Jump to content

Heatblur F-4 Phantom


RED

Recommended Posts

Iirc the F-4N were rebuilt Bs with the AWG-10 radar, bombing computers, RWRs, and sometimes slats (which required removing the BLC). From what I can tell they retained the IRST. The -J were (mostly) new jets with the similar avionics to the N. I don't know whether they got slats or not. The -S had a further improved radar and slats. The J and S did not have the IRST. The UK Phantoms were more or less built to J or S spec, except for the Spey engines (which would completely change the FM).

 

Honestly, I don't see what asking for all these variants can bring, you can cover pretty much all of their history/service life/peculiarities with even one of them. The UK ones are the most different, but even then we can just pretend jets with a UK livery are part of the batch of F-4J (upgraded to S spec) the Brits leased in the early 80s.

 

None of these jets used PGMs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

So the Navy used them mainly for A-A and had only free fall bombs and rockets, correct?

Sort of, they did plenty of a2g during Vietnam (and obviously CAS is the main mission of the USMC) but that role was still mainly taken up by the A-7 and A-6

 

4 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

Was the N's IRST any good? Probably similar to the old F-14A's IRST?

It was awful, which is why it was yanked in the J/S. Similar to (but worse than) to the F-14A indeed, since that one also went pretty quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

So the Navy used them mainly for A-A and had only free fall bombs and rockets, correct?

Quite simply, if you want air to ground, E is where it's at, but for air to air naval F-4s had a better radar.

 

E already started to get some early precision guided weapon options during Vietnam war, and from mid 70s on it had access to a pretty decent and diverse range of ground attack options as well as early targeting pods. Also, it served more or less all over the world in this capacity, with a few countries still operating upgraded variants to this day.

 

Naval Phantoms had both bigger space avaiable in the nose for a larger radar, and an actually more advanced radar set. They had look down shoot down capability, unlike the E. But they had much less in the way of strike capabilities, and by the time they got most of the advanced air to air capability, they were already second fiddle to F-14. But then, we can say that to some degree for USAF too with F-111, though F-4E has been the premier striker for many other air forces around the world. Naval F-4s didn't stay in service as long, and they mainly served for USN & USMC, apart from a short tenure in UK before getting replaced by British variants (but they were also based on the naval Phantom line).

 

I really, really, reeeeaaaallly very strongly hope which ever 3rd party is doing it decided to do both a 75-80s F-4E AND a naval variant, either J or S. There really is no way to do even halfway justice to Phantom without at least these two variants.

  • Like 4

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure hope it's a naval variant that will operate from the Forrestal class CV's. Would be a waste not to use these assets. And HB are about the only developer that could do such a multicrew jet justice. The Phantom shares quite a lot with the Tomcat when it comes to operations, crew duties and its DNA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

I sure hope it's a naval variant that will operate from the Forrestal class CV's. Would be a waste not to use these assets.

And I sure hope it's the E, it would be waste not to have the one with a huge worldwide history, incredibly better ground attack options, and fitting to just about every DCS map/scenario. If we only get a naval one, honestly I'd be happier with no phantom than that...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 часа назад, WinterH сказал:

Quite simply, if you want air to ground, E is where it's at, but for air to air naval F-4s had a better radar.

 

E already started to get some early precision guided weapon options during Vietnam war, and from mid 70s on it had access to a pretty decent and diverse range of ground attack options as well as early targeting pods. Also, it served more or less all over the world in this capacity, with a few countries still operating upgraded variants to this day.

 

Naval Phantoms had both bigger space avaiable in the nose for a larger radar, and an actually more advanced radar set. They had look down shoot down capability, unlike the E. But they had much less in the way of strike capabilities, and by the time they got most of the advanced air to air capability, they were already second fiddle to F-14. But then, we can say that to some degree for USAF too with F-111, though F-4E has been the premier striker for many other air forces around the world. Naval F-4s didn't stay in service as long, and they mainly served for USN & USMC, apart from a short tenure in UK before getting replaced by British variants (but they were also based on the naval Phantom line).

 

I really, really, reeeeaaaallly very strongly hope which ever 3rd party is doing it decided to do both a 75-80s F-4E AND a naval variant, either J or S. There really is no way to do even halfway justice to Phantom without at least these two variants.

If anyone decides to do the Phantom, E and J/S (how do these two differ?) are pretty much a given. There's no way to bypass making the variant just about as widespread as a MiG-21, and there's even less way to bypass making the titular naval interceptor that was intended all along. And the fact that they differ significantly pretty much explains why nobody has (officially) taken up that particular gauntlet. We know HB is making the Forrestal class that uses bridle-type catapults that the Phantom (and the Skyhawk actually!) uses, so there's that, I guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

how do these two differ?

