Any chance for an AI G with STARMs and HARMs ?

[upyr1]

The STARM wasn't a standard weapon for the E. I think the Israelis armed their Phantoms with STARMs but I don't think were getting that version. I also don't think we'll ever get a proper G. However could we get an AI G with all the proper ARMs to fly SEAD for the rest of the solid Phantom strike packages ?

[Temetre]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb upyr1:

The STARM wasn't a standard weapon for the E. I think the Israelis armed their Phantoms with STARMs but I don't think were getting that version. I also don't think we'll ever get a proper G. However could we get an AI G with all the proper ARMs to fly SEAD for the rest of the solid Phantom strike packages ?

I mean, the F-4E gets AGM-65 Shrikes. If we get the B variant, then itll even be usable at 40+ km range.

No HARM though, thats just a G thing.

Makes me wonder, would the aircraft  make a difference for AI? Eg does the F-16 actually use the HTS pod in any way in SEAD?

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

I mean, the F-4E gets AGM-65 Shrikes. If we get the B variant, then itll even be usable at 40+ km range.

No HARM though, thats just a G thing.

Makes me wonder, would the aircraft  make a difference for AI? Eg does the F-16 actually use the HTS pod in any way in SEAD?

Agn-45 you mean. The reason I asked for an AI G, is that I don't think there is enough open source material to do a flyable module and at the minimum it would simply involve editing the E's weapons chart. 

[Temetre]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb upyr1:

Agn-45 you mean. The reason I asked for an AI G, is that I don't think there is enough open source material to do a flyable module and at the minimum it would simply involve editing the E's weapons chart. 

AGM-45 actually :^)

Yeh im just saying that an AI F-4E could probably do the Gs role with the same performance. Only difference would be displayed name, and maybe very minor difference in stats and visuals.

If Heatblur wanted to make an AI F-4G, it would likely be much more involved.

Edited May 6, 2023 by Temetre

[Bananabrai]

Would still love to see the AGM-78. 

[LanceCriminal86]

AI G will need a handful of model changes beyond just slapping a skin and some weapons on it. I wouldn't mind seeing it too but it's an extra AI aircraft to have to add in the pipeline and dedicate resources to adding the G specific antennas and changes to the airframe. The gun fairing needs to be converted do add the G's sensor suite, the tail fin cap altered to add the G style antenna, and there may be some other changes along the spine to other antennas, maybe needing ARN-101. But you can quickly tell a G by the tail and chin, if HB does things they lean towards doing it right.

Here's a G and E in flight together, G in foreground. As mentioned note the change to the end of the gun pod and bulbous tail antenna vs the E in the background, and at least one extra spine antenna.

 

[Omega417]

That's not a lot of physical external change to make. I'd say if they can hand jam it at first to make a G then slowly correct it, like one item every other patch we would have a legit AI G in no time.

[LanceCriminal86]

To you, sure. But doing model changes and doing them correctly involves a lot more work and shortcuts is not something they generally do. Even the changes to existing models like the F-14, minor as they may seem, take significant time to ensure they are done correctly, textures are properly updated, UVWs are updated, model arguments added/updated, etc.

[upyr1]

On 5/6/2023 at 7:51 AM, Temetre said:

AGM-45 actually :^)

Yeh im just saying that an AI F-4E could probably do the Gs role with the same performance. Only difference would be displayed name, and maybe very minor difference in stats and visuals.

If Heatblur wanted to make an AI F-4G, it would likely be much more involved.

 

The bare minimum would be to edit the load out. The E never carried the harm and the version we got never carried the starm they could be updated later

Edited May 11, 2023 by upyr1

[upyr1]

On 5/10/2023 at 8:55 AM, LanceCriminal86 said:

AI G will need a handful of model changes beyond just slapping a skin and some weapons on it. I wouldn't mind seeing it too but it's an extra AI aircraft to have to add in the pipeline and dedicate resources to adding the G specific antennas and changes to the airframe. The gun fairing needs to be converted do add the G's sensor suite, the tail fin cap altered to add the G style antenna, and there may be some other changes along the spine to other antennas, maybe needing ARN-101. But you can quickly tell a G by the tail and chin, if HB does things they lean towards doing it right.

Here's a G and E in flight together, G in foreground. As mentioned note the change to the end of the gun pod and bulbous tail antenna vs the E in the background, and at least one extra spine antenna.

 

I see the differences, and HB will do things right. It would take less effort than the EA-6B or recce Phantoms.

Edited May 11, 2023 by upyr1

[Bananabrai]

In the past HB showed to be a bit flexible and give us some options, which I welcome a lot.
Comparable topics would be the AGM-65B + NVG on the Viggen, possibly the FLIR on the Tiffy,...

The STARM with the same handling/procedures as the Shrike would be awesome.
We have enough platforms and getting more at some point for the -88.

Not too interested in a -4G AI

[Temetre]

Btw, maybe this is a "hot" opinion, but anyway:

Id like if the STARM would be implemented int the F-4E, if documentation for the G's usage is available and translates well. As a kind of "fictional upgrade".

 

To make the argument I wanna first mention the elefant in the room. I do not believe in slippery slopes here, like "does HB then have  to implement any weapon ever made". That kind of argument is a fallacy, because its unlimited and arbitrary, and usually fuled by emotions. You cannot really argue such a thing

The question to me is more, is rather a) is it believable, b) is it benefitial, c) is it worth the effort, and d) fits the devs vision. I also trust HB to make those decisions, theyve shown their competence, we users dont need to "protect" them from bad decisions. If they say no, then so be it.

 

Basically, as long as were not getting the F-4G, the F-4E will be the choice for SEAD/DEAD in any scenario. And IRL SEAD/DEAD missions were often even done by teams of Es and Gs, with Gs mostly using their special features to locate SAM sites, and direct the F-4Es, who then used AGM-45s agains the positions. In a scenario with no availability of F-4Gs, it seems only logical to give them STARMs, and generally would allow "roleplay" kinds of scenarios where F-4Es are used in place of Gs. 

From what I understand, the STARM as a fictional upgrade to the F-4E should be very straightfoward, and would mostly just be a software update. E and G use the same tech-base for the most part, and shared the Shrike missile as well.

Now idk how well that fits in HBs vision, and whats the effort/difficulty in implementation, thats up to their judgement and decision. But personally I think this would add a lot to the F-4 in DCS, considering the G is a far dream and quite niche. And the F-4E being the only pre-90s official module with actual SEAD/DEAD capabilities, with the only other thing being the A-4 mod.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Temetre

[Northstar98]

It would definitely be cool to see an AI G and would absolutely be something I'd be fully in favour of. However, with the amount of work on HBs plate already and with a couple of AI assets that have long been in the works but yet remain unreleased (J 35J, A-6E, KA-6D and the 3 remaining Forrestals) I'm not sure how viable it would be.

 

On 8/14/2023 at 12:16 PM, Temetre said:

To make the argument I wanna first mention the elefant in the room. I do not believe in slippery slopes here, like "does HB then have  to implement any weapon ever made". That kind of argument is a fallacy, because its unlimited and arbitrary, and usually fuled by emotions. You cannot really argue such a thing

I'm not sure how you figure that. I don't see how it's fallacious to make that point when the reasoning is essentially the exact same. You absolutely can argue such a thing on the grounds of consistency (see below for an easy example), nothing fallacious about it. I also don't know how it can be considered arbitrary either - surely if anything is arbitrary, it's permitting some hypothetical weapons but not others, when the reasoning for adding both is basically identical.

I agree it's a bad idea, not because it's fallacious, but because it calls for wild scope screep and almost certainly isn't viable. It's why I think that items that potentially open the doors to wide scope creep should probably be avoided in the first place and why having a clear and consistent set of rules is important. If we have that (and I’m sure HB has already decided on them) then this ceases to be a problem.

And for the record, somebody pointing this out doesn't mean that they think HB or any other developer are somehow incompetent and need to be protected from "bad decisions" - I'm fully confident HB have already decided where the line is and what the allowable scope should be - they certainly don't need me to to tell them what to do. I'm just lending my thoughts (which you and HB and anyone else are absolutely entitled to think are utterly worthless on the matter) as to why it might be a bad idea.

Like it or not, people have argued for weapons in the past based on a perceived inconsitency that hinges on us getting something that's inaccurate but not others, despite the reasoning for adding them both being the same. If we were to get the AGM-78 I bet you we'll be hearing things like "if we can have the AGM-78 on the E for 'x' reason, why can't we have the HARM for 'x' reason?", "HB are being inconsistent and hypocritical if they allow the STARM but not the HARM!" - yes, these kind of arguments, with very similar wording, have been used in the past for other modules. It isn't a fallacious argument, but it is one that highlights why it's important for the scope to be well defined in the first place and why you should probably stick to the goals of the product, espeically for stuff that isn't finished.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Northstar98
grammar

[Harlikwin]

Yeah, I think an AI G would be cool. I mean the AI EW/SEAD code is pretty simplistic but it would be cool to have them for period correct SEAD/DEAD. 

 

[Grimleo]

F-105G AI please. Maybe a F-100F Wild Weasel AI, and definitely a F-105D Al. 

[upyr1]

On 8/14/2023 at 6:16 AM, Temetre said:

Id like if the STARM would be implemented int the F-4E, if documentation for the G's usage is available and translates well. As a kind of "fictional upgrade".

