Swordsman422

I'm more interested in the legacy system for Cold War, ODS, and OEF/OIF, but from the poll, the new system is winning by a landslide. Shame.

The only F-4 variants that operated from carriers were the F-4B,J, N, and S for the US, and the FG. 1 for the UK. If the F-4 is a C, D, E, F, or G, it was a land-based variant. F-4Bs are easy to distinguish from Cs and early Ds by the wing thickness over the landing gear wells, the refueling probe door on the starboard side beneath the canopy, and the shape of the inner wing pylons.

I confess that I am terrible with the carrier pattern and sim landings in general, and I am more than certain it is lack of a VR set that causes me this trouble. I can land planes very smoothly in real life, but then I can easily move my head and mark my visual site picture. That spatial awareness really helps me. In hundreds of attempts with the F-14, I have landed fairly reliably but scored only two OKs to my memory.

I can also understand the frustrations. Believe me, I'm there as well. But coming on here and throwing a tantrum like you're three 5-year-olds in a trenchcoat over your ONE THING not being fixed yet is a little silly, especially in the face of seven other threads dedicated to screaming about another ONE THING that they demand be fixed/released right-the-goddamn-hell now. Someone wants the pilot body NOW, the Forrestal NOW, the earlier F-14As NOW, Jester LANTIRN NOW, and it all runs at cross-purposes with HB's ever-changing to do list, and further frustrated by ED breaking something with every update that then has to be fixed AGAIN. I'm not chiding him for his feelings, but his tone. I'm pissed, too, but I'm not on here vomiting sarcasm about it. I think HB is already well aware of the community's frustrations, but it doesn't help when someone thinks they know better what should be a priority item, wants it now, and behaves like a brat about it and criticizes the progress that HAS been made as worthless because it's not his ONE THING yet. There are ways to say it other than this.

Just from a look around this forum, I can tell that by this statement, you pretty much just mean you. Look, man, if you can do better than HB, snap to it. It seems like DCS is a pretty frustrating codebase to work in. Get something on a module working right and the next update means you have to fix it again. No wonder there are delays, but if you think you can get the boulder to the top of the mountain faster than Sisyphus, be our guest. You aren't the only person to come on this forum to scream about one specific thing they think needs priority over everything else.

I understand where they're coming from. It's kind-of a shame that we aren't getting USS Saratoga, which was the only Forrestal-class to operate the F-14B. I was kinda looking forward to USS Ranger as well. With the Heatblur A-6 coming, the Ranger's all-Grumman air wing would have made an interesting campaign subject.

I'll be honest, once the props are turning, the E-2D can pass for any variant of the Hawkeye with the proper livery to my eyes. It really will only matter when ED starts creating a more complex electronic environment than what we have now. What I'd really rather see is some form of EW other than on and off, and an AI EA-6B that can at least generally simulate the abilities of the platform, jamming a limited number of radar systems so that strikers have a safe corridor to get into and out of target areas.

The low profile helmets are lighter, more balanced, more end-user friendly, and compatible with a broader range of night vision systems. Having worn the APH-6, HGU-33, -55, and -68, I can tell you that a properly-fitting HGU-33 won 't impede peripheral vision like the APH helmets will. Generally, the low-profile helmets are less fatiguing to wear just under normal circumstances. In a turning fight, the extra weight under G of the visor housing can be an impedance. I would rather have a helmet that functions better in 99% of my flight regimes and satisfies 99% of my utility needs than be exceptional in the event of my ejection but mediocre everywhere else, especially if that helmet makes the need to eject less likely by being a factor in losing a fight. Helmets can just as easily get ripped off in ejections as well. The slipstream gets underneath it and pulls it right off. The chinstrap snap is just firm enough to hold the helmet on normally, but if enough pressure is put on the snap in a way that might injure you, it'll pop out and the helmet will come off. Lt. Keith Gallagher lost his helmet and mask in a partial ejection from an A-6. If there is enough resistance to the slipstream, the slipstream is going to take it. The 600kt visor on the HGU-68 is supposed to stay in place in the event of an ejection at 600 KIAS, but the vast majority of ejections don't occur at speeds that high, so F-14 squadrons were comfortable replacing these visors with bungee visors that were more compatible with night vision systems. It's a gamble but there is just more operational utility in their decision. The HGU-33 visor housing isn't as protective of the visor as it might initially appear. After a while, you'll still get scratches and streaks, especially along the knob track, right in the middle of your vision, from just friction of moving the visor. The lock knob is also not particularly easy to work with in gloved hands, and binds sometimes where turning it both ways seems to just tighten it. But please remember that, having never flown fighters, this is only my opinion and experience, and is not reflective of the experience had by combat aviators.

I like how I spent 15 minutes writing my post and it only saved the pictures and not the text. The main difference between the HGU-55 and -68 is the helmet shell, and specifically the shell material. That's pretty much it. If there are no signs of the former 600kt visor, then your best bet is to just know the date range of the image unless the helmet is in your hands, then you just peel back the liner and look at the label. After 1998 you can expect that carrier based fixed-wing tacair crews were using the HGU-68 or one of its variants. Below are a -33, a -55, and a -68 for comparison of comms cords locations. The -55 and -68 have it in a very similar position. As to the color of the edgeroll being a defining attribute, this is also an HGU-55. The differences between the LPU-34 and -36 are internal and just a matter of inflation options. -34s are fully manual, where -36s also have salt water activated inflators. Good for someone who didn't stay conscious during ejection and can't inflate his own LPU. As far as I know, the US Navy still uses the MA-2 harness or a newer variation. With the CMU-36 moving to coyote brown, it's easier to distinguish. The USMC uses the PCU-78, with is a PCU-56 with MOLLE built in, essentially an integrated harness and survival vest.

Tomcat crews did in fact commonly use the HGU-68. Since the 600kt visor assembly was not compatible with ANVIS, it was removed at the squadron level and replaced with the same bungee visor used on the -55. These converts are sometimes, though not always, easily picked out by bare areas or obvious patches in the tape work where the visor track used to be. The LPU-34 is actually used for rotary-wing and non-ejection aircraft. Ejection seat aircraft were and still are using the LPU-36. This life preserver was introduced to the F-14 community around 2002, easily dated by the F-14 crew in the image above. VF-143's lone cruise aboard the John F. Kennedy occurred February to August of 2002 and their markings for this period were quite distinctive. The RIO in the above image is even the same man as appears in the image of the VF-143 crew from my previous post. Here, he's wearing the LPU-23 ( the ejection-seat equipped aircraft version of the LPU-21) and in the other image, the LPU-36 combined with the SV-2B survival vest, which was a short-lived combination. Around 2004, Tomcat crews were using the CMU-33/LPU-36 combo, still over the MA-2 torso harness. The below image is from 2003, and notice the pilot is still wearing the SV-2B/LPU-36 over the MA-2 torso harness. Whereas the crew in the next image from 2005 are wearing the CMU-33/LPU-36 combo, still over the MA-2 torso harness.

Interesting images. The documents must be right. I have seen F-14B crews wearing SV-2s configured for chest-mounted regulators, but I guess they must still be using LOX. This is the only image I can readily find. As far as I am aware, F-14 crews were still using the SV-2 as late as 2002. This shot is from VF-143 either before or after they cruised on the John F. Kennedy. Interesting to note that they are using the horse collar LPU. Funny story, when Revell redid their F-14 kit about 10 years ago for a limited run, they used this image as a basis for the pilot figures, and the molding was... just bad. The CMU-33/CMU-36 was initially adapted over the MA-2 torso harness. As far as I know, any CMU that has an integrated harness is for helicopter crews. The integrated harness/survival vest is the PCU-78, which is basically a PCU-56 with MOLLE loops. All of this stuff would fall outside the modelled period for HB's F-14.

Took me this long to have this d'oh moment after the gear discussion early in the thread: Heatblur talked about the MBU-5 and they aren't wrong for Iranian service. Iranian F-14 crews used the HGU-26/MBU-5/PCU-15 combination since Iran was mainly a customer of USAF gear up until that point. Another side note that HB doesn't need to correct but might bother ASE nerds, F-14B/D crews used a different vest and regulator configuration than F-14A crews of the same period did. The SV-2B vest was modified by removing the big radio pocket on the left of the zipper and the paracord cutter pouch on the right side. The radio pouch was replaced with a mounting bracket for an OBOGS regulator and the cutter pocket replaced with a combined radio/knife pocket similar to what is seen on the CMU-36. In the mid-90's it was pretty easy to pick out which type F-14 crews were flying based on the regulator and presence or absence of leg garters, since the SJU-17 seat in the F-14D had integrated leg restraints.

This actually isn't true. Some F-14As were rebuilt as Bs, but a good majority of the F-14Bs were new build. The F-14B (UPGRADE) was a major overhaul in the late 1990s to add the PTID, Sparrowhawk HUD, and DFCS. The As that were upgraded to Bs just had F-14B (and then later B (UPGRADE)) above the BuNos.

I'd get a D Hornet if one came down the pipe. All the USMC A-6 squadrons went to Ds, plus with liveries it could be used to represent 2-seat legacy hornets in any national service. The fuel sacrifice is worth it for the extra set of eyes.

Originally the Ferris schemes were intended to confuse an attacker as to the aircraft's attitude and direction, basically the same thing that disruptive coloring did for ships in WWII. Unfortunately aside from false canopies, it didn't really work as expected.

Another issue with name/callsign is that it was very rare for a) naval aviators to fly the aircraft with their name on it and b) an assigned flight crew to have their names on the same airplane. It was highly unusual for the flight schedule, the mission, air crew experience, and aircraft availability to align so that a pilot flew "his" own jet. You went with the aircraft that was able to accomplish the mission as fragged regardless of whose name was on the rail.

Agreed, I don't think that we'll see such specific mods as a Terminator, or an EJKai, or a Kurnass 2000. Those all have nation-specific avionics. But some of the external add-ons like the refueling probe or sparrow bay missile adapters or the TISEO could be reasonable with documentation and could be added as either animation arguments or loadout options. I admit I am really dreaming here. The pessimist that dominates my daily attitude insists that we'll get a single variant that reflects the typical F-4E for a single service for a given small time gap and everything else will just be represented as close as liveries will allow.

Oh, I don't think Heatblur's going to do it, and I'd rather they went ahead with their AI-to-flyable projects. I'm saying that when/if we ever get an F-4, it's probably going to be an E regardless of my hope for otherwise. I also hope that if we do get an E, we'll also get options for some of the localized modifications as animation arguments. By 1978, the IDF had modified their F-4E variant to accept countermeasures packs in the aft sparrow wells, adapter pylons for IR missiles in the forward wells, and male refueling probes similar to those seen on the later Skyhawks. I do have to admit it would be some good fun blasting around the Syria map in one of these beasts, shacking targets with an AGM-142 Popeye.

I'd rather get a Navy Phantom, and specifically the F-4B and its variants, which did most of the MiG killing over Vietnam. However, the F-4E was the most widely exported variant and aside USAF would also cover Australia, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Iran, Japan, Spain, Germany, and South Korea. A B would only cover USN and USMC, and the USAF evaluation copies. A J, pretty much the same and the RAF. F-4Js in FAA service were re-engined with the RR Spey and had an extended fuselage. Unfortunately this means Navy F-4s don't really have the kind of mileage you'd expect out of an ED module. I won't squawk over the F-4E, but I can pretty much guarantee I'll be flying it in any other livery but USAF.

Historic carrier groups can be found under this page. Find the carrier you want, look at her deployments, and the other ships in the battlegroup for that deployment will be listed. https://www.navysite.de/carriers.htm

It's the attachment point for a beacon strobe, a brightly flashing, waterproof light that would help the pilot be found at sea at night. He pulls it out of his survival vest, clicks it on, and attaches it to his helmet by the velcro. In rough seas or poor visibility, a rescue helicopter might overfly him a dozen times and never see him without it.

I'm in the same hobby. My helmet count currently is up to 19 with 7 HGU-68s, 3 -55s, 5 -33s, and 4 APH-6s. I got into it 15 years ago initially for cosplay and figure modelling but it quickly got out of control. Fortunately in terms of completion I lack only a few difficult to acquire bits of gear, so my wallet is suffering less now. Easier to resist when you've already got one, and I DO NOT want any more helmets. Unfortunately aside from one -33 I know was originally owned by an instructor with VT-9 and a couple that I bought new from Gentex, I don't know the origins of most of what I have.

Lance it seems like you and I know a lot of the same people.

I know him too, and I can ask him right now. I'll update this post with anything I find out. Edit: According to him "1983 was mandate for white tape but not fully adopted till 84.... No painted helmets (for VF-213) after 82/83."

Lance is right. You can see the APH-6D here with butterfly bayonets. Instead of tape for the base color, they used a gloss paint and then a high-gloss clearcoat with metal flake in it. The decals were still made of 3M reflective, though. This was the result.