Why so much negativity? A Phantard Speaks.

[Stackup]

4 minutes ago, exhausted said:

The market has a voice. I'm in the market, so I have a voice. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but that's how the marketplace of goods and ideas works.

I am not uncomfortable nor do I think you should not have a voice in proceedings, however you just cherrypicked the one thing you didn't like out of my post.  In any case, the most effective way to voice your opinion in the marketplace is your wallet.  Complaining you aren't getting your way is childish and Heatblur is will not throw at least a year and a half of time, money, and hard work out the window because you don't want their product.  Other people do though and they will speak with their wallets as well.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Stackup

[exhausted]

1 minute ago, Stackup said:

I am not uncomfortable nor do I think you should not have a voice in proceedings, however you just cherrypicked the one thing you didn't like out of my post.  In any case, the most effective way to voice your opinion in the marketplace is your wallet.  Complaining you aren't getting your way is childish and Heatblur is will not throw at least a year and a half of time, money, and hard work because you don't want their product.  Other people do though and they will speak with their wallets as well.

Thank you, but this is getting very far off topic. I wish you the best.

[JayTSX]

Ok so arguing with you clearly has no point. Therefore I suggest you focus your efforts on the respective thread and state your opinions against HBs decisions there, if that's what you want. 

Also I'm pretty sure HB already stated something along the lines of "we plan to produce other separate moduls with different versions of the phantom" so maybe your complains aren't necessary since it's already something they are planning for. We don't know the exact reasons for their decision and probably will never know them.

We all can agree, that we want some variant of the phantom. Why isn't that enough for you? 

Your statements are always totalitarian and are therefore presumably mistaken for being negative so maybe try altering your phrasing too?

[Stackup]

4 minutes ago, exhausted said:

Thank you, but this is getting very far off topic. I wish you the best.

I think it's still on topic as we were both still addressing feelings of negativity and how best to deal with them.  I honestly and truly believe that Heatblur will give us our Naval Phantom after they complete their current projects.  In turn, I to wish you the best while we wait for its release.

[exhausted]

9 minutes ago, JayTSX said:

Ok so arguing with you clearly has no point. Therefore I suggest you focus your efforts on the respective thread and state your opinions against HBs decisions there, if that's what you want. 

Also I'm pretty sure HB already stated something along the lines of "we plan to produce other separate moduls with different versions of the phantom" so maybe your complains aren't necessary since it's already something they are planning for. We don't know the exact reasons for their decision and probably will never know them.

We all can agree, that we want some variant of the phantom. Why isn't that enough for you? 

Your statements are always totalitarian and are therefore presumably mistaken for being negative so maybe try altering your phrasing too?

 

Advocating is not totalitarianism. Have you not seen the effort to marginalize and erase my viewpoint? If I can deal with that then surely a pack of people who only want to see things their way can deal with an opinion they don't like without the attacks. I can deal with the attacks, it's just outside the purview of our discussion. I don't know what type of resolution you seek, but silencing others' opinions is probably not realistic. 

[SgtPappy]

But... you just asked me to provide sources. Earlier you said:

Quote

I can only ask that you use history to back up your points.

 

Then you said the following when asked about your sources:

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

You don't need to list sources for everything - in fact sources have only come up 1-2 times in this thread, and they really haven't been persuasive: the reason is most of the sources are such common knowledge that the utility of listing them is quite low. For the most part, I've read the listed secondary sources and have even seen the primary sources used in them have been seriously questioned in the historical community. Anyway, it's just an idea.

 

How confusing! 

 

Anyway - and now I'm asking genuinely- do you have any sources that refute the aerial victories in the sources I posted? This is an open question to anyone in the thread btw.

If my understanding of the F-4's A2A victories is wrong, I'd really like to know.

Edited January 2, 2023 by SgtPappy

[exhausted]

2 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

But... you just asked me to provide sources. How confusing! 

Anyway - and now I'm asking genuinely- do you have any sources that refute the aerial victories in the sources I posted? This is an open question to anyone in the thread btw.

If my understanding of the F-4's A2A victories is wrong, I'd really like to know.

The exact number of Israel's aerial victories in air to air combat is disputed, as are Iran's. Even more so than US victories, which is why I favor doing an apples to apples comparison of the F-4E and the F-4J in US service. It makes sense, since the Marine Corps and the Navy both did a lot of air to ground, which is IIRC where you said the Air Force focused with the F-4E. Then comparing the two during the timeframe they were both actively used in air to air combat is also a fair way to compare. If you really want to get granular, then you may want to compare the exact number of each type available in theater at the peak of their victories, to get a victory to airframe ratio. Then you can look at the number of airframes actually serviceable during that time. You could also look at the number of airframes versus total completed sorties.

