BlackLion213

We should do a joint "exercise" Viggens with Anti-ship missiles vs the CVBG. (Like the current DCS Red Flag campaigns) Hopefully we can drop the USS Saratoga into the Baltic and give it a go. Sounds challenging and fun! :thumbup: -Nick

Thanks, I agree that it's not a "long-range" solution, but it gives a bit of insight into the system. I would guess that the TCS (which can be slaved to the radar) gave azimuth data for a short period before the AIM-54s active seeker began guiding. (Which is basically what you said :)). To me, this makes we wonder what else could be done given the Tomcats datalinks, etc. -Nick

Nice references, thanks FWind. -Nick

There is also an interesting report in the VF-2 command long of the Bounty Hunters guiding an AIM-54 with the TCS only. [ame]http://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/archives/command-operation-reports/aviation-squadron-command-operation-reports/vfa/vfa-2/pdf/1987.pdf[/ame] Go to page 11, heading "j" - "Conducted first firing ever of an AIM-54A with TCS lock only" Another interesting technique for ambushing your foe! :thumbup: Like Grundar said, it seems there were some interesting ways of steering the AIM-54, even without RADAR. -Nick

Honest question - who said that? I certainly haven't read anything stating that. The Phoenix was phased out, but for other good reasons: it's launch platform was being retired and there was a smaller/newer alternative. The Phoenix was a big missile - it weighed just over 1000 lbs (AIM-54C). Meaning that a fighter (even the F-14) could not carry 6 of them the way the F-15C carries the AMRAAM. There are publicity photos of F-14s carrying 6 (and it was the "doomsday" load for defending the fleet), but Tomcats heading into a combat zone (for the USN) never really carried more than 2. The typical load out was 2 AIM-54s, 3 AIM-7s, and 2 AIM-9s - sometimes the number of AIM-7s and AIM-9s was reversed. Carrying more than 2 AIM-54s would noticeably impact performance. So the AMRAAM offered the same advantages as the AIM-54 (ARH/fire-forget), but was much smaller. The trade-off was the AIM-54 offered more range (which was often not useful tactically due to ROE) and had a much bigger warhead. In testing, it could destroy targets with proximity hits that did not work for the Sparrow. It was also the first missile specifically designed for destroying a maneuvering target and it was the first air-to-air missile to destroy a drone pulling 6 gs. However, the advantage of hanging 6 AMRAAMS on a fighter vs 2 Phoenixes was really the deciding issue. You couldn't build a small missile with the AIM-54's features when it was new, but 17 years later it was possible - hence the AMRAAM. Also, which combat pilots said it was easy to outmaneuver? The only pilots on the receiving end of an AIM-54 were Iraqi - and essentially all of those shots (supposedly) were from the Iran-Iraq war. Still: Notice the wingtip vapor - that F-4 is pulling at least a few Gs. Also, here is a PDF from NASA who were planning to use the AIM-54 as a hypersonic test vehicle: "https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/126521-OTHER-001-001.pdf" (note - the link is not working for some reason - copy the quoted URL and it should work :)) Page 17 shows their projected performance with a test payload, reaching >Mach 5.0 for more than 8 seconds and over Mach 4.5 for more than 50 seconds. Per this NASA report, it was also capable of climbing to more than 300,000'. -Nick

That's a fair criticism and I'll give you that. My original look at that post left me thinking it was better cited, but all of the non-Cooper links are deactivated and all other links lead to him. I'll kick that part out of the argument. I apologize, that's not how I interpreted your post. Unfortunately, the paper you posted does not have Phoenix statistics, only a brief mention by a member of the USAF who took an event out of context. As such, I did not see how it supported the argument except to say that all missiles have faults. It didn't support the idea that the AIM-54 was particularly troublesome or ineffective. Official statistics on the Phoenix from training shots would be interesting, but recapitulating the poor performance of the Sparrow when the Phoenix was a concerted effort to improve on those faults doesn't support the argument. It's a bit like stating that the F-15A has poor fuel economy and then citing fuel consumption data from the J79. Its not that relevant. So I'm a bit confused as to why this paper was chosen. USAF statistics are facts (some of them at least), my bigger issue was this: This is the part that I take issue with and that I was responding to in my post. Why would this be the case and how does the article strengthen the argument? (Honest question) :) My bigger concern is that the myth of the Phoenix's purpose continues to be reinforced and that part bothers me. Is there a reason you took the above position in the first place? The USN crews who fired it and trained with were very confident in its ability. Bio Baranek has said on himself that the missile was much more capable than his USAF counterparts thought (they also didn't have any insight). Finally, I don't expect the Phoenix to introduce anything particularly new to DCS. All of it's "revolutionary" features are already part of DCS in the form of the AMRAAM. The only novel feature is it's potential range (still higher than anything currently in DCS) and the size of it's warhead. I'm not sure why so many are dismissive of it as an air-to-air weapon, but it shouldn't be regarded as some sort of "super missile". Thoughts? -Nick

Excellent pictures, thank you. :) Are they planning to paint her? Looks like the start of a fresh repaint from your pictures. -Nick

Leatherneck did not give an updated timeline, except to say that their planned video and update are delayed. I wouldn't focus on the end of this week. It could drop at any time, but hard to know when. -Nick

In a drag race? ;) The P-47D was very maneuverable at high altitudes compared to other Allied fighters, I'm unsure of how it compared to German fighters above 25,000'. Chuck Yeager described the Dora as the best fighter he'd ever flown below 22,000', but above 25,000' the P-47D may have an advantage. Plus, I bet it could still out-dive it's German counterparts. The P-47D could reach really high speeds in a dive. -Nick

I'm definitely with you on more MiGs! The MiG-21 and MiG-15 surprised me, I was expecting to prefer the western aircraft that I grew up reading about. I also think the Cold War MiGs are excellent candidate since they are mostly declassified and are not too complicated from a systems standpoint, especially compared to the F/A-18C or F-16C. One aircraft that I would LOVE to see in DCS that is not a MiG is this one: The Su-15TM. Seems pretty obscure to most people, but it actually played a bigger role in Soviet Air Defense than the MiG-25 (which was it's contemporary counterpart). It is a somewhat better rounded fighter, not as fast, but reported to be more maneuverable. Old fashion radar operations and finicky weapons make me happy. I hope we get a lot more MiG modules, especially the MiG-23, MiG-25 (or Su-15TM), and MiG-19. -Nick PS - I should mention that someone would be crazy for doing the Su-15TM before the MiG-23...but I still like it. :)

Looks awesome and a huge improvement over the current map. The forests and mountains are particularly impressive. :thumbup: Thank you for creating it and I certainly will buy it the day its out. :D -Nick

Here ya go ;): MERs were under development when the Marine Corp was interested as a Phantom replacement. Once the Marine Corp backed out citing cost, the development ceased. I still don't think that the MiG-21 is a better multi-role aircraft. Maybe a MiG-21 with rockets is better at taking out a column of vehicles with rockets...maybe... But in terms of the mission set of a multi-role "strike-fighter" - fight your way into enemy territory unescorted, destroy target, and return - the Tomcat is much more capable of that task. It would be better to have more than just iron or cluster bombs, but the advantages in speed (especially when loaded), range, sensors, and self-defense far outweigh the benefit of carrying a rocket pod for attacking one target type. Maybe call a rocket-armed MiG-21 a better ground-attack platform for attacking a vehicle column...I give that maybe...a weak/quiet maybe... The Iraqis demonstrated that iron bombs are better anti-ship weapons against large ships than the Exocet (let alone the Kh-66). Neither iron bombs or the Kh-66 are really good options for attacking a modern US/NATO warship - their SAM capability really demands a long-range fire-forget weapon like a Harpoon. For sinking a merchant vessel, either will do with odds favoring a large iron bomb. Yes, harder to hit with iron bombs, which is why you drop 4. Lets test it out next year...you haven't sold me yet. :) -Nick