I posted the difference between the B/J/N/S above

 

But yeah I agree, it's really hard to do justice to the Phantom in one go. I half think they should have two separate modules, each fully priced, and then whoever has the first Phantom gets a ~50% discount on the second one. It will be on the pricey side, but it could work.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TLTeo said:

I posted the difference between the B/J/N/S above

 

But yeah I agree, it's really hard to do justice to the Phantom in one go. I half think they should have two separate modules, each fully priced, and then whoever has the first Phantom gets a ~50% discount on the second one. It will be on the pricey side, but it could work.

 

Yeah 2 seperate modules for sure, AF vs Navy, and yeah some sort of discount maybe.

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

And I sure hope it's the E, it would be waste not to have the one with a huge worldwide history, incredibly better ground attack options, and fitting to just about every DCS map/scenario. If we only get a naval one, honestly I'd be happier with no phantom than that...

 

Well, the E can also differ quite a lot between nations and it carries a ton of different weaponry making it more complicated. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WinterH said:

And I sure hope it's the E, it would be waste not to have the one with a huge worldwide history, incredibly better ground attack options, and fitting to just about every DCS map/scenario. If we only get a naval one, honestly I'd be happier with no phantom than that...

If we could only have one, I'd definitely prefer to have the E model - for multiple reasons - but a naval variant wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

Can't pretend fly as well as you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be no Phantom without the naval Phantom. To have an E but no Navy Phantom I could reverse the sentiment that it would be just as wrong to have.

 

There's a ton of E variants and spinoffs for export, it's impossible to do an E that's one-size-fits-all. They'd have to pick one and then some specific country fans would be bummered, though I'd figure most would just slap their roundel on there and enjoy it anyways.

 

I'm unsure I could care less about the "capabilities" or "roles" a Phantom brings to DCS. The Tomcat isn't a groundbreaker in multirole do-everything that seems to get most DCS folks all jazzed up. It's good at being a Tomcat, which is why I like it. I don't want it to be a Hornet, nor am I super sad it isn't the super late D model that's more "capable".

 

I want a Phantom that goes on boats, has no gun, handles like ass compared to a Tomcat, and leaves borderline Soviet amounts of smoke behind it. Ideally an S as it slots in with the Tomcat, A-7E, and Tomcats Intruders. It would also fit in if anyone ever does the Midway class. You could close one eye and pretend it's a J if you restrict yourself of some loadouts maybe, and squint a bit more you could pretend it were an N or even a B for the folks that really need their VN Phantom vs Fishbed matchup.

 

But what it also needs are more contemporary adversaries, and even if not flyable then the more reason to get that AI flight model overhaul we were promised however many years ago so we can dogfight and also have our AI be more useful wingmen, which a Phantom in the 80s would need to counter the many more nimble COMBLOC opponents it would be stacked up against.

 

Not saying the E shouldn't be in here, I just think a Naval jet completes the flow of what they've been building out. As pointed out perhaps TrueGrit could someday bring a German F-4F that would fit in that slot?


Edited by LanceCriminal86
  • Like 2

Heatblur Rivet Counting Squad™

 

VF-11 and VF-31 1988 [WIP]

VF-201 & VF-202 [WIP]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am personally no big fan of the german F.

For an F, if they would go with an early variant, it should only carry sidewinders, germany never introduced AIM-7 into service.

For an ICE upgraded one we would directly get AMRAAMs, some F-16ish (HUD, MFDs, etc) equipment in the pit, etc.

I think it was Holsten, they used it for a short time as stop-gap strike fighter, so it could carry BL755 and other stuff, but nothing to fancy.

 

I partly agree with you, I am an A-G and SEAD guy, I still like the Tomcat for beeing the Tomcat, I really use it only in A-A, as it just fits this image perfectly.

The Tomcat should never be an F-18.

 

On the other side I have to say, I dont really like the Hornet at all because it is too modern for me. I want to use the best weapons of the past. 

I like old, complicated and imprecise PGMs, that's why I like the Viggen, I use the Walleye on the Hornet, I miss an AGM-84A, -88B, -45...

And I think I might not be the only one.

 

So I can really understand the wish for an E Phantom, the late one ED planned, it would also be my favorite I guess.

But I would also really enjoy a naval Phantom.

  • Like 1

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

The Tomcat isn't a groundbreaker in multirole do-everything that seems to get most DCS folks all jazzed up.

It's very capable on air to air even when going up against Fox 3 carriers, and it has a finnicky but highly useful radar. For air to ground, it has PGM capability with a ton of dumb ordenance. It can even be utilized as a supersonic strike fighter in modern scenarios if needed. The vast majority of the playerbase plays on ahistorical pewpew servers plinking stationary units or doing chaotic airquake, the F-14 fits in perfectly for that while the F-4 really doesn't.

