Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 1/14/2021 at 11:34 AM, LoganTMT said:

...before the E Variant came with the nose mounted gun. Also the E was used on Navy, Marines and Army...

 

Uh... it was?!?!

 

I'm not sure the E was ever carrier capable. I've personally never seen any pictures of the E on the catapult anyway.  I thought the E model was for USAF only, and export sales. 

 

BUT... I could see how maybe a handful of E's might have been involved as Agressor trainer aircraft.

 

I wonder if maybe the US Marines might have had a handful for ground-based operations during Vietnam (meaning not from a carrier), mainly to make use of it's more accurate cannon?  I know that when they tried with gunpods, while it was good to have the 20mm back, it was not as accurate as an internal cannon. I heard that boresighting it was a headache that didn't get solved. Also, the pylon mounts were not so hot to keep vibrations in check, and it would not be pointed EXACTLY where it was earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The no  Vietnam map argument is ridiculous, DCS had NO map for its airframes for over 10 years... no US airframe EVER flew in the Caucasus.. No carrier ever entered the black sea.   A Late P

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 s

No, it would be not. It's absolutely a piece of junk like Indian MiG-21-93... Extremely outdated but very cheap cannon fodder worse than any other contemporary fighter. Exists only because of lac

The C, D and E were never carrier capable or flown by the USN or USMC. Ground based USMC jets were Bs, or Js (or N/S later). I'm not sure whether the USMC ever fielded a gun pod; the Navy did not, but the USAF did, so all in all I think it's unlikely.


Edited by TLTeo
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

The C, D and E were never carrier capable or flown by the USN or USMC. Ground based USMC jets were Bs, or Js (or N/S later). I'm not sure whether the USMC ever fielded a gun pod; the Navy did not, but the USAF did, so all in all I think it's unlikely.

 

 

 

Initially, the Naval and USMC Phantoms did use the gunpods in combat missions, but soon found that they jammed. So Navy did limit the usage...US.Marines still used it to some degree more than Navy as they were the once doing more CAS missions and strafe runs.

 

Yes, the AF was the most big users of gunpod.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jojyrocks said:

 

 

Initially, the Naval and USMC Phantoms did use the gunpods in combat missions, but soon found that they jammed. So Navy did limit the usage...US.Marines still used it to some degree more than Navy as they were the once doing more CAS missions and strafe runs.

 

Yes, the AF was the most big users of gunpod.

Interesting, do you have a source for that? I have never seen a picture, nor read about,  a USMC Phantom with gun pods, despite their employment in CAS. I know the USN trialed a gun pod, but I have never seen any operating from carriers either..

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jojyrocks said:

Yes, the AF was the most big users of gunpod.

 

You mean like this?

 

epf83y89hhs01.jpg

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + 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 post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the Navy, but I heard in some articles they did have it in the inventory over there at Vietnam, but chose not to carry coz of its unreliability and unlike AF, they needed the extra fuel tanks more.

 

However its is stated in wiki that the USMC did carry gun pods primarily for strafing runs and they preferred to carry two. The Navy and USMC pretty much use the same planes, so I am sure the F-4 Naval/Marines can carry these gunpods.

 

 

DaveWoolseyGAU4podF-4USN1965.JPG.1.JPG

UK-F4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is not a good source for these details though, there's plenty wrong with its more technical statements. I've seen those images, but I don't think they prove anything. The jet in the bottom image carries SUU-23 gunpods, which were USAF/UK only. Also, no operational jet ever carried more than one pod except a single F-4E in 1972. The first image clearly states that the picture was taken at China Lake, ie, in trials. It doesn't mean the Navy or USMC ever deployed the pod. It's a bit like saying the Tomcat could carry the HARM or AMRAAM .


Edited by TLTeo
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Wikipedia is not a good source for these details though, there's plenty wrong with its more technical statements. I've seen those images, but I don't think they prove anything. The jet in the bottom image carries SUU-23 gunpods, which were USAF/UK only. Also, no operational jet ever carried more than one pod except a single F-4E in 1972. The first image clearly states that the picture was taken at China Lake, ie, in trials. It doesn't mean the Navy or USMC ever deployed the pod. It's a bit like saying the Tomcat could carry the HARM or AMRAAM .

