Andrew8604

Alright, here's the long answer. It's not an easy question. And I think some history is needed to go along with it. I hope I'm not telling what you already know, but then for others, perhaps. And others correct me as needed. One guy can't know it all. I would say Carriers, Cruisers and Destroyers are held-over names of types of ships from WWI and WWII. Some WWII destroyers served in the US Navy into the 1970's, with modifications/updates. The roles of each type of ship seemed to evolve over the decades. In WWII, cruisers...in my studying (I wasn't a naval officer)...had long range and high speed (30+ knots), whereas battleships were slow (18-23 knots). They would range out and patrol long distances...scouting. All these ships used guns and torpedoes (no missiles or radar back then). The US Navy, after WWI only deployed torpedoes on destroyers. They could patrol long distances with minimal escort (a small group of heavy cruisers or a light cruiser together with a heavy cruiser, maybe). It was reckoned a cruiser could out-gun and out-range any destroyers it might encounter and out-run battleships, which would, of course, out-gun them. A heavy cruiser had 8" main-battery guns and thicker armor. A light cruiser had 6" main-battery guns and lighter armor, but maybe a faster rate of fire. 12 to 15 six-inch guns could throw more shells against a target in a given time than the 9 or 10 eight-inch guns of a heavy cruiser. Destroyers generally weren't large enough to carry the fuel needed for long range...they needed to refuel frequently from tankers and large carriers. A heavy cruiser generally could out-gun a light cruiser and be on equal terms with another heavy cruiser...except for one thing...treaties. In 1922, the Washington Naval Treaty was signed by five major naval powers remaining from WWI...US, UK, France, Italy and Japan. It limited number and tonnage of types of ships, I believe. The US and UK abided by the treaty, Japan, after a while, did not. That's why Imperial Japan's heavy cruisers were superior to those of the US and UK...until about 1943...when, no longer adhering to the failed treaty, the US produced the largest, most powerful fleet of ships the world had ever seen, by a large margin. By the end of WWII, for example, the US had 17 operational large aircraft carriers with 10 more nearly completed, 8 light carriers and 59 escort carriers (slower light carriers) ...and thousands of naval aircraft...and a proportionate number of battleships, cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Destroyers were mostly escorts of larger ships or transports against other destroyers and submarines. There were destroyer escorts (of about 23 knots) to deal with submarines (which were only about 16 knots on the surface and maybe 7-10 knots submerged), and regular fleet destroyers of around 35 knots. Aircraft carrier battlegroups were generally capable of 30-33 knots at the start of WWII. So, destroyer escorts generally didn't serve in carrier battle groups. Their job was escorting slow amphibious battle groups, the "old" slow battleships (some of which were from WWI) and tankers and cargo ships. By 1944, the US Navy's primary power was in carrier battlegroups that included fast battleships, heavy and light cruisers and destroyers as escorts. Destroyers had to deal with submarines (and had sonar and radar), other destroyers and aircraft raids. They shipped 5" dual-purpose guns that could be used against anything on the surface or shore and anti-aircraft, 40mm and 20mm AA guns. The light cruisers were equipped with 6" guns to deal with destroyers and 5", 40mm and 20mm guns for anti-aircraft. The heavy cruisers had 8" main battery to deal with destroyers and other cruisers and 5", 40mm and 20mm guns for anti-aircraft. The battleships had 16" main battery to deal with other battleships and cruisers and a large number of 5", 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft guns...they were especially powerful anti-aircraft platforms. Altogether, these ships provided a tremendous anti-aircraft "umbrella" over themselves and the carriers...the June 1944 Battle of the Philippine Sea as the prime example. But they weren't perfect. All these ships' larger guns were used mostly for shore bombardment by 1945, as Japan's air force and navy was nearly wiped out. Submarines generally went out on solitary patrol, considering every surface ship and other submarines as a threat, regardless of friend or foe. They avoided detection by anyone if at all possible. Because surface ships and aircraft could not afford the time to determine if a submarine was friendly or hostile. They attacked all of them, immediately on contact. And a submarine's primary role was to sink ships. But submarines also worked with these battlegroups (including downed pilot rescue) and sometimes with each other in "wolf packs". In that Battle of the Philipine Sea, several submarines did about as much damage