BlackLion213

My current technique is very similar to what worked in mid-2015 (landing practice in the MiG-21 was one of my favorite things to do in DCS at that point). The FM changed quite a bit in the interim, but since the 1.5.6 update my old tricks seem to be working well and landings are more challenging again (which I like). I think the most important part is flaring at the right time, but here is a quick overview of my technique which is working well for me at this point. I find that a nice approach in the MiG-21 means really staying on top of heading, glideslope, and airspeed. The nose wanders a bit in the approach configuration, but small, consistent corrections keep things on track. Throttle corrections should be small while in the groove, meaning that your speed and descent rate are consistent. I'm keeping N1 RPM in the mid/high-80s at ~50-60% fuel. For a glideslope reference, I place the runway apron at the junction of the lower and lower middle quarter of the combiner glass. AOA is usually between 10-14 units indicated (though I don't glance at it much). Airspeed is most critical. I generally fly the approach at 320-340 kph (generally closer to 320), but you need to keep a consistent instrument scan to maintain a steady approach speed. If I don't, I end up making too many big corrections and my sink rate can become excessive right before touch down. Right before touchdown, I flare and pitch the nose up ~10 deg. Timing the flare right is probably the most critical part for a smooth/damage free touchdown. It takes practice, but once you find it gear damage will be rare IMHO. After the flare, I retard the throttle ~2-3 cm (TM Wh throttle) and gently touch the runway. Don't retard the throttle too much or you may lose BLC and sink excessively. Touchdown usually occurs 1-2 seconds later around ~280 kph. This technique works for me, but practice is probably the most important part. Also, smooth consistent approaches deliver much better touchdowns in my experience and timing the flare is critical. Hope this helps a bit. -Nick

I found this article written by a current EA-18G Pilot who started flying EA-6Bs during the early-90s. The article is a fun read in terms of how the airwing has changed and how interesting things were when the airwing was diverse. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/confessions-of-a-us-navy-ea-18g-growler-electronic-warf-1694954599 It also contains some frank impressions of F-14s operating in the airwing - both good and bad. Much of the article also discusses the good and bad of the transition to the EA-18G - Overall, it's a fun article if you have an interest in late-20th century carrier ops or the transition from EA-6Bs to EA-18Gs. -Nick

There are several reasons why a MiG-23 module from Leatherneck seems likely. This is one of them: This interview was a while ago, but module plans are probably made far ahead given the long development times, so this assertion still carries some weight. Add to that the fact that this comment by Cobra: And the fact that the MiG-23 was "not available" to Razbam, many have jumped to the conclusion that Leatherneck is already developing one. Time will tell and I doubt that there will be any indication till after the Tomcat is released. But there are reasons to expect a MiG-23 over a MiG-29 from Leatherneck. -Nick

It definitely looks better than that to me! But different opinions are to be expected. That said, running MSAA at 4x really helps the appearance really cuts down on the appearance of pixelation (to my eyes). Things are still a bit blurry at times (I have PD @ 1.2, but will probably upgrade my system in a few months), but still very reasonable for flying the Gazelle, MiG-21, Viggen, and MiG-15 (which are the modules I fly the most). I still regard the Rift as a HUGE upgrade over using a monitor, even if the resolution is less than perfect. At my current settings with a GTX970, things look nearly as nice as they did on my monitor (1080p, not 4K). I am very happy with the upgrade and the majority of DCS players seem to feel the same way. Also, I tried the Rift at the USAF museum in Dayton, Ohio prior to buying and the experience in DCS was much better than the software I tried at the museum. Not a guarantee that you will like DCS better, but not all Rift experiences are created equal. DCS is currently a really good DCS experience IMHO. Good luck with your decision! BTW, the Gazelle is one of the best Rift modules IMHO. :thumbup: -Nic

I've noticed a funny tendency to feel a bit sick after I fly in the Rift - when I'm interacting and viewing the real world...seems strange to me. It's usually not too bad, but is somewhat proportional to my flying - more aggressive maneuvers = feeling worse after (but not during). Anyone else have the same issue? Also, thank you for the overview Scooternutz! I agree that its not hype, its just a remarkable transformation for simulation enthusiasts. VR will get better and things like the buttkicker (I need one!) probably help a lot as well, but I can't imagine what else could come down the road that will change things for flight sim as much as this. Its simply amazing and if I don't fly for a few days, my jaw drops again even after a few months of using it. I feel so fortunate to have access to tech like this and to have DCS supporting it. The RIft + DCS = flight sim heaven! -Nick

I used to have a lot of compressor stalls (much more so than surges), but things have really settled down since I started paying attention to the AOA warning tones. With the high induced drag of the Viggen's delta configuration, it rarely benefits the situation or performance to operate above 15-16 units of AOA IMHO. I've only had a few surges lead to a flameout, but if you have enough stalls (thumps) followed by a surge, the engine may not relight due to damage that is modeled. Reducing AOA promptly after the onset of stall improves the odds of keeping the engine operational. If the engine "hangs", retarding the throttle to idle and smoothly advancing the throttles once RPM has idled will usually work as well. Lastly, it is critical to that you lower the AOA below 15 (and even lower if possible) or none of the recovery maneuvers will work (just in case you are holding the AOA while attempting to clear the stall). I also find myself using the standard engine start switch after a real compressor surge, since the RPMs have typically decayed quite a bit once I realize that its a real surge. I think the airstart switch activates the ignition system into a continuous mode, but won't work if RPM declines past a certain point (though I don't know what the number is). For me, prevention has been the best approach. :) -Nick

VF-154 in 2003 during OIF: VF-2 in 2003 also during OIF: I remember a picture from Black Aces High that showed a Phoenix in the port shoulder pylon, I can scan it when I get home (I'm pretty sure I saw it). -Nick

Not many significant changes, but there were some. Also, the glove vanes were never removed, but were progressively deactivated over time. This started with the decision to deactivate glove vanes that were acting up instead of fixing them (capping the hydraulic lines and relying on the mass of the vane to hold it in place). This decision was made individually per squadron starting in the early-mid 80s. Many squadrons had a mix of aircraft with or without functioning vanes. In the early 1990s, the Navy decided to formally deactivate the vanes and wire them in the closed position. Eventually they would be welded (late-90s I believe). The F-14A+/B and F-14D never had glove vanes. The engines were replaced, changed from the TF30-P-412 to 414 and eventually the 414A. The 414/414A had many small changes to address the "thump-bang" events of the first cruise and operations during 74-75. These "thump-bangs" were not the usual TF30 compressor stalls, but catastrophic failures of the turbine that were resulting in loss of aircraft (3 in just a few days in early 1975 IIRC). In fact, the whole Tomcat fleet was grounded for a week while a solution was found and USS Enterprise was leaning on their A-7E armed with AIM-9Ls for perform CAP duties! Luckily, this was a unique event. The TF30 upgrades involved a modest redesign of the compressor to improve durability and help stall margin, the addition of the mid-compression bypass system, and addition of a protective engine shroud. The mid-compression bypass system ports the 7th stage of the compressor under certain specified conditions to stabilize airflow and improve stall margin. Some of these conditions include: zone 5 with landing gear down, AOA >16 units, deploying the refueling probe, firing the cannon, >10 deg rudder input, etc. The AOA threshold decreases as speed increases and stabilizes at 11 units AOA from Mach 0.9-2.1. In addition to the engine upgrades, additions included: automatic maneuvering slats/flaps, the TCS system was installed in the early-mid 80s, gunvents were changed, HUD camera, engine stall detection and warning system, a series of small software changes, and some modest changes to the aileron-rudder interconnect. Certainly the mid-80s F-14A would function differently than the mid-70s version, but suspension of disbelief can be a powerful tool for gameplay purposes (I mean that in a good way :)). -Nick

That would make sense. However, Cobra did say that the Viggen will have a campaign in the Caucasus with a mini-campaign in NTTR. It would seem that they don't expect their Viggen map out soon, though they did confirm on the Hoggit AMA that a Viggen map is still in progress. Iwo Jima would be a much smaller and simpler map than anything in the Baltic (very small land area, very few buildings, etc). But they were waiting on some sort of new terrain tech and the status of that is unknown. Or they could decide to prioritize the F-14 map given the expected popularity of the module and potential for high sales of associated content. Though the F-14 also has an excellent potential map in the Strait of Hormuz with real operations having occurred there for the F-14A and several Forrestal class carriers. There are definite realistic options for the F-14B as well. So in the end....any of them could be chosen as their first map. I'm still betting on Iwo Jima though, just because it would be a straightforward-ish (I think...) first map. I hoping for an update on their future map plans at some point, but we'll have to wait and see. -Nick

As a very happy customer of the Mirage 2000C, I am very excited about your upcoming projects, especially the jets. :) To echo what others have said, the customer service and openness of your group is outstanding and helps to contribute to my excellent overall experience. Thanks again for the excellent work and for choosing interesting and diverse products! :thumbup: -Nick