Yeah, sort of. But by that metric (weapon variety), the Tomcat with LANTIRN will also be "less multi-role" than the MiG-21. LANTIRN equipped Tomcats still couldn't use rockets or any A-G missiles - just GBUs that could be self-directed. That said, even a Tomcat without LANTIRN is a better multi-role fighter in my eyes (yes, biased eyes, but hear me out :)). The real advantage of the Tomcat as a strike aircraft is it's payload, range, and self-defense capability. When you put bombs on the MiG-21, you significantly compromise it's ability to perform A-A. Most of the MiG's weapons are rear-aspect and all are meant to be employed at close range. Plus, there are only 4 weapon pylons, that must be shared among any combination of A-A and A-G weapons. The Tomcat can carry 8,000 lbs of bombs (about 4x the load of the MiG) and still carry 2 AIM-54Cs and 2 AIM-9Ms, giving it true A-A ability at long, medium, and short range. That sounds like a much more effective and rounded weapon than the MiG carrying a pair of 250 kg bombs and 2 R-3Rs/R-3S/R-13M1. Plus, after dropping it's bombs, the Tomcat could provide real CAP duties with capable and fearsome A-A missiles. RADM Paul Gilchrist wrote in an article (hearsay - but moderately reliable hearsay) that a GE powered F-14 could carry four Mk84s, two AIM-54Cs, and two AIM-9Ms and still fly at over 600 knots at low altitude with military power alone - retaining a combat radius of 500 nm with that load. To me, that is real power projection! It can fly a long way into enemy territory and deliver a heavy load of bombs with less demands upon the support system (CAP fighters, refueling assets) than most other fighters. It can also fly fast at low altitude over a long distance like a B-1B. Adding LANTIRN would certainly widen the scope of operations by adding roles like FAC(A) and dramatically improving accuracy against a wide range of targets. Plus it would allow the F-14 to fly with fewer bombs and still have a better chance of destroying a target. But even with a CCIP delivery, the Tomcat does offer something significant in the A-G role. I expect that the F-14 will be configurable across a wide variety of load-outs (like in real life). All 3D renders have the Phoenix pallets with BRU-32 bomb racks (and no sparrow recesses on the fuselage - likely a pending 3D fix ;)), but I expect that pallets will be removable on the module to allow the 4x4 (sparrow and sidewinder) load-out and a nice mix of A-A and A-G ordnance (Am I correct??). I would still really enjoy strike missions in the F-14B without LANTIRN, but I would enjoy if even more with it. My 2 cents, Nick

Yes, it was awesome! It also really surpassed my expectations. I grew up 20 minutes from the National USAF Museum and it totally spoiled me (it's huge and the depth of the collection really is second to none). But the USN's National museum was also VERY impressive. The collection was also very diverse and included many aircraft that I love, but have never seen in person (F3H Demon, Banshee, Panther, F4F Wildcat, etc, etc). I took too many Demon pictures, not to mention a ton of Tomcat pics (mostly close-up detail shots). The Museum also had more cockpits that you could sit in than I have seen anywhere (F-14A, A-7E, S-3B, C-2A, there's more that I forgot). Overall, it is truly a peer of the National USAF Museum and Smithsonian, very much worth a visit to Pensacola (I'm vacationing in nearby Destin meeting up with family and my sister picked the town - purely a coincidence!). Sitting in a Tomcat cockpit was, of course, very cool as well. I got to do it back in 2000 at another museum in Florida (near Orlando), which I think is the last time I was in Florida. It was a small museum and they had received their Tomcat less than a year before. It was before the "de-milling" program so the airplane was only missing 2 or 3 components from airworthy status. In that case, I got to pop open the boarding ladder and climb in. That was really awesome, because it was essentially a complete and operational Tomcat. I took some pictures, but they disappeared (on a roll of film somewhere - surely gone now...remember film? :)). The best part of the USN National museum was that pretty much all of their aircraft look and seemed like they could fly, plus you have free access to the airframe (like at an airshow). It was the first time since 2003 (when I saw a VF-32 F-14B at the Dayton Air show - that flew there :)), that I walked around a Tomcat that didn't feel like an airplane carcass. That part was totally worth the trip. :thumbup: The fact that the Blue Angels were also practicing over the parking lot...best opener to any museum visit ever! :D -Nick