All these would figure into a more complete picture and the results would probably be surprising all around. 

[Stackup]

9 minutes ago, exhausted said:

I favor doing an apples to apples comparison of the F-4E and the F-4J in US service

Pull up your numbers please then.  IIIRC, there was a sourced statement that said that in US service, the F-4E had 23 victories while the F-4J only had 20.  If you can disprove this, please do.

[SgtPappy]

15 minutes ago, exhausted said:

The exact number of Israel's aerial victories in air to air combat is disputed, as are Iran's. Even more so than US victories, which is why I favor doing an apples to apples comparison of the F-4E and the F-4J in US service. It makes sense, since the Marine Corps and the Navy both did a lot of air to ground, which is IIRC where you said the Air Force focused with the F-4E. Then comparing the two during the timeframe they were both actively used in air to air combat is also a fair way to compare. If you really want to get granular, then you may want to compare the exact number of each type available in theater at the peak of their victories, to get a victory to airframe ratio. Then you can look at the number of airframes actually serviceable during that time. You could also look at the number of airframes versus total completed sorties.

All these would figure into a more complete picture and the results would probably be surprising all around. 

No doubt the Israeli and especially Iran victories are contested. Even the books on Israeli Phantoms (Ghosts of Atonement) points out where opinions diverge between the US evaluation of the conflict and the Israeli claims (i.e. some Israeli losses are attributed to AAA when they were actually shot down by MiGs). However there are several kills that are confirmed by all sides (Israeli, US evaluators and Syrian or Egyptian accounts) and those are the ones I take most seriously. My research so far implies that most kills are confirmed.

Even so, the sources in question are all US sources on the US-North Vietnam conflict and they confirm each other, for the most part. My question is primarily on the US claims of 23 kills for the F-4E vs 20 for the F-4J. There are also plenty of interviews and videos of both services' pilots but I want more book-related info since I guess I'd rather read than sift through (admittedly good, but long) interviews.

Edited January 2, 2023 by SgtPappy

[exhausted]

24 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

No doubt the Israeli and especially Iran victories are contested. Even the books on Israeli Phantoms (Ghosts of Atonement) points out where opinions diverge between the US evaluation of the conflict and the Israeli claims (i.e. some Israeli losses are attributed to AAA when they were actually shot down by MiGs). However there are several kills that are confirmed by all sides (Israeli, US evaluators and Syrian or Egyptian accounts) and those are the ones I take most seriously. My research so far implies that most kills are confirmed.

Even so, the sources in question are all US sources on the US-North Vietnam conflict and they confirm each other, for the most part. My question is primarily on the US claims of 23 kills for the F-4E vs 20 for the F-4J. There are also plenty of interviews and videos of both services' pilots but I want more book-related info since I guess I'd rather read than sift through (admittedly good, but long) interviews.

 

You would probably need to take a gander through materials that get into the history of a few squadrons to get an idea of how they operated within the structure of the Marine Corps and the Navy. For example, were their methods officially sanctioned or did they need to improvised, and if so, then what were they trying to achieve in that moment?

 

My instinct would be, from reading Olds and hearing Steve Ritchie, is there was a key divergence where the Air Force was forced to compensate where its bureaucracy proved unresponsive (for which pilots risked serious punishment). You can hear how, on one hand, the Air Force's bureaucracy made squadron commanders resort to remediation training with the Aussies, Navy and Marines - in theater. But, on the other hand, they intervened when training was improving and the result was the combat squadrons continued to be underprepared. This is what I believe drove the design of the F-4E; the aircraft is compensating for doctrinal inadequacies and is overall worse off for it. And the story continues, that since the Air Force was turning the page on TAC by introducing the F-15 and F-16, they continued to weigh the F-4E down without regard for its abilities as a fighter. The story of the -J and -S are not plagued with compensating for, what was effectively bad training, and they exploited the airframe's strengths as an effective fighter under their training and operational doctrines.

Edited January 2, 2023 by exhausted

[Stackup]

On 12/31/2022 at 6:20 PM, exhausted said:

I can only ask that you use history to back up your points. It's not trolling for the side using that information, despite your best efforts to frame it that way. Sorry not everyone agrees with you, but at least you can be happy you have some supporters if that makes things better. People don't express viewpoints to become popular, they express them because history tells an interesting story that largely should have an impact on how we interpret our today. I've incorporated history in every post with my viewpoint. You may not like it, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

You previously asked others to use history to back up their points.  This implies that your points are backed up by history.  If so, that should be very easy for you to prove and set the record straight.

