splash Posted August 26, 2023 Share Posted August 26, 2023 22 hours ago, snocc_ said: you can go check their facebook page and see stuff like 4 sidewinders on the F1 or see old posts on the 101 saying we'd get mavericks/laser designators/countermeasures, none of which are a thing on the versions of the planes we're getting/got dont get me wrong im happier with what we've got, but they're still mistakes they've made and i wouldnt be surprised if they made similar mistakes again OK Thanks! I just wanted to know what things have been promised and not implemented. I bought the module when it came out and haven't used it for months, so I don't follow the development. I'd love to see 4 Sidewinders in F-104G, but I don't know if it was a valid payload. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snocc_ Posted August 26, 2023 Share Posted August 26, 2023 i think it was a valid payload for the G but afaik it wasnt done much, not very sure tbh 1 el articulo 140 de la constitucion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Get_Lo Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 On 8/25/2023 at 3:54 PM, Rudel_chw said: So you say ... meanwhile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority_fighter Yes, I know that wikipedia is not a definitve source ... but it certainly beats a single word from an Internet unkkown Meanwhile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter Read literally the first sentence, its not that hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmal Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 Starfighter from Aerges is very exiting news for me! 2 Мой позывной в DCS: _SkyRider_ Мой канал YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGdfzT7-xbgvmPwmUcCNArQ?view_as=subscriber My callsign on DCS is: _SkyRider_ My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGdfzT7-xbgvmPwmUcCNArQ?view_as=subscriber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAXsenna Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 Meanwhile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter Read literally the first sentence, its not that hard.Dude! You're about 36 hours or so too late."Literally" read the previous posts, it's not that hard.Apologies! I'm kidding, but I just couldn't help myself. Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bremspropeller Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 No whatter what you think it is, I think we can agree on one basic fact: It's sexy as duck! 5 So ein Feuerball, JUNGE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguara5 Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 (edited) Edited August 27, 2023 by jaguara5 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Get_Lo Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 11 hours ago, MAXsenna said: Dude! You're about 36 hours or so too late. "Literally" read the previous posts, it's not that hard. Apologies! I'm kidding, but I just couldn't help myself. Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk I did read them. why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUFA Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 On 8/26/2023 at 6:26 AM, Bremspropeller said: The german Navy seems to always have carried the Sidewinders on the catamaran Brem was there any issues with scraping the catwinders? They always struck me has a dodgey setup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bremspropeller Posted August 27, 2023 Share Posted August 27, 2023 I don't think scraping was a major issue, but what limited their use with some operators was their negative effect on stability. I think there was also some concern about damaging the seekers, which were close to the nose tyre, but those concerns may have been mostly theoretical, since the cat config was flown at least into the 80s. 1 1 So ein Feuerball, JUNGE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frumpy Posted September 1, 2023 Share Posted September 1, 2023 On 8/27/2023 at 1:13 PM, Bremspropeller said: No whatter what you think it is, I think we can agree on one basic fact: It's sexy as duck! At 3:34 a Starfighter flies through the turbulences caused by another Starfighter. Amazing! There is also a quite weird Luftwaffe promotional video online... for German speakers only... die multiplizierte Flugprothese: 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiG21bisFishbedL Posted September 2, 2023 Share Posted September 2, 2023 Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasnkova74 Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 (edited) On 8/27/2023 at 5:34 PM, Bremspropeller said: I don't think scraping was a major issue, but what limited their use with some operators was their negative effect on stability. I think there was also some concern about damaging the seekers, which were close to the nose tyre, but those concerns may have been mostly theoretical, since the cat config was flown at least into the 80s. The U.S. used them briefly during the F-104s Vietnam deployment. The “catamaran” centerline pylons were draggy and limited the F-104s speed and range. The catamarans were ditched accordingly, especially once F-104s were used for close air support alert in Operation Linebacker. Different operators used different configurations of A2A missiles & fuel tanks. The wing stations originally weren’t wired for missiles, but the Pakistanis field modded their Starfighters to use AIM-9s. This was to free up the wingtip stations for lower drag fuel tanks. The modification made its way to the F-104s other operators, if they saw value in it. Edited November 21, 2023 by Kalasnkova74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_sukebe Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 On 8/25/2023 at 9:54 PM, Rudel_chw said: So you say ... meanwhile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority_fighter Yes, I know that wikipedia is not a definitve source ... but it certainly beats a single word from an Internet unkkown Wouldn’t the definition within the Wiki article be appropriate for say a P51 or Zero, both of which had massive ranges System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse. Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudel_chw Posted November 21, 2023 Author Share Posted November 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said: Wouldn’t the definition within the Wiki article be appropriate for say a P51 or Zero, both of which had massive ranges That wiki article speaks also about the evolution of the "air superiority fighter" term, and how it really wasnt used before the 60s ... so, no, it wouldnt be appropiate for the P51 or Zero. 1 For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1 Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
