Jump to content

Will the modernized F-4E have the AIM-120?


S. Low

Recommended Posts

It didn't turn, though, which was, AFAIK, realized to be a problem by that time. A MiG-29 would run circles around the Phantom, particularly at high alpha. The Navy already had a fast jet - the F-14, which could do intercepts far better than the Phantom ever could. The F-14 can also carry bombs aplenty. They needed a nimble day fighter and a lightweight attacker, both of these roles were filled by the Hornet. In a way, the Hornet replaced the F-8 and A-7, not the F-4. An updated Phantom wasn't what they needed and likely wouldn't have sold except to foreign customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I don't necessarily disagree with culling older models for new, but let's not discount the Phantom. It's faster than a Hornet, any Hornet. It has more payload capacity than the Hornet. I'm not sure which comes out on top with number of stores carried but the F-4 can be a real bomb truck. The upgraded F-4 also would have had the Hornet's avionics as a baseline. The Phantom had some advantages.

The Phantom is faster during a MX check-flight. With actual stuff hanging from it, their difference in performance is a lot less. According to the design mission specs, the Hornet is quicker in terms of transonic acceleration.

Payload - that has been the debate with (well, against) the Hornet compared to the A-7. What hadn't been taken into account, is that the weapon-mass employed per mission has been going down since the dawn of guided weapons. In the mid 80s, nobody was going to fly around in a wall-to-wall Mk81 loadout. The bombing CEPs of both the Viper and Hornet were better than the Phantom's. In an upgraded F-4 with all the modern bells and whistles, one could argue against the WSO. Unless you want to employ the airplane as a less capable F-15E. Why train the WSO when you only get a marginal mission-improvement over the single-seater in terms of capability and effectiveness. Again, an F-15E would be the better option.

Hornets had better maintainability built into them. Partially due to it's digitized architecture and the employment of LRUs (Line Replaceable Units), but also in terms of accessability. The Phantom had no way of beating that. Neither as a newly built airplane, nor as a refurbished airframe.

1 minute ago, sparrow88 said:

Thats a <profanity>ty argument. Why bother making F4 at all if other modules "can do the same missions, just better".

Because the original flavour is not competing in terms of timeline and because they're offering a different experience - 60s/70s steamgauge romance, over cold and neon-lighted tv-screen madness.

  • Like 2

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

The Phantom is faster during a MX check-flight. With actual stuff hanging from it, their difference in performance is a lot less. According to the design mission specs, the Hornet is quicker in terms of transonic acceleration.

That is the existing Phantom though correct, not with the proposed upgraded engines that should have put it on par with 4th gen fighters.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Payload - that has been the debate with (well, against) the Hornet compared to the A-7. What hadn't been taken into account, is that the weapon-mass employed per mission has been going down since the dawn of guided weapons. In the mid 80s, nobody was going to fly around in a wall-to-wall Mk81 loadout. The bombing CEPs of both the Viper and Hornet were better than the Phantom's. In an upgraded F-4 with all the modern bells and whistles, one could argue against the WSO. Unless you want to employ the airplane as a less capable F-15E. Why train the WSO when you only get a marginal mission-improvement over the single-seater in terms of capability and effectiveness. Again, an F-15E would be the better option.

Payload isn't just about weapons. Fuel and electronics go into the mix. And while it's true that less has been dropped over time, capacity is still in demand. The Strike Eagle is a good example. And the Super Hornet comes close to some of the targets intended to be hit by Phantom upgrades. The Strike Eagle would be a better option indeed but not necessarily something everyone would want to or be able to buy. Phantom upgrades weren't intended to be sold to the US.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Hornets had better maintainability built into them. Partially due to it's digitized architecture and the employment of LRUs (Line Replaceable Units), but also in terms of accessability. The Phantom had no way of beating that. Neither as a newly built airplane, nor as a refurbished airframe.

The Hornet has it's own plusses for sure. As time goes on the reduced RCS is another thing that keeps it more relevant than the Phantom, which would never compete with the Super Hornet in this parameter. Still the point was it wasn't completely outclassed.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armed F-4 Phantom was losing relatively only small amount of speed compared to i.e. F-16 because Phantom carried AIM-7 Sparrows in non-universal semi-recessed fuselage pylons, without any external pylon and missiles were inside of fuselage air boundary layer. AIM-7 in F-4, F-14, F-15 or fuselage mounted on F/A-18, or even AIM-120 on EF2000, had relatively small drag index.


