Will the USN/USMC version be a separate module?

[Chewmann]

Will the J (assuming that's the version we will get for the USN/USMC) be a separate module to purchase?

[AdrianL]

All they have announced is that there will be a navy variant and that will be a separate module to purchase i.e. will not be part of the DCS: F-4E product 

See the FAQ 

 

Q: Will there be a Navy F-4?
A: Yes! Our Phantom journey only begins with the -E. However, owing to the complexity of the work and investment of time and effort, it will not be included in the DCS: F-4E product. We’re instead choosing to focus on providing the most content rich F-4E we possibly can, and then set our sights on further telling the legendary story of the F-4.

Edited February 22, 2023 by AdrianL

[exhausted]

Wouldn't hold your breath even though a lot of us aren't interested in the F-4E bombtruck version of the fighter. If the Marine and Navy version ever comes, it would be a miracle but it would be its own module. Once the -E is released people will probably exhaust their interest in national guard scenarios and I would imagine the B/J/N/S will likely fall to the wayside.

Edited February 22, 2023 by exhausted

[Chewmann]

Thanks for the info. I will hold off buying the F-4E for now.

[Gambit21]

On 2/22/2023 at 2:40 PM, exhausted said:

Wouldn't hold your breath even though a lot of us aren't interested in the F-4E bombtruck version of the fighter. If the Marine and Navy version ever comes, it would be a miracle but it would be its own module. Once the -E is released people will probably exhaust their interest in national guard scenarios and I would imagine the B/J/N/S will likely fall to the wayside.

 

With respect, I think that's a bit of uncalled for pessimism considering the developer that we're talking about.

When has Heat Blur failed to not only deliver, but not over-delivered to boot?

Have a bit of faith, they've earned it. We'll see that Naval variant.

 

 

It's the earlier, mid to late 60's variants the that I'd say are in question, yet I hope for.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Gambit21

[Kalasnkova74]

My two cents; the F-4E and F-4J/S will move forward under Heatblur, while VSN will forge ahead with the standalone mod of the 1960s variants. Each development team will have lots of runway to move their projects forward. 

[Czechnology]

>People aren't interested in a bomb truck

>F-15E

>A-6

>A-7

>A-1H

>A-10C

>A-10C AGAIN

 

Not even going to be that bad of a fighter. Radar won't do well on the deck but that's true of a lot of birds we have access to.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Czechnology

[exhausted]

4 minutes ago, Czechnology said:

>People aren't interested in a bomb truck

>F-15E

>A-6

>A-7

>A-1H 

>A-10C 

>A-10C AGAIN 

 

>F-15E -> F-15C fighter has circulated since 2003 

>A-6 -> we are good with this, since it was always a bomber and not a neutered version of a dedicated fighter

>A-7 -> see A-6

>A-1H -> see A-6

>A-10C -> see A-6

>A-10C AGAIN -> see A-6

Edited February 24, 2023 by exhausted

[Czechnology]

It seems you've mistaken game meta for sim experience.

[Jojothebox]

5 hours ago, exhausted said:

>F-15E -> F-15C fighter has circulated since 2003 

>A-6 -> we are good with this, since it was always a bomber and not a neutered version of a dedicated fighter

>A-7 -> see A-6

>A-1H -> see A-6

>A-10C -> see A-6

>A-10C AGAIN -> see A-6

 

you totally missed @Czechnology’s point entirely. and Mr.Czech please feel free to correct me BUT 

1) The F-4E isn’t a bomb truck. it’s a multi-role fighter and air dominance fighter. hell the E model was developed with an internal gun to be better at air-to-air engagements. plus the most advanced air to ground weapons we’re likely to see is very early paveways, early mavericks and shrikes  

2) The F-15E is in no way “neutered” for all purposes it is a totally different breed of aircraft from the C with the capability to deliver any weapon in USAF inventories with the exception of HARMS and rockets. I would even argue the E is a much improved aircraft compared to the C since it is now capable of air-to-ground combat while retaining (and upgrading with the EX) it’s original air-to-air ability. 

3) We are seeing all of these multirole and ground pounding aircraft because people want them meaning people do in fact want bomb trucks. And in the A-10C’s case a damn good one. that’s part of why one of DCS’ free planes is a dedicated ground attacker. 

4) the one aircraft mentioned above that is literally a neutered fighter turned ground attacker is the A-7. and you missed it. the A-7 was derived from the F-8 as a bid to replace the A-4 Skyhawk. it won that competition and was wildly successful. 

