F-4E, please

[rkk01]

If Heatblur model an F-4, surely it would be an F-4J to go with Forrestal…?

Not a bad starting point - especially for a few British skins… from photos, the RAF Phantom F3s retained the hook - no idea if it was operational though.  
UK F-4K and F-4M are going to be too much to ask with their extensive mods over the J, but a J with UK skins would be passable for me

[WinterH]

48 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

Not a bad starting point

Patently wrong  anything that isn't F-4E is a horrible starting point, it's not even a matter of discussion really

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, rkk01 said:

If Heatblur model an F-4, surely it would be an F-4J to go with Forrestal…?

F-4S is the closest match for HB's Forrestal.

The one thing I'll say though, and this is purely from a strict, pedantic historical perspective, is that Phantoms don't really fit on the Forrestal HB have developed. HB's Forrestal is currently depicted in its post SLEP configuration (that being after the 20th May 1985); more specifically HB have modelled Forrestal in a 1990 - 1993 fit, owing to Phalanx Block 1, instead of Block 0.

The last F-4s on Forrestal were F-4S' from June 1982 - November 1982, before Forrestal started its SLEP. Before that, from March 1974 - September 1981, there were F-4Js (previously F-4Bs from June 1967 - July 1973), so from a strictly historical perspective, Phantoms don't really fit for the Forrestal HB have developed.

3 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Not a bad starting point - especially for a few British skins… from photos, the RAF Phantom F3s retained the hook - no idea if it was operational though.

It might've, but even if it did, it would've been for field arresting systems only as the RN CATOBAR aircraft carriers were long gone by then. The F.3 also didn't have the hinged radome that the RN F-4Ks had.

It should also be said that F-4M Phantom FGR.2s also had a tailhook, despite being solely land-based.

3 hours ago, rkk01 said:

UK F-4K and F-4M are going to be too much to ask with their extensive mods over the J, but a J with UK skins would be passable for me

Meh, I wouldn't say no, I even used to live adjacent to a former RAF F-4J airbase. The thing is they are much more niche variants mostly without a map (apart from the South Atlantic) or other assets.

So right now, I'd say an 80s USAF F-4E best fits DCS, followed by an F-4S/J.  

[some1]

You're all wrong, we need RBCF-4XYZ MacnaPhantom

 

 

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, rkk01 said:

If Heatblur model an F-4, surely it would be an F-4J to go with Forrestal…?

Not a bad starting point - especially for a few British skins… from photos, the RAF Phantom F3s retained the hook - no idea if it was operational though.  
 

I know USAF F-4's had operational hooks including the E which was the most dissimilar from any Navy version. So I would assume yes

[Silver_Dragon]

2 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I know USAF F-4's had operational hooks including the E which was the most dissimilar from any Navy version. So I would assume yes

F-4E Hooks only used on a emergency on a land (as actual F-16s), none USAF aircrafts has capable to land on a carrier.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

On 12/4/2021 at 4:45 AM, bies said:

Heatblur makes different variants, AudioDev/Aerges makes different variants, Razbam makes different variants, Polychop makes different variants, even one of ED stuff stated in the interview ED is considering making "everything F-4" variants.

Just saying

 

I remember that, I have brought that fact up.  I have said it before and I have said it again  I think there could be multiple F-4 modules.  The E is the most dissimilar to it's Navy counterparts but the J is also very popular. 

[upyr1]

16 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

F-4E Hooks only used on a emergency on a land (as actual F-16s), none USAF aircrafts has capable to land on a carrier.

