fable2omg

Can anyone explain to me why it's illegal to talk about BMS?? LOL

I can only quote my American submariner friends, "a surface fleet is great for peace time, a submarine fleet is great for war time." I'm pretty sure these large ships were never meant to go near icing conditions. Not to mention American technology isn't really meant to work under -15 degrees celcius. Come to think of it I don't think any US fighter has any real anti-ice equipment, I know the USAF spray their jets with de-icing liquid before taking off but that's it. And considering every documentary and everyone I talked to that had to deal with US aircraft had this F.O.D. or "foreign object debris" phobia, I'm guessing if there's chance of ice they don't wanna risk damaging their engines. I'm nowhere near educated in the subject though, maybe someone else will have a clearer answer for you.

I've been working on a civilian Aeroflot campaign for the Mi-8 in the Soviet era of the Caucasus (hopefully I'll finish it one day, lol) and after toying around with the ARK-UD VHF homing set, one thing led to the other, then I hit a wall. What kind of ELT did the Soviets use? What did it sound like? At what year was it distributed across the Aeroflot? I'm talking pre-Cospas-Sarsat era, in the early 70's, there had to have been a reason why they had the ARK-UD as equipment aboard helicopters, possibly to find early ELTs in Siberia? It must've had a completely different story to it than the general aviation in North America.. None of these questions could be answered by google.. So I thought I'd make a thread about it here. As far as I know the Aeroflot did pretty much everything that wasn't done by the military aviation, which should make an Mi-8 campaign pretty interesting, I'm thinking about combining cargo transportation, base building, Search And Rescue and maybe personnel transportation to and from ships. Any information you guys have related to Soviet-era civil aviation, I will gladly take note of and add to the campaign.:book: Most importantly, if you can guide me towards what the Russians used as ELTs before the Cospas-Sarsat treaty, what it sounded like, what frequency they used (I'm guessing 243MHz, 121.5MHz seemed to be in North America) and maybe even tell me about Aeroflot Search And Rescue, that'll be greatly appreciated, thank you! ----------------------------------------------------- If you don't know what's an ELT, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicating_radiobeacon_station To me it's always been little boxes that broadcast on 121.5MHz and 243MHz "elsewhere", apparently what I know as an ELT was 70's technology though. Apparently now they use 406MHz frequency, and it's a whole different world than the one I know.

For the Ka-50, I know the manual says the droplets have mines, but I heard both submunitions were cluster bombs, one for infrantry, the other for light armored vehicles. If they do have the simulation for mines, well it's not for infrantry obviously, the Ka-50 itself could transport airdropped anti-tank mines. Apparently the Bulgarians even have anti-helicopter mine designs, lol And well, if third party developers start designing mines, then maybe there could be demining vehicles too, I know the Mi-8BT is specialized for mine clearing. Can you see where I'm getting at now? That would add a whole new level to the game. ex81, you're right in that it's not an infantry game, but it's not Ace Combat either. It's a simulation. And in real life there's much more to military aviation than just combat. That's what I'm looking for, and I think DCS has a great potential for that.

I have two obsessions in simulations, great touch to detail (like the Mi-8 kerosene heater, they even simulated the exhaust smoke, I'm in love) And an unhealthy love for mines and minefields. Unfortunately DCS doesn't have the latter. I can understand for latency issues you wouldn't want players to spam mines, but mission creators can just remove them like they remove nukes. I like to simulate battlefield frontlines and I witnessed many missed opportunities for an airdropped minefield, now I don't know if it's a matter of DCS not being able to support "trigger activated explosives" or third party developers never giving a second thought into implementing mine droplets, I just wanted to get the word out there, let's see what you guys think.

Forget about this Absolut Swedish beer, have a Stoli on me! :P When the weight is distributed properly the MiG-21 is a charm to fly! I'm always happy to hear more from my fellow pilots, you have my congratulations!