to the Japanese Navy as hundreds of aircraft could do. Submarines, today, might hunt submarines, especially the ballistic-missile ones, but they still have a role (mostly unused) to sink ships, too. The UK's nuclear powered attack submarine that sank Argentina's (ex-US Navy WWII light cruiser, Phoenix) Gen. Belgrano in 1982, for instance. It was a 600-foot-long ship! Unfortunately for it, its anti-submarine escorts were not up to the task. Modern fleet: In the 1960's, surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles were developed and improved in the 1980's and onward. In the 1950's jet aircraft appeared on the scene and were too fast for anti-aircraft guns...as you can see and experience in DCS. So, nearly all the guns were removed, save a couple 5" guns for anti-ship and small crafts and minimal shore bombardment. If you have WWII Asset Pack in DCS and man the guns of the Samuel Chase (attack transport) or the LST and try to defend against attacking WWII aircraft, I think you'll find it very difficult to shoot down many planes...the AI is usually a better gunner. AI has near perfect aim, all the time...and even then, it can't get them all. Then defend against attacking jets using guns. You need so much lead in firing, that you have to guess where the aircraft will be and hope it flies on to meet your shellfire. However, one big limitation in the DCS implementation of anti-aircraft guns is the lack of proximity fused shells, Mk51 directors with lead-computing sights for the 40mm and Mk37 radar-directing fire control of the 5" guns. On the 40mm guns, you'd normally do the aiming from a nearby Mk51 director mount, which could remotely direct 1, 2, 3 or all of a ship's 40mm mounts at one target, if desired. They had a switching panel below decks to connect up various 40mm mounts with appropriate directors. I hope they will implement this in DCS in the near future. Destroyers became guided missile destroyers, with a few 5" guns and one or more SAM launchers. They also had bow-mounted sonar and sometimes towed-array sonar. Submarines being so deadly to ships, they employed nuclear-warhead-equipped torpedoes, rocket-propelled, that could get a torpedo out to the vicinity of a submarine before it could get into firing range (I guess)...and like with horseshoes and hand grenades, it only had to be close. That was the SubRoc...anti-submarine rocket. Destroyer Escorts became Frigates and guided-missile frigates in the 1960's or 70's. They became guided missile armed and SubRoc armed and carried a 3" gun. While destroyers (and cruisers and carriers) stayed up around 33 knots, Frigates were only 24 to 27 knots. Light and Heavy Cruisers essentially were replaced in the 1960's and 70's by large, guided-missile destroyers, that were called cruisers just because they were of similar size to WWII cruisers and as a way to differentiate them from smaller destroyers and smaller-yet frigates...some of them were even nuclear powered. Battleships just went away. The Iowa's were brought back a couple times, but only for shore bombardment duty by their 16" guns. The aircraft carriers became supercarriers, as you probably know. The escort and light carriers vanished by the late 1950's. But a new type of small carrier has arisen, the Amphibious Assault ship; now capable of carrying Harriers and F-35's. So, in DCS: There's not a lot of ships and not a lot that go with each other. It's nice to get some other ships from here. One Arleigh Burke destroyer is, in theory, suppose to defend one supercarrier...makes a "battlegroup". In practice, I think they use a couple more, maybe an Aegis cruiser. As I've mentioned, in WWII, there might have been a fast battleship, 4 cruisers (2 heavy, 2 light or 1 heavy, 3 light) and maybe 9 destroyers in a defensive ring to defend 2 large carriers and a light carrier, for instance...a carrier battlegroup. In the Battle of the Philippine Sea, it was something like 5 carrier battlegroups and 1 battleship battlegroup operating together against a smaller, but still large couple of Japanese battlegroups...in the largest naval battle in history, I believe. The enemy ships never saw each other. It would likely have been a battleship slugfest, if they had. Optically directed 18" guns against radar directed 16" guns. I'd have bet on the radar directed. In Korea, I think they essentially did the same as in WWII, but without the battleships in escort much. In Vietnam, it might have been a guided-missile cruiser, 2 guided-missile destroyers and 4 conventional or ASW destroyers to defend an Essex-class carrier and a Forestal supercarrier...a battlegroup. I think frigates, being slower, still hang out with amphibious groups...not sure, though. You can mix and match as you wish, though, in DCS. The US Navy mixed and matched what they had as best they knew how. Sometimes, as history shows, it wasn't the best. And sometimes it was mistakes...Taffy 3 and the battle off Samar.

