F4 PHANTOM

[Fangs Out]

A  beautiful F-4D

 

 

And here's a picture of the legendary F-4J, Showtime 100.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Bravelink03

[QuiGon]

On 2/9/2021 at 2:06 AM, Harlikwin said:

IDK, there were so many different phantoms and honestly I think various parties could make different ones.

 

Having different variants of the same aircraft made by different parties in DCS would be a really bad idea IMHO. Inevitably there would be differences in the simulation of the FM and avionics of the same airframe/systems coded by different parties which would lead to endless discussions among the community who has it wrong and who has it right...

[Northstar98]

On 2/9/2021 at 12:41 AM, dsprag said:

When you say "the latter" I assume you mean the Mirage F-1, or is it the Spitfire? Because I'd really love to see at least one Griffon-engined Spit in the the game.

 

 

The Mirage F1

 

Currently we're getting the CE (basic fighter/interceptor), BE (2 seat trainer), and EE (multirole) which will fit mid-to-late Cold War missions. There's also the modernised F1M for post Cold War 90s.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Northstar98

[MBot]

Phavorite Phantoms:

 

57 Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Keflavik, Iceland. Defending the Iceland from Soviet bombers 1978-1985

 

 

11 Tactical Fighter Wing, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, 1977-1981

 

 

347th Tactical Fighter Wing from Moody AFB, Georgia. Picture taken 1986 in Nellis. New European camo, but the aircraft should still be in Vietnam-era configuration. Note Pave Spike and GBU-12.

[Fangs Out]

A beautiful F-4E in SEA camo with a Shark Mouth

 

[Harlikwin]

11 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

Having different variants of the same aircraft made by different parties in DCS would be a really bad idea IMHO. Inevitably there would be differences in the simulation of the FM and avionics of the same airframe/systems coded by different parties which would lead to endless discussions among the community who has it wrong and who has it right...

 

I mean I see your point there. But IMO no Dev is gonna do more than 1 or 2 variants IMO. I could see ED doing one model, and then letting 3rd party devs do mods off it using common FM/areo/systems if applicable. Alternately maybe you'd see a dev do some of the more derivative like the British phantoms. 

[bies]

12 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

Having different variants of the same aircraft made by different parties in DCS would be a really bad idea IMHO. Inevitably there would be differences in the simulation of the FM and avionics of the same airframe/systems coded by different parties which would lead to endless discussions among the community who has it wrong and who has it right...

 

Last time I've heard ED speaking about F-4 in the interview they said something like that:

We are exploring possibly to make "All-Phantoms" module.

 

So if the amount of changes would be reasonable i think ED can make F-4 in different variants.

[Harlikwin]

7 minutes ago, bies said:

 

Last time I've heard ED speaking about F-4 in the interview they said something like that:

We are exploring possibly to make "All-Phantoms" module.

 

So if the amount of changes would be reasonable i think ED can make F-4 in different variants.

 

I mean that would be great. But how would it work. You pay for the "module" and get all of them (probably the best case IMO). And which ones would be included, which ones would be first. I mean there is no way they are going to do ALL of them. At best you'd get 1 or 2 navy phantoms, 1-2 USAF phantoms. And maaaybe 1 or 2 foreign variants like the brit ones and maybe the germans. Thats still 6 frikkin planes, which while cool for the low low price of 79.99 or whatnot, I think at some point they would loose interest or money on it.

 

 

 

[QuiGon]

8 hours ago, bies said:

Last time I've heard ED speaking about F-4 in the interview they said something like that:

We are exploring possibly to make "All-Phantoms" module.

 

Haven't heard ED saying that and I keep a close watch on what ED says on various channels

Last time I heard them speaking about the F-4 was when ED's global business development director was interviewed by the Grim Repeasers in October/November last year and I can't recall him saying something like that.

Edited February 11, 2021 by QuiGon

[bies]

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

 

Haven't heard ED saying that and I keep a close watch on what ED says on various channels

Last time I heard them speaking about the F-4 was when ED's global business development director was interviewed by the Grim Repeasers in October/November last year and I can't recall him saying something like that.

