BlackLion213

This is a rather surprising conversation for 2016... I can tell you that from a medical/physiological standpoint, there is nothing preventing women from matching or exceeding the performance of men in the aviation world. In fact, there smaller stature (on average) gives them an advantage in G-tolerance (smaller water column to support with regards to their arteries, less mass, etc), which has been supported by testing. Furthermore, from a proceduralist/operations standpoint, the differences between men and women is quite a bit smaller (or frankly absent) than the differences between individuals in general. My career supports this as well. I'm a Spine Surgeon (Orthopaedic) and the field of Medicine in general has substantially changed over the past few decades. Now, 50% (or slightly more) of all medical school grads are women and a large number of them choose surgical specialties. They have no perceptible disadvantages in the operating room compared to male counterparts. My specialty and subspecialty is still majority men (like 90%) and we're not sure why. It might be more the "boys will be boys" stuff that NeilWillis mentioned (the same way that I REALLY did not enjoy my OB/GYN rotation in which I was the only man - all residents, med students, and nearly all attendings were women - I can only talk about shoes for 30-60 seconds... ;). I was definitely an outsider for that rotation). It just seems that Flight sims are not a classic interest for women (my wife has no intrinsic interest, same thing with cars, etc). That may change with time as well, but it certainly has nothing to do with capability or teachability. -Nick

Here we go again... False on all counts, please redo your math and find some proper reading. ;) -Nick PS - This forum has tons of posts with real performance data if you are interested. The AIM-54 does not have much published, but there is lots of references that explicitly state that the AIM-54 was designed to destroy a wide variety of targets including fighters and cruise missiles. Maneuvering drone...

Nothing to apologize for. :) People do get rather insane about crowning something as "the best". It's preyy ridiculous, I'm still waiting for the hundred page debate over rice versus pasta - which is the one true carb! ;) Though I'm a bit confused by this: Are these statements of fact or your expectations? I don't know about the the F-15's radar leaking oil, but I wouldn't call the performance of the Hornet or Tomcat poor. To me, that's the real interest of the simulator - no machine is perfect and everything has strengths and weaknesses. The F-14A is definitely vulnerable to other 4th gen fighters during ACM at 25,000' (because of the engines - both reliability and thrust), but the equation reverses below 10,000' (where both reliability and thrust are much better). The Hornet has remarkable ITR, but exercising that ITR for more than 180 degrees bleeds a lot of energy and makes the Hornet vulnerable - especially with it's FBW AOA limiter. The pilot's ability to work around limitations and maximize strengths is the key to it all. Which is why I always chuckle when people want to crown one fighter the ultimate dogfighter - would it ever really matter? It still wouldn't allow you to predict the outcome of an engagement based on aircraft type alone. Plus, let's say that the F-15 is declared far superior to the F-14 (it's not ;)), would it change anything? The F-15 couldn't land on a carrier and couldn't meet the USN's BVR requirements (till the 1990s at least). It's like rice versus pasta.... -Nick PS - My offer still stands for F-14A vs MiG-21Bis ACM engagement - guns only. :D

The AMRAAM is such a superlative weapon that it can act as an equalizer of sorts. Just about any aircraft that carries the AIM-120 is very dangerous in the A-A arena. It also takes some of the fun and challenge out of the air combat experience IMHO. Even though DCS is built upon the intent of delivering the most realistic air combat experience possible, many people's mission expectations seem out of sync with reality. I think many users or potential users still expect the over-hyped US vs Soviet type scenarios. They imagine a US/NATO fighter heading into combat and shooting down 3-5 enemies in a single engagement. The AIM-120 supports this vision and is part of the reason that everyone wants it (plus people like to win...I get that). But I still think that things are more fun when the weapons are hard to employ and the kills are few. If you engage an enemy, jockey for the advantage, but then disengage when your weapon misses - both still have the opportunity to re-engage or find another engagement in a single mission. Seems like more fun per mission, the struggle is the fun part. I'm hoping that as more full DCS modules are released (a good number coming this year - hopefully) without the AMRAAM, there will be more incentive to offer MP with only Fox1 and Fox2 weapons. I think that a mix-up between Hornets, Tomcats, Mirages, MiG-21s, F-5Es, and Viggens with only beam-riding missiles or IR would be excellent (I'm happy to fly the F-14 without the Phoenix). I totally get why that appeals, it keeps the F-4 relevant against the Su-27 and F-15C, but why would we want to? I don't think it proves anything, plus the F-4 was already King-of-the Hill for a couple decades (more or less). I don't think that Custard thought it was wrong to create it per se, more that adding more AMRAAM launchers to DCS might be counter-productive (though he was less diplomatic - that is true). Much like the MiG-21, any F-4 could still get plenty of kills in MP, but they would be hard-earned. I still think fighters with old sparrows and R-3s would make the A-A environment more fun, but just my opinion. Plus, it's not like we have to worry about this - there doesn't seem to be an F-4 coming anytime soon. -Nick

