F4 PHANTOM

[bies]

1 hour ago, ebabil said:

f4e 2020 terminator variant

modern hud, f16 like ICP, popeye and som-j missiles

this would be great

 

No, it would be not. It's absolutely a piece of junk like Indian MiG-21-93...

Extremely outdated but very cheap cannon fodder worse than any other contemporary fighter. Exists only because of lack of money to buy more F-16s. (And in 2010 even F-16 was somewhat outdated with Raptors, Eurofighters and Rafales flying around and winning international contracts.)

 

It was used only by one country in a small number, avionics details are probably classified and impossible to obtain.

 

It entered service ~2010 and probably don't even carry AMRAAMs, but Sparrows - so it's practically only a bomber.

 

Have mercy on this poor thing, it was designed in mid 1950s.

Early 1970s with Agile Eagle, Mavericks, updated radar and RWR was the last period when it would be relevant in the air. And it already suffered since slats increased turn rate but decreased kinematic performance, and E variant had smaller radar to accommodate the gun, without look down capability. It wasn't a big problem 1960s and early 1970s since this technology wasn't widely common this time but later, this small radar dish became a limitation.

 

Navy line looks far more attractive and the guy-in-the-back would actually have something to do with far more capable radar.

 

(If they modernised some Spitfire in 1960s in some African banana republic, does it mean we should have this variant instead of WW2 one?)

Edited January 27, 2021 by bies

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, German Phatoms did carry the AMRAAM, no reason why Turkish ones wouldn't. It would mostly be an attack aircraft, but a pretty good one - it can take a large bomb load, Mavs and a gun. It's not an A-10, but it'll do. Also, the Phantom was fast. F-4E could hit Mach 2.23, wouldn't be surprised if the Turkish variant could manage something in that neighborhood, as well. Combined with a decent load of AIM-120s, you've got a pretty competent interceptor, which was what the F-4 was built for.

 

BTW, the Spit wasn't exported much, but the Sea Fury and Corsair both served in various countries during the 60s and 70s. The A-1 was basically a late WWII plane more famous for use for ground attack in 'Nam than anything it did as a fighter in its heyday (it didn't fly in WWII, but it did in Korea).

[WinterH]

23 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Actually, German Phatoms did carry the AMRAAM, no reason why Turkish ones wouldn't.

F-4E 2020 Terminator (holy crap that name is cheesy lol) did not get any air to air weapons, at least not originally, and I really don't think AMRAAM capability was added at any point. German upgraded Phantoms, as well as the Greek update based on them got a new radar, as far as I recall the same one that was on Hornets, or one based on it. It was a more multirole kind of upgrade. Turkish ones also got a new radar, but an Israeli one that, at least at the time, was not AMRAAM compatible. Turkish Phantoms were upgraded as a strike platform, air to air duties fell on F-16Cs. Later down the line, I think additional updates allowed F-4E 2020s to use locally developed tech like ASELPOD targeting pod and SOM air launched cruise missile, both also fitting in with long range strike role.

 

I find things like ICE, Peace Ikarus, 2020 Terminator, EJ-Kai etc to be really cool. Same goes for similar upgrades on other oldie aircraft: Bison, LanceR, FigtingHawk, similar ones done on F-5s and Mirage IIIs/Vs etc. I would find it really cool to play around with them in DCS, but only after the mainline variant is already in the sim. Any upgraded F-4 would be a cool curiosity, but would not nearly represent the type as it served many countries through decades. That's why I want that 80s F-4E as the last "normal F-4E" without later 3rd party upgrades. I supposed a late 70s one would be ok too.

