F-4 Everything?

[G.J.S]

Especially if we get a Royal Navy carrier

 

E was an Air Force bird, and J's never served on an RN carrier.

[Vampyre]

I'd like to see the F-4E ARN-101/F-4G and F-4J/F-4S. The USAF F-4G had all the upgrades of the ARN-101 F-4E's plus the additional sensors of the project Wild Weasel upgrade. They were similar upgrade wise.

The F-4J was the improved new build Navy Phantom used in Vietnam with the AWG-10 and hard wings. F-4S was an upgraded F-4J with better maneuverability. Both had a better avionics fit for fleet defense than the F-4B and F-4N.

 

The Brit Phantoms were the RN Phantom FG1 (F-4K) and the RAF Phantom FGR2 (F-4M). The RAF also got the FG1's when the RN lost their carriers. They were similar to the F-4J in many ways but used many British systems and the RR Spey Turbofans. The RAF also used a version of the F-4J with J-79 engines and all that they called the Phantom F3.

[upyr1]

E was an Air Force bird, and J's never served on an RN carrier.

 

I was thinking the Royal Navy had a variant of the J- that was the RAF. The Fleet Air Arm had either the K or M. Anyhow the British carrier and Phantoms would be awesome.

[upyr1]

I'd like to see the F-4E ARN-101/F-4G and F-4J/F-4S. The USAF F-4G had all the upgrades of the ARN-101 F-4E's plus the additional sensors of the project Wild Weasel upgrade. They were similar upgrade wise.

The F-4J was the improved new build Navy Phantom used in Vietnam with the AWG-10 and hard wings. F-4S was an upgraded F-4J with better maneuverability. Both had a better avionics fit for fleet defense than the F-4B and F-4N.

 

The Brit Phantoms were the RN Phantom FG1 (F-4K) and the RAF Phantom FGR2 (F-4M). The RAF also got the FG1's when the RN lost their carriers. They were similar to the F-4J in many ways but used many British systems and the RR Spey Turbofans. The RAF also used a version of the F-4J with J-79 engines and all that they called the Phantom F3.

 

The F-4G alone would result in me telling ED shut up and take my money.

[G.J.S]

I was thinking the Royal Navy had a variant of the J- that was the RAF. The Fleet Air Arm had either the K or M. Anyhow the British carrier and Phantoms would be awesome.

 

UK Phantoms were . . . not too bad.

 

Top speed was down - around M1.8 under ideal conditions - ceiling was lower too - but for pure acceleration it could get to 600KTS before the J could hit 520, due to the greater mass flow of the RR Speys, but that was also what cost it top end speed and altitude.

Speys were better at lower altitudes, J-79 engines were infinitely better up high.

 

The joke amongst most British pilots was that ANY animal will suffer when its 'speyed' (spayed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutering .

Edited August 6, 2020 by garyscott

[QuiGon]

Did I miss something! My take was that sure, they would like an F-4 but it wasn’t anything currently on the front burner??

They started working on the F-4E, but had to put it on ice to have more people working on the Viper and Hornet. The Global business Director of ED just said in an interview last week, that he would expect the F-4 in about 2 years.

 

Here's an older dev report on the F-4E: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3278678&postcount=1

And another shorter one: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3341529&postcount=1

Edited August 6, 2020 by QuiGon

[joey45]

K = FAA - FG1

M = RAF - FGR2 / F-4J(UK) Phantom F.3

 

Different Avionics and engines

 

The RAF did get a handful of upgraded Ex USN Js..

[Ravenus]

Yeah I think it should be both the F4E ( seventies version) and the F4J. Sole reason being the opposing side matches that time period. All but the Mig 15, and Mig 19 are from that time frame

[bies]

I would also like some Vietnam era i.e. F-4E and F-4J variants.

 

Simply before F-14 and F-15 became operational circa 1974-75 since from then Phantom - still used - became second rate fighter for second rate duties, not a vanguard of technology like it was before.

[hip3rion]

The F-4J had no gun right ?

 

 

I wonder how long it will take for the average DCS player to start whining this plane has no gun after firing their highly unreliable missiles... :music_whistling: (unless dcs make them have a Pk above their real life models)

[upyr1]

The F-4J had no gun right ?

 

 

I wonder how long it will take for the average DCS player to start whining this plane has no gun after firing their highly unreliable missiles... :music_whistling: (unless dcs make them have a Pk above their real life models)

 

I believe the F-4J could carry a gunpod, although the Navy and Marine corps never carried them in combat. Though one Squadron may have used 3 of them

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/remembering-vmfa-122-f-4v-the-usmc-phantom-ii-featuring-a-unique-three-gun-pod-configuration/amp/

 

 

I have seen a a few photos of British Phantoms with gunpods

 

 

All the hardpoints could carry gunpods

 

I believe Chico carried 2 gunpods and the under nose gun. The PK for an AIM-9 would be 25%, 10% for an AIM-7 and I believe lower for the AIM-4.

