Yoda967

Fredrik, I strongly recommend the F/A-18C Kneeboard Suite, which is available in this thread:

That's COLONEL Impatient, thank you very much.

Major General Jeannie Leavitt, the USAF's first lady fighter pilot, retired recently after a career spent flying the Strike Eagle. She left the service with 3,000 total hours, including 300 combat hours in the F-15E, flying in Operation Southern Watch, Operation Northern Watch, the war in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. As a 1st Lieutenant in Southern Watch, she once took out a Roland battery threatening an RAF Tornado. (Who says an F-15E can't do SEAD?) That's just one pilot...ten percent of her flying was in combat, and she did all of it in Strike Eagles. Your post indicates what seems like a common misperception that combat aviators will only execute their mission when there's little risk. ("...the battlefield is rarely cooperative...Will the eagles have to jettison often...and RTB empty handed?") What you're describing is what fighter pilots I've known and worked with would call, "risk averse." To most fighter pilots, the key to success is to accept that one cannot eliminate all risk, so the only way to complete a given mission is to MINIMIZE risk...to accept that one might have to grit one's teeth and fly through the AAA barrage or into a short-range SAM envelope in order to put warheads on foreheads. Risk Management is an art. There are certainly very few hard-and-fast, if this then do that rules for setting an acceptable level of risk. There are risks you absolutely wouldn't take until you get in their air and you're the only one who can help a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy fire. I strongly recommend William L. Smallwood's book, "Strike Eagle: Flying the F-15E in the Gulf War", which is available on Amazon and was written shortly after the end of the first Gulf War. At the time they arrived in theatre, the Strike Eagles were barely certified, and did not yet have LANTIRN. The first-hand accounts of combat are genuinely harrowing.

I don't think the sim does a good job of changing what's visible as your eyes adjust to the darkness. The fact is that on a clear night when there are not city lights to contend with, once your eyes are adjusted to the darkness, you can see details from a surprising distance even by starlight alone. When I was in the Navy, we practiced light discipline at sea. Smokers, for example, were not permitted to smoke topside after sunset, and we were taught that the reason was that a lit match could be seen from five miles away. (There is a superstition even beyond the military which warns of bad luck if one lights a third person's cigarette with a single match; the belief originated in WWI when soldiers were told that the time it takes to light three cigarettes is less than the time it takes for a sniper to take aim on the flame and shift to the face nearest to it.) @algherghezghez, I wonder if your view during that night flight wasn't affected by the light within the cabin. I don't disagree that the ground appears black from 30+ thousand feet, but at the altitudes where the Mosquitos typically flew, shapes ought to be discernable, especially when the pilot has had time for his eyes to adjust.

CLAR is Computed Launch Acceptability Region. My guess is that you're outside of that (which makes sense since you have the attack heading set to 0 degrees and your heading is 050 degrees). If you run into this again, try boxing CLAR OVR (PB12).

IRL, the need to make a radio call prior to engine start is dependent on the rules in place at the field you're launching from. Rudel_chw and ChillNG (creator of Operation Cerberus North campaign) are both correct in that sense. Some air bases require the flight lead to check in, via land line or in person, with Base Ops with the planned start time, then pilots can start engines within the scheduled time block. Post-start, the flight lead checks in with Base Ops again to confirm the start and the number of aircraft in the flight. Other bases require you to make a radio call for start clearance. During cyclic ops on a carrier, all the aircraft flying the next cycle start at once after the Air Boss ends his flight deck safety brief with the words, "Start 'em up!" No radio calls are required in that situation. In game, unless the designer of the mission you're flying requires it, you can skip the pre-start radio call.

