What other modifications/variants will we get?

[upyr1]

21 hours ago, Swamp_Fox said:

they haven't specifically said not, but they said they're doing an F-4E module and then a later naval one. 

You are probably right that we won't get the G. As EW is one of the most classified aspects of modern warfare, and while the F-16C or F-35 are more advanced than the F-4G, one of the main differences is the G was a lot less automated so we would need a lot more information about radars. 

[Manhorne]

9 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

You are probably right that we won't get the G. As EW is one of the most classified aspects of modern warfare, and while the F-16C or F-35 are more advanced than the F-4G, one of the main differences is the G was a lot less automated so we would need a lot more information about radars. 

You are correct and I believe that is a major part of the problem. I think even the F-105G Wild Weasel info is not available on how it worked. Or at least I have not come across any of it .  when it comes to radars and the abilities they have and the weaknesses to defeat them those are highly  guarded secrets...

[upyr1]

Going through the variants

The J- I expect we will get the J it is the contemporary with the E.

N or S basically upgraded Js I would expect on of them to go along with the late model E.

B this would be good opfor for the MiG-19

C - basically the B with controls in the back , wider tires and the AIM-4 if we get the B it would be idiotic not to do the C. I'm not sure what blocks of either but a bolo bird would be awesome.

D- an upgraded C all the Air Force aces made their kills in the D also the combat tree Ds scored the first BVR kills. 

F- bassically an E with differnt avionics. Early F's lacked the ability to launch sparrows while the ICE basically had the systems from the Hornet.  The F isn't a top priority so an E with a German livery for now would be fine

Royal Phantoms The E should have an Aussie livery  

 

the RAF and Fleet Air Arm had a modified J, M and K depending on how much the avionics overlap these could be in a single module but I think due to the engine differnces we should get these with the HMS Arc Royale 

 

[Swamp_Fox]

5 hours ago, upyr1 said:

You are probably right that we won't get the G. As EW is one of the most classified aspects of modern warfare, and while the F-16C or F-35 are more advanced than the F-4G, one of the main differences is the G was a lot less automated so we would need a lot more information about radars. 

I know, I know... but a gal can dream

[FlightLover]

Can we get the Israeli version with a refueling probe?

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Swamp_Fox said:

I know, I know... but a gal can dream

My dad was an EWO before going to med school, so trust me I want the G. 

9 minutes ago, FlightLover said:

Can we get the Israeli version with a refueling probe?

yes 

[Bremspropeller]

23 hours ago, upyr1 said:

the RAF and Fleet Air Arm had a modified J, M and K depending on how much the avionics overlap these could be in a single module but I think due to the engine differnces we should get these with the HMS Arc Royale 

I don't think that's a way to proceed and here's why:

- the J(UK) was basicly an S without the slats and was flown with american equipment* (incl Helmets?) / slatted stabilator and aileron-droop

- the K has the 40in nosewheel extension and is flown with british equipment* / slotted stabilator and aileron-droop

- british equipment* and the M doesn't have the nosewheel extension and has more whizz-bang avionics, radar optimized for ops over land as opposed to the K / no slotted stabilator and no aileron-droop

Will the RHAW-housing be modelled on the later K/M models? What about the Periscope on the late Ks?

See this 111 Sqn. F-4K with the RHAW box on top of the vertical stab and the periscope (hard to see) on the port window (blinded) between the pilot's and RIO's canopies:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/UK-Air-Force/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4K-Phantom-FG1/2550575/L

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to fly the british 'tooms, but there's a little more nuance to them than one might think.

___

* not sure if the FAA and RAF shared equipment, but we'd at least need two different (maybe three) pilot models here

Edited January 28, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[Rick50]

On 1/26/2022 at 3:37 AM, Northstar98 said:

All I can say is that it's not present in USAF series non-nuclear weapon delivery manuals for the F-4E (I've got a -34-1-1 circa 1979, revised 1986 and a -34-1-1-2 circa 1983, revised 1986). Nor is it present in the stores limitations table or airplane loading table in the -1 (for which I've got one circa 1979 and circa 1984 revised 1990).

The Shrike and employment of it however, is described in the -34-1-1.

 

 

Ok... not trying to beat this topic to death, but I thought the Standard ARM was used during Vietnam, and ceased use in that role before the war's end... long before your manuals were published. I suspect that maybe the manuals you have, didn't include Standard because maybe by then there were no more in service, in storage, none available at all while a the Shrike and then-upcomming project that became HARM.... made any content about Standard  ARM utterly useless and counterproductive to include? 