 

Actually, it might not be as fictional as you think If you take a look at this map showing the nations that used the STARM

 

There are 3 countries in blue. The US was the only nation to use the F-4G however all the nations used the F-4E. So did they fire STARMs from the E? If so what variants and how much do they differ from ours? 

Edited September 1, 2023 by upyr1

[LanceCriminal86]

 

34 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Actually, it might not be as fictional as you think If you take a look at this map showing the nations that used the STARM

 

There are 3 countries in blue. The US was the only nation to use the F-4G however all the nations used the F-4E. So did they fire STARMs from the E? If so what variants and how much do they differ from ours? 

 

They differed in that the Israelis jerry-rigged their jets to work with them, just like they also later modified their jets to work with the Popeye missile. STARM requires hardware and panels to interface with the missile which the US E lacks, and which the G had.

[upyr1]

35 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

They differed in that the Israelis jerry-rigged their jets to work with them, just like they also later modified their jets to work with the Popeye missile. STARM requires hardware and panels to interface with the missile which the US E lacks, and which the G had.

That much I knew about both the Israeli and Iranian Phantoms. So this brings us back to the question what other differences did they have? I know the Israelis also added a refueling probe and they added the Popeye missiles. So hypothetically if the Iranian Phantom is one of ours with the added STARM capability, then I think it would be reasonable to ask for that as an additional variant and the less they have in common then the more reasonable it would be to ask about a PHoriegn E Phantom module Though the Navy and Royal Phantoms are higher on my list

[Temetre]

Am 1.9.2023 um 02:48 schrieb upyr1:

Actually, it might not be as fictional as you think If you take a look at this map showing the nations that used the STARM

 

There are 3 countries in blue. The US was the only nation to use the F-4G however all the nations used the F-4E. So did they fire STARMs from the E? If so what variants and how much do they differ from ours? 

 

Good point, someone also point that out to me on the discord. The only thing required for full supporte of STARMs on the F-4E is apparently a panel, and maybe software.

I think F-4Gs are also very close to F-4Es.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Temetre

[Kalasnkova74]

Where I think an AI F-4G fits is a campaign scenario where the player flies wing on a Wild Weasel sortie. Since Southeast Asia , Wild Weasel aircraft typically flew with “conventional” aircraft which helped blow up the sites once the Weasels found them.

Back in the 60s single seat F-105s would fly with F-100 Wild Weasels , and later F-4Es would fly as strike escorts with F-105G Weasels. It’s completely plausible for the US F-4Es we’re getting to fly with either AI F-105 or F-4G Wild Weasels in that role. 
 

 

[upyr1]

10 hours ago, Temetre said:

 

Good point, someone also point that out to me on the discord. The only thing required for full supporte of STARMs on the F-4E is apparently a panel, and maybe software.

I think F-4Gs are also very close to F-4Es.

 

As I stated earlier the G is really a different beast under the hood, that still leaves the question about what is know about the Israeli and Iranian STARM shooting Es? If they are basically the same as our Phantom except the STARM and in the Israeli case refueling probe then they might be a nice add on for the module. However if they are too different then they might be part of a future Phoreign Phantom  

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Where I think an AI F-4G fits is a campaign scenario where the player flies wing on a Wild Weasel sortie. Since Southeast Asia , Wild Weasel aircraft typically flew with “conventional” aircraft which helped blow up the sites once the Weasels found them.

Back in the 60s single seat F-105s would fly with F-100 Wild Weasels , and later F-4Es would fly as strike escorts with F-105G Weasels. It’s completely plausible for the US F-4Es we’re getting to fly with either AI F-105 or F-4G Wild Weasels in that role. 
 

 

That was the main thing I was thinking with the request for a G. There is an indicator we might be getting the Thud 

[Harlikwin]

On 9/2/2023 at 3:45 AM, Temetre said:

 

I think F-4Gs are also very close to F-4Es.

 

Lol no. The G has a whole DC to daylight EW suite built into it, no F4E has anything even close to that. Even the F16 HTS was inferior in capability compared to what the G could do. 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Temetre]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Harlikwin:

Lol no. The G has a whole DC to daylight EW suite built into it, no F4E has anything even close to that. Even the F16 HTS was inferior in capability compared to what the G could do. 

 

Obviously besides the EW gear lol

[Kalasnkova74]

27 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Obviously besides the EW gear lol

Even including that.

The F-4Gs APR-47 was “sensor fusion” before the F-35 was a gleam on a Pentagon slide deck. Key difference in the -G is theres a trained human doing the “tactical filtering” of every signal in the battlespace vs a computer canned presentation. Even the F-35s sensor fusion isn’t as flexible, because you’re reliant on software to categorize the signals.