Edited by bies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Because the original flavour is not competing in terms of timeline and because they're offering a different experience - 60s/70s steamgauge romance, over cold and neon-lighted tv-screen madness.

Well, then people who say that want newer versions also want different experience - old non-fbw plane that is still useful in more modern settings in multiplayer, especially now when Tomcat's Phoenixes are so bad when compared to AMRAAMs


Edited by sparrow88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

That is the existing Phantom though correct, not with the proposed upgraded engines that should have put it on par with 4th gen fighters.

The PW1120 has about comparable TSFC (albeit more thrust) to the F404 and it's larger. It would be interesting as to how much the performance gap (loiter time, range, etc) would have closed vs. the Hornet. Which gap certainly hasn't closed is the slow speed, high AoA advantage of the Hornet.

Then there's the whole "they finally gave me a window to look out" issue with the 4th gen aircraft vs. the F-4.

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

Payload isn't just about weapons. Fuel and electronics go into the mix. And while it's true that less has been dropped over time, capacity is still in demand. The Strike Eagle is a good example. And the Super Hornet comes close to some of the targets intended to be hit by Phantom upgrades. The Strike Eagle would be a better option indeed but not necessarily something everyone would want to or be able to buy. Phantom upgrades weren't intended to be sold to the US.

Fuel and avionics/ electronics (unless counting a TGP/ ECM, the latter being internal on the Bug) isn't payload. It's fuel and avionics. In theory the Phantom could strap on more external gas, but you'd also suffer in terms of weapons quantity available in that configuration.

Just finished "Hornets over Kuwait" and they have been dropping five MK83s regularily in DS. Bringing 12 MK82s is only necessary when you can't hit your target reliably in the first place. Accuracy trumps explosive volume. Even the Strike Eagle normally only carries a relatively light load, compared to it's nominal maximum capacity.

Mind you, the F-4's wing isn't optimized for carrying a lot of stuff around. Few fighters are. Unless the Super Phantom mod incorporated a lot of flight-control re-rigging (e.g. autoflaps to increase wing cruise-efficiency at AoA) you'd be better off with a wing-design similar to the F-18 (or a Viper if it had more wing-area and possibly a better aspect ratio).

Other problems with the upgrade would have been second-hand buying of an airplane with engines that haven't been incorporated by the US and all the associated issues (MX personnel training, MX facilities, parts supply, etc).

I think the modernized F-4s had some worth vs. buying new aircraft. But if you had the cash, there was little benefit in buying a refurbished, old airplane, approaching it's end of life.

 

4 minutes ago, sparrow88 said:

Well, then people who say that want newer versions also want different experience - old non-fbw plane that is still useful in more modern settings in multiplayer.

I think the set of people looking for that experience is rather small, but HB will probably do some research and decide whether it's worth their time or not.

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I don't necessarily disagree with culling older models for new, but let's not discount the Phantom. It's faster than a Hornet, any Hornet. It has more payload capacity than the Hornet. I'm not sure which comes out on top with number of stores carried but the F-4 can be a real bomb truck. The upgraded F-4 also would have had the Hornet's avionics as a baseline. The Phantom had some advantages.

The Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) offered to upgrade Phantoms of foreign nations to Super Phantoms. These would benefit from the engines and advanced Israeli avionics & radar intended for the cancelled Lavi fighter. They even had a flying demostrator with the PW1120 engines installed that had power/weight>1 (see vid below).

The US government made it perfectly clear that they would not allow any project that will hurt F-16 and F-18 sales, and closed this project too (shortly after the Lavi).

https://youtu.be/aePzMZbImNU

 


 


Edited by Bozon

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't get the fixation some people have on the terminator and K version. They want a 3rd gen fighter that's been upgraded to the level of a 4th gen fighter avionics and that only a few countries use because they can't afford to buy newer planes and only exists in a few dosen numbers. It's like buying a classic Ford Mustang and then proceed to rip out the engine, breaks, steering, seats and instruments and replace it with new and modern making it a modern car. Why not just buy a new car instead of ruining an old one? The F-4 is a 3rd gen fighter that ruled the skies from the mid 60's to the early 80's and is a top of the line fighter for that era. And lets not forget that the E model was the most produced and most exported version that saw most combat so it only makes sense to deliver that version to us.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Heinlein said:

I honestly don't get the fixation some people have on the terminator and K version.

More planes.

15 minutes ago, Heinlein said:

 

They want a 3rd gen fighter that's been upgraded to the level of a 4th gen fighter avionics and that only a few countries use because they can't afford to buy newer planes and only exists in a few dosen numbers.

Why do numbers matter? No matter how few there are, they're every bit as real as any other version. Similarly the fact that they're consolation prizes for nations that couldn't get true 4th gen fighters is not a negative. Better planes don't make their predecessors obsolete in DCS. They're all fun.

15 minutes ago, Heinlein said:

 

It's like buying a classic Ford Mustang and then proceed to rip out the engine, breaks, steering, seats and instruments and replace it with new and modern making it a modern car. Why not just buy a new car instead of ruining an old one?

Because they're not the same.

15 minutes ago, Heinlein said:

 

The F-4 is a 3rd gen fighter that ruled the skies from the mid 60's to the early 80's and is a top of the line fighter for that era. And lets not forget that the E model was the most produced and most exported version that saw most combat so it only makes sense to deliver that version to us.  

Then let's get the old model and the new model and have more choices for everyone.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

More planes.

You don't magically get more planes. Developers and other resources are finite and therefore the number of planes that can be made in DCS is limited. Just look at how long HB took to release the F-14A.

By asking for a modernized Phantom in top of the already announced 80s ones you are asking to delay the A-6, or the Navy Phantoms, or the Typhoon, or the Iranian Tomcats, or whatever else HB might do eventually. You would end up with less variety, not more.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

By asking for a modernized Phantom in top of the already announced 80s ones you are asking to delay the A-6, or the Navy Phantoms, or the Typhoon, or the Iranian Tomcats, or whatever else HB might do eventually. You would end up with less variety, not more.

No I am not because I'm not demanding that anything be put aside for the sake of anything else. HB is free to prioritize however they like. They don't even have to be the developers to make a modernized F-4.

  • Like 2

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But somebody *has* to put stuff aside to make a modernized F-4. Whether that's HB or some other 3rd party that may not even be in DCS yet, they would have to make a choice between a modernized F-4 and some other module, which obviously includes aircraft that aren't anywhere near DCS yet.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

But somebody *has* to put stuff aside to make a modernized F-4. Whether that's HB or some other 3rd party that may not even be in DCS yet, they would have to make a choice between a modernized F-4 and some other module, which obviously includes aircraft that aren't anywhere near DCS yet.

If HB has modules A, B, C planned, the modern F-4 can go to the end, safely preventing the delay of anything. If it's a new developer that's going to be making the module and they wanted to make a modern F-4 in the first place or have info on it already, well it would make a lot of sense for them to pursue that module over something else and we lose nothing. And even if we encounter what I guess you might call the worst case where a modern F-4 replaces something more "unique" well, I don't see the big deal. It's not like having somewhat similar modules will degrade the quality of the simulation. They're also no so similar as to be redundant either.

Asking for plane has zero cost, opportunity or otherwise. It just shows that there is demand for it. Now if we want to get into trying to schedule releases and ranking planes by priority, then what you're saying might apply. That doesn't leave you with much to worry about though since it's typically the devs that have the final say.

  • Like 1

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Heinlein said:

 It's like buying a classic Ford Mustang and then proceed to rip out the engine, breaks, steering, seats and instruments and replace it with new and modern making it a modern car. Why not just buy a new car instead of ruining an old one?

I think that is a pretty bad example. There is a massive enthusiast market for people that prefer older cars but want the benefits of technological improvements (and in many cases the benefit of hindsight on some manufacturing decision choices!). They simply don't want a new one and will spend countless hours tinkering with their old one.

What people want to spend their time and money on is their choice. Whether that creates a sufficient market to make it a worthwhile venture for a company is determined by what people are prepared to pay and how many.

  • Like 2

AMD 5800X3D · MSI 4080 · Asus ROG Strix B550 Gaming  · HP Reverb Pro · 1Tb M.2 NVMe, 32Gb Corsair Vengence 3600MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · VIRPIL T-50CM3 Base, Alpha Prime R. VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Base. JetSeat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 10:15 AM, Heinlein said:

I honestly don't get the fixation some people have on the terminator and K version. They want a 3rd gen fighter that's been upgraded to the level of a 4th gen fighter avionics and that only a few countries use because they can't afford to buy newer planes and only exists in a few dosen numbers. It's like buying a classic Ford Mustang and then proceed to rip out the engine, breaks, steering, seats and instruments and replace it with new and modern making it a modern car. Why not just buy a new car instead of ruining an old one? The F-4 is a 3rd gen fighter that ruled the skies from the mid 60's to the early 80's and is a top of the line fighter for that era. And lets not forget that the E model was the most produced and most exported version that saw most combat so it only makes sense to deliver that version to us.  

People buy an old 737-200 and then fitted with garmin GTN  instead if buying 737-800 on the civilian sim. So there are market for it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 5:15 AM, Heinlein said:

I honestly don't get the fixation some people have on the terminator and K version. They want a 3rd gen fighter that's been upgraded to the level of a 4th gen fighter avionics and that only a few countries use because they can't afford to buy newer planes and only exists in a few dosen numbers. It's like buying a classic Ford Mustang and then proceed to rip out the engine, breaks, steering, seats and instruments and replace it with new and modern making it a modern car. Why not just buy a new car instead of ruining an old one? The F-4 is a 3rd gen fighter that ruled the skies from the mid 60's to the early 80's and is a top of the line fighter for that era. And lets not forget that the E model was the most produced and most exported version that saw most combat so it only makes sense to deliver that version to us.  

For me the reason is simple - I love old jets, but people I fly with want the newest ones. Having old jet with newest weapons will allow me to still fly missions with them without compromising anything.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, sparrow88 said:

For me the reason is simple - I love old jets, but people I fly with want the newest ones. Having old jet with newest weapons will allow me to still fly missions with them without compromising anything.

Same with me. My friend with whom I'm playing mostly flies the bug while I prefer the cat for her more simplistic controls and the speed-is-life approach. Those two do well with each other since the pheonix is also a (fox 3?) weapon, which you can fire and then basically turn around and take a run (given you're within 30 seconds tti). But from what I heard the Phantom doesn't have anything similar to spamraams which isn't a big deal but it would make things easier for beginning since breaking up the last second really is something you should do once you're familiar with the plane.

But no matter what I'll fly the Phantom with or without hyper modern weaponry.

(Note my english may be quite imperfect or strange due to the fact that I'm not native)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JayTSX said:

Same with me. My friend with whom I'm playing mostly flies the bug while I prefer the cat for her more simplistic controls and the speed-is-life approach. Those two do well with each other since the pheonix is also a (fox 3?) weapon, which you can fire and then basically turn around and take a run (given you're within 30 seconds tti). But from what I heard the Phantom doesn't have anything similar to spamraams which isn't a big deal but it would make things easier for beginning since breaking up the last second really is something you should do once you're familiar with the plane.

But no matter what I'll fly the Phantom with or without hyper modern weaponry.

(Note my english may be quite imperfect or strange due to the fact that I'm not native)

Your grasp of English is very good. The F-4 does just fine with the tools she was equipped with (AIM-4 notwithstanding). Cunning and guile from the crew made up for any perceived shortcomings, and raw brute force.

  • 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

The reason why we would like to have a modernized F-4 is because that's reality. Countries that already had Phantoms in their arsenal decided it was wise and financially preferable to upgrade them than to just throw them away or retire them. The United States had the financial ability to get F-15s and F-14s to replace the old Phantoms but that was not feasible for the other countries. That's why quite a few of them flew them until very recently and still fly them. The ability to fly upgraded Phantoms would just give us more options to create realistic scenarios without the need to create a whole new plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, G.J.S said:

Your grasp of English is very good. The F-4 does just fine with the tools she was equipped with (AIM-4 notwithstanding). Cunning and guile from the crew made up for any perceived shortcomings, and raw brute force.

Oh thanks 😃

I totally agree, that you don't need all those modern stuff to kick ass ^^

8 minutes ago, Lieuie said:

The reason why we would like to have a modernized F-4 is because that's reality. Countries that already had Phantoms in their arsenal decided it was wise and financially preferable to upgrade them than to just throw them away or retire them. The United States had the financial ability to get F-15s and F-14s to replace the old Phantoms but that was not feasible for the other countries. That's why quite a few of them flew them until very recently and still fly them. The ability to fly upgraded Phantoms would just give us more options to create realistic scenarios without the need to create a whole new plane.

As a german I can understand this. Basically all I heard of the german Phantoms was that every pilot loved them for their usability as it's with most older tech you tell it to do something and it will try to do it (with not preferable outcomes that may be). Btw some countries also decided that they don't want planes that can only really do fighting (yes F-15 can do other stuff but that's what everyone knows them for) and therefore either choose new multirole platforms i.e. Eurofighter or similar or stuck to what worked and improved those.

Also germany didn't necessarily had the money to buy all new jets since it had to equip east-germany with something better than mig-21 which were quite common...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lieuie said:

The ability to fly upgraded Phantoms would just give us more options to create realistic scenarios without the need to create a whole new plane.

I have to disagree here and I understand that this thread has now become a seesaw lol.

It is a whole new plane - different cockpit, different avionics, weapons. That's research, time, and lots and lots and lots and lots of money. For something that does not have the same appeal to a mass audience as a USAF or Navy variant.

I understand the appeal of a modernized variant, but it's a rabbit hole that can best be serviced by excellent mod teams. 

For example, why does the F-16 SUFA mod exist? For the same reason folks here want modernized Greek/Turkish/Japanese/etc Phantoms - because your country flies it, or you just think it's cool, etc. But ED would never make an F-16 Sufa module, because it wouldn't sell as much as a USAF F-16. And ED won't likely ever make an F-16 Sufa, because why would they spend development dollars on something like that when they could make another bespoke airframe and generate revenue that way. Same goes here.

No, the current break down makes the most sense - F-4E, F-4E DMAS, and later possibly a J/S. 

  • Like 5

https://youtube.com/@thesimnet                                    questions@thesimnet.com 

image.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, _BringTheReign_ said:

I have to disagree here and I understand that this thread has now become a seesaw lol.

It is a whole new plane - different cockpit, different avionics, weapons. That's research, time, and lots and lots and lots and lots of money. For something that does not have the same appeal to a mass audience as a USAF or Navy variant.

I understand the appeal of a modernized variant, but it's a rabbit hole that can best be serviced by excellent mod teams. 

For example, why does the F-16 SUFA mod exist? For the same reason folks here want modernized Greek/Turkish/Japanese/etc Phantoms - because your country flies it, or you just think it's cool, etc. But ED would never make an F-16 Sufa module, because it wouldn't sell as much as a USAF F-16. And ED won't likely ever make an F-16 Sufa, because why would they spend development dollars on something like that when they could make another bespoke airframe and generate revenue that way. Same goes here.

No, the current break down makes the most sense - F-4E, F-4E DMAS, and later possibly a J/S. 

and to add to that, a modernized version of the F-4 is essentially just a poor mans F-15. some people here say they want a modernized phantom because they like flying old jets but they want the capabilities of new jets. For me it seems like the only appeal the F-4 has to them is aesthetics not the tech and all the wizbang underneath the panels. Thats fine, but for me at least the love of old cars and aircraft goes deeper then just the surface. If you modernize a vehicle, there comes a point where it stops being that old thing and became a totally different thing.

So all in all i am glad that Heatblur focuses on the version that made the most impact in aviation history. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, _BringTheReign_ said:

For example, why does the F-16 SUFA mod exist? For the same reason folks here want modernized Greek/Turkish/Japanese/etc Phantoms - because your country flies it, or you just think it's cool, etc. But ED would never make an F-16 Sufa module, because it wouldn't sell as much as a USAF F-16. And ED won't likely ever make an F-16 Sufa, because why would they spend development dollars on something like that when they could make another bespoke airframe and generate revenue that way. Same goes here.

 

IMO we are almost reaching the limit on the type of modern aircraft they can make and most of the well known 3rd gen aircraft are already taken by 3rd party dev so sooner or later they have to go for add on Variants(even Razbam are going to do this with their Harrier and M2000).

 

Regarding to SUFA i think it would sell well if they sell as an add on type DLC instead of seperate module simply because, it's a 2 seat F-16, more weapons(having 360 python missile would be fun), it can fill a stand in role for Turkish, Greece, UAE F-16. 

Now Mr.Finke from truegrit was an F-4F ICE pilot that can Carried amraam before he fly the typhoon. So if its going for amraam F-4 its going to be that and i would believe it would sell well and i would love it too

 

However with that being said, if we take a step back and look at HB development, we still have yet to get AI draken, AI A-6 which was already teased, and 2 tomcats variant on top of the typhoon they are making. So i doubt we'll be seeing any other variant other than E and navy one


Edited by ustio
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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