Or just a 300 NM x 300 NM (550km x 550km) map covering most of North Korea, as it was in about 1951. Except for the cities, most of the terrain, today, is probably about 98% as it was in 1951. I think of the 1955 movie, Bridges at Toko-Ri. It features: straight-deck Essex-class carriers (I believe Magnitude 3 is making a WWII Essex-class carrier. That will do, nicely.), an LST used to land a helicopter on (DCS has one that could be modified slightly to land helicopters.) The Douglas AD-4 Skyraider. Crosstail Studios will be making an A-1H (AD-6) for us. That should work just fine, painted in dark sea blue. The Grumman F9F-5 Panther Navy jet fighter-bomber. Someone needs to make this. Simple systems, no radar. I don't think it even had the gun-ranging radar that the F-86F has. The Sikorsky HO3S-1 Dragonfly helicopter (Sikorsky S-51 and Westland S-51) with rescue winch off the side, no armament. Someone needs to make this. It's powered by a 450hp, R-985 Wasp Junior radial engine. Magnitude 3 is finishing up the F4U-1D Corsair. Although not featured in the movie, the F4U would fit in fine (the F4U-4 was used in Korea, but maybe Magnitude 3 can provide us with one of those shortly after the F4U-1D.) The Corsair is featured prominently in the 2022 movie, "Devotion", also based on a story in the Korean war. and Cleveland-class cruiser and Gearing- and Sumner-class destroyers. Of course, a whole lot more scenarios can be created on such a map, using our many other aircraft.

Oh, Bremspropeller, you shouldn't have posted that article. Now I want that "D". I know it would be a year, at least, after the "E"...if, IF they decided to do the "D" at all. It just seems like once they do all that work for the A-7E, they are just that close to the "D" and have all that A-7 knowledge fresh in mind. It's not like starting a whole new aircraft, it can't be. The differences may be significant, I don't know, but release it as a separate module. So, if they are like $69 each, have a $30 discount on the "D" (when/if it comes out) if you already own the "E"...or both for $108. This is one aircraft where both versions were significant. The F-4 Phantom II is another. But HB says they will do at least a couple versions of the F-4, eventually.

If the A-7D & E are so close to the same, it should be easy to release both, or the "D" closely following the "E". Looks like there are difference in instrument panel arrangement, and of course the in-flight-refueling receptacles. I'd like a version of the A-7B, with the TF30-P-8 engine and a pair of MK-12 20mm cannons (like the A-4 Skyhawks had). But I don't figure that will happen, so I'll be contented with the "E" model.

I agree. It's just silly the way they try to land. I just tried to keep it simple, though. I also haven't upgraded to 2.8, (I'm afraid it will kill my framerate in VR with Rift S and I don't know how to revert) so I don't know what if any improvements there are in 2.8 to the AI. I'd also like ME or F10 to be able to designate the active landing and departing runways for AI and ATC. And for ATC to be able to give vectors to an initial approach point. From there, weather would determine if the overhead approach is available. Otherwise, it would be some sort of instrument approach (TACAN or ILS) or PAR (Precision Approach Radar, GCA - Ground Controlled Approach...which is not simulated but could be).

