F4 PHANTOM

[Northstar98]

2 hours 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.

The reticle in the trailer matches exactly with one seen on a -34-1-1 c. 1979 (rev. 1983) for the F-4E, unless the J or other variants use the same gunsight reticle, I think we can be pretty confident it's an E.

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

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. 

Doubtful for PGMs, but you've got your standard affair for unguided stuff (Mk80 series, CBU-59/B, CBU-78/B, Mk20, Zuni, Mk77).

Late have F-4E have something similar to that (probably replacing Zuni with Hydra 70/Mk. 4 FFAR) plus:

• Paveway I & II
• GBU-8
• AGM-65 (all blocks once they were upgraded with DSCG)
• GBU-15 (blocks 48 - 62)

Don't forget they also have Pave Spike (blocks 36 - 45) or Pave Tack (blocks 48 - 62) and blocks 48 and onwards had TISEO.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Northstar98

[Baco]

16 hours ago, draconus said:

@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.

if many of us hadn't @chosen the wrong game@ you would still be flying Flanker 2.5   The ability of self entitlements of some  old simmers never ceses to surprise me...

But yeah case closed, I'll be saving a ton of money at least.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Baco

[divinee]

13 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The reticle in the trailer matches exactly with one seen on a -34-1-1 c. 1979 (rev. 1983) for the F-4E, unless the J or other variants use the same gunsight reticle, I think we can be pretty confident it's an E.

Doubtful for PGMs, but you've got your standard affair for unguided stuff (Mk80 series, CBU-59/B, CBU-78/B, Mk20, Zuni, Mk77).

Late have F-4E have something similar to that (probably replacing Zuni with Hydra 70/Mk. 4 FFAR) plus:

• Paveway I & II
• GBU-8
• AGM-65 (all blocks once they were upgraded with DSCG)
• GBU-15 (blocks 48 - 62)

Don't forget they also have Pave Spike (blocks 36 - 45) or Pave Tack (blocks 48 - 62) and blocks 48 and onwards had TISEO.

 

About the gunsight..

[Harlikwin]

11 hours ago, divinee said:

About the gunsight..

 

LOL nice... So pretty much no one knows. Though I bet if its HB doing it its gonna be a naval one first.

 

[Zpigman]

3 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

LOL nice... So pretty much no one knows. Though I bet if its HB doing it its gonna be a naval one first.

 

My bet would be a possible naval and air force version that HB would release at the same time kinda like the f14a/b. The 14 proved it was possible to do multiple aircraft as one module who knows how they have expanded it now.

[Harlikwin]

15 minutes ago, Zpigman said:

My bet would be a possible naval and air force version that HB would release at the same time kinda like the f14a/b. The 14 proved it was possible to do multiple aircraft as one module who knows how they have expanded it now.

If it is HB I Don't doubt that they would do different versions.

But the F14A/B analogy would be more like a F4J/S. The F4E has a totally different backseat/radar/other systems. The naval thing makes sense since they could leverage "jester" from an AWG9 to AWG10 mode of operation more easily. And then the forrestal. 

 

 

[Zpigman]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

If it is HB I Don't doubt that they would do different versions.

But the F14A/B analogy would be more like a F4J/S. The F4E has a totally different backseat/radar/other systems. The naval thing makes sense since they could leverage "jester" from an AWG9 to AWG10 mode of operation more easily. And then the forrestal. 

 

 

Well my thoughts there was that they already have the framework for massively different aircraft done. the f14a and f14b proved that they could tie aircraft together with major changes using engines as an example, they created two planes that are very different. As per controls, I think it is actually less of a problem then you think, they could just put a tie in through the code so that when you set up controls as pilot you also set up controls for WSO flight controls and leave the normal RIO/WSO controls alone. This would mean that the rear seat controls are only called into use when rendering the cockpit as a E &/or derivative version. 

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Zpigman said:

Well my thoughts there was that they already have the framework for massively different aircraft done. the f14a and f14b proved that they could tie aircraft together with major changes using engines as an example, they created two planes that are very different. As per controls, I think it is actually less of a problem then you think, they could just put a tie in through the code so that when you set up controls as pilot you also set up controls for WSO flight controls and leave the normal RIO/WSO controls alone. This would mean that the rear seat controls are only called into use when rendering the cockpit as a E &/or derivative version. 

 

Maybe so, I guess we will find out in about a year I guess. 

[Nexus-6]

7 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

LOL nice... So pretty much no one knows. Though I bet if its HB doing it its gonna be a naval one first.