 

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

I want a Phantom that goes on boats, has no gun, handles like ass compared to a Tomcat, and leaves borderline Soviet amounts of smoke behind it

That's fair, but it would most likely be a waste of development efforts. Most casual people (who aren't even that involved with the community and the simcade crowd is the biggest in DCS) would see a worse Tomcat, with the same exact type of gameplay but significantly worse at everything it does. If we get an early version, it'd have a pulse radar that 90% of people wouldn't even know how to use properly. It would make it much more difficult to make an AI RIO in that case as well, because building a picture would have to be through communication, no TID repeater.

 

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

. Ideally an S as it slots in with the Tomcat, A-7E, and Tomcats Intruders

It really wouldn't, aside from a few odd examples of training and PR events the F-14 and the F-4 never deployed on the Forrestal class carriers at the same time. If we approach this from a historical perspective and we want representative and realistic scenarios, a naval Phantom would bring literally nothing to DCS. If we get an early J or even earlier Vietnam era model it barely has any contemporary assets in the air wing and there aren't that many Vietnam era opponents either. The modern S Phantom operated from the Midway class carriers that we won't have. But even if we ignore this and focus on period accurate capabilities, the issue is that in 80s scenarios the S Phantom gives literally nothing while an E would fill in the most glaring gap in the lineup, it would give you a land based fighter for European allies and the USAF while also giving them PGMs and a full fidelity figher. Otherwise only the Navy would have PGMs with the TRAM.

 

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

and squint a bit more you could pretend it were an N or even a B for the folks that really need their VN Phantom vs Fishbed matchup.

We would need a Mig-21 F-13 or PFM for that. The Bis is a terrible substitute for the vast majority of the historically representative Vietnam era Fishbeds. If we get a 70s J model that would have the same issues. If we take realistic air wings and pay attention to the structure of our forces in that time period, it would have no matching air wing with the 80s upgraded A-7 and A-6. If we ignore that and we're fine with slightly inaccurate scenarios, we have the same issue; why would anyone use a worse Tomcat? 

 

This is where it ultimately boils down to anyway in my opinion. An F-4E is the most iconic version of the Phantom that could give missing capabilities to everyone and it would fit in perfectly to the established lineup. If we get a naval F-4 that barely fits in realistically and it provides virtually nothing that a Tomcat couldn't. The gameplay of a highly role specific naval interceptor wouldn't really appeal to the vast majority of the playerbase. It would be a fun novelty but the F-4E is sorely needed, the F-4B/J/S/N are niches within a niche that some people would mess around in unrealistic scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man oh man, I really hope that Heatblur are not going to do an F4 Phantom. People are so obsessed over that airplane that any single variant they do will make them hated by the people who wanted another variant\s. And there are so many variants of that aircraft. It's a no win situation, for any third party attempting to craft this module. 


Edited by Lurker

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won’t hate them for “missing” a variant. I’d be happy that any of them are getting done. The sales would spur them to develop one of the other variants or give another studio evidence that the juice is worth the squeeze.

Maybe it’s because I’m an optimist but I think of it as a WIN-WIN. Either we get the E - good. Or a naval variant (if so, I’d prefer the J/S) - also good.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Airhunter said:

 

Well, the E can also differ quite a lot between nations and it carries a ton of different weaponry making it more complicated. 

I was sure I've replied to this but I guess I didn't click submit reply.

 

A Block 53 F-4E would be pretty damn well representative actually. USAF, Israel, Turkey all got the Pave Spike TGP, perhaps others too not sure. With some loadout restrictions it would also represent others like Egypt, Japan, Germany, Iran as well. As far as I know, the radar and RWR etc are overall the same among most E variants. Block 58 would be a little less representative due to pave tack TGP being very different and as far as I know USAF specific.

 

There were nation specific upgrades eventually, but these were pretty complex stuff which simply weren't F-4E anymore, and they were mostly latter parts of 90s to 2000s era stuff.

3 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

There's a ton of E variants and spinoffs for export, it's impossible to do an E that's one-size-fits-all.

Yeah it is quite one size fits all as far as it's a mid to late 70s variant, but even 80s variant would be quasi passable for other nations' F-4Es. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to learn more though.

 

Naval F-4 on the other hand, would only represent USN/USMC, or perhaps RN/RAF if you squint hard enough. Not to mention it flat out misses decades long service history all over the world, as well as very cool old school multirole precision attack capabilities, and its gun. All for the sake of landing on a boat or something :). If we only get a naval one, it would be the greatest shame in DCS after ED's killing of F-4E for Meh-16 😛 F-4E is by FAR the better fit for DCS.