I was hoping to find a MiG opponent like you...lets play for money. :D -Nick

Huh? It would have improved handling a bit, mostly by improving roll response and improving departure resistance at high AOA (especially since the roll SAS in the AFCS system actually worsens departure resistance above 17 units of AOA). The biggest benefit would have been lower pilot workload during carrier approaches, especially the Tomcat's notorious wandering nose. I'm not really going to miss it, but it would have offered a nice contrast between the F-14A and F-14B handling. That said, I prefer aircraft that are a handful on landing. :D More entertaining! -Nick

You seem fine criticizing the preferences of others. So why are you so worked up about other users criticizing your preferences? Also, no one here is restricting you ability to play anything, nor is anyone here actually deciding what kind of aircraft are chosen for development. The 3rd parties choose their aircraft for development based on what info they can obtain, their own interests/passion, and perceived popularity of a given variant. No regular user on this forum is in a position to dictate what version of an aircraft gets developed, so relax a bit?? As I've said before and much like WinterH, I'm not bothered by the option to load non-prototypical weapons on an airframe for MP. I wouldn't do it, but it's fine if others want to - the developers can just put a check-box in the payload manager. It gets a bit weird for a high-fidelity sim like DCS to create things like HUD symbology and procedures for doing something that never happened. But there is also a game-mode for the avioncs - so why not add this as well? In the end, it's up to the developer to decide what is best for their module. Calling people names on the forum gets your cause and interests no where. -Nick

Makes good sense. Thank you for the update.:) -Nick

No, I'm in too! :D -Nick

That would probably be the F-4E and the F-4J. They went into service a bit earlier, but seem the closest match from what I can see. Why settle for a new one when you can get the old one? ;) I like learning how to do things the "old fashion way" and experiencing the aircraft as it was operated during it's own era. If I want to use 90s and later weapons in a modern-ish battlefield, I'd rather fly a Hornet, B Tomcat, or Eagle. Just my preference. Though I understand the desire to have a modernized aircraft like this on the MP servers. It just seems like a narrower use-case for the creation of the module and passing on an opportunity to try out aviation in the 1960s. Just my opinion though. -Nick

