LanceCriminal86

You're all wrong, the F-4E will finally roll out exactly like this:

I've heard that due to budget cuts the sounds will be replaced with that of a Saab 9-3 Viggen.

I uhhh, guess that means I need to clear my calendar because we're going to have a lot of pilots to update.

The MK60 was simply an alternate supplier motor early in the procurement of the AIM-54, subcontracted by Hughes.

I think he'd been working on some revised glass to be less scratched/grimy and representing newish jets, it could be a side effect of that.

Unfortunately it's my fault. Every time I refer to the Drakkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkken I add another 'K', and as a result they've been adding to the release date. At this point we may find ourselves in the WH 40k universe when it releases, or at the least early Battletech.

As far as I know the main things changed from older blocks were the added jammers by the intakes and beaver tail. Perhaps the added weight and change to the beaver tail adding the antenna resulted in some changes in balance. I'm trying to see if there were any other system differences but not really seeing any. If anything would more rearward weight perhaps prevent it from snapping over? Maybe the weight of the ALQ-126 antenna in the tail ended up being far enough back to tip that balance just enough.

The F-4G is becoming the new F-14D

Well this thread should be dead now, officially...

Why would the pilot or RIO know the missile's speed during the shoot? They'd need to recall their altitude, airspeed, target alt/airspeed, closure rates, angles, all that. There's so much more to this than someone off the cuff saying "sure it was Mach 5 capable" when even NASA documents showed that the missile wasn't quite hypersonic and they would/did make changes to get it to be hypersonic. They used the Phoenix because they believed it had the potential and there were stocks of them available, not because it already was a 5+ missile. Now if you find the guys from PMTC, VX-4, Pt Mugu, etc. that were actually doing Phoenix testing and could recall shot profiles and they got to see the instrumentation and after action reports, that might hold a bit more water. Because fleet pilots got to shoot missiles sometimes, but that doesn't necessarily mean "test fire" and "testing" for the purposes of gathering data. Just because I went and qualified at the range doesn't mean I can tell you the actual muzzle velocity my M16A2 was laying down, round per round, from a random batch of M855. They only gave us a general number and instructions for how to make and log our adjustments. The guys testing the ammo and developing it at Aberdeen or Dahlgren are the ones to tell you the velocity, BC, chamber pressure averages. The guys shooting them might tell you what their holdovers/DOPE was and how it did in the field.

Or actually not if you read some of the recent comments and updates. But hey I'm just a guy that paints jets for them sometimes. What would I know. They have said the earlier jet, body, and AI A-6 are on the shorter term schedule, as in upcoming months.

It may not be a full rework, but at the least it may impact existing mappings and textures. I'd expect to see it potentially around the early model external revisions since changes had to be made there anyways, which are forthcoming. A good bit of the prep work/research is done but the rest has do be done in the model.

I don't believe we are getting a hard wing at all. Far as I know we are getting retrofit slatted jets from the 66-69 serials without DMAS, and then later a 71- and higher with factory slats, DMAS, and TISEO.

It did not, I'm seeing the first N flying in 1972, Js were in Vietnam well before that, deliveries started in '66. The correct order would be B> J > N > S roughly with only B/J operating in Vietnam.

Gotta love the forgetfulness that the AIM-54's aero and motor performance had to be "adjusted" in order to even remotely perform like the real missile due to the old guidance and missile API (or really lack of the API) for the long shots. Or assuming that the values provided for the missile at launch were supplied in a vacuum with no review or input from ED. Even with those physics and guidance there were complaints the missile was underperforming at long/mid range because the guidance logic would burn so much energy off maneuvering. With the current physics and old, non-API guidance the missile would probably have been far worse than any iteration so far seen in release or open beta. Without the added values to adjust loft, lead calculation, etc. we'd be seeing a much shorter range missile, burning off what less energy it has now, with terrible loft profiles. And of course the inability to model differences in the A and C. Let's go back to where doing barrel rolls makes you unhittable, and missiles burning up all their energy before they get anywhere near the target from course corrections and maneuvering. And the most entertaining bit of course are the new and super low-post accounts showing up lately while the folks that had hounded the previous AIM-54 threads with criticism seem to be mostly silent or in agreement that the latest changes are making sense.

Never, because he was still wrong in most of his assertions and provided abusive and harassing DMs. There's a reason he's not here.

The only ones should be 114 with the movie style weathering and Rogue Nation, and only in the A skins folder. We're trying to figure out what is going on with the packages or updater, if something different needs to be done to remove the extra ones. They were triple checked before this round.

Since the only official -95 is the Iranian one, the answer should be No. Unless a decision is made to overhaul or revise the Early 135 to represent a USN -95 and -135 in some modular way

This stuff is getting looked at though, the ALQ-126 are an essential item and were always going to be added. It's not an F-14 2.0 issue, it's racking and stacking through art team priorities for fixing broken things first (which are being done), then features that needed to be added, and from there what additions or changes can be done without excessive man-hours. The early gun vents were getting done anyways. The ALQ-126 had to be added anyways and might at least be an on/off argument somewhere. And even if we don't get a modular TCS option or the ALQ-100 only, at least the ALQ-126 on/off option means we still can represent the newer and older jets from the 80s by the point where at least deployed squadrons had TCS. The converted jets are are just a B or D, they're not different or special really except they may show the closed up glove vanes. That's it. The Upgrades were somewhat spread out but if you spend a few minutes, pretty easy to figure out. And I have no idea what you are talking about with "squadron specials" or frankenplanes.

