Why so much negativity? A Phantard Speaks.

[SgtPappy]

10 hours ago, exhausted said:

Now I was joking there, but on a serious note, I would like to point out that it's one thing to admit you like the F-4E for personally-held reasons, but quite another to elevate it by disregarding the history of Marine and Navy Phantoms. There were more mission profiles for the -J than just "intercept and TARCAP:" interdiction, strike, every flavor of CAS, escort, BARCAP, etc; F-4Js even protected the B-52s. 

Bit of a double standard asking for this when you haven't recognized the F-4E's history no? Plenty of examples in this and other threads of you negating its history as well. But the previous post is right. Why we try to convince anyone else anything by bickering is indeed pointless. 

 

Quote

In fact, knowing that follow-on modules in DCS are basically never going to happen, not everyone is going to agree with you that the F-4E is the single best way to represent the iconic naval fighter design. 

Don't lose hope. HB is the only one so far who have delivered multiple variants. I have faith they'll make a USN version. If this is what's motivating your crusade, I extend an olive branch.. let's just chill and hope together. I think we all have that feeling in common.

Edited December 30, 2022 by SgtPappy

[Elf1606688794]

1 hour ago, SgtPappy said:

I have faith they'll make a USN version.

Indeed. I don't even care which one it is.

That said, I have to say I'm happier than the proverbial pig in poo that we're getting a pair of E models.

[upyr1]

On 12/23/2022 at 11:36 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It's always key to remember that dates for DCS shouldn't be seen as commandment. My word to the Phantom Phanatics would be that us Fishbed Afishianados (there are 10s of us) had quite the roller coaster of emotions leading up to the MiG-21's release, even flirting with potential cancellation.

I never forget this fact, during the lead up to the Hind I would jokingly post ___ weeks until ED tells us two more weeks. I had someone who didn't get the joke think I was saying the official date would actually be the release date- when I was saying they'll push it back 2 weeks 

[Aussie_Mantis]

20 hours ago, exhausted said:

Sorry I seem to have touched an exposed raw nerve for you, but if you are going to accuse me of anything, it should be inspiring you to get off your bum to do something before the year's end, and for that I congratulate you. Nobody is trying to force your worship of any plane the way you are trying to evangelize your adoration for the F-4E onto everyone else.  

Now I was joking there, but on a serious note, I would like to point out that it's one thing to admit you like the F-4E for personally-held reasons, but quite another to elevate it by disregarding the history of Marine and Navy Phantoms. There were more mission profiles for the -J than just "intercept and TARCAP:" interdiction, strike, every flavor of CAS, escort, BARCAP, etc; F-4Js even protected the B-52s. 

The doctrinal differences also resulted in completely different experiences the way the F-4J was used in its native environment; in US service, tactics in the F-4J seem to have developed more aggressively and seems to have resulted in more kills than the F-4E. This would translate well into a proper F-4 module.

Now, the main reason not everyone is placating the F-4E fans is that it is not the best way to represent the historic fighter's involvement in missions from sea and from shore. In fact, knowing that follow-on modules in DCS are basically never going to happen, not everyone is going to agree with you that the F-4E is the single best way to represent the iconic naval fighter design. Let's turn the logic around to see if we are following: pushing the F-4E is like announcing a B-17 module for the Channel Map, only to find the developer has settled on the PB-1W and is teasing future plans to add the B-17G at a later date. 

 

Nobody's disregarding F-4Js here. You're the one who's constantly disregarded F-4E history in favour of your version of F-4J/S history and then tried to get everyone to somehow try and turn an already coming and existing F-4E module into an F-4J/S module which heatblur says will eventually come further down the line because "it's not the right phantom", while ignoring F-4E fans because you personally think it's not the "best representation". 

