F4 PHANTOM

[TLTeo]

8 hours ago, WinterH said:

F-104, F-105.

Afaik both are somewhat different. F104 - just one ring, much more limited symbology:

F-105; two continuous rings and different symbology:

[QuiGon]

Just as a reminder for everyone, in case you forgot (or didn't know in the first place): https://www.facebook.com/belsimtek/posts/785378065000027

Edited December 25, 2021 by QuiGon

[TLTeo]

Eh, at this point those assets are old enough that ED might as well just re-do them.

[QuiGon]

43 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Eh, at this point those assets are old enough that ED might as well just re-do them.

That's probably true for the visuals, but a lot of the coding might still be perfectly fine and usable and even more so the research work that was done for it.

Edited December 25, 2021 by QuiGon

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

True, but by then the F-4E had more been relegated to A/G rather than A/A, where it had been completely eclipsed by the F-15 in the WVR and BVR fight (though it would've had the same A/A armament as the F-15, but obviously the RADAR is way superior in the F-15) and the F-16 in the WVR fight.

The AG options are far more impressive; still very much Cold War stuff (with Paveway II and early Mavericks at best, depending how far into the 80s you go, potentially GBU-15), it's one of the few platforms that had a targetting pod (though much more rudimentary).

And so long as we can get earlier Sparrow (AIM-7E-2/3) and earlier Sidewinders (AIM-9J), we're pretty much perfectly able to replicate the A/A capabilities of earlier F-4Es. It's one thing that's good about these older aircraft, is that they can approximate older aircraft better than modern ones. It's much more plausible to approximate a 70s F-4E with even a late 80s one (aside from ARN-101). AFAIK, you've got the same RADAR, same engines, same aerodynamics, same weight; the main difference to my knowledge is going to be ARN-101 (which I think was '77).

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Preferably any TGP implementation, should be done exactly like the Tomcat, whereby the controls for them get removed if they're unequipped (though AN/AVQ-23 Pave Spike is what, mid 70s?)

They're more or less the same from most angles, it's really just weapons (TGP) integration and ARN-101 that's different AFAIK. 

Well, speaking personally, I'm not interested in absolute balance, I'm interested in having a coherent era set, that could be any era, but right now I'm most interested in the late Cold War (mid 70s to late 80s).

Right now I am wondering how much did the ARN-101 change for the F-4E? If the basic difference between a linebacker E and a 1980s E is new weapons, then I won't have an issue. My view with the Phantom is that the module needs to cover 'Nam era birds. I'm fine if they do later version(s) but if they only do a later version then it has to be one that could pass for a 'Nam era Phantom with the right weapons.

[Northstar98]

On 12/25/2021 at 8:41 PM, upyr1 said:

Right now I am wondering how much did the ARN-101 change for the F-4E? If the basic difference between a linebacker E and a 1980s E is new weapons, then I won't have an issue.

AFAIK AN/ARN-101 came with DMAS (Digital Modular Avionics System) which was fitted to aircraft serials 71-0237 to 74-1653 (corresponding to blocks 48 to 62). According to this, AN/ARN-101 + DMAS was fitted starting 1977.

It's a digital navigation and attack system, and one of the more notable things it adds is a CCIP mode (previously Phantoms had to either a CCRP-esque mode using RADAR ranging and a manual bombing mode using the depressible reticle).

I've got hold of primary literature for a lot of stuff, but I'm not sure if it breaks 1.16.

On 12/25/2021 at 8:41 PM, upyr1 said:

My view with the Phantom is that the module needs to cover 'Nam era birds. I'm fine if they do later version(s) but if they only do a later version then it has to be one that could pass for a 'Nam era Phantom with the right weapons.

It'll depend what you most care about, a AN/ARN-101 DMAS, changes a fair bit from my reading so far.

Edited December 27, 2021 by Northstar98
spelling

[mkellytx]

On 12/25/2021 at 1:47 AM, WinterH said:

F-104, F-105. Also I think it's not entirely clear from just the pipper whether it'd be F-4E or other variants.

Pretty safe bet that it was teasing the phantom and not the other two though.

I very nearly posted something similar about the -105 and -111 gunsights, but a quick look at the the 1F-105F-1 and 1F-111A-34-1-1 confirmed the inner circle of their gunsights are solid not dashed like the F-4.  So, not a Thud or Vark.

[Northstar98]

On 12/25/2021 at 7:47 AM, WinterH said:

F-104, F-105. Also I think it's not entirely clear from just the pipper whether it'd be F-4E or other variants.

Pretty safe bet that it was teasing the phantom and not the other two though.

The sight shown in the video is completely identical to the gunsight that can be found in the 1F-4E-34-1-1 for the F-4E.

