Bremspropeller

Yeah, I agree it would be very ambitious, but having the other maps with large population centers and some new tech gives me hope there'll be some more advances into that direction. Plus in order to be useful for any jets, the maps would have to extend west by quite a bit to reach any type of jet airfield. If you take this map as a reference (posted on the prior page), there'd be hardly any jet airbase in the west covered by it's extent (apart from FRA, HAJ, Wunstorf - none of which are full time fast jet air bases, with maybe the exception of Gütersloh, which could be right on the western edge) and a hand full of jet bases in the east: For info: The demonstrated (by screenshot) northern boundary is at least as far north as the location of the second r in "North Front". For info 2: With the Sinai map, we're already covering a very large amount of virtual population. The entire population of Egypt is about 110 million people, most of which are living in the depicted areas - subtracting Luxor and Assuan, but there's population centers northeast of Sinial as well, which more than adjusts for that loss: Population sizes of Israel (10milllion) and Gaza+Westbank (~5 million) aren't that small either.

I'm hoping it covers Germany entirely, as the most beautiful airfields (landscape-wise) are in the southern west and southwest. The airfields in southern Bavaria are also quite scenic. If that area is covered, some franch airbases in the Rhine valley should also make it (e.g. Colmar and Strasbourg, maybe even Metz and Nancy). For the eastern dimension, I hope it at least covers the Oder river. That in turn also covers parts of Czechia and maybe northern Austria. The pics seen so far suggest that the map at least extends to the german coast of the Baltic Sea. Really looking forward to the map reveal.

But why did the USAF never use it as such? For political reasons and political reasons only. And thats what you have to take into consideration as well. The jet is perfectly capable of doing it, so why let it out of it's game-representation?

Nope. As indicated by the fact that four F-100D squadrons and one F-105D squadron participated. All of them top notch interceptors. Nope. No ADC at all, since interceptor meetings happened in the odd years, which 1962 wasn't. That's not what the video says. So the pilot fudging up multiple times was a marketing thing - clearly done on purpose to sell jets.

Kadena jet with fancy toys.

Israeli jets also got CFTs. Being CFT-compatble is one of the features of the Charlie. Ask the nerds for specifics. null

Not just that. With multiple 3rd party devs bringing out several variants of their jets with one packege, ED won't get away with just providing one variant at the same price IMHO.

Disagree

It would also be a nice ATC feature (lights dim, medium, bright), or at minimum a feature tied to assigning an airfield to a faction.

...somebody had to ask it...

The Starfighter sucked so bad at air to ground, it accidentally won the 1962 WiIlliam Tell tactical fighter weapons meet.

The 35 we wanted null

https://www.mil-airfields.de/de/mendig.htm Those two houses next to the fountain (Neptunbrunnen) gotta go, though.

So what kind of facts and data are we talking about here? Jet X flew Y amount of missions, so it must be better than jet Z. That argument breaks right down, on your very own graph, comparing F-100 and A-7 sorties, where the A-7 outdoes the F-100 by every single metric other than max achievable Mach number. But the A-7 must have sucked, as they bought less than they bought Huns and hence flew less missions. Occam's Razor. More like Gillette Mach Feierabend. You mean the same servers on which people rack up ace-in-a-flight tallies at noon in severe clear weather, smashing their jets beacause they can't land it properly? Yeah, Occam's Razor 5000, dude!

Is there enough wind for the correct ILS to activate? I flew a couple of ILS approaches into Akrotiri yesterday and it worked just fine for me. The area in which the LOC and GS needles do show up is fairly narrow, though. Seems like they won't show up until the actual beam is recieved.

