Will the USN/USMC version be a separate module?

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

 

The Marine and Navy jets are by far the most recognizable Phantoms, being carrierborn masters of the air and the ground.

Again...says you. No disrespect.

I think Robin Olds would disagree.

I don't find the shark toothed Air Force E any less recognizable, and grew up seeing/hearing about those just as much as the Naval/Marine ones.

They are both equally iconic.

So you can make any statement you want in relation to your experience/preference etc, who am I to argue with that. When you or anyone else starts making blanket statements about what is the "most recognizable" version is to everyone.... especially given the history....expect commentary.

 

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

 

I think that those who also share that concern have shown valid reasoning here.

Based on what? Heatblur's record of delivering top-drawer aircraft in reasonable time frames? 

I think some of you are confusing your preferences or fears with objective reality. Again, no disrespect, I'm being quite sincere.

There are other parties where yes, I'd be "concerned" as well...concerned at least that I'd be dead by the time it arrived. Not so with Heatblur.

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

 

We are not at all saying Heatblur won't do eventually do a naval Phantom in the next 5-10 years,

Good to know, especially since they delivered the first one in under 3 years. 

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

 

but I would be very surprised. 

Again, based on what?

 

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

For all the expected fanfare of the F-4, just don't be surprised if you see a lot of people holding off for a proper 'tailhook' version. 

 

 

At this point nothing here would surprise me.

Hold off all you want, I and most others be enjoying this...

 

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Gambit21

[exhausted]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Again...says you. No disrespect.

I think Robin Olds would disagree.

I don't find the shark toothed Air Force E any less recognizable, and grew up seeing/hearing about those just as much as the Naval/Marine ones.

They are both equally iconic.

So you can make any statement you want in relation to your experience/preference etc, who am I to argue with that. When you or anyone else starts making blanket statements about what is the "most recognizable" version is to everyone.... especially given the history....expect commentary.

 

Based on what? Heatblur's record of delivering top-drawer aircraft in reasonable time frames? 

I think some of you are confusing your preferences or fears with objective reality. Again, no disrespect, I'm being quite sincere.

There are other parties where yes, I'd be "concerned" as well...concerned at least that I'd be dead by the time it arrived. Not so with Heatblur.

Good to know, especially since they delivered the first one in under 3 years. 

Again, based on what?

 

 

At this point nothing here would surprise me.

Hold off all you want, I and most others be enjoying this...

 

 

 

 

 

That's cool that you're individually enthusiastic and all, but you mention objective reality, well I have news because Heatblur is still trying (?) to fully deliver the F-14 after a few years. It is an older module and there's no end in sight. Argue with that all you want, but as long as you are grasping at objective reality, don't forget that vaporware is a significant portion of DCS and these modules all take several years. Either way, enjoy the F-4E all you want -- I'll enjoy it when the more iconic naval models get on scene.

[Gambit21]

8 minutes ago, exhausted said:

 ....Heatblur is still trying (?) to fully deliver the F-14 after a few years. 

   stopped reading right there. 

Now Devs are taking hits for continual improvements to their work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

10 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

   stopped reading right there. 

Now Devs are taking hits for continual improvements to their work.

Then I advise you to start reading where you left off instead of posting silly gifs. The F-14, notably, is very much not finished, and even if it's nice as it is, it is taking quite a while to get to the state where it'd actually be ready to go out of EA. Just off the top of my head, the fire lights are still broken (can't see them light up during the day), fire extinguishers (pretty essential damage control) are not working at all, and then there are Jester's many idiosyncrasies that need ironing out, not to mention smaller stuff like fully implementing the test knob.

If these things are being put off until the more advanced systems are developed on the Phantom, fine, but you can't dismiss them as optional improvements, because they aren't. This is basic work on the aircraft that has not been done. The F-14 is not out of Early Access for a reason, and the way EA works, you pay for a product that is not yet completed, but will be at some point. Concerns about the remaining work happening quite slowly are not unfounded.

