Kev2go
-
Posts
3917 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Kev2go
-
-
On 5/20/2022 at 6:28 PM, Kev2go said:
I find it interesting that the APG 68 v5 has Enhanced ground Mode ( sharpens the resolution of what would be the basic Real Beam map) versus just plain old real beam mode, when ive found no reference of such a feature. ever being added to the V5 .
APG66 V2(A) which was an update of the apg66v2 of the F16A MLU which references some sar like like A/G map features ( probably EGM) but i cant verify the same for V5.
looking further into this... I found some F16A MLU documents. M1 tape dated 1998 documents APG66 V2 A/G modes which has EGM. but a F16C blk 50 1997 dash 34 using Apg68 v5, does not.
Me thinks ED is filling in some blanks for a F16CM using F16A MLU documentation
-
On 8/6/2022 at 10:11 PM, Vampyre said:
The entire reason for the F-4E DMAS/ARN-101 being sent into combat in the 1991 gulf war from Turkey was to support the F-111E's deployed there with their PAVE Tack pods (which the pods didn't arrive in theatre until after the end of hostilities). The F-111E could drop LGB's, just not guide them itself. There were not enough nighttime precision attack platforms on the northern flank of Iraq. If not for that urgent need, then the F-4E would not have been there at all due to an unwillingness to further complicate the logistics trail. The 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing at Clark Airbase in PI was relocated to Elmendorf AK due to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The F-4E was replaced by the F-15C and F-15E in the then renamed 3rd Wing at that time. The F-4E was all but out of regular USAF service in 1991 but was still used but the ANG and USAFR for a few years more.
really the F4E was used in the gulf war? i thought that was the F4G wild weasel.
-
On 3/10/2021 at 8:28 PM, KlarSnow said:
So the most important thing in that list that I am fairly certain does not exist on the internet or in any form other than these archives is the F-105B-34-1
That manual is the unclassified manual on how the weapons systems, radar, any computed bombing modes, gunsights, etc... all work.
That would be the first priority. Cause otherwise you have no real way of modeling those systems.
On 4/9/2021 at 8:51 AM, Blaze1 said:I think I may have a copy of the -34 somewhere. If memory serves me it's TO 1F-105B-34-1-1. The classified/formerly classified manuals would be TO 1F-105G-1, I believe this was previously titled TO 1F-105G-1A. These manuals dealt with systems used to employ the AGM-45 Shrike and AGM-78 Standard ARM (STARM). There's also TO 1F-105B-34-1-3, which covered classified weapons such as the Sidewinder. I'd be very surprised if all of those manuals haven't been declassified or wouldn't be with an FOIA or MDR.
somone once sold a paper copy on ebay.
So somewhere out there.... somewhere is a dash 34
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1960s-original-training-aircraft-1886135975
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
9 hours ago, bies said:
We are having two F-4E variants, one from 1970s, one from 1980s.
Great for? Great for nearly any conflict F-4E was being used, Vietnam war, Iran-Iraq war where we have practically all assets for both sides, Israeli-Arab wars like War on Attrition 1970, Yom Kippur war 1973, Mole Cricket over Bekaa Valley 1982 and all what if scenarios with different remaining F-4E operators all around the world since 1970s like Turkey, Greece, Japan, Australia, Egypt.
And F-4S? Only fictional scenarios. And I'm not extreme, I still see a place for the F-4S, but let's not be silly, the F-4E was incomparably more relevant than the F-4S.
In short F-4B in early 1960s was the best fighter aircraft anywhere in the world, with cutting edge performance, holding speed and climb records, able to fight every most modern opponent and win, still having multirole capabilities. F-4J in late 1960s was still top fighter as well.
Most scenarios in DCS are fictional.
