CheckGear

1. How did you learn about DCS? I was a player of the original LOMAC that resurrected the genre and kicked off this awesome franchise. Since then, I've purchased every subsequent release and am I committed disciple of the greatest combat flight simulator ever created. 2. When did you first learn about the F-14? As a toddler, upon watching the movie Top Gun. 3. What made you fall in love with the F-14? Its size, its power, its design, it really is the perfect aircraft. 4. Any backstories of seeing the Top Gun movie for the first time? All I remember was that I was in the living room of the apartment my folks were renting at the time. 5. Did any of you really fly/RIO in an F-14? In another life, I would've. :(

What specifically made you think it wasn't well-researched/written?

My suggestion is to read The Twilight War first, because it is a very comprehensive, "big-picture" account of the totality of U.S.-Iran relations from the early days of the Carter administration to now. It also goes into the events of 1987 - 88 in detail. It'll give you a solid background into the subject. It may even change your views on many of the presidents that we've had in office. I also suggest Inside the Danger Zone by Harold Lee Wise. Its very similar to Zatarain's book, except its written primarily from the perspective of the United States Navy.

There is an epic, magnum opus of a non-fiction book written by Dr. David Crist, a historian for the federal government and a Marine Corps reserve officer. Titled The Twilight War, it chronicles U.S.-Iranian relations from the late-'70s to the present. It relies on a ridiculous amount of details and facts from hundreds of interviews and primary-source documents that are now declassified. I won't say much more than that, because it is an incredible piece of work that you need to read yesterday. I can't remember reading a book and saying "Oh my God" so many times than in this book. Anybody who wants to express an opinion on U.S.-Iran relations and expects to be taken seriously needs to read this book first. I also began reading America's First Clash with Iran: The Tanker War, 1987-88 by Lee Allen Zatarain. So far, so good.

I fully endorse the North Pacific as a theater of play. I've said this many times before and I'll say it again; the North Pacific was as crucial in Cold War planning as the North Atlantic was. Plus, I prefer the West Coast Tomcat squadrons over that of the East Coast.

Believe me, I'm not trying to argue; I'm just saying the ability of the Tomcat to do it is largely meaningless. In fact, it probably wouldn't be able to do it all, unless conditions were just right and when are conditions ever "just right?"

You also have to realize that when it comes to technical specifications, often times these manuals are simply conveying how far you can stretch something without being in the territory of misuse. So while a Tomcat may have been "rated" to trap with six Phoenix missiles, the likelihood of it actually being able to do so is probably due to a myriad of favorable factors that may not be available in the real world.

Former NFO Dave "Bio" Baranek stated in his excellent book Topgun Days that, in the "real world," the F-14 rarely carried more than two Phoenix missiles. Weight was a real issue, whether in the air or during recovery. So regardless of what NATOPS states, carrying more than two AIM-54s was not something that was considered operationally sound.

I CAN'T HOLD IT NO MORE!!! I'M EJECTING TO EJECT!!! Seriously, I wonder what it must've been like for the pilot to fly without a canopy. I'm sure it couldn't have been comfortable.

In the past, most sims came with multiple theaters in which missions and campaigns took place in. This changed as it became more difficult to depict more than one theater of play in higher levels of detail. Now that DCS is now finding a way to depict multiple theaters in high detail, I think the following ought to be the core theaters for DCS and its modules to take place in: - Baltic states (the new frontline of the NATO vs. Russia conflict) - East China Sea/Taiwan - Korean Peninsula - Mediterranean Sea (particularly the eastern part, near the Middle East) - Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz/Gulf of Oman/Indian Ocean (may need to be broken down into multiple smaller maps) - South China Sea These are the likeliest locales of big-time conflict, regional or global.

If you read a lot of the literature that tells the inside story of U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf 1977 - onward, you'll see a lot of details on the various contingency plans they had in place for attacking Iran. These plans were nothing short of large. Even the original Praying Mantis plan put forth by CENTCOM was far more extensive than what was ultimately approved. Even the supremely hawkish Reagan administration had its limits when it came to the use of military force.