 

 

Just half year ago.

https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg

17:20 is about Phantom, he expected it to be 2 years from then (1,5 from now), they were about to made the decision if they can model "Everything-Phantom" or just "E" and the work has already started.

 

BTW: This interview Simon told also he expects Apache to be announced 4Q 2020, and this information was kinda spoiler and you knew Apache is going to be this mysterious "brain melter" if you follow things.

So I would say he was VERY honest during this interview.

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by bies

[QuiGon]

4 hours ago, bies said:

Just half year ago.

https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg

17:20 is about Phantom, he expected it to be 2 years from then (1,5 from now), they were about to made the decision if they can model "Everything-Phantom" or just "E" and the work has already started.

 

That's the very interview I mentioned.

I understood him differently though, that original discussion was between an "Everything-Phantom" or just the "E" and then the decision was made for the E.

 

4 hours ago, bies said:

BTW: This interview Simon told also he expects Apache to be announced 4Q 2020, and this information was kinda spoiler and you knew Apache is going to be this mysterious "brain melter" if you follow things.

So I would say he was VERY honest during this interview.

 

Honest yes, but maybe not very well informed on the DCS development business I'm afraid, as he even gets it wrong in the interview which developer does what (e.g. he thought Heatblur is doing the F-15E). So I would be cautios with the things he said there, especially since the ED CEO COO said meanwhile, that there is no F-4 in development.

Edited February 11, 2021 by QuiGon

[Silver_Dragon]

4 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

That's the very interview I mentioned.

I understood him differently though, that original discussion was between an "Everything-Phantom" or just the "E" and then the decision was made for the E.

 

 

Honest yes, but maybe not very well informed on the DCS development business I'm afraid, as he even gets it wrong in the interview which developer does what (e.g. he thought Heatblur is doing the F-15E).

 

RAZBAM has making the F-15E, no HeatBlur.

[QuiGon]

4 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

RAZBAM has making the F-15E, no HeatBlur.

 

I know!

Please read again what I wrote and listen to this (17:35)...

Edited February 11, 2021 by QuiGon

[bies]

Yes, that is what I mean: 

57 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

but maybe not very well informed on the DCS development business

And this means the bigger chance to reveal something unintentionally, that's my point.

And in fact he did with Apache. 

But Phantom had been mentioned in quite a few interviews so I'm believe it's coming also!

Edited February 11, 2021 by bies

[WinterH]

Well hate to be that guy, but the latest we have heard about Phantom was a good bit after that video, from Kate Perederko, just after Apache reveal video as far as I recall. If translation wasn't erroneous, it was along the lines of "F-4 will eventually be done, probably by a 3rd party, version not clear" which is profane blasphemy to my ears

 

I am still semi hopeful that at the end of this year or the next, the next big reveal to follow may be resumption of Belsimtek's F-4E Block 58, or maybe just one block earlier. Viper and Hornet should be mostly wrapped up by then, and I don't think MiG-29A will tie down development team for too long as it already has lots of what it needs available as a base in FC3. Assuming Longbow will be worked on by another team, this may free up one team for continuing, or probably more like restarting the F-4E project.

 

Edit: It's number 17 here: I read it as potentially meaning it might be in Heatblur's "broader plans", which would hint at it being a naval F-4 instead of actual F-4, which is F-4E, which, unless comes also with F-4E, would be a horrible shame.

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by WinterH

[QuiGon]

40 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Well hate to be that guy, but the latest we have heard about Phantom was a good bit after that video, from Kate Perederko, just after Apache reveal video as far as I recall. If translation wasn't erroneous, it was along the lines of "F-4 will eventually be done, probably by a 3rd party, version not clear" which is profane blasphemy to my ears

 

Exactly, that's what I meant when I said this (Kate Peredenko is the ED CEO COO):

 

3 hours ago, QuiGon said:

So I would be cautios with the things he said there, especially since the ED CEO COO said meanwhile, that there is no F-4 in development.