I've had some success with it. Issue A sounds like you're asking the following aircraft to fly too close; after a lot of trial and error, I've stopped trying to get a following AI aircraft to follow within 80 feet, but preferably more. It seems to work fine between 100 feet and 2,000 feet or so. Issue B doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I've never flown in formation, but I spent some time reading about formation flight when I was working on my first couple of missions using the "follow" technique. IRL, joining up is at least as much about geometry as it is engine power. Remember that the following aircraft is trying to MATCH the lead's speed, not trying to produce a speed advantage over the lead. The #2 will need to slow down to avoid overshooting, and needs to get there and in formation while expending the least amount of fuel. 15-20 knots difference seems about right for a fighter. You can have your lead aircraft help by turning 30 degrees or so towards the #2, effectively reducing the distance #2 has to travel to get into position. You can also limit the lead's speed to 250 KIAS or so until #2 is in position.

Recently read a master's thesis comparing the "Dynamic Targeting Persistence in a Limited Fuel Environment" between the F-16C and the F-15E. The author's baseline loadout for the F-15E was 8 GBU-12s, 2 AIM-120s, 2 AIM-9s, and 2 tanks, and he has the Mudhen's best range in that configuration as 25,000 feet, burning 9,000 lbs per hour at 450 KTAS. For max endurance at the same altitude, the fuel burn he gives is 8,000 pph, producing 390 KTAS. I set up the Razbam Strike Eagle that way, and got exactly exactly those results. As @Rainmaker notes above, you'll get different results with different configurations. It may not be exactly on the money in all cases, but I bet it's pretty close.

Rex, Mogster is absolutely right, because there wasn't a consistent "X-number-of-bombers = Y-number-of-fighters" rule. Build your missions how you like, unless you're recreating a specific mission. The number of escorts varied from zero to several "big wings", and as with today's mission planning, there were guidelines, but every mission was planned around specific objectives. The intent of the CIRCUS missions mentioned by Gunfreak was to tempt the Luftwaffe fighters to come up and fight by offering tempting bomber formations, so they'd be backed up by large numbers of "escorting" fighters. Think of them as fighter sweeps with bait. Fighter escort planning for the POINTBLANK missions of '43 and early '44 served a dual purpose -- the escorts were not just there to protect the bombers from Luftwaffe interceptors, but also to destroy as many Luftwaffe aircraft as possible, laying the groundwork for the air supremacy deemed essential for the success of the eventual Allied invasion. Some of the medium bomber NOBALL missions (anti V-weapon) of early to mid '44 might have 12-18 bombers with 12-36 escorts, with the escorts released to perform a fighter sweep or armed recce at a pre-arranged point or after the bomber commander assessed the enemy fighter threat as particularly low. I recently read one RAF Spitfire squadron report of an escort mission with 12 fighters and 12 bombers, where the fighters were released as soon as the bombers completed their attack run, and on the trip home, the Spitfires strafed a number of enemy aircraft on the ground and shot up an E-boat near the Seine estuary. In his book, "Wing Leader", Johnnie Johnson wrote that in the summer of '43, he and other RAF fighter wing commanders had discussed the idea of reducing the size of fighter formations then being sent across the channel, as they had all witnessed enemy aircraft avoiding combat when faced with formations of 100+ Allied fighters. Smaller numbers of fighters, he felt, would seem less imposing to the enemy, giving Allied fighters more opportunities to engage and shoot down enemy fighters. That logic would apply to bomber escorts, as well, with the average number of escorts decreasing as the likelihood of encountering Luftwaffe fighters got smaller. There was a point when there were better uses for the fighters.

Pardon my ignorance, but what's Derola? A Google search comes up with two of your posts, and a ton of stuff about a Polish artist.

Thanks, @Fuujin! I'll take a look at your mission when I get home this afternoon.

Bones, I haven't seen anything that says you have to be at a certain altitude when you contact Marshal (about 50-60 miles). Depending on the situation, the marshal controller may or may not assign you an altitude when you check in. For CASE I during cyclic ops, you do have to be at your squadron's assigned pattern altitude at 250 knots before you enter the CCZ at 10 miles from Mother. For CASE II and III, Marshal will give you a holding assignment in the marshal stack (say 7,000 feet at 22 miles), and you're expected to go as soon as possible to your assigned marshal altitude and maintain it. You don't have to fly in a straight line to get to your holding point.