One persistent feature of warfare in the post-modern age is that it is more like an ongoing feud as opposed to a competition/dispute-turned-deadly. OEF and OIF were just extreme instances of an ongoing feud (U.S. vs. Islamic extremists) going to the next level. Its also consistent with the indecisive nature of today's wars. I think an optimal campaign involving the F-14 would be something like this: On June 25, 1996, terrorists detonate a truck bomb at the Khobar Towers, killing 19 American servicemembers. American intelligence is able to establish a solid link between the terrorists who carried out the attack and Iran, who sponsored it. Having grown tired of Iran's behavior during the past 17 years, including recent provocative actions in the Strait of Hormuz, President Bill Clinton orders the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) and its air wing and battle group to strike all Iranian military facilities and forces in the southern Persian Gulf. This scenario not only takes place during the Tomcat's heyday, but its also a short-duration campaign that will probably last a few days (there are a lot of targets to attack). That's enough time for plenty of varied missions (CAP, escort, strike, CSAR), while also reflecting that even when these targets are burning piles of rubble, the feud is not over.

A few weeks to a few months is actually a long time when it comes to war. Even a war with the USSR wouldn't last very long. If it wasn't nukes, then both sides would run out of ammo quickly. Given the indecisive nature of many of modern warfare, I think a fairly intense campaign lasting at most a few weeks would be optimal.

One thing I'm curious of is if DCS can work the "virtual airfield" (or virtual carrier) concept into the game. One of the things about DCS that sent me into a delirious frenzy was when I ejected, landed, and found that the pilot could walk around on foot! If the DCS world is capable of simulating a living, breathing world from both earth and sky, could they not implement a virtual/carrier airfield? That would be the immersive feature to end all immersive features? Fleet Defender is definitely unique in its own right. Hopefully, we'll definitely get there!

Remember that in this day an age, hundreds of warplanes filling the skies is a rare occurrence. The Gulf War and Iraq War were really the only two instances where hundreds of warplanes were in the air at once. The scale of air warfare itself has decreased, primarily due to the nature of the wars we fight today, as well as the increased capabilities of each individual aircraft. Because fighter aircraft are relatively short-range platforms, scale in terms of maps is very much a non-issue. Unless they are flying hundreds of miles across featureless deserts and mountains to get to their target, I would much rather a sim focus on a smaller, more richly-detailed area. Nothing will sap your enthusiasm more than flying on a large map, going to what is supposed to be a major city, and seeing only a few high-rises. :huh:

I certainly don't disagree with you. At the same time, I prefer a semi-dynamic campaign. It is extremely difficult to simulate a dynamic campaign realistically, so I prefer things to go on somewhat of a charted course, but with your decisions impacting which course that will be. This is definitely something the older sims did better. Team Apache was a top-notch example of a superb crew management system.

This is going to sound blasphemous, but I'm one of the few who believe too much detail and realism can be a bad thing, precisely for the reasons you stated above. Even the most hard-core study sim is still, at its core, a game. It has to be entertaining. Too much detail and realism, however, can make something feel very cold and dry. You do need to "fluff" it up a little. I'm not saying DCS needs to go this direction (I actually hope they stay on course), but I also wish they would also look past the more technical aspects of the sim and provide a fuller, richer experience. Fleet Defender is an old favorite of mine as well. I will say, however, that once DCS: F-14A/B comes out, it will be tough to look at Fleet Defender the same way. I think after all, obsolete is obsolete. :cry:

I disagree. Modern sims are definitely richer on the detail and realism, but they're missing a lot of the little things that made the older sims so memorable. Something as simple as a soundtrack: ${1} or made you feel like you were going to war: ${1} Hopefully, they also allow us to simulate off-base squadron parties in downtown Las Vegas after a long week of training at Nellis!:beer::cheer3nc:

That's why I think the "in-between" scenarios would work much better. While I agree that the enemy is the enemy no matter his flag or his aircraft, I think it does make a bit of a difference, at least in terms of immersion. Immersion is something the older flight sims did much better than contemporary ones.

He was asking a rhetorical question in response to something I said about what theater was more historically relevant to the F-14.

The Tomcat was also more likely to be used in one of these regional conflicts more than a global conflict pitting the superpowers. Again, "something in between." And, like I said, we've already seen plenty of the North Atlantic/GIUK Gap/North Cape, not only in sims, but in wargames in general. Time to see some other places. On a sidenote, I think the main theater of DCS World/FC needs to shift away from the Black Sea/Caucasus to th Baltic region. That is the new frontline of NATO's growing conflict with Russia.

That's right! Aces of the Pacific did have the Corsair featured on the box art. Hard to believe I forgot that. :worthy:

There is always uncertainty in international relations, but my point is that ultimately things happened the way they did largely because neither side was actually looking for a fight. Yes, wars tend to occur as a result of miscalculations and misperceptions, but when you study the actual history of the Cold War (the history of the USSR in particular), you get the sense that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was almost "incapable" of going to war. It interests me, as an amateur military historian, that, even to this very day, the mid-to-late-1980s is the time period of choice when it comes to developing NATO-Warsaw Pact scenarios for sims and wargames. In reality, after Gorbachev came to power, the USSR began to fall apart at the seams very quickly. There was so much internal discord that it seems very unlikely that the Soviet state and society and the alliance (which wasn't much of an alliance at all) could wage war. My assessment, based on the facts available to us today, is that the USSR-Warsaw Pact's best chance at success in war was sometime during the 1975 - 1985 timeframe. The early-'80s are a more realistic time period for war between NATO and Warsaw Pact, as hostilities reached a new high after a period of detente. If we stretch things a bit, then the USSR may still have had something left in the tank as late as 1986. After that, however, the Eastern Bloc underwent a kaleidoscope of changes that left it largely incapable of doing anything except maintain order in their population. I know this sounds like a digression, but when viewed in historical context, it takes the immersion factor and interest out of such a scenario. Now, if the scenario was set in the early-'80s, then it may seem more "real" and more enjoyable, since we get to get a glimpse of how the "real" USSR may have performed. These scenarios may not have been what the Tomcat's designers had in mind, but it is ultimately where the Tomcat was utilized. So yes, they are historically more important.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only simulator I can recall that featured the F-4U Corsair was a 1992 indie/shareware game by Kevin Stokes, titled Corncob 3D. Anybody recall that?

To the armchair aviator, it may make a difference. To the actual fighter pilot who's putting his life on the line, it makes no difference. You bring your best game against your adversary, whether its a Soviet Flanker or a Libyan export Flogger. Read stories of actual fighter pilots. There wasn't a single one who said "Ah, its just an export third-generation fighter aircraft, this is going to be easy." Instead, its more of "I'm going to win, no matter who I face." Immersion is a big factor for me. As an average sim pilot, I want to feel that sense of danger, no matter how laughable the enemy's arsenal and skill level may be. Well, its already been pointed out that the USSR was not the "evil empire" juggernaut that everyone used to think they were. Their war plans also indicated that they were really waiting for us to take the first shot; they would just (try to) deliver a counter-punch ten times stronger. So while there is a bit of fascination there regarding the true, fact-based possibilities, it really takes the air out of the scenario when you realize that the USSR wasn't all that interested in fighting us after all and that a war wasn't even that likely of a scenario. There's a great book from 1980 titled CV: Carrier Aviation by Peter Garrison/George Hall. There is a passage that goes like this: What I want to see is that "something in between." I've already mentioned battling Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. I also want to see them take advantage of the F-14B module and have a '90s-based scenario (I prefer '90s music over '80s music, anyway :D). Somebody mentioned an Operation Southern Watch scenario; there were numerous instances where a major regional conflict could have legitimately occurred: - Korean Nuclear Crisis, 1994 (still the closest we've come to war with North Korea in the post-Cold War era. I know Korea-fatigue may exist due to its prevalence in the Falcon franchise, but its still a more unique and complex environment for the Tomcat to operate in) - Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, 1996 (what if this turning point in Chinese military strategy went hot?) - Khobar Towers Bombing, 1996 (what if the U.S. conclusively identified Iran as being behind the bombing? Would they have retaliated against the Islamic state?) Or, if you really need to face the USSR, how about focus on the Pacific region? In the 1980s, the Pacific emerged as a focal point in U.S. naval strategy. What makes this region unique is not only its size, but, unlike the Atlantic/Europe theater, the U.S. would shoulder most of the burden. There are so many directions you can go, so many scenarios you can explore without always resorting to NATO-Warsaw Pact and/or North Atlantic/GIUK Gap/North Cape. In my view, warfare is most interesting when you take something "out of its element."