10 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Also, DCS: Vietnam is just not a thing feasible for near future, however, many other things a later F-4E would fit, are

You have to start somewhere. There's a royal duckton of people who'd storm the store and virtually buy any SEA-related module on hour one.

15 minutes ago, WinterH said:

an earlier one however, can't fit into anything beyond 'Nam itself.

An earlier F-4E would fit well into israeli ops up till the end of the YKW.

[WinterH]

Just now, Bremspropeller said:

You have to start somewhere. There's a royal duckton of people who'd storm the store and virtually buy any SEA-related module on hour one.

Not at the cost of things that can better get existing assets together, and frankly is overall more interesting without really losing the ability to more or less stand in for earlier birds.

Just now, Bremspropeller said:

An earlier F-4E would fit well into israeli ops up till the end of the YKW.

Which isn't chronologically beyond Vietnam War anyway

[Bremspropeller]

8 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Not at the cost of things that can better get existing assets together, and frankly is overall more interesting without really losing the ability to more or less stand in for earlier birds.

No biggie. Make an F-4D - fits well into Nam and Iran. And the ROKAF if they'd like to come over and play the Mariannas.

9 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Which isn't chronologically beyond Vietnam War anyway

It is spatially.

[WinterH]

14 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

No biggie. Make an F-4D - fits well into Nam and Iran. And the ROKAF if they'd like to come over and play the Mariannas.

That would, of course, be entirely counter-productive

15 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

It is spatially.

Which isn't the point being argued. Point is, a post-Vietnam F-4E can fit into a lot more potential scenarios, threat levels, types of operations, a certain period of coming of age in multirole aircraft tech, while still being ostensibly able to play the part of an older one with a few restrictions. It had the same radar and defensive bits as far as I can tell. Depending on when exactly, even the engine can be the same.

[Northstar98]

38 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

You have to start somewhere.

You do, but in DCS, even if you do start, you might not really get anywhere, again, look at early Cold War, 3 aircraft with another on the way, 2 REDFOR air defence units (which are essentially the same gun), 1 tank, no ships and no map + whatever you can recycle from the WWII assets pack.

The other thing that worries me about Vietnam is also going to be performance, coupled with map size, especially if the Marianas are anything to go by. 

38 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

There's a royal duckton of people who'd storm the store and virtually buy any SEA-related module on hour one.

I don't doubt it, and I'd probably be one of them, the problem though for me is without everything else, I'd worry about having a hollow experience.

[Bremspropeller]

1 minute ago, WinterH said:

Which isn't the point being argued. Point is, a post-Vietnam F-4E can fit into a lot more potential scenarios, threat levels, types of operations, a certain period of coming of age in multirole aircraft tech, while still being ostensibly able to play the part of an older one with a few restrictions. It had the same radar and defensive bits as far as I can tell. Depending on when exactly, even the engine can be the same.

I'm not diasgreeing with you. I'm just not interested in that "more of the same" stuff with the Phantom. I might change my mind later, but that's just how I feel right now.

37 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

You do, but in DCS, even if you do start, you might not really get anywhere, again, look at early Cold War, 3 aircraft with another on the way, 2 REDFOR air defence units (which are essentially the same gun), 1 tank, no ships and no map + whatever you can recycle from the WWII assets pack.

The other thing that worries me about Vietnam is also going to be performance, coupled with map size, especially if the Marianas are anything to go by. 

I hear you and I'm not feeling much different about this whole affair.

The only realistic way of doing SEA is splitting maps close to the 17th parallel. TBH I wouldn't mind if they'd decide on the southern map only. We'd lose a lot of the iconic stuff up north, but we'd also gain a lot of interesting stuff, like SATS at Chu Lai, lots of CAS and HCMT-interdiction.

[mkellytx]

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The G and EF-4C wild weasels would be cool. The Charlie weasel I believe shared an ew system with the g thud. 

The -105G and EF-4C had completely different systems.  By most accounts the EF-4C was not very effective, had lots of teething problems and was Shrike only.  They did see service in Linebacker.  Once the F-4G came along they went to the Terra Haute guard unit and lost the SEAD mission.  FWIW the -105G's stuck around longer in the SEAD role finally retiring in '83 with the Robbin's guard unit.

Edit:  The fit, AL/ANR-25/26 + ER-142 was the sit kit as the -105F, but there wasn't enough room in the Phantom for the black boxes and those went into a pod in the forward Sparrow well, which caused all kinds of problems for vibe and acoustics.  By the time they got it working the -105G's had much better kit and the F-4G was on the horizon even better kit.

Edited December 12, 2021 by mkellytx

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, WinterH said:

*whacks with a shotgun*

Also, DCS: Vietnam is just not a thing feasible for near future, however, many other things a later F-4E would fit, are. Besides A Block 53 F-4E with weapon restrictions really isn't far off from a Vietnam one if one really wants to roleplay that, an earlier one however, can't fit into anything beyond 'Nam itself.

 

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'm not interested in a late E, as it's just a steam-gauge Strike Eagle. Yeah, I know, hit me.

I'm more interested in earlier versions - especifically those used during SEA. Which we're still missing a map for.

 

I sure hope who ever is doing the Phantom module is going to both eras. 

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

You do, but in DCS, even if you do start, you might not really get anywhere, again, look at early Cold War, 3 aircraft with another on the way, 2 REDFOR air defence units (which are essentially the same gun), 1 tank, no ships and no map + whatever you can recycle from the WWII assets pack.

The other thing that worries me about Vietnam is also going to be performance, coupled with map size, especially if the Marianas are anything to go by. 

I really don't see the lack of early/mid cold war assets as a good argument against not having a Phantom from the era, provided we get assets too. I've said it mutliple times the question we should be asking isn't what is the bare minimum we want phantom wise but the ideal variants we would like to buy. No matter what era Phantom we get, if we have Navy only we will  have folks upset about not getting a USAF version and if we get a USAF version people will want a Navy version. You get late models to pair the MiG-21 BIS and people will want earlier ones to go with the MiG-19.