Will there be a f-4e terminator (2020) variant?

[Mini.Adam]

f-4e terminator (2020) is a modern version of the f-4 today and it is still in service until 2030. 

Information about the systems on wikipedia:

The most radical changes occurred in the avionics department. All 2020s have been fitted with vastly updated suite, including MFDs (multifunction displays) as standard, and incorporating a number of new technologies, such as the new Kaiser El-OP 976 wide-angle HUD and HOTAS system, high performance Elta EL/M-2032 ISAR-capable high-resolution SAR/GMTI (ground moving target indicator) multi-mode fire control radar (developed for the IAI Lavi), IAIC mission computer, new navigation equipment including GPS/INS connected to mapping mode, dual MIL-STD-1553B databus managing avionics package, Astronautics Central Air Data Computer, new UHF and IFF packages, airborne video tape recorder (AVTR), Elta EL/L-8222 active ECM pod, Mikes (Aselsan) AN/ALQ-178V3 passive embedded SPEWS, and RWR. Additionally, they received AGM-142 Popeye/Have Nap integration, Litening-II targeting pods, and the capability to launch AGM-65D/G Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, GBU-8 HOBOS, GBU-10/12 Paveway II LGBs, general purpose and cluster bombs for air-to-ground missions, while retaining the capability to launch AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. It is also possible to install Pave Spike targeting pods and rocket pods of all sizes.These upgraded F-4 Phantoms are referred to as the F-4E-2020 Terminator. 54 were modernized and 30+ of them will be in service until at least 2030. They first entered service on 27 January 2000 with deliveries to 111 and 171 Filo.

My opinion is that other than cold war operations, it would be fun to do modern operations! 

PHOTOS: 

Turkey using the new version of the f-4, and the new cockpit

[Spurts]

If extensive documentation on the internal systems and SME access cannot be obtained, then HB will not make the module.

[Heinlein]

no

[Mini.Adam]

6 minutes ago, Spurts said:

If extensive documentation on the internal systems and SME access cannot be obtained, then HB will not make the module.

good point.

[Lt_Jaeger]

In my opinion - hopefully not. DCS has already enough diddle diddle planes, let's stick with the old school stuff. 

 

The livery on the other hand - mucho gusto 

[Omega417]

I think it would be a good contender for the 3rd Phantom they talked about making. First one is -E second one is unknown, most likely a USN/USMC variant in a few years and the final one could be something like the terminator. I think a modern Phantom would be awesome.

[JayTSX]

Imo it would be interesting to have a slightly modernized F-4 (just saying no intent to summon another discussion as seen in the amraam thread) but as it already has been noted: without enough material it's more suited for a community mod. Also you may noticed that even if  there's enough material (german Phantoms aren't as classified as others) guys around here tend to have quite the strong opinion on everything that's more digital than your average calculator (no offense =P

[RevampedGrunt]

I think the third option would be one of the C/B/D variants, or maybe a couple of them. The second one most likely being a newer naval variant,  like the J or S would cover some of the more modern stuff that may have more obtainable information. I'd like to see an E variant without the leading edge slats for a different feeling when flying, it'd be interesting to dogfight both E variants to see just how different it was, along with getting more nations that could use the Phantom.

[sparrow88]

I dont think we will get one, although I would love to have one.

[WinterH]

Heatblur so far says we're getting a pre-DMAS and post-DMAS F-4E each, and then most likely naval variant(s), and they don't seem inclined to do any of these late upgrades.

While I wouldn't mind these sorts of things for the sake of curiosity, I'd even say I'd enjoy the idea of doing new-fangled things in old-school stuff, I too think I'd much, much rather see more significant variants first, and these über-upgraded birds like Kurnass, Terminator, AUP, ICE, EJ-Kai etc are both harder to find proper documentation and SMEs for, and a lot more niche birds that may or may not have the customer interest to warrant all that effort.

On 10/19/2022 at 11:11 PM, RevampedGrunt said:

I'd like to see an E variant without the leading edge slats for a different feeling when flying, it'd be interesting to dogfight both E variants to see just how different it was, along with getting more nations that could use the Phantom.

To be fair, we'll most likely get a slatless F-4J too eventually.

