F-4 Phantom Who Wants it Poll

[Tirak]

If you want planes that historically fought each other, make your own missions, if you don't like servers like 104th, don't play on them.

 

I love flying the mig21 against f15s and su27s on the 104th, main reason I play dcs,

 

I would hate the mig21 if it was just another spamraam launcher, that's why I'm glad the f4e and f14 don't use aim120s, 1 spamraam launcher is enough, but with the f18 coming there will already be 2

 

Beauty of a sandbox... You choose what you fly and what your enemy flys, and if you want aim120s on an f4 I'm sure you can edit an .lua.

 

I wouldn't want an F-4E to fire AMRAAMS either, it couldn't do it. However his response was with regards to the F-4 ICE, which did use AMRAAMs.

[Hadwell]

I wouldn't want an F-4E to fire AMRAAMS either, it couldn't do it. However his response was with regards to the F-4 ICE, which did use AMRAAMs.

 

I said that I'm glad the f4e and f14 "don't" use aim120s... And on my post before that I also already said my opinion on limited and test varients of planes

Edited February 1, 2016 by Hadwell

[BlackLion213]

The AMRAAM is such a superlative weapon that it can act as an equalizer of sorts. Just about any aircraft that carries the AIM-120 is very dangerous in the A-A arena. It also takes some of the fun and challenge out of the air combat experience IMHO.

 

Even though DCS is built upon the intent of delivering the most realistic air combat experience possible, many people's mission expectations seem out of sync with reality. I think many users or potential users still expect the over-hyped US vs Soviet type scenarios. They imagine a US/NATO fighter heading into combat and shooting down 3-5 enemies in a single engagement. The AIM-120 supports this vision and is part of the reason that everyone wants it (plus people like to win...I get that). But I still think that things are more fun when the weapons are hard to employ and the kills are few. If you engage an enemy, jockey for the advantage, but then disengage when your weapon misses - both still have the opportunity to re-engage or find another engagement in a single mission. Seems like more fun per mission, the struggle is the fun part.

 

I'm hoping that as more full DCS modules are released (a good number coming this year - hopefully) without the AMRAAM, there will be more incentive to offer MP with only Fox1 and Fox2 weapons. I think that a mix-up between Hornets, Tomcats, Mirages, MiG-21s, F-5Es, and Viggens with only beam-riding missiles or IR would be excellent (I'm happy to fly the F-14 without the Phoenix).

 

I wouldn't want an F-4E to fire AMRAAMS either, it couldn't do it. However his response was with regards to the F-4 ICE, which did use AMRAAMs.

 

I totally get why that appeals, it keeps the F-4 relevant against the Su-27 and F-15C, but why would we want to? I don't think it proves anything, plus the F-4 was already King-of-the Hill for a couple decades (more or less).

 

I don't think that Custard thought it was wrong to create it per se, more that adding more AMRAAM launchers to DCS might be counter-productive (though he was less diplomatic - that is true). Much like the MiG-21, any F-4 could still get plenty of kills in MP, but they would be hard-earned.

 

I still think fighters with old sparrows and R-3s would make the A-A environment more fun, but just my opinion.

 

Plus, it's not like we have to worry about this - there doesn't seem to be an F-4 coming anytime soon.

 

-Nick

[Winfield_Gold]

Just let this poll die people.

[mattebubben]

Right here:

 

 

The wrong opinion tbh, trying to shoehorn old jets into a 4th gen setting where they would underperform is silly when you could have them in their prime, fighting planes they were meant to fight and did fight in real life.

 

Im not a mindreader.

 

But my understanding of that statement is the following.

 

That its Wrong to Force compare older aircraft with newer aircraft since ofc the new aircraft would be better.

 

He never said that its wrong of you to want a Upgraded F-4.

 

Just that he think its wrong to say there should not be a F-4E just because its not as good as the later upgraded variants.

 

In fact the comment off his you take offense with was a response to your comment where you said the same kind of thing...

 

Why settle for an old version, when if you get a new one, like say the ICE, you could always just slap on older weapons and make due, while those of us who wanted to use Phantoms in the modern servers could as well

 

I would be really happy for either a F-4E or a Upgrade F4 like a Ice or a

EJ Kai etc.

 

And either would be great.

 

Sure a Upgraded variant would be more competative against Su-27s and F-15s on servers where they get all armament options.