ANd its moot discussing historical relevancy considering we dont even have the scenarios for certain aircraft that people want to see, or vice versa have aircraft and scenarios for a time frame where they just flew in circles fighting in low intensity warfare, dumping jdams on jihadis in toyota pickup trucks.F4B doesn't have a map scenario where it fits and it would be an orphan aircraft considering the other existing ( or planned) 3rd generation aircraft are from later periods. Ignoring ww2 Map, s we have Caucasus ( aside from narrow 2008 Georgian war) , all fictional scenarios . Marianas (outside of potential future ww2 uses) , all fictional. Persian Gulf isnt large enough to include Iraq, so its not adequate for gulf war, or Iran Iraq war scenarios. Aside from maybe a handfull of skirmishes agianst Iran, otherwise all fictional scenarios. Falklands doesnt have much use outside falklands war ( and there are still so many lacking aircraft for that exact war). This leaves Syria as the only map relevant for a wide variety of non fictional scenarios over various timeframes 1967 war, 1973 war, 1982 war, and low intensity conflicts during 21st century. However for the 67 and 73 wars there are lacking avation assets.
9 hours ago, bies said:F-4S in 1980s was just a way cheaper substitute of modern and capable F-14, giving up prestigious role of a fleet defender and being relegated to secondary duties. Libyan Su-22s and MiG-23s were delt with by Tomcats, for a reason. Everything has its own time.
Its more relevant to discuss features than what wars it was or wasn't used. So If you want an interceptor, the F4S is more for you, If you willing to sacrifice BVR capability for more multirole, F4E will be more for you. simple as that.
Navy only cared about allowing their cream of the crop tomcats to get the limelight. F4S would of been more than able to carry its own weight against Su22's and export downgraded Mig23's, especially considering these were just skirmishes and not fights in a full fledged war
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, AdrianL said:
From their discord. C.1P (F-21A), C.2, C.7 variants
Im glad they are doing the C7. You have a HUD , PD radar and some quasi digital avionics
-
1
-
-
On 7/29/2022 at 10:46 AM, F-2 said:
I believe Macdonald Douglas did or at least was heavily involved with the Kai upgrade, much like Boeing is right now with the on going F-15 upgrade. As for the missiles the Japanese defense agency had fairly detailed data including live testing on their website till 2002. You can still write the Mod and request it. Data on the AAM-3 is posted and discussed on the war thunder forum right now.
In addition f4ej Kai is also now retired from military service
Although tbh I think I would prefer the f4f ice peace Rhine over the f4ej Kai , just because of the apg65 > apg66, that and the f4f has the wing slats.
since heartblur is already working with the luftwaffe for eurofighter it would maybe be easier getting documentation for the luftwaffe phantom?
-
1
-
-
On 8/1/2022 at 5:08 PM, sedenion said:
I would ask the same question about the F1C, since I guess the differences between F1C and F1CE are very minors (I think it is only a mater of Sidewinder)... Anyway here is the cockpit of F1CT... it appear modernized compared to current CE variant (Central weapon panel, HUD and stick remind the 2000C). And here is the F1C cockpit (with missing HUD, apparently) and here, it appear to be exactly the same as the F1CE...
the Mirage F1CE had a integrated countermeasure system, whereas the French air force Mirage F1C's had to carry external countermeasure pods for chaff and flare.
-
3
-
-
its only unfortunate that the Mirage F1 doesn't have IFF interrogate capability with the radar, when it was common for other aircraft to have such functions in that timeframe.
-
8 hours ago, bies said:
I won't say anything except for the fact ED made the right decision by only making API available to 3rd parties who can prove they are producing modules that meet certain standards.
So I don't see a problem allowing modders or non 3rd parties from having access to those tools. If they made a bad quality mod. Nothing of value was lost. People can simply Uninstall it an another group of people can make a better one.
People such as yourself that have faith only in paid 3rd party projects as the only people competant enough to design modules outside of ED can continue to only want to fly aircraft made by them, and pay for them.
So no one in the community would really lose from this.
Open source is better than closed source api.
8 hours ago, bies said:If there would exist this mythical group of modders capable of making high quality realistic Superhornet in DCS environment meeting DCS standard - they would already be working on it, as a DCS 3rd party with API and become rich after release.
By the same logic there would already have been a team that would have been a official 3rd party to develop a Skyhawk. A much simpler plane. I think all of the existing 3rd parties have done more complex aircraft at this point
Again there are many other strings attached that would make being a 3rd party developer a headache or for that matter, considerations for being economically viable etc besides meeting a ED quality threshold.
Unless of course you want to argue there isn't a 3rd party skyhawk becsuse there isn't enough interest in it, and its an obscure aircraft no one cares about ( it's not)
-
3 hours ago, bies said:
More, reality of many similar games shows you would have 10 different simulations of F/A-18E.
Not really considering i Flew a super Hornet and was able to very easily transition and fly combat the DCS Hornet on Day 1 release due to the same Hotas and fundamental systems operation, as well as being familiar with the symbology.
DCS world as a platform has the benefit of being a proper combat sim platform environment.
3 hours ago, bies said:Truth is making reasonably realistic, good audiovisual, rather bug-free, supported and maintained to be playable F/A-18C Lot 20 we have in DCS is the fruit of 6-7 years of work of big team consisted of professional very experienced coders and flight engineers, working full time daily ~8h job and being well paid.
so you just described heatblur. they had developers with with another full time job part of the team, and even development for another sim platform once the F14 released into EA. 3rd parties like heatblur proved that you can make on par or arguably better quality modules than ED. But im sure you will say HB is the exception to the rule.
Again with the Hornet you could reause many of the same systems on a block 1 Super Hornet versus starting from scratch. But if you want to continue to be a naysayer and makes excuses why a Super Hornet will not be possible go ahead.
3 hours ago, bies said:Doing anything close to that by few amateurs, having another job to live, non-flight engineers and experienced coders, without any official chief designer having always the last word -
All resting on the assumption modders wouldn't be able to get access to RL pilots willing to offer input ?
3 hours ago, bies said:it will be impossible and module would be unrealistic, unfinished, compromised, bugged, messed with every new update, after some time abandoned.
If such a hypothetical mod was created you would loose nothing from it by not playing it if you really want to only simp for paid modules. Again IM willing to give money for effort, but some of us appreciate mods if they are of a good quality.
3 hours ago, bies said:Simple rudimentary A-4 Skyhawk with very simple avionics is maximum what can be done and we have zero guarantee they will stop supporting it tomorrow.
because modders don't have access to the same development tools licensed 3rd parties have ( which is what ED do) ...... So yes it would have been a better made module. hence proving my point of what the issue here was.
So the issue is not amatuer developers but lack of proper tools that are going to be a limitation as it was in the case of the A4 mod.
By all means if ED want to let slip a potential super hornet module to a 3rd party so be it, their loss. People said a Eurofighter would never be possible, yet suddenly some naysayers are going to eat thier words real hard.
-
On 7/23/2022 at 6:18 AM, Ala13_ManOWar said:
But remember it wasn't EF-18M (cockpit picture) all of the time, they were plain A model for many time after they first arrived in 1986, then A+ (alike C, but not completely), then M for Modernised or overhauled (same as F1M) with that fancy super Hornet UFC, but that was only in relatively recent times.
It's curious anyhow, and funny since now we know all that equipment close and personal from DCS, how cockpit is a mixed bag. No IFEI but the old analogue fuel gauge already seen in AV-8B and F-15E, new digital UFC and I believe slightly bigger DDIs and definitely bigger new AMPCD, but some other stuff kept from old A equipment. It's said (I wouldn't know exactly since I haven't flown the real deal) software wise it's now at a super Hornet block 1 level, but in a legacy Hornet airframe. Original radar AN/APG-65 (same as AV-8B+) is also kept despite other upgrades, like new F404 engines which weren't the original ones. Interesting mixed bag, yeah.I kind of posted it as joke, knowing that some people would reply " bruh, just fly F/A18C with SAF skin, we want new aircraft not a variation of an existing aircraft " But at the same time since original EF18 is an F/A18A it would give the cold war enthusiasts the early 4th gen version they want for 80s scenarios.