The F-4 Phantom may have started as a naval fighter, but the most prolific users of the F-4 turned it into something beyond that- the world's first true multirole strike fighter with weapons and sensors integrations far outpacing whatever the Eastern Block could put out, able to kick ass in the air and on the ground. ANd for that, seeing as most users of the F-4 around the world used the E variant, it's very much the best variant to represent what the F-4 did in real life. Air to Air, Air to Ground, both in terms of Precision Guided Weapons Delivery and TARCAP.

[exhausted]

1 hour ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Nobody's disregarding F-4Js here. You're the one who's constantly disregarded F-4E history in favour of your version of F-4J/S history and then tried to get everyone to somehow try and turn an already coming and existing F-4E module into an F-4J/S module which heatblur says will eventually come further down the line because "it's not the right phantom", while ignoring F-4E fans because you personally think it's not the "best representation". 

The F-4 Phantom may have started as a naval fighter, but the most prolific users of the F-4 turned it into something beyond that- the world's first true multirole strike fighter with weapons and sensors integrations far outpacing whatever the Eastern Block could put out, able to kick ass in the air and on the ground. ANd for that, seeing as most users of the F-4 around the world used the E variant, it's very much the best variant to represent what the F-4 did in real life. Air to Air, Air to Ground, both in terms of Precision Guided Weapons Delivery and TARCAP.

I haven't disregarded the F-4E at all; in fact, I've acknowledged its uninteresting history and have used that information to deduce that a naval Phantom would better serve the purpose of adding the F-4 platform to DCS. 

Diminishing the list of it's "most prolific users" to those that used the F-4E model is sort of silly on my end, since the Navy and Marine Corps used the Phantom to its fullest extent, in every conceivable role, from sea and land. The Air Force was always limited in its operations, particularly in terms of doctrine. It just isn't interesting to model a type designed for the Air Force's inflexibility.

Edited December 31, 2022 by exhausted

[Kalasnkova74]

4 minutes ago, exhausted said:

I haven't disregarded the F-4E at all; in fact, I've acknowledged its uninteresting history and have used that information to deduce that a naval Phantom would better serve the purpose of adding the F-4 platform to DCS. 

Diminishing the list of it's "most prolific users" to those that used the F-4E model is sort of silly on my end, since the Navy and Marine Corps used the Phantom to its fullest extent, in every conceivable role, from sea and land. The Air Force was always limited in its operations, particularly in terms of doctrine. It just isn't interesting to model a type designed for the Air Force's inflexibility.

 

I’m not sure we are talking about the same aircraft here. The F-4E shot down double digit aircraft in the Middle East , both in Israeli and Iranian service. Then there’s the minor dust up with Saddam Hussein in 1991, where zero Coalition aircraft were lost to SAMs while the F-4G Weasels were on station. Southeast Asia needs no elaboration. If that doesn’t meet your standard of “interesting”, neither do the USN/USMC Phantom IIs. 
 

I wouldn’t call the F-4E inflexible either. It is, after all, still in frontline service with Turkey, Iran, Greece, and South Korea. Japan retired theirs just two years ago. Meanwhile, the final US Navy F-4 left for the boneyard before Bill Clinton set foot in the White House. 

[exhausted]

8 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

I’m not sure we are talking about the same aircraft here. The F-4E shot down double digit aircraft in the Middle East , both in Israeli and Iranian service. Then there’s the minor dust up with Saddam Hussein in 1991, where zero Coalition aircraft were lost to SAMs while the F-4G Weasels were on station. Southeast Asia needs no elaboration. If that doesn’t meet your standard of “interesting”, neither do the USN/USMC Phantom IIs. 
 

I wouldn’t call the F-4E inflexible either. It is, after all, still in frontline service with Turkey, Iran, Greece, and South Korea. Japan retired theirs just two years ago. Meanwhile, the final US Navy F-4 left for the boneyard before Bill Clinton set foot in the White House. 

I would absolutely call the F-4E inflexible. Pilots who fought against all the USAF, USMC and USN during the Cold War called the Air Force the most inflexible in the air (quoted from video below); it is not hard to see how that characteristic was built into the design of the F-4E.

