Vampyre

Yes, but only for low power maintenance turns. The hangar bay divisional doors are closed and personnel access is limited. The jet is chained down, roped off and intake turn screens are installed. A fire crew and safety personnel are standing by the aircraft. The aircraft is positioned so the exhaust blows out of the opened hangar doors on the side of the ship. Only low power turns are authorized so the aircraft will not throttle up above 80%. The turn is performed by a engine turn qualified maintenance technician. If a turn qual tech is not available a pilot can be used to turn in the hangar bay but I saw that happen only once in my 20 years. Never seen a jet taxi in the hangar bay... ever.

Can confirm. F-5E-3 Remaster tanks my frames as well. I tried multiple other modules with no issue.

I had the same issue as the OP two days ago. My brother would see the bomb fall ballistically into the ground while, on my computer, I watched my bomb guide true to the target. Definitely a net code de-sync issue with LGB's. We were on Kola map and I was flying an F-5E-3. He was using JDAM's with the F-16 and those didn't seem to be affected by the de-sync, only the LGB's.

Mission Editor tip- Select Combined Joint Task Force Red, Combined Joint Task Force Blue or USAF Aggressors as a faction and all of the skins for whatever type you select will be viewable. You can also view all of the old F-5E-3 skins you have by selecting the F-5E Flaming Cliffs model as it uses the same livery folder as the legacy F-5E-3. While I do like the Navy F-5N Adversary schemes, I too would like to see more USAF Aggressor skins. One of my favorites from the old F-5E was the USAF Grape 31 blue scheme and the Aggressor Snake Scheme which should have been completely USAF but somehow ended up with a Navy tail code on it...? I hope they decide to leave the huge red side numbers off of the SEA camo skin that I think is what was described as a Vietnam 1970's scheme.

With the release of the F-5E-3 Remaster, I started my standard MP mission updates for patch day and noted many missing skins from the updated version for countries like Iran and South Korea. I assume the new textures do not work well with the older skins as many of the older F-5E-3 skins have not been included in today's update. Will we see more skins added at a later date?

Pinned comment from the video: Answers to some common questions: 1- Link to updated Supercarrier Guide: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/228670-dcs-supercarrier-mini-updates/#findComment-5554122 2- We continue to tune how fast the deck crew taxies the aircraft out of the landing area. The video was WIP. 3- Once this aspect of SC is wrapped up, we'll certainly investigate using aspects of this technology for airbases. 4- A push back would involve gathering deck crew from the general area around the jet, all lined up on different parts of the jet with correct collision and physics, pushing animations in unison, and not interfering with other animations and functions. Regarding the automatic rotation, this is a needed gameplay concession, for now, based on avoiding collisions with nearby aircraft and minimizing time in the landing area when parking in the stern. We are investigating a more elegant solution. 5- Static objects can block the legs of a taxi route. So, be very mindful when placing static objects not to place them in the path of aircraft routes on the deck and the active deck crew. 6- Regarding the F-14, we are working with Heatblur to make this happen. It’s cutting it very close to be in the initial release of this feature, but if not, it will be soon after. As to point number 4, we would normally only pushback the Legacy Hornets and occasionally an S-3B by hand. The other way to get an aircraft pushed into position is with a tow tractor. The E-2/C-2 had reverse pitch on their props and could push themselves back although, occasionally they would need a tractor assist depending on conditions. Every other aircraft on deck would be pushed into a parking position by tractor. We don't really need animation of a bunch of flight deck crew doing a pushback if we can accomplish the same thing with a single tow tractor and have that feature available for any future carrier-based module. Point number 5 does not clarify whether static objects can be seen and avoided by the AI plane handler logic. looking further into the pathing in the manual, it seems the pathing is only set up for a clear deck Carrier Qualification deck setup. If I understand it correctly, putting static objects next to the island will cause problems the AI cannot compensate for. For cyclic/combat operations and even full deck CQ ops the area next to the island will have at least one E-2 and two to three helo's parked there. From what I have seen, that is standard practice for most modern Supercarriers from Kitty Hawk to the Bush with the exception being the Enterprise. Certainly, all the Nimitz class along with its Roosevelt and Reagan subclasses operated their decks this way. Bush just after a cyclic recovery. Lincoln for RIMPAC photo op TR between cycles. TR deck setup for UNREP/VERTREP. Of note, in the photos, there is always something parked next to the island.

In the video, the final parking area for the Hornet was in the Helo hole which is only used during CQ during workups to deployment and training RAG students. It would only be used during these periods due to there being far fewer aircraft on deck than normal. For cyclic and combat operations, that area would be filled with helicopters, an E-2 just forward of them and possibly some overflow from the junkyard. Will the AI be able to compensate for the area being occupied and will it know about the difference in setup? Similar to the previous question, I set up my decks with real life placement of static objects to enhance the immersion when operating on the ship. Will the plane directors be able to see and avoid static objects placed on the deck? Will mission builders have the option to disable catapults due to having static objects parked on them? Upon landing, a yellow shirt should have been standing next to the foul line to assist the pilot in the untangling of the wire from the hook if needed and direct the aircraft out of the LA to be de-armed. In cyclic and combat operations, once out of the LA the aircraft would be directed to point its nose at EL1 (which was kept clear of parked aircraft specifically for this purpose) to be safed up and de-armed before proceeding to its parking area. Additionally, in the same vein, there should be an arming step on the Cat. Will arming and de-arming be included at any point? In the video I couldn't help but notice that a lot of time was spent in the LA and when the jet finally got to its parking spot in the Helo hole its nose was sticking across the foul line into the LA. Anything crossing the foul line would cause a foul deck wave off of the next jet. Will this be issue refined further? The teleporting mechanic is a bit immersion breaking. Is that just a placeholder until a more realistic pushback mechanic can be implemented?

An AV-8A would be great for the Kola map as that is where the East coast Marines most likely would have ended up back in the 70's-80's had the war kicked off. The other variants like the C and S and even the GR1 could be covered by livery's and weapons restrictions. It would be nice to have some assets included like an Iwo Jima class, SNS Principe de Asturias and HTMS Chakri Naruebet. Additionally, a Harrier GR3/T4 would be great for both the Kola and Falklands maps. Maybe include a Victor or VC-10 Tanker with it. Sea Harrier FRS1 seems like a necessary thing for a simulated Falklands war. The Indian FRS51 could be done as a livery. It would be good to have additional assets like modernized Invincible class ships like Illustrious and Ark Royal as well as the INS Vikrant.

An overall refresh of the UH-1H would be nice. I'd like to see more options for weapons mounts than the Australian Bushranger mounts we currently have with the ability to select the mounts separately. Having other separate individual options in the ME for WSPS, armor, the sugar scoop and other antenna fits would be nice to have as well. A bigger selection of US Army skins from several units and a "US Army Standard" skin that is actually standard dark OD green with US Army titles on the tail boom and without unit badges painted on it would also be nice. A bigger wish would be to be able to select a change to UH-1V configuration with its different cabin area, rescue hoist, and additional avionics for the medevac mission.

Vampyre

L118 cargo object already exists in DCS. It was included in DCS with the South Atlantic assets. More sling load assets would be nice. What would be nicer would be multiplayer synch up while carrying sling loads. My game had the load directly below me hanging steady. My brothers screen looked like this-

Reload times are dependent on the size of the missiles. Thes seem to work on a set timer where when a missile is fired, the timer starts and however long the reload takes as specified by ED, the individual missile will be replaced. Not sure how long a really, really long time is but some SAM's take over an hour to reload... Not sure about the reload time for the SA-6 but I think it is closer to 20 to 30 minutes. One way to negate the reload time would be to set up another one or two sites in different areas to practice on while the others are reloading. You could also use the CTLD script and create a radio mission item to trigger a repair of the system which will reload all of the launchers... It's a bit convoluted and will take some time to set up. That is another way to work around the reload problem you have I suppose.

Add a supply truck (Ural375D for red or M939 for blue) near the SAM site or place them on an airfield. The trucks will have a ring around them in the mission editor and anything within that circle will be supplied. Use multiple trucks if needed. EDIT- Also, The larger SAM's take longer to reload than others. Igla's and Stingers are almost instantaneous, but Patriot/SA-10/SA-5 take a long time to reload.

For the herpes enjoyers out there... ... and some clean healthy noses for the rest of us.

F-15A's From the 7th Bunyaps, 8th Black Sheep and 9th Iron Knights TFS, 49th TFW. 9th TFS Wing King 8th TFS 7th TFS

Yes, Heatblur know their audience. It was made for the masses who don't know or care about the history. That was one of my points and I appreciate the agreement on that part. I maintain that the advertising is false in regard to the F-4E as a Wild Weasel. I have said multiple times that the people who know (mainly the been there done that veterans) are pointing out the squadron discrepancy which is what my original post was partially in response to. On that we have to agree to disagree it seems. Being low knowledge, in this case, is not a bad thing per se, it just means there is much more to learn and I hope others will delve into the history more. Now, some here seem to be offended by my points like I am saying they themselves have to be or do something or I have somehow attacked them. I have never once said or done that. I point out discrepancies in the video and somehow that is distressing in some way. They are arguing points not made and overlooking/ignoring what was actually typed or in the worst case, putting their words into my mouth. Like I said before, tempest in a teacup. It means little in the grand scheme of things. Now, getting away from the videos accuracy issues and when we ignore the history and go with the modern usage of the call sign, The F-4E is far from being a "perfectly capable Weasel". The F-4E is a poor Weasel substitute as it is not capable of detecting, classifying, locating and attacking a site within seconds and Shrike is a poor performing ARM. I think that will become more obvious once it releases... especially with Skynet and similar scripts (or ED's SAM AI rework) which integrate the SAM networks making them much more potent than they are currently. Judging by the F-14, I have no doubt that Heatblur are doing an outstanding job on this module so much so that I preordered on day one. I look forward to using it not as a half measure Weasel, but as the third generation fighter bomber it is. Ah, an ad hominem. Thank you for confirming the solidity of my points by responding with, essentially, nothing.

