G.J.S

They certainly didn’t see (that’s how I and others wanted it to play out), so identification was moot. They were NOT to disregard anything inbound to the carriers area of ops. That is what they wanted - we were to actively try to penetrate the carriers defences, so as to exercise the air units prior to them taking up station for the Gulf conflict. The only thing off limits was any airborne AWAC, and helicopters. Fighters and attack aircraft were fair game. Over the period of the carriers transit through the med we were to make as many simulated attacks as we wished. The carrier would be given advance warning that, for instance, “during the 24HRS of Tuesday, carrier assets airborne will be subject to a maximum of 4 separate incursions, timings and directions will vary. The 4 separate incursions for this day is a maximum, there may be no activity, or any number up to this days agreed”. So the carrier, and by extension the air units, were aware that they will be tested. The onus on them was to sharpen up - because once in the AO, the incursions will likely be real, with real consequences. When the carrier came within 50NM of the canal then it was off limits and our duty as a method of training was over.

Unguided, or dumb bombs, have a CEP value, Circular-Error-Probable. Released from whatever height and speed, will vary it slightly. No dumb weapon comes off the rack perfectly aligned with the airflow - lug release not being simultaneous being one cause - so this “pitching” of the weapon can cause it to wander a little. Im going to say this sim sounds like it implements a CEP variable, so your aim point may be bang on the target you nominate, but the long and short impacts in your stick are showing the CEP in action. Understand though - I don’t know this for sure, but surely a sim such as this should emulate a basic variable of dumb weapons. We know it does with regard to cannon dispersion, which IS modelled.

Okay, you have piqued my interest, which aircraft displays a frag altitude? We had to consult the weapons specialists if we didn’t know frag patterns, heights or suspension times to work out minimums and separation. Aircraft do that now??

Carrier had requested harassment so as to train the embarked crews and keep them sharp. They were supposed to be on a war footing. Hawkeye was around (due to proximity of Libya, a necessity) as were a few other flights, fighters, and attack aircraft, all doing their thing - training in preparation for the first Gulf conflict. As ANY good aggressor would do, you pick on a weakness. In this case, it was two Tomcats - not bad for a single Phantom. It proved that their lookout was not really up to par at that time, and we acted on it. Good training for them. And it shows the Phantom still had teeth. Also, this sort of harassment happens every day, it’s good training. Airliners used to be on the cards too, the USAF used to use Concorde as a Backfire simulator!

December 1990, 2x F-14 (Diamondbacks I seem to remember), USS America transiting the med heading for Red Sea via Suez Canal, US Navy asked for “interaction” from Cyprus based RAF aircraft, one early morning singleton FGR2, following direction from ground radar heads out to “interact” (wingman went U/S, no spare). Radar off, winders selected, F-14s seen in semi loose form crossing nose left to right at around 18000 from circa 9 miles. So a good viz pickup. Stay radar silent, come in on the beam, then convert to a low rear quarter simulated winder shot. F-14s didn’t see it coming. No reaction to the F-4 towing a cloud and hell bent on their heat sig. We’re it real, at least one would be sans crew and falling. Blow through before the other can react, and escape stage left grinning. Recommendation sent to ship - keep head on a swivel. 1v2 is achievable, if you think about how to do it - even something supposedly archaic can give a nasty wake up call to something assumed to be better. Silhouette applied to Phantom couple days later, a rough sketch of the Tomcat ‘cat’ flying forward with a British boot kicking its ar5e. Head shed didn’t like it though, and artwork only lasted about a week. But I remember the sight picture . . . .

Tornado, F-111, F-15E, Phantom and most Mirages, F-16, that’s just off top of my head. Quite a few types really.

Blast radius and minimum safe distance at various altitudes will already be known, it’s not necessary for the aircraft to provide that info. If it can toss-bomb, or do a lay-down delivery, then it’s already a ‘canned’ manoeuvre. General symbology, like aim point, pull up point, TTG etc are normal. These specifics don’t contravene any classified information. The nature of the weapon, yield and fuzing would however.

