Naval Phantom Variant

[Stackup]

3 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

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.

Whether they are consoled by that would be irrelevant since they knowingly bought a plane that had relatively ineffective weapons that were generally deployed outside of the weapons envelope.  So imo it's on them for making that decision so long as the module was advertised as being from that period with those weapons.  Having said that, I would like to see the J variant to get the tail end of Vietnam and the later weapon systems. 

It would also be cool to have the option to use the early weapons like the AIM-4 on the E model and the early AIM-9 and AIM-7 variants while still having access to the later versions(assuming the variant chosen had the ability to carry them all).  That would put the available loadouts into the hands of the mission planners and allow both early and late conflicts to have era appropriate weapons even if the specific plane variant did not serve in the conflict.  The MiG-21 and F-5 we have for example have early missile variants available to simulate a more Vietnam era mission even though the specific plane variant never served in the war.

In any case, with the amount of variants needed to model a specific year of a specific operation or war, we will never be able to proper simulate everything that we could think of entirely accurately and will generally have to be satisfied with at least some level of historical inaccuracies due to the limitations of the DCS map and plane sets as well as the availability( or lack thereof) of the proper AI ground and naval assets. 

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, Stackup said:

Whether they are consoled by that would be irrelevant since they knowingly bought a plane that had relatively ineffective weapons that were generally deployed outside of the weapons envelope.  So imo it's on them for making that decision so long as the module was advertised as being from that period with those weapons. 

would they know? Being a Phanatic I’ve read enough books to know that pre-Linebacker F-4s (both USAF and US Navy) struggled to get good kills because of unreliable weaponry. I doubt a layperson who stumbles onto an ad for an F-4B or USAF F-110/F-4C is going to know this. People generally get upset if the $60+ nonrefundable download doesn’t actually work. Again, responding with “yeah we know you can’t hit anything in Cold War multiplayer with your F-4C but thems the breaks because history” isn’t going to fly 

[SgtPappy]

33 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

would they know? Being a Phanatic I’ve read enough books to know that pre-Linebacker F-4s (both USAF and US Navy) struggled to get good kills because of unreliable weaponry. I doubt a layperson who stumbles onto an ad for an F-4B or USAF F-110/F-4C is going to know this. People generally get upset if the $60+ nonrefundable download doesn’t actually work. Again, responding with “yeah we know you can’t hit anything in Cold War multiplayer with your F-4C but thems the breaks because history” isn’t going to fly 

I know this gets a lot of flak, but this is why I think having varying levels of weapon reliability would help the game. I could've sworn I've seen it implemented via script in some dogfight servers. Then each mission designer could tweak the level to suit their audience.

Some argue that it would be unrealistic to model random weapon failures due to all the variables/causes but I believe the end user wouldn't see these variables - they'd just see the missile not work when it hung, fell off without firing, decided not to guide or exploded early. All these outcomes were possible in SF2. The causes are irrelevant for the crew at the time of pushing the button.

Edited December 28, 2022 by SgtPappy

[Stackup]

24 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

would they know? Being a Phanatic I’ve read enough books to know that pre-Linebacker F-4s (both USAF and US Navy) struggled to get good kills because of unreliable weaponry. I doubt a layperson who stumbles onto an ad for an F-4B or USAF F-110/F-4C is going to know this. People generally get upset if the $60+ nonrefundable download doesn’t actually work. Again, responding with “yeah we know you can’t hit anything in Cold War multiplayer with your F-4C but thems the breaks because history” isn’t going to fly 

Is the average layperson is buying DCS modules though?  I don't have any data on who is buying, but the steep learning curve on most modules and the almost necessity of a HOTAS and head tracking(yes I am aware some do without either of those) means that DCS, and flightsims in general anyways, are a niche market.  There will always be some people who are disappointed in a module due to not understanding its role, capabilities, or the timeframe in which it was used.  I do not think these are the majority of players.

[Heinlein]

hace 9 horas, Stackup dijo:

Is the average layperson is buying DCS modules though?  I don't have any data on who is buying, but the steep learning curve on most modules and the almost necessity of a HOTAS and head tracking(yes I am aware some do without either of those) means that DCS, and flightsims in general anyways, are a niche market.  There will always be some people who are disappointed in a module due to not understanding its role, capabilities, or the timeframe in which it was used.  I do not think these are the majority of players.

I second that. I know some people who only played DCS for one hour and stopped because they felt overwhelmed. Some people go into DCS thinking it's like war thunder

[Uxi]

On 12/28/2022 at 1:47 PM, SgtPappy said:

I know this gets a lot of flak, but this is why I think having varying levels of weapon reliability would help the game. I could've sworn I've seen it implemented via script in some dogfight servers. Then each mission designer could tweak the level to suit their audience.

Some argue that it would be unrealistic to model random weapon failures due to all the variables/causes but I believe the end user wouldn't see these variables - they'd just see the missile not work when it hung, fell off without firing, decided not to guide or exploded early. All these outcomes were possible in SF2. The causes are irrelevant for the crew at the time of pushing the button.

