Heatblur F-4 Phantom

[WobblyFlops]

On 10/2/2021 at 10:11 PM, WinterH said:

Both would be amazing, naval only would make me turn to Khorne

Exactly this. There's no land based fighter for the Cold War era at all, an F-4E would give a land based early multirole fighter with for its time fairly advanced strike capabilities and a full fidelity fighter for the Air Force side. As it stands, the USAF has nothing from the 80s, which is the era that Cold War modules focus on. A naval F-4 from the 80s would be redundant (it's a worse Tomcat in every regard), it wouldn't have its matching carriers or if it's not from the 80s it won't have a matching Air Wing and it would be anachronistic. An F-4E from the 80s is a great addition, a naval F-4 is just a waste.

[Snappy]

13 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

Exactly this. There's no land based fighter for the Cold War era at all, ..

Erm F-5E?

 

[WobblyFlops]

1 hour ago, Snappy said:

Erm F-5E?

 

As far as I'm aware, both the USAF and the USN used it exclusively as an agressor after Vietnam.

[Heatloss]

6 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

Exactly this. There's no land based fighter for the Cold War era at all, an F-4E would give a land based early multirole fighter with for its time fairly advanced strike capabilities and a full fidelity fighter for the Air Force side. As it stands, the USAF has nothing from the 80s, which is the era that Cold War modules focus on. A naval F-4 from the 80s would be redundant (it's a worse Tomcat in every regard), it wouldn't have its matching carriers or if it's not from the 80s it won't have a matching Air Wing and it would be anachronistic. An F-4E from the 80s is a great addition, a naval F-4 is just a waste.

"worse tomcat"
Well sure, if we ignore being able to launch sparrows against ground or sea based targets, having the option of a helmet mounted sight, Zunis, rockeyes, and more... By that logic, why do we have the tomcat, if the F-18 does everything better?

 

Keep in mind, AWG-10 is a proper pulse-doppler system. APQ-120 is not. APQ-120 had most of the pieces in place for a coordinated on receive doppler system, but it never worked quite right. If they replaced the magnetron with a klystron and updated the software, maybe you could do something. But as far as I know, they did not(I am still waiting on the result of an MDR request regarding several manuals involving the a2a usage of apq-120).

[TLTeo]

Yep. There's more to DCS than being a PGU truck, hence why having both an -E and some sort of Navy variant would be ideal. This thread is proof that there's sufficient demand for both.

[WobblyFlops]

1 hour ago, Heatloss said:

having the option of a helmet mounted sight

I doubt this will get modelled. Rockeyes and Zunis are available for the Tomcat and the F-18 is from a different timeframe so there's very little overlap. But even then the Tomcat has better range, significant kinematic advantage and of course, a completely different type of gameplay. The naval F-4's niche is represented by the Tomcat perfectly. I wouldn't care if we got the E as well because there's nothing wrong with getting a J or S but if we only get those, it will be very disappointing for a lot of people. The F-4 has a pulse doppler system, which illustrates my point, it's the AWG-9 from Walmart, which is why it provides the exact same type of gameplay with a kind of finnicky, man in the loop PD radar set, having a strictly pulse radar would be a vastly different experience. 

 

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

Yep. There's more to DCS than being a PGU truck, hence why having both an -E and some sort of Navy variant would be ideal. This thread is proof that there's sufficient demand for both.

That is the best option but I doubt it will happen. A big issue with DCS is the lack of cohesive units for a given time frame. A land based E Phantom would fill in a lot of gaps. The other things that could do it are a FF F-15A/C or an F-16A. None of that is going to ever happen so the Phantom would be the only way to provide the 1980s USAF with an actual fighter and strike aircraft. As a cherry on top, it could be used for other nations as well.

[Heatloss]

2 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

I doubt this will get modelled. Rockeyes and Zunis are available for the Tomcat and the F-18 is from a different timeframe so there's very little overlap. But even then the Tomcat has better range, significant kinematic advantage and of course, a completely different type of gameplay. The naval F-4's niche is represented by the Tomcat perfectly. I wouldn't care if we got the E as well because there's nothing wrong with getting a J or S but if we only get those, it will be very disappointing for a lot of people. The F-4 has a pulse doppler system, which illustrates my point, it's the AWG-9 from Walmart, which is why it provides the exact same type of gameplay with a kind of finnicky, man in the loop PD radar set, having a strictly pulse radar would be a vastly different experience. 

