F-4E Phantom news?

https://belsimtek.com/news/1792/

https://belsimtek.com/news/1787/

https://belsimtek.com/news/1792/

https://belsimtek.com/news/1787/

Those news are from 2017. See here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3278678&postcount=1

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3341529&postcount=1

How big are the differences anyway? Would make sense for one team to make both as they very much have lots of commonalities even while being different.

https://combatace.com/forums/topic/91818-the-f-4-phantom-and-the-gun-part-1/

This post had some good points highlighting the differences between them, and is alright read.

USN used it as fleet defense fighter and USAF used it as tactical fighter. The Navy attitude was more in line with what the aircraft was designed for. There's quite a few technical/equipment differences, (essentially two different jets) but IMO the biggest was doctrine.

Sounds like we will have to wait after Viper release to really see where the F-4E will be on the priority list. If they really do have to work on 1 at a time, it's a safe bet the Mi-24 is first :(

Such a shame, this game really needs more of the older jets.

I guess the F-8 Crusader by Magnitude will come out first then, a module I am also highly anticipating.

Such a shame, this game really needs more of the older jets.

 

I guess the F-8 Crusader by Magnitude will come out first then, a module I am also highly anticipating.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I suspect the F-8 will still need at least 2-3 years to come out.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I suspect the F-8 will still need at least 2-3 years to come out.

Ufff, I hope not :(

Ufff, I hope not :(

Well, they haven't even really started working on it AFAIK. They just started with the research. At least that's what they said in their most recent news update. And they can't develop as fast as ED does with the F-16.

https://combatace.com/forums/topic/91818-the-f-4-phantom-and-the-gun-part-1/

 

 

This post had some good points highlighting the differences between them, and is alright read.

 

USN used it as fleet defense fighter and USAF used it as tactical fighter. The Navy attitude was more in line with what the aircraft was designed for. There's quite a few technical/equipment differences, (essentially two different jets) but IMO the biggest was doctrine.

Nice post

https://combatace.com/forums/topic/91818-the-f-4-phantom-and-the-gun-part-1/

 

 

This post had some good points highlighting the differences between them, and is alright read.

 

USN used it as fleet defense fighter and USAF used it as tactical fighter. The Navy attitude was more in line with what the aircraft was designed for. There's quite a few technical/equipment differences, (essentially two different jets) but IMO the biggest was doctrine.

I wish we could have an F-4D after reading this.

I always like the looks of the short nosed birds better.

Well, that's not up to us to decide. I'm still happy about an F-4E

I'll certainly take the E, but I had secretly hoped for a J, for no other reason than Navy based, so ability to do carrier operations with a F-4. Those Navy Phantoms just looked so freaking good.

Either way, Im looking forward to a stream of Navy liveries, when time comes :)

Or the F-4S with the slats to out-turn Fishbeds ;)

edit: that writeup about the F-4E vs gunless Phantoms is very interesting, thanks for sharing!

The F-4E is the perfect choice if you ask me, considering how many AFs used it.

The F-4E version ED are supposed to be working on was only used by two air forces. The USAF and ROKAF. Everyone else used either the vanilla F-4E or a locally modified version not used by anyone else. The F-4E with the DMAS/ARN-101 upgrade would be great for DCS. That upgrade dramatically increased it's A/G accuracy which then made it just as capable as the F-16A. It was also the baseline for the F-4G Wild Weasel V. The basic slat winged Vietnam era F-4E would be an interesting module. The problem with late modifications is that they aren't really useful for simulating the earlier versions. take the F/A-18C for instance. A Cold War scenario wouldn't be able to use them and be accurate. Everything up to the lot 12 Hornet did not have MIDS and you can't take that datalink function out to make it more compatible. I suppose that is one of the failings of this study sim type set up ED has going.

In DCS, I'd like to see the F-4D, F-4E DMAS/ARN-101 and F-4G on the Air Force side and the F-4J and F-4S on the Navy side. Will we see it from ED? Probably not. From another developer? Maybe. Heatblur are doing A and B variants of the Tomcat and possibly the F-14D if they can get the research material.

The F-4 is one of those aircraft that a developer could make multiple variants of and still sell a bunch of modules. The F-16, C-130 and S-70 are similar in this respect.

I'll certainly take the E, but I had secretly hoped for a J, for no other reason than Navy based, so ability to do carrier operations with a F-4. Those Navy Phantoms just looked so freaking good.