 

Part of the reason I ask, is that I thought the G Wild Weasel type was a post-Vietnam variant (am I wrong about that?), though I'm having trouble finding it's introduction date. Looking now, supposedly the G never carried a Standard ARM, instead being made for the 88 HARM and Maveric.  Not certain about Shrike, but I don't think the Shrike really needed much fancy gear to use, just sort of a "I think I should fire it now, and forget it".... I mean they put them on early Skyhawks, not exactly the height of black box complexity!

 

I never quite understood why the Standard ARM never got more development, I would have thought something that big would be useful for taking down a SAM site, but maybe I'm reading into it too much!

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I don't think that's a way to proceed and here's why:

- the J(UK) was basicly an S without the slats and was flown with american equipment* (incl Helmets?) / slatted stabilator and aileron-droop

- the K has the 40in nosewheel extension and is flown with british equipment* / slotted stabilator and aileron-droop

- british equipment* and the M doesn't have the nosewheel extension and has more whizz-bang avionics, radar optimized for ops over land as opposed to the K / no slotted stabilator and no aileron-droop

Will the RHAW-housing be modelled on the later K/M models? What about the Periscope on the late Ks?

See this 111 Sqn. F-4K with the RHAW box on top of the vertical stab and the periscope (hard to see) on the port window (blinded) between the pilot's and RIO's canopies:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/UK-Air-Force/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4K-Phantom-FG1/2550575/L

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to fly the british 'tooms, but there's a little more nuance to them than one might think.

___

* not sure if the FAA and RAF shared equipment, but we'd at least need two different (maybe three) pilot models here

 

That might be true as I said earlier it all depends on how different they are.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

 

Ok... not trying to beat this topic to death, but I thought the Standard ARM was used during Vietnam, and ceased use in that role before the war's end... long before your manuals were published. I suspect that maybe the manuals you have, didn't include Standard because maybe by then there were no more in service, in storage, none available at all while a the Shrike and then-upcomming project that became HARM.... made any content about Standard  ARM utterly useless and counterproductive to include? 

 

Part of the reason I ask, is that I thought the G Wild Weasel type was a post-Vietnam variant (am I wrong about that?), though I'm having trouble finding it's introduction date. Looking now, supposedly the G never carried a Standard ARM, instead being made for the 88 HARM and Maveric.  Not certain about Shrike, but I don't think the Shrike really needed much fancy gear to use, just sort of a "I think I should fire it now, and forget it".... I mean they put them on early Skyhawks, not exactly the height of black box complexity!

 

I never quite understood why the Standard ARM never got more development, I would have thought something that big would be useful for taking down a SAM site, but maybe I'm reading into it too much!

The STARM was in service until 1988. I believe the G started entering service in 1983, replacing the EF-4C and F-105G. The HARM entered service in 1985, so there were 3 years where they overlapped here are some photos of the G with STARMS. We might not ever have a flyable Weasel but the STARM would be good for an AI Thud or phantom weasel 

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_19.html

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by upyr1

[Tengu]

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

- the K has the 40in nosewheel extension and is flown with british equipment* / slotted stabilator and aileron-droop

@Bremspropeller, what is aileron-droop and how is it different from on the other models?  Is that something to do with spoilers & “flaperons”?

I do love many of the RAF liveries. Maybe my second favorite library of F-4 paint schemes after the JASDF. 

[Northstar98]

4 hours ago, Rick50 said:

Ok... not trying to beat this topic to death, but I thought the Standard ARM was used during Vietnam, and ceased use in that role before the war's end... long before your manuals were published.

The manuals also reference weapons long out of service, such as the AIM-9B.

And so far I haven't found evidence that the AGM-78 was present on the F-4E.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Northstar98

[Bremspropeller]

13 hours ago, Tengu said:

what is aileron-droop and how is it different from on the other models?  Is that something to do with spoilers & “flaperons”?

Hey Tengu, the drooped ailerons are basicly flaperons. They'll deflect 16.5° down with flaps down. See this Red Ripper F-4J

Both ailerons are deflected down. The left one is a little...downer. That's because the pilot is putting in a tad right stick (right spoiler is up slightly).

 

More stabilizer and flap talk by Tommy Thomason in his blog:

https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/11/f-4-stabilator.html

Initial F-4 stabilator rework.

https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/09/f-4-flapstabilizer-change.html

Flaps, Droops and slatted Stabilators.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[Rick50]

 

Hmm. So yea... seems this missile's history with the Phantom is more murky than I thought, about as murky as the histories of some variants of Phantom!