 

Ideally, we really should get at least one naval + F-4E, but if we only get one, E really should be the way to go... which is why I'm worried that it looks like Heatblur may be doing the Phantom, as I'm almost sure they'll just do the naval one.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are talking both and we want a realistic shot at getting one made, a mid 70s -E model and a J model give the most breadth Im terms of nations served with acceptable deviations.
If we are talking wish list, I’d love an F4E for AIr Force and F4 FGR1 for carrier ops. Gives us a shot at both J79 and Spey type engines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2021 at 3:42 PM, TLTeo said:

Iirc the F-4N were rebuilt Bs with the AWG-10 radar, bombing computers, RWRs, and sometimes slats (which required removing the BLC). From what I can tell they retained the IRST. The -J were (mostly) new jets with the similar avionics to the N. I don't know whether they got slats or not. The -S had a further improved radar and slats. The J and S did not have the IRST. The UK Phantoms were more or less built to J or S spec, except for the Spey engines (which would completely change the FM).

 

Honestly, I don't see what asking for all these variants can bring, you can cover pretty much all of their history/service life/peculiarities with even one of them. The UK ones are the most different, but even then we can just pretend jets with a UK livery are part of the batch of F-4J (upgraded to S spec) the Brits leased in the early 80s.

 

The N retained the earlier B hardware and got a couple of J upgrades. The N is a post Beeline standardised B. The only slats an N would see is the slatted stabilzer that was introduced with the Brit F-4s and then carried over to both, the USN J and USAF E*.

 

The initial Js had concrete noses (no radars) and the erlier GE motors (see Blue Angels), while later they got the AWG-10A (it blew) which had some AWG-9 wizardry on board.

Only the late Js and S (early S models didn't have slats) got the AWG-10B which actually worked quite well.

 

The Ns were lighter than the S and with SEAM, VTAS and the quite good Navy-winders, they weren't half bad in the A-A arena for the late 70s/ early 80s.

 

Recommended reading: "Grey Ghosts - US Navy and Marine Corps F-4 Phantoms".

____

* Fun Fact: Ze German RF-4Es had the slatted stab, while the Fs never got them.

The japanese EJs have no slats, but slatted stabs.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

 

I want a Phantom that goes on boats, has no gun, handles like ass compared to a Tomcat, and leaves borderline Soviet amounts of smoke behind it. Ideally an S as it slots in with the Tomcat, A-7E, and Tomcats Intruders. It would also fit in if anyone ever does the Midway class. You could close one eye and pretend it's a J if you restrict yourself of some loadouts maybe, and squint a bit more you could pretend it were an N or even a B for the folks that really need their VN Phantom vs Fishbed matchup.

 

But what it also needs are more contemporary adversaries, and even if not flyable then the more reason to get that AI flight model overhaul we were promised however many years ago so we can dogfight and also have our AI be more useful wingmen, which a Phantom in the 80s would need to counter the many more nimble COMBLOC opponents it would be stacked up against.

 

Well I think with the new upcoming "red" modules alot of people want a period opponent. I.e. we have an early 70s 21bis, and 23MLA coming soon (tm), also the Mirage F1 was used by iraq against iranian F4's. So there are some good matchups coming. Not to mention the upcoming mig29, though that would eat most phantoms for breakfast.

 

5 hours ago, WinterH said:

I was sure I've replied to this but I guess I didn't click submit reply.

 

A Block 53 F-4E would be pretty damn well representative actually. USAF, Israel, Turkey all got the Pave Spike TGP, perhaps others too not sure. With some loadout restrictions it would also represent others like Egypt, Japan, Germany, Iran as well. As far as I know, the radar and RWR etc are overall the same among most E variants. Block 58 would be a little less representative due to pave tack TGP being very different and as far as I know USAF specific.

 

Yeah I think the Bl.53 would probably the most bases for the 70's and 80's. And now that you can specifically limit loadouts for online servers I think it would be the best model as you cna just restrict the TGP and other weapons as appropriate to fit whatever nation you are trying to model.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

I am an A-G and SEAD guy, I still like the Tomcat for beeing the Tomcat, I really use it only in A-A, as it just fits this image perfectly.

 

And yet my first time successfully DEADing an SA-10 site was in an F-14B.  NOE ingress, Zuni to the Radars, Mk-84 to the Launchers.  Meanwhile, my buddy in the Hornet is still trying to figure out how to get his HARMs in without them getting shot down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 8:09 AM, Bananabrai said:

Was the N's IRST any good? Probably similar to the old F-14A's IRST?

 

I think the IRST wasn't used much at all - and that started early on with the B. I think they fitted RHAW gear into the housing as part of Project Shoehorn*.

You'll see the USAF just left it out of their late Cs and early Ds, before the D got other hardware up the nose.

 

Same is true for the J.
____

*

https://phantomphacts.blogspot.com/p/sanders-analq-51-51a-100.html

 

For the grand story, check this link:

https://phantomphacts.blogspot.com/2014/03/us-navy-f-4-ew-development-revisited.html

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...