F4 PHANTOM

[Baco]

On the other hand , with this dogmatic disposition, by the time you finally get a posible theater of operation or assets the original module is so outdated that in the best case just looks dated and in the worst it has so many bugs its close to unflyable... 

[rkk01]

Just get on with the F-4J and be done with it…

Edited January 5, 2022 by rkk01

[Northstar98]

6 hours ago, Baco said:

OK, North if it was up to you we would endlessly fly the same 3 o 4 missions accurate to the last screw.

Oh would it? 2 questions for you Baco:

• When did I say I was only interested in recreating historical missions?
• When did I say there can only be 1 timeframe in DCS?

If you don't have an answer for either of these, then I'm going to conclude it's something you made up, plain and simple.

Also, if you think simply making assets, modules and maps means we're doomed to fly the same 3-4 missions for all eternity, then you're either lying or being stunningly incorrect.

Look at the other WWII sim, or the other Cold War lite-sim, if you think that doing exactly what those have done means players are doomed to fly the same missions over and over again, you couldn't be more wrong.

6 hours ago, Baco said:

If you get really strict there is no accurate scenario being assets time period, histrionically close and or whatever in DCS.

"If we focus on accuracy, we won't get any accuracy" have I got that right?

6 hours ago, Baco said:

its called a sand box.

You mean like when I said that you should be (and are) able to make whatever you want out of the assets, modules and maps and use them however you want?

Your response gives off the impression that you didn't actually read the post you're responding to.

6 hours ago, Baco said:

and by restraining what I can do with the toys in that sandbox in the name of "accuracy"? feels like doctrine constrains.

I'm not restraining anything, are you just not reading/not understanding my responses or are you deliberately misinterpreting them?

I'm interested in modules, assets and maps being as realistic to their RL counterparts as possible, but being able to build whatever scenario and use them however I damn well like.

I'm also interested in having said modules, assets and maps, be consistent with each other, instead of being all over the place.

How I would've gone about it is as follows:

1. Pick a year (don't care which, right now my preference is mid 80s)
2. Develop modules and assets, ideally fitting within ±5 years of that year. Continue adding assets and modules until we at least reach a the same level WWII is at in DCS right now.
3. Develop an appropriate map or maps for the timeframe (maybe focusing on a historical or potential conflict/flashpoint).
4. Move onto whatever next era.

What I would prefer not to do is load up a load of assets, modules and maps from a timeframe spanning 70 years load them into a blunderbuss and fire them at the screen, such that if you pick any decade within those 70 years you don't find much apart from a select few exceptions. Unfortunately though, that ship sailed.

The issue I'm describing was better put in this thread, which you even agreed with!

6 hours ago, Baco said:

but cutting features or possibilities that other people might enjoy in the name of a false "sanctum premise" is , sorry to say, Narrow minded.

Great! Good job I'm not doing that am I?

All I pointed out, was that naval Phantoms predate the Forrestal, as it currently stands (and it does), you've managed to take that and twist it to mean that I want to prevent people from doing what they want, despite me saying the exact opposite from the get go! I would say you couldn't make this up, but it seems you did.

6 hours ago, Baco said:

Not ment as an offense in any way.

I'm honestly finding that difficult given how you've completely managed to twist what I'm saying, I don't know whether it was deliberate in an attempt to straw man me, or it's a case of misunderstanding, I'm hoping it's the latter...

6 hours ago, Baco said:

Just stating a fact that that kind of thinking limits imagination and posible scenarios.

The same is true whether you care about consistency or not. And again, I don't care what you do with the modules, you do whatever with them, I'm not going to stop you, I'm not advocating for stopping you.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Northstar98

[Baco]

Ok, lets say I agree with all your points. My point is: giving an F4 Phantom II E the capability of taking off form a carrier takes away nothing from the way you want to use it. yes? It can still operate as a perfectly accurate E and do the same things the RL counterpart can. The only difference I am asking for is that I can launch said plane from a catapult.

The way I see it it takes Nothing from your realism and accuracy away. I am not asking for armament sensors or capabilities the E does not have. Yet it is "sacrilege"  to make that plane be able to launch from a carrier so I can use it as a stand in of a B, C, J , N or K if I wish so.. because its not "realistic"...

And that is my point, your purity takes away from my fun when my fun does not take away any of your fun.

If I get what I am asking, You can choose NOT to put it in a carrier in your missions. If you get what you are asking, I can NOT choose to put it in a carrier in my missions.. 

An that is the Whole point.

[QuiGon]

13 hours ago, Baco said:

The way I see it it takes Nothing from your realism and accuracy away. I am not asking for armament sensors or capabilities the E does not have.

Uhm, yes you do. The E does not have any carrier capability!
How about giving the Viper some carrier cpability as well? And the A-10! And the MiG-21.
How about giving every plane carrier capability?
Please don't!

