Jump to content

[POLL] Which versions of Phantoms would the community be interested in after the F-4E?


jojyrocks

The choice of interest on the Phantoms after F-4E  

254 members have voted

  1. 1. The choice of interest on the Phantoms after F-4E

    • F-4B
      30
    • F-4J
      115
    • F-4D
      19
    • British Phantom FGR.2
      38
    • F-4S
      52

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 09/29/22 at 09:54 PM

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

Why there's no "C" ? Also multiple choices poll would be more adequate. I would vote for B,C,D,E,J,G 😄

Do you know that F-4E (Vietnam war type) wasn't able to reach Ma=2 ? Was slower than MiG-21 just like British variants... most powerful and slowest Phantoms 🙂

 

According to its TO from 1969 (well within the Vietnam War era), the F-4E could absolutely get faster than Mach 2, to include with 4x AIM-7s, 4x AIM-7 and 4x AIM-4D, 4x AIM-7 and a centerline tank, or a single B28 nuclear bomb on board at 35,000 ft - 45,000 ft.  Looking at the slatted version, it's slower, but it can still exceed Mach 2 with 4x AIM-7.  

  • Like 2

Rig: i9 10900KF @5.3GHz | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 3600MHz | ASUS ROG STRIX RTX 3090 24GB OC | ASUS Maximus XII Formula | 2x 2TB Intel SSD6 NVMe M.2 | VKB F-14CG on Gunfighter III Base | TM Warthog HOTAS | TM Rudder Pedals | HP Reverb G2

Hangar: FC3 | F-86F | F-4E [Pre-Ordered] | F-5E | F-14A/B | F-15E | F-16C | F/A-18C | Mirage 2000C | JF-17 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19P | MiG-21bis | AJS-37 | AV-8B | L39 | C-101 | A-10C/CII | Yak-52 | P-51D | P-47D | Fw 190 A-8/D-9 | Bf 109 | Spitfire | I-16 | UH-1 Huey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'ma be that guy and say from the wiki page I'd like the F-4L so we can have another jet that fires AIM-54s *SARCASM*. In reality I think a British F-4M would be an awesome addition to the game. Or if they want to make it slightly competitive in modern settings a Terminator or ICE just for funsies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2022 at 4:36 PM, Bulldog_1 said:

Can you support this statement?

F4 Phantom II vs MiG-21
USAF and VPAF in The Vietnam War

Peter Davies. 

 

About F4E (Vietnam)
"(...)In addition to a nose mounted gun, the aircraft had J79-GE-17C engines, uprated to 17900LBS maximum thrust. However like previous 79's the engines still emitted thick black smoke trail except of afterburner. These made the aircraft visible for up to 30 miles. Fixes were developed, but never implemented during the war. 
The new nose was adopted following the pitment of the lighter more compact AN/APQ-120 solid state radar and antenna which was heavily insulated against gunfire vibration. [...]RAT and wing folding mechanisms were removed (I quote, but kill me If I understand)

"Although, the slats and the extra weight of the gun and number 7 fuel tank reduced maximum speed to below Ma = 2 crews welcomed the new wing configuration, as it made the Phantom 2 almost spin proof."

[...] (and) Finally (in?) F-4J increased control effectiveness. " (It was also placed in chapter about F-4E)

"the F4 radar was very difficult to use in its standard mode. we had serious problems getting a radar lock on a maneuvering tgt., that then it allowed a missile to be launched. As a solution to our issues with the APQ-72, the radars in our jets were modified so that with a flick of a switch they could be slaved in azimuth and elevation to the nose of the aircraft, creating a narrow , forward pointing beam."
(Crews called it BORESIGHT mode)

"The B/C/D F4 radios were often criticized. In designing the AN/ARC-105KF radio, Collins radio corporation struggled with electromagnetic interference and placement of antennas, particularly in aircraft tail. During maneuvering flight the tail mounted antenna may be blocked by the airframe, interrupting transmissions. In the F4, rain leaking into the cockpit was channeled directly to the radio and access to it or its battery. "

Most statements comes from pilots quotations. The book itself I would say is a bit... Hurray - USA ?

With my best regards
Kermit


Edited by 303_Kermit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

 

"Although, the slats and the extra weight of the gun and number 7 fuel tank reduced maximum speed to below Ma = 2 crews welcomed the new wing configuration, as it made the Phantom 2 almost spin proof."

Yes, I've read this too. However, what was the configuration of the aircraft? Was it "clean" (no fuel tanks, weapons, ECM pod, etc..) and what was the altitude ASL.

