Jump to content

What would be your preferred F-4 variant?


Recommended Posts

Any of them is welcomed

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

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

 

Youtube

Z390 / i7 9700K / RTX3070 / 32 GB Ram / 2x 500 gb SSD and 1 tb HDD // MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-4E most definitely. We need more 60-70s planes to supplement the F-5 and having a plane in that era without a gun is just silly. F-4E fits the largest variety of scenarios.


F-4E represents the phantom at it’s peak as the major fighter/fighter-bomber of airforces around the world, while the latest “greatest” variants represent an aging platform past its prime that had a minor face-lift in order to still be able to play second fiddle to the F-teen series.

 

After the E, some navy variant to operate it from a deck. I am willing to pay extra for both.

  • Like 2

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

F-4E is just too limited. The F-4J and S are the probably the best choices, and actually fill a variety of roles. We have too many aircraft carriers that would go to waste on yet another air force sled. If you want to go USAF that bad, then slap a D skin on your J and go to work. You can't do the reverse and make the -E carrier capable.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by exhausted
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2021 at 2:13 PM, WinterH said:

Late 70s or 80s F-4E. It is absolute heresy anything else is even discussed. No F-4 is better than F-4 but not later block F-4E 😛

 

edit: well, J or S would be cool too. BUT ONLY in addition to E, and AFTER it 😛

 

The E and the J are good counterparts for the Bis but the B and D would be good for the MiG-19 and we can't forget the Brits. So let's have as many Phantoms as possible

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The E and the J are good counterparts for the Bis but the B and D would be good for the MiG-19 and we can't forget the Brits. So let's have as many Phantoms as possible

The MiG-17AS and MiG-17F are also coming to DCS by Red Star simulations. And by the looks of the below chart the MiG-17 and MiG-21 saw the most action against  F-4C and D's in Vietnam.

 

 

image.png


Edited by Evoman
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Will be F-4E

 

https://forums.mudspike.com/t/belsimtek-f-4e-phantom-ii/4579/6

 

 

from 2017:

 

Greetings!

News about current F-4E progress…

Currently these systems were coded already and are ready to be tuned within whole complex of system for F-4E module:

Internal Lights;
External Lights;
Oxygen System;
Gear System;
Standby Attitude Indicator;
Attitude Director Indicator;
Horizontal Situation Indicator; (Attitude Indicator, Turn and Slip Indicator, Bearing Distance Heading Indicator) — Rear;
Radar Altimeter;
Fuel System;
Hydraulics;
Part of pneumatic system;
ARC-150 radio;
TACAN;

We also want to notice that F-4E will go in early access only with basic capabilities, it will have very basic multicrew and no advanced weaponry at the start (exact list of features for early access will depend on the work flow and we will determine it later). Throughout early access we will bring more and more stuff inside module to finish it.

We’ve heard from community that Belsimtek has some kind of pattern… e.g. if we are releasing news, then it means module is almost ready.
Sorry to “disappoint” you  But we are taking new effort and changing our ways. We will be going through module updates with the community, and you will know about milestones in our projects, while we are going through them together.

 

72ceefd231d1096c8729ca29ee9f297249631913

19ceebde00c0aca61cb2ca3566f148ab3f4619e1


Edited by Calinho
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Evoman said:

The MiG-17AS and MiG-17F are also coming to DCS by Red Star simulations. And by the looks of the below chart the MiG-17 and MiG-21 saw the most action against  F-4C and D's in Vietnam.

 

 

image.png

 

We need an earlier MiG-21, since they were mostly MiG-21Fs I believe. I have no problems with multiple versions of a plane especially if there is a discount based on how much the two differ.  I plan to get the MiG-17.

1 hour ago, Calinho said:

Will be F-4E

 

https://forums.mudspike.com/t/belsimtek-f-4e-phantom-ii/4579/6

 

 

from 2017:

 

Greetings!

News about current F-4E progress…

Currently these systems were coded already and are ready to be tuned within whole complex of system for F-4E module:

Internal Lights;
External Lights;
Oxygen System;
Gear System;
Standby Attitude Indicator;
Attitude Director Indicator;
Horizontal Situation Indicator; (Attitude Indicator, Turn and Slip Indicator, Bearing Distance Heading Indicator) — Rear;
Radar Altimeter;
Fuel System;
Hydraulics;
Part of pneumatic system;
ARC-150 radio;
TACAN;

We also want to notice that F-4E will go in early access only with basic capabilities, it will have very basic multicrew and no advanced weaponry at the start (exact list of features for early access will depend on the work flow and we will determine it later). Throughout early access we will bring more and more stuff inside module to finish it.

