CheckGear

I honestly can't say I'd be real excited about it. I know where you're coming from, but the whole point of the carrier is to put bombs on target. So even in a map where there is a significant amount of deep blue ocean, it would get awfully boring real quick. If an blue-water map is to be developed, I want to see the North Pacific Ocean. That region fits the description of "blue water" perfectly. Plus, as I've mentioned time and again, it was a strategically crucial area of U.S. naval planning during the Cold War.

That's one awesome scenario module!!! Definitely a concept worth exploring.

This is a very crucial point of consideration. The F-14 operating in conjunction with the E-2 also meant that Tomcats didn't operate their own radars until an engagement was more likely or if they were within striking distance of bogies. So yeah, the idea that our fighters would get ambushed was not considered a likely scenario, since there was always someone providing "overwatch."

I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually identify classic rock from the 1970s and 1980s with the F-14. This has a lot to do with the fact the Tomcat entered service in the 1970s.

So... just shoot at anything and everything because your aircraft has no means of defense? That's a disastrous policy if I've ever heard of one.

I've never understood the fuss over BVR. Unless you can actually visually identify your target, even the best of sensors can never conclusively tell you what you are shooting at. Something they never say is that being a fighter pilot is a lot of educated guesswork. That said, the improved sensors on today's latest fighters is finally making BVR more of a reality.

This is more of a policy-related notation, but I think the Navy choosing to rely on the Super Pest (Hornet) as its primary air refueling asset effectively wiped out whatever power projection capability the carrier had. Fighter aircraft are relatively short-ranged platforms; they become long-range platforms via in-flight refueling. Using the F/A-18E/F as a tanker also deprives it of its primary mission, which is strike.

That wouldn't be too realistic. Like the previous poster said, a KA-6D, or even an S-3, KC-135, or KC-10 would be more realistic.

The best part is, we get to see some lesser-known designs and insignia used by F-14 squadrons over the years. Its amazing how often each squadron changed their look over the years.

Did you download the Kindle that have available on Amazon.com? It works like a charm for me.

Yeah, there were a lot of subtle, yet significant differences from the Tomcat that was in service during the '70s to that of the '80s, not to mention the F-14B and F-14D.

Detail & Scale released an E-book titled Colors and Markings of U.S. NAVY F-14 TOMCATS, Part 1: Atlantic Coast Squadrons. Boy, does it live up to the hype! The amount of information and photographs presented make this worth more than the $9.99 price listing. Its probably the most comprehensive chronological reference of every single Atlantic Fleet F-14 squadron's insignia and markings. You simply cannot find this kind of information and photography anywhere else. This would be a perfect reference for anyone who is going to design skins for the Tomcat once it gets released for DCS. We could theoretically simulate every squadron at every point in its Tomcat history!!! http://detailandscale.com/colors&markings_f-14_tomcat_part_1.html The sequel, which will cover West Coast Squadrons, is coming up. That is going to take my breath away... :pilotfly:

I think they made a carrier ops mod for FSX that features a live flight deck. I agree with you on your second point. Prospective naval aviators spend hundreds, if not thousands, of flying hours over land before they ever begin to learn carrier ops.

I just hope the carrier ops system features a live flight deck crew!!!

My eyesight is poor. That makes me a RIO, whether I want to be or not.

We can fall down the rabbit hole all we want. We'll always get back out. :beer: I'm biased also, since I live in CA as well! Plus the North Pacific was just as important as the North Atlantic was.

Like I said, I'm merely trying to get folks to defend their argument when they make one. Its obviously of no consequence to anyone else if you don't read the book, but when someone makes bold claims, I want to hear exactly why they feel that way. Otherwise, there isn't much use in making bold claims. You made your point clear - you hold history books to a high standard and the "populist-style writing" doesn't make the cut. No problem, now we all know where you're coming from.

That's why I have this dreaded feeling it will indeed be the North Atlantic/GIUK Gap/North Cape area. As if we haven't been exposed to this theater of operations enough already. But I hold out hope it will be the North Pacific, which is also "very cold and oceany." The Falklands? Wouldn't bet on it. The idea of Warsaw Pact nations coming to the aid of Argentina has little historical basis, plus it would be physically impossible. I know DCS isn't known for historical accuracy, but even that is much of a stretch for DCS.

Not to prolong the discussion, but sort of. You can't experiment with history. Unless your intent is to show why something happened or to establish trends that seem to occur with certain regularity, whatever happened, happened. But then again, that is the goal of studying history, I suppose - to predict the future. I certainly hope its not the same old North Atlantic/GIUK Gap/North Cape area of the world...

Interesting analysis.

I think the informal/conversation style works well with the general (American) public. I love my fellow Americans to death, but they seem to stop listening if ever they feel as though they're being talked down to. This is certainly a high-level book that transcends the partisan ideological blabbering that defines U.S. politics, but, with willpower, the average Joe can read this book and learn something from it. Something to keep in mind is that history is not necessarily a scientific study. Key component to scientific study, which is determining consistency, only applies when it comes to determining whether a certain historical even occurred. There isn't much debate over whether or not a lot of the events discussed in the book occurred. The book is well-referenced, as you say and relies extensively on documents in addition to hundreds of interviews. In Lee Wise's Inside the Danger Zone, the author mentions some alternative theories as to why the USS Stark suffered a missile attack, namely the idea the attack was deliberate. He presents sources for these theories, but I have never seen these theories discussed anywhere else. Even when sources are available and a legitimate argument can be made, historians have to be careful about presenting anything and everything just because there happens to be evidence. This is where you start to creep towards fiction as opposed to history. I'm a skeptic by nature and I think we all ought to encourage others to not only be skeptical of others, but of ourselves as well. That doesn't mean doubt what you believe; that means be ready and willing to fully defend your position. I also think that, at the end of the day, it is up entirely to the reader to learn something from what they read. This discussion alone shows that two people can derive two completely different conclusions from the same material. Sort of.

You said: But you did say: :suspect: BlackLions213 said it, but I'll echo it here. The author never gives the impression that he was there. He definitely takes a bit more of a "personal" approach, which may be the result of him having close connections to many of the key players in the story. But that doesn't make it "bordering on fiction." Also, you're going to find that a significant percentage of information used by even the most serious of historians is second-hand. I understand your beef is with the way he presents it, but, like I said, he doesn't act like he was there. Extensive usage of second-hand information shouldn't ever be a cause for concern.

Interesting. It seems like you look for a very specific style of writing and The Twilight War simply didn't provide it. A big part of the problem may be the whole "several random pages" thing. You can't always get a good feel for how a book is by merely reading a few random pages. Some books, you do have to actually read it, as it is trying to tell a story instead of just delivering cold facts like an encyclopedia. I'm not trying to sell you the book or anything, but that hardly qualifies as a legitimate measure for determining how well-structured and concisely written a book is. Besides, a good history book will always have a lot of information at hand; concise writing is for fiction novels. You may want to give Inside the Danger Zone a shot, however. Its a short, concise book that focuses on a very specific timeframe and it contains overall less information to absorb at once. It may be more to your liking.

In 2013, they actually re-released Top Gun for six days, nationwide, in IMAX 3D. I went and, well, let's just say it took my breath away... :lol:

Yeah, I'm very curious to know exactly why Dudikoff thinks otherwise. I understand not everyone is going to like even the best-written book, but for him to say it "didn't seem like a well researched and written book" does raise eyebrows.