 

 

Just coz there is no pics does not mean they did not use it. USMC planes mostly took off from nearby bases than carriers at majority. They are CAS focused and in the beginning, they did carry it. When I posted the pics, I only intended to show that, they can carry it. As for UK Phantoms, there are a good amount of pics on UK Phantoms.

 

Wiki is not fully wrong nor fully correct...

 

 

USMC VMFA-122 Gunpods.jpg

 

This is the closest I could find about their usage on Vietnam and USMC was CAS focused.


Edited by jojyrocks
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know how most USMC missions work 😛 Having a squadron name and year of deployment (circa 1968) is much better info, cheers!


Edited by TLTeo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the Phantom would have to have at least two variants. Maybe a B model from early Vietnam, and preferably a very late E model to use with modern jets. It's still out there with some counties, and it would be impossible to really capture its capabilities in just one version. Honestly I wish they would do three. An early Vitamin version, the latest E model that served in the USAF, and a very late export model. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

I think that the Phantom would have to have at least two variants. Maybe a B model from early Vietnam, and preferably a very late E model to use with modern jets. It's still out there with some counties, and it would be impossible to really capture its capabilities in just one version. Honestly I wish they would do three. An early Vitamin version, the latest E model that served in the USAF, and a very late export model. 

 

 

We'll be lucky to get even one,  and that one is the F-4E which has seen like PLENTY of sales and fights. Three seems to be asking too much for a Module that was put into indefinite hold. What we could realistically ask is just two as this is an iconic plus rich combat history airplane. Navy Phantom will certainly bring that extra Naval landing fun without the modern HUD and all. Then again, it does take around like 4 years to develop a module, less is like 3 years.

 

Personally for me; I'd be wishing for the F-4J or S as the extra second for Carrier fun. The originally intended F-4E is already in consideration for the "TO BE" developed list by the original intended developers.

 

Wishing on the third export model: Likely candidates that has some difference is the short lived Rolls Royce equipped Phantoms of UK...

 

I do not know about the rest of the export model that can be developed...Israeli Kurnass 2000.? Highly unlikely....

 

Who knows? We might just get the Phantoms maybe in between 2025-2030 :biggrin:

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If only one the E is the way to go for sure. Honest to god if you want the Pantom you better buy the Hind. What I would do if I was ED, and I decided to do this is develop, and release the echo first. Then do a paid upgrade for as modern of export model, to get AMRAAM, and better air to ground munitions. Honestly this seems like low hanging fruit for ED. The demand is there, they have the team, and they can get it out in reasonable time. So I don't see why we wouldn't see it. Let's hope I'm right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

If only one the E is the way to go for sure. Honest to god if you want the Pantom you better buy the Hind. What I would do if I was ED, and I decided to do this is develop, and release the echo first. Then do a paid upgrade for as modern of export model, to get AMRAAM, and better air to ground munitions. Honestly this seems like low hanging fruit for ED. The demand is there, they have the team, and they can get it out in reasonable time. So I don't see why we wouldn't see it. Let's hope I'm right. 

 

Personally, I'd rather get say an E Block 53 (at least) and then an S; after those 2 I would prefer to get other variants flushed out, such as the B/J, C/D, as well as K/M and F.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2021 at 5:35 PM, jojyrocks said:

 

 

 

Personally for me; I'd be wishing for the F-4J or S as the extra second for Carrier fun. The originally intended F-4E is already in consideration for the "TO BE" developed list by the original intended developers.

 

 

 

 

 

Second this. I also think Heatblur would be the prime developer to take on this task given their success and experience with the F14. We'd already have the fitting Forrestal class carrier and assets. While the E could be used for a lot more countries, I do think the J and S models are much cooler.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that ED has too much currently on their plate to do the F4 but know it’s a cash cow so they’re not going to give it up.  
Only reason I can think of that something so iconic isn’t even in near term consideration.  Seems bizarre but...

  • Like 2

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

My thoughts are that ED has too much currently on their plate to do the F4 but know it’s a cash cow so they’re not going to give it up.  
Only reason I can think of that something so iconic isn’t even in near term consideration.  Seems bizarre but...

And even they had already started to make it..