Digital Storm Lynx: i9-10850k (5.2 GHz): 64GB RAM (3200 MHz): 2TB SSD M.2 Samsung 970 EVO: 2TB Samsung HD: GEFORCE 2080 TI: Thrust Master WartHog (modified): TM F-18C joystick: Saitek Rudder Pedals: HP Reverb PRO: Volair Sim Cockpit: Current Stable Version of DCS :thumbup:

IRL Retired Maintainer of the AT-38B: F-4E/G: F-15A/B/C/D: and McDonnell Douglas/Boeing Technical Advisor for the F-15C/D. I drive trains now. :yawn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the proper book to answer that question is only flight manual of P-4E (proper prod. series). There are usually a lot of such information. I'm sure Heatblure posses all the necessary info. I ordered also bill gunston's monography about F-4. I'll post as soon as I found something new. 

I'm not the only one crazy about F-4... Good to hear

With my best regards
Kermit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bulldog_1 said:

Yes, I've read this too. However, what was the configuration of the aircraft? Was it "clean" (no fuel tanks, weapons, ECM pod, etc..) and what was the altitude ASL.

As mentioned by Quid, the -1 performance manual indicates that the slatted F-4E with 4x AIM-7Es can technically pass Mach 2 - if just barely around 36,000'.

But technicalities this subtle aren't seen in practice especially since this was never really a configuration that was flown with. With all 8 missiles, or similar loadouts, the slatted F-4E would not pass Mach 2. It was obvious the previous version was faster, could fly higher and climbed better but that's the trade off for much better handling and turning capabilities. This explains why the quoted excerpt by Kermit states the less than Mach 2 performance.

It would be interesting to see a version without slats like an F-4J so we get two very different kinds of F-4 which we would fly very differently for BFM.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all might find this document interesting. That is if you like technical mumbo jumbo.

 

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AknGBxfV7V0qhMp4VI98Vjk5ZkDwNg?e=02aNwr

 

Digital Storm Lynx: i9-10850k (5.2 GHz): 64GB RAM (3200 MHz): 2TB SSD M.2 Samsung 970 EVO: 2TB Samsung HD: GEFORCE 2080 TI: Thrust Master WartHog (modified): TM F-18C joystick: Saitek Rudder Pedals: HP Reverb PRO: Volair Sim Cockpit: Current Stable Version of DCS :thumbup:

IRL Retired Maintainer of the AT-38B: F-4E/G: F-15A/B/C/D: and McDonnell Douglas/Boeing Technical Advisor for the F-15C/D. I drive trains now. :yawn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-4N is just an upgraded reworked B, and the F-4S is just an upgraded reworked J. They weren't new build aircraft.

MS Win7 Pro x64, Intel i7-6700K 4.0Ghz, Corsair RAM 16Gb,EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0, w/ Adjustable RGB LED Graphics Card 08G-P4-6286-KR, Creative Labs SB X-FI Titanium Fatal1ty Champ PCIe Sound Card, Corsair Neutron XTI 1TB SSD, TM Warthog Throttle & Stick, TM TPR Pedels, Oculus Rift VR Headset CV1, Klipsch Promedia 4.1 Speakers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how many variants of the Phantom II are Heatblur likely to develop? I think 2 on top of the E are feasible, a navy model and the Sprey powered Brit. I don't see any significant sales for Heatblur out of the rest. And a G might have OPSEC issues and it might simply be easier to allow these modules the ability to configure in the 'in game' load outs menu for WW mission sets. Let me Be clear I'm not against a G (or more/all Phantom II variants) being developed. Just don't see how Heatblur manages everyone's favorite variant on top of the A 6 development as well...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hace 1 hora, GUFA dijo:

So how many variants of the Phantom II are Heatblur likely to develop? I think 2 on top of the E are feasible, a navy model and the Sprey powered Brit. I don't see any significant sales for Heatblur out of the rest. And a G might have OPSEC issues and it might simply be easier to allow these modules the ability to configure in the 'in game' load outs menu for WW mission sets. Let me Be clear I'm not against a G (or more/all Phantom II variants) being developed. Just don't see how Heatblur manages everyone's favorite variant on top of the A 6 development as well...  