Can you program AI aircraft to do the overhead break at airports? At least on the Nevada Map. From last waypoint before "Landing", they should make a 450-knots (or as set in ME) dive to cross the approach-end of the runway at about 2000 feet AGL, then break left (or right, as specified in ME) about mid-field, 70-deg-bank turn into a downwind for that runway, slowing to pattern speed and configuring for landing. And then at or just past the 180, just a continuous turn to a 3/4-to-1-mile final and land...with a realistic after-landing roll-out, not "super-braking". Flights could delay each wingman's break by about 3 seconds or so, in sequence. I think this will get aircraft down and landing much more quickly and realistically.

Request to add more Ground Support equipment to the list of static objects that can be placed to make the ramp look more active and realistic. I see that there are US Navy equipment units and deck crew for use on carriers or shore bases. Can we have a set for US Air Force Bases, both vintage and more modern. For example: Start Carts: MA-1 (1950's & 60's), MD-3 and more modern A/M32-60 from the 70's & 80's Tow Tractors: Harlan and Clarktor tow tractors and MD-1 Universal Aircraft Tow Bar Munitions Loading: MJ-1 Bomb Loader, MHU-83 Bomb Loader, MHU-12 Munitions Trailer Refueling Trucks: R9, R11 and similar refueling trucks, not just the M978 HEMTT Ground Personnel: USAF ground crew, similar to USN carrier deck crew in animation.

Same here, in US. Carrier planes operate from carriers. That makes them a big step up in coolness. But if they go on to release a module for the F-4C and F-4D, I'll buy that, too! But I'm not sure that all the differences of the F-4K will be worth the effort to fly off the Ark Royal. The MiG-21 was never operated by the US (never mind any adversary squadrons), but I bought that module. I think it flies pretty decently (last version of 2.7, at least)...in single player, anyway. I bought the MiG-19 and MiG-15, too. And I might get around to getting the Mirage F1. But I'm sort of a module slut. I go around with all of 'em...even the I-16. LOL I often fly my A-4E in RAN paint, gull gray over white with the red and white checker tail, off of the Clemenceau (closest thing to an Essex-class). I just like its retro looks. LOL

I think it would be a pretty good deal if they could release twin-packs, like you say, "early/late". If money is important to them for continued products: Navy F-4B with the F-4N as a module. Then the F-4J with the F-4S as a module. Then the F-4C with the F-4D as a module. After that...? F-4K? RF-4B or RF-4C? And with that, the F-4 should be done...4, 5 or 6 separate modules out of it at $69/module, without an all-up start-out of a new aircraft...just modifications. Take full advantage of McNamara's "Commonality" concept! ...and during the same time (a few years) working on the A-6A / A-6E / KA-6D, I hope! I think the F-4E, at least, is going to be hugely popular/successful. Seeing it in the "2023 and Beyond" video, I had to wear a bib...I was drooling like a St. Bernard looking at a plate of prime rib. I even barked a couple times. I myself, will purchase every F-4 module they put out! And even the F4U Corsair, F4F Wildcat, F4D Skyray and Boeing F4B 'biplane'. The Phantom II being the F4H before McNamara changed it all...which is probably why he changed it, LOL. The F4 can't lose!

How would it work to make the below waterline hull a very dark gray with slight red rust color, or very dark red? The bright red shows through the water too much. Or a gradient from hull red at the waterline black stripe, darkening rapidly to very dark red, almost murky gray toward the keel? Just a thought. No demands.