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

You don't need to list sources for everything - in fact sources have only come up 1-2 times in this thread, and they really haven't been persuasive: the reason is most of the sources are such common knowledge that the utility of listing them is quite low.

When you claim all your statements are historical and backed up by common knowledge, it is actually required you list your own sources.  You can't just say, "I didn't like this other guys sources" and then not provide your own because, "the utility of listing them is quite low."  Since the basis for your entire argument rests on this common knowledge, I would please like to see the underlying reasoning and the information behind it because I do not have this common knowledge in my repertoire yet so a source would be nice so I can actually learn something new.

[exhausted]

24 minutes ago, Stackup said:

You previously asked others to use history to back up their points.  This implies that your points are backed up by history.  If so, that should be very easy for you to prove and set the record straight.

When you claim all your statements are historical and backed up by common knowledge, it is actually required you list your own sources.  You can't just say, "I didn't like this other guys sources" and then not provide your own because, "the utility of listing them is quite low."  Since the basis for your entire argument rests on this common knowledge, I would please like to see the underlying reasoning and the information behind it because I do not have this common knowledge in my repertoire yet so a source would be nice so I can actually learn something new.

Thank you for your continued interest but not everyone has the time to meet every requirement you set, just because you set them. I'm trying to handle questions, but you have to work with the flow of the conversation.

This is where we are, if you need help keeping up.

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by exhausted

[Stackup]

5 minutes ago, exhausted said:

Thank you for your continued interest but not everyone has the time to meet every requirement you set, just because you set them. I'm trying to handle questions, but you have to work with the flow of the conversation.

You literally just answered a question about the veracity of the claims that the F-4E beat the F-4J 23 kills to 20.  Nowhere in your reply did you address anything other than doctrine or training.  That has nothing to do with the number of kills that was achieved by either airframe which would is an airframe to airframe comparison, not a pilot to pilot or doctrine comparison.  Either the F-4E got more kills than the F-4J in US service or it didn't end of story.

Also, I set the requirements?  You're the one that asked for historical backup.  I merely reciprocated.  You then responded as you have mostly been doing in a rather condescending manner.

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by Stackup

[Stackup]

13 minutes ago, exhausted said:

This is where we are, if you need help keeping up.

 

1 hour ago, SgtPappy said:

Even so, the sources in question are all US sources on the US-North Vietnam conflict and they confirm each other, for the most part. My question is primarily on the US claims of 23 kills for the F-4E vs 20 for the F-4J. There are also plenty of interviews and videos of both services' pilots but I want more book-related info since I guess I'd rather read than sift through (admittedly good, but long) interviews.

 

41 minutes ago, exhausted said:

You would probably need to take a gander through materials that get into the history of a few squadrons to get an idea of how they operated within the structure of the Marine Corps and the Navy. For example, were their methods officially sanctioned or did they need to improvised, and if so, then what were they trying to achieve in that moment?

 

My instinct would be, from reading Olds and hearing Steve Ritchie, is there was a key divergence where the Air Force was forced to compensate where its bureaucracy proved unresponsive (for which pilots risked serious punishment). You can hear how, on one hand, the Air Force's bureaucracy made squadron commanders resort to remediation training with the Aussies, Navy and Marines - in theater. But, on the other hand, they intervened when training was improving and the result was the combat squadrons continued to be underprepared. This is what I believe drove the design of the F-4E; the aircraft is compensating for doctrinal inadequacies and is overall worse off for it. And the story continues, that since the Air Force was turning the page on TAC by introducing the F-15 and F-16, they continued to weigh the F-4E down without regard for its abilities as a fighter. The story of the -J and -S are not plagued with compensating for, what was effectively bad training, and they exploited the airframe's strengths as an effective fighter under their training and operational doctrines.

Oh I am well aware of where we are.  Tell me, are you?  If you are then you must be looking for the numbers to show the F-4J had more kills than the F-4E.  If not, maybe the F-4J dropped more ordnance than the F-4E?  If not, maybe it served for a longer period?  If not, and you cannot provide any sources beside "because I said so" then I think you had better come up with a new tactic besides deflecting and avoiding the conversation.  Nobody here has asked about the doctrine or training of the USAF or the USN.

[RevampedGrunt]

Waiting for BigNewy to come back in here. He's already put a warning in once, it's best to not continue pushing buttons. 

[exhausted]

10 minutes ago, RevampedGrunt said:

Waiting for BigNewy to come back in here. He's already put a warning in once, it's best to not continue pushing buttons. 

