Southernbear

well the new 2023 and beyond video was all recorded in DLSS and Multithreading so once that comes online considering the tree levels already on some maps I can't see that being too much of an issue anymore. Sinai is the first map we've really gotten where decent amount of conflicts have happened in the focus area of the detailed part of the map (Sinai and the Golan Heights). Particularly now we have the Chinook announced we really need more then ever SOME sort of SEA map with a large landmass, be it either Vietnam or Korea. I see Vietnam being more likely as its more sparseness and higher levels of jungle would lend itself better to Historical missions as well as Modern day ones, where as with Korea the small nature of the country and huge industrial development since the 1950s could make choose a particular era for said map to be harder.

The answer to the OP's question is yes, it will have it. Gero has stated at least twice in interviews and this picture was given in a progress report back in 2020

Kinda helps when the CEO of Truegrit actually flew the thing. I'll say it once again for the new comers to DCS, it is not the responsibility of a Development team to ensure whether or not a module or weapon system is "balanced", rather, it is their responsibility to ensure such a aircraft or system is behaving as close to real life as possible with all available knowledge and data. It is up to the server owners and mission designers to make the call whether something is "balanced" or not and it is up to them to take the actions they deem necessary, be it locking a weapon or even a whole aircraft.

99% sure you mean AIM-7Es and not AIM-9Es, the USN used AIM-7E-4s for a few months during 1975s before moving to the AIM-7F, its the AIM-7E/E-2 that they had from their F-4s that they had to retroactively add to the aircraft.

You have to understand the F-4 was being worked on for the better part of a decade under the subsidiary company of ED, BilSimTek. The reason HB would have the right to feel confident on a 12 month release from announcement would be due to his fact.

So just asking for a temp check on the F-14A Early and Iranian F-14? a date would be nice but unrealistic, can we at least assume we are going to hear something about them before the F-4 goes into EA for example?....maybe hear something in the next 6 months or so?

Once again, Iran has NO influence on the release of NAVAIR 01−F14AAD−1A, the primary manual HB needs for the SMS pages and IRST/Radar data they need. What DOES have influence is the fact the AN/AAS−42 Infrared search and track system on the F-14D formed the basis for the F-35's new Legion targeting pod. If you release data on the F-14D's IRST then it could quite possibly give out the information to infer the performance of the Legion pod. This is why you can get info of the F-4/F-14A's IRST but not the F-14D.

Because quite frankly, to be blunt, Heatblur holds itself to a standard higher then most other DCS developers, with the IRST being a basic but important feature of the F-14D, Heatblur is not willing (for their own in house modules anyway) to compromise what so ever, thus if we miss the information, then we won't get the plane. The aircraft is equipped with the base components and software that would go on to form the basis for the F-35's Legion TGP as well as the AGP-71 radar which despite how much Razzlebazzle might try to say otherwise, there has been compromises on the F-15E's radar performance just like with the F-16, 15 and 18 so its not like HB could just "use the F-15E's radar code"

Number 1: Heatblur is trying to have Early Access for the F-4 start by the end of this year so it won't take as long as most are saying here for Marianas to be more complete. Secondly, the area of land shown in the pictures posted here is huge, a good 2-3 times the size of anything previously done for DCS. This means in reality Iraq would be 2 separate possible maps since it would be almost impossible to make a map large enough to fully show both theatres. The maps featured bellow are the current Syria and Persian Gulf maps as a size example Next here is the land area of 450,000 square kilometres as that is the largest map (Syria) we currently have. We run into a few issues, the first being that most of the fighting happened in the south where NATO flanked the Iraqi forces in Kuwait with the help of GPS where as in the Iran-Iraq war the bulk of the fighting was along the Iran-Iraq boarder and the opposite side of the Country to Desert storm. The best placement then for the map for a desert storm focused version would be something like this: But then you have the issue of 1, most of NATO's navy is stationed much deeper in the Persian Gulf and you are cutting out half the possible front for anyone interested in replicating the Iran-Iraq war. It could be done but I feel they've deliberately left Iraq alone for more complete theatres of warfare as they do, sometime in the future have the idea to possibly make a global map which would fix much of these issues. And before you ask, the reason the Falklands map is going to be so huge is 1, its mostly water making it less taxing to render and 2, its just completely needed due to the nature of positioning between the Falklands Islands and Argentina.

