Jump to content

Naval Phantom Variant


WolfHound009

Recommended Posts

It looked like a giant, disgusting toe to me. Last time I saw Joe was in Fallon around 1990-91 timeframe. He was a bit sheepish about the whole episode. He was just happy to be flying again. I think he was flying F5's for some contractor or adversary unit, I really don't recall. 

Everyone called him "Toeser", one look at that hand was all it took to end any debate on his new callsign.

  • Like 1

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lurker said:

Does DCS World even model the reliability issues of these older model Sidewinders and AIM-7s? Because if we are getting a Naval Phantom, (and the Crusader) then that should be a thing. 

There already are old Sidewinders in DCS. None of them models reliability because it's impossible.

Take the issues in Vietnam for example - the problems came from things like humidity, available supply, number of carrier takeoffs and landings each missile had. That last one is out in DCS because everything is always brand new, both jets and weapons. How do you model accurately the effect of humidity and supplies on weapon reliability? Does it change over time? Is it a constant? Are weapons better on the NTTR map than they are in the Marianas? How would either of those differ from the reliability issues in Vietnam? How does that change in Georgia and Russia, over which no Phantom has ever flown? Are we also going to simulate whether your ground crew forgets to remove the safety pins from weapon rails? If so, are we going to simulate how well trained and likely to make a mistake they are? Or are we just going to try to capture all of this with some completely arbitrary % to fail that is as unrealistic as not bothering at all? And why would we even apply this just to older weapons?

Might as well ask to simulate whether a virtual pilot wakes up with a headache after a bad night of sleep and therefore doesn't handle physical exercise as well.


Edited by TLTeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

There already are old Sidewinders in DCS. None of them models reliability because it's impossible.

Take the issues in Vietnam for example - the problems came from things like humidity, available supply, number of carrier takeoffs and landings each missile had. That last one is out in DCS because everything is always brand new, both jets and weapons. How do you model accurately the effect of humidity and supplies on weapon reliability? Does it change over time? Is it a constant? Are weapons better on the NTTR map than they are in the Marianas? How would either of those differ from the reliability issues in Vietnam? How does that change in Georgia and Russia, over which no Phantom has ever flown? Are we also going to simulate whether your ground crew forgets to remove the safety pins from weapon rails? If so, are we going to simulate how well trained and likely to make a mistake they are? Or are we just going to try to capture all of this with some completely arbitrary % to fail that is as unrealistic as not bothering at all? And why would we even apply this just to older weapons?

Might as well ask to simulate whether a virtual pilot wakes up with a headache after a bad night of sleep and therefore doesn't handle physical exercise as well.

 

It’s not impossible, it’s just a pseudo-philosophical question of which approach to take in DCS. Whether everything is always supposed to be factory fresh and in perfect working order or not. You could dig out some sources, come up with somewhat averaged reliability quotas and then apply the resulting percentages in a random failure option.Sure that doesn’t factor in environmental factors related to geography and so on , but it’s not like there aren’t other areas where DCS uses only more or less accurate approximations as well.

Would sure make things more interesting and probably not more unrealistic than having the weapon working 100% of the time.

I think the Strike Fighters series did that and you got a at least reasonable impression of the weapon reliability at that time.

But since weapons are now in EDs realm and they re already overloaded with issues, I doubt they are going for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TLTeo said:

How do you model accurately the effect of humidity and supplies on weapon reliability?

Humidity, of all things, is actually relatively simple to model, since it's already part of the weather system. Yes, IR missiles  would, for multiple reasons, be way more reliable in NTTR than in, say, Marianas. It was like that IRL, too, if Falcon and Sidewinder worked on the test range like they did in Vietnam, they wouldn't have left the gun off the Phantom. 🙂 Supply would be simulated in dynamic campaign, so it could be possible to introduce weapons degrading depending on time since the last resupply. 

That said, G limits and primitive guidance will already make the early heaters hard to use even without them being duds. I think that was the cause of the majority of problems in Vietnam, not reliability itself (except with the AIM-4, which typically wouldn't even attempt to guide). Early Sidewinder had much worse kinetics than the modern versions, and the rear aspect seeker wasn't easy to use, either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TLTeo said:

There already are old Sidewinders in DCS. None of them models reliability because it's impossible.