 

But if you make a 1980s scenario with an F-4E it could still preform ok (with the right tactics) since that would remove the aim-120s etc.

 

But i dont get how you can blame him for what he said when you said the exact same thing (but in reverse) in the post before him...

 

But also there is nothing that points for a F-4E .

 

And if one will be made in the next few years why would it be made by Leatherneck?

Edited February 1, 2016 by mattebubben

[Custard]

Honestly guys, what have I started here.

The wrong opinion tbh

Is just a colourful way of saying "I disagree".

 

I'm not telling anyone what to think, I just disagree with wanting relatively obscure variants of iconic jets just so they can use ARH missiles.

[mattebubben]

i always want the most important variant of an aircraft.

 

And for the F-4 that would be the F-4E since the E and its variants where the most produced of the F-4 variants with the most export users etc.

 

And for that simple reason id take the F-4E before an upgrade.

 

Just like id rather have a F-104G instead of a 104S or a Mirage 3C or E instead of a Mirage 3 Rose.

 

I would love to have a upgraded variant later on but for me the most important variant of an aircraft is always the one i would pick if i had to choose (even if i wanted both)

 

And with more earlier aircraft there will be alot more MP servers with older scenarios.

 

Either Limiting aircraft types to older aircraft or just the Weapons loads.

 

And While a F-15C with Aim-120s vs a F-4E with Aim-7Fs might not be a equal competition.

 

But a Scenario set in the early 80s (80-82) then the F-15C would be limited to the Same Aim-7s as the F-4E and suddenly the gap in weapons capabillities would no longer be as huge (even tough the F-15C would still have a much better radar and manuverabillity etc)

 

So i say instead of tailoring aircraft for the most modern scenarios why not just have servers tailor scenarios after the airplanes avaliable.

Edited February 1, 2016 by mattebubben

[escaner]

Is there anything preventing us from getting an F-4B/C/D/J/K/M/N/S?

 

I always liked those particular versions more than the long nose variants anyway.

 

So do I, but E model has internal cannon. The other variants could use an external Vulcan pod, which proved inaccurate and prone to jamming, besides being less efficient areodinamically and of course using a pylon. That is why I guess E will be preferred.

OTOH, F-4J was also a nice multirole variant and it could perform carrier operations.

[WinterH]

I think this is something, no matter what, we community will not be able to easily agree on, if at all. I mean, I personally am torn between "most relevant" and "über upgraded" versions for most aircraft. And definition of "most relevant" itself is very subjective, and pretty slippery. For some it is the one served in most wars, or rather one that served in "that one (subjectively) most important war" for others, yet for some it is the latest production type, for some it is earliest, or still, for some others, it is the most produced, or the one that served with most airforces, most capable, most multirole, etc. etc. I'm sure you can further increase definitions for "most relevant". For some "the variant that is naval" makes the deal, while others think "meh, give me lighter and proper air force version". And, a good portion of these definitions would be mutually exclusive to one another. Finally, there will always be the usual bias for "the one that served / serves in my own (or my secret favorite) country's armed forces". Some of us, like myself, don't care much for that last one, but most do, and it will still be a factor that is nigh impossible for a developer to cater to without alienating anyone.

 

Consider MiG-21 for example, most wants a MiG-21PFM as it is the one predominantly starring in Vietnam and most Middle East wars of Cold War. Some, like me, think Bis is the definitive one and glad for it. Yet other, find MiG-21F-13 as the one to do. And other think none of these old stuff should have bothered with and at least a LanceR or Bison should have been done. No matter what, you just can't make everyone happy :) and trying to do so is usually a losing formula in most enterprises.

 

That's part of the reason for why I think we really should just respect choices by development studios on what aircraft and variant they will do. They tend to have a multitude of valid reasons for their choices, and no matter what they choose, some of us will cry for the moon over it anyway :). And since just about all of us has some "agenda" of sorts, polls like these almost never make much sense, unless opened by developers themselves. This poll thread would be a fine example, it was created with the idea of "I want F-4, and anyone who doesn't is plain wrong", as can be seen in options. That's why, even though F-4 is actually one of the aircraft I want most (really it's in my top 5, even top 3 modules to have), I have voted the 4th option, on the ground of (un)funnily lopsided wording of options when this was created.

 

Anyway, critisizing is all fun and good but, where's an idea regarding how it could be better right? Well here goes...

