F4-B Naval

[Mizzy]

Has work started on this variant by HB? It's my favourite variant and one of my all time favoutites.

Mizzy

[Nexus-6]

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.

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by Nexus-6

[Uxi]

F-4B is awfully early.  Are there any date comparable Redfor planes?  I'm hoping for F-4N if not F-4S to better fit with everything else. 

Edited February 5, 2022 by Uxi

[upyr1]

47 minutes ago, Uxi said:

F-4B is awfully early.  Are there any date comparable Redfor planes?  I'm hoping for F-4N if not F-4S to better fit with everything else. 

 

Yes, the MiG-19 is about 4 or 5 years younger than the F-4. 

[WinterH]

I predict when naval Phantoms come, they will more likely be J and/or S. They are more in line with coming F-4Es, as well as existing and upcoming aircraft to rival/complement them.

[Bremspropeller]

There is no "F-4B" really, as it got modded over the years and stayed pretty close to the J in terms of capability. Minus the AWG-10, which initially had reliability issues. In reality, a contemporary F-4B even had more capability than a J with a system that went "down" after launch. The N then standardized a new baseline status, called Project Beeline, and brought over 200 Bs to the same upgrade-level. The N at least had SEAM and VTAS in some airframes. Seems like they also had Datalink and IFF.

Here's an early B:

Note the bag on the RIO's canopy. He could pull that curtain fwd to darken his cockpit. Note, no bullet-fairing on the trailing edge of the upper vertical stab. An early B allows you to lob as Sparrow into the face of a MiG-19 (or early MiG-21) at tem miles. You won't know if the other guy is actually hostile, though.

Two earlier and later VMFA-115 F-4Bs next to each other. The B in the background has the Project Shoehorn RHAW mods in place (antenna on the vertical stab). Note the bullet-fairing on the trailing edge of the upper vertical stab on the leading aircraft. You'll see antenna-differences on the upper fuselage between the VF-102 bird and the two VMFA-115 birds.

It's hard to tell whether the RHAW antenna on the IRST-bulge in in place - it would look like the one on the VF-154 picture below. Also note the drooping ailerons and the inner LE-droop being uplocked. It's almost guaranteed this airframe also has the slatted stabilizer. All three airframe-mods were "officially" introduced with the J.

Here's the N for comparison:

Note the ECM antennae on the intake and the lack of the RHAW gear on the IRST blister. Antenna config on the upper fuselage is different, again.

It's really better to not see the B and N as discrete, different versions, but just as an evolutionary difference. Itwas a Service Life Extension Programme, after all. The differences between a late B and the N weren't that dramatic* as it might seem at first glance. Bs were in active service with the Navy up until 1974 and until 1979 with the Marines.

___

* I'll have to dig deeper whether the Datalink and IFF only became availabe with the N, or if indeed late Bs also had those. Same with SEAM.

[SgtPappy]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

* I'll have to dig deeper whether the Datalink and IFF only became available with the N, or if indeed late Bs also had those. Same with SEAM.

Do you know if those AWG-10 reliability issues were addressed early enough to have helped during the time the US was in the Vietnam War?

Also I found that in the F-4J 1973 SAC pdf, the AN/ASW-25A datalink is listed as one of the systems equipping the F-4Js with BuNos 153071, 153851 and 155529 and up. Hopefully that helps.

[Bremspropeller]

48 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

Do you know if those AWG-10 reliability issues were addressed early enough to have helped during the time the US was in the Vietnam War?

That's really hard to tell. I'm taking it mostly from anecdotal evidence during several occasions and since it comes up with some regularily (and retrospectively*), it seems to have been more than just a minor inconvenience. That doesn't mean it didn't work at all. If you think about it, the op-temp was really high and there were several other MX and quality control issues (e.g. Sparrow motors not firing, electronic lines cut and never re-spliced during Project Shoehorn**) going on at the time which also hampered other aircraft. The A-6A's DIANE comes to mind. Original Space Age tech doesn't mix well with repeated cat-shots, traps, high humidity, salt-water environment and at least partially conscripted handlers.

