LanceCriminal86

In this case I have names and people via Facebook groups who can point to who and when, and while it started small with 2-3 crews in the squadron trained and with sets of NV, the purchases and proliferation picked up steam very quickly. And as said, it spread outside of the Intruder community quite quickly as well. It was claimed that the Marines were using them in the Gulf with their Harriers from one of the writeups. Dial back 8 years from 1994 and you'd have 1986, which lines up to when it was being developed at Pax and tested for use with the Intruder guys, so very likely the benefit was already seen and that kicked off the Tomcat cockpit initiative over with Warminster/NADC. The Intruder cockpits I'm seeing photos of converted jets by '93, trying to look more into when they started the conversions. The main things it was providing, even with older gen tubes, was visual situational awareness at night to navigate and identify targets. From the feedback it was still a big deal in terms of what it brought vs no NVG at all, which is what kicked up the interest and requirements for ANVIS and further updates to that system. But Cat's Eyes was in the supply chain and in use at the same time, but like a lot of the other things I researched over on Arf in years past sometimes you just don't find pics at all. Or they show up years and years after you've stopped even thinking about a topic of research. As to the sets themselves, it sounded like there were some 7-800 sets in circulation in the 90s, and that they had to go through NSWC Crane for them, mounts, support, etc. and they were somewhat tightly controlled. I will of course keep looking around, but it is also moderately likely that they didn't photograph it or felt like it was "close hold" at the time. Night Vision has had its share of secrecy around it as somewhat talked about in the ITAR/F-4G side, using the ITAR restrictions on NVG generations as an example. That, and this was before digital cameras became big and I can't really think of any film cameras or even camcorders that might have been able to film or photo at night enough to capture it without a flash. Cruise vids from '87 and '88-'89 haven't shown any clips. I also haven't found too many resources on the Air Force's NV initiatives, when they started exploring, testing, pushing for ANVIS, etc. One of the Intruder guys mentioned working on the C-17s cockpit design study in 1991 and it was being set up for NV compatibility, so it seems like NV was becoming a priority. I may look into the F-4, F-111, A-10, etc. communities and see if anyone there has scoop. Here's a VX-5 Intruder from '88 apparently with the NV mods And well shoot, here's you a VX-5 Hornet pilot with Cat's Eyes, '89:

They were not using ANVIS, it was Cat's Eyes which was around by the earlier 80s (aka MXU-810/u). Tested at Pax River in '86 and those crews brought the concept and got approval to deploy with it in '87 on Coral Sea, after which the 6th Fleet made a standing requirement for A-6's to be NVG capable. VA-35 deployed on Roosevelt in '88 and was in the TEAM WORK exercise, with the A-6 crews on there remembering watching the northern lights using said NVGs. By my discussion with them, they either had HGU-66 helmets or HGU-55s with some fabricated mounts. The system wouldn't work on the HGU-33/43 obviously and they mentioned they had dedicated helmets for the Cat's Eyes setup. They did mention that pretty quick after the '87 cruise the concept and interest spread to the Hornet community, and apparently older Cat's Eyes promo material mentioned Intruder and Hornet squadrons had deployed with it. Apparently from old M4C and Arfcom threads Cat's Eyes wasn't fully phased out until around 2000. https://rochesteravionicarchives.co.uk/collection/goggles-head-mounted-display-nvg-hmd/night-vision-goggles-parts I got no indications that they ditched or weren't using the capability during Desert Storm, and from what I'm seeing around or soon after the converted cockpit jets were happening. From what one guy said they ultimately had about 3/4 of their jets converted to the green cockpit with the rest being mainly used as their tankers. Photos of the Cat's Eyes are really scarce, as are pics of the HGU-66 in use of which I only ever was sent one from possibly a Hornet squadron cruise book page. The HGU-85 looks similar and has a central NV mount. Later on the HGU-68 and HGU-55 had a "banana" mount that clipped on, the metal clips visible when the NV wasn't mounted are pretty easy to spot. You can see VF-14 and VF-41 had such helmets in video/photos from Allied Force in 1999. HGU-66, which were around/in supply in the 80s: Either an HGU-66 with ears, or a HGU-55 with the modified mount for Cat's Eyes. Can also see the velcro tabs for camo helmet cover: Eventually yes, ANVIS came in and it became more prolific but Cat's Eyes had been spread across the Intruders, Hornets, Marine AV-8s, and Tomcats through the 90s. You can tell where squadrons were set up for it if you see HGU-85 helmets, as that was the primary NVG compatible helmet in the 90s. Again commonly seen in photos with crews of the above jets. What led me to talking to the Intruder folks was the DTIC paper out there by CDR Rabens, "Night Vision for the F-14 Tomcat" which covered VF-11's F-14D use of it in the early-mid 90s and the eventual NV compatible cockpit retrofit kits. Right off the bat in the introduction was: "Naval tactical aircraft have been flying with night vision goggles (NVG's) since 1986 when VA-65 deployed in A-6E Intruders with NVGs. Shortly thereafter, F/A-18 Hornet Night Attack Program commenced." The paper was written around '94, and mentioned that Warminster NADC had been working on an NVIS compatible Tomcat cockpit for 8 years at that point, and that VF-11 had been using night vision for a few years before the proposals and development of their "affordable" NV compatible cockpit lighting kit. As to the Intruder aircraft themselves originally the NV converted jets were given the X2X MODEX, ie. 521. So if you look around at earlier 90s photos and see Intruders with that MODEX range that aren't in high-vis paint/KA-6D, they have the NV green cockpit. But they were flying the jets without the lighting changes before that. Other side note for that, look closely at A-6 Intruder patches and that's where the patches started to have green eyes, just as the patch had evolved with the E and TRAM additions that altered the ground radar lines. -------- But on the original topic that I did respond to, yes the USAF didn't appear to have had the same NVG usage initiative, and I've seen nothing about F-4E squadrons in particular using them, unless F-4G squadrons started to before the last ones were retired. BUT, as I also did say the Greeks and Turks have been seen using NV with their jets, and while the module technically doesn't cover those updated aircraft, the typical intent from HB is that they still want people to be able to operate those, and they would not restrict NV for that reason. Like I said, it's an element better left to servers or mission makers to choose whether they want to restrict NV for the F-4E. For historic USAF use it wouldn't make sense to have it, but for servers or missions based on modern Es from Turkey, Greece, or hell even Iran maybe, there would be reasons to allow it even if said countries don't have dedicated NV compatible cockpits.

Well I'm glad you're just setting the universal rules of what "counts" for NVG use. Better go tell VA-65 in '87 and VA-35 in '88-'89 that it just didn't count and they were just playing around with it. I guess if it isn't a War Cruise it doesn't matter.

The Tomcat squadrons did start using NVGs during the 90s, the NV compatible kits for the cockpits were being propagated somewhere in the mid-late 90s. Intruder squadrons had started NVG flying in the late 80s before Desert Storm and had NV compatible cockpit jets not far after. After the Intruder squadrons proved out the concept Hornet squadrons soon followed, and later on Tomcats. As to the F-4E, while I've not seen any indications that the USAF had started NVG use with them before their retirement, the Turks and Greeks, and possibly other export customers that have held onto their jets into the 00s and beyond have been seen using them or likely have. As DCS doesn't seem to have the capacity to restrict NV usage based on date and/or operator skin, it wouldn't make sense to restrict the DCS NV function from being used. It would be more on the individual or maybe mission writer/server to set that. If you want USAF 70s-80s flying, don't use the NVGs. Theoretical 90s or export customers in the 90s-010s, use em.

It's the clean cockpit mod, I believe @DSplayer has a fix for that.

ITAR includes nontangible things like information, yes. Even knowledge on systems or technology, working out of country as a contractor or individual can be considered "exporting" that information and controlled or barred by the State Department under ITAR. Most common place I see that is around night vision technology, where there are restrictions on even letting non-US Citizens look through a set of say Generation 3 NV devices, or any manuals or documentation for them. Look at the pages for some of the big night vision vendors like TNVC or Night Vision Incorporated on their Legal or FAQ pages. In that specific case the risk is that allowing a foreign entity to look through the same level or higher of NV tubes used by the US military may give them an understanding of how far and how clearly US forces can see in different light conditions, depth of field, field of view, etc. So, even if a manual gets an approval for declassification by the Navy or USAF, ITAR could still say that while it's declassified and appropriate for say "US Persons" to have, review, consume, etc. it may not be legal or approved for non-US persons to do the same. So forwarding a copy to a company based out of Europe could definitely run afoul of ITAR. That's where any requests for manuals would have to be carefully done to ensure that it can be shared to non-US Persons.