Edited January 6, 2022 by QuiGon

[Baco]

6 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

Uhm, yes you do. The E does not have any carrier capability!
How about giving the Viper some carrier capability as well? And the A-10! And the MiG-21.
How about giving every plane carrier capability?
Pls don't!

 

you see its "heretic" but takes Nothing away from you. 

You cant even define what it takes away from you. Or you don t want to say it ;). 

I truly hope ED sees the advantages to many over the self righteousness and egoism of a few. 

 

 

[Nexus-6]

22 minutes ago, Baco said:

I truly hope ED sees the advantages to many over the self righteousness and egoism of a few. 

 

 

I have nothing against getting a naval variant, but I wouldn't hold my breath over this one. I can't see ED giving one of their modules a capability it didn't possess in real life.

[WinterH]

19 minutes ago, Nexus-6 said:

I have nothing against getting a naval variant

I have nothing against a naval variant in addition, so long as I get an F-4E. Man, this is one special plane where it's going to be VERY hard to make everyone happy and at the same time not make everyone mad

[C3PO]

I am so pumped for the F4 - cannot wait. In the meantime, a great story from Vietnam.

 

[Nexus-6]

11 minutes ago, WinterH said:

I have nothing against a naval variant in addition, so long as I get an F-4E. Man, this is one special plane where it's going to be VERY hard to make everyone happy and at the same time not make everyone mad

I'll even go so far as to say that our F-4 experience will not be complete UNTIL we get a carrier-capable version (and probably a Wild Weasel). But I understand why ED picked the 'E' model.

[draconus]

@Baco ED provides the world, assets and aircraft modeled as close as possible to the real conterparts. The imagination part is on the user.

You're free to take your light F-4E, put on burners and use whole deck to take off from the carrier, but attach it to catapult you cannot. You're free to set 50kts WOD and even land it there but trap with hook you will not.

Asking for fictional capabilities belongs to the mod subforum. Or maybe you've choosen the wrong game if you don't see anything wrong with it.

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, it should be possible to trap the E variant on the carrier. AFAIK, they didn't get rid of the tailhook on the AF variants. Land-based runways can also use arresting gear, which would be cool to have in DCS, seeing as we have the hook modeled on the Viper, for example.

That said, I doubt it'd be able to take off using the whole length of the carrier even in a hurricane-force WOD.  The Phantom took a whole lot of runway to take off. 

[bies]

Is this "carrier capable" F-4E some kind of joke or serous suggestion? Even WT or old Strike Fighters didn't go that crazy unrealistic. Let alone DCS. I'm confident ED will never do something like that.

To clarify: F-4E didn't have any carrier capabilities. It didn't have any device to connect to carrier steam catapult. It didn't have reinforced undercarriage. It didn't have naval hook, just a delicate standard USAF hook for emergency landing without brakes which would be teared immediately when catching carrier wire.

F-4C had most of the navy equipment to operate from carrier since it was basically a Navy F-4B bought by USAF. Subsequent USAF variants lost naval specific features.

[Northstar98]

18 hours ago, Baco said:

Ok, lets say I agree with all your points.

Well, it's better to just read them, then make a conclusion, but oh well.

18 hours ago, Baco said:

My point is: giving an F4 Phantom II E the capability of taking off form a carrier takes away nothing from the way you want to use it. yes? It can still operate as a perfectly accurate E and do the same things the RL counterpart can. The only difference I am asking for is that I can launch said plane from a catapult.

How are you going to take an E off from a catapult? Naval Phantoms have a hook under each wingroot near the leading edge, these are there to connect the aircraft to the catapult shuttle using a bridle - the F-4E doesn't doesn't have these and I'm not sure it has a holdback fitting either.

Unless you're going for some magic implementation, where the catapult launches the aircraft via telekinesis or something.

As for landing on a carrier, I'm sorta confident the hook and airframe can take it (but take that with a mountain of salt), but I'm not sure the landing gear is (in particular the tyres). Of course, that doesn't stop you from trying.

18 hours ago, Baco said:

The way I see it it takes Nothing from your realism and accuracy away.

Not unless you're planning on installing the actual provisions an F-4E would need to launch from a catapult, though dependent on the above.

18 hours ago, Baco said:

Yet it is "sacrilege"  to make that plane be able to launch from a carrier so I can use it as a stand in of a B, C, J , N or K if I wish so.. because its not "realistic"...

Personally, there needs to be a minimum of 2 versions of the Phantom: an F-4E and a naval variant, even if it's some time. Though again, pedantically speaking, we don't have any naval assets for any of the naval Phantoms, they all suceed it by at least nearly a decade.

[LooseSeal]

Yeah... there seems to be no argument to make here. It's not a naval variant.

I mean, at that rate, we might as well stick whatever is necessary onto the Spitfire to make it carrier-capable and call it a Seafire.

Either an accurate land-based Phantom. Or both variants separately. But no Frankenstein's Phantoms please.

