Dudikoff

The markings of the aircraft are predefined in missions/campaigns and not selectable so you'd have to edit these manually. Perhaps this will change with the new dynamic campaign system that ED is working on.

Somewhat nitpicking, but the MiG-29 and Su-27 technically employ an HMS (helmet mounted sight), as there's no data presented, just an optically collimated reticle. It doesn't really compare to a proper HMD which also presents additional stuff like missile employment limits, critical flight information data, etc.

Thanks for providing that option. Sitting in front of a flat screen with the annoying headphone and Track IR wires and all the quirks, I need all the distracting immersion elements I can get, IMHO.

I guess the question should be why would they? I.e. in which scenario would a Tomcat get to need and use such a weapon back when Shrike was used (with like 2-3 attack squadrons next to them)?

I'd suggest you check this topic out; there are some later posts discussing R-27R guidance in more detail. https://www.mycity-military.com/Vazduhoplovno-naoruzanje-i-oprema/Rakete-V-V_181.html There are some of the interesting tidbits here and there (taken from various Su-27 and MiG-29 manuals, I guess), like how the selection of the target size (small, medium, large) influences not only the range at which the missile will go autonomous, but also the proximity fuse sensitivity. Or that the radio-correction might send wrong data if the guiding airplane is maneuvering at more than 30/60 degrees per second (30 for missiles made before mid-1986). Probably, this was all discussed here already as it was quite some time since I went through those manuals. But, back to the topic at hand, they do say that the corrections sent are in reference to the originally calculated target intercept trajectory (with target position and speed) that the missile was launched with. There's even the original Russian sentence included: "При наличии радиокоррекции на борту самолета в БЦВМ вычисляется положение цели по алгоритму бортового вычислителя ракеты. Вычисленные координаты цели сравниваются с измеренными РЛПК-29 координатами цели. Полученные по-правки по линии радиокоррекции передаются на ракету, по которым корректируется траектория ее полета. После захвата РГС цели осуществляется ее автоматическое сопровождение по углам и частоте и наведение ракеты по методу пропорционального сближения"

But, something could have been lost in the translation from the original Russian, though.

If they make a TM WH compatible variant, it would work on the base without any firmware updates.

You could use the native Thrustmaster Target application for these and program them yourself (which would show up as a new device in DCS), though perhaps you'll have to re-assign *all* of the MFD buttons for each of the modules.

The F-14B Upgrade is not THAT far off given the amount spent on it. It basically lacks a TFR, a better navigation system and ground radar modes, all of which would have been part of a relatively affordable upgrade pitched by Grumman as F-14 Quick Strike. Not sure if a more capable ECM set was also included in the deal, though.

I like to combine the TM Cougar with the MFD's so I use custom Target profiles exclusively for all the modules I fly. It's somewhat of a hassle to develop a custom profile and tune it as it takes time which is a limited commodity these days, though.

According to this page, Block 90 vs from FY75, so I guess it's quite older than late '80s. http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/f14a/f14ab90.htm Tomcats made for Iran are listed between Blocks 85 and 90 here so presumably those made for Iran are roughly Block 90 standard? http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_fighters/f14_2.html Unfortunately, there are no details on what was changed in the subsequent Blocks.

The ground track destination could be one of the waypoints as well, but yeah, I guess it's not the proper route following mode. I saw one of the earlier posts mention GT and route and I posted before checking it in the NATOPS myself.

But, since the F-14 does have an autopilot which can both hold course or even follow the route (if I understand correctly what GT is), is there really a Pilot AI as such or simply the AP is triggered once you switch to the backseat? If they really implement some sort of Pilot AI, I'd expect some basic commands would be available to the RIO to issue (altitude, speed setting, waypoint switch, perhaps even some escort target, etc.).

Open a support ticket and try. I gave away my Hawk key more than a year ago this way.

I can see these basic modes (hold and gt) being essential for SP as well when you want to work the radar from the back seat (sorry, Jester).

Thanks, Mr. Nance is always interesting to listen to.

And your point is what exactly?

Didn't read that, but I don't think the Iranian F-14A's are what the OP had in mind.

It should be mentioned that Constant Peg (at that time, at least) didn't have a MiG-23ML variant which was lighter with a stronger engine and thus somewhat more maneuverable than the older MS/MF export models which they tested presumably. Plus, the MLD variant introduced some extra changes to improve maneuvering capabilities and controllability at higher AoA (vortex generators, a new stronger wingbox and a 33 degree wing-sweep position, flight control limiter, etc.). So, those turn rate numbers were presumably somewhat increased, but I don't have any numbers at hand apart from those provided by a quick google search and already posted for the ML and this analysis of a Soviet era document. http://www.xairforces.net/analyses/mig-23.html

What different chin pods? Late A's (which HB are making) and B's have the same one with the TCS pod as you can see from the image.

Edit: completely misplaced the date of the MiG-23 incident with the Su-22 one, never mind. I do remember reading at several places that the shot down variant was a MiG-23MS, not sure if that was correct.

Severe buffeting, non-friendly HUD wanna-be, snarly RIO.. Plus the quirky engines of the A model.. What's not to love.. ;) Can't wait to see some backseat stuff in action as though it's great having Jester as it is on those long and lonely flights, I'd hate to let him do all the fun stuff *all* of the time.

It does as an add-on adapter, it doesn't if it replaces the VKB base mount in the bottom of the stick (e.g. like MCG-TM will have). Sure, it complicates matters somewhat, but how often do you need to flash a firmware in the grip? There is a limited number of buttons and axes there, what needs to change exactly? And how would the MCG-TM get these updates anyway? The main thing that might need flashing is the controller in the adapter to support new grips perhaps and that could probably be avoided with a good initial design. Such an adapter would be useful even for your MCG-TM grip as it is loses on the axes functionality. And it becomes way more practical in the future if you decide to make additional grips. Sure, that's your choice. But, given the number of TM bases on that poll (compared to e.g. VKB bases), it seems like the wrong business choice. As a TM base user, I prefer their software to what VKB offers at the moment and I don't really consider throwing it all away anytime soon to switch to another even more expensive system. I might get the MCG-TM grip just to have the option of a Russian stick design, but any other grips which have axes (like the proposed F-14), probably not as losing those specific axes kinda makes the specific airframe grips functionally pointless. .

This is actually a great idea, but IMHO it would make more sense if all the buttons were handled by the WH base (so that TM programming software could still be used) and all the added stick axes would be handled by a separate controller board in the adapter which would connect to the USB port separately and be recognized as a separate device. That way, all the grips VKB makes could be used on TM (and Virpil I guess) bases without a need for a separate line (like the announced MCG-TM). Not sure if a direct plug-in adapter would be feasible (due to extra height and the forces exerted on it), but I guess the grip could be opened and an adapter inserted instead of the VKB connector into the base.

I asked the same thing when it was available for pre-order, but apparently the module was far from being feature complete for that. Usually updating the manual doesn't get a high priority before the module is in releasable state, so I wouldn't get my hopes up for an early manual release. IIRC, Cobra was even quite explicit in not expecting it to be released before the module itself.