[Gambit21]

19 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Then I advise you to start reading where you left off instead of posting silly gifs. The F-14, notably, is very much not finished, and even if it's nice as it is, it is taking quite a while to get to the state where it'd actually be ready to go out of EA. Just off the top of my head, the fire lights are still broken (can't see them light up during the day), fire extinguishers (pretty essential damage control) are not working at all, and then there are Jester's many idiosyncrasies that need ironing out, not to mention smaller stuff like fully implementing the test knob.

If these things are being put off until the more advanced systems are developed on the Phantom, fine, but you can't dismiss them as optional improvements, because they aren't. This is basic work on the aircraft that has not been done. The F-14 is not out of Early Access for a reason, and the way EA works, you pay for a product that is not yet completed, but will be at some point. Concerns about the remaining work happening quite slowly are not unfounded.

"very much" not finished? Not sure I agree with you there, but we can agree to disagree.

Objectively I find the things you mention appropriate for a "clean up", final housekeeping list, but again if they're so monumental to you that the module is "very much" not finished, then as much as I can't relate to such a position, I also know that nothing I say will change your mind on that one. 

I have no interest in going in circles.

I find the F-14 an enjoyable, very flyable, and 'very much finished' state, if not completely in a finished state. IMO...a benchmark when realeased.

"Finished" to the extent that a handful of great campaigns have been completed for it.

Jester is...well he's Jester, and a work in progress. This hasn't been done before in a flight sim, and I wouldn't fault any Dev for taking a while to perfect him. Guess what, he won't be perfect with the F-4 either, but I'm sure the enhancements/adjustments will be more than welcome. I certainly wouldn't hammer a developer for having a module "very much not finished" on account of ol Jester's issues...but horses for courses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Gambit21

[exhausted]

45 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

"very much" not finished? Not sure I agree with you there, but we can agree to disagree.

Objectively I find the things you mention appropriate for a "clean up", final housekeeping list, but again if they're so monumental to you that the module is "very much" not finished, then as much as I can't relate to such a position, I also know that nothing I say will change your mind on that one. 

I have no interest in going in circles.

I find the F-14 an enjoyable, very flyable, and 'very much finished' state, if not completely in a finished state. IMO...a benchmark when realeased.

"Finished" to the extent that a handful of great campaigns have been completed for it.

Jester is...well he's Jester, and a work in progress. This hasn't been done before in a flight sim, and I wouldn't fault any Dev for taking a while to perfect him. Guess what, he won't be perfect with the F-4 either, but I'm sure the enhancements/adjustments will be more than welcome. I certainly wouldn't hammer a developer for having a module "very much not finished" on account of ol Jester's issues...but horses for courses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't have to go in circles at all. There are F-14 versions promised but not released. This is very much a justification to believe that a distantly planned derivative of an unfinished module is even less likely. If you judge that to be 'more likely' then whatever metric you're using to determine that is fine. You can have your opinion and I'm not going to disregard it just because I disagree with it. 

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Jester is...well he's Jester, and a work in progress.

Exactly. Jester is work in progress. Fire lights and extinguishers are a work in progress (once again, this is an essential feature many other DCS aircraft have). There is plenty of other stuff that's work in progress. A finished, out of EA product has no major "work in progress" items, because it's finished and stable. I'm not saying it can't be expanded post-launch, or features added, but the core parts of the module should be done and you should be able to properly follow published checklists, at least.

As for campaigns, you can release a campaign for a barely functional, early EA module. The only reason this doesn't usually happen is that they take about a year to make, which was enough to bring even the famously undercooked F-16 to an enjoyable state. Generally, DCS campaign creators tend to jump on a new aircraft as soon as it comes out, EA or not, regardless of whether it's anywhere near finished.

[Gambit21]

8 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

 but the core parts of the module should be done and you should be able to properly follow published checklists, at least.