Take the issues in Vietnam for example - the problems came from things like humidity, available supply, number of carrier takeoffs and landings each missile had. That last one is out in DCS because everything is always brand new, both jets and weapons. How do you model accurately the effect of humidity and supplies on weapon reliability? Does it change over time? Is it a constant? Are weapons better on the NTTR map than they are in the Marianas? How would either of those differ from the reliability issues in Vietnam? How does that change in Georgia and Russia, over which no Phantom has ever flown? Are we also going to simulate whether your ground crew forgets to remove the safety pins from weapon rails? If so, are we going to simulate how well trained and likely to make a mistake they are? Or are we just going to try to capture all of this with some completely arbitrary % to fail that is as unrealistic as not bothering at all? And why would we even apply this just to older weapons?

Might as well ask to simulate whether a virtual pilot wakes up with a headache after a bad night of sleep and therefore doesn't handle physical exercise as well.

 

Eh...I wouldn't be so quick to throw around the word "impossible"

Have you looked at the "Failures" drop down for the F-14 in the mission editor?

 

Umm Failures.jpg

 

Do you think it's a stretch that the same thing could be implemented for Sidewinders? Even various parameters within a Sidewinder drop-down with various failure modes?

These are all customizable according to the desires of the mission designer. They can be ignored or implemented and adjusted. 

I'm not saying that Heatblur will do this, but it is by no means impossible I'd say.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify - it's not that you can't implement any failure, it's just that summing it up with some arbitrary % number is not going to be any more realistic than not bothering at all. You won't be simulating reality regardless.

Besides, modern missiles fail too. Lots of AIM-7Ms during Desert Storm had issues, the one AIM-9X the USN fired failed to track for whatever reason, both AIM-54s fired by the USN were not armed properly (and I'm sure there's stories of a2g stores having similar issues, both in the past and present)...yet you don't see anybody asking for those to have some % chance to fail that is nothing but uneducated guesswork. Why should early weapons be treated differently?


Edited by TLTeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Let me clarify - it's not that you can't implement any failure, it's just that summing it up with some arbitrary % number is not going to be any more realistic than not bothering at all. You won't be simulating reality regardless.

Besides, modern missiles fail too. Lots of AIM-7Ms during Desert Storm had issues, the one AIM-9X the USN fired failed to track for whatever reason, both AIM-54s fired by the USN were not armed properly (and I'm sure there's stories of a2g stores having similar issues, both in the past and present)...yet you don't see anybody asking for those to have some % chance to fail that is nothing but uneducated guesswork. Why should early weapons be treated differently?

 

 

I get it.

However if I had a Sidewinder failure mode/percentage menu and I set it differently in each campaign mission based on various factors - as the end user would you know any better?

That’s really where the rubber meets the road. Under the hood there’s akways smoke and mirrors to some degree.

 

 

As a content developer I know - it’s user experience/perception that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get where you're coming from but "based on various factors" really just...is arbitrary. If someone wants to script that in a mission (assuming it's possible?) then all the more power to them, but it's not like that's some amazing feature that is going to make DCS more realistic.

And besides, AIM-9Bs already exist in plenty of modules and have no issues. I see no reason why ED would choose to change that in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it’s an option it wouldn’t hurt anyone. ”Realism” in games is always a compromise.

http://dcsfinland.fi/

Dcs: F/A-18C, F-16C, F-14, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B, MiG-21bis, M2000C, C-101, AJS-37, F-5, MF1, Bf-109K4, AH-64, UH-1, Ka-50, Mi-24, FC3, SC

System: i5-13600k@P58,58,57,57,56,56/E45 Asus TUF 3080Ti OC 12gb, 64gb DDR5 5600cl32, HP Reverb G2, Virpil WarBrD, Warthog throttle with deltasim slew, MFG Crosswind, DIY ”UFC”, 3x TM MFD’s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If DCS had an Il-2 BoX-like campaign or career structure with real depth, then I'd be completely onboard with environmental variables.  But I don't think we're going to be at that point for a long time.  Besides, how ever bad the missiles were, the radar on the J prior to the solid-state upgrades was far and away the weakest link in the whole chain.  You might only get a handful of sorties before it was deadlined.  That's one small contributing part of the numbers of kills with Sidewinders vs Sparrows for the Navy.

Here's another random tidbit.  The AWG-10 had eight different frequencies that could be used.  Not cockpit-selectable.  The average squadron had roughly twelve Phantoms.  So there was always a good chance that every time you launched a four-ship, at least two of those jets would have their radars transmitting and receiving on the same frequency.  You can probably guess that this is not an optimal situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those failure propabilities shouldn’t be hard coded in to the weapons because there’s just too many variables. Those should be one more tool for the mission builders and they should be considering what failure rates they put on the mission. 

