BlackLion213

Another excellent photo collection, this time from Dave "Hey Joe" Parsons. Also a famous F-14 RIO, he started in the F-14 during the early 80s with VF-102. He became very interested in TARPS and is extended his TARPS interest to taking remarkable photographs of the F-14. He joined VF-32 during 1989 and deployed Desert Storm. He later was actively involved in the F-14s LANTIRN integration and development of precision strike. He had quite an accomplished career in the Navy and was also the principle author of this highly recommended book. He has probably taken and published as many F-14 photos as anyone. These photos are mostly from his "Shoebox" collection and recently scanned/restored. Some of these photos may resemble other published shots, because he published A LOT of photos. I tried to post shots that look unpublished. Dave Parsons posted these on his page facebook if you want to check out some of his other pictures. VF-101 Tomcat taking off from Oceana. VF-101 Tomcat over Key West - the East Coast hub for USN ACM training. AC210 in the foreground is a TARPS bird returning from a mission - you can tell because there is a AN/ALQ-167 countermeasures pod mounted on the phoenix pallet. There may be an extended chaff dispenser on the other pallet, but I can't see it in this photo. The other 2 tomcats visible are carrying the standard Tomcat Desert Storm loadout (2 Phoenix, 3 Sparrows, 2 Sidewinders). Nice shot showing the arbitrary touch-ups of TPS Tomcats. This photo is from the 1989 cruise, you can tell because aircraft are carrying AIM-54As instead of AIM-54Cs. Even though the AIM-54C entered service in 1986, there are no photos of F-14s carrying them (that I have seen) until Desert Storm. Same for the HGU-55 helmet, which showed up around the same time. Same cruise with AIM-54A Combined refueling - both USN and USAF assets. Amazing terrain! -Nick

A few new Bill Paisley pics :): This one might be Dave Parsons...but same theme. :) More from him soon! I have more from another photographer that are outstanding - lots of great stuff. But first...need to charge my laptop. :D -Nick

Tirak, why so worked-up over something thats not happening? No one with ED or any Third party has presented any scheme remotely like this - just TurkeyDriver's opinion (which he is certainly free to share without having his head examined). Anyway...it would be nice to have LANTIRN on the F-14B. :thumbup: -Nick

It's the same reason I don't like Porsches (new ones at least, along with electric steering, and DCT/PDK on all but the base cars - but I digress...). :) I doubt that LNS would do that. The only reasonable situation where you have to buy LANTIRN capability might be with a separate F-14B Upgrade module that includes a new cockpit for the RIO MFD, DFCS, and LANTIRN. But I wouldn't loose sleep over it, a developer that plans free maps with it's module is unlikely to start charging extra for sensors and ordnance. At least thats my thought. -Nick

Ah man, you must HATE Porsche....;) I also think the F-14A would be best first, followed by the B. It seems to be the simplest logistically since there are no avionics or features, save for the F110 engines, that are present on the A, but not the B. Also, it would not make a good first impression for the F-14A if people try it out after the F-14B. It's hard to go from one aircraft to it's less powerful and less capable twin. But there may be factors that compel LNS to do things the other way around. All of their external shots thus far are of the F-14B (except for 2-3 shots in their 5/15 update). I can't see a reason to deliberately withhold a LANTIRN feature if available. I could easily see it being delayed for development or LNS deciding that they want their F-14B to represent an earlier F-14B, if that is their vision. The presence of the LITENING pod on the A-10C implies that developing LANTIRN is feasible, but if LNS needs to develop it from the ground up (like they did with ground radar in the Viggen) it will probably take some time. -Nick

Didn't know about the recent changes to the Reagan and Bush, of course things are bound to evolve since the class leader was commissioned 36 years before the most recent CVN-77. However, I think they could pick 1 typical example or 2 different versions that reflect the most common configuration. I agree, having all of those 3D changes is too much, nor would I notice. :music_whistling: Just changing the hull number would go a long way and offer the most flexibility to mission planners and scenarios. Having a slightly earlier version of the Nimitz and later configuration would be a big bonus if feasible. I also would love to someday have a variety of carriers of different eras and classes, but I think that's jumping ahead too much. Hopefully there will be an opportunity to develop more, it will probably depend on how difficult these DLC carriers are to create (I'm hoping they are much simpler than aircraft or terrains). -Nick

