Oldcrow Jr. 62

Per the above response, and from a couple of other interviews and comments, there will not be a trial opportunity. Based upon what I understand is that the License agreement and in line with the assistance provided by Bell Helicopters, there would not be a trial period or review. Have to by it as is. If I am incorrect, then maybe a Moderator can correct my understanding.

I agree Nomadactual. Afganustan Map would be a prime map to use for a dynamic campaign model. Along with Syria, Persian Gulf and Sinai Maps we have. Vietnam would be nice also. However with that being said, a Dynamic Campaign in this region would be awesome. Think about it for moment from a Dynamic Campaign point of view. Each region/province on the map would become a "control zone" to dominate. They would fluctuate in control over the course of the campaign. Truck Convoy's would need to have helicopter escort between Fob's and bases in contested zones. As you said, ammunition, supplies, troops and equipment (think CH-47) would need to be moved around. A fob needs 50 Mortar rounds, 1000 rounds of small arms ammunition, food and a couple of people replaced. OH-58D's do area and route recon to do verify no activity along roads, villages and area's to find out where the Insergent's activity is, fixed wing could also assist but would not be as accurate and helo's. AH64's tasked with hunting down supply cache's, technical vehicles and other insurgent activity. Fixed wing overhead doing airstrikes and coin missions to assist the rotary wing assets and FOB defense. Plus all would have to "observe the Border regions" to interdict smuggling and troop crossings. The possibilities in a Dynamic campaign are mind boggling. Even simple missions would be fun, but without dynamic persistence, would not be as entertaining. But the bottom line is, more insurgent assets and equipment is needed.

I'd love to see the A6, the A7, and at some point the AH-1. Even better would love to see an AC47, and an AC-119G or K in the game. An OV-10 and a A4 Skyhawk would be nice... But let's hope that Heatblur has made tremendous gains on the A6, and is closer than we'd ever believe, but again that's just hoping. 105 would be nice,

I agree we need more assets for the COIN missions, but also we need the proper tactical employment and doctrines also. I'm not sure if the Mission Editor can replicate the conflict in a semi realistic manner. We'd have to have them mixed in with civilian populations, and the maps would also have to have a "zone of control" aspect to it also. And no go and no fire zones near the Pakistani border. Also, need to FOB's to be more accurately shown, and attacks against them randomized between rocket attacks, mortar attacks, sniper harassment and so forth. IF we could get this done, it'd be hours and hours of boredom, then hours of excitement, then rinse and repeat. Lots of fights in the fighting season, and very little over the winter season..etc... But yes better assets are needed.

Well with the current state of affairs with RAZBAM... I'll raise your Wishful " Boom" and "Beeg Badaboom" with a realistically appropriate: "POP"

That is an option, but with the F-14 you can tell the Pilot to change to course XXX, Altitude change of XXXX and speed change by XXX. But if we use the autopilot in the F-4E, I understand the best we can get is straight and level, at an altitude of XX, XXX. But have to change to flight mode to adjust heading to help with the radar using offset returns to better improve detection, tracking and lock on. Or did I miss something about the autopilot following a Flight plan??? Again, a system like in the F-14 would be a very very advantageous addition. This would allow a pilot to learn the WSO station before going MP. But right now, I know I'm one of these pilots, most pilots are not able to team up with a pilot to fly for them in a private or public MP PVE server to learn the WSO role. Again just my two cents worth and observation.

So how do we fly the Phantom from the back in order to work on and learn the radar systems, bomb computer and Nav systems? When I flew the F-14, I could tell the Pilot to change course, Altitude and speed to practice intercepts from the rear cockpit while I was working the radar. Is kind of hard to do, if I have to constantly switch between flight controls and using the joystick to control the radar systems and so forth.

Personally, I"d like to see a realistic OV-10 Bronco, F-111, Jaguar, RF-4C (if DCS would create a system in campaigns or dynamic campaigns where recon missions would be needed to spot targets, locate targets and do BDA after strikes).

Yes the Navy and Air Force tested the C-130's on and off carries for about 20 times. But never developed further. This was for many reasons. So of which was that the Flight deck had to basically be empty, they landed and took off with minimal gross weights thus no capable for heavy loads. Plus, it would have been hard to train pilots to be carrier capable. But it's DCS, and people do wonky things all the time. For me personally, I'd stick to landing on land. Even with carrier capable A/C, my carrier skills leave a lot to desire...Dangerzone...falls for the Motto...named Dangerzone, I would have never guessed..Love Carrier ops, but growing up Air Force, I guess I'm basically land bound then....Have a good one DZ...

