F4 PHANTOM

[Xilon_x]

 

 

in my opinion the U.S.A. they were lucky in VIETNAM otherwise they would be doomed. the Vietnamese still say today that they never lost the war. Russian air superiority is evident in these videos.
SECOND, the Americans have cheated history.

[exhausted]

It wasn't just Vietnam, but literally everywhere MiG-21s tried to kill F-4s. Both sides exaggerated their kill counts. If you strip away all the exaggeration, the F-4 greatly outperformed the MiGs over Iraq, Lebanon, and Vietnam. There has never been a theater where the MiG-21 outperformed the F-4.

[TotenDead]

8 минут назад, exhausted сказал:

I don't know why we are having this discussion -- the F-4 shot more MiG-21s down than all the kills MiG-21s ever had 

Sounds usa-ish. I suppose you don't have proofs, only your imagination

[Northstar98]

I see that like in my F-16CG thread, we're having another pissing contest, for some reason.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Northstar98

[Xilon_x]

OK OK sorry 
I admit the U.S.A. the winners and they wrote history but I always have my little doubts.
because the U.S.A. they have always told lies like those for example about UFOs today 2021 the truth about UFOs is known and we know that the American government hides these truths ok i stopped now

 

 

 

[Fangs Out]

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I see that like in my F-16CG thread, we're having another pissing contest, for some reason.

 

IKR, both aircraft that we want are really controversial apparently

[flavnet]

Hi everyone. Why hasn't the F-4E (the most successful version of the Phantom) been added to DCS World as a standalone module to date? I have often asked myself this question. I bought the Viggen, the F-5, the JF-17, and the Mig-19 as well. Well-respected aircraft, but they don't have the prestige and history of the Phantom which, not only in my opinion, was one of the greatest fighter aircraft in history. DCS World will never be complete without a dedicated Phantom module.

[Fangs Out]

Long story short man, BST (belsimtek) developed a F-4E block 58 but it got canned by ED, now we are waiting for a 3rd party to pick it up

[QuiGon]

8 hours ago, Bravelink03 said:

Long story short man, BST (belsimtek) developed a F-4E block 58 but it got canned by ED, now we are waiting for a 3rd party to pick it up

Or waiting for ED/BST to resume the work...

[Karon]

9 hours ago, flavnet said:

Hi everyone. Why hasn't the F-4E (the most successful version of the Phantom) been added to DCS World as a standalone module to date? I have often asked myself this question. I bought the Viggen, the F-5, the JF-17, and the Mig-19 as well. Well-respected aircraft, but they don't have the prestige and history of the Phantom which, not only in my opinion, was one of the greatest fighter aircraft in history. DCS World will never be complete without a dedicated Phantom module.

Because imo implementing the Navigator / RIO (depending on the country it was flown by) is a tough job. Look at the F-14: it's extremely simple to operate but putting together an AI able to do it is not that immediate. Also, there aren't that many RIOs around compared to pilots. For the F-4, I'm afraid it will be even worse: I love b-scopes, but driving even a simple intercept with that requires a good understanding and study of angles, drift and so on, something the usual casual DCS player probably won't do (just google an F-4 syllabus, it's a very interesting and gives you a good idea).

 

Moreover, an AIC or GCI is a must-have to get the information the scope does not give you (god bless the TID in the '14), but the current AWACS is the worst single element of the game, along the ATC (but at least you can pretend that an AF is unmanned). This is a huge problem if you are looking even for a slightly more in-depth experience, rather than a *pew pew* airquake experience.

 

About the version, something similar to what HB is doing (different versions of the F-14, happy to pay more for that) would be great to cover a period as wide as possible. Late 70s to mid 80s is my favourite period and a late F-4 is, with a good RIO, can still defend itself quite well. Remember that F-14, F-15, F-4, they would be all limited to AIM-7s anyway.