The missile contains a short range datalink component. The pilot uses the helmet mounted sight as you would with say, to aim an AIM-9X's IR seeker but when a lock is achieved that information is preprogramed into the guidance computer in the missile and then it is fired. Once the missile completes enough of the 360 degree turn in flight using it's vectoring thrusters the regular IR seeker acquires the target and makes the kill shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ1t3WqVbLY

Well currently the EF has the advantage in BVR due to it receiving the Meteor and in the merge as not only does it have better raw performance than the Hornet but also LOAL capability for the AIM-9X hasn't been fully implemented IRL let alone in game as the DoD/USAF doesn't seem the advantages outweigh the cost. This means while the AIM-9X can only go to a 90 degree off bore sight the IRIS-T can do the full 360, meaning even if you get onto its tail it should still be able to shoot you down. The only place the Hornet could be considered at least contemporary would be the 10-30nmi range where you mostly within the NEZ of the AMRAAM as well as the Meteor at which point its whoever locks and fires on each other first will win. But this tactic is true for many aircraft such as the F-14 for example ect. so over all the Hornet is quite outmatched by the EF2000

The AWG-9 has a +/- 200Knot doppler notch filter when in PD search, it means when the target notches you and their relative velocity drops within that band, the lock is lost. By going to P-STT and turning this off, you can't notch the radar just by going abeam to it. Normally due to the ground return even at 20-30k feet it you can still loose the lock when the relative velocity nears 0...however if you have the target locked with the TCS you don't have to worry about the lock slipping onto a ground return or getting confused by some other artefact and it can guide the AIM-7 through the notch. Keep in mind you can do it without the TCS by just going into CW, but locking them up with the TCS helps keep the target locked up AND if you happen to loose lock you hit the STT button again and since the TCS is already making the dish point at the target it instantly relocks the target.

My American's friend's Dad worked in the Navy on Submarines, had a F-14 RIO friend from the navy that told us about this. You keep the target locked at long as possible and if you do loose it through the notch and are close enough slap it into P-STT and while you'll get ground clutter the TCS allows the dish to ignore a lot of it allowing for much more reliable AIM-7 shots. Haven't tried this with the AIM-54 but frankly at the ranges I'm talking about I'd only use one if I didn't have an AIM-7 It works because P-STT or the CW search mode doesn't have doppler notch gates...if you dive to the deck its still going to trash the lock, but at 20-40k feet if someone tries to do a lateral notch and go cold on you by switching it to P-STT but keeping the TCS locked to the target it prevents the radar loosing the target nearly as much as it might without the TCS's help

it allows you to keep the lock for an AIM-7 through a notch where a normal Doppler lock would be trashed.

What this boils down too...is it means for the most part it makes notching useless and jamming much less effective. If you lock someone up provided their within TCS range you can keep the dish pointed towards the target while they do their notch ect and then re lock them once they've finished. Me and a friend abuse the <profanity> out of this using what her father's F-14 RIO's friend said to do, that being, lock a target up with the radar and TCS and as soon as the bastard tries to Notch, turn off the clutter filter on the radar, the TCS will guide the radar through the notch and keep the lock because while there is now plenty of ground clutter coz your in CW search mode, the TCS keeps the radar locked to the plane. Then bang the AIM-7 hits its target. TL:DR you get the positives of a Pulse Doppler radar and the positives of a Continuous Wave radar without the downsides of either.

Are there still plans to make the AIM-54C to go active on track file loss? following the threads on this particular issue is difficult and while it seemed it was now a "when" rather then "if" thats all I could understand. If your within like 30nmi and have a human RIO, switch on the TCS and turn off the clutter filter, the TCS guides the radar through the enemy's notch and the radar then re engages. Might not work as well for AIM-54s but it works a treat for AIM-7s

Its already been stated above but allow me to streamline it for you. Your issues with STT locks is due to how Jester funtions. "Lock enemy target ahead" only works for confirmed hostile targets from about 11 to 1 a clock ahead of your aircraft and they can't be too high or low either so try to point your nose right at them, they MUST be confirmed hostile either by DATALINK or by Jester selecting it in TWS-A and IFFing the target. "Lock target Ahead" is slightly more reliable as it doesn't require the target to be confirmed hostile....mostly useful for when there is a big furball so that "Lock specific target" is too much of a hassle. If you must get a STT lock for the AIM-7 in the ranges between 50-10nmi the best choice would be "Lock specific target" and memorize the range to the target you want to lock from your TID. Remember your in the F-14 so you'll have all the info needed to pick targets right there on your TID.

The difference is between the J and S is its to my knowledge only the S had the new more powerful smokeless engines as well as the Navy equivalent of Agile Eagle slats...ofc their fouler flaps on the S but you get the point. Also because those Colt 20mms would routinely jam if fired with more then 2Gs on the airframe...not exactly inducive to air to air gunnery

In terms of what F-4s I'd like to see: Confirmed: Early and late F-4Es as well as at least 1 USN version This would come out to be the F-4E Block 37/45 and F-4E Block 53 as the later version and I guess to match Forrestal and the years of our new F-4Es, then an F-4J as our Navy plane Ideally I'd like to see 2 of each branch....I personally feel the early F-4E is pretty redundant but considering the late will get DMAS I guess its needed for people who want to do Vietnam era F-4E things. Aside from this tho I would have preferred to see an F-4C and early F-4E with of course the F-4B and F-4J as our Navy options. Something else I thought of is it would have been cool to see the late F-4E in a separate package. My hypothetical would have been USAF pack: F-4C or D and an F-4E, USN Pack: F-4B and F-4J, but then something like "Phantoms of the Future" pack where we have the very late ANG F-4E with the DMAS ect, maybe an F-4F ICE and maybe even an F-4EJ Kai or given their work on the Viggen, a Greek F-4E with the BK-90s and stuff. Likewise they could then if they wished have a "Phantoms Abroad" thing and have maybe an FG.1, FGR.2, F-4F or F-4F KWS for the mid 70s and 80s F-4s from around Europe ect that people want.

