Announcing the F-4 Phantom for DCS World!

[Bananabrai]

4 hours ago, Stackup said:

Maybe this is another reason the F-4E is releasing before the naval variants.

I think the most obvious reason is the wide array of weapons available ("multi-role") on the E.
Plus probably the equality to all export variants, like the F, EJ and all other nations E's like Greece, Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Australia etc.

This will give a lot of sales and support the development of the naval variant, which I have to admit, simply looks better.
Never was a fan of the long nose. But I also think the E has the more interesting toys to play around.

I will fly the heck out of both for sure.

[Lieuie]

Doesn't the Forrestal have bridle catchers? Of course the procedure would be different from the launch bar system but not that different. Still I expect it to be long before it is supported by the supercarrier module, if we get support for the Forrestal.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Lieuie

[Biggus]

2 hours ago, Horns said:

Does that mean Phantoms and Tomcats can't use the same carrier?

Considering nose-tow has been the default naval aircraft catapult interface design since the very early 60s, the Phantom would have shared decks with other nose-tow aircraft for nearly every cruise it undertook.  I can't see how this is going to be a significant problem and it would be pretty silly to think that Heatblur weren't thinking about this when they were developing the Forrestal.

[Yannick Pancake]

A-6's have a launch bar, and I'm fairly confident there where occasions where phantoms and A-6's shared a boat

[Nahen]

The F-14 entered service on aircraft carriers where the F-4, A-6, A-7, and A-8 were stationed.
So both F-4 and F-14 were used on the same aircraft carriers and on the same catapult systems.
The information that F-4s cannot use aircraft carriers - rather, it concerns "modern" aircraft carriers. When the F-4s left their service, there was no need to adapt them to the new aircraft carriers. Diferent  the F-14 that served "a few" more years on aircraft carriers.
Forrestall should normally support F-14, F-4, A-4, A-6, A-7, etc.

[JayTSX]

Wouldn't the easy implementation be to just shoot the bridle away? I heard they did it at the end of the Phantoms lifespan so it wouldn't be unrealistic either. Main problem would be modeling a bridle instead of a launchbar. Question is: Would heatblur be fine with this solution?

[Omega417]

10 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

The F-4E can land on an aircraft carrier.

Once.

I am fairly confident that an F-4E can launch CAT 5 with minimal fuel and ordnance. Ill even test it when we get the module.

[Lieuie]

1 hour ago, Omega417 said:

I am fairly confident that an F-4E can launch CAT 5 with minimal fuel and ordnance. Ill even test it when we get the module.

This could make an interesting scenario for a mission.

[RaceFuel85]

For bridle vs launch bars, the only real change is the shuttle, which can be unbolted from the catapult and changed out with the other type. 

[G.J.S]

10 hours ago, Omega417 said:

I am fairly confident that an F-4E can launch CAT 5 with minimal fuel and ordnance. Ill even test it when we get the module.

Back of a cigarette packet calculations I’d say a take off roll of around - with absolute minimal fuel and NO ordnance - likely around 1100 meters.

Then IMMEDIATELY form up on a tanker. Not too sure of accel rates for J79, but even if being generous, launch from flat top unlikely.

Airspeed would be so low that the moment you have to rotate nose up due to no more deck, you will immediately be in buffet and stalling out, prior to becoming a speed bump for the carrier.

[Kalasnkova74]

10 hours ago, Omega417 said:

I am fairly confident that an F-4E can launch CAT 5 with minimal fuel and ordnance. Ill even test it when we get the module.

I’m sure it’ll launch just fine. The problem is it’ll stall and fall into Davy Jones’ Locker right afterward. Note that on carrier launched F-4s -American or UK- the landing gear is raised (similar to the F-5) before launch to increase the AoA. This system for obvious reasons was deleted from the land based models. Without that extended nose gear ,  a naval Phantom will stall and fall into the drink. As would a land based F-4E bereft of catapult assistance. 

[Bananabrai]

17 hours ago, Omega417 said:

I am fairly confident that an F-4E can launch CAT 5 with minimal fuel and ordnance. Ill even test it when we get the module.

 

16 hours ago, Lieuie said:

This could make an interesting scenario for a mission.