 

The landing gear was differnt enough that would not have been possible

[WobblyFlops]

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

So right now, I'd say an 80s USAF F-4E best fits DCS

I wholeheartedly agree. In DCS, the 80s is probably the only era where there's reasonable chance at achieveing a set of historical modules and  somewhat balanced, full fidelity lineup on both sides, especially in a setting where a near peer war would have been absolutely in the realm of possibility. If we consider all the upcoming aircraft, there are two things we'll need to truly cover all our bases; a capable full fidelity redfor strike aircraft and a land based USAF fighter. An 80s Phantom was for all intents and purposes one of the first examples of a multi role strike fighter, which is the only thing that Nato really needs for that time frame. We'll have Naval bombers with PGM capability but the E Phantom would allow the USAF to have parity in this regard. Pave Tack capability would make it possible to perform similar missions as the upcoming A-6 with TRAM and the Maverick capability would make it suitable for engaging targets of opportunity. For air to air, it would be a gun and it would rely on a fairly quirky pulse only radar system, which would definitely keep the GIB busy for air to air engagements. 

 

A naval Phantom would be fun but only if we have the E first. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by WobblyFlops

[Northstar98]

3 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

I wholeheartedly agree. In DCS, the 80s is probably the only era where there's reasonable chance at achieveing a set of historical modules and  somewhat balanced, full fidelity modules on both sides, especially in a setting where a near peer war would have been absolutely in the realm of possibility. If we consider all the upcoming aircraft, there are two things we'll need to truly cover all our bases; a capable full fidelity redfor strike aircraft and a land based USAF fighter. An 80s Phantom was for all intents and purposes one of the first examples of a multi role strike fighter, which is the only thing that Nato really needs for that time frame. We'll have Naval bombers with PGM capability but the E Phantom would allow the USAF to have parity in this regard. Pave Tack

The good thing is, is that I don't think the F-4E really changed significantly from the mid-to-late 70s to the late 80s/early 90s, beyond maybe controls for Pave Spike and later Pave Tack, (though I don't have a lot of information to work on here) but if it could be implemented the same way LANTIRN is in the Tomcat (i.e controls only appear when it's equipped) then we could cover at least a decade by just having all of the weapons available.

[WobblyFlops]

15 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

The good thing is, is that I don't think the F-4E really changed significantly

That makes perfect sense however I'm afraid that HB will only make a Juliet or a Sierra and they wouldn't make an Echo. I'm far from being a Phantom expert, I'm familiar with the basic differences between the S and the E when it comes to avionics and ordnance but what about flight characteristics and other general changes? Would it be feasible for HB to offer both variant? 

[WinterH]

46 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

The good thing is, is that I don't think the F-4E really changed significantly from the mid-to-late 70s to the late 80s/early 90s, beyond maybe controls for Pave Spike and later Pave Tack

I think the biggest breaking point would be pre vs post ARN-101 update, which, apparently, was in 1977. It deleted old school analog navigation and bombing computers (somewhat a'la the ones on A-4E), and replaced it with a then modern digital system. But as far as I know there were pre ARN-101 birds with Pave Spike, Mavericks etc.

Also, according to here: http://joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_11.html unlike what I thought, Pave Tack was apparently only ever mounted under inner wing pylons and not the centerline (as was originally intended). The site has other cool info too.

Edited December 6, 2021 by WinterH
oooppss... wrong link...

[Northstar98]

28 minutes ago, WinterH said:

I think the biggest breaking point would be pre vs post ARN-101 update, which, apparently, was in 1977. It deleted old school analog navigation and bombing computers (somewhat a'la the ones on A-4E), and replaced it with a then modern digital system. But as far as I know there were pre ARN-101 birds with Pave Spike, Mavericks etc.

Even so, 1977 - 1993 is plenty of coverage for an aircraft (assuming no significant changes).

28 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Also, according to here: https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/59506-1st-usafe-arn-101-f-4e/ unlike what I thought, Pave Tack was apparently only ever mounted under inner wing pylons and not the centerline (as was originally intended). The site has other cool info too.

That's odd:

There is the possibility that it's doing testing though (inert GBU-10 and, no idea what the pod is on the opposite station to it).

EDIT: Apparently is a dispenser of some kind? I'll try and identify it.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Northstar98

[WinterH]

Yeah, with it looking like personal notes/anectodes, etc, cool as it look I think it's worth taking the site with a grain salt.

Agree on 77 to whenever being pretty representative for a huge range of fitting scenarios, but 75-77 would still be about as representative, maybe also for people who wants older scenarios too. I'd be happy with either to be honest.