 

While I understand bies, I also strongly disagree with that position. Air Force F-4 before a Navy one please, and while I would prefer a "vanilla" version, I'd like the most updated vanilla version even if it was second fiddle by that time  I'd much prefer the strike fighter F-4E than "whenever it was considered ok for air to air" one. With slats, mavericks, old-school targeting pod, and shrikes, and guided bombs. Have no problem that it won't have look-down capability. Also, once a "vanilla" version of a jet in sim, Like MiG-21Bis, I'd very much love amazing "pieces of junk" like Bison

 

[bies]

48 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

F-4E could hit Mach 2.23

It could, before Agile Eagle slats. Up to 1972. And clean.

 

And navy variants could since only F-4S received slats, all other had slick wing.

Navy started expensive F-14 production in 1972 and didn't invest much in F-4.

 

It doesn't matter anyway, nobody has the data to model it. It's pure fantasy.

 

 

PS. MiG-21bis came into production in 1972, it was not a "vanilla" version, it was actually "squeezing the last drop of the old airframe" version due to unexpected MiG-23 reliability problems.

"Vanilla" version was MiG-21F-13 from year 1960. There is an interview with Finnish pilot flying both, 1960 "F-13" and 1972 "bis". He praised F-13 as lot more agile and maneuverable, with far better visibility than older heavyweight "bis".

Edited January 27, 2021 by bies

[WinterH]

On 1/26/2021 at 3:11 AM, lmp said:

An upgraded F-4E will only really fit with the one air force that upgraded it.

Well, not really. Rather, depends on what upgraded F-4E means. Things like 2020, Kurnass, EJ-Kai, ICE, Peace Ikarus fit to the definition of fitting only to airforce that operate them. However, these aren't really F-4E anymore, they are whatever the upgrade program is called at this point. On the other hand, as with many other aircraft there are many blocks of F-4E. The earliest F-4Es would really only fit USAF during Vietnam, and perhaps also when they were sold to Egypt and Iran. Many other countries got later blocks too, and used them. Or got earlier blocks and had them updated into later ones etc. Besides, unlike with most other planes, upgrades are mostly things that make it a better striker, so if you don't load them up, it can sort of fit into an earlier scenario as an earlier F-4E. It gives you an aircraft that can be put into 70s,80s,90s, and even up to 2000s scenarios and do lots of different mission types. It would be a damn shame to make earliest F-4E's without (for its time) sophisticated strike-fighter options that makes it so versatile. It'd be like a bigger, fatter F-5

20 minutes ago, bies said:

PS. MiG-21bis came into production in 1972, it was not a "vanilla" version

It is a vanilla version. It was aproduction variant, which makes it vanilla enough  

[lmp]

I don't really know all the different versions and subversions of the F-4 that well, so I'm not fixating on a particular block or feature set, but the "end result" I want is an airplane that'll fit as many different scenarios as possible, taking into account the maps and assets that we have. So something that would fit a Yom Kippur War scenario for example, or a Persian Gulf gone hot scenario or a NATO vs Soviets in the Caucasus scenario. And AFAIK Israel, Iran and Turkey all got their F-4Es around 1970, hence my vanilla (as in, straight from the production line without any mid life updates), 1970ish vintage F-4E suggestion.

 

If a later version added, let's say, a weapon system that I can not load and still have the 1970s experience, that's great, it still works for me. If the upgrades are harder to ignore (radar, engine, gunsight...), then that'll make the plane less appealing for me.

[Fangs Out]

If I could throw my hat into the ring, F-4E should be from 72 or 75 at the latest. For late Phantoms we have the F-4S for the US or the F-4M for the British. For vietnam era Phantoms we could have F-4Ds and F-4Js. F-4D was the most produced USAF "early" Phantom. I rather not have anything past 80s for Phantoms as the further you get towards the modern era, as F-4s become more and more useless as the Modern fighters would do anything it could do better.

 

Cheers,

Bravelink

[Northstar98]

I mean IMO I think an F-4E would need to be at least block 53, which adds AGM-65 capability (though older mavericks - kinda like the Viggen - AGM-65A/B) which came in 1972.

