Why so much negativity? A Phantard Speaks.

[throAU]

On 12/27/2022 at 4:39 AM, exhausted said:

Are you sure? The F-4E was one of the slowest variants and the later naval variants and British -K/M probably have significant maneuverability advantages.

Top speed isn't really a concern in my view, as you're virtually never hitting it.  Acceleration and turning performance is something you'll use far more frequently.

On 12/28/2022 at 8:37 AM, exhausted said:

Not to mention the F-4J without slats should have better turning performance than an F-4E without slats, and an F-4S with slats should have better turning performance than a later-F-4E with slats. In each apples to apples comparison, the F-4E is outperformed by naval variants. This is to be expected: the Air Force wanted a bomb truck in the -E  and the Navy and Marine Corps primarily wanted a fighter in the B, J, N and S. 

 

Personally, I'd rather have the more flexible airframe if I had to chose only one.  I'm massively looking forward to the F4 (any variant, but the E sounds great to me) as a complement to the mig21 and f-5 currently in the hangar for Cold War era stuff.

[exhausted]

On 6/29/2023 at 6:38 AM, throAU said:

Top speed isn't really a concern in my view, as you're virtually never hitting it.  Acceleration and turning performance is something you'll use far more frequently.

Personally, I'd rather have the more flexible airframe if I had to chose only one.  I'm massively looking forward to the F4 (any variant, but the E sounds great to me) as a complement to the mig21 and f-5 currently in the hangar for Cold War era stuff.

To your opinion, are entitled. If you view flexibility as a purely groundbased bomb truck, then sure I get it. But if you view flexibility as a carrier aircraft that can actually operate from a carrier, then this variant is one of the most inflexible.  

[SgtPappy]

Which by that definition every aircraft incapable of operating from an aircraft carrier are among the least flexible.

[Spurts]

1 hour ago, SgtPappy said:

Which by that definition every aircraft incapable of operating from an aircraft carrier are among the least flexible.

And, in all honesty, is question number one for me buying a module.  I loathe runways.  If I'm not landing on a boat or in a farmers field (Harrier and a few Helos) then IDGAF.  By all rights the F-4E, and the F-15E recently released, look frikkin' amazeballs, but now boat operations, no buy.  The F-15E teases everything I would want from an F-14D (more advanced radar, INS/GPS munitions) but I won't buy it.  The F-4E teases arguably the most Phabulous Phantom ever made, but I won't buy it.  I'll wait for the Naval Phantom in ~5 years.  So far I have every module with a Tailhook including the Community A-4.  Carrier Operability is Priority #1 for folks like me.  

Please understand, I am over the moon happy that the F-4E is coming and I hope tons of people buy it, I really do, it just isn't for me (or people like me).

Edited July 1, 2023 by Spurts

[SgtPappy]

6 hours ago, Spurts said:

And, in all honesty, is question number one for me buying a module.  I loathe runways.  If I'm not landing on a boat or in a farmers field (Harrier and a few Helos) then IDGAF.  By all rights the F-4E, and the F-15E recently released, look frikkin' amazeballs, but now boat operations, no buy.  The F-15E teases everything I would want from an F-14D (more advanced radar, INS/GPS munitions) but I won't buy it.  The F-4E teases arguably the most Phabulous Phantom ever made, but I won't buy it.  I'll wait for the Naval Phantom in ~5 years.  So far I have every module with a Tailhook including the Community A-4.  Carrier Operability is Priority #1 for folks like me.  

Please understand, I am over the moon happy that the F-4E is coming and I hope tons of people buy it, I really do, it just isn't for me (or people like me).

 

Hey absolutely understandable and there's no need to like something that other people like. Ditto for me and the F-15E. I really like the F-15A/C and even though the F-15E has the most capability, I simply do not like it which is enough said. Same for others and the F-4E. The majority of people waiting for a Naval F-4 have been very respectful.

My response was primarily just an observation to the logic being presented in that reply.

[exhausted]

On 6/30/2023 at 10:31 PM, SgtPappy said:

Which by that definition every aircraft incapable of operating from an aircraft carrier are among the least flexible.

By your definition, maybe. But I'm thinking that an aircraft which was designed to operate from carriers, but is put out specifically to not operate on carriers, is losing its function and flexibility.

On 7/1/2023 at 12:04 AM, Spurts said:

And, in all honesty, is question number one for me buying a module.  I loathe runways.  If I'm not landing on a boat or in a farmers field (Harrier and a few Helos) then IDGAF.  By all rights the F-4E, and the F-15E recently released, look frikkin' amazeballs, but now boat operations, no buy.  The F-15E teases everything I would want from an F-14D (more advanced radar, INS/GPS munitions) but I won't buy it.  The F-4E teases arguably the most Phabulous Phantom ever made, but I won't buy it.  I'll wait for the Naval Phantom in ~5 years.  So far I have every module with a Tailhook including the Community A-4.  Carrier Operability is Priority #1 for folks like me.  

Please understand, I am over the moon happy that the F-4E is coming and I hope tons of people buy it, I really do, it just isn't for me (or people like me).

 

Exactly. It is but a tease that the famous phantom gets its carrier ops clipped at first release. They may not ever do a proper carrier version, as these "promised follow ups" turn to vaporware far more often than not. There's plenty of reason to say they missed the mark with this choice, and a whole lot of people are just going to look the other way until something like a -J comes their way.

[SgtPappy]

4 hours ago, exhausted said:

By your definition, maybe. But I'm thinking that an aircraft which was designed to operate from carriers, but is put out specifically to not operate on carriers, is losing its function and flexibility.

Exactly. It is but a tease that the famous phantom gets its carrier ops clipped at first release. They may not ever do a proper carrier version, as these "promised follow ups" turn to vaporware far more often than not. There's plenty of reason to say they missed the mark with this choice, and a whole lot of people are just going to look the other way until something like a -J comes their way.

I agree actually. It is definitely true that the jet loses flexibility from being only land-borne, but IMO it also gains some.

Depending on the preferred doctrine, that may or may not make up for the loss of being able to launch from a carrier which can be basically anywhere in the world.

I know we've had our differences but I'd be sad if there was no F-4J as well, but at least with HB, I believe there's more hope than there might be with other devs (not to say other devs aren't good but rather HB tends to be more reliable). 2019-2023 is a tough period for obvious reasons.

All that said, I don't think this misses the mark. I'd eat my sock if a poll didn't show at least 50% of people voting to get the F-4E over waiting for a USN one

Edited July 15, 2023 by SgtPappy

[Spurts]

While I await the J or even the B I would never say they "missed the mark with this choice."  They hit the second best sold jet fighter model world wide in history with the E and it would be a greater travesty to not do the E properly.

[Kalasnkova74]

I’ll point out again that we’re actually getting the best of both worlds with the Phantom. HB is doing the F-4E, and VSNs released a standalone mod for the “old school” F-4B/F-110/ USAF F-4C. So those who want to launch off a flattop in an F-4 aren’t totally in the cold, and VSN has plenty of development runway to make the F-4B better.

As operated by VF-51 , the F-4B Naval variant served all the way through Operation Linebacker into 1973. 

[Spurts]

I've seen some video of the new VSN F-4B.  Looks pretty darn good, just without the advances systems modeling HB does.