No. The reason why the 104 wasn't bought in great numbers was stated above: USAF internal political games, where SAC came out on top and everything else kind of had to fall in line. That's mostly a nuclear primary role and no light dual role aircraft for the air superirity mission with the secondary ground attack mission - literally what the 104 was designed to do, which was in essence take a Sabre, install a large-a$$ motor, take most of the wings off and go vertical. Contrary to popular belief, the Super Sabre wasn't all that super and quickly was handed down to TAC as a fighter-bomber with the C and D versions. On top, most Super Sabres were on the way out, when the war got interesting in terms of electronical warfare or they had their stage shifted into the South. Late in the game, besides Misty, it was mostly an ANG show of Hun deployment into SEA. The Hun was a cool jet for 1957, but it was out of place a decade later. It was there, in numbers, however. Most ANG squadrons in the F-104 community flew the A model, which had been a stopgap for the F-102A fiasco during the late 50s. When the taylor-made-for-ADC Dagger and later the Dart (which also underperformed at first) came about in greater numbers, the 104A was handed down to ANG and out of there quickly. It also had no AG capability other than the gun (if installed). The lack of 104s in country was mostly for reasons other than the aircraft's capability, which included a fast reaction time to station for CAS work. And it mostly failed, just like all the other jets and whizz-bang gadgetry did. Because they were there. If there's only one fighter wing of 104Cs about, they'll get rotated in and out of country quickly, while the Hun community had more wings and squadrons to rotate into action. Including ANG squadrons. If there's only one wing operating the jet in country, you'll run into logistics (parts) issues quickly. Also, you'd want to rotate personnel in and out of country on regular basis, which is kinda hard when there's a small pool to draw from in the first place. Here's what Tom Delashaw had to say about it - he kinda had to know as he had been there: https://www.i-f-s.nl/vietnam/ Most european based NATO Air Forces disagree with your assessment. WARPAC countries (namely the EGAF) found themselves very challenged at intercepting aircraft in the 104G's projected role - low, fast and deep in any weather.

+1 Including more culumus cloud types and generally more sh1tty wx options like cold front passages and lines of storms passing through.

The 104G is basicly 105D avionics (with an INS instead of a doppler*) shoehorned into a smaller airframe. The 105 scored a 1:1 kill ratio against MiG-17s. Now imagine what a jet with roundabout the same Ps at 5g as the 105D at 0g (SL) could possibly have achieved. *INS was only available starting with the "Thunderstick II" modification in the late 60s.

Why would the 104 be able to deliver inaccurately only? The jet had the same limitations as the others mentioned. Manual bombing was the norm back then. The reason why the F-100 conducted more missions was that there were a good deal more of them around, which is mostly down to political reasons in the USAF internal power struggle between SAC and the other commands, which SAC won. By 1965 (first 104 deployment to SEA), only one active fighter wing of 104Cs was around. What exactly did the Luftwaffe learn? During NATO meets, F-104 squadrons would often come out on top in both recce and bombing. Not just Luftwaffe, but also RCAF and other NATO air forces' 104s.

The F-105 had pretty much the same radar as the 104G. The A-4 (starting with the Charlie) had a pretty capable radar and starting with the E a rather capable doppler nav set. The A-7 was even moe advanced with it's (though ridimentary) TFR and it's later (Delta and Echo variants) advanced avionics package. The major shortcoming of the 104 in the conventional role was the lack of payload-range (one word). Clean and with a bucket of sunshine (no matter how many tanks), it's range was actually quite good. Together with a good cruise capability (fast and smoot d/t high wing loading) it was quite capable unless you asked it to carry a lot. It also had a rather low RCS for shipping attacks.

And of course the USAF flew CAS in South Vietnam with their 104Cs https://www.i-f-s.nl/da-nang-aircraft-part-1/

IIRC Turkey used theirs in Cyprus.

I bless the rains down in Africa...

How do you like your CF-104Ds? With two underwing Sidewinders! http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wD664.htm

That'sa bit too dramatic - Canada had two things happen to them during the mid 60s, but they'd fly CF-104s into the early-mid 80s: 1st: Charles DeGaulle threw everybody not speaking Francais out of the country. Hence the CF-104s stationed in Marville and Grostenquin switched to Baden-Söllingen and Lahr and Zweibrücken. Zweibrücken was handed over to the USAFE a couple of years later. Baden-Söllingen and Lahr were both prior used by the AdlA. Both even had those distinct "french" shelter-loops ("Marguèrites"). 2nd: NATO doctrine shifted from nuking everybody if even a branch of wood snapped the wrong way in the woods at night, to "Flexible Response". This in turn also lead to equipping the CF-104s (non recce jets) with guns and conventional weapons, including the double-racks for bombs under the wings. The refuelling-probes were not standard inventoryto my knowledge and it was only really a test configuration. I think it was only tested once when they wanted to know if there's a quicker way to get the jets in Canada (e.g. the jets at Cold Lake) to the frontline in Europe without taking the jets apart and sending them via airfreight. I'd not be too surprised if the refulling probes were the same as used with the F-104C in SEA, so it's probably a no-brainer to install them onto any 104. Apparently including the two-seaters: