Vampyre

Hey, no worries man. Herding cats is hard. You did good. I had a great time and I'm sure most everyone else did too. Good job to the MiG-21 drivers on attacking the Stennis. After I was shot down I watched a stream from blue side perspective. Lets just say the panic was real when ya'll hit that ship. When I ran my track, Tacview recorded it as if I was about five miles away from where I truly was in the actual event. I know because I got shot by a AIM-7 right after I fired an AIM-9 that hit a Tomcat right in the teeth. That never happened in my track file as my AIM-9 just sailed off into nowhere. In the Tacview file I did see my target rolling out of control falling to the sea when my AIM-9 was supposed to have hit him. I'd gladly trade an F-5, or six for that matter, for a Tomcat kill.:thumbup: Alpenwolf- There was a question about the black top gun skins (MiG-28) in the beginning. You may or may not know this but if you use USAF Aggressors for the F-5's in the red coalition you will have access to all of the skins available to the US without them having to be on the US/blue side. Good job putting this together. Looking forward to the next one.

Any chance we could get a Tacview of the event?

No, the F-8 has the two nose MG's and two wing root MK's. The A-8 has those plus two additional MK's in the mid wing section just outboard of the landing gear. - To further confuse things, the G-8 had the MG's and mid wing MK's removed keeping just the wing root MK's.

F-8 doesn't have the 20mm wing cannons of the A-8 and is equipped with wing mounted bomb racks (which can't be seen in this photo). Plus, the markings presented are of a machine from one of the Schlachtgeschwader, either 2 or 10.

That is an FW-190F-8.

Apples and Oranges. The A-10 fights air to air because it doesn't have a choice in the matter. It's low speed limits it's options for a disengagement to escape. Aircraft like the F-111 and Tornado, with very high top speeds, have the ability to walk away from enemy aircraft without the need to use weapons. Fighting Air to Air is not the job of an aircraft whose mission is to attack targets on the ground so it is not an important capability to have. For those who want to fight Air to Air in either the F-111 or Tornado... well, it's a losing proposition in both cases.

Just like the Tornado's guns. Sidewinders were impractical on the Tornado as well. They are intended for self defense. There is not a whole lot of use for them skimming the deck at night in the weather. The point of a strike aircraft is to hit a specific target, usually infrastructure, not to be a multirole do everything fighter. The USAF decided not to equip the F-111 with the Maverick even after the testing was done with it (including firing) because it was not necessary for the intended mission. Same thing goes for the F-111D and AIM-7G Sparrow integration which didn't make it past prototyping before they terminated it. In DCS, we already have the multirole F/A-18C, soon the F-16C and for CAS/Armed Reconnaissance we have the A-10C so it is not a missing capability argument. It sounds more and more like a where it was built and who used it argument. Personally, I'd rather have the F-111 because of its capability, my own experiences with the aircraft, It's storied history and because it is the penultimate cold war strike aircraft. I'm sure if I lived in one of the European countries that flew it, I might think the Tornado was the best too and I can't fault you for wanting to fly your own countries aircraft, heck, that would be a better argument. If it is a choice between the F-111 or the Tornado, I choose F-111 because I have my biases. Now if the choice was F-16 or Tornado, I would choose Tornado... also because of my biases. I know what I like and the Tornado falls short when compared to the F-111. Hopefully we will eventually get both.

That is not specific to the F-16 either. I've see it happen with S-3B's, C-40's and F/A-18's as well.

F-111 does not have a VNE... it goes as fast as the airframe heating will allow. I've heard anecdotal evidence that suggests speeds approaching mach 3 were achieved before having to back off. So, as I said, compared to the F-111 the Tornado is slow. More range means more tactical flexibility and more pylons available for weapons. The Tornado needs to carry external fuel and pods for countermeasures/jammers on stations that could be better used for weapons. Also, I don't care what the OP said about it not being about capabilities. I am not him. Miasma- The F-14A and F-111 both use the TF-30 engine... different variants but the same basic engine.

F-111 would be a great long range strike platform in DCS. Tornado is short legged, slow and has a small payload in comparison. Plus Heatblur are already developing the TF-30 for the Tomcat.

F99th Vampyre MiG-28

Not really, the Tornado is basically just an F-111 knockoff anyway. Performance wise, the F-111 was clearly the superior aircraft for interdiction/strike. Might as well go for the real deal.

F99th Vampyre - F-5E

Well, they didn't have a Ghostriders shirt either.

So, would it be a safe bet to assume you have access to a MiG-23BN as well?

Looks good and Cruz should indeed be an AE3. I laughed when I saw "AM2 ADURZAGOTA"... nobody could pronounce his name by reading it and no one could spell it by pronouncing it. I believe everyone referred to him as A12. His last name is actually Ayarzagoitia. As for ABE3 Green- https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=44816 https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/york/obituary.aspx?n=gatlin-scott-green&pid=126973946&fhid=4789

I don't have photos of the 2009 scheme. I had just arrived at the squadron in 2009. I do have some photos of it from our workups and the 2011/2013 cruises though. The photo you have there is from the 2013 cruise. What do you have for the names so far? I might be able to help with that as the 12C guys worked out of the same space as I did.

I was assigned to the Diamonds. https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=44816

I wouldn't say we are assholes, we just have less tolerance for those who aren't willing to help themselves. Having been retired for three years now, I've found that most civilians don't have the mindset of a person in the military who has to routinely deal with life and death decisions and has seen the results of bad decisions. For the most part, they lack focus, discipline, and fortitude. This leads to them stating that it is too hard... mainly because they put little to no actual effort forth towards the successful achievement of a worthy goal. I would also venture to say that, in this case, they don't view aerial refueling as a worthy goal. It's all about mindset. You will be called elitist for having a positive attitude towards goal achievement. They will never be good enough simply because of their mindset. If it helps draw in the revenue from the easy mode game players to help further the development of the simulation side for those who fly DCS for the simulation aspect, then it's OK in my view. I have no problem with the easy mode idea as long as it can be turned off in the mission editor/server side. It would be a win/win in that case.

It sounds a lot more like buyers remorse to me. The "Caught up in the hype train" excuse is what he is using to rationalize it to himself or someone close to him.

I haven't seen bigotry or sexism displayed here. I have seen someone who thinks they are somehow morally superior to everyone else decide to take up a position on how a video game should be developed and be offended when not everyone thinks it is important.

They have to be in the same group. If you see where on the right where it says Unit. It says 1 of 1. That means you set the pieces out in separate groups. They all have to be in the same group so the Unit should be X number of however many vehicles you have set out.

For me it seems like whenever my view goes back to my cockpit view I get a CTD with no crash log generated. When I use an outside view then switch back to cockpit or I am switching aircraft in MP after a sortie it CTD's. It was fine before todays patch. EDIT: If I use the same type aircraft during a respawn in MP my game doesn't CTD.

The F/A-18 can be started using an external air source like a Huffer cart or dedicated air and electrical station like in Fallon. The connection for air start is in the right MLG wheel well next to the hydraulic filter bowls on the aft bulkhead. We used it when we had problems that needed troubleshooting with the APU, not just in the hush house. We almost never used this feature though as our APU's were very reliable. As for GMM, it was mechanically coupled by hand by the ground crew and could not be used for starting the aircraft when it was coupled to the AMAD. The APU would have to be shut down and recoupled to start the engine before starting up for flight. It was rarely done because we could just do an engine ground turn and have all the systems we needed anyway... We needed a turn qualified sailor or pilot in the seat for either an APU turn or a engine turn either way.

Distracted by your image in a mirror.... just like a real fighter pilot. Nice video, very informative.