I'd post an image, but I'm not sure it breaks 1.16

Edited December 27, 2021 by Northstar98

[upyr1]

13 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

AFAIK AN/ARN-101 came with DMAS (Digital Modular Avionics System) which was fitted to aircraft serials 71-0237 to 74-1653 (corresponding to blocks 48 to 62). According to this, AN/ARN-101 + DMAS was fitted starting 1977.

It's a digital navigation and attack system, and one of the more notable things it adds is a CCIP mode (previously Phantoms had to either a CCRP-esque mode using RADAR ranging and a manual bombing mode using the depressible reticule).

I've got hold of primary literature for a lot of stuff, but I'm not sure if it breaks 1.16.

So it looks like the 1980's Phantom isn't going to pass as a Linebacker Phantom. So now we're back to me asking for multiple Phantoms again. 

[WinterH]

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

So it looks like the 1980's Phantom isn't going to pass as a Linebacker Phantom. So now we're back to me asking for multiple Phantoms again. 

ARN-101 upgraded ones, I would say, are significantly different from Vietnam birds. However, pre-ARN-101 Block 53 should be post Vietnam enough for people like me, and could be fitted into a Vietnam era bird role for people like you. So I guess it is the "happy medium" as far as F-4E versions go. It would have Mavericks, Shrikes, Paveway LGBs, GBU-8 (but sadly not GBU-15), and Pave Spike daytime only TGP, as well as all air force Sidewinders from 70s to mostly likely all aspect 80s missiles. Like Northstar98 said, ARN-101 replaces old analog navigation and bombing computers with a new digital unit. So feels like it would indeed significantly alter the experience and capabilities.

As for Vietnam birds vs post-Vietnam birds in general, I'm of the mind strictly leaning towards post-Vietnam is the right choice for DCS as it is. later 70s-80s is a great era to fill up, and there are a lot of existing and upcoming stuff from that period, and in a pinch they can even serve as underdogs in 90s scenarios with appropriate support. Vietnam war is a very interesting period, yes, but I don't see DCS having nearly enough stuff to properly support it at this point. But then, I also understand the argument that for that support to happen, they need to start somewhere. I still see it that any thing that is made in strictly Vietnam level is a loss where we could get the later version instead which would, in my opinion, add more to the sim as it is.

I think "a version that fits both to Vietnam, and a post-Vietnam environment" is even more difficult for naval Phantoms right? Did they have a look-down radar already in the war?

All these discussions make me realize one thing... F-4 is very much a prime candidate for a A-10C II or Blackshark 3 kinda treatment some years down the line.

[Northstar98]

On 12/27/2021 at 9:40 AM, WinterH said:

ARN-101 upgraded ones, I would say, are significantly different from Vietnam birds. However, pre-ARN-101 Block 53 should be post Vietnam enough for people like me, and could be fitted into a Vietnam era bird role for people like you. So I guess it is the "happy medium" as far as F-4E versions go. It would have Mavericks, Shrikes, Paveway LGBs, GBU-8 (but sadly not GBU-15), and Pave Spike daytime only TGP, as well as all air force Sidewinders from 70s to mostly likely all aspect 80s missiles. Like Northstar98 said, ARN-101 replaces old analog navigation and bombing computers with a new digital unit. So feels like it would indeed significantly alter the experience and capabilities.

According to the primary literature I have (I've got a TO 1F-4E-1 circa 1979, another -1 circa 1994 (revised 1990), a -34-1-1 circa 1979 (revised 1986) and a -34-1-1-2 circa 1983 (revised 1986)), Pave Spike was fitted to selected aircraft serials inside 67-0342 - 69-7588 (which corresponds to block 36 - 45).

AGM-65 was apparently introduced in 71-0237 (a block 48) and onwards, but the document suggests it was retrofitted to aircraft fitted with the DSCG (Digital Scan Converter Group), which are blocks 36 and onwards. The DSCG replaces the rear scope with a slightly different display (it's evero so slightly larger, and a  different shape, and has different controls), the front scope looks to be identical. The only difference is in display symbology (it's mostly the same exact thing, but there are a few changes with the DSCG).

The first block to feature TISEO and Agile Eagle slats was a block 48, first flying in February 1972, I believe this block and onwards was also the one to feature AN/ASX-1 TISEO, and presumably in the late 70s it was upgraded with AN/ARN-101 + DMAS (and such were Pave Tack and GBU-15 compatible when they were introduced, at least to select aircraft). I'm fairly sure TISEO and Pave Tack are DMAS aircraft only (the rear DSCG gets the CLI (control lens indicator - kinda like a big scope) mounted onto it, and it's primary use seems to be displaying Pave Tack video).

On 12/27/2021 at 9:40 AM, WinterH said:

As for Vietnam birds vs post-Vietnam birds in general, I'm of the mind strictly leaning towards post-Vietnam is the right choice for DCS as it is. later 70s-80s is a great era to fill up, and there are a lot of existing and upcoming stuff from that period, and in a pinch they can even serve as underdogs in 90s scenarios with appropriate support. Vietnam war is a very interesting period, yes, but I don't see DCS having nearly enough stuff to properly support it at this point.