 

The J is is late 60s - mid-to-late 70s (I think, as the S, which are basically converted Js upgraded with smokeless engines, and airframe improvements AFAIK, pretty sure it uses the same RADAR/FCS i.e APG-59 and AWG-10).

The S is late 70s (so not long after Vietnam-era (which is 1955 to 1975).

 

The K Phantom FG.1 is an RN (and later RAF when the RN retired it) which is essentially a J but with Rolls Royce Spey 201 afterburning turbofan replacing the J79-GE-10 on the J. In the mid-70s it received a British RWR (Marconi ARI.18228). It also had the AWG-11 w. APG-60 (which is a derivative of the AWG-10 and APG-72 used on the US J; the difference being that the APG-60 can be swung sideways along with the nose, to save deck space, the UK AWG-11 is basically identical to the US AWG-10, only the 11 also has AGM-12 and WE.177 compatibility. The only other thing is that the K has a longer extendable nose gear, as well as structural reinforcements for landing on smaller carriers.

 

Overall the aircraft is best suited for the mid-to-late 70s.

 

The M is essentially the same as the K, but had the Spey 202, which was basically the Spey 201 with better afterburner responsiveness. The M also has a further derivative of the AWG-10 - the AWG-12 which did not fold back like the AWG-11 as on the K, but retained the same capability. It may have also had a slightly better ground mapping mode compared to the K. Unlike the K, the M could mount an SUU-23/A external gun pod (containing a self-propelled M61 with 1200 rounds firing at 6000rpm). The aircraft initially had an INS which was also coupled to an attack system, but this was removed when the aircraft transitioned more towards air defence rather than CAS. 

 

Both aircraft could equip the BAe Skyflash (essentially a British AIM-7M equivalent with an inverse monopulse seeker), this came in the late 70s.

[Baco]

I would love a British Phantom, interesting, new, last of the fixed wings carrier born British planes... top of the line 70´s plane.. and does not step on any toes... AND with the right weapons, it could pass as a vietnam era Phantom...

[Northstar98]

4 hours ago, Baco said:

I would love a British Phantom, interesting, new, last of the fixed wings carrier born British planes... top of the line 70´s plane.. and does not step on any toes... AND with the right weapons, it could pass as a vietnam era Phantom...

 

Yeah, I'd love an F-4M Phantom FGR.2 (though that one isn't carrier capable) - it was my mainstay in SF2:EU over northern/central Germany (where it was historically based).

 

Perfect for mid-to-late 70s missions.

 

But I think the E, J and S are probably more popular, the E was way more prolific and was the most produced version; I'd best prioritise them first, even though my main interest is the K or M.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Northstar98

[TotenDead]

Guys, Just think a little. So you want an iconic phantom or the most capable you can get? Because if the latter then you might probably prefer F-16/18, they are even more capable

[Northstar98]

7 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Guys, Just think a little. So you want an iconic phantom or the most capable you can get? Because if the latter then you might probably prefer F-16/18, they are even more capable

 

Which Phantoms have we been asking for that are the best we can get? Because the E, J, S, K and M aren't...

Edited January 27, 2021 by Northstar98

[TotenDead]

13 минут назад, Northstar98 сказал:

 

Which Phantoms have we been asking for that are the best we can get? Because the E, J, S, K and M aren't...

 

Why not C? 

[WinterH]

As far as I am concerned, F-4 is F-4E, and is foremost a strike-fighter, and then only secondarily a fighter. A later F-4E can still be fighter do anyway, yes not against its contemporaries, but their radars and missiles for air to air wasn't much different compared to what they had in 70s. Besides, it isn't like MiG-23s and 21s vanished in 80s, on the contrary they were still abundant, and we have 23 coming, and 21 is already here. So F-4E should be 75+ earliest, or early to mid 80s with ARN-101 update. Perhaps it will have a better RWR not sure, but that would be the only thing to really matter when it comes to air to air compared to earlier variants.