 

That is the best option but I doubt it will happen. A big issue with DCS is the lack of cohesive units for a given time frame. A land based E Phantom would fill in a lot of gaps. The other things that could do it are a FF F-15A/C or an F-16A. None of that is going to ever happen so the Phantom would be the only way to provide the 1980s USAF with an actual fighter and strike aircraft. As a cherry on top, it could be used for other nations as well.

I would be shocked if VTAS didn't get modeled. It's one of the defining features the F-4J and F-4S. I don't think anyone is arguing for only the J or S. The E is the most unique of the phantoms in almost every regard, sure, but to make a blanket statement of "Very disappointing for a lot of people" is just projection.

 

"AWG-9 from walmart" is also ridiculous. I'm not going to take that bait.

[Top Jockey]

57 minutes ago, Heatloss said:

I would be shocked if VTAS didn't get modeled. It's one of the defining features the F-4J and F-4S. I don't think anyone is arguing for only the J or S. The E is the most unique of the phantoms in almost every regard, sure, but to make a blanket statement of "Very disappointing for a lot of people" is just projection.

 

"AWG-9 from walmart" is also ridiculous. I'm not going to take that bait.

 

Getting that system modeled would be awsome.

[Airhunter]

What were the off bore capes of the VTAS?

[TLTeo]

4 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

What were the off bore capes of the VTAS?

From the previous page, ~22 degrees off boresight for the AIM-9, so probably not too far from the canopy bow. 60 degrees off bore for a radar lock is quite nice though.

Edited October 6, 2021 by TLTeo

[Heatloss]

15 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

From the previous page, ~22 degrees off boresight for the AIM-9, so probably not too far from the canopy bow. 60 degrees off bore for a radar lock is quite nice though.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

What were the off bore capes of the VTAS?

that refers to the 9G and H. I suspect it was expanded to 40 degrees for the 9L and M. 22 degrees was the seeker limitation, not the technology limitation.
As for if they could carry the 9L or M, a quick google search returns this... https://imgur.com/b7YM4GH https://imgur.com/otOAbh2

I also suspect that they carried AIM-7Ms occasionally, or were at least fitted/adapted for them, given the time of the navy's F-4S retirement in 1987, as it was being replaced by the F-18.

[Heatloss]

For kicks, someone asked me about Shchel-3UM, which until about half an hour ago, I knew almost nothing about.

 

It's basically VTAS I, but 1985 and Russian. Sorry for straying off topic, but I thought it might be an interesting comparison.

[Top Jockey]

3 hours ago, Heatloss said:

For kicks, someone asked me about Shchel-3UM, which until about half an hour ago, I knew almost nothing about.

 

It's basically VTAS I, but 1985 and Russian. Sorry for straying off topic, but I thought it might be an interesting comparison.

 

 

Yep, although the russian Helmet Mounted Sight in the MiG-29 was the one which gained broad notoriety since the 80's, the US military were already testing / employing these sort of systems sometime ago as demonstrated for example with the Phantom's VTAS.

 

Interestingly, the first time I've seen such a system was in the 1983's movie "Blue Thunder"...

 

[WinterH]

I also recall some Mirage F1s having an early helmet sight.

 

I think the fuss about HMS on MiG-29 and Su-27 is more about the fact they paired it with a good high off boresight angle capable dogfight missile like R-73 earlier on. Though AIM-9L or M with a helmet sight could be interesting to a degree still.

 

Still prefer F-4E though

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, Heatloss said:

For kicks, someone asked me about Shchel-3UM, which until about half an hour ago, I knew almost nothing about.

 

It's basically VTAS I, but 1985 and Russian. Sorry for straying off topic, but I thought it might be an interesting comparison.

 

So while I don't know much about VTAS I do know a bit more about this one. And I'd bet it was at least inspired by the VTAS tech, though in the case of the Shchel it was very lightweight and relatively simple. It cued the "fire control Komplex" which included an IRST-Laser system to get a firing solution for the R-73 missiles. It worked quite well from what I've read and end users did not have any complaints about it. I think the main thing is the entirely passive FCS cueing coupled with the very high angle off bore R-73 missiles is really what made it work very well within VWR.