I do use the Forrestal. It's great! But it has so much acreage! My A-4E gets lost. LOL Hopefully, Supercarrier's features can be added to the Forrestal (or vise versa) and a few other carriers...like the LSO crew and Catapult crew. I'd like to see many more features for Supercarrier...or a new module I would call Carrier Battle Group. But I'm thinking of posting that in the DCS Supercarrier Wishlist. Like, after landing, where's the guy that runs out (sometimes with a bar) to ensure the arrestor cable gets free of the hook, and the one that directs you off the landing area and into the parking area (or to the next director/handler)? In the same way as it's amazing how many features are packed into the little A-4, it's cool how so many jets (even the big A-3B Skywarrior) could operate off that little Essex-class ship. They go together: A-4 with F-8, A-3, A-1, E-1 and H-2...and later the A-7.

If you have a twin throttle, you could maybe use one for throttle and one for brakes, and if there was a checkbox on the A-4E-C to allow option of nose wheel steering, then you could use stick twist for rudder/nose wheel steering. This would also work for the MiG-21, as the real thing only has a single brake lever on the stick, not toe-brakes on the rudder pedals. It does not have nose wheel steering but by applying rudder in combination with brakes, it gives differential braking...or at least that's the way it behaves in M3's MiG-21bis. I've sat in a real MiG-21U, I know it has no toe brakes and has a brake lever on the stick. Or, if you have a CH Throttle Quadrant with 6 analog levers, you could set one for throttle and two next to it for left and right brakes. Another option could be the Honeycomb Bravo Throttle Quadrant, which has 6 levers and 7 toggle switches and a landing gear lever and flaps switch. VKB stick doesn't have twist, does it? But the A-4E-C Community programmers can only do what they have time and knowledge to do. It used to have nose wheel steering. I hope they can add the coding for a checkbox option to have it either way.

I love the A-4 Skyhawk, and while this Community version isn't perfect, it's pretty damned good. I enjoy flying it every time! ...and it's probably the only A-4 Skyhawk we're going to get (I'd like an A-4B version, though). I would agree with 4eyes that an option box somewhere would be nice so that we can choose between powered nosewheel steering or the free-castering configuration. But I don't know how difficult it would be for the community to code that option. There DOES seem to be a problem with steering at low speeds, like less than 1-2kts. It seems like something to do with starting friction forces on the individual main tires. But I'm not sure. Differential braking seems non-existent below the 1-2 kts range. That, combined with having no feel of how much braking force we're applying to the left and right wheels. I'm not saying this is anyone's fault. It seems like you can't hold one brake, let's say the right, apply throttle and pivot around that right tire. But I would think there would be enough "feel" in the toe brakes to make very fine brake applications to turn and not go off the edge of the carrier deck. And I have tried setting control response curves for the brakes. Then again, I see videos of real aircraft handlers on the carriers with a tiller bar or steering bar connected to the A-4's nosewheel, apparently to steer it around the flight deck for the pilot and get it lined up exactly on the catapult. Maybe the real aircraft really is difficult to steer precisely. And if you were facing the edge of the flight deck, close to the edge with brakes applied, stopped, I'm pretty sure the deck crew would get about 6-8 guys to push the aircraft back from the edge. Or maybe shut it down and pull it with a tug by the arresting hook or main struts. Can't do that in DCS...at least not yet. Also, having powered nosewheel steering would sort of simulate that guy with the tiller bar steering the nosewheel around on the flight deck. On an airbase, the nosewheel steering isn't really needed, sure. You get used to using finesse on the toe brakes and throttle to taxi. Anyway, the handling just feels very vague at walking speeds. It seems to work okay if you stay up above about 2-3 kts. And then having no feel at all on the toe brakes (that's the fault of the simulator rudder pedal hardware designs--they need much stiffer springs with a short throw) makes it a little hard to apply fine differential braking. I won't quit flying the A-4, though. I love doing carrier ops with it. Just wish we had an angled-deck, Essex-class like the Hancock or Oriskany to operate off of, though. The Clemenceau is about the best substitute. Seems like the best work around is to keep some speed while taxiing...just above walking speed. Don't get too slow with the nose wheel hard over, or you'll be stuck in a turn until you have enough speed (and ramp space) to ease out of it with the opposite brake and straighten that nose wheel. I found this technique to work pretty well: Hold the brakes. Apply power up to about 1.4:1 EPR (or whatever %RPM that works out to). Then ease off the brakes to gain speed to ONLY about 2-3 kts...walking speed. Then, riding the brakes, maintain that speed and control direction with differential application of the brakes. (I use the Thrustmaster TPR pedals). To taxi a bit on an airfield, you can ease off the throttle a bunch and just maintain 7-10 kts or whatever, as normal. For fine steering on the carrier deck, use the power-on, ride-the-brakes technique above. Never mind that that power setting might blow guys off the carrier deck. It's like the caster of the nose wheel is overly dampened, maybe.