Oh, I thought I already did, huh.. This is where the original post for the Iraq Iran war is: http://www.acig.info/CMS/ But where I actually found it was here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=713.0 Now you're right, propaganda is one of the biggest tools in modern warfare.. It doesn't matter who actually won, what matters is who's acting as if they won the most.. Edit: almost forgot this link again http://www.manfred-bischoff.de/SU22.htm#St%F6r-/T%E4uschbeh%E4lter%20SPS-14 (for the SPS-141 mods, but I think it was linked on this forum already)

So, I found a post, actually a quote on another website that I'm sure people will love to read here, I know the SPS-141 pod isn't fully simulated, or maybe it is but we simply didn't expect it to work that way, either way this is an interesting read and hopefully can help LNS. No Iraqi aircraft carrying the SPS-141MVG pod was ever shot down by the Iranians, whether Ground defence system (HAWK Missiles) or Radar guided air to air (Sparrow and Phoenix Missiles) during the entire Iraq –Iran war. This ECM pod works on both air and ground threats and it was externally mounted in pods in the SU-22 aircrafts. It was internally mounted in the Mig-23BN and Mig-25RBS. It was designed to affect the missiles homing head automatically once the enemy radar had locked and launched a missile against the aircraft carrying it. No special training was required for the pilots carrying the pod since it was a defensive one. The pilot has only to select the most probable threats in priority. This type of jammer was received by the Iraqis in 1984 from the Soviet Union along with the SU-22M3 aircraft batch. It was used successfully by the SU-22 belonging to the 69 squadron during the first highly successful raid on the Iranian Island of Kharg on the 15th of August 1985, when 6 aircrafts flew over the fortified island and attacked the oil terminals and got out unscathed. The I-Hawk battery in the island did nothing to the Iraqi aircraft neither did the F-4s and F-14s patrolling its skies. The Iraqis received their first jamming pod of the SPS-141 type early in 1981.It was designed to counter HAWK MIM-23A, since this system dealt with head on targets only the SPS-141 had a frontal antenna only. That type was less capable than the SPS-141 MVG type, and was a little bit problematic in actual deployment. The SPS-141 MVG came with the SU-22 as a complete package and there was no begging by the Iraqis, but rather a forceful demand for such equipment. That system was designed to jam the MIM23B as well as F-14, F-15, F-16 radars in the lock-on mode. The pod will affect the homing heads of the AIM-7M, F Skyflash as well as the Phoenix missiles. The Iranian HAWK operators had no way of countering the work of the pod since they were not aware of its operation. The ECM pod affects the missile homing head after it's launched. The ground operator could do nothing about that. The Iraqis used the pod successfully from 1984 to1988. This is compared with the useless and tragic way of the Iranian use of the AN/ALQ-109 and the AN/ALQ-119 American ECM pods which the Iraqis obtained in large quantities from the Iranians when they shot their aircrafts down since September 23 1988. There was a full warehouse full of these American pods in the Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in Baghdad. Many of these pods were in good condition, some were undamaged. This shows the bad attitude of the Iranians towards the philosophy of Electronic Warfare. Again the KH-28, AS-9 was supplied in 1982and was used operationally in late 1982 against the Iranian Hawks with a devastating effect. The missile was usually launched from a range of 70km when the launching aircraft usually a SU-22 M2 was flying at an altitude of 7km and a speed of 750km/hr. To launch the missile to a range of 100km the aircraft has to fly at an altitude of 10km. This would make the aircraft handling a little bit sluggish, something not very popular with the pilots. The KH- 28 homing head had a very good coverage in both in azimuth certainly much better that the American HARM/HTS pod which used the same philosophy of missile/pod arrangement. The Kh-28 had a high sensitivity receiver and it could detect the HAWK illuminator sidelobes at a range exceeding 200km. However the METEL pod which has the missile firing envelope programmed in it would prevent the pilot from launching of the missile, unless the aircraft is within the firing envelope of the anti radar missile itself. The Iraqis implemented the soviet ECM doctrine with great success. Iran was left with 3-5 HAWK batteries out of 36 originally purchased by the Shah and despite the US/Israeli support both in missiles and ground equipments well as tactics during the Iran-contra affair. The Iraqis didn’t have to employ the mass soviet tactics since they were not confronting NATO forces. The soviet doctrine calls to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the NATO HAWK batteries to open a gap in their coverage. The Iranians started to use the mobility tactic upon the advice of the Israelis in 1986. However the Iraqis implemented a combined tactic of SEAD and conventional bombing to destroy the Iranian batteries. I don’t know where the figure of 77 aircraft the