They have stated that they will give us two versions of the E model before they will develop a (two?) naval version (I guess the J version) The G version is it's own being and to my understanding a lot of it's systems are still classified. the G version is pretty nisje as well and I honestly don't think it would sell as well as the E model we are getting. It is a business decision at the end of it and giving us the E model was the best decisions both from a DCS community and money making perspective.  The E model represent the golden age of the phantom in general. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Heinlein said:

They have stated that they will give us two versions of the E model before they will develop a (two?) naval version

I Could see a Sprey (Brit) variant being pursued By Heatblur in the future. Question is will Heatblur do it? (British users would be up in arms if they didn't🥶).

 

35 minutes ago, Heinlein said:

The G version is it's own being and to my understanding a lot of it's systems are still classified.

Yeah OPSEC (Operational Security) concerns could keep a "Gee" off the table.

At the end of the day I am already getting the variant (E) I want, so what others want is not really my worry. But that doesn't mean I want them to miss out either😉

42 minutes ago, Heinlein said:

The E model represent the golden age of the phantom in general. 

100% on the money👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Yeah to me it seems strange after they spent 3+ years developing the forrestal. My main issue with this decision is that airport lights don't work in DCS. It's 2022 after all, even FSX/P3Dv4 had "working" airport lights. So until we get decent airport lights on our $50+ maps, I'll be holding off any purchases that require me to taxi or startup under those black hole generators. Something needs to be done, it's simply unacceptable at this point. And I'm not proud I paid extra for the "super" carrier to get working lights in a game in 2022.

Modules: AH-64D, Mi-24P, UH-1H, F-14, F-18C, CA, SC    Terrains: Sinai, Strait of Hormuz, Syria    -    Wishlist: Desert Storm map, 1950s Sinai, Navy Phantom, A-6, Mirage F1EQ, AH-64A, MiG-17/23/25/29, dynamic campaign, live/historical weather - Social credit score: -20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2022 at 8:01 PM, 303_Kermit said:

After I read Bill Gunston "F-4 Phantom" I want F-4B more than any other plane!

Original "B" would be great, it entered service in 1961, together with all other faster/higher generation of fighters like F-104, F-106 MiG-21, J-35, Mirage III.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2022 at 11:26 PM, 303_Kermit said:

Why there's no "C" ? Also multiple choices poll would be more adequate. I would vote for B,C,D,E,J,G 😄

Do you know that F-4E (Vietnam war type) wasn't able to reach Ma=2 ? Was slower than MiG-21 just like British variants... most powerful and slowest Phantoms 🙂

 

There's very little difference between the B model and the C, except the C has flight controls in the back.

MS Win7 Pro x64, Intel i7-6700K 4.0Ghz, Corsair RAM 16Gb,EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0, w/ Adjustable RGB LED Graphics Card 08G-P4-6286-KR, Creative Labs SB X-FI Titanium Fatal1ty Champ PCIe Sound Card, Corsair Neutron XTI 1TB SSD, TM Warthog Throttle & Stick, TM TPR Pedels, Oculus Rift VR Headset CV1, Klipsch Promedia 4.1 Speakers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mytai01 said:

There's very little difference between the B model and the C, except the C has flight controls in the back.

Different 8 (thicker and wider) tyres, stiff, thicker wings. Rear cockpit has side consoles (Navy has not). J79GE-8 vs GE-15 , AN/APQ-99 vs 100, also US Navy had a device that allowed them to bomb targets through cloud cover. It included TPQ-10 ground radar, ballistic computer, and reciver device onboard Phantom II / Intruder / "Hump" equipped Skyhawk E/F and later also A-7

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2022 at 5:37 AM, 303_Kermit said:

Different 8 (thicker and wider) tyres, stiff, thicker wings. Rear cockpit has side consoles (Navy has not). J79GE-8 vs GE-15 , AN/APQ-99 vs 100, also US Navy had a device that allowed them to bomb targets through cloud cover. It included TPQ-10 ground radar, ballistic computer, and reciver device onboard Phantom II / Intruder / "Hump" equipped Skyhawk E/F and later also A-7

not to mention the B was designed to be equipped with the AIM-9 and the C had been designed to be equipped with the AIM-4. The D had to be modified later to accept the AIM-9s at the behest of some influential USAF personalities. 

 

Makes me wonder though, since the F-104 was already being equipped with the AIM-9 before the USAF even adopted the F-4. But then you have to remember the budget wars and bureaucracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2022 at 6:37 AM, 303_Kermit said:

Different 8 (thicker and wider) tyres, stiff, thicker wings. Rear cockpit has side consoles (Navy has not). J79GE-8 vs GE-15 , AN/APQ-99 vs 100, also US Navy had a device that allowed them to bomb targets through cloud cover. It included TPQ-10 ground radar, ballistic computer, and reciver device onboard Phantom II / Intruder / "Hump" equipped Skyhawk E/F and later also A-7

wasn't the the TPQ10 an external radar  device used by the USMC for CAS? one that had to be setup on on the ground near a combat zone to guide phantoms to target? 