I know. Who wants another Jester in the Phantom...that's more like a back-seat driver than a RIO? They should give the "F-14 Jester" that nasal voice of Fran Drescher as "The Nanny". "You shouldn't get so close to the tanker! You're going to scratch the paint...again. Watch your speed! Oh, my gawd!" (Ok, maybe I exaggerate.)

Two F4's coming soonish, I hope. HB F-4E and Mag3/Leatherneck F4U-1D, which will be the first carrier-based prop plane in DCS, won't it? ...along with a WWII Essex-class carrier. But that F8U-2NE (F-8E) upgraded to -J would sure be nice with an angled-deck Essex-class carrier!! Maybe this time next year...I hope, I hope.

If "OP" is me... I WISH I had an F-105D. ...now watch, I'll be misunderstood and get a real F-105 delivered to my house that won't fit in my backyard. If I only get 3 wishes, that may have just used them up! Now I'll never get that E-1B Tracer or KA-3B Skywarrior I wanted. ...I'm trusting the F-4B Phantom II will be in-works one of these years. I've got a stack of wishes in one hand and virtual aircraft in the other.

I'm thinking those might be Mk-81's on that F-5A. Publicity shot. Like..."See, it carries a LOT of bombs! Buy it!" The F-5E chart seems to only mention MER under the Centerline Pylon and then only 5 Mk-82's on the BRU-27/A (MER)...in the bottom, right corner of the chart. And I suspect the limit of 5 is for clearance at takeoff rotation. All the other inboard and outboard pylons would appear to only be single munitions or stores, no multi-bomb rack units...and must be symmetrical loadings, too, for takeoff. In flight, you can apparently have some asymmetrical loading. I think there are more charts in the manual that talk about in-flight carriage and sequencing limitations. It looks like only a single M117 or Mk-82 on the INBD/OUTBD pylons, no Mk-83's or Mk-84's. If you can't carry a single 2000-lb Mk-83 or Mk-84 on an INBD pylon, how could you be allowed to carry an MER with 2 or more Mk-82's on it? Then again, how can you carry a 275-gal (1900+ lbs) fuel tank on the INBD pylons? Hmm... Is it possible that a loaded MER could put too much twisting forces/moments on the wing? That chart is confusing to interpret, though. BRU = Bomb Rack Unit MER = Multiple Ejector Rack ... I think they have ejector feet that kick the bomb or store off of the bomb rack lugs to ensure separation. It's mechanically linked with the rack lugs release. I believe those ejector "feet" are powered by an explosive ejector cartridge...something similar to a shotgun shell but probably more powerful. When I saw bombs released during a dive-bombing demonstration at a naval weapons station back in 1981, I could see small puffs of smoke from the bomb racks as bombs separated, followed by a "pop" sound (delayed due to the distance). DCS doesn't simulate this, does it? When the bombs, Mk-82, Mk-83, Mk-84's hit the ground, a few miles away, it was a seemingly ground-shaking BOOM...when the sound arrived. (I don't think it really shook the ground, just seemed like it because you could feel the shockwave in your chest or abdomen, just a bit.) Dropped from A-4's, A-6's and A-7E's. The A-7E fired its M61 20mm gun, too. That was like a ripping or belching sound, but at a powerful volume. It IS cool that DCS has that sound delay for distance.