Agree. I'm ignoring the latest round as it is obvious that no matter how people respond it will only degenerate further. Best wishes and apologies. Bad mix of views and personalities, I guess.

I'm not going to point fingers or try to steer blame, since as much as I hoped for a less aggressive and more focused discussion, it takes two to tango and I participated in this hairy mess. Cheers, happy new years and best wishes for 2023.

Edited January 2, 2023 by exhausted

[RevampedGrunt]

Just now, exhausted said:

Agree. I'm ignoring the latest round as it is obvious that no matter how people respond it will only degenerate further. Best wishes and apologies. Bad mix of views and personalities, I guess.

That's just how things go when you have a mix of people online discussing things they are passionate towards. All I know is that I am going to buy all Phantoms that come out and enjoy learning each of them with all of their pros and cons... Unless pilot kills aren't possible in the F-4 as well, that's a con that I wouldn't mind seeing fixed. 

[Stackup]

47 minutes ago, RevampedGrunt said:

That's just how things go when you have a mix of people online discussing things they are passionate towards. All I know is that I am going to buy all Phantoms that come out and enjoy learning each of them with all of their pros and cons...

Agreed.  Definitely let myself get too riled up...  Can we all just be fans of the F-4 Phantom in general and stop arguing over which one is best?  

[LanceCriminal86]

6 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

HB surely make as the F-14, we dont go to have two modules with diferente version... only a F-4 Phantom module with initially a F-4E version and after a naval F-4B/J with help of ED to integrate them on carriers, as the F-14 module build firsts a F-14A late, a F-14B and later, a aerly F-14A, and the canceled F-14A Iranian version.

 

The IRIAF spinoff is not cancelled, why are you repeating this?

[Ramstein]

On 12/31/2022 at 8:08 PM, SgtPappy said:

I guess getting back to the F-4... 

I heard that the F-4 always came home with something broken. Do you think that's true? Would that be a testament to how much damage it could take, or does it mean the Phantom was fragile? 

not fragile. Hard to tell, because the aircraft had so many years and in some cases more than a decade of flying. I suspect the brakes were made to be light, not long lasting. They would often have to use the hook or a net. The parts were well worn after so many years of use. The aircraft were at the end of their life and being replaced by the F-16 about that time. About that time we had the A-10 coming on the seen too.  We still had the Cobra helo, and many other helos too. The Harrier was also starting to see war missions. we had all of NATO in and out on the airbase. aircraft from the 1940's to the 1980's, were at the same airbase at one time or another, almost at the same time. of course the older stuff was there to visit or airshows, as it was a fighter and MAC wing. And the other airfields nearby were always TDY there. We also had army, so there were tanks, and ground units and Sam active sites, for practice.  Anyways, probably worn parts, but while pilots are training, things do happen.

[Aussie_Mantis]

TL;DR

You aren't sh*t without slats and a gun. F**k MiGs.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[Czechnology]

Haven't peeked my head into this thread since it was first posted and see I've not missed much. Tbh I think it's dumb 90% of the time when mods lock threads, but I think this one might be needing it. 

We're getting the F-4E. While I unrepentantly wish we were getting the J instead because I love me some naval aviation, we're getting the E, and I'm going to love it, and I will continue to love it after we get more Phantoms. 

Nothing can be said or done to change the fact we're getting the early E first. The E variant as a whole saw noble, heavy, and effective service for the USAF, and many other airforces of many other countries. 

Much like a lot of other Phantom variants.

Looking forward to Jan 4 and the 2023 video. Where we will hopefully be seeing a Phantom. With a gun.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Czechnology

[markturner1960]

5 pages !!!!! 

[Aussie_Mantis]

1 hour ago, Czechnology said:

Haven't peeked my head into this thread since it was first posted and see I've not missed much. Tbh I think it's dumb 90% of the time when mods lock threads, but I think this one might be needing it. 

We're getting the F-4E. While I unrepentantly wish we were getting the J instead because I love me some naval aviation, we're getting the E, and I'm going to love it, and I will continue to love it after we get more Phantoms. 

Nothing can be said or done to change the fact we're getting the early E first. The E variant as a whole saw noble, heavy, and effective service for the USAF, and many other airforces of many other countries. 

Much like a lot of other Phantom variants.

Looking forward to Jan 4 and the 2023 video. Where we will hopefully be seeing a Phantom. With a gun.

 

any news about the date, incidentally? They said 2022 but it was missed, I assume we're coming in the first major patch of the year?

[Lt_Jaeger]

14 hours ago, _BringTheReign_ said:

 

Is that beauty getting closer to release already? 

Made me one for the time being but that thing is way inferior.