CheckGear

If you're really interested in that sort of thing, maybe, but don't let the maps fool you. Reno isn't exactly the most "happenin'" place in the country. If I were the developers, I'd be spending my time and energy creating a map of MCAS Miramar.

I tell you, Top Gun staff and students went from having an awesome city like San Diego to kick back in when off-duty to all going to the same O-Club or the local sports bar in Fallon for entertainment. What a downgrade. :drink:

At this point, I hope its anywhere but the North Atlantic/GIUK Gap/North Cape region. Its been overdone so many times over and its an area where the Tomcat didn't really spend much time in. The Tomcat spent most of its time in the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, and WESTPAC. Only during exercises did the Tomcat frequent the NA/GIUK/NC area.

Top Gun was filmed at Naval Strike Warfare Center, Naval Air Station Fallon, on the opposite corner of the state. The Top Gun program moved to Fallon as well back in 1996. While I'd love to see a map of the Fallon range, it doesn't provide the aesthetics that the Nellis map does. Fallon is located in a very po-dunk area. Aside from the air base, you're looking at a lot of desert.

Speak for yourself (and yourself only).

Its hard to believe the A-6 was never simulated, with the exception of the game adaptation of Flight of the Intruder.

Or... is it possible we could be flying the UFOs ourselves??? :alien: EDIT: And it is just me, or does this map make you want to move to Nevada? No state income tax, after all! Plus legalized prostitution!!!:cheer3nc:

Its funny - I was reading the book The Air Force Way of War: U.S. Tactics and Training after Vietnam this morning when I learned about the pre-sale. The book talks about Red Flag and the activities at Nellis Air Force Base over the years. Now I get to live it!!! EDIT: I just noticed we also get to see Groom Lake. Perhaps we'll have some "close encounters" of our own???

Personally, I place a higher priority on having a fully animated "live" flight deck crew.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm having to make a revision. If such a scenario took place in the timeframe mentioned, the order of battle would probably have been: USS Enterprise (CVN-65) Carrier Air Wing Seventeen (CVW-17) (AA) VF-103 “Jolly Rogers” - F-14B Tomcat VFA-81 “Sunliners” - F/A-18C Hornet VFA-83 “Rampagers” - F/A-18C Hornet VA-75 “Sunday Punchers” - A-6E/KA-6D Intruder VAW-125 “Tigertails” or “Torchbearers” - E-2C Hawkeye VAQ-132 “Scorpions” - EA-6B Prowler VS-30 “Diamondcutters” - S-3B Viking HS-15 “Red Lions” - SH-60F/HH-60H Seahawk VQ-6 Det. C “Black Ravens” - ES-3A Shadow VRC-40 Det. 2 “Rawhides” - C-2A Greyhound USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) Carrier Air Wing Fourteen (CVW-14) (NK) VF-11 “Red Rippers” - F-14D Tomcat VF-31 “Tomcatters” - F-14D Tomcat VFA-25 “Fist of the Fleet” - F/A-18C(N) Hornet VFA-113 “Stingers” - F/A-18C(N) Hornet VA-196 “Main Battery” - A-6E/KA-6D Intruder VAW-113 “Black Eagles” - E-2C Hawkeye VAQ-139 “Cougars” - EA-6B Prowler VS-35 “Blue Wolves” - S-3B Viking HS-4 “Black Knights” - SH-60F/HH-60H Seahawk VQ-5 DET. D “Sea Shadows” - ES-3A Shadow VRC-30 DET. 1 “Providers” - C-2A Greyhound However, Kitty Hawk and CVW-11 would've relieved one of the two carriers. :thumbup:

Amen to that. There's plenty of other aircraft that carried the AMRAAM. The F-14 is one aircraft that never carried it. Just let it be.

An aircraft carrying a weapon it never actually carried or was never made capable of carrying is the exact definition of inaccuracy.

I can say that because that's how it is. Even in the post-Vietnam era, you still had instances where a single aircraft would fire multiple missiles, particularly improved versions of the Sparrow, and they still wouldn't hit the target. Then you have the active-radar Phoenix, which, at least in American inventory, never scored a hit. Granted, we're talking about a small sample size, but you'd expect better from a missile that had an 85% success rate in testing. If you look at the history of air-to-air missile launches, you're going to see far more failures than successes. In fact, the most effective AAM appears to be the short-range, IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder. So no, missiles are not a waste of money. But there's no need to make them more effective than they really are.

Generally speaking, the less effective a missile, the closer it is to real-world experience. Missiles are not nearly as effective as people think they are, although they remain the weapon of choice (for good reason). As an example, the F-14 has fired the Phoenix missile in combat (albeit only a few times); none have hit. This despite an 85% success rate during testing. The Iranians claim to have had more success with it, but I would view their claims with skepticism, due to the nature of the Islamic Republic. Now, does that mean there was an issue with the missile itself, or was there an issue with the operator? In all likelihood, it was a combination of both. I would like the ideal sim to demonstrate the challenge in getting a missile to strike its target, no matter how advanced. When it comes to assessing kills, do you know what was shown to be the most decisive factor? Early detection and surprise. More often than not, the guy who got shot down never knew his adversary was there, until it was too late. Again, the point here is that its not the pointy things that lead to victories. Its the man in the cockpit and the instruments that allow him to see better the picture around him.

In the real world, fighters are routine placed under weapons restrictions during training evolution that are meant to be realistic. We're talking Topgun, Red Flag, etc. In fact, the AIM-54 was rarely used in air combat training - Sparrows and Sidewinders were the weapons of choice. While DCS isn't necessarily simulating training experiences, its not unusual, in the real world, for a fighter to be put out of its element, either deliberately or circumstantially. The ability to win an unfair fight is really what separates the truly proficient fighter pilots from the pretenders. I'd like DCS to be that sim where the guy with better skill, who knows how to use the aircraft within its operating limits effectively, wins the battle. Not the guy with the better missile.