FC3 | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | A-10C II | F/A-18C | Ka-50 | F-14A/B | F-16CAH-64

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: C-130 | UH-60 | F-4E

 

Youtube

Z390 / i5 9400F / RTX3070 / 32 GB Ram / 500 gb SSD and 1 tb HDD // CH Fighterstick - MS FFB2 - TM Warthog Throttle and Stick - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 4 and 5

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/14/2021 at 1:07 PM, Northstar98 said:

 

I'd love as many variants as possible. I'm not sure how difficult that would be, as they all have quite a bit in common. Obviously the E/K/M are probably exceptions.

 

We'd also probably need period assets to go with them. Right now we have no Cold War era BLUFOR escorts (you can kinda approximate cold war variants with the Ticonderoga and OHP, but given they have Phalanx Block 1B, they are 1999+ variants).

 

The same with a carrier, you could use HB Forrestal (if it ever gets released), but it's a later ship. We're missing things like a late Essex/early Forestall/early Enterprise. 

 

I'm with you on having as many variants as possible. The only variant I don't expect to see is the G. I figure we need a Nam era Essex for Crusader. The Midway might be nice I think we also should have the Thud, Skyraider, A-3 , (E)B-66 , a constellation AWACS for starters 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2021 at 12:34 PM, LoganTMT said:

I don't know why, but I'd prefer the F-4C or F-4B Variants as they were the first Phantoms to be used in Vietnam... and they didn't even have guns mounted on them. Then they added the first gun pod to it and it temporarily solved the lack of guns for a few years before the E Variant came with the nose mounted gun. Also the E was used on Navy, Marines and Army... The B was used by the Navy and Marines, but soon would update to the C variant at the same time the Army received the F-4C... So Yeah We need these F-4 Phantoms as an awesome CW era jet to use.

IMHO we need at least 4 F-4 Phantom II's  the B for carrier ops, the D and the E for the USAF, a Speyed Phantom for the RAF.

 Also in redards to your statement

" Also the E was used on Navy, Marines and Army... The B was used by the Navy and Marines"

The E was developed exclusively for the Air Force the Navy and Marines never used it as it meant a smaller nose cone which would make it harder for the F-4 to preform the fleet defense mission. Also mind specifying what army you are talking about? I know it isn't the US Army as the only fighter jet that I know they for a fact flew was the P-80 and they have been limited in regards to fixed wing planes since 1947 when the Air Force was established

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still cant understand how nobody is doing the Phantom II....The B and C ones Can´t be that hard.. Well except for the Multicrew thing... But So many other sims have taken a shot at probably one of the top 5 most iconic planes ever...

 

Dropping the Phantom is the reason I will not buy the Hind or whatever Belsimtech or Ed will put out...

My next helo will be the Kiowa... And maybe very remotely of they come back to the cobra (witch was also delayed)... 

Other than that they can keep their toys...

Not my cup of tea....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Baco said:

I still cant understand how nobody is doing the Phantom II....The B and C ones Can´t be that hard.. Well except for the Multicrew thing... But So many other sims have taken a shot at probably one of the top 5 most iconic planes ever...

We need a good AI RIO/WSO.   I'd rather see everyone working to improve jester and over 1 good system over multiple mediocre or bad ones

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, upyr1 said:

IMHO we need at least 4 F-4 Phantom II's  the B for carrier ops, the D and the E for the USAF, a Speyed Phantom for the RAF.

 Also in regards to your statement

" Also the E was used on Navy, Marines and Army... The B was used by the Navy and Marines"

The E was developed exclusively for the Air Force the Navy and Marines never used it as it meant a smaller nose cone which would make it harder for the F-4 to preform the fleet defense mission. Also mind specifying what army you are talking about? I know it isn't the US Army as the only fighter jet that I know they for a fact flew was the P-80 and they have been limited in regards to fixed wing planes since 1947 when the Air Force was established

Yeah, I realized I was miss informed from my book, I did more digging and you're correct on the E being only for the Army...

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LoganTMT said:

Yeah, I realized I was miss informed from my book, I did more digging and you're correct on the E being only for the Army...

The US Army stopped flying fighters in 1947, when the Army Air Forces became the US Air Force. They are limited to helicopters and some light cargo/liaison planes 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical F-4 fanbase:

- We want an F-4, it's such an iconic plane! We could make vietnam era battles even more realistic as there were so many phantoms in Vietnam!
- Okay, so which version do you want? 

- Ze yone from lait eiteez

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...