TrueGrit - a natural developer of the DCS F-4F (and DCS Tornado)

[Volator]

I am looking forward to the Eurofighter, but I am more of a Cold War warrior. Now that ED seems to have dropped the F-4 (and the Tornado), I think you guys are the ones best suited to develop an F-4F (and a Tornado) module, as you have the SMEs and connections to airforce and industry. You are top experts on this matter.

 

It would be plain fantastic to have these two aircraft developed by you!

 

Merry christmas to all of you at True Grit!

[QuiGon]

How about we let them develop the Eurofighter first, which will keep them bussy for the next years?
Maybe someone else will already be working on the F-4 or the Tornado by then.

Edited December 24, 2020 by QuiGon

[Volator]

3 hours ago, QuiGon said:

How about we let them develop the Eurofighter first

I didn't argue against that, but good job in pointing that out... 

[hi41000]

interesting idea but ed were denied their purchase request for the tornado about sources from the aircraft manufacturer. It is unlikely that truegrit would be able to succeed with that.

I also wouldn't worry about them doing the f-4f its to far out, the eurofighter will likely take at least 1.5-2.5 years for release and then a couple of years finalizing it. Besides why would you want the f-4f? It did not have sparrow capability and the ice variant wouldn't work for cold war with its amraams.

[F-2]

1 hour ago, hi41000 said:

interesting idea but ed were denied their purchase request for the tornado about sources from the aircraft manufacturer. It is unlikely that truegrit would be able to succeed with that.

I also wouldn't worry about them doing the f-4f its to far out, the eurofighter will likely take at least 1.5-2.5 years for release and then a couple of years finalizing it. Besides why would you want the f-4f? It did not have sparrow capability and the ice variant wouldn't work for cold war with its amraams.

That seems to have been a mistranslation. ED isn’t doing it but it wasn’t denied.

[Voodoo_One]

15 hours ago, F-2 said:

That seems to have been a mistranslation. ED isn’t doing it but it wasn’t denied.

To my knowledge they stated that license purchase to use name / model etc. was declined from the manufacturer. So kinda it was denied for now by ED.

[QuiGon]

5 minutes ago, Voodoo_One said:

To my knowledge they stated that license purchase to use name / model etc. was declined from the manufacturer. So kinda it was denied for now by ED.

ED just doesn't have any plans to do a Tornado, that's all. As F-2 said, this seems to have gotten a bit lost in the english translation of the interview with Kate.

 

On 12/20/2020 at 5:33 PM, Wags said:

Dear all,

 

It seems that something may have been lost in translation. While we (Eagle Dynamics) have no plans for the Tornado, it is not off the table for a talented and qualified 3rd party.

 

As a huge fan of Digital Integration's Tornado, I'd personally love to see this aircraft in DCS someday.

 

Kind regards,

Wags

 

[Volator]

On 12/24/2020 at 9:04 PM, hi41000 said:

Besides why would you want the f-4f? It did not have sparrow capability and the ice variant wouldn't work for cold war with its amraams.

That's like asking why anyone would want an F-14A, a MiG-23 or an Me-109 in DCS. This simulation is not about competition, about who has the bigger stick. An F-4F without Sparrows and AMRAAMs is what the German Airforce had in the Cold War, and that's what I'd like to simulate. 

 

A 1980s Peace Rhine F-4F would be great. No Interest in the ICE... 

Edited December 25, 2020 by Pilot Ike

[QuiGon]

I would much rather prefer a US F-4E, as was in development by Belsimtek, as it was a much more versatile aircraft and not restricted to Fox2s like the F-4F was.

Edited December 26, 2020 by QuiGon

[TLTeo]

On 12/25/2020 at 11:01 PM, Pilot Ike said:

That's like asking why anyone would want an F-14A, a MiG-23 or an Me-109 in DCS. This simulation is not about competition, about who has the bigger stick. An F-4F without Sparrows and AMRAAMs is what the German Airforce had in the Cold War, and that's what I'd like to simulate. 

 

A 1980s Peace Rhine F-4F would be great. No Interest in the ICE...

 

I agree to some extent, but shooting Sparrows is one of the main missions the F-4 was designed for, and the vast majority of the Phantoms built have/had that capability. Wanting a Fox-1 capable F-4 is not quite comparable to wanting CFTs and AGM-84s on a Viper for instance.

Edited December 27, 2020 by TLTeo

[Ghostraider]

But Phantoms are  very usefull  for SEAD - Wild Weasel

[Fangs Out]

And as an multirole aircraft

[QuiGon]

On 1/7/2021 at 10:03 PM, Ghostraider said:

But Phantoms are  very usefull  for SEAD - Wild Weasel

So are Tornados.

[TLTeo]

On 1/7/2021 at 10:03 PM, Ghostraider said:

But Phantoms are  very usefull  for SEAD - Wild Weasel

Only a specific version of the Phantom which is the least likely to be developed for DCS. Your average Phantom is not significantly better at SEAD than, say, the Viggen.

Edited January 15, 2021 by TLTeo

[QuiGon]

Just now, TLTeo said:

Only a specific version of the Phantom which is the least likely to be developed for DCS. Your average Phantom is not significantly better at SEAD than, say, the Viggen.