I would respectfully contend that this is the case...but then I apparently define "core parts" differently than you do.

 

 

[ustio]

On 11/11/2023 at 2:11 PM, Biggus said:

I wouldn't overplay the 'my country flew Es so it's an E I want' card.  Plenty of us here who would prefer a Navy variant happen to live in countries that flew the E.  Sure, it's a factor.  It's not the only one in favour of the E.

don't get me wrong, i would love to have the naval version. but yeah there are a lot of factor why the choose the F-4E first.

another one of those factor is that we don't currently have the early Navy sidewinder like the D,G,H(we are still missing the AIM-9E sidewinders for the F-4E). and we don't have a bridle for out carrier. it would cause them more dev time to make those instead of making the E phantom.

Edited November 14, 2023 by ustio

[=475FG= Dawger]

Naval versions of anything fixed wing in DCS are rather silly if you can just do the land based version. The maps are too small for anything resembling real world ops, the ocean and wind modeling isn't up to the task, and, without a trained human crew, the boat is a menace to itself and its complement.

However, this thread is good for comic value, so I encourage its continuance.

[exhausted]

3 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Naval versions of anything fixed wing in DCS are rather silly if you can just do the land based version. The maps are too small for anything resembling real world ops, the ocean and wind modeling isn't up to the task, and, without a trained human crew, the boat is a menace to itself and its complement.

However, this thread is good for comic value, so I encourage its continuance.

Our map sizes are fine for the task -- the Marines and Navy operate both from land and sea. Yankee Station was 90 miles off the coast. The Marine base at Da Nang was 90 miles from the border and housed half a dozen F-4 squadrons (Bs and Js). 

I'm not sure where you are going with that track, especially since Heatblur is most known for bringing the F-14 to DCS. 

[Dragon1-1]

If nothing else, naval aviation has a shorter combat range than anything based on land. They have to observe a strict fuel ladder, weight limits and their tankers are relatively small. If we have ranges short enough for land based aircraft, we have plenty of room for Navy planes, too.

[WinOrLose]

I too would prefer the navy version, purely as the boat adds another dimension and requires a bit more skill than field landings. 

After-all this is the 60/70’s and real men fly Navy . 

Still pre-ordered the E though . 

[Jackjack171]

16 minutes ago, WinOrLose said:

 

After-all this is the 60/70’s and real men fly Navy . 

Still pre-ordered the E though . 

Amen! The 60/70's were a more discernable time. 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Jackjack171

[RevampedGrunt]

When it comes down to it, the E just fits in far better with whatever environment compared to the navy Phantoms. I can have Turkish Phantoms in Syria, Iranian Phantoms in Persian Gulf, Israeli and Egyptian Phantoms in Sinai, and Japanese and American Phantoms on Marianas. You could probably fit other operators on those maps as well, and do whatever with Caucuses, but it still has more use than a navy bird for most missions. E model has played just as important of a role in its career as the navy Phantom has, even more so in some cases, so having that first is definitely preferable. I think most of us can deal with flying a land based Phantom for when you want to enjoy it and the Tomcat for anything naval based for a while. I have trust that HB will get a navy Phantom done, as it is a new module in itself compared to the early A model of the Tomcat, they probably would hold new module in priority while working on older ones on the side.

[Voyager]

On 11/14/2023 at 10:20 AM, exhausted said:

Our map sizes are fine for the task -- the Marines and Navy operate both from land and sea. Yankee Station was 90 miles off the coast. The Marine base at Da Nang was 90 miles from the border and housed half a dozen F-4 squadrons (Bs and Js). 

I'm not sure where you are going with that track, especially since Heatblur is most known for bringing the F-14 to DCS. 

Yankee station doesn't exist in DCS, and there are no plans to implement it any time soon. 

Given the current map set, the only place I can see the Navy versions having any near combat history would be the Nevada Test and Training Range. 