The F-4, especially the unslatted F-4s, definitely confirmed the need for proper DACT training. If flown improperly (which means intuitively for the F-4), it's easy to get into big trouble against a whole range of aircraft. This book has a lot of great stories (concerning both the F-4B/J and F-14A): http://www.amazon.com/ROGER-BALL-ODYSSEY-MONROE-FIGHTER/dp/1605280054/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454217988&sr=8-1-fkmr2&keywords=roger+ball+austen John "Hawk" Smith started his career as an F-4B RIO, before the days of DACT. His first deployment was a total eye-opener concerning their real capabilities. Back in 1965, Phantoms only fought other Phantoms in training. The Phantom crews, flying the best fighter in the world (they believed), were very confident in their ACM capabilities. So Hawk's first cruise involved an international exercise in the Mediterranean against the French Air Force flying Super Mysteres and Mystere IVs. During this exercise, the USN had a dreadful exchange rate against the French - partly because the French created rules that favored them (and still cheated, bouncing Phantoms during case III recoveries or in marshall) and because the Phantom crews were doing the intuitive thing - fighting at the horizontal and not managing their energy very well. Hawk thought that their poor showing was really a matter of biased rules, etc. But later in the cruise, he and his pilot broke the rules and engaged a pair of A-4Cs from their airwing in a friendly hassle. From his account, it took about 90 seconds before the Phantom was in heavy buffet, at less than 200 knots, and getting shots called by the A-4s every 3-4 seconds. The worst part - Hawk looks back at these A-4s calling shots and realizes that they never even broke cruise formation! He was pretty demoralized seeing his Phantom flogged repeatedly by a pair of attack pilots. You may say that this pilot clearly didn't know what he was doing - and you'd be right. The problem was that NONE of the Phantom pilots in the fleet really knew how to fight their aircraft to it's strengths. However, all this would change when the Phantom crews developed real tactics and learned the relative strength of the aircraft. The Phantom crews learned to keep the fight in the vertical, use rudder reversals at the top of their climb, and stay away from horizontal maneuvers at low or medium airspeeds. John "Masher" Carrier also laid it out in an excerpt from this book: http://www.amazon.com/Grumman-F-14-Tomcat-Reminiscences-Service/dp/0760339813/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1454218955&sr=8-3&keywords=Bye+Bye+Baby He flew the F-8, F-4, and F-14 in service. "Fly it (the Phantom) like an F-8 and you'll lose the fight. Fly it pure vertical with hard turns at both ends and you'll win. For my my first 500 hours I was saying - No wonder we always thrashed this thing. For my second 500 hours I was saying - How did we EVER thrash this thing?" BTW - I would REALLY love a Phantom module (second for me to only the F-14), especially the F-4B with 60s carrier ops. Would be huge fun. But as you can see from these stories, there are reasons why someone might view the Phantom as beatable in the ACM arena. It did take time to find the best way to fight it - then it was very capable. -Nick

No, it was actually the first US missile to hit a drone maneuvering at more than 6 Gs. The ability to hit maneuvering and low flying targets was an important part of it's original design specifications. There are reasons that it wasn't adapted to other US aircraft, namely size and weight. It was a really big missile - ~13' (4 meters) and 987 lbs. Mounting multiple Phoenixes on the 40,000 lb F-14 led to noticeable changes in performance, can you imagine the hit to a 28,000 lb F-15C or 17,000 lb F-16C? The AIM-54 had to be big. When it was originally developed, the size of the electronics and radar demanded a certain size for the nose and fuselage. Also, it had a big warhead because the USN wanted it to be effective against bombers (one hit one kill) and against cruise missiles (large blast radius with improved odds of a "range/indirect hit"). Lastly, for effectiveness against bombers with cruise missiles, they wanted a lot of range and a powerful (and heavy) rocket motor. The rocket motor was also an essential part of improving it's effectiveness against fighters, since it would give much more energy for maneuvering against agile targets. Of course, even back in the 1970s, the dream was for a missile with the capability of the Phoenix, but smaller and lighter than the sparrow. But the tech simply wasn't there in the 1970s and early 1980s. But by the mid-80s and early-90s, digital processors and miniaturization had delivered and the dream arrived: the AIM-120 AMRAAM. The AMRAAM offered Phoenix like capabilities (with less range and a smaller warhead) in a more reliable package and for 1/3rd the weight. Therefore, you could mount a bunch of them on a fighter ranging from small to large without the performance penalties of carrying 2 Phoenixes. However, there was a 17 year gap between the Phoenix going operational and the AMRAAM entering service. It didn't even exist for the first half of the Tomcat's service life. The AIM-54C was still very relevant for the USN even after the AMRAAM because it offered more range against bombers (and fighters - but the range is more relevant for the bomber/cruise missile threat) and a bigger warhead. In short (have I ever done short? ;)), the AIM-54 wasn't adapted to other fighters or kept in service because it was big and the compact solution eventually came to fruition. It wasn't a matter of the Phoenix being inadequate against fighters or not meeting expectations ("Bio" Baranek insists it was actually better at fighters than most would think). The future is the AMRAAM and the Phoenix didn't make sense of the other US fighters once the tech allowed for the "compact phoenix". But from 1974 to 1991, the Phoenix was in a class of it's own as a BVR weapon and it was good enough to still be a real threat even after 1991, even if it's tech was outdated. At least this is what I've gathered from my reading. :) -Nick

