LanceCriminal86

Only certain jets came from Grumman wired for TARPS originally. When LANTIRN came along those were not selected for the mod. Apparently LANTIRN and TARPS shared the same panel areas in the A and B so you would be unable to operate both pods anyways. B Upgrade and the digital BUS may have allowed for more B models being TARPS capable, seems to be conflicting info there. On the D they could all carry TARPS and I believe LANTIRN as well. Some Ds even carried TARPS and LANTIRN at the same time, though I don't know how they operated both if TARPS needed dedicated space also used by the LANTIRN control panel.

I don't believe so, later in life as the squadrons transitioned there were probably more pods to go around, like the PTIDs finally making their way into F-14Ds. But some of the commentary around stated something like 6 pods for a squadron, so if a jet went down they'd have to move the pod around and ideally take the PTID with it. At that kind of rate my guess is that a pair of Tomcats would have 1 of the jets with the pod to lase for both.

Untrue. VF-154 deployed with LANTIRN pods and no PTIDs in '96-'98 timeframe, with PTIDs starting to show up to their squadron around '98. The F-14As needed the PTID more because their TIDs were mostly burned out and difficult to read during the day. Source, from VF-154 crew and maintainers via the Tomcat Assn. Also photos from Dave Parsons during the testing with VF-103 of LANTIRN on a regular TID. LANTIRN was being done separately from the PTID project which was out at Pt Mugu as part of the MCAP. They just happened to be working in parallel and PTID was shown to greatly benefit the use of LANTIRN. So those screens were prioritized for As with LANTIRN and Bs with LANTIRN, but not the D as theirs was digital and didn't have the burn issues. As far as the LANTIRN pod, it was more difficult to remove/reinstall so it was typically left on the jet. It would also allow for ID/Observation but wouldn't be part of designating or use in the drop itself.

We've got pics around of the F-14 implementation, which I believe they borrowed/got from the A-6 community at Whidbey. I'd assume it was a similar or same model, granted I have no idea what actual model of radar detector they used. My understanding as well is they hit the PCB with a soldering iron to make it only work on the radar band or bands they wanted based on some of the anecdotes I read. Sounds like they just bought them from Radio Shack and wired/mounted them up, and when the SWIP Intruders came in they didn't need them anymore as the new RWR could properly detect the bands SA-6s, Hawks, etc. used. Oh hey, you can just see one here, looks like the same model in an Intruder, look directly left of the pilot's visor. Connie's 88/89 cruise:

I have again redownloaded ext04, and everything is exactly as it should be. All folders, liveries, etc. are present and it opens correctly in Adobe CC 2023 and 2024. What version of photoshop are you using? Are you downloading the PSD individually or the full template .rar?

That's because you can skin weapons as part of a livery, but once they leave the aircraft they will default to the textures on the core ED side. For multiple coatings or textures will or would require ED to add a more full livery system for munitions. Some bombs do have them but not all.

No, this was known and addressed on the discord due to some behind the scenes changes to how textures get streamed in, so the damage textures end up loading in first. Fix has already been made apparently and waits for the next Hotfix patch.

It's one of those things best done in a tool that does it all at once, namely the whole Substance 3D suite, as you can "paint" with PBR materials and then layer in the weathering, scratches, scuffs, stains, etc. There's been some comments around that something like that *could* happen, but it will be time intensive and not a quickly delivered thing. As I understand the F-14's cockpit (or really its whole model/texturing) was done differently than the upcoming F-4, where the F-14 took the photo scans and then cleaned them up by hand, the F-4 was all done by hand. With Substance you can dynamically create various levels of wear and tear as desired, without losing that base "depth" and feel of the painted metal panels. And yes, they had validated in the past that the existing cockpit was not just straight up scanned from a museum jet and dropped in, it was cleaned up significantly and adjusted to SME input of what a jet typically looked like on cruise.

I just pulled down the EXT_04 PSD from the Google drive link and everything looks as it should, did you try following the GDrive link and downloading just the EXT_04? Did you download the whole template RAR file?

Those are not test values, NASA never fired a Phoenix in the hypersonic tests. They were projections and were based around a modified Phoenix missile, being launched at Mach 2 at 48,000 feet. The information was reviewed but the core performance values were taken from other sources and the performance in-sim was compared against some documented test shots with an extremely close match. Unfortunately missile guidance has been problematic and encountered a number of hangups that have hampered the missile's performance.

It's not an issue of "block", the foreign nations modified their jets for different capabilities. They went out and purchased or pulled hardware together, wired it into the jets, and used it. Where's the docs on how it was done? How it was controlled? What did the panels look like? For any of these export Phantoms you need to have the docs about HOW it was done for it to be implemented in some way, which then starts to beg the questions of "if you added X, what about Y from country Z"? Then they're down the rabbit hole of which exported jets to try and pursue, with everyone hurt that their particular jet wasn't done. At this point they've already said they are not rushing to do any other variants, there's already a lot on the plate.

I mentioned because I started finding some Air Force stuff on DTIC talking about the differences of ANVIS vs the 5A, which may have some ideas as to what it was tested with and who.

I'm getting some more info coming in, start looking at AN/PVS-SA or 5A, seems it's either they're the same thing or text scans think they are. Seeing papers referencing tests of ANVIS vs PVS-5A back to 83-84, and more testing may have been occurring even back to '75. Hoping to eventually start finding what airframes they tested with first and if any did more exploratory OT&E in the F-4 at all.

I think they described it best before that Iceman is basically an interface into the Autopilot.

Still searching for more about when the Air Force really started to push for NVGs in the cockpit but coming up empty. For as much as Desert Storm is described as the war where we owned the night and how NVGs changed night warfare, I'm not finding a lot. But the Marines have been referenced as using the aforementioned MXU-810 in their Harriers at the time and the Harrier Night Attack and Night Attack Hornets existed at the time, the first NA F/A-18D rolled off the McD factory and was delivered to the Marines in '89. I'm going to guess the F-117s didn't immediately need the NVGs with their FLIR but I'd really have thought there would be more coverage of NVG usage during the Gulf War. We know ANVIS was in the works and new aircraft were being designed as NV compatible, but I guess folks really didn't want to take photos of the ones in use. The search continues. Also got further validation regarding Cat's Eyes being very tightly controlled, which is why you don't see them much outside in collections. NSWC Crane had a very tight line on them for issuing/maintenance and all the sets were to go back to them. Got that verified through someone else later in the mid-90s who used them in other Navy aircraft, eventually at least 700 of the roughly 800 sets Crane had issued out were returned last they had heard as it was phased out. Obligatory Cat's Eyes photo from VX-5 in '90 http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1990/Rktr-900831-01.jpg

They differed in that the Israelis jerry-rigged their jets to work with them, just like they also later modified their jets to work with the Popeye missile. STARM requires hardware and panels to interface with the missile which the US E lacks, and which the G had.

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.