Edited August 7, 2020 by upyr1

[G.J.S]

All the hardpoints could carry gunpods

 

I believe Chico carried 2 gunpods and the under nose gun. The PK for an AIM-9 would be 25%, 10% for an AIM-7 and I believe lower for the AIM-4.

 

The F-4 outer pylons could carry gun pods there for air shows only, they weren’t wired to fire. Inboard pylons could, but not recommended due to the Firing muzzle horsepower being higher than the engines output.

The 5-pack is a air show ground display only.

[Southernbear]

The F-4 that BilSimTek promised us was going to be a Air National Guard F-4E post Block 85 with AGM-45s and AGM-65s as well as the Agile Eagle upgrade.

 

I'd like to see a F-4E USN equivalent...I think that was the N?...maybe the J?

 

UK phantoms would be kinda cool but I feel modelling a whole new engine might not be the best so I'd vote for the RAF F-4J Phantom F.3 rather then the Spey powered versions.

 

Uniquely which I haven't seen in this thread yet but I'd reaaallly like to see a German F-4F ICE with TrueGrit adding the IRIS-T missile I'd like to see a F-4 armed with them and AIM-120s and spooky performance compared to other F-4s.

[streakeagle]

Make no mistake, I am a Phantom Phanatic and would love to have every single version ever flown. Presently, Strike Fighters 2 is the only flight sim that provides this to any practical degree. While I understand the later versions of the F-4E used by the USAF make sense in DCS World's environment, the versions I want are from the Vietnam and Israel 1973 eras. So, give me an unslatted F-4E, perhaps with the original gun muzzle. Or give me an early slatted F-4E, or even an F-4E with TISEO, which made their appearance in Vietnam in 1972.

 

On the Navy side, and F-4S make sense with DCS World's tendency to go with the latest/best variants. But a Vietnam era F-4B or F-4J would make me a lot happier. The F-4B went through a lot of changes, so much so that it became the F-4N. Any one of them that served in Vietnam would make me very happy.

 

A great combination would be the F-4B and F-4C. There were some differences because the USAF needed some changes for their operational needs, but overall, the two are very similar and it would be fairly easy to make both variants.

 

Once you have an F-4C, it isn't too hard to make an F-4D variant: mainly internal systems upgrades, not too many differences in the 3d model or flight model.

 

The British F-4K/F-4M variants have radically different engines and slightly different aerodynamics due to the engine installations. It would be a lot more work to make those. But I would buy them :)

 

If I could only have one variant, it wouldn't be a 1980's F-4E, but a 1972 slatted F-4E with or without TISEO. If I could have only two, I would go for a 1972 F-4J as well. 1972 was a big year in the Vietnam War. The F-4D, F-4E, F-4B, and F-4J variants operating in that year would be the ones I want the most. 1966 F-4B and F-4C variants are pretty much equally appealing to me as well. With their much simpler systems, the early F-4B and F-4C variants would be the easiest to bring into DCS World.

 

The multicrew aspect is the biggest obstacle. ED needs to provide a back seater at least equal to the the F-14's Jester AI. Preferably, better. If ED can't implement an AI RIO/WSO at least as well as Heatblur, then the F-4 is going to be a bit of a disappointment. Hopefully, they figure out how to do this right.

[Kazansky222]

Honestly I would love multiple version, and also ED to setup a framework for multiply version in exosphere.... I would love F-18A, F-16A, F-15A in DCS...

 

Yes this 100% If they can't do more modern redfor planes then at least give us some olders blue planes from the 80s era.

[upyr1]

The F-4 outer pylons could carry gun pods there for air shows only, they weren’t wired to fire. Inboard pylons could, but not recommended due to the Firing muzzle horsepower being higher than the engines output.

The 5-pack is a air show ground display only.

 

Was Chico specially modified?

 

[upyr1]

Make no mistake, I am a Phantom Phanatic and would love to have every single version ever flown. Presently, Strike Fighters 2 is the only flight sim that provides this to any practical degree. While I understand the later versions of the F-4E used by the USAF make sense in DCS World's environment, the versions I want are from the Vietnam and Israel 1973 eras. So, give me an unslatted F-4E, perhaps with the original gun muzzle. Or give me an early slatted F-4E, or even an F-4E with TISEO, which made their appearance in Vietnam in 1972.

 

On the Navy side, and F-4S make sense with DCS World's tendency to go with the latest/best variants. But a Vietnam era F-4B or F-4J would make me a lot happier. The F-4B went through a lot of changes, so much so that it became the F-4N. Any one of them that served in Vietnam would make me very happy.

 

A great combination would be the F-4B and F-4C. There were some differences because the USAF needed some changes for their operational needs, but overall, the two are very similar and it would be fairly easy to make both variants.

 

Once you have an F-4C, it isn't too hard to make an F-4D variant: mainly internal systems upgrades, not too many differences in the 3d model or flight model.

 

The British F-4K/F-4M variants have radically different engines and slightly different aerodynamics due to the engine installations. It would be a lot more work to make those. But I would buy them :)

 

If I could only have one variant, it wouldn't be a 1980's F-4E, but a 1972 slatted F-4E with or without TISEO. If I could have only two, I would go for a 1972 F-4J as well. 1972 was a big year in the Vietnam War. The F-4D, F-4E, F-4B, and F-4J variants operating in that year would be the ones I want the most. 1966 F-4B and F-4C variants are pretty much equally appealing to me as well. With their much simpler systems, the early F-4B and F-4C variants would be the easiest to bring into DCS World.

 

The multicrew aspect is the biggest obstacle. ED needs to provide a back seater at least equal to the the F-14's Jester AI. Preferably, better. If ED can't implement an AI RIO/WSO at least as well as Heatblur, then the F-4 is going to be a bit of a disappointment. Hopefully, they figure out how to do this right.

 

I hope they use Jester for the WSO and improve it some.

[upyr1]

Yes this 100% If they can't do more modern redfor planes then at least give us some olders blue planes from the 80s era.

 

with historical mode, that becomes even more important to have multiple versions

[G.J.S]

Was Chico specially modified?

 

I may have got the pylons ‘bass ackwards’! Age and all that, lol. INBOARDS not.

Could be hung for a display 5-pack, but not anything more.

 

As for your “Chico”, given the muzzle horsepower of even 2 packs, it would be an evaluation thing only. And now that I’ve read up on this particular bird (regrettably, I’d never heard of this before), there is probably a reason it was limited to one airframe only, totalling less than 10 sorties.

The single pack we hung on the FGR2 could scrub 20-30kts off in a 2 second burst, and that’s with the Speys - at low levels we had a bit more thrust than the ‘E’s -79’s and quicker throttle response - . . . . So 2 packs Plus nose?

Who needs boards! :megalol:

Edited August 8, 2020 by garyscott

[MBot]

The multicrew aspect is the biggest obstacle. ED needs to provide a back seater at least equal to the the F-14's Jester AI. Preferably, better. If ED can't implement an AI RIO/WSO at least as well as Heatblur, then the F-4 is going to be a bit of a disappointment. Hopefully, they figure out how to do this right.

 

I agree, this will be essential. My guess is this is also the reason why the original F-4E was put on hold and why now we won't see a Phantom for at least another 2 years. ED simply doesn't have the tech for it yet. We will see what they come up with for the Hind as a first small step.

 

Jester AI is not perfect but for the role it has to fulfill, it is extremely impressive. Heatblur has set a very high bar and it will be difficult for ED to even reach the same level (and frankly, comms, AI and UI are not exactly ED's strengths).

[jojyrocks]

I agree, this will be essential. My guess is this is also the reason why the original F-4E was put on hold and why now we won't see a Phantom for at least another 2 years. ED simply doesn't have the tech for it yet. We will see what they come up with for the Hind as a first small step.

 

Jester AI is not perfect but for the role it has to fulfill, it is extremely impressive. Heatblur has set a very high bar and it will be difficult for ED to even reach the same level (and frankly, comms, AI and UI are not exactly ED's strengths).

 

 

 

 

If they weren't so sure about the Phantom back then, then why did they even bother to show the cockpit pics of their development? Did they find it part way that they didn't have the so called tech to complete it...?

 

 

 

I think its something else...and that is anyone's guess...

[ebabil]

If ed is not able to make a jester ai, then they should allow hb to make phantom.

[upyr1]

If ed is not able to make a jester ai, then they should allow hb to make phantom.

 

Or they should use Jester

[QuiGon]

Or they should use Jester

That would be odd if they would have to rely on tech that was developed by a third party for their own software. ED also has to provide a usable multicrew API for other third parties.

So I don't think it's an option for ED to use Jester.

[Buzzles]

That would be odd if they would have to rely on tech that was developed by a third party for their own software. ED also has to provide a usable multicrew API for other third parties.

So I don't think it's an option for ED to use Jester.

Not really. No sense spending all the money and dev effort reinventing the wheel if it's available to use right now.

If anything, as Jester uses ED's API anyway, it's a vested interest to use on an inhouse module to ensure if they make changes to said API, Jester still works.