@Fuujin, your method is very similar to what I've been using in creating SC-based missions, but seems more refined. For example, it never occurred to me that there was an order for taxi start. (I've been spawning all the aircraft except the player's as "uncontrolled" and starting them individually to get the desired launch order.) It also never occurred to me to "destroy" AI aircraft to create a parking spot gap for a player aircraft, which is a neat idea. Which LUA are you referring to when you say, "spawn them dynamically in a function executed when the LUA script is loaded with the MISSION START trigger"? How are you "destroying" the AI on deck?

@JZF Check trim. If you just press the TO trim button on the left console, the jet will set trim to 12 degrees and that's not enough for a carrier takeoff. Trim should be set between 15-17 degrees for a carrier takeoff. (It's been so long, I can't remember if the training mission tells you this.) I'd also make sure that you're getting maximum power from the engines. Make sure your controller is properly set up. In addition to the training missions, I highly recommend getting a copy of Chuck's guide for the FA-18C here: https://chucksguides.com/aircraft/dcs/fa-18c/

@BIGNEWY, thank you for acknowledging the lighting issue! Can you please take a look at the departure issue Bankler describes here, as well?

According to this, there's a 6 second acquisition time built in to all the MANPADS in game, and a 2.5 second acquisition time built in to vehicle-mounted IR SAMs. That said, what you want to do can be done without scripting. Place your MANPADS or IR SAM. At its waypoint 0, under ADVANCED WAYPOINT ACTIONS, set ROE to WEAPON HOLD. Then, give it two triggered actions: the first sets ROE to WEAPON FREE and the second sets ROE to WEAPON HOLD. Create a trigger zone to serve as your detection/engagement zone. Add a SWITCHED CONDITION trigger. Set the condition to "PART OF COALITION IN ZONE" and select the coalition your MANPADS will shoot at and trigger zone you built in the previous step. Set the trigger's action to FLAG ON ("READY TO SHOOT") Add a second SWITCHED CONDITION trigger. Set the condition to TIME SINCE FLAG ("READY TO SHOOT",X) <----X=seconds of delay you want to add to the unit's built-in delay Then, for the second SWITCHED CONDITION trigger, add a PUSH AI TASK action and select the "set ROE to WEAPON FREE" task you made in the MANPADS/SAM unit's triggered actions tab. Finally, add a third SWITCHED CONDITION trigger, set its condition to FLAG IS FALSE ("READY TO SHOOT") and its action to PUSH AI TASK (ROE set to WEAPON HOLD). Now, when an aircraft flies through the trigger zone, it sets the READY TO SHOOT flag. X seconds after that, the MANPADS unit will switch to WEAPON FREE and able to shoot 6 seconds later. When the aircraft flies out of the trigger zone, the READY TO SHOOT flag will be set to off, which meets the condition for the third SWITCHED CONDITION, returning the MANPADS unit to WEAPON HOLD. You'll have to play around with the size, shape, and placement of the trigger zone to make this do what you want. Bear in mind that an aircraft flying at 480 knots ground speed is moving at more than 800 feet per second.

As flight lead, it's your job to make sure your wingman doesn't fly into other traffic. Assuming that your wing man is a conventional AI wingman (not the type that only responds to F10 commands, as used in several campaigns), you might try passing the tanker at a greater lateral distance, or passing at least a few hundred feet below. (You want to be able to keep the tanker in sight as you pass.) IIRC, ATP56 is the tanker publication, and there are outdated, publicly released versions available via Google. You'll find rendezvous procedures in that pub. Basically, the tanker is assigned a set pattern and is expected to stick to that, while the receiver (anyone getting fuel) is expected to safely maneuver into position while avoiding flight path conflicts like you describe.