 

And that other stuff about "prolific records by other countries" is just so unfocused: we aren't getting representations of the F-4s operated by other nations, and nobody knows the actual record of Israeli jets in action. Even if we did, those aircraft have extensive modifications, from the way they can take fuel to their weapons.

Last, you have to remember the F-4G isn't the F-4E - I read Magnum! and I absolutely support a player-controlled Wild Weasel Phantom!!

[Stackup]

28 minutes ago, exhausted said:

I haven't disregarded the F-4E at all; in fact, I've acknowledged its uninteresting history and have used that information to deduce that a naval Phantom would better serve the purpose of adding the F-4 platform to DCS. 

Diminishing the list of it's "most prolific users" to those that used the F-4E model is sort of silly on my end, since the Navy and Marine Corps used the Phantom to its fullest extent, in every conceivable role, from sea and land. The Air Force was always limited in its operations, particularly in terms of doctrine. It just isn't interesting to model a type designed for the Air Force's inflexibility.

Uninteresting history is literally your own opinion stated countless times before by you.  We get it you don't like the E model.  So what?  More countries used variants of the E model than any of the other Phantoms so it makes sense that to attract the widest possible range of Phantom enthusiasts, the one operated by the most countries makes perfect sense.  You also appear to be refusing to acknowledge or accept that Heatblur has clearly stated that the F-4E is only the first Phantom they are releasing and it is different enough from the Navy/MC variants to warrant them being a fully separate module.  Not a follow-on or whatever you want to call it.  A full module in its own right. That to me is much better than the extended development time that just 3-4 versions of the F-14 has taken which also happens to be one of the other reasons given by Heatblur for the two being completely separate modules.  The development time is shorter for the smaller module package.  Sure we aren't getting a Navy Phantom first, but one is coming nonetheless.

Like you, I would actually prefer to be getting a Navy model like the F-4J first, before an Air Force version, but we aren't.  Accept that.  Stop complaining and telling everyone else that they are wrong and the F-4E is the worse choice.  That isn't up to you since you aren't the one spending the time and money making the module.  By all means, make your own if you want.  Alternatively, the VSN team is currently working on a custom clickable cockpit for their F-4 Phantom mod which includes the B and J models.  Worth a look since there's clearly not going to be a Navy Phantom for a while but I expect that it will come after the A-6.  I'm sure it will be worth the wait when it comes out, but in the meantime, stop deriding fans of the F-4E for liking and appreciating an "inferior version".

[exhausted]

Frankly, a slow and sluggish Air Force version with a downgraded radar is the last thing people want out of a Phantom. "Countries used the F-4E" is fine, even if it isn't particularly persuasive given each countries' modifications make their Es fairly unique all their own. Sorry you don't like opinions that don't agree with yours, but not everyone is going to support or care about the F-4E, and this is for a lot of reasons: paltry record and negative comparisons to more prolific versions.

[Stackup]

26 minutes ago, exhausted said:

Frankly, a slow and sluggish Air Force version with a downgraded radar is the last thing people want out of a Phantom. "Countries used the F-4E" is fine, even if it isn't particularly persuasive given each countries' modifications make their Es fairly unique all their own. Sorry you don't like opinions that don't agree with yours, but not everyone is going to support or care about the F-4E, and this is for a lot of reasons: paltry record and negative comparisons to more prolific versions.

You're right, I don't like opinions that don't agree with mine.  Given your posts here I can also say that I'm sorry you don't like opinions that don't agree with yours.  That's the point of having your own opinion.  I can accept that you have yours and I have mine and that's fine.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but others are NOT required to agree with it.  The only person who seems to be loudly opposed to the F-4E is you.  Are there others that agree with you?  Who are these people that the F-4E is the last thing they want?  Also, where are they?  I've seen a lot of people excited about the F-4E and not many people besides you against it.