On 10/19/2022 at 8:25 PM, JayTSX said:

Imo it would be interesting to have a slightly modernized F-4

I mean, that's essentially what DMAS F-4E is, which is the second variant we'll get. Though that modernization was late 70s-early 80s kinda deal, and even by then not necessarily state-of-the-art

On 10/19/2022 at 6:54 PM, Mini.Adam said:

Additionally, they received AGM-142 Popeye/Have Nap integration, Litening-II targeting pods, and the capability to launch AGM-65D/G Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, GBU-8 HOBOS, GBU-10/12 Paveway II LGBs, general purpose and cluster bombs for air-to-ground missions, while retaining the capability to launch AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.

Not sure about the Litening-II TGP to be honest. Don't think Terminators ever used them, all the photos I've seen were with the ancient Pave Spike, and locally developed ASELPOD was supposed to be its replacement AFAIK. Don't know about HARM either, kinda doubt tbh. Maverick, LGBs and pretty much all the other air to ground ordnance listed were already part of F-4Es arsenal before the update, apart from Popeye, that was the start of the show when it comes to this upgrade. I think nowadays locally developed SOM cruise missile either replaced it for Terminators or is about to. I've read but never been able to confirm that AIM-7 compatibility was lost with the upgrade, but still not sure if that's true.

German ICE and the related Greek AUP birds were more multirole with AMRAAM capability as well, while the Terminator was more strike oriented that didn't add as much for air to air.

[Cab]

Whether we get it in DCS or not, it's nice to be reminded that the old girl is still flying and ready to fight.

[Mini.Adam]

7 hours ago, WinterH said:

Heatblur so far says we're getting a pre-DMAS and post-DMAS F-4E each, and then most likely naval variant(s), and they don't seem inclined to do any of these late upgrades.

While I wouldn't mind these sorts of things for the sake of curiosity, I'd even say I'd enjoy the idea of doing new-fangled things in old-school stuff, I too think I'd much, much rather see more significant variants first, and these über-upgraded birds like Kurnass, Terminator, AUP, ICE, EJ-Kai etc are both harder to find proper documentation and SMEs for, and a lot more niche birds that may or may not have the customer interest to warrant all that effort.

To be fair, we'll most likely get a slatless F-4J too eventually.

I mean, that's essentially what DMAS F-4E is, which is the second variant we'll get. Though that modernization was late 70s-early 80s kinda deal, and even by then not necessarily state-of-the-art

Not sure about the Litening-II TGP to be honest. Don't think Terminators ever used them, all the photos I've seen were with the ancient Pave Spike, and locally developed ASELPOD was supposed to be its replacement AFAIK. Don't know about HARM either, kinda doubt tbh. Maverick, LGBs and pretty much all the other air to ground ordnance listed were already part of F-4Es arsenal before the update, apart from Popeye, that was the start of the show when it comes to this upgrade. I think nowadays locally developed SOM cruise missile either replaced it for Terminators or is about to. I've read but never been able to confirm that AIM-7 compatibility was lost with the upgrade, but still not sure if that's true.

German ICE and the related Greek AUP birds were more multirole with AMRAAM capability as well, while the Terminator was more strike oriented that didn't add as much for air to air.

 

[exhausted]

Makes more sense for DCS than a 1970s F-4E

[RevampedGrunt]

33 minutes ago, exhausted said:

Makes more sense for DCS than a 1970s F-4E

Not necessarily. We have aircraft that predates the most modern aircraft we have so it doesn't necessarily have to fit in with the other modern aircraft we have, just the aircraft that fits in with its time frame (I.E. Mig-21, Mig-19, WIP A-1, WIP A-7, WIP F-100, and other jets that are modded in or being worked on). We're going to see a lot more cold war and earlier jets due to the restrictions there is regarding information. 

[WinterH]

4 hours ago, exhausted said:

Makes more sense for DCS than a 1970s F-4E

Not in any way, shape, or form.

[Northstar98]

29 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Not in any way, shape, or form.

Absolutely, 100% agreed.

[r4y30n]

I’ll never understand the desire for heavily modernized old airframes in DCS. The Terminator is a poor man’s F-15E. Everything it can do the Eagle does better. So in that case, why not snag RAZBAM’s when it comes out?

