BlackLion213

Good stuff, thanks! -Nick

Nice info here, thank you. :) One question though: How so? Meaning that systems broke often, but you could usually get things working (at least partially, etc)? Would love to know more about this. -Nick

Wow! Very impressive upgrade. Can't wait to see it in person (so to speak :)). -Nick

Thank you! :thumbup: This is much appreciated. -Nick

Whatever the occasion - Happy Tomcat-ing. :) -Nick

Great info guys, thanks. :) -Nick

Interesting stuff, climb and acceleration seem quite impressive. Especially since acceleration is regarded as the MiG-23's greatest strength. Do you know if the listed turn rates are ITR or STR? I wouldn't be surprised if the Viggen was a mid-pack STR, but it's delta/canard design leaves me wondering if it might have an impressive ITR. The control-ability at low airspeeds and high lift that allow for it's STOL capability seem like potential assets when it comes to rapid pitch rates. The Mirage 2000C has a really impressive ITR that serves it quite well in WVR, though it's STR is similar to the F-15C. It feels much more agile than the F-15C to me, largely because of that ITR. It bleeds a lot of airspeed, but the nose remains point-able even after it has bleed a lot of energy. That rapid loss of airspeed precludes an amazing STR. Might the Viggen do the same? Does anyone have good ITR vs STR data for the Viggen? -Nick

Plus, lets not forget about this: It seems that a WWII PTO project is quite likely (if not certain-ish with the leak of the F4U-1D and Iwo Jima map). Same for WWII carrier ops. Some great stuff to look forward to. :) -Nick

Very nice, great seeing VF-301 in action! Weekend Tomcat pilots, seems like a great gig. :) -Nick

I voted no, but it's a soft "no". :) I like the idea of the Pucara and the unique features it brings to DCS. It's more a matter of what would come with it. If you created a Falklands map or some other ideal/realistic theater with supporting units for a complete scenario - then I'm all for it and would definitely buy it. But in the absence of those supporting features, it has much less appeal. I think that upcoming modules should be selected to "fit" into the existing DCS theaters - maximizing their utility and potential fun. The AV-8B is a great example, it fits in perfectly to the Black Sea, NTTR, and Strait of Hormuz. There are so many options for campaigns and a wide variety of scenarios (even more so if a LHD carrier is created at some point). My 2 cents, -Nick

Interesting, thank you. :) -Nick

True! Though the system was removed from all of these aircraft by 1976 (IIRC). -Nick

Awesome, thanks! :thumbup: Also, when a Tomcat pilot says "my radar-guided missiles won't tune", his indication is the failure of the MSL PREP light to illuminate? (And maybe something else on the RIO side?) -Nick

You gave some interesting specifics here that I missed. :) Almost looked coordinated to me. ;) -Nick

Along the same lines, are there still plans for a Viggen theater? If so, is it tentatively planned for after the first Pacific map(s)....or might we see it sooner. :) -Nick

IIRC... (disclaimer :)) "Gun Rate" changes the M61 rate of fire, options are 4000 rounds/min or 6000 rounds/min "SW Cool" initiates or indicates that the AIM-9 seeker head has cooled "MSL Prep" is for AIM-7/AIM-54 launches (not sure of the specifics). -Nick

Thank you Cobra, as usual all of this looks amazing. :) The comprehensiveness of this project is astounding and I can't wait to see how it all comes together. I'm particularly pleased that you are putting so much work into creating a 1980s experience for the Tomcats and I couldn't be more pleased with the choice of USS Ranger. I've been hoping for this experience since I was 8 years old and standing on her deck (in 1988 ). :) I also find this part to be very exciting: I think there will be some nice surprises in your future announcements. :D Thanks for all the updates and pictures! -Nick

Awesome pictures Kroll! :) I'm particularly fond of the Ferris scheme used during ACEVAL/AIMVAL at Nellis in 1977-78. BTW, even though these pictures date to 77-78, these Tomcats are carrying a prototype version of the TCS (looks just like the eventual fleet version). So these aircraft should match the LNS 3D model well. Also, this is a nice documentary about ACEVAL/AIMVAL produced by Northrop Grumman (not sure if it has been posted before). It has some nice footage of these Ferris schemed F-14As flying near Nellis and early Eagles, plus some great general footage and discussion of both ACM and BVR concepts. I really enjoyed watching it. [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] -Nick