 

In my opinion, the thing closest to ideal, would be first an important, historical model, that hopefuly also fits some time period / aircraft generation niche in contemporary DCS stable. And, that would be followed by another variant, either one that is built for another role, or one that is more / less modern, or one that got one of those big modernizations to make it relevant among jets of a newer generation (like German/Greek/Turkish F-4s, Romanian or Indian MiG-21s, Pakistani Mirages etc).

 

Now we are finally getting a considerable choice of different aircraft in near future, I really hope to start seeing another form of diversification: More variants of an airframe. It is one of the reasons I got C-101 (which isn't doing too great on delivering it currently), and is the biggest reason I consider getting F-14. Yes, sounds crazy I know, but I personally am not nearly as crazy for F-14 as most folks here :). But, I'd still get it on grounds of supporting development of multiple versions alone. That, and, yeah, even if I'm not crazy for it, it is a pretty cool and iconic aircraft, even when looking behind popularity hype :). But the point is, it is really great LN has decided to do two different versions of it, that represent two decades.

 

Sometimes, it is prohibitively difficult when looking from a dev's perspective. But, I personally would pay for 2-3 more MiG-21 types, and at least as many Bf-109 types. Same with Viggen, or Mirage F-1, or, indeed a hypotethical, and hopefuly eventual F-4. Also same for Flogger family. Well may be I'd only pay "more than normal" for a bundled MiG-23 types, but I'd buy a MiG-23 and MiG-27 as two seperate modules in a heartbeat.

 

TL;DR :

 

Long in short, "what is the most important variant of an aicraft" is something that is not easy to agree among the community at large, and I really am looking forward to seeing multiple variants for some aircraft in DCS more often even knowing it often mean "almost from scratch". I personally think the closest scenario to ideal is, some important, definitive variant first, and hopefully one or two more "exotic" variants to follow. And I am saying this specific to F-4 either, more as a general idea.

[Raven1]

Can we get a Wild Weasel Version too!

[emg]

Making a Phantom that wasn't carrier capable would be an odd choice, considering the new carriers and LN's naval war theatre for the F-14.

Edited February 3, 2016 by emg

[mattebubben]

Making a Phantom that wasn't carrier capable would be an odd choice.

 

well.

 

Of all nations that used the F-4 only 2 used them on carriers.

 

That being the US (Navy and Marine Corps)

aswell as the UK.

 

But by the Far majority of all F4s made aswell as the Majority of all F4 Operators did not operate them from Carriers.

 

So i would not be to odd.

 

Optimal would ofc be one of each (maby a F-4E aswell as a F-4J or S)

 

But no Having a non carrier capable F4 would not be strange in the slightest.

[emg]

It would be odd in that we are paying 50-60$ for a game module, and it should ideally have as many features as possible in the DCS context, where the upcoming aircraft carriers will be a big deal.

 

For 60$ we could maybe hope for an F-4E and an F-4J (like the C-101EB and CC.)

Edited February 3, 2016 by emg

[MegOhm_SD]

Carrier capable and napalm.

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"

 

:pilotfly:

[streakeagle]

I can type until my fingers hurt about all the differences in all the various F-4 versions, even over time within a given letter (i.e. F-4B or F-4E). I wouldn't expect any developer to do more than one specific version matching an exact block/field mod in terms of cockpit layout and on-board avionics/weapons systems.

 

For historical purposes, the F-4E was produced in larger numbers, used in multiple wars, and remained in service over a huge time frame with multiple countries. The slatted F-4E has the most things going for it by far, just a matter of choosing a specific block/field mod of it. My preference would be for a 1970's USAF model, perhaps the initial slatted versions. This would be very similar to exported F-4Es as well as being a good contemporary opponent of the MiG-21bis. Alternatively, the latest variants used by the USAF would be more fun for the ground pounding guys, with better weapons, avionics, etc.

 

Naval variants were produced in much smaller numbers, have no internal gun, were almost exclusively flown by the USN, and were less of a multirole aircraft. So, if only one F-4 variant is to be made, I don't see the F-4B/N, F-4J/S, or F-4K as being the most attractive to a broad audience. But support for carrier operations might be as appealing as multirole capabilities from a sales standpoint, so maybe I am wrong? Navy F-4s also have the most varied and colorful paint schemes. But choosing a particular block/field mod is pretty hard because they were constantly changing. Following the last/best variant precedent, the final F-4S is partially slatted with a pretty darn good digital look-down/shoot-down radar. The F-4J had extensive combat history, so a USN 1972 cockpit/radar might be a good choice, too.

[BlackLion213]

I think the right variant would depend entirely on what scenario the developers intend to create. The only map that is currently planned and works well for the F-4 would be the Straight of Hormuz, which would allow for F-4E operations with the IRIAF (Iran). Otherwise, NTTR kind of supports the Phantom, but not for real combat.

 

So I would expect an F-4 module to come with a new with period units map to get the most out of it. As many have mentioned, there is a really broad variety of scenarios that could be very interesting - the Phantom saw it's share of combat. As an American, I think of Vietnam mostly, but the Yom Kippur War would also be very interesting. A fictitious (dirty word around here?) conflict in the 1970s with North Korea could also use the F-4 for both the USAF and RoK Air forces.

 

If there is an interest in multiple variants, then I would like to suggest the F-4B (USN) and F-4C (USAF) - they were very similar, the most similar of the USN and USAF variants with the same radar, avionics, engines, aerodynamics. Only the cockpits differed really (WSO had dual controls vs RIO without controls in the USN version). It would be comparatively easy to create an F-4B and F-4C, versus say creating an F-4E and F-4J that were much less alike.

 

A F-4B and F-4C could both be used in an early Vietnam scenario, allowing representation for both the USAF and USN. Of course, doing so would require a BIG map since the Gulf of Tonkin and USAF bases were quite far apart. Though creating 2 smaller maps might also be quite feasible since the maps would share so much content....just thinking. :music_whistling:

 

I really do like the notion of 1960s carrier ops and the foundation for carrier ops seems to be coming along quite well. :thumbup:

 

-Nick

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

It would be odd in that we are paying 50-60$ for a game module, and it should ideally have as many features as possible in the DCS context, where the upcoming aircraft carriers will be a big deal.

 

For 60$ we could maybe hope for an F-4E and an F-4J (like the C-101EB and CC.)

 

So, take your pick:

 

Carrier operations or internal gun.

 

Personally, I'll go with the gun.

[WinterH]

Yeah, personally for me F-4 = F-4E :)

[King_Hrothgar]

A 1970's F-4E would be my pick too as it fits well with many other DCS units (both playable and AI only). It's also the best fit for the IRIAF, which is rather important given the SoH map. In terms of specific blocks, I think a ground attack focused one would be best. The reasoning is fairly simple, we are already getting two thoroughbred fighters from that period (F-5E + F-14A), so a proper fighter-bomber would add more than another pure fighter I think.

 

Regardless, I still think the Russian side needs a little love first. A MiG-23ML/MLA/MLD or MiG-25PD should come first.

[BlackLion213]

Regardless, I still think the Russian side needs a little love first. A MiG-23ML/MLA/MLD or MiG-25PD should come first.

 

+1

 

-Nick

[emg]

The only map that is currently planned and works well for the F-4 would be the Straight of Hormuz, which would allow for F-4E operations with the IRIAF (Iran).

LNS are also making a map for the F-14 :). But yeah of course it would cool to have a full IRIAF force with F-4E/F-5E/F-14A for the Hormuz scenario.

Edited February 3, 2016 by emg

[BlackLion213]

LNS are also making a map for the F-14 :). But yeah of course it would cool to have a full IRIAF force with F-4E/F-5E/F-14A for the Hormuz scenario.

 

Yes, a Baltic map would be great.

 

We still don't know where the F-14 map will be placed geographically, but I'm not expecting it to be a great map for a F-4E module (could be - no way to know at this point!).

 

-Nick

[Airwolf435]

Just throwing my 2 cents in, but id much rather see a F-105 or really any of the F-111 models

[ebabil]

at least 1200 potential customers, hey devs , look at here please :D

[mattebubben]

A lot of people are talking about how the F-4E would be better as a module. However, if I remember correctly, it can't be made for some reason or another.

 

So, I'd rather we get any version of the F-4 at the end of the day, if we can't get the F-4E in the first place.

 

 

Why would we not be able to get the F-4E.

 

untill recently the F-4E was problematic since there where no 2 seat aircraft.

 

But now with that functionality coming with the F-14 then it will not be a problem anymore.