For oddball F-4 variants, I’d much rather see a Spey-engined UK Phantom.

[Kev2go]

On 10/31/2022 at 12:22 AM, exhausted said:

Makes more sense for DCS than a 1970s F-4E

There were supposed to be multiple F4E's in 1 package. IRRc an F4E early without slats, F4E with slats, then an F4E late of sorts with  with AN/ARN 101 DMAS ( which is a digital INS/Nav attack system that offers CCIP and CCRP aided munitions delivery)  which is tippy end of the 70s, and more representative of phantoms that flew into the 80s. WHich I might add I am very looking forward to. Also said DMAS phantoms are compatible to use Pav Tac Targeting pod ( what F111F's used) . that version of the phantom will have solid place in 80s scenarios. 

 

But yea even most of the 3rd gen era aircraft we have in DCS are more representative of features from 80s  regardless of how primitive or not they are.  ( IE like the updated F5E3 airframe only production starting in 1979) 

 

For hyper modern variants like Terminator its a matter of whether or not you could get documentation on aircraft. 

Edited November 2, 2022 by Kev2go

[exhausted]

Yes I get that documentation could be a problem, although not more of a problem than releasing a P-51 onto a modern Crimean map, or planning a Eurofighter Typhoon, but I get it.

 

Just because I'm not excited about the -E doesn't mean I want to detract from the rest. The -E is a poor representation of a fighter built from the ground up to land on a carrier, before being butchered into an air force bomb mule. And if we are going to get the bomb mule version, then the more updated variants make more sense all around.

Edited November 2, 2022 by exhausted

[RevampedGrunt]

4 hours ago, Kev2go said:

There were supposed to be multiple F4E's in 1 package. IRRc an F4E early without slats, F4E with slats, then an F4E late of sorts with  with AN/ARN 101 DMAS ( which is a digital INS/Nav attack system that offers CCIP and CCRP aided munitions delivery)  which is tippy end of the 70s, and more representative of phantoms that flew into the 80s. WHich I might add I am very looking forward to. Also said DMAS phantoms are compatible to use Pav Tac Targeting pod ( what F111F's used) . that version of the phantom will have solid place in 80s scenarios. 

 

But yea even most of the 3rd gen era aircraft we have in DCS are more representative of features from 80s  regardless of how primitive or not they are.  ( IE like the updated F5E3 airframe only production starting in 1979) 

 

For hyper modern variants like Terminator its a matter of whether or not you could get documentation on aircraft. 

 

I thought they were adding the slats to both packages. I hope you are right since the early F-4E would be more accurate with some of the exports that didn't get them.

[SgtPappy]

18 hours ago, Kev2go said:

There were supposed to be multiple F4E's in 1 package. IRRc an F4E early without slats, F4E with slats, then an F4E late of sorts with  with AN/ARN 101 DMAS ( which is a digital INS/Nav attack system that offers CCIP and CCRP aided munitions delivery)  which is tippy end of the 70s, and more representative of phantoms that flew into the 80s.

No there are only two, the USAF F-4E with upgrades up to 1974, and the USAF DMAS F-4E. Both will have slats.

 

18 hours ago, exhausted said:

Just because I'm not excited about the -E doesn't mean I want to detract from the rest. The -E is a poor representation of a fighter built from the ground up to land on a carrier, before being butchered into an air force bomb mule.

The F-4 as it entered service with the USN was marketed as being able to carry lots of bombs. If being a bomb truck is so bad, the F-4J/S would never have been upgraded to bomb through clouds because that would be an unholy endeavor by your definition.

Just treat the F-4E and the USN F-4's as totally different planes. Like an F-15 and an F-16. Straight up just different planes. Try taking this pill 3 times a day (with food, of course). Disclaimer: side effects may include in you leaving this forum alone instead of coming in primarily to poop on this module while advertising your favourite version as superior. Call your doctor if you're feeling nauseous, or if you're still salty once a USN F-4 releases that doesn't match the ranges of BuNo's you prefer.

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by SgtPappy

[exhausted]

2 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

No there are only two, the USAF F-4E with upgrades up to 1974, and the USAF DMAS F-4E. Both will have slats.