What people need to also understand is context. While the effectiveness of A2A missiles during the 60s and Vietnam was considered less then desirable there was a huge disparity between Air force and Navy training with these weapons. To keep it short and sweet, where the Air force taught you how to "fire" the weapon against a target the Navy actually taught you how to "use" the weapon against a target. The US Navy focused much more on the Air to air capabilities of their missiles where as the Air force saw them as essentially one press pony's where you press the button...and if you don't see the big kaboom then you fire another one. In terms of weapons used the Navy saw much higher kill ratio to weapons expended and its also why Navy F-4s never adopted an Internal or even external Air to air gun with the closest you get being the Mk.4 Gunpod but even then the Colt 20mm were less then great at Air to air work.

When people mention the F-4G Phantom II most of you I would imagine would right away think of the USAF's F-4G Wild Weasel” conversions of F-4Es. But there was a F-4G before this type of aircraft and it served with the US Navy. The F-4G in USN service was quite different from the USAF F-4G. The USN F-4G, sometimes nicknamed the Robot Phantoms, were F-4Bs which became test beds to test equipment that would become standardised with later F-4J models of aircraft. These Phantoms were to test the new AN/ASW-21 air-to-ground data link. The new communication system and an approach power compensator were installed just aft of the rear cockpit in place of the No. 1 fuselage fuel cell. AN/ASW-21 data link communication system and approach power compensator coupled with the shipboard AN/SPN-10 radar and AN/USC-1 data link allowed hands off carrier landings to be accomplished. A radar reflector had to be attached to the nose in order to produce a larger radar target that would permit the AN/SPN-10 ship-borne radar to track the F-4 during automatic landings. Initially, the radar reflector was bolted onto the nose gear door, but in production versions the reflector retracted into a cavity underneath the nose immediately ahead of the landing gear. The twelve modified aircraft were redesignated F-4Gs. Their serial numbers were BuNos 150481, 150484, 150487, 150489, 150492, 150625, 150629, 150633, 150636, 150639, 150642 and 150645. The first of these (150481) flew on 20 March 1963. The data link system and approach power compensator were the only changes to an otherwise standard F-4B airframe. According to Larry Davis book F-4 Phantom II In Action, when the U.S. Navy went to war in Vietnam, the F-4Gs were assigned to VF-213 Black Lions which had been deployed with Carrier Air Wing 11 (CVW-11) aboard the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) to Vietnam from 19 October 1965 to 13 June 1966. During the deployment F-4G 150645 was lost over North Vietnam. In 1966 the service used the 12 F-4Gs to test a new tactical camouflage for Navy aircraft. The upper surfaces were painted overall in either 34102 or 34079 Green, or a combination of both; the undersurfaces remained White. Several other aircraft types were also tested the new camouflage colors including A-1s and A-6s. However, the U.S. Navy decided that camouflage paint did not hide the aircraft to any great extent, and was found to be a negative factor when attempting to move an aircraft under the carrier deck at night. Navy aircraft would remain in the standard scheme of 36440 Gull Gray upper surface, with Gloss White undersides and control surfaces, until 1970s. Eventually the F-4Gs were returned to the U.S. and converted back to F-4B specifications. If it comes to the wire and HB can only do 1 USN F-4 while these aircraft technically were "prototypes" I think the F-4G would make the best compromise for people wanting an F-4B vs people wanting an F-4J with more bias towards the F-4B given the lack of the AWG-10 being a big deal. Considering they've said the USN F-4/s will be a separate product its my hope we get both a F-4B and F-4J but being able to bring up some little known history about an obscure version of the Phantom is always an opportunity I will take.

already have it. Load up the F-14A and pick any of the VF-1 Wolfpack skins and the AIM-54s will be painted white like the early 70s ones were.

Found this gem in the youtube video suggestions for some reason, did HB change it to mirror the white papers more accurately now and due to ED's scuffed atmosphere modelling its now super slow...which it overperforming the white papers were to counteract in the first place? Coz I defiantly haven't experienced the issues he states but I have also not played in like 2 weeks so.

Frankly I think Forrestal is enough for the F-4/F-14 duo...but if I had to ask for another aircraft carrier it would have to be CVN-65 Enterprise.