F4 PHANTOM

[Fangs Out]

When this beautiful plane comes to DCS, I got a whole Playlist for it.

[Rick50]

It takes SOOOO long to develop an aircraft for DCS, I think we ought to be thankful for any Phantom of any variant that appears in the store!

 

The only DCS that has more than one variant is the Tomcat, ME-109 and FW-190, isn't it? I think all others are single-variant (I'm not counting the Gazelle variants between ATGM, cannon and Mistral as being different, though you could argue that point). So really, the only aircraft that's complex with two variants is the Tomcat... and the second less complicated variant took over a year to develop, correct? Food for thought.

 

That said... I'm of two minds: the common variant for the world was the E. 

 

But... I also want a Vietnam appropriate model. And I want a carrier capable variant, since we have nice carriers in DCS, makes no sense to not have Phantoms on carriers!!  So a Navy 'Nam Phantom IMO is very welcome.  

 

Sooner or later 'Nam and Korea maps will be inevitable, IMO. I just hope to not have to wait another decade! LOL!!

[paulw10]

F-4 gets my vote, fairly high up the list for me. Be a good match for the existing MIG-21, et.al. Variants I'd like to see are the F-4G Wild Weasel, and the Royal Navy FG1 (F-4K) (the roar of the mighty Spey).

[TLTeo]

On 2/4/2021 at 5:24 PM, Rick50 said:

It takes SOOOO long to develop an aircraft for DCS, I think we ought to be thankful for any Phantom of any variant that appears in the store!

 

The only DCS that has more than one variant is the Tomcat, ME-109 and FW-190, isn't it? I think all others are single-variant (I'm not counting the Gazelle variants between ATGM, cannon and Mistral as being different, though you could argue that point). So really, the only aircraft that's complex with two variants is the Tomcat... and the second less complicated variant took over a year to develop, correct? Food for thought.

The L-39, C-101 and Spitfire all have different variants. The upcoming Mirage F-1 will as well.

[Handbag]

17 hours ago, paulw10 said:

F-4 gets my vote, fairly high up the list for me. Be a good match for the existing MIG-21, et.al. Variants I'd like to see are the F-4G Wild Weasel, and the Royal Navy FG1 (F-4K) (the roar of the mighty Spey).

I'm with you, except you appear to have mistyped "and the Royal Air Force FGR.2 (F-4M)" 

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, TLTeo said:

The L-39, C-101 and Spitfire all have different variants. The upcoming Mirage F-1 will as well.

 

And the latter has 4 variants coming and major variants at that.

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Handbag said:

I'm with you, except you appear to have mistyped "and the Royal Air Force FGR.2 (F-4M)" 

 

Yeah, I think an M would be a little bit of a better fit than the K.

 

It had a longer service life (late 60s - early 90s), it had a slightly better RADAR in A/G, it could equip an SUU-23/A gun pod (M61 with 1200 rounds @ 6000RPM).

[paulw10]

I went for the FAA FG1 as I wasn’t sure if the FGR2 was ever qualified for carrier ops. I think DCS would be better to have a carrier version of the F-4. And it’s basically and re-engined F-4J, which was used a lot by the USN on their carriers. And what about adding Enterprise and Ark Royal to the carrier pool. 

[DHesquire]

2 hours ago, paulw10 said:

I went for the FAA FG1 as I wasn’t sure if the FGR2 was ever qualified for carrier ops. I think DCS would be better to have a carrier version of the F-4. And it’s basically and re-engined F-4J, which was used a lot by the USN on their carriers. And what about adding Enterprise and Ark Royal to the carrier pool. 

Aren't RAZBAM doing carriers to go with their Falklands map?

[QuiGon]

12 minutes ago, DHesquire said:

Aren't RAZBAM doing carriers to go with their Falklands map?

 

Even if so, those carriers (HMS Hermes & HMS Invincible) were not able to operate the Phantom, as they lack catapults and arresting wires. They operated Harriers that don't need those things.

Edited February 8, 2021 by QuiGon

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, paulw10 said:

I went for the FAA FG1 as I wasn’t sure if the FGR2 was ever qualified for carrier ops. I think DCS would be better to have a carrier version of the F-4. And it’s basically and re-engined F-4J, which was used a lot by the USN on their carriers. And what about adding Enterprise and Ark Royal to the carrier pool. 

 

The FGR.2 wasn't carrier capable, (at least I don't think it was), though personally, it better fits DCS at the moment and was historically based at RAF Mount Pleasant from the mid 80s.

 

The FG.1 was only in the FAA from the late 60s/late 70s and from then it was RAF until 1990. The thing about the M though is it was much more prolific (twice as many as the FG.1) and maybe more suited for DCS World.

 

Even so I still thing the E and the S/J would be the better choice overall, even though my favourite is the F-4K/M.

[Fangs Out]

A cool image of these 2 birds F-4J and F-4K (FG.1)

also a cool patch

[paulw10]

Where did you find that pic? Marvellous. Always wondered why the nose wheel never just snapped off. 