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by QuiGon

[WinterH]

21 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

Exactly, that's what I meant when I said this (Kate Peredenko is the ED CEO):

 

 

Just a slight technicality, Kate is COO (Chief Operations Officer) as far as I know, and Nick is the CEO

[QuiGon]

2 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Just a slight technicality, Kate is COO (Chief Operations Officer) as far as I know, and Nick is the CEO

You're right of course, my bad!

Edited February 11, 2021 by QuiGon

[Harlikwin]

9 hours ago, WinterH said:

 

 

Edit: It's number 17 here: I read it as potentially meaning it might be in Heatblur's "broader plans", which would hint at it being a naval F-4 instead of actual F-4, which is F-4E, which, unless comes also with F-4E, would be a horrible shame.

 

 

IDK, I'd be plenty happy for it to be HB, but I think they are going to do the A-6 next per their roadmap. Plus they have the requisite 2 seat tech for the phantom. And the Forrestal would be a good fit for the ecosystem as well. I'd hope they would also do a land based phantom. Maybe some Phan can opine what land based versions would be close systems wise?

 

[sirrah]

I'm in the proces of digitalizing my old aircraft slides (±5000, so i't quite a job ) and just cam across this one.

 

I know, it's old a blurry, but looking at it makes me relive the moment 

(this one must be from around two decades ago at Hopsten AB, Germany)

 

 

 

(By the way, I'd personally rather like to see an F-4N or G in DCS instead of an F-4F)

Edited February 11, 2021 by sirrah

[WinterH]

9 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

I'd be plenty happy for it to be HB...[snip] Maybe some Phan can opine what land based versions would be close systems wise?

I'd also be plenty happy for it to be HB, and plenty bummed&annoyed if it isn't also F-4E but a naval-only F-4.

 

They are quite different birds alright, naval and air force ones. While I definitely want the E, naval ones are interesting in their own rights too, so to do the Phantom justice, you really need at least one of both. If not possible though... E covers a lot more worldwide service, and more importantly for me, it is just plain better as a striker. Naval ones on the other hand, are a bit better as interceptors because their radar has look down capability, unlike E, and well bigger nose=bigger radar=more powerful. E on the other hand has old school targeting pods, mavericks, GBUs, Shrikes (though maybe Shrike is there for naval ones too not sure). 

 

Their differences were discussed in this thread a few times actually.

 

Radar, cockpit, flight characteristics, many systems, weapons, etc are quite different between the two. Though, I suppose later naval phantoms also got slatted wings, so their flight characteristics got closer probably. Slats made Phantom lose a bit of speed, but improved its turning ability a bit as well.

 

There is also the matter of what flavor/era of Phantom. Vietnam birds, especially the early on, had a lot less in the way of avionics and weapons, and their engines were very smoky. Old RWRs, no slats until late, no decent air to air missiles, and for a good bit no gun, even externally. Any guided ground attack options also came late in war as far as I know. After Vietnam War, naval F-4s didn't get a lot of involvement in active conflicts as far as I know. F-4E, on the other hand, became the original strike-fighter, multirole fighter etc, as we know it today, and served with many countries, and still does today with a few. And it has been busy after the end of Vietnam War as well.

 

A pre-mid70s Phantom is not the same as a later one, neither for air to air, nor for air to ground. A naval one vs land based one is also very different in their abilities. You want 60s-70s dogfights? Or 70s-80s interceptions? Or point strike, or CAS? Naval vs land, and early vs late (by late I mean about 75ish and up to 80s) Phantoms are mutually exclusive in the taste they offer, and one will not do anything for people looking for what the other provides. This is one aircraft where you just can't get away without at least two very different versions, one E and one naval. But even then, which naval one (J or S? or N if you want more old school?)

[Harlikwin]

9 minutes ago, WinterH said:

I'd also be plenty happy for it to be HB, and plenty bummed&annoyed if it isn't also F-4E but a naval-only F-4.