5) The mere mention of the F-4J/N/S is insane if you think HB would go through the process of modeling all three aircraft when the J is just a B with a synthetic-aperture radar (making it a much better BVR fighter than the E), the N is just the J but with  smokeless engines and the S is just a J with smokeless engines and a reenforced airframe to put it on par the the E model for BFM combat. Yes, they’re making a Naval F-4. my guess is probably the J. the most notable differences? entirely different mission set from the E and can land on and take off from carriers. 

6) to touch further on your little list thing.

A-6 - all weather precision ground attack, refueling, and SEAD: Carrier capable 

A-7 - Modified F-8 designed for light ground attack, recon, SEAD, electronic warfare, refueling, and naval mining: carrier capable depending on model

A-1H - WWII design used for special forces ops, frontline CAS, dirt/road ops CSAR/CSAR escort and electronic warfare: carrier capable. 

A-10A - it’s an A-10 without smart weapons 

A-10C - upgraded A-10A with smart weapons, MFD’s and targeting/datalink capability. module is full fidelity unlike the A and is used by the USAF

A-10C II - upgrade to the C that includes a HMS and further systems upgrades, happened because of more information becoming available. you cannot buy just the C on the DCS website. 

all of the aircraft are used for different roles and, depending on the model, in different eras. there are also more CAS planes being planned than dedicated fighters because most gen 3 aircraft used for CAS were used for different sub-categories (ie: the A-6 wouldn’t be used for naval mining and the A-7 wouldn’t be used in bad weather even though they often served on the same carriers) and all fourth gen fighters in game and planned (except F-15C) are multi-role 

F-14, 16, 18, 15E, tornado, M-2000, eurofighter, JF-17, mig-29 and su-27/33 can all bomb and shoot missiles. there are very few dedicated fighters in the fourth gen scope making them less prevalent.

 

@Kalasnkova74not a bad take on the VSN development. only thing i’d point out is the VSN product is only gunna be an external module (for the foreseeable future) so anything they create wouldn’t be directly compatible with heatblur’s stuff. not to say it’s bad but just to point out that technically they’re two unrelated things. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Jojothebox

[Jojothebox]

9 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

With respect, I think that's a bit of uncalled for pessimism considering the developer that we're talking about.

When has Heat Blur failed to not only deliver, but not over-delivered to boot?

Have a bit of faith, they've earned it. We'll see that Naval variant.

 

 

It's the earlier, mid to late 60's variants the that I'd say are in question, yet I hope for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

the fact that they are pushing out the quality content that they are while some of their staff live in an actual war zone is insane to me and i believe whatever decision they make regarding their development of the F-4 in DCS will leave barely anyone disappointed. 

[exhausted]

9 hours ago, Jojothebox said:

you totally missed @Czechnology’s point entirely. and Mr.Czech please feel free to correct me BUT 

1) The F-4E isn’t a bomb truck. it’s a multi-role fighter and air dominance fighter. hell the E model was developed with an internal gun to be better at air-to-air engagements. plus the most advanced air to ground weapons we’re likely to see is very early paveways, early mavericks and shrikes  

2) The F-15E is in no way “neutered” for all purposes it is a totally different breed of aircraft from the C with the capability to deliver any weapon in USAF inventories with the exception of HARMS and rockets. I would even argue the E is a much improved aircraft compared to the C since it is now capable of air-to-ground combat while retaining (and upgrading with the EX) it’s original air-to-air ability. 

3) We are seeing all of these multirole and ground pounding aircraft because people want them meaning people do in fact want bomb trucks. And in the A-10C’s case a damn good one. that’s part of why one of DCS’ free planes is a dedicated ground attacker. 

4) the one aircraft mentioned above that is literally a neutered fighter turned ground attacker is the A-7. and you missed it. the A-7 was derived from the F-8 as a bid to replace the A-4 Skyhawk. it won that competition and was wildly successful. 

5) The mere mention of the F-4J/N/S is insane if you think HB would go through the process of modeling all three aircraft when the J is just a B with a synthetic-aperture radar (making it a much better BVR fighter than the E), the N is just the J but with  smokeless engines and the S is just a J with smokeless engines and a reenforced airframe to put it on par the the E model for BFM combat. Yes, they’re making a Naval F-4. my guess is probably the J. the most notable differences? entirely different mission set from the E and can land on and take off from carriers. 

6) to touch further on your little list thing.

A-6 - all weather precision ground attack, refueling, and SEAD: Carrier capable 

A-7 - Modified F-8 designed for light ground attack, recon, SEAD, electronic warfare, refueling, and naval mining: carrier capable depending on model

A-1H - WWII design used for special forces ops, frontline CAS, dirt/road ops CSAR/CSAR escort and electronic warfare: carrier capable. 