This seems like kind  system that was made quickly redundant since later in the same decade USAF phantoms had AN/ASQ91 weapons release computer, or Air to Surface radar modes that could be for computed delivery, without needing such a external system. Even more so when laser spot and track systems became a thing. 


Edited by Kev2go
  • Like 1

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2022 at 3:45 AM, Kev2go said:

wasn't the the TPQ10 an external radar  device used by the USMC for CAS? one that had to be setup on on the ground near a combat zone to guide phantoms to target? 

This seems like kind  system that was made quickly redundant since later in the same decade USAF phantoms had AN/ASQ91 weapons release computer, or Air to Surface radar modes that could be for computed delivery, without needing such a external system.

 


"The General Electric AN/TPQ-1O Course Directing Central was a light-weight, two-unit, helicopter transportable, ground based bombing system developed for use by the United States Marine Corps to provide highly accurate, day/night all weather close air support. This self-contained system was designed to guide an aircraft, equipped with the proper control equipment, to a release point for accurate all-weather delivery of ordnance and supplies to a preselected target. The AN/TPQ-10 and its operators were known as an ‘’Air Support Radar Team’’ (ASRT) and were employed by the Marine Air Support Squadrons within the Aviation Combat Element."
by Wikipedia (eng.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:


"The General Electric AN/TPQ-1O Course Directing Central was a light-weight, two-unit, helicopter transportable, ground based bombing system developed for use by the United States Marine Corps to provide highly accurate, day/night all weather close air support. This self-contained system was designed to guide an aircraft, equipped with the proper control equipment, to a release point for accurate all-weather delivery of ordnance and supplies to a preselected target. The AN/TPQ-10 and its operators were known as an ‘’Air Support Radar Team’’ (ASRT) and were employed by the Marine Air Support Squadrons within the Aviation Combat Element."
by Wikipedia (eng.)

 

🤨

 

sooo what i said basically. It needs to have an entire team actually setup a radar ( 2 piece unit) on the the ground to direct an with its beam to a given target. Which in practice when placed  going to require an encampment of its own to operate and protect said target  or placement an outright base for use in CAS to protect major bases against sieges ( IE like Khe Sanh)   and not something troops would be able carry with them do when patrolling in the  sticks considering this isnt remotely light weight or compact enough of a device to be carried on backpack like a radio or a laser designator. AS i understand it this  is effetely just a GCI like system but instead of A2A for A2G  purposes. 

 the F4B/N/J 1972 tacman air to ground operations section is predominantly centered around  manual bombing. the only "self contained" system that doesn't require presence of an externally operated system to be guided to a target like AN/TPQ 10 is the Conlabs system which is a computed Toss bombing system like Labs but for  lofting general pupose bombs instead of tactical nukes.  But even looking at late 1988 publications ( although not tacmans) Air to ground avionics didnt change in the remaining F4J/S  wheras Air force phantoms continued getting avionics upgrades, and additional weapons that would increase its "multirole" and strike potential, including precision or guided munitions. 

Compare this to varying Dash 34's of Phantoms and F4D/E's are much more air to ground capable than F4B/N/J/S. Especially the case with the later E's upgraded with DMAS and with a targeting pod and laser spot and track system. 

So for a service that runs ground attack the naval/usmc phantoms where less capable and less flexible for ground strike relative to Air force phantoms. But perhaps its because Navy had  attack jets A4/A6/A7 and thus felt no need to made thier phantoms proper multirole, and its original role as an interceptor was effectively made redundant once F14's came around. 

 

So the TLDR

is US navy phantoms ( at least F4J/S) are superior interceptors because those models have pulse doppler radars. wheras US air force phantoms lacked PD , but air force phantoms, even more so F4E were more flexible/ multirole and more effective for air to surface strike. 

So especially in the context of DCS even ignoring choice between land or carrier operations its clear which types of virtual pilots will prefer which version of a phantom depending on what they want to do

 


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

🤨

 

sooo what i said basically. It needs to have an entire team actually setup a radar ( 2 piece unit) on the the ground to direct an with its beam to a given target. Which in practice when placed  going to require an encampment of its own to operate and protect said target  or placement an outright base for use in CAS to protect major bases against sieges ( IE like Khe Sanh)   and not something troops would be able carry with them do when patrolling in the  sticks considering this isnt remotely light weight or compact enough of a device to be carried on backpack like a radio or a laser designator. AS i understand it this  is effetely just a GCI like system but instead of A2A for A2G  purposes. 

 the F4B/N/J 1972 tacman air to ground operations section is predominantly centered around  manual bombing. the only "self contained" system that doesn't require presence of an externally operated system to be guided to a target like AN/TPQ 10 is the Conlabs system which is a computed Toss bombing system like Labs but for  lofting general pupose bombs instead of tactical nukes.  But even looking at late 1988 publications ( although not tacmans) Air to ground avionics didnt change in the remaining F4J/S  wheras Air force phantoms continued getting avionics upgrades, and additional weapons that would increase its "multirole" and strike potential, including precision or guided munitions. 

Compare this to varying Dash 34's of Phantoms and F4D/E's are much more air to ground capable than F4B/N/J/S. Especially the case with the later E's upgraded with DMAS and with a targeting pod and laser spot and track system. 

So for a service that runs ground attack the naval/usmc phantoms where less capable and less flexible for ground strike relative to Air force phantoms. But perhaps its because Navy had  attack jets A4/A6/A7 and thus felt no need to made thier phantoms proper multirole, and its original role as an interceptor was effectively made redundant once F14's came around. 

 

So the TLDR

is US navy phantoms ( at least F4J/S) are superior interceptors because those models have pulse doppler radars. wheras US air force phantoms lacked PD , but air force phantoms, even more so F4E were more flexible/ multirole and more effective for air to surface strike. 

So especially in the context of DCS even ignoring choice between land or carrier operations its clear which types of virtual pilots will prefer which version of a phantom depending on what they want to do

 

 

One special thing that F-4D's used and then Rivet Haste F-4E's was Combat Tree, to IFF without the use of radar. I know the USN got them too but I wonder if they had them in time to use them while the US was in Vietnam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 10:00 PM, Kev2go said:

 

🤨

 

sooo what i said basically. It needs to have an entire team actually setup a radar ( 2 piece unit) on the the ground to direct an with its beam to a given target. Which in practice when placed  going to require an encampment of its own to operate and protect said target  or placement an outright base for use in CAS to protect major bases against sieges ( IE like Khe Sanh)   and not something troops would be able carry with them do when patrolling in the  sticks considering this isnt remotely light weight or compact enough of a device to be carried on backpack like a radio or a laser designator. AS i understand it this  is effetely just a GCI like system but instead of A2A for A2G  purposes. 

 the F4B/N/J 1972 tacman air to ground operations section is predominantly centered around  manual bombing. the only "self contained" system that doesn't require presence of an externally operated system to be guided to a target like AN/TPQ 10 is the Conlabs system which is a computed Toss bombing system like Labs but for  lofting general pupose bombs instead of tactical nukes.  But even looking at late 1988 publications ( although not tacmans) Air to ground avionics didnt change in the remaining F4J/S  wheras Air force phantoms continued getting avionics upgrades, and additional weapons that would increase its "multirole" and strike potential, including precision or guided munitions. 

Compare this to varying Dash 34's of Phantoms and F4D/E's are much more air to ground capable than F4B/N/J/S. Especially the case with the later E's upgraded with DMAS and with a targeting pod and laser spot and track system. 

So for a service that runs ground attack the naval/usmc phantoms where less capable and less flexible for ground strike relative to Air force phantoms. But perhaps its because Navy had  attack jets A4/A6/A7 and thus felt no need to made thier phantoms proper multirole, and its original role as an interceptor was effectively made redundant once F14's came around. 

 

So the TLDR

is US navy phantoms ( at least F4J/S) are superior interceptors because those models have pulse doppler radars. wheras US air force phantoms lacked PD , but air force phantoms, even more so F4E were more flexible/ multirole and more effective for air to surface strike. 

So especially in the context of DCS even ignoring choice between land or carrier operations its clear which types of virtual pilots will prefer which version of a phantom depending on what they want to do

 

 

Agree. Just to complement: TPQ System was extensively used in Vietnam , especially during rain season. It allowed to attack targets in north Vietnam in spite of heavy cloud cover.
F-4 having a Vulcan onboard had to sacrifice quite a lot of avionics. For a start Navy had bigger radar antenna, also IR sensor is not present in USAF planes (not that it's a big lost). As for Navy: F-4J was first fighter in the world with look down /shoot down capabilities 🙂 
There's more about it, but somehow I assume you know quite well about it.

My best regards
Kermit

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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