 

The fact that ED teased it at the end of their "20XX and Beyond" video makes me think it's not Heatblur who will create the first Phantom (assuming they're doing one at all and their progress is way farther along than we think), but rather Eagle Dynamics themselves since it was Belsimtek who were building an F-4E in the first place, and because an "E" model will slot in much more comfortably with the maps and potential scenarios we already have.  Not to mention that it will be right at home facing off against our MiG-19&21, as well as the forthcoming Mirage F1, MiG-23 and (whenever it gets here) that MiG-17 Red Star Simulations is working on.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Nexus-6

[divinee]

6 hours ago, Nexus-6 said:

The fact that ED teased it at the end of their "20XX and Beyond" video makes me think it's not Heatblur who will create the first Phantom (assuming they're doing one at all and their progress is way farther along than we think), but rather Eagle Dynamics themselves since it was Belsimtek who were building an F-4E in the first place, and because an "E" model will slot in much more comfortably with the maps and potential scenarios we already have.  Not to mention that it will be right at home facing off against our MiG-19&21, as well as the forthcoming Mirage F1, MiG-23 and (whenever it gets here) that MiG-17 Red Star Simulations is working on.

 

ED told that they are not making phantom and that it is possibly made by 3rd party. Off course they can change their mind and start doing that but if some 3rd party started development it would be a little bit slap in the face to take that F-4 back to ED

 

Second thing is that developers cannot make all the modules to fit current maps and timelines. If they keep doing that, it will start to limit quite a bit. Also we have no info what maps etc developers are planning to do in the future. I wouldn’t wait phantom until -23-24 and there is plenty of time to announce new maps.

 

Third point i have is that if they make E model, it cannot do carrier ops but if they do navan version like J it can do carrier ops AND ”simulate” USAF versions just without internal gun. That would be a terrible thing for the purists but in the bigger picture that would propably satisfy more people.

[Harlikwin]

12 hours ago, Nexus-6 said:

The fact that ED teased it at the end of their "20XX and Beyond" video makes me think it's not Heatblur who will create the first Phantom (assuming they're doing one at all and their progress is way farther along than we think), but rather Eagle Dynamics themselves since it was Belsimtek who were building an F-4E in the first place, and because an "E" model will slot in much more comfortably with the maps and potential scenarios we already have.  Not to mention that it will be right at home facing off against our MiG-19&21, as well as the forthcoming Mirage F1, MiG-23 and (whenever it gets here) that MiG-17 Red Star Simulations is working on.

 

Its a great theory, but Kate said ED is not doing the F4. 

5 hours ago, divinee said:

ED told that they are not making phantom and that it is possibly made by 3rd party. Off course they can change their mind and start doing that but if some 3rd party started development it would be a little bit slap in the face to take that F-4 back to ED

 

Second thing is that developers cannot make all the modules to fit current maps and timelines. If they keep doing that, it will start to limit quite a bit. Also we have no info what maps etc developers are planning to do in the future. I wouldn’t wait phantom until -23-24 and there is plenty of time to announce new maps.

 

Third point i have is that if they make E model, it cannot do carrier ops but if they do navan version like J it can do carrier ops AND ”simulate” USAF versions just without internal gun. That would be a terrible thing for the purists but in the bigger picture that would propably satisfy more people.

A J would be a terrible E-simulator. Totally different and much more capable radar for one. 

[WinterH]

39 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Third point i have is that if they make E model, it cannot do carrier ops but if they do navan version like J it can do carrier ops AND ”simulate” USAF versions just without internal gun.

For someone who wants an E like I do, J is firmly in the "better off not even being done" bin. Naval Phantoms had better air to air capabilities like a pulse doppler radar that can look and shoot down, an early helmet mounted sight, and better missiles. However, when it comes to being a multirole aircraft, E was much, much better. It already got early targeting pods in 70s, had AGM-65 Mavericks, GBU-8 and later GBU-15 TV guided bombs, latter of which had man-in-the-loop capabilities, AGM-45 Shrike anti radar missiles, an internal gun, a complex iron bombing computer with many modes etc. And yeah, an actual onboard gun too. Neither J, nor even S would remotely be able to simulate an E in any way. Nor can really E simulate a naval one.

ED staff said multiple times in various venues that they aren't the ones making the F-4 BTW.

I am hoping very stronglt that it'll be a 75-80s F-4E. As far as I'm concerned it is by far the more interesting aircraft to use, and it just has a way wider history and operators: USAF, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, as well as Japan and Germany with close yet somewhat different variants specific to themselves. Australia also temporarily operated it.

[divinee]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

A J would be a terrible E-simulator. Totally different and much more capable radar for one. 