Honestly im not sure Aerges is willing to simulate a variation of the Hornet if ED already had developed a USN/usmc F/A18C, though i have to admit if they could get documentation of the EF18M, that would be interesting as its a mix of new and old. The Hornets in SAF service are due to be phased out by 2024, with another contract for additional Eurofighters having been signed to replace them.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Harlikwin said:
Yup this is exactly the issue with the mirage F1 and BVR stuff. The radar was absolutely terrible in lookdown and at low alt. Hence the whole "giraffe" tactics they used against the Iraqis, since both the radar and the Super 530 excelled in that regime. It should do "OK" at high alt as well as its not looking down. But the highalt lookdown/shootdown capability is one that did not really exist prior to the RDM/RDI radars and the Super530D. And given that the RDM, was charmingly described by the french pilots as Radar de Merde... Probably the first real LD/SD capability was the 87-88 M2000/RDI.
At any rate, the F1 is very good for BFM vs other 3rd gen stuff. But as everyone said its gonna loose to 4th gens which shouldn't a surprise.For 70's BVR the 530's were terrible missiles, and are grossly overperforming in DCS right now, but then again so is the R3R. The issue being the radars on the F1 and
the R530 is over performing? oof, and I already find it underwhelming and wishing for the Super 530F.
Overall yeah basically all the 3rd gen era radars suck relative to what we are used to on 4th generation. it will be a question which aircraft has the least sucky radar. F4E has may have better ranges on paper relative to the Cyrano 4 in ideal high altitude intercept, but it will also struggle ( if not more so) at low altitude as it has no lookdown shootdown capability. APQ120 is just a pure pulse radar, so I think that leaves the planned Mig23MLA as the aircraft with the least worst radar from its generation.
11 hours ago, Harlikwin said:21 are modeled badly.
When the Mig21 first came out i found its radar to be quite impressive emulation of such a simple radar of its timeframe It even had cloud interference on the scope.
AS for the mirage F1 its still EA. There are more radar modes that will be developed, and existing modes will be tweaked im sure. ITs a wait and see on how radar will behave in a fully finished product.
-
1
-
-
-
IM wondering did the Spanish Mirages at any point get Magic 2's or Aim9L and/or M? ( be it the F1CE or later versions?)
P.S
I know the Aim9Juli is a thing, before someone tells me to use that if i want an all aspect missile.
-
43 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:
Yeah. The allies were pretty apprehensive of the Mirage's capabilities before DS nonetheless.
The iraqis did rather well against the Tomcats, certainly far from being slaughtered. Granted they had to use a pretty tactical approach, not quite ready to be applied on your run of the mill airquake-server. It's going to be alright in realistic or semi-realistic setups.
So you're scared of blue on blue? Well, life's a box of chocolates. Hon hon hon.
It's going to be alright when it's facing f5s , mig21s , and future f4's and mig23 yes
-
9 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:
And in pre-AMRAAM days, they're still tied to a fairly short range Sparrow shot (unless we're talking AIM-54), which certainly isn't better than a S530F.
cant use the full potential of such missiles if you have a finicky radar or also have to deal with a higher risk of blue on blue in bvr lacking an IFF interrogator.
-
On 7/18/2022 at 9:25 AM, Bremspropeller said:
Not only is the F1 500kg heavier than the MIII, the MIII also has roudabout 700kg less thrust (6000kg) than quoted.
With the S530F and Magic II, I think they should be pretty much on par with strengths and weaknesses each. The F1's relative lack of thrust would certainly be a factor.
WVR yeah, certainly.
In BVR, I wouldn't underappreciate the S530F in an 80s setup. Especially against a pre-AMRAAM Viper (not too many Block 15 ADFs around outside the US).
Even though the Mirage F1 counts as a 3rd generation aircraft. the issue is still radar limitations. even for its timeframe. American 4th gen teen fighters have Radars with planar array antennas with digital signal processing . save for tomcat, even though its its a Analog PD, it is still a proper PD radar.
Cyrano 4 is Pulse radar cassegrain antenna with MTI like functions for lookdown ( that mode which wasn't known for being particularly useful for that purpose) . I think its even more limited than the Saphir radar of the Mig23MLA/MLD, for air to air which is also an MTI radar.