The problem is, we've had far too many of these "Cold War Gone Hot" scenarios in past sims. I think its high time they start simulating how things actually are. Place these fighter jets in an environment that they weren't exactly built for and see how they roll. After all, there are very few platforms that operated in the exact environment the creator had in mind. That is partially the beauty of these men and machines - their adaptability. While I understand what you're trying to say, keep in mind the Tomcat exists because of those dastardly things called budgets and political dealings. And to me, the "what-ifs?" become far less fascinating the further away they get from actuality and history. The Tomcat isn't what it was meant to be, it is what it is/was. I think you get a greater appreciation for the platform when you see how it was, warts and all, and learn to live and play within those limitations. After all, as I said before, its not just the pointy, sharp things that make a fighter good. Far more sensible of an option would be to keep it 100% realistic, but allow modders to go in and make changes for themselves and their closest friends, if so desired. That makes sense in theory, but it doesn't always work out that way in the real world. For one thing, there is prioritization. Depending on the situation, air assets may receive immediate attention and larger share of the pie, while in another situation, nobody will care. Also, just because there's a war going on doesn't mean everything will be turned upside down just to support the war effort. The facts show that those waging war (at least in a place like America) will attempt to maintain stability as much as possible. Furthermore, just because there is a war doesn't mean change necessarily happens quicker. Again, unless our whole society is turned upside down, things will proceed largely the same way they did before. The pace of change may be a step faster, but it won't be that much quicker. In the grand scheme of things, giving one fighter, the Tomcat, AMRAAM-capability is a small detail. Such a change would likely occur only in the event the results of the air war showed that the Tomcat relying on AIM-7s was a deteriment to the aircrew, the aircraft, and the war overall. Militaries are institutionally conservative, both in times of peace and war, and change tends to come only when the numbers say so (and depending on who views those numbers). The time accuracy is where the realism really lies. Imagine if they were somehow able to simulate reconnaissance missions in the world of DCS. Then imagine they wanted to simulate the earliest deployable variant of the Tomcat and they decided to have the TARPS pod available to it. But the TARPS pod wasn't operationally capable until seven years after. Imagine how out-of-place that would feel. Technically, it may have been possible for the Tomcat to use the TARPS pod earlier, but that's not how it happened in real life and it takes a lot of changes, big and/or small, to make something technically possible. Its one thing to consolidate certain features in order to remain within design constraints, but its another thing to add something simply on the basis of technical possibility, especially if that thing was never actually implemented. If they were to make modules based off World War II, Korean War, or Vietnam War fighters, would it sit well with you if they gave the aircraft "technically possible" features? Same thing. Its one thing if its a currently-operation fighter with a lot of service time ahead of it. Its another thing if its a thing of the past. The Tomcat is what it was, not what it could've been. Any non-historical modification to it is a detractor.

I agree. Besides, its not necessarily the pointy things that make an aircraft lethal. One thing I want to see is the effect superior avionics, detection systems, as well as command and control have on the air battle. I don't like the idea of third-generation fighters have equal ability in detecting the enemy as the fourth-generation fighters.

That still shows how night and all-weather attack was still pretty much a work-in-progress until fairly recently. It says a lot when specific squadrons, particularly the A-6 and USMC Hornet squadrons were often designated with an "(AW)," to denote all-weather capability.

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the insight. So basically, anything Hornet prior to 1990 had limited night-attack capability?

I also hope to not see the AMRAAM employed on the F-14 in this module. What I'm looking for is a Tomcat experience as close to the real world as possible. Having the AMRAAM would take away from that. Even with regards to the Phoenix, actuality dictated that the Tomcat would rarely fly sorties with them. It was just a ridiculous amount of extra weight that prevented the fighter from doing much of anything else. Two was the real-world max and even that was an extra 2,000 pounds alone. Some people may say it'd be boring, but I say otherwise. A truly authentic experience captures how things really are/were, not what we want them to be. It also makes you appreciate the thing that really matters - training and logistics, not sharp, pointy things. As for getting seal-clubbed by F-15s, remember that, despite the sense the F-14 had to always fight with one hand tied behind its back, it was still expected to come out on top. If we get an authentic Tomcat experience, we'll all be singing: ${1}

What I want to see is more realism and less fantasy. It seems like every sim/wargame tries to depict the worst possible scenario in every case. Yet, in the real world, the wars we fight are rarely, if ever, the worst possible scenario. Still horrible enough. You don't need nukes for war to be absolutely unthinkable. I'd rather have a campaign/scenario that demonstrates the advantage of air power, while at the same time showing how complicated world affairs can be.

Thanks for the data. Its interesting to me that, even as recently as the early 1990s, the ability to attack at night and in poor weather was still very much a work-in-progress.

They're still by-and-large the same aircraft, just like the F-16C/D and F/A-18C/D. I would like to see both the "E" and "F" variants should they release a Super Hornet module. BTW, I noticed that when I look at some air wing compositions, certain squadrons that employ the F/A-18C were indicated as flying the F/A-18C(N). Does anyone know what the "(N)" denoted?

For all its realism, DCS/FC3 exaggerates the ability of the pilot to look over his shoulders. The truth is, the cockpit is cramped and the human body can only scan around a 225 degree arc. DCS/FC3 makes it seem as though you can see nearly 360 degrees around you. I remember Fleet Defender had a view in which you could look at your RIO and his head would move. It was a nice touch to have, especially for a sim of its time.

That's F/A-18E/F!!! :mad: