Naval F-4 - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-12-2018, 03:02 PM   #21
DronneR
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 122
Default

I'd like to see the carrier version of Phantom, with LD/SD capability, this would be a great asset even against modern fighters, not to mention 60-70th settings with only inferior Fishbeds and Floggers. Or even perhaps the RN FAA Phantom FG/FGR version with FANTASTIC Spey engines.
DronneR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2018, 05:34 PM   #22
Nexus-6
Junior Member
 
Nexus-6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Spears View Post
...so, will we not be able to land and take-off from a carrier in DCS with the E variant?
That's correct.

The F-4E that Belsimtek is making for us never saw service with the U.S. Navy. Our Phantom (which is late 70s/ early 80s I think) was only operated (in the United States) by the Air Force.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Nexus-6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2018, 07:24 PM   #23
Ala13_ManOWar
Senior Member
 
Ala13_ManOWar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,218
Default

I said before we knew Belsimtek was coming with F-4E, and still hold it.

Pretty sure Belsimtek module will be a great one, as they have proved to the day. For a reason it seems most people usually like to fly (I'm not really sure why) latest variants of the models in the modules we have so E model makes sense as sort of "ultimate Phantom", fine. But I would have liked to fly naval variants together with some terrestrial ones and not only that "ultimate Phantom" with great capabilities, yes, but may be not the most common Phantom and definitely not a variant that could be relatively easily converted into a naval one. May be F-4Q can be matched to the E as "ultimate naval Phantom" (I don't take in account S one those came so late that never saw service in conflict AFAIK), but those E and Q are so different aircraft that makes no sense thinking on any dual version.

On the other hand a B-N model could have been matched to C-D variants easier (and I know it's not that easy…) so we could have get either terrestrial and naval variants, not to mention perfect ones fitting in a Vietnam map I hope we see some day. I mean, terrestrial versions are still a Phantom are they are cool, yes, but naval operations are cooler as hell and I would like some day to experience a DCS level ones in historical environments and not only modern jets.


Of course, anyway Phantom is a day one purchase for me, I can't lie , and glad we see the Phantom in DCS, but naval operations has something…


S!
__________________
"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice
Ala13_ManOWar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2018, 11:45 PM   #24
bC3660
Member
 
bC3660's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Oregon
Posts: 218
Default

I wont buy the F-4 if its not the navy version.
bC3660 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2018, 02:37 AM   #25
streakeagle
Member
 
streakeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 615
Default

There are many variants of F-4 within any one "letter" The F-4B evolved so much that the latter mods were renamed F-4N. The F-4J was an improved F-4B that was eventually improved so much that it became the F-4S. Each of the many minor variants frequently had visually different cockpits with key system functionality relocated/re-arranged to squeeze in new systems, improve old systems, or better serve HOTAS requirements.

The AWG-10 radar of the F-4J was radically different from the F-4B/C/D radar sets, and itself evolved into the AWG-10A, AWG-10B, and the RN/RAF AWG-11 and AWG-12 versions. Even with the radar display turned off, you can see major variation in the radar display indicator mounted in front of the pilot under the gunsight glass.

So, like the MiG-21, you have to pick one specific mod of one specific version to end up with a cockpit and capability that matches a real world example as well as possible.

In the case of the MiG-21 and F-4, I would gladly play for many if not all of the variants. Since most people won't buy more than one or two variants, it is better for a developer to pick one that was common and popular. As most people want the most capable, it usually ends up being the last major variant... and hence we get the MiG-21bis, F-5E (wth a RWR!), and a very digitally updated slatted F-4E.