 

As for VTAS, anecdotally on blueflag 80's, the JHMCs is ostentibly banned for the viper and hornet, but guys have figured out ways around the restriction so it gets some use, and it is somewhat useful in the front aspect with the 9M/L. Obviously not anywhere near the R-73/mig29 but it does give some expanded acquisition envelope. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Heatloss]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

So while I don't know much about VTAS I do know a bit more about this one. And I'd bet it was at least inspired by the VTAS tech, though in the case of the Shchel it was very lightweight and relatively simple. It cued the "fire control Komplex" which included an IRST-Laser system to get a firing solution for the R-73 missiles. It worked quite well from what I've read and end users did not have any complaints about it. I think the main thing is the entirely passive FCS cueing coupled with the very high angle off bore R-73 missiles is really what made it work very well within VWR.

 

As for VTAS, anecdotally on blueflag 80's, the JHMCs is ostentibly banned for the viper and hornet, but guys have figured out ways around the restriction so it gets some use, and it is somewhat useful in the front aspect with the 9M/L. Obviously not anywhere near the R-73/mig29 but it does give some expanded acquisition envelope. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Given the volume of VTAS II vs Shchel, I'd wager that they're roughly the same weight. VTAS I I suspect weighed slightly more, and I am sure it was more of a hassle inside the cockpit, as it had the IR emitters bolted to the sides rather than better integrated in a sleeker over-helmet enclosure.

As for R-73, we almost had that with AIM-95 AGILE and the Eagle CLAW program. But that got axed. Thanks, congress. Also, fuck you reformers for warping the AIMVAL results.

[Top Jockey]

4 minutes ago, Heatloss said:

Given the volume of VTAS II vs Shchel, I'd wager that they're roughly the same weight. VTAS I I suspect weighed slightly more, and I am sure it was more of a hassle inside the cockpit, as it had the IR emitters bolted to the sides rather than better integrated in a sleeker over-helmet enclosure.

As for R-73, we almost had that with AIM-95 AGILE and the Eagle CLAW program. But that got axed. Thanks, congress. Also, fuck you reformers for warping the AIMVAL results.

 

Hahaaahaaaaa !!! 

Very good ! This is "the real McCoy" !

 

Fully agree on that, and also that guy who axed the Tomcat (Cheney), could also go take a hike.

[Heatloss]

Just now, Top Jockey said:

 

Hahaaahaaaaa !!! 

Very good ! This is "the real McCoy" !

 

Fully agree on that, and also that guy who axed the Tomcat (Cheney), could also go take a hike.

Well, I'm not sure if I agree with that one. The tomcat was incredibly expensive to maintain, and only about 150 tomcats were ever not-tomcat-As. That left about 410 14As still in service by the mid 90s. The cost of upgrading them was immense, and as compared to the 18, all it really had going for it was that it could sling phoenixes, which were not great as fighter to fighter weapons historically.

I guess I would put myself in the camp of "jobs program" was a bunch of corrupt bullshit, but the reality was the tomcat was aging, the super hornet was very promising (and has proved itself since then), and fact that the cold war was seen to be over made the $50 million per aircraft cost hard to stomach. In short, the given reason was a bunch of hooey, but there was some logic to the decision as a whole.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Heatloss said:

Well, I'm not sure if I agree with that one. The tomcat was incredibly expensive to maintain, and only about 150 tomcats were ever not-tomcat-As. That left about 410 14As still in service by the mid 90s. The cost of upgrading them was immense, and as compared to the 18, all it really had going for it was that it could sling phoenixes, which were not great as fighter to fighter weapons historically.

I guess I would put myself in the camp of "jobs program" was a bunch of corrupt bullshit, but the reality was the tomcat was aging, the super hornet was very promising (and has proved itself since then), and fact that the cold war was seen to be over made the $50 million per aircraft cost hard to stomach. In short, the given reason was a bunch of hooey, but there was some logic to the decision as a whole.

 

Don't ever go to the HB side of the house and say that... 