[Fangs Out]

17 minutes ago, paulw10 said:

Where did you find that pic? 

which one?

[paulw10]

3 hours ago, Bravelink03 said:

A cool image of these 2 birds F-4J and F-4K (FG.1)

That one

[Fangs Out]

just search up on google  F-4J and F-4K. its the first pic you'll find

 

[Fangs Out]

Here's a beautiful Picture of A F-4E with AGM-65s

[MBot]

Regarding the Vietnam vs 80s Phantom discussion, I would go with a late but pre-ARN-101 USAF F-4E (so the variant preceding the ARN-101 variant that Belsimtek had originally planned). This variant had an extensive service history, operating from the late stages of the Vietnam war, fought heavily with the IDF/AF in the 1973 Jom Kippur war (some aircraft actually still in USAF camo as they were emergency transferred directly from USAF units) and remained in front-line service well into the 1980s (86th TFW in Ramstein AB, Germany flew them until 1986).

 

With this you get both worlds, Vietnam-era top-tier fighter and 1980s fighter-bomber. Compared to the ARN-101 you would not get CCIP bombing, having to rely on depressible pipper manual bombing, which I think would be more fitting to the classic Phantom vibe. You would not get Pave Tack FLIR, instead having early LGB deliveries using the Pave Spike TV pod. This actually sounds more interesting as this pod was much more hands-on for the WSO (I think it was just gyro stabilzed but not ground stabilized, so the WSO would have to track the target by hand). You would miss GBU-15, which admittedly would be a shame. You would still get early AGM-65A/B TV Mavericks and Shrike ARM though. Still a very potent fighter-bomber.

 

Beautiful F-4E at Ramstein AB, Germany in 1984, armed with AIM-9J/P and AIM-7E, ready to go into battle with the Warsaw Pact.

Edited February 8, 2021 by MBot

[dsprag]

On 2/7/2021 at 8:24 AM, Northstar98 said:

 

And the latter has 4 variants coming and major variants at that.

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.

Edited February 9, 2021 by dsprag
punctuation

[Harlikwin]

On 1/15/2021 at 4:24 AM, WinterH said:

At least an F-4E is essential, and I would prefer what I think was the mid 80s variant Belsimtek was about to develop before they were gobbled up by ED (which, in my opinion, was one of the worst things happened in DCS as far as I'm concerned, Belsimtek was making aircraft I like, and was doing them the way I like :P). It was an F-4E with the most advanced TGP available for it (though a massive, heavy, and draggy one), all the multirole goodness, Mavericks, self lased LGBs, TV guided bombs, anti radiation missiles, ARN-101 nav system. Though the immediate predecessor would work as well, as I think only things differed was the older INS nav system, and less capable but lighter pave spike TGP instead of more capable but holy-crap-massive pave tack.

70s-80s, possibly up to early 90s is where most DCS assets are, and we have many existing and upcoming modules in this period. Besides, it is where any sort of hope for possbility to have blufor-redfor counterparts realistically made. And I just like the blend of advanced and primitive provided by birds from this period. F-4E was not only the most multirole, it also was the variant that carried the flag of Phantom all over the world, and through the decades and conflicts. Germany, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Iran, for a period Australia too, all operated, and some still operates it. Saw conflicts many times over the Middle East, and we already have two Middle East maps that can host Turkish, Israeli, Egyptian, and Iranian Phantoms. And it has an actual gun for the love of goodness!

Also a later F-4E had aerodynamics refinements that made it a better dogfighter, though very late naval ones got it as well.

That said, I do understand people who are enthusiasts of naval aviation, and Phantom's beginings as a naval aircraft. And given that the variants are significantly different even in their cockpit setups/responsibilities/capabilities of pilot vs WSO/RIO, it would be a shame not to have both. I really think both F-4E and either F-4J or F-4S should be made, separately payware if need be. More advanced variants of naval Phantom adds things that make them also distinct like smokeless engines, and radars that actually have look down-shoot down ability, which F-4E radars never got aside from later nation specific upgrades that changed the radar.

 

IDK, there were so many different phantoms and honestly I think various parties could make different ones. Frankly I think HB has a leg-up since the F4 is more or less an F14 in terms of crew responsibilities. But I do think if ED does 1 phantom, they need to open the door for other parties to do other variants, possibly even to the point of making whatever "jester" code/FM code/etc they have available to them. 
 

From the context of providing a decent MP experience I think the later F4E is an "OK" choice. Even if its the mid 80's. Server admins can always limit weapons and stores to represent earlier AC to some extent, so that at least works, if really imperfectly. Ask anyone flying 70's era mig21's vs and F16C meant to be from the 80's but with link16, and a HMCS, or a TGP. And really, the more advanced A/G capabilities can be used as fill-in for other earlier dedicated strikers. 

3 hours ago, MBot said:

Regarding the Vietnam vs 80s Phantom discussion, I would go with a late but pre-ARN-101 USAF F-4E (so the variant preceding the ARN-101 variant that Belsimtek had originally planned). This variant had an extensive service history, operating from the late stages of the Vietnam war, fought heavily with the IDF/AF in the 1973 Jom Kippur war (some aircraft actually still in USAF camo as they were emergency transferred directly from USAF units) and remained in front-line service well into the 1980s (86th TFW in Ramstein AB, Germany flew them until 1986).