I cant find any information whether the F1 has an IFF interrogator, It would be unfortunate if it didnt, since many other aircraft of same generation already did in that timeframe.
-
2 hours ago, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants said:
Thanks all. So the better question would be: how does it compare to F-5E in A2A combat?
I would still expect the F5E to have a tighter turn , though the F1 will have a better T/W ratio to work with. the Engine as i saw from some youtube content creators is still possible to stall out like the F14A TF30's if you abuse too much, wheras in the F5 i cant recall ever doing that to my engines
Mirage F1CE does has a better radar than the F5 ( although its still not a pulse doppler, but an MTI) , and a medium range radar missile to go with it , the Radar warning receiver however seems to be pretty rudimentary something akin to a Mig21 SPO 10.
Though i would say long term investment is with it as they plan to include in the same pack the Mirage F1EE ( will have INS navigation and a proper RWR ) and then the F1M ( modernized digital cockpit avionics)
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 3/9/2022 at 4:57 AM, Northstar98 said:
As far as going more modern, I'm only really interested in an M6.1/6.2 spec F-16CM, circa mid 2010s, which AFAIK, would include the following:
Sensors:
- AN/APG-68(V)9
Weapons:
- AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 (AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM P3I.3 is from 2007, so might actually be appropriate for our current aircraft, C-5 on the other hand is from 2003).
- ADM-160B MALD (active + passive radar enhancement)
- ADM-160C MALD-J (OECM)
- AGM-158A JASSM
- AGR-20 APKWS II
- GBU-39/B SDB
- GBU-54(V)1/B LJDAM [Mk82]
Other notable features:
- AGCAS (Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System).
With that said, I doubt we'll ever see it, and that the current aircraft is the latest and greatest they can feasibly do and besides, without complementary REDFOR (which seems to be a non-starter), I'm less in favour of it compared to say, a pre-CCIP Block 40, or an A Block 15 (which would be the perfect counterpart to the 9-12 MiG-29 ED hopes to develop).
did usaf ever actually put adopt APG68 v9 upgrade? There was huge debate over this many times, and it wasn't verified.
i thought that was only by export users. whilst USAFvipers continued flying with apg68 V5 until present day when they started getting AESA's.
-
boy its nice goin back to old threads seeing whos posts aged well ( or didnt)
-
2
-
-
On 3/18/2022 at 8:53 AM, Sajarov said:
Easy, Iran doesn't have Euro fighters.
When Iran retire their Tomcat Fleet, we will be able.to enjoy the 14D.
Sent from my M2102J20SG using Tapatalk
poor line of reasoning considering by that logic we shouldn't have a F14A or a F14B module either.
On 9/27/2021 at 10:15 PM, Harlikwin said:Wow, thats mindblowingly stupid if true. Literally that system is using absolutely outdated tech by todays standards, and I could make that same statement a decade ago. But at the same time, the powers that be make "poor" decisions all the time.
as Harlikwin said.
-
1
-
-
I find it interesting that the APG 68 v5 has Enhanced ground Mode ( sharpens the resolution of what would be the basic Real Beam map) versus just plain old real beam mode, when ive found no reference of such a feature. ever being added to the V5 .
APG66 V2(A) which was an update of the apg66v2 of the F16A MLU which references some sar like like A/G map features ( probably EGM) but i cant verify the same for V5.
-
On 4/27/2022 at 6:50 AM, MAXsenna said:
In the latest SUNTAG video you can see he has MAC versions of the F-5, F-86, MiG-15 and the L-39.
so im guessing youtubers get acces to some developers build of WIP MAC to participate as testers?
Then if MAC has gotten that far along i wonder when DCS community can expect some official announcements.
Also Id hope that MAC will include updated cockpits for all of these aircraft, and thus in turn for us module owners. IT would seem silly to release a new game with simplified aircraft with those dated models.
-
1
-
F-16CG Block 40 (pre CCIP)
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted · Edited by Kev2go
so how could an Aim7 be useless on a viper if APG68 equipped C blocks were paired with Aim120s ? and If F16A ADF with a mere APG66 could use sparrows?