I was working as a civilian for the Air Force during the 80's (Dad as assigned to Headquarters USAF as a Division Chief), while working around the ramp in my job, I used to see Air National Guard F-4's from time to time in other normally not used Hardstands and bunkers. I also saw other types also. So for the 80's scenarios, even in Europe, you could have NG and Active duty birds cycle out of Europe to the Balkans, Med. Northern African and Easter Mediterranean. Even could also see them Cycle out for Eastern Baltic Sea, North Sea and Finland events.

To a degree I see your point, but if you watch the video and his close up of the radar repeater, you will see that the azimuth and bar scans are confined to one side of the scope vs the other. It doesn't make sense, but have not had the time to test out and see if it does make a difference. With that being said, if the radar is scanning on half of the scope and the target is on the other side, then I don't see a guidance solution being generated for the AIM-7. Maybe a side lobe might hit it or not. I'm not a radar expert, but maybe Heatblur, one of the SME's or beta testers can clarify it for us.

I believe Casmo had a video out about using the Cage and auto acquisition mode. In it I believe I recall him saying something about which side of the radar scope to place the target for good lock on. He in the video about the 10 minute point, noticed that in bore sight mode, Radar (AIM 7's) tended to favor a right side of the scope / reticle for search and lock on. Heat selected favored the middle, and Guns the left side. Not sure if this is relevant to BVR lock on or not. I have not tried to do a lot of ACM work, but when I did training mission, and a couple of other slow moving target missions, I did find that a sparrow shot between 5 and 3 miles did reasonably well, if I wasn't pulling a hard G turn, which would cause a hard turning maneuver from the missile as it came off the rail. If I stayed within tight weapon launch parameters, I did better than expected. Even when the AIM 7 didn't guide, the AI aircraft began to notch and maneuver to avoid my missile, which set me up for another shot with Heat shots. Don't know if this applies, but am curious from you all, if this make any sense or is even applicable to Radar Guided missile shots. I also believe that our Radar isn't a great BVR radar for search mode, and only by sheer luck again a large target will it ever get a lock on beyond 25 miles, if that far.

They are a basic earlier version of the Harm, Standard and newer ARM's. Basically, they were AIM-7 rocket bodies with a different seeker attached. So therefore, not really a dedicated, from scratch designed Anti-Radiation Missile. So yes, you will probably fire off a lot of them to hit an emitter. There is no GPS, no Memory and no target locating coordinate system on board in case the emitter goes silent, so again not a precision weapon and will need a lot of shots to hit it unless very close and well within engagement parameters. This isn't modern day with solid state, CPU driven computer high tech sophisticated technology, just a basic motor, warhead and basic flight guidance. Another aspect that is forgotten is that compared to newer technology which we use in DCS with Harms and other newer versions of the HARM (which we are spoiled with) is that realistically, it's not necessary to kill the emitter for a weasel to be effective. In many cases, just forcing the radar to stop emitting is as good as an emitter kill during this era of combat. Even in today's world, forcing an emitter off the air is effective, unless it's optically guided. In Vietnam, once the North learned that Weasels were around, many times they would shut down all emitters until they were out of the area or emit for a short duration for "quick looks" and then shut back down. Remember, most of the North's SAM doctrine was also controlled from a higher HQ where multiple sites were controlled and coordinated with the NVAF command. My dad (now deceased), was an USAF EWO during his combat tour to Vietnam in 1969, used to tell me when I asked him, said that it was a game of Cat and Mouse. Sometimes they'd sacrifice a few radars to get the Weasels attention focused in one spot, and then illuminate from another site and fire from another site. And the Shrikes would not always hit the radar's. But most of the time, the NVA would just shut down and not emit, which was a win. Most SAM emitters would be knocked out by Iron bombing from another strike package accompanying the Weasel. Weasel would launch a Shrike, they would see where it went, and then drop on it. Most Weasel work which worked best was the ALQ ECM pods they carried. Also, most of the SAM losses were because the targeted Aircraft never saw the Missile launch or flight track, and never saw the missile. One further note, he also said most of the B-52's lost to SAM's didn't have ECM pods or equipment onboard.

I posted this in another topic but here is a link listing the known losses of F-4's over Vietnam during the war. Not sure if it's complete or not. But interesting nonetheless. https://combatace.com/forums/topic/90897-usaf-f-4-phantom-vietnam-losses/ Noticed there were a number of losses that were a result of combat damage, and in some cases mechanical failure.

Love that idea RONiN. Sounds great. I believe that in the mission editor you can position enemy points, friendly points and randomize which ones activate and in random locations when you run the missions. And can set triggers up so that if one shows up, another unit activates randomly. Not sure how you do it, but I believe it can be done. Even if you already have an idea where the units are, they'll show up randomly and at least give you some variation and "surprises" when you fly. Until we get a dynamic Falcon 4.0 style persistent campaign for SP and MP added, I guess things like this will have to do. But I can only imagine how much better, varied and exciting DCS would be if we had that included. One can only hope, someday soon.