Iraqi admitted to lose between February and March 1987 came from. This was part of the Iranian propaganda and was never said by the Iraqis. The contrary was correct. During one incident in February1987 a formation composed of four Iraqi SU-22s equipped with SPS-141 MVG were fired upon by 9 HAWK missiles from three different batteries in the south of Basra sector of the front. All 9 missiles missed their targets although the Iraqi aircrafts were flying at an altitude of 1000 meters only. The Iraqi aircraft which were carrying 6 FAB-500 bombs each bombed their target which was the Iranian infantry in that area and returned safely to base. The KH-25MP is something entirely different from the KH-28. The principal of those missiles are entirely different. The KH-28 is an offensive weapon, while the Kh-25 is a totally defensive weapon aimed to protect the carrier aircraft. The SPS-141 MVG was supplied by the Soviet Union and the East Germans had nothing to do with it, nor were East German experts ever utilised by the IrAF in the EW arena. The SU-22 aircraft that tried to land near an airstrip near Dezful AB (the Iranians call it Vahdati AB) was not running out of fuel but its pilot was having some bad orientation and he figured that he was landing inside Iraq. The Iranian AAA near the strip shot him down and no aircraft or missile or pod was ever captured. The pilot ejected and returned to Iraq in 1990. The Iraqi SEAD accompanied every attack on Iran in a continuous basis from 1984 and until August 1988. Every strike package was accompanied by SEAD elements according to the perceived Iranian threat and this led to minimise Iraqi losses to an unprecedented level. The Iraqi packages sometimes exceeded 80 fighter bombers simultaneously. The Iranians had the MIM-23B advanced HAWK missile system, both the radar illuminator and the missiles since the seventies and so it was not new to them in 1987. Till the end of the war Iranian AD operators never knew what hit them, whether it was KH-28or conventional bombs. They had some very good support from the Israelis and the Americans due to lack of their experience which resulted in loosing such a large amount of HAWK batteries and a very high rate of expended missiles. The Caimen Standoff jammer was a standoff jammer against early warning radars and not the HAWK missile system. The Mirage F-1s that were carrying it flew over the Iraqi territory and never flew over Iranian territory. No Mirage F-1 carrying Caimen was ever shot down by Iranian Hawks. In describing the events at Dezful AB, our friend Tom resorts to the usage of the highly exaggerated and extremely inflated Iranian stories about the war which has to betaken with extreme caution by any serious person. They look like dream fantasies more than real world facts. Iraq never received or operated the Mig-25BM or Mig-25 RBT SEAD aircrafts nor did this aircraft set its foot on Iraqi soil or roamed its skies. Iraq acquired the Kh-58 only with the arrival of the SU-24 after the war. It contracted the Kh-31 but never received it. The Iraqi EW equipment and experience was more than enough in countering the deteriorating the Iranian AD as a whole. Tom's stories about the Iranian air defence in the battle of Faw in 1986 were very far from reality, they are based upon Iranian claim stories none of which happened in actual combat. The Iranians never managed to shoot down 12 or 9 aircrafts per day. The maximum they achieved was shooting two aircrafts during one of the days. The two aircrafts were not from the same formation or package. During the battle that lasted from February9th 1986 to early April 1986 the Iranian Hawk batteries claimed more than 71 aircraft shot don by them alone. The truth was that the IrAF performed thousands of CAS and interdiction sorties with the total loss of 23 fighters only, and that was due to all type of Iranian AD. No Iraqi TU-22 was ever sent to Kharg Island, how did the Iranians perceived the Iraqis had done so, I don’t know? Maybe the Iranians were so extensively battered and shocked that they never envisaged what hit them. Iraq never received or operated the Mig-25BM or Mig-25 RBT SEAD aircrafts nor did this aircraft set its foot on Iraqi soil or roamed its skies. Iraq acquired the Kh-58 only with the arrival of the SU-24 after the war. It contracted the Kh-31 but never received it. The Iraqi EW equipment and experience was more than enough in countering the deteriorating the Iranian AD as a whole. As a final note, I also found this about the pod's modes. Four modes are avaiable. Mode 1: "Individual Protection" Self-protection for the carrier of the pod. Mode 2: "Group Protection" Protection for a group of aircraft (two or more) with one pod. Mode 3: "Doppler Noise Mode" Having two carriers with one SPS-141 each working together. Mode 4: "Low Level Flight Mode" Flying below 300m using "terrain-bouncing". Proved problematic over large woodlands. I hope you enjoyed, it definitively represents the Soviet passive ECM technology, impressive to know they worked so well, not because they're the strongest, but because they were unnoticed. Links: http://www.acig.info/CMS/ http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...hp?topic=713.0 http://www.manfred-bischoff.de/SU22....4lter%20SPS-14