A counterpart doesn't need to be a perfect performance match, it is an aircraft that served around the same time in a similar role, but a different air force. It is simply another aircraft that could have been met in A-A combat. It need not be a foreign derived carbon copy or near perfect performance match. Actually the MiG-19 has more power and is quite a bit lighter. MiG-19 combined thrust: 14,320 lbs thrust static MiG-19 weight: 11,500-12,000 empty, 16,000 lbs gross Mirage III thrust: 13,700 thrust static Mirage III weight: 15,543 lbs, 21,000 gross With the high induced drag of the delta, you may see inferior STR for the Mirage (I'm not sure) and the unloaded acceleration would likely favor the MiG-19. Plus, the MiG can probably regain energy better after a turn or climb with its superior T/W ratio. Also, the Cyrano radar may be better, but neither radar is very effective except during truly optimal conditions. It's nice having the better radar, but I doubt that it would completely transform the situation. But that is just my opinion. . In both cases, cannon is really a primary armament and the existing missiles aren't great. The Mirage III gets either AIM-9Bs or the first iteration of the Magic 550. Neither were very effective or reliable. The MiG-19 will have R-3S', very similar to the AIM-9B (some say a true copy). Both A/C have 30 mm cannons, but the MiG carries 3 to the Mirage's 2. The MiG also has better rearward visibility, but the gunsight for the Mirage is likely more advanced (just a guess). Overall, there is plenty of give and take. Neither A/C has a clear advantage in every aspect - which sounds like a reasonable match. Anyway, we can likely go on for a while, but it probably won't change much. Prowler seems to also think that the MiG-19 and Mirage III are reasonable counterparts. I don't think you will convince them to change their plans and develop a F-100 for the MiG-19. :P Best, Nick

If you like at their vital statistics, the MiG-19 and Mirage III are every bit as close in performance as the F-5E and MiG-21. So the MiG-19 and Mirage III should be fun to face off. I don't think you can define fun with the numbers, but the numbers look good as well. What are your specific objections? What feature or performance aspect is so superior for the Mirage III or inferior for the MiG-19? The Mirage III will also bleed a lot more energy than the MiG-19 in turns given the Mirage's delta and lack of relaxed static stability. -Nick

Correct, which is why the USAF and USN DACT focused on facing the MiG-21 as their primary rival until the early 1980s when they began incorporating tactics to counter the MiG-23 and BVR capable opponents. The arrival of the F-16N for the USN and use of F-15s and F-16s as USAF aggressors signaled the need to simulate the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the late-80s. The F-15 should be carrying AIM-9Ls and AIM-7Fs (and probably be a F-15A), but they are counterparts when appropriately equipped. Also, because the MiG-19 didn't enter combat in Vietnam until 1969 and the F-100 had been phased out of front-line units well before that time. The ANG continued combat ops till around 1969 before the Hun exited the theater entirely. Part of the issue was that US forces did not regard the F-100 as a frontline fighter at that point, while newly acquired MiG-19s were placed onto the frontline to reinforce the MiG-21s. The MiG-19 had a few ACM advantages over the MiG-21 with its three 30 mm cannons and much better rearward visibility. The MiG-19 and MiG-21 overlapped quite a bit and served as contemporaries during the 1960s. The MiG-21 was produced in far larger numbers and was generally more capable as an interceptor, but the MiG-19 had redeeming qualities as well. You go to war with what you have, not what you want. I'll admit, I'm not totally sure what you mean this.... Aircraft are not created or built by specific generations. It is a post-hoc assessment made by a human and therefore an opinion. It can be stated as though it is a fact, but its not. You can present facts, figures, introduction dates, but the classification is a human judgement - an opinion. Plus....you are :poster_offtopic: :) -Nick

So like you said, it's a solid counterpart. :P The F-100 is a bit closer, but the MiG-19 actually splits the difference between the performance of the F-100 and Mirage III (in terms of rate of climb, acceleration, etc - not in top speed). It feels like splitting hairs to me, but we are all free to have our own opinions. :) The interest in realistic missions and operations often leaves us DCS players with a quandary: the most closely matched opponent was often not a real opponent. Eg: F-100 and MiG-19 never encountered each other in combat as far as I know. So should a counterpart be realistic or closely matched? Lets not derail our celebration of the upcoming MiG-19 by debating which is the correct mindset (there is no answer anyway - it's all about preference). -Nick