 

Edit: oooppss... I've posted the wrong link on my above post, edited to fix now! As for the pod, I wonder if it is the datalink pod for GBU-15, but then, one would expect to see one onboard... though it's testing would be more or less correct for when the Pave Tack was being integrated I believe.

Edited December 6, 2021 by WinterH

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, WinterH said:

Edit: oooppss... I've posted the wrong link on my above post, edited to fix now! As for the pod, I wonder if it is the datalink pod for GBU-15, but then, one would expect to see one onboard... though it's testing would be more or less correct for when the Pave Tack was being integrated I believe.

Y'know what, I think you're right! It kinda does look like an AN/AXQ-14 DL pod, as used with the GBU-15.

AFAIK (which isn't much, so take with heaps of salt), the Pave Tack was introduced to the F-4E circa 1981 (the pod itself entering service in 1980, though wiki says 1982), and the GBU-15(V)1/B + AN/AXQ-14 was 1983, for aircraft belonging to the 3rd TFW. The GBU-15(V)2/B, (V)31/B, and (V)32/B coming in 1986.

Spoiler

• GBU-15(V)1/B CWW [EO, Mk84]
• GBU-15(V)2/B CWW [IIR, Mk84]
• GBU-15(V)31/B CWW [EO, BLU-109/B]
• GBU-15(V)32/B CWW [IIR, BLU-109/B]

Edited December 6, 2021 by Northstar98

[upyr1]

On 12/6/2021 at 11:06 AM, WobblyFlops said:

That makes perfect sense however I'm afraid that HB will only make a Juliet or a Sierra and they wouldn't make an Echo. I'm far from being a Phantom expert, I'm familiar with the basic differences between the S and the E when it comes to avionics and ordnance but what about flight characteristics and other general changes? Would it be feasible for HB to offer both variant? 

I think it would be feasible to offer both the E and J especially if they do multiple modules. 

[Andrew8604]

I would say I've seen the most comments/requests for the F-4E.  But since we have a lot of naval aviation fans, too, there should also be a Navy version.

The F-4E was optimized to replace the F-105D, am I right?  The 'E' model is a fighter-bomber with early precision guided munitions capability.  It had a smaller, shorter-range radar but improved maneuverability, and probably better systems reliability.  It is what the F-16 replaced.  I think the F-15 replaced the F-4D.  The 'D' model was the better interceptor/fighter escort, I believe.  So too were the naval versions, the original 'B' model and 'J' model...later refurbished into the 'N' and 'S' models, respectively, with more defensive electronics and antennas, I think.

So, I think a J or S model should follow the initial 'E' model.  ...and that would probably be it.  Gotta have a naval version of the Phantom II.  It was originally designed for the Navy!!! 

The 'E' and 'J' couldn't be entirely different aircraft.  Different radar and fire control systems, sure.  Different rear cockpit...like the F-14, the 'back-seater' in the naval variants was a RIO and did not have flight controls.  The 'back-seater' in the 'E' was a WSO, like in the F-15E, and had flight controls.  They had different nose sections forward of the front cockpit bulkhead.  But I would bet a good 75% of the systems were the same.  Other differences have been pointed out by previous posts.  It's not just a cosmetic difference, but it's not an entirely different aircraft, either.  Probably a bit more work than the difference between the F-14A and F-14B.

It would be painful to have an 'E' model that you can't land on a carrier.  As well as having a 'J' or 'S' model that can't deliver precision guided munitions and lacks the internal gun.

Unlike with the F-14A/B, they should sell the F-4E and F-4J separately.  Those who prefer the 'E' will buy the 'E'.  I just bet they'll be buying the 'J', too, a little later on...certainly during a sales event.  I would be buying both.  

I know some would like to see the F-4K, as well.  But, again, that would probably be nearly as different as the 'J' is from the 'E', I don't know.  And for our Luftwaffe friends, the 'E' will probably have to be good enough.