 

Would be cool for the after action report at the end of the mission should tell you.  And yeah it should be worse in an SEA map than at NTTR. 

[foxmagnet]

Navy Phantoms are launched old way, the bridle.

Does this mean we need proprietary carriers with older model catapult to do carrier ops with F-4?

Or do modern catapults still retain bridle launch capability/able to swap between older/newer catapult shuttle?

[Dragon1-1]

I think you can launch, however good luck fishing the bridle out of the ocean. Carriers no longer have bridle catchers that were used to make those systems reusable.

[Kalasnkova74]

I think the A-4EC just ignored this and acts like a landing gear catapult aircraft for expediency’s sake, but an F-4B/F-4J/F-4S module will need a bridle compatible carrier. Might be why HB’s starting with the land based Phantom IIs. 

[Uxi]

On 1/6/2023 at 10:12 PM, foxmagnet said:

Navy Phantoms are launched old way, the bridle.

Does this mean we need proprietary carriers with older model catapult to do carrier ops with F-4?

Or do modern catapults still retain bridle launch capability/able to swap between older/newer catapult shuttle?

Should only be to do it realistically on the Forrestals since there's no bridle catcher on the existing Roosevelt sub-class Nimitz supercarrier (perhaps they would add older models tied to date on the current Supercarrier... though should also change the camo on the deck crew, etc too).  Perhaps we'll get official Supercarrier 70s versions of Nimitz & Ike. 

Enterprise is the carrier I want the most. Would be nice to see the Kitty Hawks, too. 

Even our current Forrestals have weapons and details that would be anachronistic though.  Could take off the CIWS and change the TF-30 on the fantail to a J79 maybe...

Edited January 9, 2023 by Uxi

[F1GHTS-ON]

Really showing my ignorance here.....does an F-4E need a starter cart, or can it start from cartridges? As a Phantom is based on a Naval design, I assume DCS will make us "request ground power/Air" etc to start a Navy F-4, but I think I have seen a German AF F-4F using a cartridge to start (there's certainly a YouTube vid to support this).

It would be "nice" therefore to have DCS change the comms menu script to reflect the fact that it isn't always a Chief Petty Officer ("Chief request....") in game  for our navalised F-4s.

@Uxi when I was lucky enough to serve on the Enterprise (2010) I was told that the bridle catchers had been deliberately retained as a piece of showmanship so as to claim any record on Longest CV at sea. Agree that she would make an excellent addition to the growing fleet of CVs in DCS

 

 

[G.J.S]

5 hours ago, F1GHTS-ON said:

.....does an F-4E need a starter cart, or can it start from cartridges? 

 

 

The ‘E’ can operate with either. Fully capable of using the “huffer” or the cartridges.

[Vampyre]

5 hours ago, F1GHTS-ON said:

It would be "nice" therefore to have DCS change the comms menu script to reflect the fact that it isn't always a Chief Petty Officer ("Chief request....") in game  for our navalised F-4s.

@Uxi when I was lucky enough to serve on the Enterprise (2010) I was told that the bridle catchers had been deliberately retained as a piece of showmanship so as to claim any record on Longest CV at sea. Agree that she would make an excellent addition to the growing fleet of CVs in DCS

 

 

You have it backwards. In the Air Force the Crew Chief is responsible for assisting the pilot in getting the aircraft started. The Crew Chief is called Chief in that service. In the Navy, the Squadron final checkers, assisted by the deck crew manning so equipped tractors, are the personnel that attach the huffer hose and are directed by the Plane Captain to start the huffer. That is all done through hand signals. It is a very rare occurrence that you would see a Navy Chief hooking up and running a huffer to get a jet started on the flight deck. Usually, the only squadron Chief on the flight deck is the FDC and his main purpose is to ensure timely and efficient squadron maintenance operations on the deck. The menu callout is correct for Air Force and incorrect for Navy. 

[Raisuli]

On 1/7/2023 at 10:40 PM, Uxi said:

Should only be to do it realistically on the Forrestals since there's no bridle catcher on the existing Roosevelt sub-class Nimitz supercarrier (perhaps they would add older models tied to date on the current Supercarrier... though should also change the camo on the deck crew, etc too).  Perhaps we'll get official Supercarrier 70s versions of Nimitz & Ike. 

Enterprise is the carrier I want the most. Would be nice to see the Kitty Hawks, too. 

Even our current Forrestals have weapons and details that would be anachronistic though.  Could take off the CIWS and change the TF-30 on the fantail to a J79 maybe...

 

You don't need a bridle catcher to use bridles.  Last time I checked the French chuck 'em into the sea, which is exactly what the US did if there was no catcher on the front.

Far as I'm concerned once the carrier is aft it really doesn't matter if it's the CVN-65 or CV-6, nor do I care if I used a launch bar or a bridle to have enough airspeed to fly once the deck runs out.  It would be nice to have everything modeled but I won't live that long and from a cash flow perspective it's not really viable, so give me a Naval F-4 variant, tell me I have to use the 'hookup' command to simulate my simulated aircraft being attached to the simulated catapult on the simulated deck by the simulated crew, and send me on my simulated way!

