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.

IF I recall correctly, there were a number of incidents where it was believed that an F-4E was thought to have been shot down by an friendly F-4E. The Phantom lost had the call sign of Trigger 4. A full blown investigation years after the war, finally determined that a Mig-21 down Trigger 4. Both crew survived, and became POW's. Here is the link to that PDF and the results of the downing of Trigger 4. https://media.defense.gov/2009/Aug/14/2001330300/-1/-1/0/AFD-090814-037.pdf I do believe however, that it is possible for it to happen, even with more modern Active and SARH missiles. In come cases, if the radar lock is broken, the missile activates it's own seeker, and locks onto a target. I know the Phoenix will do that. So think about it, if you lock a known enemy target, launch, and some how the lock is lost or disrupted, either by ECCM, ECM, maneuvering or even a friendly close by the target when the seek goes active in the terminal phase, it is possible. For SARH, two reflected signals could confuse the seeker as mentioned above. 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/

Sorry for the late reply. Was landing gear down, flaps down, and level flight. was working towards the eastern heading runway. Coming around to a left downwind for a right turn to base, about 2 miles out from the downwind leg. Sorry didn't save the log, but again didn't think I was maneuvering that hard, and wasn't in an excessive decent rate. Was between -250 to + 300 fpm Vertical rate.

Problem with all of this is more with the pilots and equipment vs the era that it's flown in. Most of the current jets have fly by wire, advanced radar and weapon systems. Compared to the F-4E to the current F-16's, FA-18's and others, it more of place piper on target, it dies. Lock up targets at BVR range, pull trigger, missile hits, target dies. Add in the precision JDAM's, LGB's and what not, and again pull the trigger and it dies. For a true 70's to 80's time period, it's like we have with the F-4E, you have to work to get in range, get within weapons parameters, and even with a near solid engagement envelope, the missile can fail to guide, or even hit the target. Same with bombing, off by a 10 knots, wings not level, dive angle not close, release, and miss by 50 to a 100 yards of the target. I think even if we had that era of Cold War in terms of maps and aircraft, we'd need to have the pilots re-calibrate and get used to the 'non-precision" weapons, and no more "flying death stars". The lack of artificial situational awareness during this time, takes a lot of mental work to get a complete picture. Me, I'd love to see that era. Flying downtown to hit a bridge defended by 100mm, 85mm, 57mm and 37mm AAA guns, with a few SA-2's thrown and I'd enjoy it. But Kalasnkova74 does make a number of good points, and I mostly agree. But there are a lot of mid 80's to early 2010's conflicts and hypothetical scenarios that could be played out with our current modules. Just my two cent's worth...

When I try the Nevada Through the Inferno mission, I get all the way through the loading screens until I hit the section "triggered events". Then it hangs up, and DCS quits responding. No other problems with most of the other missions, training and instant action except for that one.

Well the SP finally found him. They located him at the local BBQ joint, and they reported that he was hungry, noticed very few cars in the Parking lot, and didn't want to stand in line or wait to eat. BTW did find out, in the Logbook, when Jester punches out, you as the pilot get a Ejection number increase in your records. Wonder if that means if you both punch out, does it mean you get two ejections added to your records??? So Jester being Jester is fine, for now, just hope he doesn't do it in the middle of an Attack Mission or Furball.

I flew the Phantom for the first time last night. I used the Nellis Free Flight mission. I flew about 25 minutes of so to see how it basically handled and external views. During the flight I went from high altitude to about 50 feet above the Lake at 400 plus Knots. Flew low level and around the hills in Terrain masking profile below 200' AGL with some hard maneuvering. Then climbed back up and flew back to Nellis to land. No issues with Jester or "the WSO". But then a problem occurred. I was at 3500' about 315 knots, and was about to enter at a 45 to the downwind leg in the Pattern. The next thing I know, the WSO ejects from the rear seat for no apparent reason. As described above, I did hard low level flying, and he stayed with me. Now as I am about to land, he decides to eject. Could someone possibly either explain to me if this is a bug and if it's happened to you also. And could someone detail the critieria for the WSO to eject, and what the difference is between his question of are we going to fly low or high. Other than that, no other issues noted but haven't flown it much.

Congratulations Heatblur. Love the Phantom and everything it is. I just realized that I have about 1000 hours of flight time to go before I can even begin to say I have come close to mastering it. Well done. However, I just finished finished my first flight in it. I used the Nellis Map and free flight to see how it flies, and enjoy looking at the external and internal views while flying before I start the training missions. Flies great, have a lot to learn as stated above, and need to tweak the controls more also. But I decided to land at Nellis AFB and was working my way into the downwind leg of the Pattern for runway 21. As I set up for my 45 degree entry into downwind, my WSO decided to eject for no reason. Anyone else have this happen to them for no reason? Anyone have any idea why it happened?.

I've read what you all have posted. There is one element of ECM that you might not be considering. With respect to jamming an enemy ground radar signal, this radiated signal strength is a function of range and output power of the Antenna. This radiated Power will fall off due to atmospheric conditions and propagation physics. The farther away from a ground radar antenna which is broadcasting, the less power propagated from your jamming antenna you will need to effectively override the radars signal, and affect the return signal to the ground radar. As you get closer to the source of the Radar signal, the stronger that signal will be, and thus more power radiated from your ECM antenna is needed to overcome and affect that signal you will need. At some point, the Ground Radar, will effectively "burn through" your ECM output, as that signal will be stronger than your countering signal. When this "burn through" occurs you no longer are able to "jam" the signal, thus making your ECM ineffective. I am not sure how DCS models ECM and Radar Signals, but is it possible that you have actually passed this "burn through" point, and thus seeing the results you are talking about? Again, that is my basic understanding of Radar's and ECM, so if I am in error with respect to this, please feel free to correct me.

Got mine Friday. Live in Upstate SC USA. Haven't even taken it out of the package yet. Looks nice, but we'll see.

Basically, the F15E is optimized for Ground Attack, Interdiction style missions. It is not a true Aerial Superiority Fighter. Missile systems are mainly for self defense and self escort purposes. Yes it carries a lot of fuel for long range missions, but in addition to that weight is the weight of the Aircraft it's self. So yes the Mirage probably is faster due to the fact that it is lighter, has less drag and is designed to go fast and be nimble Dog Fighter. As for the Time to impact being off, a lot of factors are in play. One being range, second being relative speed between missile and the target. It is an estimate more or less of the calculated time to impact, not the actual time to impact. I've seen it off before also, but only in extreme maneuvering low PK shots. So, in summary, it's not a BVR Fighter like the Tomcat or the F-15C. Rather it's a mud mover, however, it can hold it's own in BVR fights when necessary under certain circumstances. It is not a BVR stand-off weapons system.