The motor degradation may not have been related to the DS shots, I wish I could find where that was but haven't been able to. It may have more been an investigation of available motors and a lot came back as problematic.

There are photos around of Cs with white motor sections, I think there was some chatter that using up remaining motor sections could result in Mk60s still being in the mix whether carried or fired off in live shoots. Not certain when Mk60s were out of inventory but I can't seem to find where I saw the chatter too about the old motors in storage having issues with cracking and that having a potential contribution to the failures during DS. I think Mk60s were only produced through the late 70s so by '88 or so as Cs really started hitting the fleet any Mk60 motor sections would have been possibly 10 years or older. Finding actual details about the Mk60 is not easy, only that it was a subcontract and that the contract was later terminated.

The Mk60 was an alternate source motor from a different manufacturer, that's all. I've seen zero documentation around about improved performance or specific motor use cases, only that the contract for the Mk60 motors didn't last long before it was canceled. Also rumors about the motors degrading over time but never did find any reports specifically on that.

The weight of the helmets was only part of the issue, the other being the reliability of the IR tracking boxes and their wiring harnesses which usually led to a *down* system. Keeping the system up and available required manhours and apparently modifications to the wiring harnesses of the system but it was progressively divested by the end of the 1970s.

No, and no. In essence the Mach 5 claim was not accurate to any actual demonstrated and documented performance, in reality you're looking at more like low Mach 4s when firing from high altitude/speed and at ranges where the missile can loft properly. NASA never actually tested/fired the Phoenix in the hypersonic proof of concept presentation. DCS missile behavior is still very problematic and lofting can't be adjusted to more specifically match what the Phoenix attempts to do. But in at least some of the few documented shots with enough data available, the DCS Phoenix's ballistic very closely matched those shots. The issues with notching and inefficient lofting profiles are squarely on the ED missile model and HB has no way to further adjust specifics of lofting angles nor seeker performance.

Mach is among those providing skins for the Tomcat of the highest quality, and actively works on/supports more than one 3rd party behind the scenes. You also disregarded that he stated the roughmet and normal map work usually comes after all of the diffuse is laid down. His normal and roughmet work on the F-86, B-17, F-16, and F-14 are absolutely in league with Mega's own, and I'm sure Mega himself would say the same. He's been at this for a long, long time. Please, go and review his VF-31 1991 and VF-301 skins that are currently included with the F-14 (including the faux early gun vents done by hand) and let me know if he needs further tips or recommendations. Or the Top Gun helmets he did for my Top Gun skin that's also included with the F-14, which he did the roughmets and normals for by hand to show the tape and decoration.

Sometimes the kill markings stuck with the jet, sometimes the pilot could carry it along with them. Have seen both examples for Navy and Air Force. Sometimes it was on the CO's jet representing the squadron's combined kills.

The RWR is tied with the RWR for the Phantom too, they're somewhat intertwined as both will be needing the audio. It will probably be later in the summer with the AI A-6E.

To add, the more Orks get together the more powerful it is, and it's literally a case of if the Orks can imagine it, it becomes reality. And they also get smarter/stronger. If the F-4's designers lived long enough to see 40k exist and had it explained to them, they'd probably get a chuckle out of the idea that the F-4 is an Ork jet because strapping a pair of J79s onto a Greyhound bus is exactly what the Orks would do. And yeah, the F-4 is as big as a Greyhound bus. When my dad took a trip to the Naval Academy the summer before being accepted, he remembers that the bus parked by one that was on display. And the Phantom was as long as the bus. It always stuck with him and that's what he'd wanted to do until his vision went in the crapper. But he at least got a cat shot off the Kennedy in '72 with VF-14 in the back of an F-4B, got to do ACM, and a carrier landing. Said nothing has ever come close.

That very same hell indeed. There will be plenty of time to put Navy skins where they belong, on Navy jets. Though the B/N may get left out technically speaking at least a J/S is a better place to slap those than an E. Whenever that time does come for boat jets know that the core J/S skins will be done and with the absolute best effort possible to capture markings, helmets, crew gear, and the right weathering levels. Tomcat is still #1 for me, but better believe my enthusiasm for the J/S will be far above and beyond all the time put in trying to help research the E, and I've put almost as much effort in there as I did F-14 research.

It was already a problem that they put a Navy skin on an E, but there is a special hell reserved for them doing VF-202.