This is my main thing as well, and right now, the Vietnam scene is borderline absent, granted there are a few air defence stuff, but the aircraft are all the wrong versions, and I doubt we'll see a map any time soon, especially when you consider the performance of the Marianas - Vietnam is going to be very similar, but with a lot more land area (and a Vietnam map would have to stretch into Thailand, as that's where most non-naval BLUFOR stuff was based).

And as for naval stuff, we don't have 1 single asset that represents the timeframe, and before anyone mentions the Forrestal, it's Vietnam sensors and weapons fit was vastly different to what we have now, and what we have now is a post SLEP 1990s fit, nearly a decade after the last Phantoms (which were F-4S').

We do however have a decent concentration of assets for the late Cold War ~ mid 70s up to the late 80s, we're just missing a suitable map for said assets.

On 12/27/2021 at 9:40 AM, WinterH said:

But then, I also understand the argument that for that support to happen, they need to start somewhere. I still see it that any thing that is made in strictly Vietnam level is a loss where we could get the later version instead which would, in my opinion, add more to the sim as it is.

Agreed.

On 12/27/2021 at 9:40 AM, WinterH said:

All these discussions make me realize one thing... F-4 is very much a prime candidate for a A-10C II or Blackshark 3 kinda treatment some years down the line.

True, but I hope we remain firmly with Cold War variants.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Northstar98

[Baco]

So is ED willing to make a sacrifice in accuracy and give the E the possibility to be used on a carrier or are we stuck with a "naval less" airplane?

I don´t mean only to catch the wires I mean to be able to launch from catapults...

are they really going to deny us a naval phantom?

 

[Nexus-6]

I have a feeling that the F-4E won't be the end of the Phantom's lifespan in DCS. It may take a while (and 3rd party involvement), but there are enough people asking for a naval variant that we're bound to see it eventually.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Baco said:

So is ED willing to make a sacrifice in accuracy and give the E the possibility to be used on a carrier...

What?! No, gods forbid.

[EagleEye.DCS]

Indeed. F4 would be great if there is a Vietnam Map too

 

[Manhorne]

I will be happy just top get a Phantom to start with...I do believe they will give us a Naval variant after the E is released.At least that's a feeling I have. If I had an say in the matter and I was limited in choices I would say a F-4E (early and Late ) versions and a Naval F-4 J/N. Maybe down the road if the module does well the C/D phantom as well...

 

PHANTOMS PHOREVER!!!!!!!!!!

Edited January 5, 2022 by Manhorne

[Nexus-6]

5 hours ago, EagleEye11 said:

Indeed. F4 would be great if there is a Vietnam Map too

 

A Southeast Asia map's awesomeness would be titanic in scale, no question about it.  But you're talking about a lot of development work - from scratch - because none of the aircraft currently available (except maybe for RAZBAM's MiG-19) in DCS would be period correct.  The Phantom that ED will deliver will probably be the same block that Belsimtek informed us about in 2017.  That likely means a late 70s bird.  Even the MiG-21 we have is the BIS variant, and was not flown by the VPAF that I'm aware of.  And that's not counting all of the AI like tankers, ground units, Red Crown, etc.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Nexus-6

[QuiGon]

13 hours ago, Baco said:

So is ED willing to make a sacrifice in accuracy and give the E the possibility to be used on a carrier

Ugh, pls don't
Either do a proper carrier aircraft or keep it away from the carrier, but don't add pseudo capabilities.

[WinterH]

Eh, so long as it gets carrier peeps happy and let us get the variant the matters, the E, I'm ok. It's not like people aren't taking off and landing from carriers with non carrier capable aircraft in DCS.

The only thing that REALLY matters is getting a 1975+ F-4E ^_^ if we only get a naval Phantom it would be so incredibly disappointing and pointless as far as I'm concerned.

Edited January 5, 2022 by WinterH

[Northstar98]

17 hours ago, Baco said:

So is ED willing to make a sacrifice in accuracy and give the E the possibility to be used on a carrier or are we stuck with a "naval less" airplane?

I don´t mean only to catch the wires I mean to be able to launch from catapults...

are they really going to deny us a naval phantom?

While this might be pedantic, there isn't a single western naval asset suitable for the timeframe of naval Phantoms, so even if you do a naval Phantom, you'll have to be sacrificing accuracy anyway.

3 hours ago, QuiGon said:

Ugh, pls don't
Either do a proper carrier aircraft or keep it away from the carrier, but don't add pseudo capabilities.

Absolutely agreed!