We’ve heard from community that Belsimtek has some kind of pattern… e.g. if we are releasing news, then it means module is almost ready.
Sorry to “disappoint” you  But we are taking new effort and changing our ways. We will be going through module updates with the community, and you will know about milestones in our projects, while we are going through them together.

 

72ceefd231d1096c8729ca29ee9f297249631913

19ceebde00c0aca61cb2ca3566f148ab3f4619e1

 

This has been in development hell. I've seen screen shots of Wag's computer with an F-4 Module installed. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, exhausted said:

F-4E is just too limited. The F-4J and S are the probably the best choices, and actually fill a variety of roles. We have too many aircraft carriers that would go to waste on yet another air force sled. If you want to go USAF that bad, then slap a D skin on your J and go to work. You can't do the reverse and make the -E carrier capable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah that's completely backwards. F-4E is way more capable in its strike options, and F-4J/F-4S are just too limited. Besides I'd like my onboard gun thank you very much. Advantages of J and S are look down capable radar, which by the time of introduction F-4 was already second fiddle at best for air to air compared to F-15 and F-14, and carrier aviation, which not everybody cares about. For these they give up F-4E's advantages of being by far the most widespread variant operated all over the world, in hot conflict zones and actual or hypotethical wars, as well as Mavericks, early targeting pods, LGBs and TV guided bombs, and the actual "original old school multirol experience". You can put navy skins or if you try hard enough probably land on carrier, or not, don't really care 😉 A naval F-4 would never represent F-4E in any way, and F-4E is where the worldwide service and strike capabilities were at.

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The E and the J are good counterparts for the Bis but the B and D would be good for the MiG-19 and we can't forget the Brits. So let's have as many Phantoms as possible

While as many F-4s as possible would be very cool, I really don't expect any developer to do more than two, if that. I do admit, to do the F-4 justice, you need at least two or three very different versions made. But I don't see us getting like 5-6 variants from different periods. And while they are cool, the British versions are just too niche for most developers to consider in my opinion.

 

6 hours ago, Calinho said:

Unfortunately that is old news. ED gobbled up Belsimtek after that, and most of the former Belsimtek projects were put on ice. Mi-24 came back, F-4E, at least so far didn't. Last we heard of F-4 in DCS was, ED's COO Katia saying something like "F-4 will eventually be made, probably by a 3rd party, variant not clear yet" sometime around end of last year or beginning of this one.

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, WinterH said:

While as many F-4s as possible would be very cool, I really don't expect any developer to do more than two, if that. I do admit, to do the F-4 justice, you need at least two or three very different versions made. But I don't see us getting like 5-6 variants from different periods. And while they are cool, the British versions are just too niche for most developers to consider in my opinion.

The issue comes down to two questions, how much are we willing to pay for the different versions and how much work would it take to do them.  I know at one point  the Eagle CEO was saying F-4 everything. 


Edited by upyr1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WinterH said:

Yeah that's completely backwards. F-4E is way more capable in its strike options, and F-4J/F-4S are just too limited. Besides I'd like my onboard gun thank you very much. Advantages of J and S are look down capable radar, which by the time of introduction F-4 was already second fiddle at best for air to air compared to F-15 and F-14, and carrier aviation, which not everybody cares about. For these they give up F-4E's advantages of being by far the most widespread variant operated all over the world, in hot conflict zones and actual or hypotethical wars, as well as Mavericks, early targeting pods, LGBs and TV guided bombs, and the actual "original old school multirol experience". You can put navy skins or if you try hard enough probably land on carrier, or not, don't really care 😉 A naval F-4 would never represent F-4E in any way, and F-4E is where the worldwide service and strike capabilities were at.

This is why we need at least two versions, at the bare minimum. 

Is there any chance anyone is interested in working on a community F-4 module? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

community F-4 module? 

Unlike the A-4E, MB-339, or Edge 540, you would need full SDK access to properly make an F-4 as far as I know. Especially for advanced air to ground stuff. Naval ones perhaps could be made.

There is a naval F-4 mod project under work right now, but don't exactly know the fidelity they are aiming for.

 

But yes, we have discussed this in other threads some months ago too if I recall correctly. Ideally, you would need to create at least one F-4E and one naval F-4 to do this bird justice in DCS.

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Unlike the A-4E, MB-339, or Edge 540, you would need full SDK access to properly make an F-4 as far as I know. Especially for advanced air to ground stuff. Naval ones perhaps could be made.

There is a naval F-4 mod project under work right now, but don't exactly know the fidelity they are aiming for.