Also, on your point about being prolific, the F-4E is also very prolific as you just stated in your own post.  Lots of countries made modifications to their F-4E's meaning it has resulted in many many more different and unique sub-versions, or offspring if you will, than the F-4J.

And sluggish?  In what way, because the Agile Eagle slats certainly make it more maneuverable and others have posted charts that prove just that.  It does have a worse radar, I'll grant you that, and I don't think anybody here would contest or argue that point.  At the end of the day, you will never convince people that like the F-4E to agree with you because of your habit of aggressively belittling the plane they are excited about.  You're just making them mad and honestly it's tiresome watching everyone go back and forth with the exact same arguments that go nowhere.  

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

 but not everyone is going to support or care about the F-4E, and this is for a lot of reasons: paltry record and negative comparisons to more prolific versions.

Of the 5,195 F-4s manufactured, the F-4E represents over a quarter of examples produced which makes it the most prolific variant of the F-4.

This is not an opinion or something to be disputed, it's a fact.

[near_blind]

From even an unrepentant boat nerd: The E is a fine variant that has done good works. There is no shame in this. 

[G.J.S]

18 minutes ago, near_blind said:

From even an unrepentant boat nerd: The E is a fine variant that has done good works. There is no shame in this. 

Total agreement.
The fact that ANY fully modelled F-4 is inbound should be a cause for celebration, not argumentative “column” measuring. Other variants are to follow, maybe not the specific model from a specific timeframe, but others are coming. 

Either way, it’s going to be interesting watching some cry foul when they realise that the F-4 is not a flying laptop. It will not help you, the slightest ham-fisted input will result in the aircraft actively trying to end you, but the fact that here is an aircraft with hydraulic muscles - not electrons - will take you back to PURE flight, where finesse and self control will be rewarded with an aircraft that will respond willingly.

Regardless of variant, rejoice. A total disregard for enemy aircraft is coming, with twin fires and a swagger that just says “f#*k you!” to any perceived superiority.

The beast is back . . . 

[Heinlein]

I suspected that it was HB that was making an F-4 long before it was officially announced  and I honestly thought it would be a naval version as they seem quite enthusiastic about naval aviation so i was a bit surprised that they were making the E model but it was a pleasant surprise as it is the version I wanted the most.  It only makes sense to make the most exported and most produced version (at start at least) and the F-4E can also be used at all maps we currently have with little imagination. 

[JayTSX]

3 hours ago, exhausted said:

Frankly, a slow and sluggish Air Force version with a downgraded radar is the last thing people want out of a Phantom.

Funny enough I'm really excited for the E model. Maybe it's about me growing up in Germany where my grandparents lived not far from an air base and therefore sharing alot of memories with both my grandparents and Phantoms in the sky. Sure I'd love to see them making an F model especially the ICE upgrade but it wouldn't be a good choice to implement such a niche product, if the literal model the F is based on would cover most export variants to a certain degree.

Maybe you should stay in the "only the naval Phantoms are any good" thread and leave the rest alone. Which would be a bit of a loss because between all the complaining about non naval variants your technological insights where really interesting. It's not about whose opinion is better but to accept each others opinion.

Is the J/S objectively better suited for most? Sure, yeah. But I for one am thrilled to deal with pulse radar quirks and a draggy frame because that's what I learned to love. 

Also I need my gun.

Maybe as a side note: If you want an absolute capable naval multirole jet just stick to the cat for now and wait for whatever naval variant you want.

[Vampyre]

34 minutes ago, Heinlein said:

I suspected that it was HB that was making an F-4 long before it was officially announced  and I honestly thought it would be a naval version as they seem quite enthusiastic about naval aviation so i was a bit surprised that they were making the E model but it was a pleasant surprise as it is the version I wanted the most.  It only makes sense to make the most exported and most produced version (at start at least) and the F-4E can also be used at all maps we currently have with little imagination. 