I didn't realise that the F-105 Thunderchief had carried this AGM-78 Standard ARM...

[upyr1]

12 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The manuals also reference weapons long out of service, such as the AIM-9B.

And so far I haven't found evidence that the AGM-78 was present on the F-4E.

 

While I have never seen the manuals I have only heard of the ef-4c or g using the starm.

8 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

Hmm. So yea... seems this missile's history with the Phantom is more murky than I thought, about as murky as the histories of some variants of Phantom!

I didn't realise that the F-105 Thunderchief had carried this AGM-78 Standard ARM...

The g carried them also the ea-6 and I believe the A-6B as well.

[Basher54321]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

While I have never seen the manuals I have only heard of the ef-4c or g using the starm.

 

Israel bought a batch of STARMs in the mid 1970s and used them on their F-4Es.

[upyr1]

56 minutes ago, Basher54321 said:

Israel bought a batch of STARMs in the mid 1970s and used them on their F-4Es.

I was wrong then. I am wondering if anyone at Heatblur can read Hebrew IMHO the Israeli Phantoms probably need their own module. The Israeli af called their phantoms the sledgehammer so Phantom sledgehammer would be cool. Maybe there is an Israeli Phantom patch with spook armed with a sledgehammer.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Basher54321 said:

Israel bought a batch of STARMs in the mid 1970s and used them on their F-4Es.

Yes, but at least according to this, they had to be modified with an ELINT/ESM system.

[Bremspropeller]

Looks to me like all "Peace Echo I-V" and the "Nickel Grass" F-4Es delivered to Israel were fairly normal USAF-standard airplanes with the real decisive changes only happening after the YKW and during the Kurnass 2000 programme.

The Nickel Grass aircraft (actual USAF aircraft) retained their SEA camo and were hence called "Karpada" (toad) due to their different appearance.

Looks like the mod to using the probe/ drogue system happened failry soon after the YKW. Most probably to make the F-4s fit into the A-4 buddy-pods. Another interesting mod is the use of the fwd (always the RH?) Sparrow-recess to install another Sidewinder, like on this one:

Edit:

Quoting from "Israeli Phantoms vol 1" by Klein/ Aloni, the probe/drogue system installation began in 1970, but took 15 years to complete.

The AGM-78 seems to have been used by 105 Sqn only. Both the AGM-45 and AGM-78 were carried on the inboard wing pylons.

So up to and including YKW, the standard early F-4E planned by HB should do just fine. A realistic 1982 scenario would require an airplane that has deviated from the original USAF-standard. Beginning with the early/ mid 80s, the IDF Phantoms had lots of home-grown PGMs and AA missiles (like the Python).

Another note of interest: The IDF used Navy Sidewinders (e.g. AIM-9D), instead of the USAF models. There's a picture of Kurnass #02 with an AIM-9B, but I wouldn't be surprised if that actually was an AA-2, which die israelis captured en masse in the Sinai.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[FS Voodoo]

What do you think about having a recon variant? If HB is working on TARPS there might be some similarities?

[Kingmark11]

I'd give almost anything to have a Royal Navy Phantom FG.1.  To me they're the definitive Phantom, in terms of just how boss they look with the extra dark sea grey over white scheme and hi vis roundels.

Any Phantom is a good Phantom for me, the announcement gave me serious trouser jitters, but if a RN Phantom turned up at some point that would just about finish me off.  Without wanting to stray too far into wishlist territory if you imagine a world where you have HMS Ark Royal, Phantom FG.1s, AI Gannets and a flyable Buccaneer S2 you have heaven. 

[Rick50]

On 1/29/2022 at 3:08 PM, FS Voodoo said:

What do you think about having a recon variant? If HB is working on TARPS there might be some similarities?

 

I like recon flights! 

 

I remember loving them in Strike Fighters P1 campaigns!  I'd plan the waypoints carefully. I'd try to keep weight to a reasonable minimum. Stores drag to ABSLUTE MINIMU<. Just enough fuel. And I'd begin the A-4 recon flight. It was all about building up speed, and then doing everything you could for energy management, keep that inertia up, keep drag to a minimum... very important to keep enemies from intercepting you, without running out of fuel from afterburners (helps in an A-4 since you just firewalled the throttle. 

 

Somehow, when the aim is to outrun the enemy, the mindset needed, makes this kind of mission interesting and exciting in it's own right!