[WinterH]

Later J/S also got leading edge slats like the E, and unlike what I've used to think, seems E also got better smokeless engines, so from a flight model perspective, late 70s or 80s variants of E and naval birds may actually be relatively close.

Greatest differences would be in art and systems I'd say. I wouldn't mind to see them as separate modules, because the differences are clearly more than what's between the Tomcat versions. Offering owners of one variant something like 30 percent discount for the other variant would be welcome, and would probably lead into more sales for the dev, but that is in dev's discreation of course.

54 minutes ago, Andrew8604 said:

The 'D' model was the better interceptor/fighter escort, I believe.  So too were the naval versions, the original 'B' model and 'J' model...later refurbished into the 'N' and 'S' models, respectively, with more defensive electronics and antennas, I think.

I doubt D would be the better interceptor, only thing I can imagine it having over E is a larger nose for a bigger radar antenna, otherwise E simply replaced it in air force service as far as I know. I would also be surprised if naval phantoms had better defensive avionics compared to a contemporary E because E was expected to do strikes on hostile areas after all. That said, naval phantoms were indeed better air to air fighters overall due to better radar with look-down capabilities and improved range, as well as (if somewhat experimental) helmet mounted sights. Considering a late 70s to 80s timeframe, they should both have access to same air to air missiles, but by then they were both fairly behind the curve as air to air platforms, just less so for naval ones. Earlier on however, I think naval Sidewinder variants were a little better but not sure.

1 hour ago, Andrew8604 said:

It would be painful to have an 'E' model that you can't land on a carrier.  As well as having a 'J' or 'S' model that can't deliver precision guided munitions and lacks the internal gun.

While I am much closer to E camp, and Andrew is closer to naval camp, I essentially agree, it would be damn shame to have either as the only Phantom in DCS, this bird NEEDS to represented in at least E and a naval variant.

[rkk01]

Maybe ED will dust off the previous Belsimtek F-4E…

And then Heatblur to pitch in with the Navy version for their Forrestal…???

The HB Trello roadmap still has 3 future modules showing - the A-6 and Typhoon are undated, but the “unannounced” module has a 2022 date slot

They also have USS Saratoga slated as the next CV to launch - there are a few photos online of USN and RN Phantoms exercising together off Saratoga - mid 70s I’d guess as Ark had gone by the end of 78

[Fangs Out]

4 hours ago, Andrew8604 said:

The F-4E was optimized to replace the F-105D, am I right?  The 'E' model is a fighter-bomber with early precision guided munitions capability.  It had a smaller, shorter-range radar but improved maneuverability, and probably better systems reliability.  It is what the F-16 replaced.  I think the F-15 replaced the F-4D.  The 'D' model was the better interceptor/fighter escort, I believe.  So too were the naval versions, the original 'B' model and 'J' model...later refurbished into the 'N' and 'S' models, respectively, with more defensive electronics and antennas, I think.

So, I think a J or S model should follow the initial 'E' model.  ...and that would probably be it.  Gotta have a naval version of the Phantom II.  It was originally designed for the Navy!!! 

So, let me clarify some things. 1. PGMs were also found on later marks of the F-4D , such as GBU-10s  , Gbu-12s and BOLT-117s. Second ,the F-4D essentially replaced the F-105D, while being  supported with the F-105G in the SEAD/DEAD role (F-4Ds could only equip the Agm-45 Shrike, 105Gs could be equipped with the 78 Standard ARM , better in every way). Third the F-4S was much more than defensive upgrades, incorporating smokeless engines from  the N phantoms while adding leading edge slats similar to an Agile Eagle Echo model. Finally, if we want to pick varients , Id say a F-4E-53 and a F-4J or S phantom . Former is more capable in A2G missions with Mavs , GBUs , early TGPs and an internal M61 , while the later is more capable in A2A with a PD radar and better missiles such as the Aim-9G/H (SEAM equipped missiles) and Aim-7Fs , or if its a later block, Aim-7Ms and Aim-9Ls

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Andrew8604 said:

I would say I've seen the most comments/requests for the F-4E.  But since we have a lot of naval aviation fans, too, there should also be a Navy version.