And the whole idea that the F-4 wasn't a 'bomb truck' is just silly. The first version MD tried to sell to the Navy was the AH; a literal bomb truck. The Navy decided it had good enough attackers they didn't bite, so MD reconfigured it, and reconfigured it, and reconfigured it until the Navy bit on a Fleet Defender variant of it.

But it was always designed as a multi-role modular fighter. That's the whole reason they even had the long nose ready to mount a gun in it. Heck, the AH-1 version had four 20mm Colt cannons, before the Navy decided it didn't need guns in its fleet defender. There is no such thing as a pure F-4: its genius is that it's a psycho lego-kit of a plane before that was even a thing. 

Which is also why I suspect we will see more variants once the F-4E takes off: the plane was built to be reconfigured, so the more configurations are modeled, the easier it will be to model more configurations. And unlike the F-14, the US State Department hasn't made a job out of hunting down every possible scrap of information on it and destroying it. 

[exhausted]

46 minutes ago, Voyager said:

Yankee station doesn't exist in DCS, and there are no plans to implement it any time soon. 

Given the current map set, the only place I can see the Navy versions having any near combat history would be the Nevada Test and Training Range. 

 

You could add a carrier group to any map with 90 miles of water from the coast, and you missed Syria, Marianas and upcoming Kola.

[Dragon1-1]

Don't forget Sinai. Carriers have definitely operated off the Syrian coast (in fact, two of them are there right now, ready to do just that), while Kola is definitely as much a place for US and Soviet fleets to slug it out as it is for land based operations. Marianas map is mostly water, too, and needless to say US carriers make regular visits to them. We have no shortage of places to put naval aviation to work.

[Voyager]

56 minutes ago, exhausted said:

You could add a carrier group to any map with 90 miles of water from the coast, and you missed Syria, Marianas and upcoming Kola.

 

22 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Don't forget Sinai. Carriers have definitely operated off the Syrian coast (in fact, two of them are there right now, ready to do just that), while Kola is definitely as much a place for US and Soviet fleets to slug it out as it is for land based operations. Marianas map is mostly water, too, and needless to say US carriers make regular visits to them. We have no shortage of places to put naval aviation to work.

But did they operate F-4B's or had they largely upgraded to F-14's and Hornets by then? 

I suspect by the time we were getting deeply embroiled in the Middle East, the Navy F-4 was mostly a bomb truck. 

And when did the F-4 have a likelihood of going hot in the Marianas? 

The Phantom FG.1 could have seen action in the Falklands, but it used Spey engines, and had a different cross section and different aerodynamics because of it. 

Finally, all of those areas had heavy F-4E action. How ridiculous would it be to do a carrier launched strike on Iran, and the opfor only have access to Navy F-4 varients?

[Dragon1-1]

Historically, the Navy and Marine Phantoms only actually fought in Vietnam. That doesn't change the fact that they could have fought had the US got involved in any other flashpoint in their heyday. Kola was always a possibility (the old "Cold War gone hot" standby) and so was the Middle East, in which the US was heavily involved even way back during the Suez Crisis, although they didn't send carriers there at that particular time. The region was hardly stable during Cold War, and this was made worse by US and Soviets jockeying for influence.

[Vampyre]

1 hour ago, Voyager said:

 

But did they operate F-4B's or had they largely upgraded to F-14's and Hornets by then? 

I suspect by the time we were getting deeply embroiled in the Middle East, the Navy F-4 was mostly a bomb truck. 

Finally, all of those areas had heavy F-4E action. How ridiculous would it be to do a carrier launched strike on Iran, and the opfor only have access to Navy F-4 varients?

The Marines of VMFA-323 and VMFA-531 flying off the Coral Sea in support of Operation Eagle Claw might take issue to being called ridiculous. They were flying F-4N Phantoms as the primary fleet defense of the USS Coral Sea. They were augmenting CVW-8's VF-41 and VF-84 flying F-14A's off of USS Nimitz. 