[flavnet]

Hi Karon, I agree to the last word you wrote and, as for the RIO (WSO or GIB), I admit that I hadn't thought about the difficulty of a BVR without TID! But, as you also wrote, what a dream the Phantom in DCS!!

[QuiGon]

2 hours ago, flavnet said:

Hi Karon, I agree to the last word you wrote and, as for the RIO (WSO or GIB), I admit that I hadn't thought about the difficulty of a BVR without TID! But, as you also wrote, what a dream the Phantom in DCS!!

 

What's a GIB?

[Fangs Out]

Guy in Back, informal term for RIOs and WSOs

[bies]

Navy line was also interesting, they had bigger radar antenna, could operate from aircraft carrier.

 

F-4J from 1966 had AN/AWG-10 first in the world look down/shoot down pulse doppler radar system able to detect an aerial target with 5 square meters radar cross section more than 100 kilometers away.

 

F-4N (refurbished F-4B) from 1972 had first in the world helmet mounted sight.

 

F-4E didn't have this capabilities.

 

Us Navy was a forefront of technology those times having the most sophisticated systems.

The whole F-4 was US Navy plane adopted later by USAF, both Sparrow and Sidewinder were US Navy projects.

 

A video from 1967 showing AWG-10 system and life shooting.

https://youtu.be/kkRpqGTeDLE

Edited January 28, 2021 by bies

[Fangs Out]

And USN at first had better training, Naval fighter weapon school (topgun) 

[WinterH]

For an interceptor role, true... but F-4E is perhaps the earliest materialization of true multirole fighter with precision strike and CAS capabilities, and was ahead of Naval phantoms in that respect. And frankly, that is by far what I am interested in.

Naval F-4 in addition to F-4E? HELL YES. But if we are going to get a single variant, it should be the E. If we will get two Phantoms, but not simulataneously, the first one should also be the E. Seriously, it is the Phantom world-wide...

[Northstar98]

11 hours ago, WinterH said:

For an interceptor role, true... but F-4E is perhaps the earliest materialization of true multirole fighter with precision strike and CAS capabilities, and was ahead of Naval phantoms in that respect. And frankly, that is by far what I am interested in.

Naval F-4 in addition to F-4E? HELL YES. But if we are going to get a single variant, it should be the E. If we will get two Phantoms, but not simulataneously, the first one should also be the E. Seriously, it is the Phantom world-wide...

 

If we only get a single one, that would be pretty disappointing IMO - I think we really need to have at least 2, even if other variants came later for a small fee.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Northstar98
edited for clarity

[bies]

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

 

If we only get a single one, that would be pretty disappointing IMO, even if other variants came later for a small fee.

 

In the interview last summer with someone from ED he said they are considering making few variants.

[WinterH]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

If we only get a single one, that would be pretty disappointing IMO, even if other variants came later for a small fee.

For all my "E or bust" rhetoric so far, I must say that I absolutely agree with you. I mean, since naval Phantoms are different enough compared to land based ones, I would even be perfectly fine with "a little more than a small fee".

It would really be a shame not to get more than one side of Phantom coin, as each lineage is distinct enough in its own way, with different advantages/disadvantages/taste.

[bies]

23 minutes ago, WinterH said:

For all my "E or bust" rhetoric so far

 

No problem, but there is no point stating it so many times, our opinion, a few random guys, doesn't have any meaning.

 

It's just better to show some interesting facts or variants or devices used on Phantoms instead of "voting" like I want this, no i want that, no i want this, no and so on.

[Fangs Out]

Here's an IRIAF F-4 with Agm-65s

[upyr1]

On 1/25/2021 at 5:17 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Well, seeing as we don't actually have a proper Vietnam map, I'd prefer a Desert Storm-era Phantom. It was still a Vietnam-style aircraft like the MiG-21, but slightly updated. It'd fit in with the Tomcat and the MiG-21 model that we have, as well as 2000s planes like the F-16 and F-18. Phantom remained in service for quite a while, playing second fiddle to newer airframes. In the US service, it didn't get extensively updated (Germany and Turkey are another matter), and would provide a similar experience to a genuine Vietnam variant.