[Baco]

8 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

While this might be pedantic, there isn't a single western naval asset suitable for the timeframe of naval Phantoms, so even if you do a naval Phantom, you'll have to be sacrificing accuracy anyway.

Absolutely agreed!

really? CV 59 Forrestal is not asset enough for you..  And yeah good developers MAKE assets to go with their planes.. look at Heatblur... again CV 59? CV 60?... I guess we will have to keep relying in the MOD community to circumvent dogmatic constrains LOL

 

And just out of curiosity where the hell are you going to fly realistically and historically this F4 E? Germany? LOL geez narrow minds give me a headache...

Edited January 5, 2022 by Baco

[Manhorne]

10 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

While this might be pedantic, there isn't a single western naval asset suitable for the timeframe of naval Phantoms, so even if you do a naval Phantom, you'll have to be sacrificing accuracy anyway.

Absolutely agreed!

The USS  Forrestal carried Phantoms and we have that and if they actually ever did the USS Nimitz it too carried Phantoms.

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Baco said:

really? CV 59 Forrestal is not asset enough for you..

It's depicted in its post SLEP 90s configuration with significantly different weapons and sensors. If you don't care about that, that's fine.

2 hours ago, Baco said:

And yeah good developers MAKE assets to go with their planes.. look at Heatblur... again CV 59? CV 60?

Yes, that would ideally be the case. And the current Forrestal fits the timeframe of the planned and current USN Tomcats (apart from maybe the late A Tomcat). It doesn't fit any unknown if it's planned naval Phantom.

2 hours ago, Baco said:

... I guess we will have to keep relying in the MOD community to circumvent dogmatic constrains LOL

What part of this is a dogmatic constraint? I'm not forcing you to do anything here, you fly whatever you want off of the Forrestal, but the fact remains that a naval Phantom significantly predates our current Forrestal for the fit it's in

Fact is, the current Forrestal doesn't fit the timeframe of naval Phantoms, there isn't much more to it than that.

2 hours ago, Baco said:

And just out of curiosity where the hell are you going to fly realistically and historically this F4 E? Germany?

I mean, that would be my #1 preferred choice, it's map that would suit many of our current assets and modules as they are and has historically relevant and historically plausible scenarios behind it.

2 hours ago, Baco said:

LOL geez narrow minds give me a headache...

Pointing out (accurately) that the Forrestal is depicted as it was nearly a decade after the last Phantoms on it makes me narrow minded? Are you okay? I don't know what to say other than sorry I care and pay attention to historically consistent assets and modules?

And as I said above, if we get naval Phantoms, I'm not going to force you to not fly off the Forrestal Baco... I'm only interested in the building blocks of scenarios being as accurate as possible to their real life counterparts (the assets, the modules and the maps) but what scenarios you build out of those building blocks and how you use those building blocks should be (and currently is) totally up to you.

I'd prefer to have assets be consistent with each other in terms of timeframe, and right now a major one is missing for a prospective naval US Phantom, which by the way, also suffers from not having an appropriate map.

2 hours ago, Manhorne said:

The USS  Forrestal carried Phantoms and we have that and if they actually ever did the USS Nimitz it too carried Phantoms.

Not in the fit we have it didn't. We have a post SLEP 90s Forrestal. The last Phantoms were F-4S' in 1981.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Northstar98

[Harlikwin]

11 hours ago, Nexus-6 said:

A Southeast Asia map's awesomeness would be titanic in scale, no question about it.  But you're talking about a lot of development work - from scratch - because none of the aircraft currently available (except maybe for RAZBAM's MiG-19) in DCS would be period correct.  The Phantom that ED will deliver will probably be the same block that Belsimtek informed us about in 2017.  That likely means a late 70s bird.  Even the MiG-21 we have is the BIS variant, and was not flown by the VPAF that I'm aware of.  And that's not counting all of the AI like tankers, ground units, Red Crown, etc.

 

100% correct, except not even the mig19 we have really fits, the VPAF used some chinese J-6's which are "close". But its alot closer than any other plane we have. The Bis is a far different beast than an mig21 F-13. 

But I'm sure if there is VN map, folks will cram every possible "close-enough" airframe onto it. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Harlikwin

[Baco]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

OK, North if it was up to you we would endlessly fly the same 3 o 4 missions accurate to the last screw. If you get really strict there is no accurate scenario being assets time period, histrionically close and or whatever in DCS. its called a sand box. and by restraining what I can do with the toys in that sandbox in the name of "accuracy"? feels like doctrine constrains. You dont see it that way? Grate more power to you. but cutting features or possibilities that other people might enjoy in the name of a false "sanctum premise" is , sorry to say, Narrow minded. Not ment as an offense in any way. Just stating a fact that that kind of thinking limits imagination and posible scenarios. I was just hoping ED would allowd some flexibility in the "imagination department"- and not have to wait til 2029

Cheers gentlemen.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Baco