I could easily produce of list of MiG-21 and F-4 variants that are both historically significant and substantially different from other versions to justify separate modules, but would enough people be willing to buy them to get a developer to forego developing other aircraft that aren't already in the game that could easily bring in more profits by being unique and more capable than variants of existing DCS modules?
__________________
streakeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2018, 02:51 AM   #26
streakeagle
Member
 
streakeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 615
Default

The F-4E is a very good choice:
Historically the most produced.
Used by the most countries.
Updated variants are still operational with several air forces.
Similar variants were in use well beyond the 1990s setting favored by the DCS World/Flaming Cliffs plane set.
It has a built-in gun and visually can easily double as the very similar F-4F.
The range of roles served and weapons carried by the F-4E set the benchmark for the term "multirole".

The Navy versions of the F-4 were only used by the USN (except for a handful of F-4Js transferred to the UK after the Falklands/Malvinas War).
The RAF/RN versions were substantially different from the F-4J from which they were derived and represent a very small fraction of production and historical/operational history.

So if it is only economically practical to release one version, it is hard to knock anyone for choosing the last, most capable variant of the best/most common version, the F-4E.

As a fan both carrier operations and Vietnam air combat, I would much prefer the F-4B/C/D for the early part of the war, but would enjoy the F-4B/D/E/J versions/variants that served in 1972 as well, particularly any exact versions/mods that served on May 10, 1972.

But I need some appropriate MiG-17F, MiG-19S, and MiG21F/PF/PFM/MF variants that served in those same time frames to fully enjoy the ride.

DCS development has not been able to, nor is likely ever able to support releasing entire theaters of historical wars including terrain, ground objects, AI aircraft, and a handful of flyable variants of the most common/popular aircraft available.

So I will happily settle for a very late F-4E rather than hold my breath (and money) until I get everything I want.
__________________
streakeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2018, 04:08 AM   #27
AG-51_Razor
Senior Member
 
AG-51_Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Spears View Post
...so, will we not be able to land and take-off from a carrier in DCS with the E variant?
I believe that is a correct statement.
__________________
AG-51_Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2018, 04:33 AM   #28
Nexus-6
Junior Member
 
Nexus-6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by streakeagle View Post

Since most people won't buy more than one or two variants, it is better for a developer to pick one that was common and popular. As most people want the most capable, it usually ends up being the last major variant... and hence we get the MiG-21bis, F-5E (wth a RWR!), and a very digitally updated slatted F-4E.
I would say that this accurately condenses it all.

I'm an aviation nerd at heart and, as much as I would dearly love to see any and all variants of every combat aircraft ever made make it's DCS debut, it just isn't economically viable for a developer to spend the time, energy and money building a model that would only sell to a niche market of a niche market.
Nexus-6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2018, 11:12 AM   #29
Accipiter
Member
 
Accipiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 742
Default

At least with the F4-E no one will have to make any Carriers with working TACAN, not to mention steam cats and arrestor gear. Should cut down on the time spent in "beta"!
__________________
i7 Haswell @ 4.6Ghz, Z97p, GTX1080, 32GB DDR3, x3SSD, Win7/64, professional. 32" BenQ, TIR 5, Saitek x55 HOTAS.
Search User Files for "herky" for my uploaded missions. My flight sim videos on You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/user/Herky231
Accipiter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 01:39 PM   #30
Kirk66
Member
 
Kirk66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: N38-45.967, W089-37.853
Posts: 108
Default

Assuming the carrier coming with the F-18 is fully modelled, you should be able to at least land on it with the F-4E - the arresting hook is the same as the navy model, and the gear is similar (you might blow the lower pressure main tires.). The approach will be about 10 - 15 knots faster than a BLC navy F-4, and not as stable; from personal experience the BLC F-4Cs were very stable in landing configuration, while the slatted E's were less so. So just get that carrier up to flank speed and add 30 knots of wind over the bow and try it - I know I will!

Taking off will be a problem because the USAF jets did not have the bridle hooks for the catapult. Rolling takeoff? Hmmm, 1000 lbs of fuel, clean, BIG headwind, empty deck...no, don't think so, but again, worth a try.

Even though I'm really looking forward to the E, it would be nice to have a hardwing F-4 so people could experience the really cool departures you could do in those jets! And they were faster...

Vulture
Kirk66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:05 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.