Well, that was easy! Make a wish and get it answered in less than 60 days!! I'm going to make some more. (No, I would guess they were working on it long before I posted this wish.) Of course, it could be 1 or 2 years before Early Access. But at least it's on the design table!! Thanks, Grinnelli Designs!! I'll be flying this one in the Vietnam Map. Oh, wait..."DCS Wish List, may we have a Vietnam Map? " There, let's see if we get that promised within 60 days, now.

No, that's fine. If that's what it is, then that's what it is. Thanks for letting me know! I must not have observed what I thought I observed back in the 70s and 80s. I must have saw it wrong. Maybe the anti-collision lights over-powered the position lights in brightness to where I thought they were all flashing. At any rate, they don't look that great in DCS. Problems with rendering at various distances in limited pixel resolution, I'd imagine. But on the F-4 Phantom, I'm absolutely sure I saw all the lights flash in unison. We'll have to see what those NATOPS's say. Different aircraft, different manufacturer. But whatever NATOPS says. I suppose I could close this topic out, then. Or we just let it rest here?

I wonder if there might be a way to "mod" the F-14A so that switching on anti-collision lights won't disable the flashing of the nav/position lights. That way I could change my aircraft's function just for me. I suppose it would be too much to ask if HB could add an option to enable/disable the Nav/Pos Lights Flasher cut-out function. Well, maybe only if it can be proven the 70s-80's F-14As' lights function was that way. Thanks for your comments, guys. Just to be clear and sum it up: HB has it CORRECT for the time period of the modeled F-14A/B...which appears to be late 90s-2000s. It is, as per 2001 NATOPS manual, for example.

Alright, I see in a NATOPS F-14B Flight Manual - August 2001 that what you are saying is correct and how it works in the F-14A/B in DCS matches the NATOPS manual exactly. However, that does not explain why I saw what I saw so many, many times in the night sky near Miramar. Maybe something changed. Maybe the F-14s were reworked sometime in the late 80s or 90s to make it as described in this 2001 NATOPS manual. Maybe in the late 70s and early 80s, the Anti-Collision lights switch "ON" did NOT disable the flasher for the position lights. Or maybe there simply was no Anti-Collision Lights switch and all lights were considered POSITION lights. And POSITION lights to FLASH, flashed them all together. I'll have to try to get a 1981 or 1979 F-14A NATOPS manual and see what it says. I know this is very minor stuff. But having seen so many back in those days, how could I have seen it wrong? I have two animated GIF files attached. The one where all lights flash together is what I'm SURE I saw in those days. The other GIF shows what it should look like according to the NATOPS manual. (I added a picture to clarify which lights on the plane and the orientation I'm talking about. The orientation of lights when viewed from port side, abeam.) Yes, the left vertical fin white light has a red lens! I'm triggered!! That'll get fixed? That's about as minor as can get. But it may as well be fixed. Thanks, you all.

I remember observing many F-14A's at night around NAS Miramar (in San Diego) in the late-1970's through mid-1980's and the Position Lights and Anti-Collision Lights always flashed in unison. Can anyone confirm? Can anyone verify that maybe that was not the case anymore by the 1990's or 2000's? I don't think that turning on the Anti-Collision Lights should force the Position Lights to steady. Position Lights being the wingtip and wing-root navigation lights, as well as the left vertical tail's trailing-edge white position light. Anti-Collision Lights being the right vertical tail's trailing-edge red light, left vertical tail's leading-edge red light and the under-nose red light. The only change to make this so, in this DCS module, would be that when Position Lights are set to FLASH and Anti-Collision Lights are ON (which always flash when on) that they all flash in unison (together and at the same rate). All other behaviors of the Exterior Lighting should be fine, as is. The F-4N/S Phantom II had the same light behavior. All position and anti-collision lights could flash in unison, and that's usually how I observed them during the same time period...although it did not have wing root lights, as its wings didn't have variable sweep, of course. The F-4 did not have an under-nose red light but had a semi-flush mounted white "fuselage" light under each engine air intake body.