 

But yes, we have discussed this in other threads some months ago too if I recall correctly. Ideally, you would need to create at least one F-4E and one naval F-4 to do this bird justice in DCS.

If anyone is working on a F-4 mod I would hope the goal is to turn it into an official mod. As long as you can do multicrew, it would be possible to get a B , C and possibly later naval versions using the open tools then submit those for the E and D. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-4J and S were not limited in their roles of fleet defenders, they were superior.  The gun on the F-4E arrived so late and delayed it was a solution looking for a problem as proven in the stats above.  Missile tech and reliability caught up to the problem rendering it mute, it wasn't all that great in an ACM gunfight since by design it was a high speed interceptor, and for its day wasn't all that bad, so it wasn't a place you ever wanted to end up in anyway.  That gun cost a cutting edge radar set for Air to Air in that day which wasn't rectified till the Hornets set which was small enough to squeeze in fixed the issue.  Till that happened the E had to get shoved aside to a ground pound role, and the D sat as the airspace defender till the very end.  It may have been a great bomb truck, but it lost much of it's original intercept capacity with a radar downgrade, could have just as easily put the ground strike package in a D frame minus a gun and retained both roles. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nodak said:

The gun on the F-4E arrived so late and delayed it was a solution looking for a problem as proven in the stats above.  Missile tech and reliability caught up to the problem rendering it mute, it wasn't all that great in an ACM gunfight since by design it was a high speed interceptor, and for its day wasn't all that bad, so it wasn't a place you ever wanted to end up in anyway.  

In 1973 Yom Kipur war most of the IAF kills were still gun kills. The table above says more about USAF tactics than about the weapon systems. AIM7 was still unreliable and highly susceptible to even primitive EW (more relevant to 1982 Lebanon war). The IAF still absolutely believed in the gun as a must-have in a fighter. By 1982 the missiles were making most of the kills, but still a non negligible fraction was gun kills (I don’t have the numbers off the top of my head).

  • Like 1

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2021 at 1:11 AM, WinterH said:

Yeah that's completely backwards. F-4E is way more capable in its strike options, and F-4J/F-4S are just too limited. Besides I'd like my onboard gun thank you very much. Advantages of J and S are look down capable radar, which by the time of introduction F-4 was already second fiddle at best for air to air compared to F-15 and F-14, and carrier aviation, which not everybody cares about. For these they give up F-4E's advantages of being by far the most widespread variant operated all over the world, in hot conflict zones and actual or hypotethical wars, as well as Mavericks, early targeting pods, LGBs and TV guided bombs, and the actual "original old school multirol experience". You can put navy skins or if you try hard enough probably land on carrier, or not, don't really care 😉 A naval F-4 would never represent F-4E in any way, and F-4E is where the worldwide service and strike capabilities were at.

 

 

I'm not sure how you arrived at this at all. The F-4E will be irrelevant as a ground attack aircraft as soon as the F-15E and A-6E are out, and both are already confirmed.

 

All you are getting for an F-4E is a downgrade from the purebreds. I get some of you want an internal gun, but what's the point? It costs you in radar ability and doesn't really give you what you want anyway. If you're USAF, you already have better choices with the F-15, F-16 and soon F-15E. If you are Iran, you're going to be outgunned as soon as you're airborne. If you are Egypt or South Korea, you won't even have a map. So what about Israel? Wrong version, you can have a USAF F-4E or an Israeli F-4E, but you can't have both without multiple versions with individual improvements. Look how well that worked for DCS: F-16.

 

So, really what's the point? 🤷‍♂️ I wouldn't even buy the -E. Don't even get me started on all the different updates with Greece, Turkey and Germany.

 

On the other hand, with the J or S, you get a much more modern suite, in the aircraft as it was meant to be used. If it is smart weapons you are after, then wait for the A-6E. And you get carrier capability for both. Why would you want to settle on an -E module that really does nothing the F-4 was designed for?

 

 


Edited by exhausted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the best solution is to do at least an F-4E (a Block 53 at least), and an F-4S/J.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

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, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, exhausted said:

I'm not sure how you arrived at this at all. All you are getting for an F-4E is a downgrade from the purebreds. I get some of you want an internal gun, but what's the point? It costs you in radar ability and doesn't really give you what you want anyway. The reality is the F-4E would only be good for the USAF, Iran, Egypt and South Korea. If you're USAF, you already have better choices with the F-15, F-16 and soon F-15E. If you are Iran, you're going to be outgunned as soon as you're airborne. If you are Egypt or South Korea, you won't even have a map. So what about Israel? Wrong version, you can have a USAF F-4E or an Israeli F-4E, but you can't have both without multiple versions with individual improvements. 