A-10A - it’s an A-10 without smart weapons 

A-10C - upgraded A-10A with smart weapons, MFD’s and targeting/datalink capability. module is full fidelity unlike the A and is used by the USAF

A-10C II - upgrade to the C that includes a HMS and further systems upgrades, happened because of more information becoming available. you cannot buy just the C on the DCS website. 

all of the aircraft are used for different roles and, depending on the model, in different eras. there are also more CAS planes being planned than dedicated fighters because most gen 3 aircraft used for CAS were used for different sub-categories (ie: the A-6 wouldn’t be used for naval mining and the A-7 wouldn’t be used in bad weather even though they often served on the same carriers) and all fourth gen fighters in game and planned (except F-15C) are multi-role 

F-14, 16, 18, 15E, tornado, M-2000, eurofighter, JF-17, mig-29 and su-27/33 can all bomb and shoot missiles. there are very few dedicated fighters in the fourth gen scope making them less prevalent.

 

@Kalasnkova74not a bad take on the VSN development. only thing i’d point out is the VSN product is only gunna be an external module (for the foreseeable future) so anything they create wouldn’t be directly compatible with heatblur’s stuff. not to say it’s bad but just to point out that technically they’re two unrelated things. 

 

There's a lot there, but that wasn't his point. His point was people want bombers, and I didn't challenge that point. My point has always been that people want fighters to be fighters, first and foremost, and that variants that are heavier and slower bomber versions have narrower appeal. 

I see your comments on the list, but some of that is just going out on the deep end. The A-7 isn't a modified F-8. Yes, A-7s were inspired by the F-8, but there was no production run of F-8s that were chopped, re-engined, rearmed, and labeled A-7. The A-7 was a ground attack aircraft from inception. In an apples to apples world, insisting that the A-7 is an F-8 variant would follow that the F-4E is not even close to the best fighter variant for initial release.

What's the point to such grumbling though? People want the most fighter-y of the F-4 Phantom fighter, and the USMC and USN variants, and arguably the RN/RAF variants, meet that criteria. BTW, F-4B/J/N/S does not refer to a proposed module, it refers to the available naval fighter variants that could be modeled.

Edited February 24, 2023 by exhausted

[Jojothebox]

5 minutes ago, exhausted said:

There's a lot there, but that wasn't his point. His point was people want bombers, and I didn't challenge that point. My point has always been that people want fighters to be fighters, first and foremost, and that variants that are heavier and slower bomber versions have narrower appeal. 

I see your comments on the list, but some of that is just going out on the deep end. The A-7 isn't a modified F-8. Yes, A-7s were inspired by the F-8, but there was no production run of F-8s that were chopped, re-engined, rearmed, and labeled A-7. The A-7 was a ground attack aircraft from inception. In an apples to apples world, insisting that the A-7 is an F-8 variant would follow that the F-4E is not even close to the best fighter variant for initial release.

What's the point to such grumbling though? People want the most fighter-y of the F-4 Phantom fighter, and the USMC and USN variants, and arguably the RN/RAF variants, meet that criteria. BTW, F-4B/J/N/S does not refer to a proposed module, it refers to the available naval fighter variants that could be modeled.

 

i see i see, with the F-15 it wasnt that hack job-y but if im honest with you i havent seen much grumbling from people who want dedicate fighters. ofc i could be wrong but ive mostly seen requests for very niche aircraft 

[exhausted]

4 minutes ago, Jojothebox said:

i see i see, with the F-15 it wasnt that hack job-y but if im honest with you i havent seen much grumbling from people who want dedicate fighters. ofc i could be wrong but ive mostly seen requests for very niche aircraft 

A purely land-based variant of a carrierborne fighter seems pretty niche, to a whole lot of people. 

[RevampedGrunt]

4 hours ago, exhausted said:

A purely land-based variant of a carrierborne fighter seems pretty niche, to a whole lot of people. 

Guess they'll find out how niche once the pre-order and release comes around. E might not be as iconic as naval F-4 but they'll definitely still be popular. 

[divinee]

20 hours ago, Jojothebox said:

when the J is just a B with a synthetic-aperture radar (making it a much better BVR fighter than the E), the N is just the J but with  smokeless engines and the S is just a J with smokeless engines and a reenforced airframe to put it on par the the E model for BFM combat.

Nope and nope. J is newly built version with big upgrades to structure and systems including awg-10. J and B are different generations of the naval phantoms. N is rebuilt B with small upgrades derived from J but it still has the apg-72 from the B. S is overhauled and improved J to handle the biggest problems like the questionable reliability of older, more analog awg-10, maneuverability, smokeless engines (some J’s already had these), more radios. 