In the end, radar would be quite a small problem because it wasn’t that good even in the J Also, E would be even worse to simulate any other version and if we get only one version, we have to think that kind of stuff. Hopefully we get more than one..

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

For someone who wants an E like I do, J is firmly in the "better off not even being done" bin. Naval Phantoms had better air to air capabilities like a pulse doppler radar that can look and shoot down, an early helmet mounted sight, and better missiles. However, when it comes to being a multirole aircraft, E was much, much better. It already got early targeting pods in 70s, had AGM-65 Mavericks, GBU-8 and later GBU-15 TV guided bombs, latter of which had man-in-the-loop capabilities, AGM-45 Shrike anti radar missiles, an internal gun, a complex iron bombing computer with many modes etc. And yeah, an actual onboard gun too. Neither J, nor even S would remotely be able to simulate an E in any way. Nor can really E simulate a naval one.

ED staff said multiple times in various venues that they aren't the ones making the F-4 BTW.

I am hoping very stronglt that it'll be a 75-80s F-4E. As far as I'm concerned it is by far the more interesting aircraft to use, and it just has a way wider history and operators: USAF, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, as well as Japan and Germany with close yet somewhat different variants specific to themselves. Australia also temporarily operated it.

Late E is just a ground pounder and it would be quite a shame to get version which wasn’t the ”high point” of it’s career. If we’d get more than one, then it would be nice to have Late E but with only one i’d rather have older iconic versions.

[Nexus-6]

55 minutes ago, divinee said:

Late E is just a ground pounder and it would be quite a shame to get version which wasn’t the ”high point” of it’s career. If we’d get more than one, then it would be nice to have Late E but with only one i’d rather have older iconic versions.

The "high point" of the Phantom's career could be debated, depending on the opinions of the people involved, until the heat death of the universe. As of right now, there are currently no assets to support a naval variant (meaning a period correct carrier). I had originally thought that Heatblur's Forrestal would cover it, but the version they made is, as was previously pointed out, too recent to have seen F-4s on her deck. Whereas there are multiple maps that cover multiple nations in DCS that can accept an F-4E right now.

[Nexus-6]

5 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Its a great theory, but Kate said ED is not doing the F4.

Yep. I'm absolutely spitballing here. It's all a theory at this point. The only information we have right now is a grainy picture of a gunsight.

[bies]

21 minutes ago, Nexus-6 said:

The "high point" of the Phantom's career could be debated, depending on the opinions of the people involved, until the heat death of the universe.

I'm not sure which Phantom variant i would like to see the most myself, but being objective Vietnam war was absolutely the high point of the Phantom's career. Quality wise as right after Vietnam F-14 and F-15 started to replace Phantom in combat units or relegate Phantom to other tasks and from this moment it was most definitely not the high point of the Phantom anymore since both F-14 and F-15 were superfighters compared to F-4.

Quantity wise as well - during Vietnam war USAF nad US Navy lost probably more aircrafts than during all other post WW2 wars combined.

Edited January 8, 2022 by bies

[Nexus-6]

28 minutes ago, bies said:

I'm not sure which Phantom variant i would like to see the most myself, but being objective Vietnam war was absolutely the high point of the Phantom's career. Quality wise as right after Vietnam F-14 and F-15 started to replace Phantom in combat units or relegate Phantom to other tasks and from this moment it was most definitely not the high point of the Phantom anymore since both F-14 and F-15 were superfighters compared to F-4.

Quantity wise as well - during Vietnam war USAF nad US Navy lost probably more aircrafts than during all other post WW2 wars combined.

 

Sure, you could use Vietnam as your dowsing rod, but someone else might consider the late 70s version to be definitive after it carved out a niche as a fighter-bomber.

I guess what I was trying to say is that there's a lot of story to tell, and no matter who builds whatever version that's on the way, you really can't do the plane any justice without representing as much of its history as possible.

[divinee]

8 hours ago, Nexus-6 said:

 I had originally thought that Heatblur's Forrestal would cover it, but the version they made is, as was previously pointed out, too recent to have seen F-4s on her deck. Whereas there are multiple maps that cover multiple nations in DCS that can accept an F-4E right now.

But we aren’t getting F-4 right now so the present situation shouldn’t limit what devs are making. The developers should aim for the situation which exists roughly at the time of release (no one knows when, but i’m guessing -23-24). Also Phantom would be excellent motivator for other developers to start making stuff for vietnam. If heatblur is making the phantom i have no doubt that they are making some assets for it also.

You are absolutely right that Phantom really needs more than one version to represent it’s career like it deserves.

[Bozon]

13 hours ago, divinee said:

…

You are absolutely right that Phantom really needs more than one version to represent it’s career like it deserves.