Hello, With several different USN aircraft under development and a few different eras; it would be wonderful to be able to change the side-numbers to represent different Nimitz class carriers. DCS really raises the realism bar over other Simulations and it would be great to have the flexibility to represent real events. The Nimitz was the only Nimitz carrier that deployed to the Strait of Hormuz during the late 1980s (from what I read), so the ability to choose different members of the class would allow for more accurate scenarios. It would also be great to have a 1980s/early-90s 3D model versus a 2000-2010s 3D model. I think the only real 3D changes over that period was to antennas and arrays (IIRC :)). I think that having the options to create the USS Nimitz in 1988 for an F-14A campaign and then use the same carrier module to create a scenario with the USS John Stennis in the 2000s would really push the upcoming USN modules forward. While I would gladly catapult a F-14A off a carrier from 2012, it would limit the interest in things like DLC campaigns and make the experience a bit less complete. As always, thank you for listening and I'm really looking forward to these USN modules! -Nick

That man had a seriously impressive life! Both very interesting and very long, wish we could all be so lucky and accomplished. Rest in peace, -Nick

Oh yeah, this part will definitely happen - it should be lumped in with "death and taxes" around these parts. :doh: [ame] [/ame] -Nick

Yes, I was referring to USN service. :) And trying to post a reminder that combat aircraft fight things beyond their expected, classic enemy. You don't have to worry about me forgetting the Tomcat's Iranian service - my father is Persian. ;) I want to believe the reports of the F-14A's IRIAF service record, I wish they could better sort out the real figure. I think Tom Cooper's estimate of nearly 150 is a bit overzealous, but I also believe that it shot down a lot of IrAF fighters. The CIA was willing to confirm Jalil Zandi's record of 11 kills, quite impressive by modern air combat standards. -Nick

YES! :D Thank you for the info! -Nick

I really like this post MatteBubben. :) Which begs the question: isn't the AJS-37 Viggen also an excellent opponent for the MiG-21? I think the "proper opponent" is really about 2 aircraft where neither has a huge advantage over the other (like MiG-21Bis vs AMRAAM equipped F-15C - a bridge too far). Plus, history has created some interesting opponents. The F-14A has fired nearly as many shots at the F-4E as the MiG-23 in US service...:huh: I speak of the incident in 1987 when VF-21 engaged a pair of IRIAF F-4E Phantoms in the Strait of Hormuz. Each Tomcat fired a sparrow and the IRIAF promptly turned and ran, the Tomcat's were ordered off before missile impact and intentionally broke their lock (it is presumed that the missiles missed). With out upcoming Strait of Hormuz theater, Tomcats and Hornets (and Mirages, F-15s, A-10s, anything US, NATO, or allied - which could also be Russian) may spend more time fighting F-4Es, F-5Es, and F-14As than anything from Sukhoi or Mikoyan. I say good opponents are anything that end up in front of you and happen to be hostile - hopefully its something that doesn't totally outclass you. :) -Nick

Ahh...found the problem! You need an eye exam. ;) Get that cleared up and things will make more sense. :D I kid, but it is a pretty similar argument. Plus, all this L-39, Spitfire, and F/A-18 Hornet development is totally interfering with the development of the ultimate DCS module: The F3H-2 Demon! It's perfect! Carrier ops, multi-role, and...my most critical litmus test - it's wearing a BlackLion! :D But I don't understand how decisions are made around here..... ;) -Nick PS: The community here has it made it quite clear that they want complete aircraft, things with SFM and SSM have not been well-received. FYI...

I think Dave "Bio" Baranek commented in his book: "mustaches weren't required, but nearly all of us had them." It seemed pretty standard issue in the 1980s....not so much now (sometimes people make bad choices :D). Glad you enjoyed the pictures. :) -Nick

:megalol: I do have a mustache, but it's not fake. It was extensively "stress tested" by my 6 year old daughter (mostly when she was younger than 6), I can attest that it's quite solid. ;) That said, in this context, I find it's a funny coincidence that I have a twin brother...and his name is Michael. (No, not a joke). -Nick (NHP)

Yeah, all I can do is hand you a magazine while you wait... ;) I'm not one of those privileged (and very hard working) few who gets to see progress shots of this masterpiece. This helps me to pass the time, like you I'm really anxious to see what the real Tomcat module looks like. Thanks guys! -Nick

