Jump to content

F-4 Phantom II question


RallyNH

Recommended Posts

IIRC, there are No holds.

 

Just because one developer is building a modile does not mean another cannot.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been partial to the Navy birds. Would like to fly these off the carriers.

 

Back in the late 1980, the MN Air Guard flew these out of Duluth. They had the D model. There was an optimum prime spot to watch right outside the gate. Up close even. We used to watch them for hours. Night time takeoffs were spectacular too. Often times they were up with gun pods and another would carry a target drogue. Guessing they went over Lake Superior to shoot at it.


Edited by Zad Fnark

Questions are a burdon, and answers a prison for one's self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not long ago somebody commented, one of those several interviews which appeared, they originally were trying to get the whole package, all the Phantom's versions in one module, though that's no easy task. Hope eventually whenever they take over the module again that could be a possibility. Lets be honest, I would take any Phantom they throw at us, but the naval ones have a special appeal.

 

 

S!


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As many threads have been posted over the years I'll nip this one in the bud for all the information we know so far. Particularly since it seems the BilSimTek website domain has been given to someone else which I can't access anymore.

 

We were planned to get an F-4 Phantom by BilSimTek. It was meant to be an F-4E from the Gulf war era (or there about) time frame so a Block 53 can be assumed or equivalent upgrade as it was meant to get access to the internal gun, Gun pods, AGM-65 Mavericks, AGM-45 Shrikes, AIM-7E-M, AIM-9s as well as a bunch of bombs, rockets and other bits. But its the AGM-65s that date it.

 

What happened next isn't exactly clear but what we do know is that BST got reabsorbed into ED, by my guess, given the last update on their website (a farewell to Igor Tishin) is that BST had a lot of involvement with Igor Tishin, founder of ED and for some reason his passing cause BST to be reabsorbed.

 

Now its been stated a few times in interviews that Nick holds another job and does DCS as a passion project as well as ED not always turning a profit. He as also stated he enjoys WW2 content much more then Modern combat.

 

They have also stated they are not interested in doing Century series fighters themselves and one must remember the F-4 started life as the F-110A Specter.

 

Now you take all this into account and it starts to make sense why they chose the F-16 and FW-190 and pushed the F-4 back initially because the F-16 was seen as a hyped product (guaranteed sales, something I would say wasn't as guaranteed with the F-4 in Nick's view) and theoretically was an easier module to do due because of the commonality between the F/A-18 and F-16's systems.

 

Of course this is only "in theory" in practice they pushed the F-16 out too early (probably because they needed the extra buck sooner) we got the half baked module we did and since the P-47 update they've seen how complicated it was to bring over Hornet systems into the Viper without any huge game breaking bugs happening in both planes so they stopped doing this extending the time it would take to make both planes.

 

This then pushed the F-4 back even more...then we had Supercarrier (they said after SC and the Hind they'd try to get back to the F-4/AH-1) and we still don't have the Hind. NOW we finally get to the present...ED almost reviled a "New" module for the 2020 Beyond video but decided against it at the last minute (good thing too given the P-47 update drama that was to come in the next few months) and this "New" module is meant to be "Groundbreaking" for DCS and "a Milestone aircraft" as well as Nineline confirming its not something they've teased before and he used the F-4 as an example specifically.

 

This "new" module (which many believe is the Apache or perhaps a Full fidelity russian aircraft such as a Mig 29A) will probably ALSO take priority over the F-4 and is to be announced "Q4/End of 2020" so, SoonTM.

 

My guess then as a realistic timeframe for the F-4's reannouncement and eventual delivery to the game would probably be, reannouncement some time during mid-late 2021 and actually coming to the game mid 2022 (assuming the old BST files and stuff is still compatible with 2.5.6 or beyond). If not? well I could see it being even 2023 maybe even early 2024 depending on how much recources the "New Module" takes up before we see the Phantom actually in game.

 

Don't get me wrong, I hope I'm wrong about the timeframes...but chances are I'm not.

 

Last pictures of the BST progress before they were reabsorbed:

 

ALbnEyB.jpg

 

7tvNppI.jpg

 

There are external pictures but they are all from the only BST site and won't show up using the Forum image thing due to the BST website being "no more", just type up 'F-4 belsimtek' if you wish to see them for your self.


Edited by Southernbear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are only two F-4 Phantoms still flying, besides some target practice drones.

???

 

The F-4 Phantom II is still in active service with a number of air forces around the world, meaning there are much more than only two examples still flying...

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess then as a realistic timeframe for the F-4's reannouncement and eventual delivery to the game would probably be, reannouncement some time during mid-late 2021 and actually coming to the game mid 2022 (assuming the old BST files and stuff is still compatible with 2.5.6 or beyond). If not? well I could see it being even 2023 maybe even early 2024 depending on how much recources the "New Module" takes up before we see the Phantom actually in game.