 

Same, when I think of the the F-4 I think of a Navy interceptor with big roundels and Hi-Vis liveries. :) I'm happy with the F-4E and I completely understand why ED picked it...but if it was up to me I would've gone with the F-4J

Maybe some day, someone can make it happen.

F-4 J/N/S would be awesome. I can also understand that they picked the E.

The lineup you are talking about will take another 20 years...

About the Cold War Hornet: Shouldn't it be possible to program a failure for the MIDS in the Mission Editor?

Same, when I think of the the F-4 I think of a Navy interceptor with big roundels and Hi-Vis liveries. :) I'm happy with the F-4E and I completely understand why ED picked it...but if it was up to me I would've gone with the F-4J

 

Maybe some day, someone can make it happen.

Interesting, when I think of the F-4 I think about an air force aircraft for the most part. I actually wasn't even aware about the navy variant for quite a long time... :music_whistling:

About the Cold War Hornet: Shouldn't it be possible to program a failure for the MIDS in the Mission Editor?

It should be possible for SP to do that (haven't tested it), but in MP predefined failures are not possible.

It should be possible for SP to do that (haven't tested it), but in MP predefined failures are not possible.

Atm, setting the mission time before, eh mid 90's something, seems to render the Hornets GPS useless for example. It'll know its heading, but thats about it. I havent fully dived into it, just noticed when wanting to test a mission I had put to 1985 (and another to 1991).

The F-4E version ED are supposed to be working on was only used by two air forces. The USAF and ROKAF. Everyone else used either the vanilla F-4E or a locally modified version not used by anyone else. The F-4E with the DMAS/ARN-101 upgrade would be great for DCS...

 

In DCS, I'd like to see the F-4D, F-4E DMAS/ARN-101 and F-4G on the Air Force side and the F-4J and F-4S on the Navy side.

It would be great to have both the F-4E and the F-4J - very different in performance even though to the untrained eye, they look extremely similar. Though the F-4E that we are (still hopefully) getting has the ARN-101 and other upgrades, aerodynamically it will perform basically identically to the Rivet Haste F-4E's that fought in Vietnam at the very end of the US involvement in that war so it's not totally off from that kind of scenario.

The F-4S would be a little weird to see there, and it would give more variety to have an F-4J since both the UK and the USN used it. A man can dream!

Atm, setting the mission time before, eh mid 90's something, seems to render the Hornets GPS useless for example. It'll know its heading, but thats about it. I havent fully dived into it, just noticed when wanting to test a mission I had put to 1985 (and another to 1991).

MIDS is data link, not GPS.

Yeah f4e is more iconic ( vast export) and far more multirole aircraft.

I too hope f4e will include all the bells and whistles that were originally promised like ARN 101 , and pave tac tgp.

But in comparison the f4j ( and especially f4s) is certainly prefferable for a2a combat over f4e because awg10 > an/asq 120 . As a pulse doppler radar it has actual look down shoot down capability

MIDS is data link, not GPS.

I was under the impression that the Hornets data link relied on GPS (for positioning of everything)? In either case, Data link / SA doesnt work on the Hornet, if you set a mission to for example 1985. At least it didnt the couple of times I tested it a short while ago.

So just saying, the Hornet could still be used as an early Lot, if the mission designer dials back time. If this is a feature or a loophole that ED will close later, who knows.

Yeah f4e is more iconic ( vast export) and far more multirole aircraft.

Depends. To me it's the Navy F-4 that's more iconic. The introduction, rivalry with Crusader, creation of Top Gun (and all the names associated with it).

To each his own I guess.

Depends. To me it's the Navy F-4 that's more iconic. The introduction, rivalry with Crusader, creation of Top Gun (and all the names associated with it).

To each his own I guess.

Agreed, that's what makes the F-4 so awesome because of all the history it has created.

If you're from any of the export countries - especially Israel - the F-4E is the way to go. 116 kills and 9 aces, that's the most iconic to me. Actual combat history speaks volumes of an aircraft's capability.

I was under the impression that the Hornets data link relied on GPS (for positioning of everything)? In either case, Data link / SA doesnt work on the Hornet, if you set a mission to for example 1985. At least it didnt the couple of times I tested it a short while ago.

 

So just saying, the Hornet could still be used as an early Lot, if the mission designer dials back time. If this is a feature or a loophole that ED will close later, who knows.

Nope, it has an INS, that is aided by GPS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS/INS

It's called a EGI (Embedded GPS INS) and if the GPS fails (satelites get jammed or shot down, which is very likely in a high scale war against a peer opponent) it will just function as a normal INS. That's why you need to do an alignment on the ground during startup, which is needed for the INS part.