F-4B -- The original, classic Phantom II. 649 were built. Some were converted to F-4N in the 1970's. The first version we get is the last (US) land-based, fighter-bomber model, the F-4E (the F-4G being specialized to SEAD). I'd say the next should be a Naval version. I'll take any. But I'd hope for the "B". Although, I'm sure most people will want the "J" because they always seem to want the last model or most modernized model...and at that, many will want the F-4S (upgraded F-4J). And after that, back to a land-based model, again, and I'd say the F-4D, this time...or the F-4C. USAF in Vietnam: F-4C's shot down 40 MiGs. F-4D's shot down 42 MiGs. F-4E's only shot down 20 (although their deployment time was more limited). However, 370 USAF F-4 Phantoms were lost in combat in Vietnam, only 33 to MiGs (307 to AAA!!). The US Navy F-4B and J Phantoms shot down 40 MiGs and lost 73 Phantoms, but only 7 to air-to-air. The "big nosed" Phantoms did the bulk of the work in Vietnam. And if you give us the HMS Ark Royal (R09) along with it, I'll take the F-4K (or FG.1, I think it was).

Will the Forrestal be added to Supercarrier so that it can have animated deck crews? I would really like to see the Essex Class carriers added, too. Even though they are not supercarriers. Just the 6 Essex class carriers from the 1960's with angled flight deck and steam catapults: group A - Intrepid, Ticonderoga and Hancock; group B - Bon Homme Richard, Oriskany and Shangri-La. Each group could use the same 3D model with different hull numbers. The upcoming F-8J Crusader and A-7E Corsair II will utilize the Essex class ships, as well as the community A-4E Skyhawk.

It looks like the Nevada map covers an area of about 350nm x 350nm (650km x 650km), but not all of that is full detail and trees are sparse. However, there's a lot of detail in Las Vegas. A Vietnam map (I think) would need to cover about 660nm x 530nm, (1222km x 981km) and that excludes most of South Vietnam and Cambodia. But like Nevada, not all of that should be full detail. Only Hanoi would be the large, high detail city, but as it was in about 1972, not 2022. This would include most of Hainan Island, but not being a subject of the map, would only be satellite imagery over moderately detailed terrain...just so it would be seen from carriers at Yankee Station. High detail of a 200nm x 150nm area around Hanoi. (370km x 278km) About two high detailed 150nm x 150nm areas along the coast to the southeast, which should cover Da Nang and Chu Lai airbases. (278km x 278km) Much of the trees are solid tree canopy, 75-150 feet above the ground, I think. Maybe there's a way to model that without drawing thousands of individual trees and their trunks. In low-detail areas, it could be just flat satellite imagery over medium detail terrain, I guess. Vast areas you would normally fly over at high altitude. You would only be expected to fly low-level, jet, prop or helicopter over the high-detail areas. 50nm (93km) radius detailed area around Dien Bien Phu in the northwest...maybe? Not sure it's worth it, though. 30nm (55km) radius detail areas around each of the Thai airbases of: Udorn, Nakhon Phanom, Ubon, Korat and Takhli. The flight from Takhli AB to Thud Ridge (Hanoi) is about 500nm (925km) each way! ...and about 470nm from Korat AB. Those were the F-105 bases (and later F-4E bases, I believe). That should give plenty of room to tank-up with KC-135A's along the way. Could you fly F-16C's on such missions? Of course! ...and F-18C's and anything else that can make it...I wouldn't try it with the I-16, though. But carrier-based aircraft from Yankee Station only had to go about 260nm. I'd say only satellite photo details of Bangkok, if it's on the map at all. I think this might just work, without being bigger than Syria or South Atlantic on the hard drive. This image would be the approximate size of the map, however, only areas outlined by blue boxes and circles would be the high-detail areas. And this is just my quick estimate of it. Maybe some of the high-detail areas could be even smaller.