The majority of freefall buckets of sunshine are no different in employment to regular GP bombs, yes - the arming and authorisation will never be simulated here - for obvious reasons, but generally, specials are the same as regular gravity weapons. Delivery profiles can be unique to which particular weapon is used though, and just how precise it needs to be. Not too precise? Lob from several miles away in a climb, and keep pulling through after store away and egress the way you came in, slight diving to unload the aircraft, at full “lift your skirt and run” pace.

No. Bomb racks (practice), rocket pods or fuel tanks.

Vimeo video, large Harrier formation.

Stick some targets on Guguan island, it’s uninhabited.

DCS fishing - take a hold of your ‘rod’ and enjoy . . . Just don’t catch crabs . . .

Excellently put Sir, excellent.

So did i ! And i used certain things that were rather expensive too . . . how similar we must have been! What did you fly?

Sea Vixen . . . Sure be at home at Lossie. Nimrod MPA. Westland Wessex. Used to love the Victors, looked like something out of the Flash Gordon film.

Everything after “hope it’s all clear now” , you don’t work for government procurements do you? You know, the ones that pay $25000 for a toilet seat when there are cheaper ways to do it? (I can’t believe you actually drew me a picture, screw flying Phantom again, YOU just made my week!)

I hope you do when and if it comes to fruition. But yet again you have misunderstood. Would you really buy let’s say one version of an F-4 from each dev at full price, even when it’s pointless seeing as it would be easier (for everyone!) just from one dev? Got your etch-a-sketch ready? True.

I just picked those developers (Dinky Toys included) as an example, what about Aerges? Nobody has said they wouldn’t buy different variants of the same aircraft - I would too - what you seem to have misunderstood is buying different variants of the same aircraft from different developers.

Cool your engines brah, I’m pretty sure everyone was just spitballing about possible types to lay on the table . . nobody said it would be walk in the park easy to just churn out one variant after another without breaking a sweat. The majority know it takes time, time spent by very talented people to generate that which we use. True, there are a few that think you just got to close your eyes and click your heels, and BAM! New model . . . But the rest of us know. The jist of it was the assumption that should this discussions F-4 materialise, all following subtypes would be from the same developer, it wouldn’t make any sense for let’s say HB to bring out the ‘J’ & ‘S’ , ED to shell out the ‘E’ , RAZBAM to launch the ‘K’ & ‘M’ , and, I don’t know - Dinky Toys to work on the ‘C’ & ‘D’ . It was the “same developer” assumption that the possible pricing structure came from, and it would make sense - spend $280 on 4 subtypes, or rather around $125 for the same 4 subtypes? First type - full whack at $70 let’s say, no problem, but even with the reduced pricing of follow on types that depend on you owning the initial $70 one, because in effect it’s a captive audience the developer gets good inflow of cash, and the end user can have a whole stable of F-4 types without having to sell a kidney.

Ill just leave these here . . . .

The F-16 will be easier to fly for sure, but if you wish to learn to FLY an aircraft, then I would go F-14 - it’s NOT FBW, so you will need to learn how to manage your aircraft, and learn to think several moves ahead in an engagement so as to manage your energy. PROPER aircraft will always make you a better pilot. Flying laptops numb the senses. (Yep, I’m waaay over 40 years of age lol).

Patriot System PDF This can give a little insight into this particular system, what is required - site location considerations - backup units - site composition. I found it interesting, but bear in mind it refers to an older spec Patriot (late 90’s).

That's kinda what I meant lol. Other variants/sex changes can be purchased at a reduced rate, however you must own the initial release.

The amount paid could probably be directly linked to how much of a change the variant you wish to purchase has compared to the initial release variant. Could maybe mimic the variant progression of the actual airframe - but maybe start at the 'C' version - since that is the system and airframe general start point of all following types. Say $25 for a drastic change, like long from short nose (say F-4E/F or G). Down to say $10-15 for a minimum airframe change, but systems change only. The 'A' was still a work in progress - even the airframe mold line was vastly different, whereas the 'B' was changing virtually every 8th or 10th airframe!.

You bl**dy tease . . .