I am also happy to say that I did sit in an F-14 today. :D Here at the Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola. You can sit in the cockpit off to the right. I didn't take any pictures because all of the instruments are covered in plexiglass (wouldn't have photoed well). But based on what I saw, I think the Aerosoft version is little too thick. It didn't look that bulky in person IMHO. These photos aren't the right orientation for judging (I didn't anticipate this discussion while I was at the museum). But it was a stock canopy and a good point of reference. I HIGHLY recommend this museum if you are a Tomcat fan. This F-14D is one of the few Tomcats in the US that looks like it could still fly. You also have clear access to it (not roped off) and walking around it and under it is so much fun. :D And a fringe benefit, this is the home of the Blue Angels and they happened to be practicing during the visit. This is an iPhone photo (not good for distance objects), but you get the idea: The soloist were also out and made some impressive low-speed passes by the parking lot and buildings. It had rained today and there were some impressive vapors (including some early shockwave formation - one of the passes was probably close to M0.95). There collection was also quite complete and diverse. I wish that I brought a better camera and took more photos, but it was an awesome place to visit. -Nick PS - judging the size of the canopy rails from this dark screenshot is not going to be very accurate. There are too many visual reference points that are missing. It really would be best to wait till there is more info or better pictures. Of note: this canopy looks really good to me in terms of forward canopy thickness and shape. I would use this for comparison more than the very dark screenshot. The "near" portion looks quite correct compared to the cockpit I sat in today.

Well it's worth noting that LNS' picture is not their cockpit, it's a placeholder for coding the HUD. I would hold judgement till they post pics of their actual cockpit. -Nick

The MiG-21 looks complicated, but its not. The navigation systems are easy to learn and the radar is very simplistic. Learning the systems takes less time than learning to really fly the airplane. The MiG-21Bis is also my favorite, followed by the MiG-15Bis, Mi-8, BF109K-4, and Mirage 2000C. I also fly the F-86F, UH-1H, and FW 190D-9 pretty regularly. Overall, I find the MiG-21 to be the most rewarding, mostly because of its personality and the way it flies. If you are a fan of the MiG-15, you would probably really enjoy the MiG-21. I think that you can feel the heritage (if that's possible in a Sim), but the MiG-21 is much higher performance and trickier to take-off/land...but that's the fun part! -Nick

Plane modelling looks hard and I really respect the work that you are doing here. Especially since there are so many little nuances that don't translate even on perfect drawings (how often are they perfect anyway?) and photos can be skewed, etc. But here is the important part, your current model REALLY looks like a Tomcat! :D And watching it in motion really strikes a chord, it looks awesome. Most of these little errors will only be noticed by nerds like me, but the total effect of creating such a perfect model really does enhance the overall experience. Even after over a year of flying the MiG-21 (almost daily) - I'm still amazed by the visuals. It gives me real confidence that the Tomcat will be perfect when its done. :thumbup: Thanks again for your tireless attention to my favorite airplane! -Nick

Hi Leatherneck, I love the new movie and the Tomcat 3D model looks outstanding, especially the nose (which is often not captured quite right). I did notice that the rear beaver-tail seems slightly short (relative to the exhaust nozzles and horizontal stabilizers): Here is a comparison shot on another F-14B. Shape seems good, just slightly short. Also, the flare/chaff dispenser is a bit small and a bit out of position. Thanks for listening. :) Best, Nick PS - BTW, this little fault, wingroot, and the "Hasegawa-like" TCS are the only problems that I see. Everything else looks perfect IMHO. Also, if this type of "3D feedback" post gets irritating, let me know. I don't have an ego about it, just letting you know what I see. :)

It's ALIVE! :D I was hoping that a first video is coming and this does not disappoint. :) -Nick

Hi Racoon, I saw the new map screenshots in the weekend update, the map looks beautiful! With all of the scattered small towns and period architecture, it will be an awesome place for sightseeing in the new Spitfire IX. :D Thank you for the sneak peak, this map is going to seriously enhance my DCS fun. -Nick

I think that figure is all labor since there are effectively minimal "material costs". But numbers in that range for total cost of development have been mentioned in a few places. ED stated that their investment in the Bf109's flight model alone was $120K. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126824 Leatherneck mentioned on their facebook (last summer) that a full fidelity DCS module runs in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of total development cost. It's nearly all the cost of labor (if I were to guess - with some costs for the right computer hardware, software, office space, etc). But the cost of expertise and time is the real driver of expense here. -Nick

Awesome pictures, thank you for posting! -Nick

Me too, though there certainly are things to talk about. The Tomcat theater is still a big mystery and the LNS Tomcat is supposed to have a novel failures model that can generate "up gripes" at mission start and nuanced failures during flights. That sounds intriguing, plus Cobra could talk about Jester AI. So lots of possibilities for part II. -Nick

Not to mention the fact that many are comparing in-cockpit sounds to exterior sounds, which could be very different. And like you said, since these things are very individualistic - there is no true correct or incorrect IMHO. -Nick