Bananabrai

Der Mover... der passt vielleicht auf, aber schau dir mal an was die Amis sonst so an Videos aus dem Cockpit posten. Das macht kein deutscher Typhoon Pilot. Das soll keine Entschuldigung sein das man nicht aufpassen sollte was man so erzählt. Dein Grundgedanke hat seine Daseinsberechtigung. Aber ums mal anders zu sagen, die Russen kochen auch nur mit Wasser. Ich weiß aus erster Hand das nicht die Technik, die Freuquenzen und so weiter interessant für die Jungs sind. Es sind die Verfahren, die Befehltskette, wann kommt welche Eskalationsstuffe, etc. Deshalb ist es auch so schwer wenn man als Staffel-Lead ne Ausbildung auf die Beine stellen möchte, da findet man nicht viel Dokumente. Außer bei den Amis, um mal wieder fälschlicherweise auf den Mover zu kommen. Die Basis-Ausbildung und die ganze P-Serie an Dokumenten kannst du sogar direkt auf deren HP runter laden^^

Hi, das hört sich sehr gut an. Ein PA100 Mod für die Viggen fände ich sehr toll. Ich kann dir mal ein Bild aus einem Buch davon schicken. Dort sieht man das es auch ursprünglich die Idee gab den Tornado (auch) als Einsitzer zu bauen => PA 100 und PA 200. Ich denke man stellte recht schnell fest das der Workload einfach zu hoch wäre. Ich frage mich nur wie das mit dem Wingsweep dann laufen würde...

Cool. My boys and me also use NTTR quite extensively. It's a very nice map as its is. I am still one of the guys who dream of an extended NTTR++ map.

I totally defend the position of Heatblur here, I will state why. I think a lot of people don't realize, what not only could have happened, but what actually did happen without a lot of people knowing. A great example.: During the 1990s, the then still pretty new ECR Tornados of the GAF did a trial / flight test campaign in the US. Now normally those test are conducted at the bigger airfields, but the tests were on a smaller airfield. The purpose of the test was to try and evaluate a 'combat fitting' (Einsatzsofortbeschaffung) of towed radar decoys to it. They were tested extensively, but they were never used again, no pictures exist. No controls exist in the cockpit, although they could have been used in war time. The same counts for NVGs in the GAF Tornado. Official support was not rolled out by EADS/MBB/Panavia/AIRBUS until ASSTA 3, but was used long before. And another example.: I am working on the BOZ-101EC (FDS=Future Dispenser System). That one will come with ASSTA 4.1. But for the Syrian air campaign it was used a long time before, on ASSTA 1 and ASSTA 3A/B birds etc. Wikipedia is not always right. And POHs are not always right either. I know it, I have the docs here on my desk and they do not fit all times. So please stop yelling for realism and stretching things, because things are streched for real as well. The military is not stupid, real pilots do yell about the need for certain things the way virtual pilots do. By the way, it is quite a bad habit to justify the own need for total "realism" by directing others to learn their radar properly. How would somebody read that who is really struggling learning it? Not everybody can afford the peripherals we have, or has time to invest.+ DCS is a sandbox. Used to stay in a "reality" bubble, use it for whatever you need. Or stop flying the viggen at all in NAV mode, because it can not navigate on any map we have in DCS at the moment.

I really hope to see more Viggen skins, it is not as popular as the others. A suggestion: Looking forward to this one maybe... Maybe a little bit less weathered, just so that it is flight worthy...

Thanks. That actually helped a lot and is very interessting. Although things seem to be bit inconsistent, maybe in terms of the real Navys planning. Example: I was looking at 1988/89 The page for the CVN-71 says it was deployed to the Mediterranean with CVW-8. Itself consists of the listed sqadrons: VFA-15 Strike Fighter Squadron 15 “Valions” VFA-31 Strike Fighter Squadron 31 “Tomcatters” VFA-87 Strike Fighter Squadron 87 “Golden Warriors” VFA-213 Strike Fighter Squadron 213 “Black Lions” VAW-124 Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 124 “Bear Aces” VAQ-141 Electronic Attack Squadron 141 “Shadowhawks” VRC-40 Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 40 “Rawhides” HSC-9 Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 9 “Tridents” HSM-70 Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 70 “Spartans” But one photo of 1988 shows the Jolly Rogers abord. Are the squadrons also switching? I guess I have to find the historical CVW-8 composition then. Anyway, still very helpful

Hi guys, a brief question. Is there no such thing as 'Visual Operation Charts' in the US? In the Caucasus it is very similar to what we have in Germany. See Kutaisi for example: https://www.openflightschool.de/mod/book/view.php?id=625&chapterid=482 And my homeplate in Germany: https://www.rocketroute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/DFSAD2EDJAMEMMINGEN1-551x780.png Notice that the outline of the CTR is marked as well as ENTRY and EXIT points. We are flying the YaK-52 and Helos out of Creech and struggle to get a common flow without such aids. Any idea how the real helos approach Creech visually? Do they just get a talk on?

I will look for it. To the topic of 'why': Thanks for the info, I knew the reason. The jets were on the pad with full external tanks. I will try and do some tests for consistency inside an all new mission.

Hi all I am looking for the guys out here, that know the US Navy fleet deployments and the squadrons aboard for several periods. Personally I don't like it when very illogical things are happening or units are around, that wouldn't have been around, even though I like it when conflicts go into a hypothetical direction. At the moment I am thinking about scenarios on the Syria map. Of course, multiple come to mind. But for now I am mostly interested in 3 periods of time. 1984-1990 - War of the camps (which followed the 1982 (1st) Lebanon war): A fictional scenario in which the NATO tries to 'liberate' Lebanon of Syrian influence. 2001 - As power shifts from Senior al-Assad to Junior al-Assad: A fictional NATO involvement after aggressive actions by the new leader. 2011 - Syria civil war: NATO gets involved (/wants to get) from the beginning. Please do no not discuss about the topics, I don't want to have a political discussion here. I simply wanted to build something else than a complete historical correct conflict with the also correct outcome. I use DCS as the sandbox that it is and want to flex things a little bit, I know, this means getting into alternate history,... So my question is: What US Navy vessels (out of the ones we have in DCS) could/would be involved for the different times? Which would be the most realistic ones at least? And which squadrons were on those vessels at the times? Unfortunately we don't have different models/skins for the Tarawa-class, but I found out that the LHA-2 Saipan and LHA-4 Nassau were deployed to the Mediterranean frequently. For the Super carriers, I think the CVN-72 A. Lincoln and the CVN-75 H. S. Truman (although that one is not old enough for the first period) were also kind of deployed to the Mediterranean frequently. The information could also suit Caucasus scenarios, so I think it would be very helpful for mission builders in general. I think the time period is difficult in general, as the US deployed a ton in the Gulf region from the early 1990s onward. So Wikipedia is not very helpful.

I think what we need is a ArmA style four coalition setup. If I remember correctly, there was - Bluefor - Redfor - Independant - Civil which for DCS could translate to: - Blue - Red - Independent - Neutral With neutral being not aggressive but could be engaged. And most important, choose for each and every mission whether Independent is: - hostile/friendly to Blue and Red - ... to Blue - .. to Red - ... to none

No on-board device! Of course only the original rockets with the retrofitted guiding section. The rest needs to be sorted out with JTAC or another platform lasing.

Such a feature would be amazing. Totally supporting this.

Thank you Sir.

I remember that mission, it felt pretty immersive. Can't remember if it was magic though. I looked at the mission file because I wanted to that as a coop action back then and as far as I remember, the illum was dropped by another AI flight.

What is the code for it? Just found the info that it has been integrated.

This is very early one, the old ESRRD is still missing. Early production or prototype German standard IDS, pre ASSTA 3 The first one is not a GR.4 pit, or at least a pre-production / in-the-middle-of-the-upgrade one. It's missing one of the big features of GR.4, the large pretty dominant TARDIS. The second one had no caption and was posted below a GR.4 picture. To be clear, it's a IDS (pre ASSTA 3 cockpit) It could be an ECR (also pre ASSTA 3). Controls for the FLIR are on the left side and not visible, the WCP is the same although the ECR as no guns.