The texture/surface details of that fuselage looks amazing! Incredibly realistic. It seems that every new module (from ED at least) really pushes the visuals a step further. The Spitfire IX is one of my very favorite WWII fighters and I'm elated with what I've seen so far. The last cockpit renders were gorgeous as well! -Nick

Doubt it, Tomcats don't have dreams....being machines and everything. ;) I think the real nightmare is realizing that the opposing pilot really knows what he is doing. I'm also not sure, but I think it would be a really interesting match-up. The Tomcat (Bs and Ds) and Flankers are remarkably similar. Same basic operating weight, nearly identical thrust, similar wing area, and large lifting area in the fuselage. IF (big if, pardon the pun) the F-14B gets DFCS, then things get even closer. Can't wait to try it out. :D -Nick

That's still my favorite Tomcat video. It's awesome! I particularly like the "Hornet eye for the Fighter guy" segment and the transition back to channel "14". :D Best ever... I've posted Fighter Fling 2004 to the forum a few times myself. :music_whistling: Certainly it's a great reminder that the Enterprise had a lot of great adventures in the 1980s. Actually all 3 cruises after 1985 were really eventful: World Cruise in 1986 with undisclosed operations off Libya, WestPac in 1988 with Combat Ops in the Strait of Hormuz, another World Cruise in 1989-90. Quite a lot of action for just a few years....especially during the precise timeframe of the LNS F-14A...:music_whistling: Enterprise certainly was my favorite carrier and would make an awesome addition to DCS carrier ops. It was such a distinctive and storied ship - no wonder all the movies wanted to film on her while she launched F-14s. :D -Nick

Yeah, if you were to pick a place NOT to fight against the F-14, it would be down low - especially below 5000'. I've heard that a lot of MP players like to hang down at low altitude. I think many players may be surprised to see what the F-14A can do down there. Those TF30s make excellent thrust below 10,000'! :D -Nick

The US aircraft are definitely PTMC aircraft or VF-51 (last photo). The best clues are the pylons: mis-matched colors, orange fittings, the orange amraams, etc. Also, the first photo shows orange control surfaces on the aircraft, which is not PTMC, but still a test aircraft. The last photo is a VF-51 Tomcat carrying Mk. 84s, that was not a PTMC aircraft, but a famous-ish operational test flight before VF-51 was disestablished in 1995. I think the photo dates to 1992. The Tomcat was cleared to carry Mk.84s, but not the other weapons shown. It was almost equipped for the AMRAAM, but the Tomcat leadership used the funding allocated for AMRAAM integration to buy LANTIRN pods and finalize LANTIRN integration (a really good decision in retrospect - at least for expanding the Tomcat's useful capability). I wouldn't care much if Leatherneck decided to offer weapons that were never operational, I simply would choose not to use them since I prefer more prototypical operations. However, making most of those weapons useful (excluding the AMRAAM) would require avionics upgrades and changes that the Tomcat did not have...there would be hang-ups. Mt 2 cents, -Nick

Another classic Tomcat video, featuring VF-213 F-14As in the mid-1990s. This was just before their transition to the F-14D and move from Miramar to Oceana. [ame] [/ame] It was one of the first Tomcat videos (that I remember) was shot using small mounted cameras. A unique perspective back in the late-90s/early 2000s. Anyway, I like this one, fun to watch and pretty immersive...plus it's VF-213, how could I resist? VF-213 is fortunate to be have been featured in several different movies: Hunt for Red October: And multiple scenes from Top Gun, here are two classic scenes where their tail insignia is pretty visible. NH210 launching from the waist cat: "Maverick" can't help but stare at NH211 ;) Have a good night. -Nick