 

The F-4 as it entered service with the USN was marketed as being able to carry lots of bombs. If being a bomb truck is so bad, the F-4J/S would never have been upgraded to bomb through clouds because that would be an unholy endeavor by your definition.

Just treat the F-4E and the USN F-4's as totally different planes. Like an F-15 and an F-16. Straight up just different planes. Try taking this pill 3 times a day (with food, of course). Disclaimer: side effects may include in you leaving this forum alone instead of coming in primarily to poop on this module while advertising your favourite version as superior. Call your doctor if you're feeling nauseous, or if you're still salty once a USN F-4 releases that doesn't match the ranges of BuNo's you prefer.

 

 

 

Please remember that agreeing with Heatblur's choice doesn't make you superior, and acting like it does will not stop people from disagreeing with you. A forum is a forum.

 

I think of the Navy Phantoms as purebreds, with legitimate bombing capability but without all the other bumps and baggage of the -E. The Marines and Navy used their Phantoms to good effect with the kit they had. As I'm far from the only one here disappointed with choice of the most underpowered and overweight version of the Phantom, I shouldn't be worried about being singled out. 

[SgtPappy]

3 hours ago, exhausted said:

 

Please remember that agreeing with Heatblur's choice doesn't make you superior, and acting like it does will not stop people from disagreeing with you. A forum is a forum.

 

I think of the Navy Phantoms as purebreds, with legitimate bombing capability but without all the other bumps and baggage of the -E. The Marines and Navy used their Phantoms to good effect with the kit they had. As I'm far from the only one here disappointed with choice of the most underpowered and overweight version of the Phantom, I shouldn't be worried about being singled out. 

You know why you don't see me popping into forums regularly (regularly being the key word here) of planes I dont like and complaining in every thread?

Same reason I wouldn't go to every dog show complaining to everyone that cats are superior. There are people who prefer the USN phantom and have managed to state as much respectfully with a few posts. Note that I've mentioned in all our interactions that I never believed the E to be superior. Just different as valid a choice; better at some things and worse at others. I absolutely adore the F-4J. You're the one touting the E is the wrong choice, in several threads.

You've made your point. Everyone knows you loath the E. You've never once acknowledged a single good thing about it, you've exaggerated its deficiencies. You've shown no empathy. While you're welcome to express this opinion as many times you like (and even that's being generous), I'm just as allowed to point it out when your argument becomes illogical, an unnecessary burden, the proverbial party pooping, etc.

It's painfully obvious that the frequency and nature of your posts go beyond expressing your preference and making that clear to the devs. It's not so different than that other guy who complains about the F-14 in every thread on the F-14 forum...

If you're making it known to everyone that you really don't like the party, someone will eventually ask you why you're even in attendance. 

Edited November 3, 2022 by SgtPappy

[Bozon]

On 11/2/2022 at 8:40 PM, exhausted said:

The -E is a poor representation of a fighter built from the ground up to land on a carrier, before being butchered into an air force bomb mule. And if we are going to get the bomb mule version, then the more updated variants make more sense all around.

Just to get the record straight - the E has by far the most air to air kills (world wide) of all Phantom variants. So, not just a bomb mule.

The 70s were the age of the Phantom and “E” was the prime air superiority fighter of many air forces. As a prime attack plane the “E” soldiered on into the 80s before being replaced - again, world wide.

The “more updated” variants place the Phantom in an era when it really is an obsolete air frame that is struggling to keep up to date, reduced to a bomb truck and unable to effectively dogfight its contemporaries.

[exhausted]

1 hour ago, SgtPappy said:

If you're making it known to everyone that you really don't like the party, someone will eventually ask you why you're even in attendance. 

 

So the big obvious answer here is this is the developer forum, so it's the appropriate place to give feedback. I'm not calling other posters out and I am not crossing lines. You are supposed to be able to get along in a forum, and avoid discussions that agitate you.

 

Since I'm not here to egg you on, I'll just stick with criticizing the Phantom. I'm a huge fan of the Phantom, but the -E is not interesting or compatible with Naval operations. The Phantom has and will always be a naval jet to many people. I even knew a couple old J-79 mechs. Like many who get shouted down and drowned out, we want a Phantom that'll land on a boat and do what it was designed to do in the first place. 

Edited November 3, 2022 by exhausted