 

That's not quiet true. Unlike the Viggen the Phantom can carry anti-radiation missiles. It just doesn't have the emitter location system that the Wild Weasel variant has.

[TLTeo]

Do you have a source for that? I thought only the -G did

edit: how about that, an -E and -G flying together both carrying Shrikes! It looks like only the G could carry the Standard or Harm though

Edited January 15, 2021 by TLTeo

[Devil 505]

Just for the record,  ED did not say they were dropping the F-4.  They said it would be coming.  They said in an interview with the Grim Reapers they feel this module needs to be done by ED at the level the F-18 and F-16 are getting.  They went onto say how iconic the aircraft is and that they would be bringing it to DCS, just no time frame.  It is still in the cards, but it makes sense now that they have announced the Apache Longbow why this was put on the backburner.  I would not be surprised one bit if at the end of the year or sometime next year this is the next big module ED announces.  Just wild speculation, but I do know as of last interview, it was confirmed that one variant of the Phantom will be their baby.  They did confirm ED was NOT doing the Tornado.  They said they really look forward to a third party picking the project up someday. 

[Toga10]

i'd like to think that HeatBlur would do a great job at a Tornado GR1. They've already shown that they can do an outstanding at twin seat swing wing fast jets from the 70's and 80's.

[Bananabrai]

As far as I know:

 

The USAF F-4E (late-ish) was able to carry AGM-45

With the USAF, only the F-4G could carry AGM-78 and AGM-88

The IAF F-4E carried at least the AGM-78 (which was presumably pretty close to the USAF F-4E)

 

As much as I would like an F-4S or J or N (the Navy Phantoms look so cool), I would also really want one that carries the AGM-78 Standart ARM

 

Regarding Tornado, for that "was designed for"-reason I would prefer a late (1990-1995) GR.1 (A/B).

 

I have to say, if that is a valid reason to let the F-4 carry Sparrows (because it was designed to)...

... the F-16 (the later development stages) was also designed to be able to carry everything in the US arsenal that fits it. 

It turned out to be a good step for export reasons. Just mentioning.

[QuiGon]

On 1/15/2021 at 1:05 PM, TLTeo said:

Do you have a source for that? I thought only the -G did

 

Unfortunately not, which is why I'm not sure if other Phantom variants could also carry the AGM-78 or even AGM-88 or just the AGM-45 Shrike.

The Shrike was basically just a slightly changed Sparrow with a different seeker that was pre-programmed on the ground. It didn't require any integration into the aircrafts systes besides arming and launching it. I'm not even sure if it even offered more enhanced integration.

[Dudikoff]

I don't think it was pre-programmed, as it was not that advanced, but the receiver in the seeker head was made in multiple variants matching different SAM radars and their known frequencies and then you'd have to choose ones for the loadout carefully based on the expected threats.

 

It would be quite nice if DCS ARM modelling supported such limitations to begin with (similar seeker limitation is valid for e.g. Sidearm IIRC).

Edited January 21, 2021 by Dudikoff

[statrekmike]

Seems odd to make the assertion that a developer that has yet to release even one module for DCS is a "natural" choice for future projects. It would be wise to let them show us what they can do before we start talking about what they "should" do next.

[Ikaros]

47 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

Seems odd to make the assertion that a developer that has yet to release even one module for DCS is a "natural" choice for future projects. It would be wise to let them show us what they can do before we start talking about what they "should" do next.

 

Yea, we don't need another VEAO situation lol. 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Ikaros

[Volator]

15 hours ago, statrekmike said:

Seems odd to make the assertion that a developer that has yet to release even one module for DCS is a "natural" choice for future projects.

 

Well, of course you can see it that way. I on the other hand don't see any reason for that kind of negativity: Everything I heard and read so far about the Eurofighter project and the development team's qualification makes me think they know what they are doing. This and the fact that these guys actually flew the Eurofighter and the F-4F makes them a natural choice to bring these planes to DCS.

[statrekmike]

On 1/23/2021 at 5:34 AM, Pilot Ike said:

 

Well, of course you can see it that way. I on the other hand don't see any reason for that kind of negativity: Everything I heard and read so far about the Eurofighter project and the development team's qualification makes me think they know what they are doing. This and the fact that these guys actually flew the Eurofighter and the F-4F makes them a natural choice to bring these planes to DCS.

 

  I am not coming from a place of negativity, I am just keeping in mind that we don't really know anything about how well this developer will do with DCS. We have some very nice art assets but not a ton beyond that. It would be intellectually irresponsible to allow oneself to get too hyped at this stage. 

 

  One more thing to kinda keep in mind. Pilots may have a ton of good, useful insight into how a given plane works and feels like but that knowledge and experience doesn't automatically mean that they will arbitrarily be able to make a well developed DCS module. There are other skill sets and considerations involved. 

 

  I want this module to be good and I deeply hope that it is (since I like the plane) but they are still a unknown quantity when it comes to developing for DCS and until we have their first module installed and usable, we shouldn't be so eager to start making wishlists that they are a "natural fit" for. We simply have no way to know what they are a natural fit for until we know what they can do.