So.. I don't know if you people saw this video, I'm not aware that it was posted here, so here it is: [ame] [/ame] The MiG-21Bis is now the manliest aircraft xD I found it pretty funny myself, especially the choice of the song :P

I know the PVO used to shoot two missiles during an interception, I'm talking about the Su-15 with two R-8 missiles, one infrared and one radar on the outer pylons, but that's the PVO, perhaps the information we're getting is confusing the two? Dogfights are much more fluid than interceptions, I doubt the VVS had a missile doctrine for those. But honestly, I'm not aware of any tactics for the VVS, aside from the LABS maneuver to drop nuclear warheads. Cik's post here may confirm my theory, that dogfights are too fluid to have a missile doctrine.

Gee, I sure created one hell of a ruckus huh, so that's what it takes to get you guys fired up. This isn't about the Mig, we're on the F-14's side of the forum, what I'm all about is demystifying propaganda that claims fighters like the F-14 and the F/A-18 to be the best aircraft worldwide, so of course I got excited when I read about the F-14's performance. I'm looking for the truth, like the F-15s radar oil leaks, the F/A-18's poor dogfighting capabilities, and F-14s poor performance, guys we're about simulators we should know better than to compare each other's █████. What I got instead is a bunch of people who misinterpreted my text as "which one's best". I guess I should've known better. So I apologize. I still hope the RWR will be simulated properly, but if this is what kind of mess the devs have when they come here, then it's a lost cause.

Hence my post. I find it strange that every single aircraft in the US military could have one but the F-14. But if the US navy already had plenty of nuclear armed aircraft I guess it didn't really matter... ..Besides, the F-14A wasn't even cleared for iron bombs until 1992. I guess that's what made the F-14 so unique.

Let's start off with the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb So it says that aircrafts such as the F-4 were able to carry the bomb, but somehow I can't find any information of the F-14B carrying one, was it because of politics in the 90's that they simply omitted the #1 navy fighter in the nuclear program? I find it very odd that it seems every single US fighter could fit one except the F-14.. ..So here's my question, does anyone know anything about it? If the F-4 had nuclear bombs it means carriers were built to carry those weapons, even the F/A-18 can carry one, so why not the F-14? And secondly, since Leatherneck sims were nice enough to include the first nuclear bomb in the DCS world, for game balance should they fit one into the F-14 anyway? I sure would love so, but realism comes first right?

I'm just making a point. Besides, wasn't Zakatak's question answered with a yes? There will be ways to mute it. I'm just saying as a side-note that I hope LNS won't water it's defaults down.

I'm surprised people dislike RWR sounds so much that they'd wish to disable it though, I've flown in Falcon BMS (F-16C block 32) for years now and until I began flying the MiG-21bis I never even thought of lowering the volume of the RWR, the worst to me was being locked by a friendly patriot site for IFF interrogation, but even though I had that steady beep buzzing in my ears I never bothered to look to my rear left and turn down the volume knob.. If you're in a high threat environment, isn't it better to know audibly where are the threats? Instead of constantly looking down? That was the intention at least.