 

So yeah, I want the most capable version of the iconic F-4E. And no, I don't want Meh-16  nor am I asking for a Kurnass, Terminator, or ICE. I am asking for the most common F-4 variant's best version when it comes to

 

This is DCS guys, the idea of historical scenarios is nice, but it is yet to happen for any period in 7 years I have been using it. So, more periods a module can fit, the better, especially for iconic planes like this one.

 

I want my leading edge slats (yes slower, but I want the turnin performance), steampunky targeting pods, mavericks, shrikes, GBU-15s and 12s, and my nose gun, thank you very much :).

[Northstar98]

Just now, TotenDead said:

Why not C? 

 

I don't have a problem with it, just the preference lies with E, J, S, K and M.

 

The E was the prolific, it and the J are vietnam era. The S is a minor upgrade of the J (improved manoeuvrability and engines mostly), the K and the M (especially the M) are perfect for european cold war scenarios focusing on the mid-to-late 70s.

[Xilon_x]

 

 

criticism of the phantom f-4 for me it was too heavy and awkward in the movements not very agile. F-4 and a big iron can with no aerodynamic shape is a real poop.

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Xilon_x said:

 

 

criticism of the phantom f-4 for me it was too heavy and awkward in the movements not very agile. F-4 and a big iron can with no aerodynamic shape is a real poop.

 

 

 

 

Just a quick disclaimer straight from the video's description: "Disclaimer: this video is fake and made purely for entertainment purposes. None of the footage is real, it depicts fictional events, is heavily edited and is based on computer game War Thunder."

[Xilon_x]

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Solo un breve disclaimer direttamente dalla descrizione del video: "Disclaimer: questo video è falso e realizzato esclusivamente per scopi di intrattenimento. Nessuno dei filmati è reale, descrive eventi di fantasia, è pesantemente modificato ed è basato sul gioco per computer War Thunder."

 

 

THIS is real 

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/06/world/2-iranian-fighters-reported-downed-by-saudi-air-force.html

 

[exhausted]

It would make sense to do the F-4S first, as it is relevant to our plane set. If they want to do the F-4E later, then fine whatever, but they should work on making a carrier capable version before trying to work in all the crazy updates the air force and the other NATO countries jammed into the -E to make it survivable.

 

In no scenario does it make sense to have a pre-1980s version of any F-4. 

[exhausted]

1 hour ago, Xilon_x said:

 

 

criticism of the phantom f-4 for me it was too heavy and awkward in the movements not very agile. F-4 and a big iron can with no aerodynamic shape is a real poop.

 

 

 

 

Oh, she can move. The F-4 is quite nimble if the pilot does her part. If she keeps the speed high and works within AOA limits, the F-4 is quite a dogfighter. Her 2 J-79s make her that way. She's fast at all altitudes as well.

[Northstar98]

18 minutes ago, Xilon_x said:

 

 

THIS is real 

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/06/world/2-iranian-fighters-reported-downed-by-saudi-air-force.html

 

 

Yeah, but what were the Saudis flying? F-15Cs... Is it any surprise? The F-15C is a more capable aircraft in A/A than the Phantom II in every respect.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Northstar98

[Xilon_x]

 

 

F-4 and HEAVY and a large tin boulder. little chance of survival with a mig-21. it is a not very agile and too expensive plane.

[exhausted]

On 1/15/2021 at 1:48 PM, TLTeo said:

The C, D and E were never carrier capable or flown by the USN or USMC. Ground based USMC jets were Bs, or Js (or N/S later). I'm not sure whether the USMC ever fielded a gun pod; the Navy did not, but the USAF did, so all in all I think it's unlikely.

 

 

-122 used up to 3 gun pods in its year long deployment to Vietnam from 1967-1968

 

[Fangs Out]

Its similar to me saying that the Mig-23 was bad because it was shot down by F-15s

[exhausted]

I don't know why we are having this discussion -- the F-4 shot more MiG-21s down than all the kills MiG-21s ever had