I am genuinely happy that you chose the MiG-19P! It is an aircraft that interests me, but I did not expect it to find its way into DCS (at least for quite a while). It will have a solid counterpart in the Mirage III, but I do hope that real consideration is put into the best scenario for using the aircraft prototypically. As a developer, you may know much more about what is coming down the road than I do, but hopefully there will be opportunities to create realistic scenarios for this module with the maps and assets that are available. Either way I'll buy it. :) But it would be nice if it can offer that "complete experience". -Nick PS - Actually that is a Su-7B, looks similar with the highly swept wing. :)

Yes it is, which surprises me. :) Here are some other photos from the same timeframe: There is one VF-51 bird with the TCS, but the rest don't have it. Not sure why just 1-2 A/C would have it in the airwing. Perhaps F-14As started coming off the line with it in 1981 and these were replacement aircraft. I'm still quite sure that block 90 aircraft didn't have TCS's from the factory. RADM Gillcrist mentioned that he traveled to the Pentagon to make a case for fitting F-14s with TCS based on AIMVAL/ACEVAL data, but I may be off a year or two on timing. Thanks for the picture! -Nick

Thank you for the example. :) To me it still looks more grey than blue, but again we may be perceiving it in very different ways (these differences in perception are well documented). -Nick

Interesting, I don't see that. To me the colors look a bit "warmer" than before (in a good way). That said, color perception is really subjective and does vary from person to person (our cones have different thresholds/sensitivities, etc), so there will always be differences of opinion. To me, 2.5 looks as close to real as I have seen and the new lighting is very convincing. Add to that the new water rendering and grass - it simply looks awesome to my eyes. -Nick

Thanks for posting Darkbrotherhood - great set of videos! One small correction, the TCS was still experimental at the time of AIMVAL/ACEVAL and this was the first actual use of the system. AIMVAL/ACEVAL was the validation of concept for the F-14's TCS (even though the F-4Es had TISEO as you mentioned) in addition to the many other things tested during AIMVAL/ACEVAL. The system wasn't fitted fleet wide till roughly 1984-85 and the first F-14As that had TCS from the factory were Block 130s IIRC. Even though the benefits of the system were quite apparent to aviators, it took several years after AIMVAL/ACEVAL to obtain funding for the program (1982ish?) and fleet wide employment followed a couple years later. -Nick

You mean like this: There are lots of other small and large islands in the northern part of the Strait. Matched with the craggy topography of Oman and mangrove swamps on the coast of Iran, it will be a very interesting place to fly. :) Also, the maps will get bigger over time. Wags has said this in the past, but the growth has to be incremental to deliver the quality that ED desires. The high detail area of the Strait of Hormuz map is set to be the largest yet (390 km x 390 km) with a large low detail area around it (from what has been said). This map in particular would benefit substantially from a large low detail since the areas around the Strait (in a east-west direction at least) are largely water. It would really increase the operational flexibility of the map if the low detail area to the east extended into the Northern Arabian Sea. It was common for aircraft carriers on GONZO station (Gulf of Oman Northern Zone) to spend a lot of their time in the Arabian Sea off Oman. This allowed them to conduct training (CQ, intercept training) in a lower threat environment and would also move to this area while on alert status (many carriers on GONZO would carry out flight ops 5-6 days per week with 1-2 days of alert status in between - often further east in the Gulf of Oman or in the Arabian Sea). As with Normandy, these low detail areas could be really helpful for a lot of different gameplay aspects. I hope it is considered. :) -Nick

These are awesome additions to the DCS Navy and will be much appreciated. I plan to buy the AV-8B and am quite excited about it. But the addition of more AI ships to round out the fleet is hugely important. As I read about historic USN operations, it's clear that realistic operations need a wide variety of ships and types. Every addition is really helpful and the more developers who take the time to make these additions, the better things will be for DCS players. Thank you for being a comprehensive DCS developer! -Nick