Good source for the quick info which seems to be more correct than wikipedia:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4.html

[WinterH]

Stop feeding exhausted (though exhausting seems more fitting at this point) guys, he's been very salty since announcement of F-4E and can't move on. 

As for the subject, as others have said/linked, naval birds will be a separate module. Variants aren't announced yet, but if HB goes a similar timeframe as with the two E variants, they will probably be J and maybe even S. Also unknown is where will they slot in HB's releases, it looks like first two releases will be F-4E and Eurofigther, but whether it's the Intruder or Navy F-4 after that isn't clear yet. I don't think HB will give us a clear picture about it before F-4E is out, possibly even after the Eurofigther release rather.

[Bremspropeller]

4 hours ago, divinee said:

Nope and nope. J is newly built version with big upgrades to structure and systems including awg-10. J and B are different generations of the naval phantoms. N is rebuilt B with small upgrades derived from J but it still has the apg-72 from the B. S is overhauled and improved J to handle the biggest problems like the questionable reliability of older, more analog awg-10, maneuverability, smokeless engines (some J’s already had these), more radios. 

It may be worth mentioning that the old AGP-72 was a lot more radar than what a J with a "down" system could offer. That was the case relatively frequently until they fixed the most pressing bugs with the AWG-10A. Only the AWG-10B (mid-late seventies?) made the full potential of the AWG-10 available reliably. Plus the F-4B should be lighter versus the J (like the N is compared to the S).

Still hoping we'll be getting VTAS for the late birds - as a ME check-option.

[foxmagnet]

HB may group B/N and J/S variants and sell as two-jets-in-one-purchase module I think. As much as I want an LDSD Phantom, I woud also like to fly more niche N variant.

Edited February 25, 2023 by foxmagnet
changed my sentence

[Dogsbd]

My question is will be a discount on the USN/USMC F-4 for those who previously bought the USAF F-4E. I hope so.

[RevampedGrunt]

3 hours ago, Dogsbd said:

My question is will be a discount on the USN/USMC F-4 for those who previously bought the USAF F-4E. I hope so.

I'm almost more curious to know if we'll be able to use miles on the pre order, especially after seeing that the F-15 isn't allowing them. 

[Jojothebox]

On 2/25/2023 at 12:45 AM, divinee said:

Nope and nope. J is newly built version with big upgrades to structure and systems including awg-10. J and B are different generations of the naval phantoms. N is rebuilt B with small upgrades derived from J but it still has the apg-72 from the B. S is overhauled and improved J to handle the biggest problems like the questionable reliability of older, more analog awg-10, maneuverability, smokeless engines (some J’s already had these), more radios. 

Good source for the quick info which seems to be more correct than wikipedia:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4.html

ofc my description was very TLDR but from your source "There were three YF-4Js, all of them converted from existing F-4B airframes" it also had "reduced smoke" engines, not smokeless. ofc there were airframe and engine upgrades to adapt but the biggest thing was the radar.  With the N i should've included the original radar but the "Bee Line" program was to bring B's to a closer to J standard, but still had smokeless engines. and the S like i said is still just a performance upgrade of the J, yes they had the same engines but the S had a smoke abatement system which made them smokeless. (radar performance is still performance)

[Omega417]

I think the -E is a perfect first release. Jack of all trades (bomb truck, CAS, DEAD, CAP, Intercept, others). And the later release of a USN/USMC module which should have better BVR/BFM capabilities. If you buy the -E and find out you don't really like A/A in the bird then you don't buy the Navy variant, but if you find you want a better edge at A/A then you buy it.

There is also the cultural side of things, significantly more -E models were made and exported to every freedom loving country we could force to buy them.

[Trooper117]

I remember falling in love with the Phantom when I made the Airfix early US Navy version many, many years ago... I'll look forward to it's release in the future (hopefully).

[SgtPappy]

1 hour ago, Omega417 said:

I think the -E is a perfect first release. Jack of all trades (bomb truck, CAS, DEAD, CAP, Intercept, others). And the later release of a USN/USMC module which should have better BVR/BFM capabilities. If you buy the -E and find out you don't really like A/A in the bird then you don't buy the Navy variant, but if you find you want a better edge at A/A then you buy it.

There is also the cultural side of things, significantly more -E models were made and exported to every freedom loving country we could force to buy them.

I'm hoping for the F-4J for a Navy variant because a hard-wing Phantom will give us a little different flavour than the slatted E we are getting first. Also, the J saw combat while the superior BFM F-4S did not and only really showed up in the early 80s. As cool as the S is, I think a late J would bring more history and variety than an S.

This would make the slatted E the turn fighter and the J the vertical fighter while they'd still be somewhat similar in performance.

Edited February 27, 2023 by SgtPappy