Break it down like this: A - OG batches, 60GR-75GR up through '73. Test/Eval squadrons, VF-124, VF-1/2. Gahbage IRSTs, different beaver tails and big reinforcement before being changed. - Main production A, 80GR-end of 110GR in '81. Added a nose probe in 90GR. Includes your Final Countdown/1st Sidra jets (-90 and -95s from VF-41 and 84), Top Gun jets, and 2nd Sidra jets (an -85 and -90GR). - Late production A, end of 110GR- in around '81 to last 140GR As delivered in 1988 to VF-201 and VF-202. Added jammers by intakes/glove and new beaver tail with jammer antenna. The bulk of the jets that survived to OEF/OIF and got LANTIRN etc. 1996+, trickle down of upgrades similar to B, LANTIRN, PTIDS through '98/'99, DFCS and ALR-67 by 2001. A+ / B / B (U) - First new and converted A+ around '86, VX-4 and testing through '88. 24, 211, 74, 103, 142, 143 start converting around '88-'90. Basically A with GE engines, new jammers, and new ALR-67 RWR. - Name changed in '91 to "B". That's about it. - B (UPGRADE) through 90s into 00s, various upgrades and phases for things like digital BUS, A2G, Lantirn, PTID, DFCS, GPS/JDAM, HUD. D Built or converted from As, 1990-1993. That's basically it. Got PTIDs as A/B squadrons converted or shut down, got GPS/JDAM around 2002 cause already a digital jet. Two good resources: Mike Crutch's CVW Volume One book/PDF, breaks down each BuNO and its squadron history with exceptions being the RAG and non-line squadrons. But you can sometimes see if they went to or from there. It's a good way to figure out when jets from those "blocks" hit the fleet squadrons. Second is this site: https://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/usn/fighter/gar14adiff.htm They are some big IFs, but ones that didn't necessarily receive an immediate "no" when asking if possible or to be considered. Animation argument would be one way, but making them both pods means like the Lantirn you could actually have them tied to the functions. Maybe if I send IronMike and Cobra enough snacks and pint size hookers it could happen, who knows. They have to add the ALQ-126 anyways, easier to add than remove.

And PTID was separately happening in 1995, one of the VX-9 jets that was a former VF-74 camo jet may have been the first PTID Tomcat as part of that program. PTID was originally because the old TIDs were becoming harder to read and burning out. IF we can somehow get modular/pod style ALQ-126 and TCS, then we could pretty well mimic the older -95 jets. Run the earlier jet with an ALQ-100 and no extra jammers and you basically have your '81 shootdown and Final Countdown jets, slap a TCS and you have an '89 shootdown jet, and add the ALQ-126 and you have most of the jets that were brand new in the early/mid 80s and onwards.

I thought a Reserves episode or two would have been neat, get some folks from 201 and 202 for the East coast and 301 and 302 for West coast. Some of them flew the doors off their jets and were comprised of fairly senior, experienced crews balanced out by reservist ground crew who sometimes were just reserves or had transitioned from fleet squadrons. From what I've gathered over the years they sometimes picked up different missions, such as aggressor duty, TARPS competitions (RAM at Bergestrom AFB), did some of the earlier A2G evolutions at Fallon, etc. Their jets were either really old blocks (70 and 75s with 301/302) or brand new + rebuilt + random old (60 and 65 eval jets rebuilt to 135, last 4 A -140s built, and random other jets at 201/202). And I believe VF-201 had two MiG killers come through the squadron, both 'Music' in the early 90s and CDR Hermon Cook later on. VF-202 in turn had one of if not the highest readiness scores I think from the CNO that had ever been recorded? Then mixed in you had the VF-1285, VF-1485, and VF-1486 who were augmentees and used VF-124 or 301/302's jets from the sound of it. And as another side thing, would have been neat to hear about the whole VF-191 and VF-194 thing, getting all those jets and crews only to have it get yanked. Oh, and last it would have been great to get some VX-4/9/PMTC guys to talk about some of what it was like to run the testing and eval side.

The -95 we are projected to get only, currently, represents an Iranian contract jet. In themselves those had some features removed and they apparently did not end up receiving Navy Sparrows, so the question about -95GR and AIM-7F might be moot. The projected "earlier" USN jet is still the -135, just in the 80s factory configuration with ALR-45/50 instead of ALR-67 and no Lantirn. The "early" external is probably going to be limited to adjusting antennas to ALR-45 types only and the older gun vents. In some form the TCS options may open up for the "bullet" aero housing when TCS is not equipped. Whether my wish list of mountable/removable ALQ-126 and TCS happens is going to somewhat determine if you can at least visually represent and simulate the older blocks, but there's a lot of work being done for more priority needs so no idea how it's going to shape up. But an ALQ-100 only setup and removable fuel pylons have not been promised at all, nor a perfect 1:1 recreation of the Iranian jets, more of a bonus option to allow some player experience around the Iran-Iraq war or more modern scenarios on Persian Gulf.

No, you are not. You threw a crash out there that was gone over 2-3 times by the Navy itself and inquiries as having nothing to do with G-stress, and everything to do with known weaknesses in the TF-30 at high AOA and low airspeed, and where a pilot exhibited old habits that worked fine in the Prowlers that she was an excellent pilot in, but was deadly in the Tomcat. The jet was recovered and Gs had nothing to do with it.

Weird, Hultgreen's jet was very much intact and did not disintegrate before impacting the water, nor was any "over-g" attributed to the incident, rather a compressor stall due to high AOA and low airspeed with heavy rudder input last I recalled. Where's the proof for your assertion there OP?