I am too, but this doctrine also wasn't an absolute. During the first Gulf of Sidra incident in 1981, the Tomcats of VF-41 and VF-84 were launching with a the classic 2x2x2 load-out, even though the Libyans did not possess anything that could viably attack the carrier (let alone carry out a Soviet style mass bomber raid). Same with Desert Storm, though tactics had already changed at that point. This doctrinal emphasis was really in full swing during the late-70s and early-80s. Back then, the USN and USAF were training to counter their Vietnam nemesis - the MiG-21. The MiG-23 was just starting to present itself as an operational threat (even though it had been in service with the Soviets and some exports for several years). But the MiG-21, had no real BVR capability and classic ROE was still a factor. When attacking a MiG-21, a AIM-7 was already much better than the opponents weapon - was much gained by adding ARH and 3-4 x times the range? On paper it might not look like it even if pilots really appreciate the benefits. AIM-54 production and cost do play a real role in creating these doctrines, even if aircrew and airframe are the priority. Total AIM-54 production was only about 5000 units (just over half or which were AIM-54Cs manufactured from the late-80s to 90s) and they were way more expensive than the AIM-7. This cost, along with the low production meant that carriers didn't deploy with large numbers. Plus, any expensive program needs justification and protecting billion dollar carriers could justify expensive programs. Plus, many decision makers (often politicians when it comes to actually authorizing a budget) don't see things the way that pilots or knowledgeable planners would. To a politician, they see that the AIM-7 has a quoted range of ~15-25 nm (depending on variant) while the AIM-54 can reach out to nearly 100 nm, but the opponent has a range of 3-5 nm (MiG-21) - they quickly ask why you need more range than 4 times your opponents? This sounds like another crazy military program feeding the military-industrial complex, etc. However, the MiG-23 and later the MiG-29/Su-27 really changed perspectives. Now there was a credible forward quarter threat with BVR capability and the extra range/ARH/multi-shot really counted. In 1982, the USN started "Rising Fighter", a new program to create tactics to better counter the MiG-23. They used F-4S's carrying AIM-7s to simulate the MiG-23 and ran test scenarios against F-14As armed 4x4. Most encounters were 2v6 and the F-14s actually did quite well, but the success was all about SA and much better performance after the merge (per Bio Baranek). These tests plainly revealed that Tomcats could be easily lost before the merge from forward quarter shots and there weren't great counters with only the AIM-7. So in the mid-80s, it was recognized that Tomcats would need to carry the AIM-54 to maintain their edge. Here is an excerpt/overview: However, by the time all these tactics are changing, the idea of the AIM-54 as an anti-bomber missile had been solidified in the minds of those following aviation. This is logical, it was the justification for the AIM-54 program from a political standpoint and the initial employment given the missiles low production numbers and nature of the A-A threat in the late-70s/early-80s. The progressive change in tactics didn't catch much attention, but this isn't the kind of stuff that gets published in regular aviations books, etc. Most of the interest around the AIM-54 was centered around its range and multi-shot capability, since that didn't change there wasn't much to talk about. Beyond the need for battlegroup protection, the AIM-54 was also that critical stepping stone towards the definitive US missile: the AIM-120. Much was learned from an operational ARH/fire-forget missile and the AIM-54's guidance and architecture was funneled into the AMRAAM program. But without the CVBG threat, it's likely that the AIM-54 never would have been funded and development of future weapons would have been slowed. The USN had certain needs for the missile, but it was probably funded due to the bomber threat and the anti-fighter aspect did little to support the USN's case - even if it was eventually needed. But when people make decisions about money, it's based on that moment in time and it that moment of the late-70s the fighter threat didn't seem that bad. -Nick

Yeah I agree, which is why I largely reject the quote you posted, which is written by an armchair general. :) The best source I can think of that specifically addresses this is a book by RADM Paul Gillcrist (former USN pilot and Miramar base commander during the 1980s). He discusses the original concept for the AIM-54 which was to improve on the AIM-7s weaknesses with a primary focus on improved range, fire and forget capability, and better end game performance. End game performance focused on improving performance against maneuvering targets, which was one of the early and pivotal tests of the system. I think I posted a page from his book a bit ago, but need to use my computer (currently using my phone). I can also scan a couple pages from his book, but I'm not going to shorten my Maui vacation to do that (not a joke, it's nice here). :) This article is written by a former Tomcat RIO and also discusses the topic: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279 But since so much is written by the arm chairs (and then repeated ad nauseum), there isn't a lot that can be easily found on the web. However, I'm compelled to ask: if the AIM-54 was designed to shootdown bombers, would that diminish its capabilities? As an ARH missile with a big warhead, powerful rocket motor, and demonstrated ability to hit fighter sized targets in direct testing - does someone's original conception change the final outcome? Since it laid the groundwork for the AIM-120 (guidance system was taken from the AIM-54C and plugged into the amraam program), I think you can guess as to how the missile will function. -Nick

Yes there is, from several USN authors. I'll dig one up once I'm off this commercial flight. :) The quote you mentioned is effectively a USAF quote concerning a USN weapon system. Probably better to ask those who used the weapon. Also, the guidance issues mentioned are true of missiles guided by TWS in general including the AIM-120. Older systems (like the AWG-9) are more susceptible, but notching is still an effective technique against even modern radars. As far as I know, losing a TWS track will still compromise fox 3 guidance irrespective of the specific weapon. -Nick

Gorgeous! That pilot model looks great and thank you for the update. :thumbup: -Nick