 

Don't get me wrong, I hope I'm wrong about the timeframes...but chances are I'm not.

This is what ED's global business development director has to say about it:

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also have to remember the F-4 Phantom would be ED's first Multicrew plane and the second Multicrew plane to come after the F-14 if they chose to stick with it over the F-16. So I could see the Hind and Huey multicrew being a so called "test run" for ED implementing Multicrew their own way also much like the F-14 you can't get away with leaving it empty without a player like Razbam is doing with the F-15E because the F-4 is older meaning they'd need to make their own AI or license it/modify Heatblur's Jester to work with the F-4 Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

???

 

The F-4 Phantom II is still in active service with a number of air forces around the world, meaning there are much more than only two examples still flying...

 

 

There are around 200 in service according to Fight International's world air forces 2020 (I'd love to link to it, but it seems to have been put behind a paywall since the last time I checked it). Some may have been retired since waf2020 was published, but there are still many left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting Sherlock job there :thumbup: , though I don't get were some assumptions come from,

 

 

 

What happened next isn't exactly clear but what we do know is that BST got reabsorbed into ED, by my guess, given the last update on their website (a farewell to Igor Tishin) is that BST had a lot of involvement with Igor Tishin, founder of ED and for some reason his passing cause BST to be reabsorbed.
Reabsorbed means they never stopped being ED under a different name (which was obvious from their work), just their office at Belarus became somewhat independent since they aren't based in the very same place as ED's main office (Moscow) and makes sense all the way. They said it was done like that so when third parties started to come to DCS making Belsimtek independent made the number of third parties a bit more flesh out. Later on when third parties numbers, and quality, was clearly established it was no more necessary for Belsimtek to be "independent" and work in different projects any more. I don't see anything weird with that, though we don't know exact accountant details of course nor it matters to end users, to be honest.

 

 

 

They have also stated they are not interested in doing Century series fighters themselves and one must remember the F-4 started life as the F-110A Specter.
That's right, but I believe they meant the proper Century Fighters, F-104 (asked many times, but a horrible aircraft performance wise), F-102/6, F-101, and so. Those would be nice to have in a full cold war environment, but they are not really good aircraft to fly, no good performance, no good nothing despite many of them being quite beautiful aesthetically and somewhat iconic to an era. I guess it's not impossible to get them in due time, but right now probably makes not much sense while we lack other more important stuff. Don't forget either that while some people ask for them from time to time most of the community ask for modern stuff, even the most modern available and not older things (WWII aside), so probably they wouldn't be a great success in sales after all the hard work required. I guess ED has to look after their numbers after all.

 

 

Of course this is only "in theory" in practice they pushed the F-16 out too early (probably because they needed the extra buck sooner) we got the half baked module we did and since the P-47 update they've seen how complicated it was to bring over Hornet systems into the Viper without any huge game breaking bugs happening in both planes so they stopped doing this extending the time it would take to make both planes.
Here, I'm sorry but nope. People tend to forget the story with the ex-ED member jailed. IMO (since there were never a statement from ED in that regard) F-16 was rushed out clearly because the usual trolls started to put in doubt the Viper was ever going to happen due to that guy's story, rumours had to be stopped at once so they launched the longest pre-purchase to date to make clear Viper was gonna happen no matter what, but Steam forcing them to put a release date made it worst since there were not much of a delay possibility. That, and nothing else, was the reason from my point of view for Viper to be rushed, frigging trolls spreading rumours and nonsense :music_whistling:.

 

 

 

This then pushed the F-4 back even more...
Yeah, here you lost me. F-4 was sadly pushed back since it made no more sense Belsimtek kept their schedule after they "came back home" and was no more acting like an independent third party, if it ever was completely independent which I believe they weren't. Your guesstimate for a possible date though might be quite right, or so I hope, but that might be only cause I want to see the Phantom in DCS sooner than later :D .

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-104 did not have horrible performance other than turn rates, and those were only marginally worse than the hard wing F-4 Phantoms. It had outstanding acceleration, climb, and speed. It was much cleaner than the F-4, which made its performance superior for a given thrust/weight loading. What it did have was a horrible accident record with Germany. But many other users didn't have that issue at all.

 

I can understand the ED's main stable of jet aircraft is centered around the "modern" 1990s core that came from Flanker/LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs. The F-5 is in the game to support the Nevada terrain.

 

But since they are doing WW2 and Korea, why would they stop at the F-86 and start at the F-4 and skip the Century series? Variants of the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, and F-105 all served in Vietnam. But the highest demand and profitability in flight sims has always been for WW2 and modern jets. Never Korea or Vietnam era and barely enough to produce a few WW1 sims around.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-104 did not have horrible performance other than turn rates, and those were only marginally worse than the hard wing F-4 Phantoms. It had outstanding acceleration, climb, and speed. It was much cleaner than the F-4, which made its performance superior for a given thrust/weight loading. What it did have was a horrible accident record with Germany. But many other users didn't have that issue at all.
Yeah, I know the Texas size turn radius was a pilot's joke :D, though it wasn't a real dogfighter at all, also despite de radar wasn't a BVR fighter either, so what was it? Don't get me wrong, I would like to see a DCS level Starfighter some day, but trying to keep it the more objective possible given the usual self induced hype :pilotfly:, it wasn't a good fighter. Hot as hell and somewhat futuristic looking of course, but not a good fighter after all and I don't know how would it sell which in the end is what ED has to keep in mind given the niche market they work with.