Yeah, I know, immersion.  Immersion is good, but I'm not inclined to wait for the tens of thousands of person-hours needed to be immersed.  Carrier launches are a pretty small part of the mission, and if there's a wire strung across the deck landing is landing.  I'm not going to hang out in the EOS and care if there's one RPCP or two.  Or even none.  They tend not to model such things, anyway.

 

[Baco]

The VSN MOD now shows Bridles at launch on any carrier, so It can be done without the need of changing the carrier.  Its not perfect but its better than nothing.

I would Love an Intrepid or Enterprise tho.

I would even buy them as a separate module if needs be. 

 

P.S. any news if there would be a discount for those who own the E or if it will be a completely separate module?

Edited June 1, 2023 by Baco

[Stackup]

1 hour ago, Baco said:

P.S. any news if there would be a discount for those who own the E or if it will be a completely separate module?

 

Q: Will there be a Navy F-4?
A: Yes! Our Phantom journey only begins with the -E. However, owing to the complexity of the work and investment of time and effort, it will not be included in the DCS: F-4E product. We’re instead choosing to focus on providing the most content rich F-4E we possibly can, and then set our sights on further telling the legendary story of the F-4.

[Baco]

40 minutes ago, Stackup said:

 

Q: Will there be a Navy F-4?
A: Yes! Our Phantom journey only begins with the -E. However, owing to the complexity of the work and investment of time and effort, it will not be included in the DCS: F-4E product. We’re instead choosing to focus on providing the most content rich F-4E we possibly can, and then set our sights on further telling the legendary story of the F-4.

Yes, ok, let me rephrase the question: is it being considered if there will there be a discount to those who have the E or not?

I know its a different full module. But being as different as they are, Its stil a different variant of the same air frame, and I have friends that have no interest in a non carrier bird, but then again waiting for the naval version will take a few more years despite whatever Devs say ( They said release 2022), I believe the naval Phantom will be around on 2025 with some luck, so I´m trying to convince my friends to get the E in the mean time... 

Then by 2025 we will hopefully have an A-7 and maybe close to an F-8 release, as naval planes to compete with...

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Baco

[Vampyre]

2 hours ago, Baco said:

Yes, ok, let me rephrase the question: is it being considered if there will there be a discount to those who have the E or not?

I know its a different full module. But being as different as they are, Its stil a different variant of the same air frame, and I have friends that have no interest in a non carrier bird, but then again waiting for the naval version will take a few more years despite whatever Devs say ( They said release 2022), I believe the naval Phantom will be around on 2025 with some luck, so I´m trying to convince my friends to get the E in the mean time... 

Then by 2025 we will hopefully have an A-7 and maybe close to an F-8 release, as naval planes to compete with...

 

 

Do not expect a discount. If your friends only want a naval aircraft then your best chance to turn them around is to fly the E in their presence and that may sway a few of them. If not, then they are not real F-4 fans so that is a clear indication that you need better friends.

[Baco]

1 hour ago, Vampyre said:

Do not expect a discount. If your friends only want a naval aircraft then your best chance to turn them around is to fly the E in their presence and that may sway a few of them. If not, then they are not real F-4 fans so that is a clear indication that you need better friends.

TRUE! LOL... but nay, we are naval aviation fans first! the thing is, that the Rhino is the second best naval plane ever, after all...

[SkateZilla]

DCS Doesn't model bridle logistics, so it would just be down to animation sake.

Have the aircraft spawn the bridle and attach it, and then as soon as it's clear of the deck, have it despawn. Problem solved.
 

[diveplane]

On 2/3/2022 at 2:00 PM, WolfHound009 said:

ROLLS ROYCE SPEYS!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

was the rolls engine better?

[speed-of-heat]

24 minutes ago, diveplane said:

was the rolls engine better?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_Phantom_in_UK_service

Seems to have been...

Certainly at lower altitudes

 

[Bremspropeller]

The Spey had more thrusties and possibly more BLC flow-volume for increased lift. Not sure about the latter part, though.

[Kalasnkova74]

45 minutes ago, diveplane said:

was the rolls engine better?

A US Navy pilot who flew exchange with the RAF stated he preferred the J79s, as being a turbojet design it has faster throttle response than the turbofan Speys. A crucial capability for throttle adjustments around the boat.
 

Overall, short version is the UK fans will say yes, the Americans will say no, and the truth will be summed up by “it depends”

 

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Kalasnkova74

[WinOrLose]

On 6/2/2023 at 4:02 AM, Baco said:

TRUE! LOL... but nay, we are naval aviation fans first! the thing is, that the Rhino is the second best naval plane ever, after all...

I'm a navy fan as well, but you would learn the jet at a shore base before moving to the carrier so just "pretend" its a navy version during shore training. I'm sure someone will produce some navy skins.