The Vanilla E is the easiest one to integrate into DCS. Almost all of the weapons it uses are already in game and its systems are fairly straightforward to model. The DMAS E will require new weapons/sensors not yet in game and its Nav/Attack system is more difficult to model. A Naval Phantom will require all new Sidewinders, new catapult hookup procedures, and other Navy specific systems. So far, I'm happy with Heatblurs choices especially with the decision to do both the vanilla E and DMAS version. I want to see as many variants of the Phantom (even the RF-4 variants) as possible although I highly doubt we will see them all. The FAQ mentioned "naval Phantoms"... Plural, meaning more than one. My fingers are crossed for both a J and S versions at a minimum.

20 minutes ago, JayTSX said:

Funny enough I'm really excited for the E model. Maybe it's about me growing up in Germany where my grandparents lived not far from an air base and therefore sharing alot of memories with both my grandparents and Phantoms in the sky. Sure I'd love to see them making an F model especially the ICE upgrade but it wouldn't be a good choice to implement such a niche product, if the literal model the F is based on would cover most export variants to a certain degree.

Germany owned/operated 10 F-4E's and were supplemented by USAF F-4E's to replace attrition losses... although they were flown almost exclusively in the US for training with the 20th TFS/FS at George AFB and Holloman AFB before being replaced by actual F-4F's in the late 90's. Most of them ended up in Germany for parts cannibalization birds and ground instructional airframes.

 

[Lt_Jaeger]

2 hours ago, G.J.S said:

Total agreement.
The fact that ANY fully modelled F-4 is inbound should be a cause for celebration, not argumentative “column” measuring. Other variants are to follow, maybe not the specific model from a specific timeframe, but others are coming. 

Either way, it’s going to be interesting watching some cry foul when they realise that the F-4 is not a flying laptop. It will not help you, the slightest ham-fisted input will result in the aircraft actively trying to end you, but the fact that here is an aircraft with hydraulic muscles - not electrons - will take you back to PURE flight, where finesse and self control will be rewarded with an aircraft that will respond willingly.

Regardless of variant, rejoice. A total disregard for enemy aircraft is coming, with twin fires and a swagger that just says “f#*k you!” to any perceived superiority.

The beast is back . . . 

This, this and that. 

Yes, I will stand to my opinion, that I will be happy to get a Navy version to let her "kill me" on my trials to land her on the boat, but until then, I slap a "Richthofen" skin on the E and enjoy the memory's of my youth, seeing them thundering over my head. 

 

[SgtPappy]

Quote

 I haven't disregarded the F-4E at all; in fact, I've acknowledged its uninteresting history...

but not everyone is going to support or care about the F-4E, and this is for a lot of reasons: paltry record and negative comparisons to more prolific versions.

Friends, I think it's about time we stop feeding trolls.

They're either doing this on purpose, cannot accept facts or have a legitimate issue processing logic.

Edited December 31, 2022 by SgtPappy

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

7 hours ago, Vampyre said:

 

Germany owned/operated 10 F-4E's and were supplemented by USAF F-4E's to replace attrition losses... although they were flown almost exclusively in the US for training with the 20th TFS/FS at George AFB and Holloman AFB before being replaced by actual F-4F's in the late 90's. Most of them ended up in Germany for parts cannibalization birds and ground instructional airframes.

 

 

I grew up not too far from Holloman and saw the Germans once in a blue moon in the 90s. It was the coolest thing to see the F-4s with the German colors on the tail contrasting with Vipers and Eagles.

[Elf1606688794]

13 hours ago, exhausted said:

Frankly, a slow and sluggish Air Force version with a downgraded radar is the last thing people want out of a Phantom. "Countries used the F-4E" is fine, even if it isn't particularly persuasive given each countries' modifications make their Es fairly unique all their own. Sorry you don't like opinions that don't agree with yours, but not everyone is going to support or care about the F-4E, and this is for a lot of reasons: paltry record and negative comparisons to more prolific versions.