[Biggus]

2 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

But did they operate F-4B's or had they largely upgraded to F-14's and Hornets by then? 

I suspect by the time we were getting deeply embroiled in the Middle East, the Navy F-4 was mostly a bomb truck. 

And when did the F-4 have a likelihood of going hot in the Marianas? 

The Phantom FG.1 could have seen action in the Falklands, but it used Spey engines, and had a different cross section and different aerodynamics because of it. 

Finally, all of those areas had heavy F-4E action. How ridiculous would it be to do a carrier launched strike on Iran, and the opfor only have access to Navy F-4 varients?

At absolutely no time did the USN consider the F-4 a "bomb truck".  Yes, it was often loaded with air to ground munitions, yes it was tasked with close air support, ground attack and precision strike, but it's first and foremost role was fleet air defense.  Even in 1986.

F-4Js were present at the first Gulf of Sidra.  Js, Ns and Ss were all on boats at Gonzo station.  There were Phantoms on decks in the Med constantly from the early 60s until the early 80s.

[exhausted]

2 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

But did they operate F-4B's or had they largely upgraded to F-14's and Hornets by then? 

I suspect by the time we were getting deeply embroiled in the Middle East, the Navy F-4 was mostly a bomb truck. 

And when did the F-4 have a likelihood of going hot in the Marianas? 

The Phantom FG.1 could have seen action in the Falklands, but it used Spey engines, and had a different cross section and different aerodynamics because of it. 

Finally, all of those areas had heavy F-4E action. How ridiculous would it be to do a carrier launched strike on Iran, and the opfor only have access to Navy F-4 varients?

I want to be sensitive here, but I still want to acknowledge that the US operated F-4s from the carriers literally all over the world. They performed deterrence the Med, operated off Cuba, Korea, Taiwan, USSR, China, Africa and of course Vietnam. They operated in more places than the Air Force took the F-4E. 

Then, there were the land based squadrons of F-4Bs, Js, Ns and Ss. I think it's time to put the idea that naval operations in the Phantom were a tiny footnote of its history. Quite the contrary, if it wasn't for the Navy then the Phantom never would have been and the Air Force would have been flying upgraded F-100s and F-104s over Vietnam until 1973. Literally every post-1945 map in DCS has a place for some type of Phantom naval ops.

Edited November 22, 2023 by exhausted

[WinterH]

7 hours ago, exhausted said:

Then, there were the land based squadrons of F-4Bs, Js, Ns and Ss. I think it's time to put the idea that naval operations in the Phantom were a tiny footnote of its history

Without some weapons grade mental gymnastics, no, we can't. Because, yes, compared to F-4E, worldwide operations of naval phantoms is a footnote in the history. And if we take a look at actual conflict participation, naval phantoms have so little to show for past Vietnam, one could be forgiven to call them irrelevant in that sense.

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by WinterH

[SgtPappy]

4 hours ago, WinterH said:

Without some weapons grade mental gymnastics, no, we can't. Because, yes, compared to F-4E, worldwide operations of naval phantoms is a footnote in the history. And if we take a look at actual conflict participation, naval phantoms have so little to show for past Vietnam, one could be forgiven to call them irrelevant in that sense.

 

 

I think the footnote thing is highly subjective. While the land based versions and especially the E were more ubiquitous and did a lot more, that doesn't mean the USN Phantoms contributions were small.

For one thing it made aces which was becoming a more rare thing in the 60's-80's. It did quite a bit of work in Vietnam, being the main fighter there by 1972. I think if you call that small, everything the USN did just after WW2 is small. There are stars in the universe that dwarf ours but i wouldn't call our sun insignificantly tiny!

I feel that non-combat contributions like QRA in the UK or simply maintaining a presence in international waters are an underrated part of the Phantom's history. One could argue this influence prevented combat. 

But yes, in terms of what historical combat we could realistically simulate, only Vietnam would work.