 

With this you get both worlds, Vietnam-era top-tier fighter and 1980s fighter-bomber. Compared to the ARN-101 you would not get CCIP bombing, having to rely on depressible pipper manual bombing, which I think would be more fitting to the classic Phantom vibe. You would not get Pave Tack FLIR, instead having early LGB deliveries using the Pave Spike TV pod. This actually sounds more interesting as this pod was much more hands-on for the WSO (I think it was just gyro stabilzed but not ground stabilized, so the WSO would have to track the target by hand). You would miss GBU-15, which admittedly would be a shame. You would still get early AGM-65A/B TV Mavericks and Shrike ARM though. Still a very potent fighter-bomber.

 

Beautiful F-4E at Ramstein AB, Germany in 1984, armed with AIM-9J/P and AIM-7E, ready to go into battle with the Warsaw Pact.

 

 

Some seriously good points. I personally think the "best" phantom (if we only really get one) is one that saw service from the late60's to early 80's would be ideal as it covers the bulk of the CW.

[Harlikwin]

On 2/6/2021 at 10:29 PM, TLTeo said:

The L-39, C-101 and Spitfire all have different variants. The upcoming Mirage F-1 will as well.

 

I agree and disagree. The F14 will also have variants, but really with pretty minor variations. I.e. you have a 2x2 matrix with the 14's. The 14B/lateA (difference engines), and early 14A/iranian14 (early engines, early RWR, and in the case of the iranaian one no TCS (simple to delete)). 

 

So if you were to do phantom variants, you'd have to figure out a set that were still all pretty similar but with some valid historical differences. Maybe someone here can make that matrix.

 

[TLTeo]

6 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I agree and disagree. The F14 will also have variants, but really with pretty minor variations. I.e. you have a 2x2 matrix with the 14's. The 14B/lateA (difference engines), and early 14A/iranian14 (early engines, early RWR, and in the case of the iranaian one no TCS (simple to delete)). 

 

So if you were to do phantom variants, you'd have to figure out a set that were still all pretty similar but with some valid historical differences. Maybe someone here can make that matrix.

 

I agree, which is why I brought up those other modules - the C101 CC for example has completely different nav systems from the EB, plus a slightly uprated engine, and of course the Mirage F1 will have significant differences among all four variants. And even then, the -S and -E model phantoms for example are even more different still, but at the same time, ED has more resources to commit to the project than any 3rd party studio.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, MBot said:

Regarding the Vietnam vs 80s Phantom discussion, I would go with a late but pre-ARN-101 USAF F-4E (so the variant preceding the ARN-101 variant that Belsimtek had originally planned). This variant had an extensive service history, operating from the late stages of the Vietnam war, fought heavily with the IDF/AF in the 1973 Jom Kippur war (some aircraft actually still in USAF camo as they were emergency transferred directly from USAF units) and remained in front-line service well into the 1980s (86th TFW in Ramstein AB, Germany flew them until 1986).

 

I think this would be the best way to go with the F-4E however we would still be leaving out the UK and the Navy. 

 

 

[upyr1]

 

 

41 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

IDK, there were so many different phantoms and honestly I think various parties could make different ones. Frankly I think HB has a leg-up since the F4 is more or less an F14 in terms of crew responsibilities. But I do think if ED does 1 phantom, they need to open the door for other parties to do other variants, possibly even to the point of making whatever "jester" code/FM code/etc they have available to them. 
 

This might be a good approach, provided everything is coordinated. Since this is a wish list I don't think we should write of multiple versions. So do need  think about the simple question how different various Phantoms in terms of performance and avionics. I'm thinking the B and C are basically the same except you could fly the C from the back. The d was basically a C with upgraded avionics so I expect they would share a lot of code. The E, F, and G would be the most different in terms of flight model. So my ideal scenario would be the B, D, E,J,  K,M,G and F (ice variant). I don't expect the G because of top secret stuff.  So if I had to name the bare requirements it would be the J and E. 

12 hours ago, Bravelink03 said:

A cool image of these 2 birds F-4J and F-4K (FG.1)

also a cool patchZ

That photo got me thinking that if we got either of these we would need some period naval assets. 

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

I agree, which is why I brought up those other modules - the C101 CC for example has completely different nav systems from the EB, plus a slightly uprated engine, and of course the Mirage F1 will have significant differences among all four variants. And even then, the -S and -E model phantoms for example are even more different still, but at the same time, ED has more resources to commit to the project than any 3rd party studio.

 

The real question is will they do it for 79.99 (or whatever) vs a 3rd party.

 

4 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

That photo got me thinking that if we got either of these we would need some period naval assets. 

 

Yeah we certainly would need actual "Royal Navy" (not whatever the current navy is, not really "royal" really) assets.

 

Sounds like you also like Vampires (we need those in DCS)