 

So, really what's the point? 🤷‍♂️ I wouldn't even buy the -E because it would be pointless. Don't even get me started on all the different updates with Greece, Turkey and Germany.

 

On the other hand, with the J or S, you get a much more modern suite, in the aircraft as it was meant to be used. And you get carrier capability that could even get the Brits on board. Why would you want to settle on an -E module that really does nothing all that well?

Literally the only advantage in J or S is the radar, otherwise, they are downgrades from the E.

 

It is incredible that you can say "F-4E would be only good for *basically the whole world*" while the J or S would be only good for USN/USMC, and barely maybe UK. Then, if somehow we take "you have better choices with F-15, F-16, and soon F-16E" as a serious argument (which is very difficult TBH), then you literally have better choices in F/A-18C and F-14A/B :D. Besides F-4E has served/serving with USAF, Egypt, South Korea, Turkey, Iran, Japan, Israel, Greece, and probably more. BTW, Isreal did not only fly Kurnass, they had more or less unmodified F-4Es too before that. These pretty nicely fit to Syria, Caucasus, Persian Gulf, and to a degree upcoming Marianas map.

 

All the different updates mean literally nothing. Nothing, nada, zilch. They have operated unmodified F-4E for years, even decades before those updates, and most of us want the F-4E more in an 80s-70s kinda scenario anyway.

 

I wouldn't even buy any Naval F-4, unless they come with, or after as an addition to F-4E.

 

F-4E has:

- Pave Knife/Pave Spike/Pave Tack targeting pods depending on the block, hence self guided LGBs as well

- TV guided drop and forget OR man in the loop GBUs

- AGM-65 Mavericks

- AGM-45 Shrikes

- Yes, also the gun 😉

 

F-4J/S has in comparison as attack options:

- Sound of crickets

- Tumbleweeds rolling

- Awkward silence after a joke that failed to land

- Being able to play on a boat or something

- You can try to play the fighter-boi with look-down radar, somewhat better than the E, to be looked down upon by literally anything else anyway, for which you give away all the worldwide service history and all the early oldschool multirole goodness.

 

So honestly, why settle for J or S at all? Really, what's the point? If Phantom is made and doesn't include E, quite honestly, it may as well not be made at all, actually even better if not made at all as that would make it even less likely to get the E anytime soon, if at all.

 

18 minutes ago, Ravenus said:

Why not Both F-4 J and F-4E?

This is the only correct answer, but sadly may not be too likely for most developers. I definitely would like E + at least 1 naval variant in addition, it is the only way to do F-4 justice. But it is rare for us to get two very different versions of an airframe as modules in DCS.

 

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Literally the only advantage in J or S is the radar, otherwise, they are downgrades from the E.

 

Yea, I'm not too sure about that seeing the E is basically a worse S with a bunch of extra stuff bolted on, depending on the customer. The E was just a stopgap made in reaction to an environment the USAF was incapable of anticipating. Take from that, what you will.

 

35 minutes ago, WinterH said:

It is incredible that you can say "F-4E would be only good for *basically the whole world*"

 

All the different updates mean literally nothing. Nothing, nada, zilch. They have operated unmodified F-4E for years, even decades before those updates, and most of us want the F-4E more in an 80s-70s kinda scenario anyway.

 

 

Totally not saying that, in fact the basic F-4E doesn't do well modeling its role for most of its customers AT ALL. The mods absolutely matter here. We are talking about:

-different radars

-different cockpit instruments

-different variations of cockpit layouts

-various types of wings

-different flight modeling

-different situational awareness suites

 

Basically everything is so different for each country, you would just have to settle for reskins and have a generic E that doesn't work the way we want it to.

 

Also, the basic E is incapable with refueling with 90% of the nations it flew with, unless ED clears a additional modules and we already know this is unlikely.

 

35 minutes ago, WinterH said:

F-4E has:

- Pave Knife/Pave Spike/Pave Tack targeting pods depending on the block, hence self guided LGBs as well

- TV guided drop and forget OR man in the loop GBUs

- AGM-65 Mavericks

- AGM-45 Shrikes

- Yes, also the gun 😉

 

 

So what you want is a dedicated ground attack aircraft, like an F-15E, which is coming.

 

You could settle on the frankenstein patchwork that is the F-4E, or you can get a really good module that does what the F-4 was designed to do as a carrier based, multi-role fighter-bomber with the J/S. Best to include or rather prioritize the Marine Corps/Navy F-4J or S, because I don't see the E really adding anything all that interesting that the F-4S can't do in the 70s-80s scenario you mentioned. Unless you want to fly opfor on the PG map 😄


Edited by exhausted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, exhausted said:

So what you want is a dedicated ground attack aircraft, like an F-15E, which is coming.