Then there's the issue of squadrons exchanging aircraft pre- and post-cruise to make up for attrition. I've read once that a squadron got ex Marines aircraft that had substantial re-wiring performed and that had to be partially undone. Can't remember whether that had been F-4s or another type, though. Might have been VF-51's F-4Bs. VMFA-333's John Cummings (MiG Killer, RIO) mentions in Gray Ghosts that the AWG-10 took a lot of maintenance care and effort to work well, because it was at the very frontier of what was possible at the time. He also mentions of one lost opportunity for a kill, because the radar quit on him. That's in 1972. So I guess this partially answers your question.

Since they went through three different systems (AWG-10 , -10A and -10B), I think there were incremental improvements post-war. Seems like the 10B wouldn't quit and stay up very reliably. The system probably profited greatly from the AWG-9's development.

___

* in the senso of "the AWG-10B was great because it would actually work and stay up" when discussing the late J and S models

** at least one A-4 and one F-8 guns-kill opportunity were wasted because of dead guns that didn't work because of cut or de-connected wiring, Sparrow motors not firing was another quality-control hiccup that jinxed several kill-opportunities

Edited February 6, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[divinee]

4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I've read once that a squadron got ex Marines aircraft that had substantial re-wiring performed and that had to be partially undone.

I just happened to read that same thing few days ago. They had sidewinder tone coming from the radio because of some USMC stuff and when they tried to talk to radio, only sidewinder tone was transmitted. I read it from ”Tonkin Gulf yacht club” but i don’t remember the unit. 

[Hollister56]

This post is over 2 years old, any updates on a B or J Navy version?

2025?

[LanceCriminal86]

No

[Kalasnkova74]

3 hours ago, Hollister56 said:

This post is over 2 years old, any updates on a B or J Navy version?

2025?

HB hasn’t said, but I earnestly hope they don’t pick the -B and opt for the -J. To understand why, fly the F-4E with AIM-9Bs / AIM-7Es….and then turn off the slats. 
 

Most players won’t enjoy paying money for that experience. 

[Hollister56]

I agree, the J Model would be the best choice.  I really enjoy carrier ops in their F14 and for sure their F4J will be a great addition to the fleet.

Hope it happens sooner than later.  HB is in a class all to itself, moves the goal post with every release.

On a side note, it would be totally cool if ED added video capture of every landing on the SC, just like in real life carrier ops and have it automatically saved some where for future viewing.

[Karon]

3 hours ago, Hollister56 said:

On a side note, it would be totally cool if ED added video capture of every landing on the SC, just like in real life carrier ops and have it automatically saved some where for future viewing.

No one sells sell 10PB NVMes yet

[Biggus]

Agree that a J makes the most sense, and an S would probably be a good second choice for a naval Phantom.  A module with a J from roughly the same time frame as our current E, and then perhaps a Super J or a pre-slats S would be a dream come true.  I doubt we'd get both a J and a slatted S due to the flight model changes, but I can dream!

[MAXsenna]

No one sells sell 10PB NVMes yet

NAS' are "cheap"?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Omega417]

F-4S not J. I would love to say F-4 B/N but we already have a working mod for B/C so thats good enough for me.

[Kurnass1977]

23 ore fa, Kalasnkova74 ha scritto:

HB hasn’t said, but I earnestly hope they don’t pick the -B and opt for the -J. To understand why, fly the F-4E with AIM-9Bs / AIM-7Es….and then turn off the slats. 
 

Most players won’t enjoy paying money for that experience. 

True for an early B, but this is true for ANY planes using these early missiles.

During Linebacker, the Bravo pratically equally the Juliet in AA enviroment thanks to Top Gun first and more reliable missiles in form of the improved Aim-9G. But already in Rolling Thunder the Aim-9D improved the killing probability for the F-4B crews ( and the Israeli ones).