I don't care if we don't have a Vietnam era map (yet) We have the MiG-19 and MiG-21 BIS. So I figure the B and C could be Rolling Thunder Era, the E and J should be a 1972/73 which would match with the BIS I don't mind having the G (if possible) or later upgrades

[Northstar98]

Yeah, I think it's a good idea to have a phantom that has its peer competitors modelled, namely the MiG-21bis from 1972. The 70s is really the best era for the Phantom IMO, and we already have a fairly comprehensive set of REDFOR air defences to go up against (even if they're missing a fair number of battery components and EWRs).

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Yeah, I think it's a good idea to have a phantom that has its peer competitors modelled, namely the MiG-21bis from 1972. The 70s is really the best era for the Phantom IMO, and we already have a fairly comprehensive set of REDFOR air defences to go up against (even if they're missing a fair number of battery components and EWRs).

As long as we're talking about mid to late 70s earliest, yeah, why not , but 80s is better :P!  I want the strike capabilities, and upgrades that gave those capabilities will not detract from being a roughly similar match with 70s MiGs. Radar is the same as far as I know, slats are there from 70s already, missiles are mostly the same, later AIM-9s can be left off in mission, same goes for R-60Ms for MiG-21Bis etc. Also keep in mind that there is a MiG-23MLA is coming, and a Phantom with the ability to also use later AIM-9s will be a better match for that one.

 

As far as I know, mid 70s F-4E could use Pave Spike targeting pod, which went onto one of Sparrow hardpoints under the fuselage, and was roughly Sparrow sized as well. It was a daytime only pod, but I'd be ok with that. Pave Tack is the later option, though it may have been operational before 80s on F-4s too, not sure. It is a more capable pod, including night capabilities as far as I know. But it is also kind of gigantic, being originally designed for and used by F-111. It goes under the centreline pylon as far as I know. Is big, heavy, draggy, but also more capable. Don't know if Pave Spike has automatic target tracking, probably not, but that can be seen as a positive too, it would give WSO more interesting things to do. From what I can find though, a pre-80s Phantom wouldn't have GBU-15, which would be a bit sad... Though it would at least still have GBU-8. If a 1975+ F-4E also still had the option of AGM-45s even for some rudimentary SEAD, I'd be ok with it.

Both a pre ARN-101 F-4E as well as one having that update would be my personal dream though, and there would be relatively little to code, so might be a good additional 20 bucks per owner for future developer of F-4E. Maybe after they add a naval variant first.

Edited January 30, 2021 by WinterH

[upyr1]

On 1/30/2021 at 5:18 AM, WinterH said:

 

As far as I know, mid 70s F-4E could use Pave Spike targeting pod, which went onto one of Sparrow hardpoints under the fuselage, and was roughly Sparrow sized as well. It was a daytime only pod, but I'd be ok with that. Pave Tack is the later option, though it may have been operational before 80s on F-4s too, not sure. It is a more capable pod, including night capabilities as far as I know. But it is also kind of gigantic, being originally designed for and used by F-111. It goes under the centreline pylon as far as I know. Is big, heavy, draggy, but also more capable. Don't know if Pave Spike has automatic target tracking, probably not, but that can be seen as a positive too, it would give WSO more interesting things to do. From what I can find though, a pre-80s Phantom wouldn't have GBU-15, which would be a bit sad... Though it would at least still have GBU-8. If a 1975+ F-4E also still had the option of AGM-45s even for some rudimentary SEAD, I'd be ok with it.

Both a pre ARN-101 F-4E as well as one having that update would be my personal dream though, and there would be relatively little to code, so might be a good additional 20 bucks per owner for future developer of F-4E. Maybe after they add a naval variant first.

 

The F-4D and E both carried smart bombs during the linebacker campaigns. The E was one of the first planes to carry the AGM-65.