That real picture is not how a human eye would see it, especially at a distance, it's too bright. I think the screenshot is too dark as well, but I don't think it's a good comparison. I think that everyone would like larger maps, but getting the tech developed and working takes time. Plus, there is a trade-off with big maps and long mission times, you need a LONG time to play those missions. A Iraq map for OIF style missions would be totally unplayable for me, I don't have a 6 hour block of time that is available for computer related recreation (it would cost too much political capital on the home front - I use that capital for other things...). Strait of Hormuz is going to be very realistic at that size. When real combat took place there in 1988, the aircraft spent only 15-20 minutes to get on station. The F-14As that provided CAP had an honest combat radius of 500 nm with their war-loads, but they still needed tanking to stay on station long enough to complete their missions. Transit distance is not the only thing that requires tanking. The great thing about SoH is that it allows for realistic missions that don't have to take 6 hours, it's an excellent balance between realism and practical gameplay. Plus, I bet that each map that ED (and 3rd parties) release will be bigger than the last. Over the next few years, we may actually get some rather large maps - if all goes smoothly. -Nick

That's a really great point and yes, it's rather remarkable. On both the computer's processing ability and the complexity of these programs. When I was in High School, one of my math teachers was a retired USAF Colonel (started as a pilot in the B-36) who was a mission commander for some of the early Apollo missions. He liked to remind us that the massive computer that occupied most of the Apollo command module had less than half the computational capability of our Ti-82 calculators. And now look at how much processing power is built into our phones, let alone the kind of computer needed to run DCS well. Pretty staggering! Plus, isn't the physics modeling and avionics modeling the smaller task for the computer compared to the graphics/visuals? Progress indeed. -Nick

Plus, the F-15E is a really complicated module, possibly more complicated than the Hornet (excluding the need to develop carrier ops for the Hornet). Especially since it needs multi-crew support or some form of AI like the upcoming Tomcat. I remain optimistic that we will have a F-15E module in DCS, but I don't expect it soon. Big projects take time... On another note, having an AV-8B NA sounds excellent to me. As an american, I have a slight preference for the AV-8B, but I would gladly accept any form of Harrier. I am very thankful that Razbam is so straightforward/transparent about these issues. I really appreciate that! -Nick

Hello, I found another nice photo repository online, it is full of pictures from that seem either unpublished or not widely publicized. I've looked at a lot of Tomcat pictures over the years and most of the photos on the website are new to me. Most of them are "ramp shots", but there are some relatively rare subjects/schemes buried in there. I found some excellent photos and even found a real picture of NH211 (been looking for a complete photo of it for 10 years...that got my attention :)). Here are a few of my favorites, there are over a hundred more on the site. http://www.flickriver.com/groups/2848142@N25/pool/ The topic aircraft are very familiar, but the actual photos are unique to my eyes. VF-111 CAG from their 1986-87 cruise, great looking bird in Gull grey and hi-viz markings. Again at NAS Fallon during work-ups. NH200 of the VF-213 in disruptive camo for a detachment, these were actually water colors! It is also one of the best photos for showing demarcation lines for TPS. For some reason, VF-213 photos haven't shown these well. Here is similar disruptive camo peeling off a VF-2 aircraft in 1988. VF-32 in fresh TPS (more or less) in 1985. And now a shot of the TPS as it ages...much harder to sort out the scheme after a few years. Unique TPS pattern for this VF-103 Tomcat during the mid-80s (around the time of the Achille Lauro incident), most would sport a more "standard" scheme. Here is VF-103 in 1984, just after the TPS transition. And a VERY blotchy VF-103 Tomcat 2 years later. Looks like the aircraft was arbitrarily touched up with the dark, topside color throughout. That happened a lot, most maintainers didn't think too much about that when touching up, especially in the 1980s. Also of interest, AC212 is a TARPS Tomcat and is carrying the CATM-7 ballast weights on the forward sparrow recesses. These blue sparrow bodied weights were used to optimally balance the Tomcat for TARPs missions and were most often seen in training. During fleet operations, Tomcats more often used Phoenix pallets or live AIM-7s for ballast, though the CATM-7 was the best option. Tomcats needed to carry something on the forward fuselage to balance the TARPS pod in the rear of aircraft, otherwise the CG would shift too far rearward for safe operations. The CATM-7 was quite dense, it weighed 1000 lbs. VF-24 CAG in 1988, when CVW-9 switched to the Nimitz. This scheme is of interest since there are only a few Tomcat squadrons that served on a Nimitz class carrier during the mid-late 80s. Since Eagle Dynamics is creating a Nimitz class carrier for DCS, this scheme would seem to be more relevant than some. It also sports a false canopy, which VF-24 only used for their 1988 cruise (from what I can tell). It is a different pattern than that used by the Tomcats of CVW-11 (VF-114/VF-213). Among Tomcat squadrons, false canopies were only used by VF-114, VF-213, VF-2, and VF-24. Both VF-2 and VF-24 used the false canopy for one cruise in the late-80s. VF-114/VF-213 had their false canopies for multiple cruises (at least 3 for each squadron). Sister squadron CO bird, VF-211 during her first cruise on Nimitz - 1988. Here is a crew shot of NG105 from the same cruise. The VF-211 low-viz scheme looked the same as the CO bird, except that all markings were "Euro Gray" and applied over standard TPS. The low-viz visor was sported intermittently by VF-211 for many years. VF-51 CAG for their 1986-87 cruise, first US Carrier visit to the Bering sea in many years. Photo taken at Fallon. VF-213 line bird around 1984, during their transition from gull grey to TPS schemes: The only colorful line-bird in VF-114 in the mid-late 1980s (from what I have seen) - NH107 VF-114 in 1987 at Fallon. The aircraft of VF-114 and VF-213 were quite weathered during the 1980s, as were most TPS birds during the era. I find these aircraft to be fascinating to look at. The underlying TPS scheme starts to disappear under the endless number of touch-ups. Part of it is the photo (might be slightly over-exposed), you can see a Tomcat nose in the left background with comparatively clear demarcation lines. Regular photos of VF-213 during the mid-late 1980s are surprisingly rare, I've been hunting them for years. VF-114 photos seem to outnumber them 10:1, not sure why. I've been looking for a photo of NH211 for a long time (are partial shot of NH211 was my avatar for a while) and this photo finally allowed me to confirm the BuNo. There are LOTS of other photos, many of which are more colorful. I'm fond of these since I like grey Tomcats from the West Coast, but there is an excellent variety on the website, including some later photos and Tomcats in museums. I hope you like the website. :) -Nick PS - if anyone would like a hand finding photos for a specific squadron or era, I'm happy to help.