Obviously the AWG-10 of the F-4J performed, in ideal conditions and especially when matured, way better of the F-4B APQ-72. During the first Viet Cruise the reliabity of the radar was so-so and the maintainers worked really hard to be able to offer operable rdars to the pilots ( the first example delivered to the RAG were equipped with ballast in the nose in place of the AWG-10 as the radar problems were worked out),Also the new engine offered extra thrust in a dogfight; in few words the Juliet was a general better machine in these an other aspect, so maybe better suited for DCS and with the MiG-21 and -19 as direct opponents

I will buy indefferentely the B or the J

[bies]

When it comes to "B" it's worth to remember F-4B entered service in 1960, like MiG-21, Mirage III, Draken, F-104, F-106, way before Vietnam.

F-4B already performed combat flights during 1962 Cuban Missile Crysis on board the USS Independence and the USS Enterprise, escorting reconissance F-8 Crusaders. It was cutting edge interceptor those times, with exceptional performance, weapons and avionics.

 

Edited September 11, 2024 by bies

[Kalasnkova74]

3 hours ago, Kurnass1977 said:

True for an early B, but this is true for ANY planes using these early missiles.

Which is why the J makes the most sense, to me personally. The -B isn’t a sitting duck, but the J features the same technology reach as the published -E variants.
 

An F-4B disqualifies Naval fans from using their aircraft competitively in late 70s / early 80s scenarios. A -J can be kitted out for Rolling Thunder by just equipping the early missiles, or loaded up with later all aspect Sidewinders and better Sparrows for post-Vietnam scenarios. 

[Kurnass1977]

Il 11/9/2024 at 23:30, Kalasnkova74 ha scritto:

Which is why the J makes the most sense, to me personally. The -B isn’t a sitting duck, but the J features the same technology reach as the published -E variants.
 

An F-4B disqualifies Naval fans from using their aircraft competitively in late 70s / early 80s scenarios. A -J can be kitted out for Rolling Thunder by just equipping the early missiles, or loaded up with later all aspect Sidewinders and better Sparrows for post-Vietnam scenarios. 

True!

Personally I'll courious to try to dogfight using energy preservation, go vertical,etc...to experience what the Naval Aviators feel fighting with the Bravo against "inferior" enemy, but foe DCS the Juliet make more sense, as you stated!

[Kurnass1977]

Il 11/9/2024 at 21:33, bies ha scritto:

When it comes to "B" it's worth to remember F-4B entered service in 1960, like MiG-21, Mirage III, Draken, F-104, F-106, way before Vietnam.

F-4B already performed combat flights during 1962 Cuban Missile Crysis on board the USS Independence and the USS Enterprise, escorting reconissance F-8 Crusaders. It was cutting edge interceptor those times, with exceptional performance, weapons and avionics.

 

 

Yup, and the Marines out of Key West

[bies]

On 9/11/2024 at 11:30 PM, Kalasnkova74 said:

Which is why the J makes the most sense, to me personally. The -B isn’t a sitting duck, but the J features the same technology reach as the published -E variants.
 

An F-4B disqualifies Naval fans from using their aircraft competitively in late 70s / early 80s scenarios. A -J can be kitted out for Rolling Thunder by just equipping the early missiles, or loaded up with later all aspect Sidewinders and better Sparrows for post-Vietnam scenarios. 

True, we maight have more 1970s modules in DCS right now; MiG-21bis, F-4E, F-5E, Mirage F.1, later Kfir.

But 1950s/60s have their own taste, when often fantastic performance collide frontally with absolutely rudimentary weapons, flight controls, sensors and avionics. Like coming F-100, F-104, A-1, MiG-17, MiG-19, G.91 etc. and everyone tried to attach a nuke to everything. Even to the infantry granade launchers, the land mines, the aircraft engines, the spacecraft.

[Skyspin]

Still it would be great if we could get an update on progress, "albeit any" on the Naval version of the F-4, whatever version from Heatblur.

Sincerely,

Skyspin

[Zabuzard]

Still it would be great if we could get an update on progress, "albeit any" on the Naval version of the F-4, whatever version from Heatblur.
Sincerely,
Skyspin

The Naval variant is quite far out still and there is also the DMAS upgrade to the E that we will focus on first, in terms of Phantom development.