 

They are quite different birds alright, naval and air force ones. While I definitely want the E, naval ones are interesting in their own rights too, so to do the Phantom justice, you really need at least one of both. If not possible though... E covers a lot more worldwide service, and more importantly for me, it is just plain better as a striker. Naval ones on the other hand, are a bit better as interceptors because their radar has look down capability, unlike E, and well bigger nose=bigger radar=more powerful. E on the other hand has old school targeting pods, mavericks, GBUs, Shrikes (though maybe Shrike is there for naval ones too not sure). 

 

Their differences were discussed in this thread a few times actually.

 

Radar, cockpit, flight characteristics, many systems, weapons, etc are quite different between the two. Though, I suppose later naval phantoms also got slatted wings, so their flight characteristics got closer probably. Slats made Phantom lose a bit of speed, but improved its turning ability a bit as well.

 

There is also the matter of what flavor/era of Phantom. Vietnam birds, especially the early on, had a lot less in the way of avionics and weapons, and their engines were very smoky. Old RWRs, no slats until late, no decent air to air missiles, and for a good bit no gun, even externally. Any guided ground attack options also came late in war as far as I know. After Vietnam War, naval F-4s didn't get a lot of involvement in active conflicts as far as I know. F-4E, on the other hand, became the original strike-fighter, multirole fighter etc, as we know it today, and served with many countries, and still does today with a few. And it has been busy after the end of Vietnam War as well.

 

A pre-mid70s Phantom is not the same as a later one, neither for air to air, nor for air to ground. A naval one vs land based one is also very different in their abilities. You want 60s-70s dogfights? Or 70s-80s interceptions? Or point strike, or CAS? Naval vs land, and early vs late (by late I mean about 75ish and up to 80s) Phantoms are mutually exclusive in the taste they offer, and one will not do anything for people looking for what the other provides. This is one aircraft where you just can't get away without at least two very different versions, one E and one naval. But even then, which naval one (J or S? or N if you want more old school?)

 

Yeah, I mean I get it, they were all very different and different over the lifespans. 
Personally I'd prefer a later F4E for DCS. You can always limit TGP's and such and they do "ok" for A/A. But obviously can't land on a carrier, which is probably what HB has in mind. 

[WinterH]

Just now, Harlikwin said:

Personally I'd prefer a later F4E for DCS. You can always limit TGP's and such and they do "ok" for A/A. But obviously can't land on a carrier, which is probably what HB has in mind. 

Same exact preferrance for me as well, and by far. And hence my reservations for making one that lands on carrier instead. Because if we get a carrier bird only, it will not be interesting in the least for me, it will not have anything of F-4E experience.

[Harlikwin]

5 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Same exact preferrance for me as well, and by far. And hence my reservations for making one that lands on carrier instead. Because if we get a carrier bird only, it will not be interesting in the least for me, it will not have anything of F-4E experience.

 

IDK, TBH if its only one dev they probably need to commit to at least a few versions. F4E, F4J maybe, F4K/M, F4F or EJ. Or, birds that decently cover the 60's, 70's and 80's. I'd also love to see an F4G... But thats probably too specific. The K/M is probably a stretch in terms of avionics/engine differences, and could probably be "covered" by a J. Same deal for the F4F (simplified F4E)

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Harlikwin

[upyr1]

On 2/10/2021 at 3:39 AM, QuiGon said:

 

Having different variants of the same aircraft made by different parties in DCS would be a really bad idea IMHO. Inevitably there would be differences in the simulation of the FM and avionics of the same airframe/systems coded by different parties which would lead to endless discussions among the community who has it wrong and who has it right...

How much code do the developers share? If we have one version the community will be upset. I know if we only have a Navy Phantom people like myself will be upset we don' have USAF Phantoms and our British friends will be unhappy we don't have a Royal Air Force or Royal Navy Phantom. I'm not sure that multiple versions by differnt companies would be a good idea but I do think that would work smoother if they shared code.