So after poking around here and there I can at least bring a bit of light into the dark. The maximum selectable range for A-G radar was 80 nm. Thats 148 km who want to compare that to the Viggen. None of the pilots I have spoken to in the past weeks was in the German Navy. They were all flying with the GAF. However they also did play around at ferry flights and so on. They are not so different from us^^ One of the guys said that he could make out a large vessel at 60-40 nm.(= 110 - 70 km) But that of course depends on size and 'stealth'-technology of the ship. That would also fit the expectation of other types of the time and even with the Viggen performance in DCS. I find it hard to believe that the Bucc is told to have a better performance. Maybe it had a similar performance, the newer A-G radars are also only slightly better in performance and the ship technology evolves as well. A large bulky oil tanker may be visible for more than 80 nm, but that would count for the Tornado as well. Edit: I had to go over the report again. The author claims: 180 nm (the "normal" setting), that would be 330 km. I don't know how well a radar can see beyond the horizon, but you have to be at 8500 meters (= 27.880 ft) of altitude to see this far in a direct line, no additional effects taken into account. How does that sound? Sounds odd to me.

Das kann gut sein. Wobei das eher weniger Einfluss auf DCS haben wird denke ich. Das neue Bewaffnen und Reparieren bspw. dauert in DCS ja auch nicht so lange wie in echt. Wenn man es realistisch gestalten möchte muss das dann der Missionsbauer berücksichtigen.

Die Bilder vom IIS (ECR Tornado) konnte man sich während des Fluges mit dem CRPMD anschauen. Muss also nur bei den RECCE pods entwickelt werden. Bin am Wochenende schon mit meinem Geschwader eine Mission im TARPS Stil geflogen, mit dem LANTIRN im 2-ship. Hat sehr Spaß gemacht. Auswertungen haben wir dann über Discord Streaming gemacht, indem wir in die scrrenshots reingemalt haben. Den Taschenrechner mussten wir eh raus holen. Ein Auswertungs und -planungs interface in DCS wäre toll, genauso wie eine Art integriertes SRS und super viele andere Sachen. Solange das aber nicht da ist, ist das für mich kein show stopper für einen TARP. Ich persönlich würde den TARP initial auch einfach nur mit screenshots nutzen.

Ok, da kann man nichts machen. Das DCS in vielerleih hinsicht limitiert ist wissen wir ja alle. Davon lass ich mich bei Missionsdesign und -umsetzung allerdings nicht ausbremsen. Fotos lassen sich im Kniebrett ja schon anzeigen...

Die Auswertung muss doch garnicht in DCS stattfinden. Wenn man sich rein auf DCS funktionen verlassen würde, wären viele Missionen die wir im SP und MP fliegen nicht möglich. Nur ein Beispiel: für die ELINT der Viggen gibt es ja auch eine Option die Daten in CombatFlite für die nächste Mission mit einfließen zu lassen. Zusätzlich: Noch vor 4-5 Jahren konnten wir uns auch nicht vorstellen wie eine Jester-KI oder Multicrew genau umgesetzt werden soll in DCS. Also nur weil ein Framework noch nicht da ist, heißt das ja nichts. HB hat auch einfach mal angefangen ein A-G-Radar für die Viggen zu machen damals.

Wie wäre es den mit 4x AGM-84E SLAM? Die kannst du auf eine geringe Flughöhe einstellen und sie sind auch noch schneller als eine JSOW. Für einen kleinen Bunker könnten sie reichen.

Balkans, Fulda gap, GIUK, Baltic Sea are the ones I am hoping for as well! I really wait for the Falklands so I can start getting further away form the warmer maps and have snowy missions. (except Caucasus) My strongest wish though is an improved map system in general so the map size can steadily grow. (or engine, I dont know what is needed for that) I would really love to have Germany (Fulda Gap) and Balkans on one map for example, or have the GIUK Line together with the Baltics and Norway. That's what I hope for before they make more maps. Finished products are obvious for me, I think UGRA knows that, so no need to mention it that often.

Sehr geile Sache. Leider haben sie das TARPS nicht erwähnt.

Ich weiß, aber ich denke du verstehst das ich das so nicht 1 zu 1 beantworten kann. Es gibt halt verschiedene Möglichkeiten, evtl kann bei einem Flieger die HARM wirklich nur einen Bereich abtasten (~DCS F-16) und bei einem anderen Flieger mehrere simultan (~DCS F-18 stand: jetzt). Du kannst ja im millisekunden Bereich auch Daten auslagern, usw. Also ggf. sieht der HARM sensor tatsächlich alles gleichzeitig, oder auch nicht. Letztendlich kommt ja für die Hornet noch eine andere Simulation der HARM, somit können wir uns dann fragen, ist es dann realistisch, auch wenn wir das dann genausowenig beantworten können. Könnte dir über die beiden eh nichts sagen, die BW hat auf jeden fall ne andere Philosophie.