Really though the Ork loadout would probably be gunpods on every pylon, because moar Dakka

The photo isn't of an actual LAU-34, it's apparently a whole assembly that bolts up into where the MAU-12's ejector rack would be. Onto that, you could then mount an additional LAU-34, TER, etc. while having enough vertical spacing to mount two Sidewinders. Again it's only referred to as "Special Weapon Adapter" and doesn't seem to have a serial or other nomenclature. That's one of the only photos we've come across that seems to clearly show it, nothing about drawings, one removed from the aircraft, closeups of stencils, or the inner side of the pylon. But when reviewing the TOs through the latest ones in the 90s that seemed to be the only place where the TER was cleared to carry 3 bombs and sidewinders on those inner pylons together. Or, with LAU-34 would allow a Shrike with sidewinders potentially.

The adapter in the photo is the so-called "Special Weapons Adapter", which is bolted into the MAU-12 and replaces its ejector rack. It's not the entire assembly, but is basically an LAU-34 that bolts into where the MAU-12 ejector would go so it's stronger and no bracing is needed. It was the only instance that could be found in the F-4E TOs that showed loadouts with a TER of 3x bombs AND with AIM-9s on the inner pylons at the same time, due to clearance. Apparently, it was cleared for use in the mid-80s but only the Phantoms out of Clark with 3rd TFW had been seen to use them. And in the photo from the Gulf War they used the pylons but not fully loaded. The only TO that showed TER+bombs+AIM-9s was a very late one.

Drivebys elusive pylon photo Refuses to elaborate

Based on how loud the engines are I have sincere doubts someone could ever hear the wing sweep servos on a running jet, from any position. The TF-30s were more than loud enough to blow out all but the best recording equipment and most crews doubled up on ear protection. I'd even doubt much if any tactile/haptic feedback based on how demo flight videos and cockpit recordings so often have the RIO visually watching and calling out that the wings were moving to the pilot to verify their position.

I went back through some of the old Tomcat Association posts about the very topic, and only 1 jet ever put out an instrumented run @ 2.4 Mach, which was 1X (the replacement jet for the prototype that crashed). Context was a demo run for contract to prove it could hit certain numbers, but that would have been a very clean prototype jet, with all of the intake ramp positions, and without de-rated TF-30s as fleet jets later received. The prototype jets didn't even have radar or most of the production internal electronics, but rather had instrumentation collection/transmission gear for test data but quite different from the ultimate production jets. So we're talking about a much lighter, lower drag jet making those numbers, once. Anecdotes from fleet pilots, RAG instructors, Grumman pilots, and even folks at Pax River in later years was that a fleet configured A, "slick" as in no stores, was about good for 2.0 with maybe a little more room depending on how ballsy you were with fuel and getting lashes for the paint getting scorched. Most pilots that actually tried ended up in the 1.8-1.9 Mach regions before having to beeline to land. Consider fleet jets had the glove pylons on, possibly fuel tank pylons, and over time much more weight than the prototype jets. The late 90s F-14A 135-GRs we have in DCS as mentioned had more weight from the ALQ-126 jammers that were added, TCS pod, ARL-67, GPS dome and wiring for LANTIRN, and other various changes internally. The 80s ones won't be much different, maybe slightly less weight from not having ALR-67's added equipment versus the ALR-45/50 and without the GPS dome and other sundry bits needed for LANTIRN. That adds up in terms of weight and drag. And that 80s configuration still was heavier with more drag than the older block jets like -90s, and the early production jets before the engines were de-rated to prevent the compressors from coming apart(60, 65, 70 blocks). The comments about B/D jets were similar, some claiming they saw 2.0 with some room to keep going but backed off to avoid the wrath of maintainers or other repercussions. Most of those weren't fleet scenarios either, but RAG instructors or Grumman delivery/test folks on "Shakedown" flights.

There's also the EA-6As that were used by the Navy and Marines, and retained by Navy Reserves and the Marines for a decent amount of time. VAQ-209 didn't move to the EA-6B until 1990. They look like a 2-place EA-6B.

To you, sure. But doing model changes and doing them correctly involves a lot more work and shortcuts is not something they generally do. Even the changes to existing models like the F-14, minor as they may seem, take significant time to ensure they are done correctly, textures are properly updated, UVWs are updated, model arguments added/updated, etc.