The mid-90s F-14A and mid-90s F-14B have the same cockpit. There is an F-14B Upgrade (official designation) that added a large RIO MFD in place of the fishbowl as well as data bus upgrades, RIO side-stick for the LANTIRN, and the ability to carry LANTIRN. These upgraded F-14Bs were operational by late-96 and most (if not all) were upgraded by the end of 1997. Many of these upgrades were later applied to the remaining F-14As. If you compare the F-14A cockpit circa 1994 to an F-14B cockpit circa 1994 - they look the same. If you compare the 1980s F-14A to 1990s (or late 80s) F-14B they look slightly different. The F-14B added the ALR-67 RWR with a separate display in the pilot's cockpit, along with improved ALQ-126 ECM. The ALR-67 RWR was added to F-14As in the early 90s (92-93). The ALQ-126 entered the F-14A production line in the mid-80s (around Block 130?) and remaining F-14As were upgraded from 92-93 along with adding the new NACA-type gunvents on the exterior. Overall, the cockpits really look the same save for the RWR display and any differences also depends on the time frame for comparison. -Nick

+1! I hadn't flown the Mirage for a couple of weeks (learning to fly helicopters in Nevada) and things are vastly different! The flight model is so much more interesting and engaging, I now have to practice my approaches again. Precise throttle inputs are now much more important, the throttle is laggier (in a good way :)), and and there is so much more "sense of inertia" even as the controls feel more precise and immediate. It now feels that the FBW is "coping" with the inherent pitch instability of the airframe. It feels awesome! Beautiful work Razbam! I have been a Mirage fan since it was first released in December, but the recent changes have made a substantial impact - I now want to fly it a whole lot more. Also, thank you to Rlaxoxo for posting - otherwise I wouldn't have checked out all of the recent upgrades and jumped back in so soon. I can't wait for the campaign either. The storyline sounds fantastic and very realistic - plus the integrating of some training is very appreciated for those of us new to DCS. This article really got my attention: http://www.mudspike.com/preview-baltic-dragons-mirage-2000c-campaign-for-dcs-world/ Thank you for the good times. :) -Nick

Awesome, thank you! Here is the video for those who haven't seen it: [ame] [/ame] The shots look excellent! Sorry for the misunderstanding, I simply meant that Kish appeared to be within the boundaries of the map. :) Looks like more info will be available soon. -Nick

Excellent guide! Thank you for writing it and I plan to put it to good use. I tried to find some info about this, but couldn't find a confirmation. It seems logical that STT would improve accuracy for very long-range shots. That said, the longest range Phoenix shot recorded was guided against a simulated Tu-22M (big radar cross section of course) in TWS mode. The target was acquired in TWS at 132 nm and the AIM-54A launched at 110 nm to target. The missile traveled 72 nm to hit the target. I cannot find any mention of needing STT to guide above a certain range, but I can find a reference to using TWS to fire at multiple fighter-sized targets at around 35 nm (QT-33 drones and unaugmented BQM-34s). Info courtesy of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Tomcat-The-Grumman-F-14-Story/dp/0887406645 It's a good read for those who are interested. -Nick

I am also REALLY curious about details of the map. This is also the map that I'm most excited about - there are so many great potential scenarios ranging from the late-70s to present day. It's a great choice for DCS. Here is a screenshot (cropped) from a Wags livestream, which gives some ideas about the boundaries of the map: I think it could eventually get bigger than this and from what was said with the original announcement, this may just be the "high detail area". The area shown on this screen includes Jask to the East and Kish to the West, so I bet those bases will be included. :) The original announcement mentions Abu Musa as a "strong hold island". http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=129972 So I bet it will be well modeled and probably have an airbase. I'm hoping that they extend the low detail area to include a large portion of the Gulf of Oman (since it would really just be water and maybe a low detail shoreline) to facilitate carrier ops and north into the Persian Gulf to include the waters off of Bahrain and Qatar (but that might be a stretch). Even if we only get the area shown in the screenshot, it should be an awesome map. -Nick

I have never heard of the AIM-54 having an infrared system, but this paper references "Both missiles use the Hughes AWG-9 Doppler radar fire control system, with an infrared subsystem. " First line on page 2 of the PDF under control and guidance. http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1066 I'm not sure what "infrared subsystem" means exactly, is this referring to a back-up guidance/tracking system? Of note to the original quote, both the AIM-54A and AIM-54C use the same basic system of guidance so I don't think the statement about the AIM-54A using infrared while the AIM-54C uses active radar is correct. This PDF is an interesting read, seems that the overall hit rate for AIM-54 shots for the USN during testing and fleet training was 88%. BTW, I don't know if that is a good or bad number for testing and fleet aircrew training shots. Anyone know what it was for the AIM-7 or AIM-9 (or even AIM-120)? Also, the PDF states that the command-inertial system of the Phoenix's was directly integrated into the AMRAAM. Perhaps this is why AIM-54 data remains classified and finding good information is so difficult? Also, here is another overview PDF for the AIM-54 that discusses the missiles development timeline, internal testing, and fleet integration till retirement. http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.PrintNewsStory&id=2943 -Nick