I very much agree, in fact here are two articles from Jalopnik last year (which is really a car enthusiast site with some military aviation thrown in for diversity): DCS World Is About To Become The Air Combat Sim Of My Dreams F-14 Tomcat In The Works For The Most Elaborate Air Combat Sim Ever Prior to this, there was just one Jalopnik article concerning DCS and it wasn't really promoting it. Did A Decade Old Russian Flight Sim Predict The Invasion Of Crimea? DCSW 2.0, NTTR, Straight of Hormuz, the Hornet, The Tomcat, and carrier ops are generating real interest from non-traditional sources. I have high hopes for the next couple of years. -Nick

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of more products coming out and more developers creating content. I just don't think that now is the time. As Vincent90 said, there are about 16 modules that "could" release in 2016 (most likely less), but there is A LOT pending. Plus, these releases will give sales data to ED which will help shape their future direction and decide the best points of emphasis. Good integration is essential for creating a complete sim-world for DCS. I think more people will join the fray once these new releases are out and (hopefully) successful. Plus, I want our current 3rd Party developers to reap the rewards of their VERY hard work and willingness to be an early investor in DCS' future. Leatherneck and Razbam have both delivered excellent products (IMHO - with some WIP features), I want them to make money and stay in the business. Thank you Vincent90, I hear what you are saying about advertising and it's risks. That said, it seems that Aviation Nerds are reasonably common! I've been surprised by talking to co-workers and friends that many have an interest, but are totally unaware of things like DCS. You could be right, that very few of them would want the detail of DCS or are ready to make the capital investment. But most of these people that I mention really want to know what it was like to fly these aircraft, they aren't looking for an alternative to a typical video game, they are looking for an alternative to real flight. In fact, I use DCS to supplement my driving hobby, not to replace other computer games. It's a great alternative since it taps into a lifelong interest, is very safe (from what I can tell), and can be played for 30-60 minutes to relax in an evening (compared to firing up the beast, driving to reasonable roads, dealing with seasonal weather/visibility issues, concerns about demanding drives when fatigued, etc...). I think others would do something similar. A lot of guys grew up thinking about fighter aircraft and becoming a pilot, much of that interest still persists, even if dormant. This says it all. There is a bunch of stuff on the way! I think we should have this discussion next year and see how things have changed. Some of the 3rd Parties appear to be struggling at the moment (VEAO and Aviodev), but struggle and failure should not be viewed synonymously. Struggle is how you really learn, I think that both these developers will be looking much better at the end of this year...just my guess. -Nick