  • Like 1

http://dcsfinland.fi/

Dcs: F/A-18C, F-16C, F-14, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B, MiG-21bis, M2000C, C-101, AJS-37, F-5, MF1, Bf-109K4, AH-64, UH-1, Ka-50, Mi-24, FC3, SC

System: i5-13600k@P58,58,57,57,56,56/E45 Asus TUF 3080Ti OC 12gb, 64gb DDR5 5600cl32, HP Reverb G2, Virpil WarBrD, Warthog throttle with deltasim slew, MFG Crosswind, DIY ”UFC”, 3x TM MFD’s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Biggus said:

If DCS had an Il-2 BoX-like campaign or career structure with real depth, then I'd be completely onboard with environmental variables.  But I don't think we're going to be at that point for a long time.  Besides, how ever bad the missiles were, the radar on the J prior to the solid-state upgrades was far and away the weakest link in the whole chain.  You might only get a handful of sorties before it was deadlined.  That's one small contributing part of the numbers of kills with Sidewinders vs Sparrows for the Navy.

Here's another random tidbit.  The AWG-10 had eight different frequencies that could be used.  Not cockpit-selectable.  The average squadron had roughly twelve Phantoms.  So there was always a good chance that every time you launched a four-ship, at least two of those jets would have their radars transmitting and receiving on the same frequency.  You can probably guess that this is not an optimal situation.

Thought there were 18? I’m not saying I have a great memory, believe me I don’t, but I immediately zoned in on that. Selectable only in the shop.

  • Like 2

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G.J.S said:

Thought there were 18? I’m not saying I have a great memory, believe me I don’t, but I immediately zoned in on that. Selectable only in the shop.

You're correct.  Went back and checked.  Grey matter isn't what it used to be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Biggus said:

You're correct.  Went back and checked.  Grey matter isn't what it used to be!

😉 Amen to that brother. 👍

  • Like 1

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J versus S. Smokeless engines is well known, but with the outer wing slats can anyone confirm that the S had much better instantaneous and sustained turn rates? 'Cos if so then the S has to be the preferred choice for DCS. I assume the early versus late F-4E will have a similar difference?

Shame, because the skins for B/N's look so much better, but with the pulse only versus pulse doppler, I'm hoping for the J/S


Edited by F1GHTS-ON
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2022 at 5:43 PM, F1GHTS-ON said:

J versus S. Smokeless engines is well known, but with the outer wing slats can anyone confirm that the S had much better instantaneous and sustained turn rates? 'Cos if so then the S has to be the preferred choice for DCS. I assume the early versus late F-4E will have a similar difference?

Shame, because the skins for B/N's look so much better, but with the pulse only versus pulse doppler, I'm hoping for the J/S

 

There's a lot more info in the Phantom vs XXX thread (link at bottom of this post). But to summarize, yes, they make a noticeable difference. For context the F-4J with 4x AIM-9Ds and 4x AIM-7E's needs to have very little fuel such that it weighs 37,500 lbs. (that's ~25% fuel) to match the sustained subsonic turn rate performance of the F-4E with slats carrying 4xAIM-7E when carrying ~60% fuel (block 50 and above) at a much heavier 42,777 lbs. All this data is from the manual. Of course with this light weight, the F-4J can pull more max G's but anything lower than 7.5, and it matches the F-4E almost exactly. Supersonic, the clean F-4J is vastly superior in sustained turns, top speed, ceiling and acceleration.

Another illustration below shows the relative difference between the F-4D and a heavier F-4E which again, despite the higher weight, the F-4E turns better. Another big advantage is the more care-free handling at high AoA. There is therefore reason to believe that the F-4S improvement would be similar.

 

turn rate comparison sample.png

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
2 hours ago, Padrino said:

If I remember correctly, HB is leaning toward either the J or the S for the USN/USMC variant of the F-4 Phantom II. 

i hope they do both

  • Like 1

Wishlist:f4e,f4j,f4g,f4e aup,f8,f6f,f4u,f15e,ah1g/w,fr fireball,a7d,g91,jaguar,f1,ch53e.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/10/2022 at 9:09 PM, Padrino said:

If I remember correctly, HB is leaning toward either the J or the S for the USN/USMC variant of the F-4 Phantom II. 

I hope so. While I love the notion of flying a period correct VF-74 F-4H-1 , the grim fact is that particular cake needed more time in the oven. The radar , Sparrows and Sidewinders of the era were practically useless in a tactical fight. It would not be a fun experience for people to buy, download, configure and play such a module only to experience a 10% kill probability in air combat. It’s just asking for thousands of unhappy customers and bug reports. It’s unlikely they’ll be consoled with “well, that’s how bad it was in real life”. 
 

The F-4J or S solved those problems, and is substantially less likely to leave customers feeling ripped off.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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