1 hour ago, Heatloss said:

Given the volume of VTAS II vs Shchel, I'd wager that they're roughly the same weight. VTAS I I suspect weighed slightly more, and I am sure it was more of a hassle inside the cockpit, as it had the IR emitters bolted to the sides rather than better integrated in a sleeker over-helmet enclosure.

As for R-73, we almost had that with AIM-95 AGILE and the Eagle CLAW program. But that got axed. Thanks, congress. Also, fuck you reformers for warping the AIMVAL results.

 

Yeah I'm aware of that program, but it never went anywhere, whereas the Russian stuff was operable and worked well. Given their focus on that sort of equipment it really makes me wonder how they thought they would on the EW/BVR side of the equation with traditional radar guided missiles. 

[Heatloss]

2 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Don't ever go to the HB side of the house and say that...

I'd argue that in DCS phoenixes are quite accurate, if somewhat underperforming in terminal guidance maneuvering. Just other missiles are even more underperforming. But, this is a game, so sacrifices must be made for playability and balance. My baby AIM-7M, though, is a sad story.

 

3 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

never went anywhere

It was pretty much ready to be put into production. Yes, it never saw service. But it was ready for LRIP, as far as I know. I'd count that as going somewhere.

[Harlikwin]

41 minutes ago, Heatloss said:

I'd argue that in DCS phoenixes are quite accurate, if somewhat underperforming in terminal guidance maneuvering. Just other missiles are even more underperforming. But, this is a game, so sacrifices must be made for playability and balance. My baby AIM-7M, though, is a sad story.

 

It was pretty much ready to be put into production. Yes, it never saw service. But it was ready for LRIP, as far as I know. I'd count that as going somewhere.

 

I mean, prototypes and all that don't count in DCS, but I see your point. At the end of the day though there are alot of programs that were going places that never saw the light of day either.

[WarbossPetross]

11 часов назад, Harlikwin сказал:

 

I mean, prototypes and all that don't count in DCS

Unless they are some of the oldest DCS modules around, namely the Shark and Su-25T. The BS3 that we're getting is even less than that, it's a project of further development of original prototypes. They were going to make this but added a two-seat glass cockpit and a radar and called it a Ka-52 Alligator while the prototype that we're going to have has never left the drawing board. I get it, it's a tight situation of having to choose between making something or not making anything at all because of Russian legislation, but that's not to say I would say no to interesting designs that could have been and that do, in fact, have some basis in reality.

 

And what I wouldn't give to fly Su-47 and MiG-1.44, at least in a game...

[Northstar98]

On 10/7/2021 at 7:37 PM, Heatloss said:

But, this is a game, so sacrifices must be made for playability and balance.

 

HISS!

[Airhunter]

On 10/7/2021 at 8:37 PM, Heatloss said:

I'd argue that in DCS phoenixes are quite accurate, if somewhat underperforming in terminal guidance maneuvering. Just other missiles are even more underperforming. But, this is a game, so sacrifices must be made for playability and balance. My baby AIM-7M, though, is a sad story.

 

It was pretty much ready to be put into production. Yes, it never saw service. But it was ready for LRIP, as far as I know. I'd count that as going somewhere.

 

Honestly, the AIM-7M is fine right now (at least I had decent success with it even in PvP). Maybe the guidence is a bit wonky at times but you can get fairly reliable kills with it given correct parameters. Just don't expect to out BVR Alamo C's or any AMRAAM. 

[F-2]

On 10/8/2021 at 3:30 AM, WarbossPetross said:

Unless they are some of the oldest DCS modules around, namely the Shark and Su-25T. The BS3 that we're getting is even less than that, it's a project of further development of original prototypes. They were going to make this but added a two-seat glass cockpit and a radar and called it a Ka-52 Alligator while the prototype that we're going to have has never left the drawing board. I get it, it's a tight situation of having to choose between making something or not making anything at all because of Russian legislation, but that's not to say I would say no to interesting designs that could have been and that do, in fact, have some basis in reality.

 

And what I wouldn't give to fly Su-47 and MiG-1.44, at least in a game...

I have a real Su-27km (navalized su-47 project from the 80s) I have thought of getting someone to CFD it and making an NPC based on it for a Ulyanovsk mod. I do think playable aircraft need to have at least gone through weapons integration.