A lot of good points in this discussion, but do we really need a lot more 3rd parties? On the surface, it seems appealing to have a huge cadre of people working on DCS projects. However, if the market share is too small, these 3rd parties won't be able to sustain themselves and things will fizzle. I think that DCS has a large number of pending projects at the moment, both among 3rd parties and Eagle Dynamics. As a platform, DCS is just starting to show what it can do with new maps, new eras, new aircraft, true multi-crew, and carrier operations. Once these new features are out and working, more people will take notice and consider developing for the platform. Even as a player, I was planning to wait till DCS2, the Hornet, and carrier ops were released before trying out DCS....but the announcement of the Tomcat changed all of that! Also, having the diversity of 1940s-modern combat aviation under one program is a big advantage, I think. As a user (and not a sophisticated computer user) having one program with excellent graphics, consistently high-quality modules, and a consistent user interface is an advantage. I much prefer that to using 4 different programs for different eras and aircraft types. One of the things that annoyed me about FSX/P3D when I was starting: I never knew what to expect from an add-on aircraft. Some were very high-quality, others bore no resemblance to the aircraft they claimed to simulate. Having a consistently high-standard (among finished modules at least) is a big selling point for me. Otherwise, you find an aircraft that you like while searching for P3D add-ons, then do a bunch of research and realize that it's no good. I don't like that much... I also think this post captures most of the issues: I am a casual computer person/sim-er, in that I don't have much of any experience with computer games, computer operations, and I don't know how to trouble-shoot most software/hardware interface problems too well. That said, I found DCS to be very user friendly for controls compared to P3D or Rise of Flight. The only issue with DCS and a new module is that it assigns all of the control axes to all of my controls (control stick, throttle, and rudder pedals). Deleting those takes 2 minutes and the rest is personalized anyway - so I don't mind deciding that stuff myself. But I agree that there is a missed opportunity for DCS, they might benefit from more advertising and to audiences beyond the typical computer gamer. I didn't play computer games/sims at all till January 2015 (not a single one - last time was 1998-99 with Jane's F-15 and a few quick tries of LOMAC in 2002-3). I was under the impression that flight-sims were dead....there was no media to convince me otherwise. What happened was that I was looking for a Tomcat takeoff video on youtube and stumbled onto a tutorial for the Aerosoft Tomcat - how to recover from compressor stalls, flat spin, etc. My jaw dropped! The 3D model looked amazing, interactive cockpit, excellent flight dynamics (per reviewers). I bought my first desktop in 7 years, a Thrustmaster Warthog, rudder pedals, and P3D just to try it out. I wasn't disappointed! However, as good as I thought that was, DCS was a whole order of magnitude better (1.2.16 is what I started with) and now I barely touch P3D. The MiG-21 was so far beyond anything I had experienced before and so much better than I ever thought a desktop simulation could become. Now I own all the modules (except the Hawk - waiting the the EFM and the SFM FC3 aircraft). I think there is a good number of people who love aviation (like me), don't play computer games much or at all, but would love to fly a flight sim of DCS caliber to experience their favorite aircraft (or just fighters in general). Aviation is still popular with many people of all ages, but doing it for real is quite costly (or impossible for things like carrier ops or anything resembling ACM with another aircraft) - so the flight simulation has a good opportunity to address this need. But people need to know that it exists! When the Tomcat and Hornet are out, I think DCS would benefit from an aggressive advertising campaign to target Aviation enthusiasts - things like King Hrothgar mentioned, youtube ads connected to aviation videos, google advertisements, etc. I've owned the A-10C for 9 months, but only took 2-3 flights in it (averaging 5 minutes). I was not a A-10 fan prior to DCS, but this trailer convinced me to start the training modules and really learn to fly it: [ame] [/ame] I can't imagine what I would have done if I'd seen a video of this quality for the Tomcat or Hornet, with no knowledge of DCS, while searching the internet. Well....probably what I did for P3D! :D So...I agree that DCS needs more fans to facilitate for 3rd party developers. I really believe that more users will come with more awareness and not just advertising to traditional computer gamers. -Nick

Ah hah.... I always figured there was good entertainment in Japan, this string of events leaves me wondering. ;) -Nick

I get the beer and the chair...what's the truck for?