Nah, what I want is F-4E Block 53 or Block 58, and don't care an iota about F-15E, though I care even less than that about F-4J or S. Won't really bother replying to rest as it's basically you being stubborn.

However, exhausted (despite being hilariously wrong 😛) and me are both an excellent indication that there is no way under heaven that an F-4 module that doesn't include both the E (also known as the actual F-4) and a naval variant will make people happy, not without making the other half fuming anyway.

 

6 minutes ago, exhausted said:

The mods absolutely matter here.

Again you ignore that the said mods are at least 90s stuff, and all of these countries used unmodified later block F-4E's for years, even decades, and even used them actively in actual conflicts. I am not looking for any frankenstein, I am looking for either F-4E Block 53 or 58, which would pretty decently depict international F-4E service, with a lot less give-or-take than you imply.

 

9 minutes ago, exhausted said:

F-4 was designed to do as a multi-role fighter-bomber with the J/S.

Again, interesting to hear another completely backwards argument as J or S are not nearly as multirole capable as a later block F-4E is. All a later naval Phantom is, is a better interceptor than E but is already the second fiddle by that time, and almost only used by USN.

 

Now I get it, it is your preferred version, even if I believe your reasons are objectively wrong, that doesn't mean anything: if it is what you want, it is what you want. But one thing is (and has always been) clear: a naval only Phantom won't do anything for people who want a good striker and historical Phantom, at the same time, F-4E only won't do anything for people who want to operate a carrier capable Phantom with arguable the better air to air potential either.  Though I don't think we even have a proper bridle equipped carrier for a Naval Phantom, but that can be made as well.

 

I guess a potential Phantom developer should either make both, or don't bother at all.

  • Like 1

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

 

Nah, what I want is F-4E Block 53 or Block 58, and don't care an iota about F-15E, though I care even less than that about F-4J or S. Won't really bother replying to rest as it's basically you being stubborn.

 

Again, interesting to hear another completely backwards argument as J or S are not nearly as multirole capable as a later block F-4E is. All a later naval Phantom is, is a better interceptor than E but is already the second fiddle by that time, and almost only used by USN.

 

Well hold on now about your rationale about me being stubborn - the argument is the F-4E is inferior to the S, based on what the F-4 is designed to do. I'm not going to fault the air force on making a wise choice to yield the Navy's program, but I won't credit the air force either for turning out an aircraft that is inferior as both a fighter and an interceptor. It is also inferior because they took a carrier capable beast and clipped it for land lubbers 😆. I suppose that leaves the strike capabilities, but even the E's capabilities aren't appreciably ahead of the S, given they were both substantially inferior to every other strike aircraft in the Navy, Marine Corps or the land lubber branch's 😜 inventory.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

Again you ignore that the said mods are at least 90s stuff, and all of these countries used unmodified later block F-4E's for years, even decades, and even used them actively in actual conflicts. I am not looking for any frankenstein, I am looking for either F-4E Block 53 or 58, which would pretty decently depict international F-4E service, with a lot less give-or-take than you imply.

 

This isn't really correct. Japan's F-4EJs are quite distinct. Iran's Phantoms had a modified layout. Germany's -F was basically also an E, but built from its inception with appreciable differences. We are talking about substantial differences, including incompatibility with aerial refueling used by every other country, except the US and Iran. 

 

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

But one thing is (and has always been) clear: a naval only Phantom won't do anything for people who want a good striker and historical Phantom, at the same time, F-4E only won't do anything for people who want to operate a carrier capable Phantom with arguable the better air to air potential either.  

 

I guess a potential Phantom developer should either make both, or don't bother at all.

 

I wouldn't poopoo on the large number of F-4Ss the Marines used from land as quite capable STRIKE FIGHTERS, in many ways eclipsing the F-4E in both capability and doctrine -- into the 1990s. The S may not be exclusively restricted to land use, as the E, but it is not exclusively a carrier aircraft, by design or doctrine of use.

 

That being said, I agree the E will not please everyone or even come close in representing a Navy design that was intended to fill a seaborn role for all intents and purposes. And I suppose a J or S will not satisfy purists who either want a permanently attached gun or who cannot be satisfied with a skin for a D, which would actually make sense and represent many of the countries that operate the F-4, to include the USAF, ROK and Iran.

 

So yeah, ED must consider the audience for the Phantom is not unified behind the USAF model at all. Should they do both? I don't know, but I do know I wouldn't drop money on the less capable land version of the iconic carrier aircraft. 


Edited by exhausted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...