The F-4E was optimized to replace the F-105D, am I right?  The 'E' model is a fighter-bomber with early precision guided munitions capability.  It had a smaller, shorter-range radar but improved maneuverability, and probably better systems reliability.  It is what the F-16 replaced.  I think the F-15 replaced the F-4D.  The 'D' model was the better interceptor/fighter escort, I believe.  So too were the naval versions, the original 'B' model and 'J' model...later refurbished into the 'N' and 'S' models, respectively, with more defensive electronics and antennas, I think.

The F-111 was the main replacement for the Thud. Both the E and the D could carry smart bombs 

 

4 hours ago, Andrew8604 said:

So, I think a J or S model should follow the initial 'E' model.  ...and that would probably be it.  Gotta have a naval version of the Phantom II.  It was originally designed for the Navy!!! 

The 'E' and 'J' couldn't be entirely different aircraft.  Different radar and fire control systems, sure.  Different rear cockpit...like the F-14, the 'back-seater' in the naval variants was a RIO and did not have flight controls.  The 'back-seater' in the 'E' was a WSO, like in the F-15E, and had flight controls.  They had different nose sections forward of the front cockpit bulkhead.  But I would bet a good 75% of the systems were the same.  Other differences have been pointed out by previous posts.  It's not just a cosmetic difference, but it's not an entirely different aircraft, either.  Probably a bit more work than the difference between the F-14A and F-14B.

It would be painful to have an 'E' model that you can't land on a carrier.  As well as having a 'J' or 'S' model that can't deliver precision guided munitions and lacks the internal gun.

Unlike with the F-14A/B, they should sell the F-4E and F-4J separately.  Those who prefer the 'E' will buy the 'E'.  I just bet they'll be buying the 'J', too, a little later on...certainly during a sales event.  I would be buying both.  

I know some would like to see the F-4K, as well.  But, again, that would probably be nearly as different as the 'J' is from the 'E', I don't know.  And for our Luftwaffe friends, the 'E' will probably have to be good enough.

The E and the J were the most disimilar versions used by the US military. The B and C were the closet and the D I believe was a link in the evolution between the C and E. Then the Royal Phantoms are differnt again.  

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Maybe ED will dust off the previous Belsimtek F-4E…

And then Heatblur to pitch in with the Navy version for their Forrestal…???

The HB Trello roadmap still has 3 future modules showing - the A-6 and Typhoon are undated, but the “unannounced” module has a 2022 date slot

They also have USS Saratoga slated as the next CV to launch - there are a few photos online of USN and RN Phantoms exercising together off Saratoga - mid 70s I’d guess as Ark had gone by the end of 78

The Belsimtek F-4E was a Blk 53. I start to think HB go to build a Naval version to match with the Tomcat and a Mid / Late Cold War scenery.

[Dave317]

Are you all aware of this new mod? 

AI only by far better than the standard model. 

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3319724/

 

[Fangs Out]

8 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The Belsimtek F-4E was a Blk 53. I start to think HB go to build a Naval version to match with the Tomcat and a Mid / Late Cold War scenery.

Yea , HB has more experience with the Tomcat and the F-4J/S were replaced in the FAD role by the F-14. Although i'd love an Echo phantom, its more logical for HB to get a F-4J or S phantom

[Bremspropeller]

10 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The E and the J were the most disimilar versions used by the US military. The B and C were the closet and the D I believe was a link in the evolution between the C and E. Then the Royal Phantoms are differnt again.  

Depends. I'd say the G is even more different to the J. And then there's the recce birds.

From a "what can it do" standpoint, an early/ mid 80s Echo is probably the best shot. On top, the Echos were exported a lot - even if they're not fitting the exact Block numbers.

The Navy birds are great for the sake of completeness in terms of some Air Wings, but they'll be more of a tail end airplane in terms of pure capability. There's better airplanes for both attack (A-7E and A-6E) and A-A (F-14A). The cool stuff on the late naval F-4 would be SEAM and VTAS.