303_Kermit Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 On 8/26/2023 at 10:18 AM, Rudel_chw said: that’s cheap talk, I was able to use the manual of the real aircraft to perform almost all the steps and checks of a full cold start … didn’t seem half fidelity to me Here you go Sir:-) here: and here: And finally here: MiG-21 is exception in DCS. In many terms. RSBN - Low fidelity Aiming sight - Low fidelity (explanation you can find in last post) Flight model - Very low fidelity ARU- it's a misunderstanding SAU - same as above Radar - joke. Best regards. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xilon_x Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 i ITALY WE CALL IT surname---------SPILLONE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xilon_x Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 (edited) italian pilot Edited November 21, 2023 by Xilon_x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazansky222 Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 I hope they do kind of what they did with the F-1 and give us multiple variants A G and S would be awesome, especially the S/ASA some of that sweet Sparrow action. 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
303_Kermit Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 18 hours ago, Kazansky222 said: I hope they do kind of what they did with the F-1 and give us multiple variants A G and S would be awesome, especially the S/ASA some of that sweet Sparrow action. G & C you meant. Radar of F-104 was too small to fully exploit AiM-7. C is capable of air refueling, and it's most advanced version used by USAF. G- obvious reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazansky222 Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 17 hours ago, 303_Kermit said: G & C you meant. Radar of F-104 was too small to fully exploit AiM-7. C is capable of air refueling, and it's most advanced version used by USAF. G- obvious reason I don't know about that, the Italian operated their version with aspides (italian aim-7) from 1986 when they put the R21G/M1 radar in it until 2004, they also put a little better version of the engine then the G as well the J-79-GE-19, better climb and acceleration. I think that one had the smokeless combustor as well. Not sure what the radar range was with the Italian radar, but it must have been enough to justify mounting aspides on it and the early F-104 was 20nm so its got to be greater than that. It was a radar with look down capability, but they had to remove the cannon to make room for it. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasnkova74 Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 1 hour ago, Kazansky222 said: I don't know about that, the Italian operated their version with aspides (italian aim-7) from 1986 when they put the R21G/M1 radar in it until 2004, they also put a little better version of the engine then the G as well the J-79-GE-19, better climb and acceleration. I think that one had the smokeless combustor as well. Not sure what the radar range was with the Italian radar, but it must have been enough to justify mounting aspides on it and the early F-104 was 20nm so its got to be greater than that. It was a radar with look down capability, but they had to remove the cannon to make room for it. This. 20nm is plenty for a valid AIM-7 shot - remember the Italians used them as point defense interceptors. So a long range radar isn’t needed for that application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
303_Kermit Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 45 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said: This. 20nm is plenty for a valid AIM-7 shot - remember the Italians used them as point defense interceptors. So a long range radar isn’t needed for that application. 1 hour ago, Kazansky222 said: I don't know about that, the Italian operated their version with aspides (italian aim-7) from 1986 when they put the R21G/M1 radar in it until 2004, they also put a little better version of the engine then the G as well the J-79-GE-19, better climb and acceleration. I think that one had the smokeless combustor as well. Not sure what the radar range was with the Italian radar, but it must have been enough to justify mounting aspides on it and the early F-104 was 20nm so its got to be greater than that. It was a radar with look down capability, but they had to remove the cannon to make room for it. really?? F-104S were delivered from 1969 to 1973 and were equipped with AiM-7E, AiM-9B/F missiles. NASARR R-21G/H monopulse, non doppler radar. 29nm range for target size TU-95. For something MiG-21 like it's about 6nm. It's rival is F-4E, MiG-21bis, MiG-23, MiG-17, Su-7, Mirage 3/5 There were many problems: In 4 missiles configuration it was a risk of hitting own carrier by AiM-7 since missile nose pointed outside leading edge of a wing. (they create a "own" shockwave placed before the wing shockwave, so it affects also stability) Launching AiM-7 were performed only in subsonic flights. Acceleration of F-104 suffers also in these configuration considerably. F-104S-ASA were delivered in early 1990. FIAR R21G/M1 radar, Pulse doppler Radar, RWR, modern navigation avionics, chaff-flare dispensers, APSIDE Missiles, AiM-9L, and M61 Vulcan refitted back since avionics shrinked back. (source: http://www.karo-aviation.nl/favorite/pages/f104/f104ami.htm) Its rival would be F-15E/C, F-14A, F-16C, MiG-29A/S/G, Su-27, Mirage 2000C. Most modern variant S-ASA-M has very sad career story. I quote after:(http://www.karo-aviation.nl/favorite/pages/f104/f104ami.htm) "Initial flight of the F-104S ASA-M was in 1995, with initial deliveries in 1997. These machines served in an operational role in 1999 during OPERATION ALLIED FORCE, the NATO air campaign against Serbia. The Starfighters were used for combat air patrols, being occasionally directed by airborne warning and control aircraft to check out presumably non-hostile bogeys. Even the ASA-M project was unable to made the Starfighter to soldier on until the arrival of the Eurofighter. During the wars in the ex-Yugoslavia the ASA-M showed all its age and was unable to fly along others NATO fighters. It was relegated to air base protection and deemed unsuitable even for that mission." other sources: https://it.wikibooks.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_F-104S_Starfighter Sooo... witch one actually do you meant? For me its better to have F-104C - as a rival for MiG-19P. Don't you think? It's (early)Gen II fighter, and all Gen III updates seem to ... fail. Sadly With my best regards. Kermit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKermit Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 vor 12 Stunden schrieb 303_Kermit: NASARR R-21G/H monopulse, non doppler radar. 29nm range for target size TU-95. For something MiG-21 like it's about 6nm. Can you quote a source for that data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bremspropeller Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 13 hours ago, 303_Kermit said: There were many problems: In 4 missiles configuration it was a risk of hitting own carrier by AiM-7 since missile nose pointed outside leading edge of a wing. (they create a "own" shockwave placed before the wing shockwave, so it affects also stability) There's always a shockwave in front of the wing. Either caused by the tip tanks or by the tip-rails, which also protude a good deal in front of the LE. I'm also quite sure they figured out how to launch the Sparrow supersonically. It's not quite rocket-surgery to design a launcher that can create enough separation. So ein Feuerball, JUNGE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now