If each includes multiple variants, the Phantom justifies being developed as two modules, one for the land variants (incl. early and late “E”) and one for multiple navy variants.

There certainly seems to be a demand for both, and the avionics/system of the two lines being incompatible require a lot of investment by the dev, almost like 2 modules. If they save a little effort by using the common assets, consider it as a bonus to the devs.

I’ll buy both.

[QuiGon]

On 1/8/2022 at 5:23 PM, Harlikwin said:

Its a great theory, but Kate said ED is not doing the F4.

I guess it depends if she counts Belsimtek as part of ED or not. The official status of Belsimtek has changed multiple times throughout DCS history. Regardless of the official status, Belsimtek is definitely a seperate studio located in Minsk in Belarus  in Zhukovsky on the outskirts of Moscow, while ED itself is located within Moscow. Personally I like to view them as a 2nd party devopler, as they are somewhere inbetween a 3rd party and core ED.

Given that Belsimtek is about be done with the Hind and needs a new project and that they were working on the F-4E in parallel to the Hind ~5 years ago I'm pretty sure it's (the former) Belsimtek studio, who are now continuing their work on the Phantom which they put on hold some years ago to help out with the Hornet and other ED modules. I also don't think ED would do such a teaser in their own trailer for a 3rd party module.

Unfortunately the Belsimtek subforum has been hidden for the public eye by now, but their Facebook is still up, where you can take a look at their past F-4E dev diaries: https://www.facebook.com/belsimtek/posts/785378065000027

Edited January 10, 2022 by QuiGon

[WobblyFlops]

3 hours ago, QuiGon said:

Personally I like to view them as a 2nd party devopler, as they are somewhere inbetween a 3rd party and core ED.

None of the new  modules made by the former BST team (like the Hind) have any level of formal distinction from other ED products. In fact this type of formal distinction is unprecedented since the official merger and from that point on, there's absolutely no ambiguity regarding the status of the formal BST team. Everything points towards them being an integral part of ED as one of the many internal groups. Both BN, Nineline and Kate confirmed very clearly that ED have no plans on making an F-4. BN also confirmed that BST is considered to be a part of ED and the companies are merged into one and ED does not plan on making an F-4. This post was in November, so if things have changed since then, that F-4 is  long, long ways away.

[QuiGon]

8 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

None of the new  modules made by the former BST team (like the Hind) have any level of formal distinction from other ED products. In fact this type of formal distinction is unprecedented since the official merger and from that point on, there's absolutely no ambiguity regarding the status of the formal BST team.

On paper your're right. In regards to the Phantom we will have to wait and see if reality confirms this. I remain sceptical

Edited January 10, 2022 by QuiGon

[Silver_Dragon]

4 hours ago, QuiGon said:

I guess it depends if she counts Belsimtek as part of ED or not. The official status of Belsimtek has changed multiple times throughout DCS history. Regardless of the official status, Belsimtek is definitely a seperate studio located in Minsk in Belarus, while ED itself is located in Moscow. Personally I like to view them as a 2nd party devopler, as they are somewhere inbetween a 3rd party and core ED.

Given that Belsimtek is about be done with the Hind and needs a new project and that they were working on the F-4E in parallel to the Hind ~5 years ago I'm pretty sure it's Belsimtek ("ED Minsk"), who are now continuing their work on the Phantom which they put on hold some years ago to help out with the Hornet and other ED modules. I also don't think ED would do such a teaser in their own trailer for a 3rd party module.

Unfortunately the Belsimtek subforum has been hidden for the public eye by now, but their Facebook is still up, where you can take a look at their past F-4E dev diaries: https://www.facebook.com/belsimtek/posts/785378065000027

 

Belsimtek was no on Minsk. The Minsk studio has the map builders, the TDK (terrain develop kit), object creation and Motion capture. The formely BelsimTeck studio was on outside Moscow, and now has know as Zhukovsky studio, centred on modern modules. The Main team has on other offices on Moscow.

Kate has talked has other studios on USA and europa.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[QuiGon]

21 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Belsimtek was no on Minsk. The Minsk studio has the map builders, the TDK (terrain develop kit), object creation and Motion capture. The formely BelsimTeck studio was on outside Moscow, and now has know as Zhukovsky studio, centred on modern modules. The Main team has on other offices on Moscow.

Thanks for the correction! I confused the studios in Minsk and Zhukovsky
I corrected my post above in this regard to avoid further confusion.

Edited January 10, 2022 by QuiGon

[WobblyFlops]

44 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

In regards to the Phantom we will have to wait and see if reality confirms this. I remain sceptical

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?