[pantasauras]

I am extremely happy we are getting ANY Phantom, but I could die a happy man if we got an F-4J

[divinee]

1 hour ago, bies said:

Is this "carrier capable" F-4E some kind of joke or serous suggestion? Even WT or old Strike Fighters didn't go that crazy unrealistic. Let alone DCS. I'm confident ED will never do something like that.

To clarify: F-4E didn't have any carrier capabilities. It didn't have any device to connect to carrier steam catapult. It didn't have reinforced undercarriage. It didn't have naval hook, just a delicate standard USAF hook for emergency landing without brakes which would be teared immediately when catching carrier wire.

F-4C had most of the navy equipment to operate from carrier since it was basically a Navy F-4B bought by USAF. Subsequent USAF variants lost naval specific features.

Do you have any info about what they changed from the landing gear and arresting hook? Looking from the pictures and comparing naval and USAF variants i cannot find any differences in landing gear and arresting equipment. Briddles attachment points have blanc plates on top of those slots in land based variants. I'm just curious to find more info about those.

Edited January 6, 2022 by divinee

[G.J.S]

2 hours ago, divinee said:

Do you have any info about what they changed from the landing gear and arresting hook? Looking from the pictures and comparing naval and USAF variants i cannot find any differences in landing gear and arresting equipment. Briddles attachment points have blanc plates on top of those slots in land based variants. I'm just curious to find more info about those.

 

The echo can’t go from a carrier. Although the hook is exactly the same - same stress load, same type - the naval variants had tires made for a higher pressure. Land Phantoms use a much lower pressure.

Landing gear (bar the tires) is the same generally, just some minor differences. The lack of bridle strop attach points on the echo is another thing that would preclude being vaulted off a carrier. Plus the echo isn’t ‘navalised’. The airframe as a whole wouldn’t be treated to the level required for salt laden environments.

[ebabil]

If only we get some real teaser

[upyr1]

On 1/4/2022 at 2:39 PM, 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?

 

On E taking off from a carrier- this is heresy. You'll be lucky of the Ghost of Robin Olds doesn't haunt you. seriosly I expect to see at least one Naval Phantom. The real question is how long will it be. I honestly expect to see the Phantom to be cash cow.

Edited January 6, 2022 by upyr1

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, pantasauras said:

I am extremely happy we are getting ANY Phantom, but I could die a happy man if we got an F-4J

I'm gonna guess we get an F4J first. If HB is the one doing it, it would leverage the forrestal, and all their backseat AI ported from the F14 would probably fit alot better with the AWG-10 rather than the F4E radar. 

Plus its vastly more capable as a dogfighter than the 4E due to the better radar/WCS. And IIRC it can still carry bombs. 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Harlikwin

[upyr1]

23 hours ago, Baco said:

Ok, lets say I agree with all your points. My point is: giving an F4 Phantom II E the capability of taking off form a carrier takes away nothing from the way you want to use it. yes? It can still operate as a perfectly accurate E and do the same things the RL counterpart can. The only difference I am asking for is that I can launch said plane from a catapult.

The way I see it it takes Nothing from your realism and accuracy away. I am not asking for armament sensors or capabilities the E does not have. Yet it is "sacrilege"  to make that plane be able to launch from a carrier so I can use it as a stand in of a B, C, J , N or K if I wish so.. because its not "realistic"...

And that is my point, your purity takes away from my fun when my fun does not take away any of your fun.

If I get what I am asking, You can choose NOT to put it in a carrier in your missions. If you get what you are asking, I can NOT choose to put it in a carrier in my missions.. 

An that is the Whole point.

First the C was a USAF Phantom and never operated from a carrier, having said that, it would be better if you asked for a Naval Phantom instead of trying to ask for an unrealistic mutt Phantom that never existed. If I were to do a module with both a USAF and Naval Phantom I would pick the C and the B. They biggest changes were the C could carry the AIM-4 Falcon, landing gear and you could fly from the back seat. 

[rkk01]

 

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

…..

Though again, pedantically speaking, we don't have any naval assets for any of the naval Phantoms, they all suceed it by at least nearly a decade.

“Parking Available”…

I’d be happy with a USN F-4J with an RN skin…

[upyr1]

21 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

I'm gonna guess we get an F4J first. If HB is the one doing it, it would leverage the forrestal, and all their backseat AI ported from the F14 would probably fit alot better with the AWG-10 rather than the F4E radar. 

Plus its vastly more capable as a dogfighter than the 4E due to the better radar/WCS. And IIRC it can still carry bombs. 

 

 

I can't think of any version of the Phantom that didn't have a2G in US service 

[Harlikwin]

58 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I can't think of any version of the Phantom that didn't have a2G in US service 

So, yes what I said. I'm just not up on what the J carried PGM wise if anything. I assume it could use standard unguided stuff.