And not everyone is going to be supportive of a Naval Phantom.

There was no more prolific version of the Phantom than the E model with 1370 units built and no other variant even comes close to that number.

F-4B 649

F-4C 583

F-4D 825

F-4E 1370

F-4J 522

F-4N/S variants were not new builds but instead upgraded versions of the B/J models.

All of the naval variants built (new builds only) don't equal the numbers of F-4E's built.

Others have shown (in this thread or another one) how the F-4E with leading edge slats had better instantaneous and sustained turn rates than naval variants. It was a bit slower but not by much. Someone else showed that the Israeli Phantoms had a very impressive A2A score in the 1970 and 1973 conflicts before the IDF modified them. Heck, some of their Phantoms were replacement aircraft during the Yom Kippur war that came directly from USAF inventory.

[Vampyre]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I grew up not too far from Holloman and saw the Germans once in a blue moon in the 90s. It was the coolest thing to see the F-4s with the German colors on the tail contrasting with Vipers and Eagles.

My father retired out of Holloman AFB in 1989 and still lives in Alamogordo. Saw lots of Phantoms there between the Germans and the Drones from 88 until I left to join the Navy in 95. I remember some of my AF friends talking about the new F-15C/D's they were getting right before that plan was axed and the F-117's were sent to replace the F-15A/B's instead. The AT-38B's were there for fighter lead in training and further T-38A's were sent to support the F-117's. In the late 80's they were still flying the QF-100 drones there too. Tracor operated a Skywarrior in Army markings for testing as well. The Germans showed up with their Phantoms and Tornados in the early 90's because George AFB closed down and the Tornados needed a better training environment than Europe had to offer. The German F-4E's looked to be super well maintained. I also remember when the F-4F's showed up because they were still sporting the Norm 81 camouflage when they first arrived. Very interesting times.

[Elf1606688794]

9 hours ago, Lt_Jaeger said:

This, this and that. 

Yes, I will stand to my opinion, that I will be happy to get a Navy version to let her "kill me" on my trials to land her on the boat, but until then, I slap a "Richthofen" skin on the E and enjoy the memory's of my youth, seeing them thundering over my head. 

 

[Ramstein]

we had the F-4 B, E, and F models, at my base in Germany. the only thing I didn't see was Napalm or a nuke loaded on them. Probably the most thirstiest fighter, if not one of them. Carries huge loads of weapons, wings are tiny. They had brake problems more than most issues. They also lost wing tanks once in a while. 1.5 hour a sortie before fuel was an issue.

[exhausted]

17 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Of the 5,195 F-4s manufactured, the F-4E represents over a quarter of examples produced which makes it the most prolific variant of the F-4.

This is not an opinion or something to be disputed, it's a fact.

Production numbers aren't everything. Being prolific also includes productivity. There are other versions that have far more missions under their belt, and thus more contributions.

 

  

5 hours ago, Elf1606688794 said:

And not everyone is going to be supportive of a Naval Phantom.

Others have shown (in this thread or another one) how the F-4E with leading edge slats had better instantaneous and sustained turn rates than naval variants. It was a bit slower but not by much. Someone else showed that the Israeli Phantoms had a very impressive A2A score in the 1970 and 1973 conflicts before the IDF modified them. Heck, some of their Phantoms were replacement aircraft during the Yom Kippur war that came directly from USAF inventory.

Those comparisons never included the -S with slats - they only compared USAF slat-wing Phantoms with earlier hard wing variants. Doesn't even matter though, since tactics schools like Top Gun still produced a more substantial kill count with Js than the USAF did with Es.

Edited January 1, 2023 by exhausted

[exhausted]

9 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

Friends, I think it's about time we stop feeding trolls.

They're either doing this on purpose, cannot accept facts or have a legitimate issue processing logic.

 

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.