 

 

S!


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know the Texas size turn radius was a pilot's joke :D, though it wasn't a real dogfighter at all, also despite de radar wasn't a BVR fighter either, so what was it? Don't get me wrong, I would like to see a DCS level Starfighter some day, but trying to keep it the more objective possible given the usual self induced hype :pilotfly:, it wasn't a good fighter. Hot as hell and somewhat futuristic looking of course, but not a good fighter after all and I don't know how would it sell which in the end is what ED has to keep in mind given the niche market they work with.

 

 

S!

 

If you think it wasn't a good fighter, you need to read what Andy Bush had to say at SimHQ back in the day. He flew F-104s and F-4s and preferred the F-104. He beat F-15s flying the F-104. The lack of BVR capability wasn't a huge problem in the 1960s. The Navy hardly even used the AIM-7 on the F-4 all the way up to 1972. They much preferred the AIM-9. Of course, the F-104S got AIM-7 and Aspide. The F-104G is pretty much a single engine F-4 with no AIM-7 capability and corresponding reduction in hard points/payload capacity. Flown to its strengths, it can engage and disengage at will. But it cannot win a sustained turn fight, but then neither could the unslatted F-4. The contemporary MiG-21F-13 is probably its worst nightmare because of its much superior agility, but the F-104 still has the excess power advantage and will only lose if it engages in a pure horizontal fight. It is similar to WW2 where US fighters never had the agility of the A6M, but clobbered it with a combination of power/speed/coordinated tactics. The F-104 was a much better fighter than the F-105, and the F-105 had a good record against the MiG-17, but the F-105 was disadvantaged in both power and agility against the MiG-21F-13. All the F-105 could do was outrun the MiG-21 as low level. The F-104 didn't do well against the MiG-21 in India/Pakistan combat, but that is partially do to the tactics/skills of the pilots involved as well as the initial conditions at the start of the engagements. Because if Andy Bush could beat F-15s, it means the F-104's performance is good enough that pilot skill/experience is what determines the outcome, and air combat history shows that is all the performance you need if you have good pilots available from WW2 to the present.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think it wasn't a good fighter, you need to read what Andy Bush had to say at SimHQ back in the day. He flew F-104s and F-4s and preferred the F-104. He beat F-15s flying the F-104. The lack of BVR capability wasn't a huge problem in the 1960s. The Navy hardly even used the AIM-7 on the F-4 all the way up to 1972. They much preferred the AIM-9. Of course, the F-104S got AIM-7 and Aspide. The F-104G is pretty much a single engine F-4 with no AIM-7 capability and corresponding reduction in hard points/payload capacity. Flown to its strengths, it can engage and disengage at will. But it cannot win a sustained turn fight, but then neither could the unslatted F-4. The contemporary MiG-21F-13 is probably its worst nightmare because of its much superior agility, but the F-104 still has the excess power advantage and will only lose if it engages in a pure horizontal fight. It is similar to WW2 where US fighters never had the agility of the A6M, but clobbered it with a combination of power/speed/coordinated tactics. The F-104 was a much better fighter than the F-105, and the F-105 had a good record against the MiG-17, but the F-105 was disadvantaged in both power and agility against the MiG-21F-13. All the F-105 could do was outrun the MiG-21 as low level. The F-104 didn't do well against the MiG-21 in India/Pakistan combat, but that is partially do to the tactics/skills of the pilots involved as well as the initial conditions at the start of the engagements. Because if Andy Bush could beat F-15s, it means the F-104's performance is good enough that pilot skill/experience is what determines the outcome, and air combat history shows that is all the performance you need if you have good pilots available from WW2 to the present.
Interesting!! Still I don't think a single example of a good pilot knowing his mount better than the enemy can be set as example of a whole. I have a friend, ex-air force pilot, who won a combat against a Hornet, in a C101 :lol: . You can try that on DCS if you like and even if he won that time the C101 can't stand any fight with a real fighter, never, ever, it was a Hornet's pilot mistake and he paid for that, but you have a point with the "it's the pilot, not the machine". And of course even if it were the worst useless thing I would still like to see it DCS level to know by myself, Starfighter is a so cool thing.

 

 

But so is any Phantom and that's the topic here, I guess :D, though your "it's a single engined Phantom" idea is quite true, also it's a single wing Phantom would be true and that wouldn't be so good.

 

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...