Did I hear:

Captured Kusnezow / fictional NATO ski-jump carrier (in form of the Kusnezow^^) launching F-4Es? Count me in!

[Omega417]

15 hours ago, G.J.S said:

Back of a cigarette packet calculations I’d say a take off roll of around - with absolute minimal fuel and NO ordnance - likely around 1100 meters.

Then IMMEDIATELY form up on a tanker. Not too sure of accel rates for J79, but even if being generous, launch from flat top unlikely.

Airspeed would be so low that the moment you have to rotate nose up due to no more deck, you will immediately be in buffet and stalling out, prior to becoming a speed bump for the carrier.

See you're using cigarettes, I am using a crack-pipe.

Full brakes, maybe even leave it in chocks while im getting to max burner. Ive got faith in the Phantom.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Omega417
made it funnier

[DD_Fenrir]

30 minutes ago, Omega417 said:

 

 Ive got faith in the Phantom.

 

Surely you mean... phaiph...

Edited January 18, 2023 by DD_Fenrir

[Omega417]

37 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Surely you mean... phaiph...

 

we are getting dangerously close to sounding like we have a lisp.

[G.J.S]

2 hours ago, Omega417 said:

See you're using cigarettes, I am using a crack-pipe.

Full brakes, maybe even leave it in chocks while im getting to max burner. Ive got faith in the Phantom.

 

You’ll need waterproof faith! You won’t get it off a flat top. Even an FG1 wouldn’t do it without a bridle slingshot. 
Seeing how many Phantom ‘Echoes’ it would take grinding below the bow of a carrier to bring it to a stop could be fun however.

[Omega417]

50 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

You’ll need waterproof faith! You won’t get it off a flat top. Even an FG1 wouldn’t do it without a bridle slingshot. 
Seeing how many Phantom ‘Echoes’ it would take grinding below the bow of a carrier to bring it to a stop could be fun however.

[Gianky]

14 minutes ago, Omega417 said:

We definitely need more quick reactions tha just "Like" and "Thanks"!

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, Omega417 said:

Your sad devotion to that ancient belief hasn’t conjured up the carrier bridle you’d need to fly an F-4E off a carrier deck. 

[Omega417]

nullGive me a real challenge, I'll have 66 feet to spare

 

[Cab]

3 hours ago, G.J.S said:

You’ll need waterproof faith! You won’t get it off a flat top.

On the contrary, I think that will take little to no effort. 

[Snappy]

58 minutes ago, Omega417 said:

nullGive me a real challenge, I'll have 66 feet to spare

 

 Uhh but that’s feet, not meters .You’d need about 2000 more .Not sure I follow your take off performance calculation anyway .  Probably would need to match your smoking habits for that.:)

Not to leave you empty-handed , I found this old video from the german armed forces . Its in german, but you can at least use the autotranslated YT subtitles. Ignore the cheap attempt at Top Gun vibes, but it gives a few interesting glimpses of the F-4s radar screen at work while scanning for /locking a target and the gunsight in action, plus some short but nice air combat maneuvering training scenes .

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Snappy

[G.J.S]

38 minutes ago, Cab said:

On the contrary, I think that will take little to no effort. 

 

1 hour ago, Omega417 said:

nullGive me a real challenge, I'll have 66 feet to spare

 

Crack on gents, what would I know . . .

[Cab]

3 hours ago, G.J.S said:

 

Crack on gents, what would I know . . .

Keep in mind I just disagreed with not getting off the deck. 
 

I offered no opinion on how high. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Cab

[Max Thunder]

8 hours ago, Snappy said:

 Uhh but that’s feet, not meters .You’d need about 2000 more .Not sure I follow your take off performance calculation anyway .  Probably would need to match your smoking habits for that.:)

Not to leave you empty-handed , I found this old video from the german armed forces . Its in german, but you can at least use the autotranslated YT subtitles. Ignore the cheap attempt at Top Gun vibes, but it gives a few interesting glimpses of the F-4s radar screen at work while scanning for /locking a target and the gunsight in action, plus some short but nice air combat maneuvering training scenes .

 

 

Love those German top gun vibes