My number 1 recommendation doesn't involve the carrier, but has a great story and excellent, highly detailed supporting material: Operation Cerberus North After that, I recommend the Raven One campaigns, which are both carrier-based.

Pete, To add to what Bunny and Zodiacc said, on your RWR display, the symbol for a radar that's locked onto you will have a "rocker" (a half circle) at the bottom. In the latest edition of Chuck's Guide for the FA-18, you'll find a screen shot of that on page 602.

The reported lack of shore facilities seems plausible. Shore power could be unreliable at times at US Navy port facilities (sometimes for stupid reasons; I once had to explain Ohm's Law to a shore power engineer to get the correct power fed to our frigate), so it makes sense that the Soviets would have problems like that, too. If there's no shore power, a ship has to make its own. I spent a couple days aboard a Udaloy-class destroyer in early '93 and at least that class (then new -- the ship was 7 years old) did not have the capacity to make water. Where US Navy ships deploying "independently" are typically unaccompanied, this ship had brought a water tender to the Gulf. Udaloy-class ships aren't steam-powered, so that might be why they didn't make their own water. CHT stands for "collection, holding, and transfer" and wouldn't be a factor in needing shore power. You need a shore connection for it (it's sewage), but the lack of a CHT connection would have no bearing on ship's power.

@Nealiusgot me to thinking -- I wonder what descent profile most folks are flying when their engine dies from overcooling. *I am not saying that the cooling in the DCS Spit is working as it should* BUT "shock" cooling is a thing widely acknowledged by manufacturers of modern high performance engines. Yes, I am aware that it's a controversial topic; Avweb has articles denying its existence, but Lycoming and Continental both state that cooling an engine too quickly can result in cracked cylinder heads, warped exhaust valves, bent push rods, and other nasty, engine-killing things. Fast letdowns at low power settings are the most common actions associated with sudden cooling. (And in DCS, we currently have to worry about low engine temps at normal cruise power settings, too.) That said, and with the understanding that the current cooling in the DCS Spitfire is broken, I think Nealius is onto something worth keeping in mind even after ED corrects the cooling problems in the Spitfire: Engine power during the descent needs to be managed so that the engine doesn't cool too quickly. Lycoming has a general service directive out that recommends cooling the engine at less than 50 degrees F per minute. Rate of descent should not exceed 1,000 fpm. Continental makes similar recommendations for their engines, and for their high performance turbocharged piston engines, suggests staying at cruise RPM and reducing power by 1" MP per thousand feet of descent. In the Spit, that would be about 0.5 psi power reduction per thousand feet. I haven't tested this in the sim, yet, but I suspect it might save some headaches. Has anyone found any contemporary guidance on how to manage the engine in non-combat descents? There doesn't seem to be anything in the Pilot's Notes, and I haven't read anything in any of the books I've read that were written by wartime Spitfire pilots. Sorry if this has strayed too far afield from the OP.

I stand corrected.

The Dynamic tab is there, but at least according to the first page of the PDF within the file I linked to (which is dated from October of last year), the Dynamic tab doesn't allow you to do anything with the weather unless the mission was originally created under the old Dynamic Weather scheme. I have had some success using the mission templates included in the file I linked to and haven't tried to develop dynamic weather using a mission created in the current version of DCS. If the Dynamic tab is now working, that's great. There is a load of useful information in that download, though, and I strongly urge anyone attempting to use dynamic weather to read and understand it thoroughly. Also, be prepared for a lot of trial and error.

Sorry, I worded that poorly. Chicki is right, you can access the tab, but unless the mission was previously created to have dynamic weather, then the dynamic weather tab doesn't work. It's all explained the file I linked above.

Yes. Go here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3319271/ This includes some guidance on how dynamic weather works and gives a mission template for each map. (As it stands right now, you can't access the dynamic weather tab unless you're working with a mission that already has dynamic weather in it, so the templates are very helpful.) Be prepared to spend a lot of time playing with the weather until you get it where you want it.