Thank you! -Nick

I think this will pay serious dividends for your hard work and investment. I see huge potential in these new DCS terrains - at least you can count on me buying them from you. :D One quick thought, one thing I hear lots of people asking for is AI traffic at airports and bases, much like the pre-set AI road traffic. While creating a new AI system for that aerial traffic could be quite laborious (and is probably more of ED's thing) a work around could be very helpful. Your instant action free flights have a nice variety of traffic built in. You could create a "traffic template" that ships with each map. It would be a mission template that includes scheduled flights and AI activity at each airport/base in the map. Allowing the player to create quick missions with lots of activity around them or modify the traffic as needed to accommodate specifics of the mission. It would allow players to really appreciate the work your team invested creating new AI and understand how they fit in to the map, but with more flexibility to explore or try things out than an instant action mission. An example of this type of template would be the case of an Iwo Jima map - the "traffic template" would have the US fleet stationed off the island, other carriers launching a few aircraft at different times, a small bit of airborne traffic (like 4-6 aircraft), but no combat or enemy activity. Anyway, just a thought, but I bet a lot players would really appreciate it and it would add to the "wow" factor for new maps. -Nick

Nice! I have that book and you're right, it is excellent. I'm glad to see it's available, I think most print copies are quite old. I'm constantly worried that mine will fall apart. -Nick

I just checked another source and found three modes: PLM, VSL, and PAL. All are auto-acquisition modes. PLM is classic bore-sight mode - it uses a 2.3 deg pencil beam centered on the aircraft datum line. VSL is classic vertical search - the radar sweeps vertically instead of horizontally. There were 2 submodes: VSL HI (+15 deg to +55 deg) and VSL LO (-15 deg to +25 deg). PAL is a horizontal scan mode - it provides a 40 deg, one bar search for acquiring off axis targets at the same altitude. I guess I shouldn't have given up and posted so soon. ;) Also, the RIO can try to lock targets manually and there was a Manual Rapid Lock-on mode (MRL) that acquired the first target the the RIO hand controller reached (from how it's described). It seems that the Tomcat's AWG-9 close range modes were pretty conventional (in a good way....I was expecting less). -Nick

Turns out that radar modes are not covered in the released NATOPs manual (at least not the version I have). The only auto-acquisition mode that I know of is PLM (pilot lock-on mode) - which is a bore-sight auto-acquisition mode like that of the current F-15. I don't know if the scan area is adjustable or has different submodes (like vertical search vs classic bore-sight, etc). The AWG-9 was relatively primitive with regards to these automated/work-load reducing features. Having a second crewman to operate the radar did reduce the need for such pilot aids, though I think it had more to do with when the radar was developed (it was late 60's tech). Anyway, thats what I know. -Nick

Seems like a premature discussion....still it's hard not to think about it. :) Given the MiG-21, plus the 3 modules (combining the Tomcat modules) that we know about, it seems that Leatherneck plans to keep things diverse. I also think that Leatherneck will diversify their type of product, such as more maps, DLC campaigns, and possibly some other things that we haven't thought about. DCS may benefit from a more measured release of aircraft modules with lots of accessories to accompany your favorite aircraft. I think that a good pace for the next few years (after the known modules are released) would be 1-2 aircraft (depending on complexity), 1-2 maps, and a few DLC campaigns per year. They've said that the F4U-1D is part of a bigger project and I think there will be more PTO WWII aircraft in the next 2 years, very likely at least one Japanese aircraft. More allied aircraft would probably depend on what maps they plan to tackle and the level of interest in the F4U-1. New subversions of the F4U to pair with new maps would also seem quite possible (if F4U-1D sales are good). On the moderns side, they have released a Cold War Russian aircraft and are deep into a European Cold War-ish fighter and an American Cold War-ish fighter. A rotation of modern fighters makes sense, so I think another Soviet fighter is very likely. The MiG-23 would probably be less demanding than their current modern projects (plus sharing some code-base with the MiG-21) and very popular/relevant - I say take the low hanging fruit and use the manpower to optimize the theater and campaign. :D I hope they consider an early Jet scenario in the future (would love mid-50's to early 60's carrier ops/USN myself). But I think it makes more sense to leverage all the content they are creating now to make more modern-ish (Cold war to present day) maps, DLC, and modules. These eras and very popular and it would build upon all their work thus far. That's my 2 cents. -Nick

That was awesome, thanks for sharing. I love "Bio's" addictive enthusiasm for the F-14 and the Naval Aviation in general. We are fortunate that he is so active with writing and media in general. -Nick