It seems wikipedia has done you a disservice. Wild Weasel today is just a mission set with specially trained aircrew focusing on SAM Suppression. Wild Weasel was more than just a mission set in the 60's 70, and 80's and the usage of the term was more restricted. In the time of the F-4E in USAF service it was more hardware focused. Once the program became defunct somewhere in the early 90's the term was focused more on the mission. This is a mix of historical inaccuracy and modern terminology. The F-4E of the type depicted in the video was never a part of a Weasel hunter/killer team or ever to perform the mission due to the nature of the mission its squadron, the 20th FS, was performing at the time. If it is as you say "way way beyond anything within reason" then let me point this out- Was the 20th FS a Wild Weasel Squadron? No Was the DSCG F-4E a Wild Weasel platform? No Did the 20th perform the Weasel mission? No Is the video historically accurate? No Is the DSCG F-4E being advertised as a Wild Weasel? Yes So my conclusion is that the video was intended to build hype for the upcoming release and using the term Wild Weasel for an aircraft in a squadron that was not and had never been assigned the mission is false. It is advertising that is false. Again, I'm not saying it was intentional on the part of Heatblur. Whoever made the video probably doesn't know the history. The low knowledge gamers who don't know, don't care for the most part. Those who do, point out the discrepancy.

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/342619-first-in-last-out-f-4e-wild-weasel-trailer-and-manual-release/?do=findComment&comment=5377495

Except the fact that the 20th FS was a training squadron at George in the 1980's that never did the mission. That is what this tempest in a teacup is all about. Those who know better will point out the discrepancy and those who don't will say it's fine. The information I posted is a clarification for everyone to digest and at least have a clue to what the history is. It is all correct. The strongly held belief part is funny though. It's just history.

Read my original post again... particularly the part in the middle of the last paragraph.

The 52nd TFW at Spang was originally a single F-4G squadron and two F-4E DMAS squadrons. The USAFE experimented with combining both the F-4G and DMAS E's into three identical squadrons. It was an effort to try to expand the effectiveness of the Weasels in Europe without having to modify more airframes to F-4G Wild Weasel standard. They flew in what were called Hunter/Killer teams with either two or four ship formations with the Weasel as the hunter and the standard fighter bombers as the killers. The Weasel would locate and suppress and direct the fighter bombers to destroy what was left. It is interesting to note that the DMAS F-4E's were soon replaced by Block 25 F-16C's and then separated into separate squadrons once again.

It was purposeful to draw attention to the product by using the wild weasel call sign. I didn't say Heatblur was purposefully tricking anyone. The creator of the video might not know the history either and is just regurgitating bunk information because it sounds cool. That was your assumption. But you are correct in assuming it is false advertising. The truth is the truth no matter how one feels about it.

The 20th TFTS was the German Air Force training squadron for the F-4F at George AFB (37th and 35th TFW) and Holloman AFB (20th FS, 49th TFW). They used the F-4E until the mid 90's when they then switched to the F-4F for their training missions. Having the capability to shoot an ARM does not a Wild Weasel make. Project Wild Weasel was started by the USAF in the 1960's to combat the new threat of Soviet SAMs and involved the modification of existing airframes to be able to detect, locate and suppress enemy SAM sites with specialized sensors/weapons. These aircraft with the nature of the missions, and the specialized sensor fits required aircrew with specialized training to be able to hunt down and suppress enemy SAM operators. These aircraft were given designations within the Wild Weasel program: Wild Weasel I was a modified F-100F Super Sabre Wild Weasel II were modified F-4C's (Early and unsuccessful) Wild Weasel III were F-105 F/G Thunderchiefs Wild Weasel IV were better modified F-4C's and, under Wild Weasel IV B, a pair of F-4D's Wild Weasel V was the F-4G In the time period represented in the video, the USAF had the F-4G Wild Weasel V. A bog standard F-4E from a non-weasel squadron, particularly a foreign operator training squadron, would not have had the Wild Weasel call sign as neither the crews nor the aircraft were trained/optimized for the role respectively. With the retirement of the F-4G, there are no more actual Wild Weasel Aircraft in the USAF. The confusion encountered seems to come from the modern use of the Wild Weasel call sign by the USAF. The Wild Weasel callsign in today's USAF refers to specially trained crews flying modern multirole aircraft performing the same mission as the crews of old who flew actual Wild Weasel aircraft. In the case of this video, the use of the Wild Weasel moniker is but a marketing ploy. It is designed to sell a product to low knowledge gamers.

Should probably have posted that here- F-4E Manual Feedback Mega-Thread - DCS: F-4 Phantom - ED Forums