Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Rick50

  1. Yea, it really was cool!! Those giant shark tails all side by side... I don't remember exact, but I think they were roughly 300ft between them (100m), side by side, 4 wide. The second wave was the same, at about 100-200ft agl, again side by side. Both waves were silent, until well past then BOOM!! and a roar as they disappeared from sight... I should say, I don't "know" that evaluation/testing was the reason, I'm just taking a guess based on experience and "what I would do if I were in charge of RAF" at that time. What I mean is, though I was on base for some time, while I did know the air defence unit was right beside the main gate, I've no idea if they were "deployed" for the "airbase attack" exercise or not... it might have only been RAF and two people in the base airfield tower and ATC to ensure low alt deconfliction. I didn't see the air defense unit deployed, but I'm guessing they could have done so in 30minutes prior to the "strike", done the ex, raised the outriggers and disconnected hardlines and been back in the shed in just 1 hour! Or they could have been out there for 10 hours... And I would have seen none of it, as I was stuck at the gate for 12 hours... But I'm guessing the RAF really did want more from it than just flying low. Memory is very hazy, but I think it might have been just days after the two airmen were being shown beat up, POW's of the Iraqi military. Might have even been the video of them in that state, "confessing", all beat up, that caused the re-think of tactics... the reality of being shot down alive and captured could have had more psychological effect on decision making than the shootdown itself. Maybe it was just a "well if we aren't to do low level attack anymore, let's do one last exercise for the memories!", but it was so cool! Hmm... now I wonder if there were pics or video of that exercise... long before Gopros and smartphones... even cell phones were very rare in 1991, but maybe a camcorder? It was in early 1991 at Canadian Forces Base Lahr, southwestern Germany.
  2. I agree, I don't think it was about the amount in the real event, but rather what they concluded the future would be if they didn't change tactics. Just days after that shoot-down in '91, I was at a Canadian airbase... and we suddenly had 4 RAF Tornados (line abreast formation) do a simulated airfield attack, they were doing supersonic on the deck, we had no warning. Then, a minute later, a second 4 ship, same formation, did exactly the same. It's my belief that the RAF was suddenly VERY concerned about their low level attack method, and wanted to do a test and evaluation of their tactics, against the Canadian Air Defense weapons. No live fire, just see if the radars could track and whther our missiles and 35mm could actually theoretically down them. I'm guessing the test showed our SAM and AAA systems were probably quite deadly, as the tactic actually used became 16,000ft or higher PGM attacks. So Canada was using the ADATs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System and Oerlikon 35mm Skyguard https://en.rcamuseum.com/35mm-oerlikon-skyguard-swe/ I've no proof, but I also suspect that German airfields may also have been used to do a quick test evaluation, say against the Gepard 35mm and whatever other army air defense systems the German Army had at that time... though I'm guessing it might have been too early after re-unification for use of East German Shilka 23mm ? Maybe? Either way, it really was a treat to see 8 Tornados blast by us supersonic on the deck like that!! The silence, then BOOM! and now we all had jelly-legs and a queezy stomach! Many nervous laughs ensued!
  3. Agreed, Norway would be awesome... Reminds me of a sim from the mid-90's that featured the Eurofighter defending Norway from a resurgent Russian invasion... The map was very very basic compared to today, but it stretched from Norway to St Petersburg, from Oslo to... uh, well somewhere quite north, might have been arctic ocean even! Was a HUGE map... I'd LOVE to see a high detail version of that map, one that featured both summer and winter textures, and a dynamic campaign like the old sim did with a tacops addon... it had a lot of immersion, or at least that's what I felt when flying it! I remember being overjoyed to see AI Grippens, Tornados, I think there was even an Antonov 124 giant transport helping the invasion of Bodo... well I think there was, memory that far back is very hazy. But doing those multi-role airstrikes with a 4 ship, following mountain valleys, lobbing ALARM over the mountains to plunge down upon SAM's once we let ourselves be lit up... amazing! I always hoped there would be a sequel or "sequel in spirit and content", but nothing so far measures up... but DCS could do this, once our hardware can handle such a large map, we get a Eurofighter from HB and TG, and some campain system of the dynamic variety...
  4. The age of the bomber, and having parallel capabilities, has NOTHING to do with whether or not you'll get permission to replicate it in a sim or get the handbook documentation to do a full fidellity. The defense ministries of the world have their own ideas about what they'll allow and what they won't... and to outsiders there's no obvious rhym or reason to their decisions. It's an unfortunate reality. Then you have to convince the rights holder to the aircraft... Boeing for the BUFF and... Rockwell for the Bone? Not sure if the B-1B's intellectual property is still owned by Rockwell or maybe another entity...? Your idea of a "MAC Bone" is a good one, I think. Just I'm not sure MAC will even come out... or be a success. I think it would do well in the marketplace, but I've been wrong before! You talk about poor mods that fly like an 8 year old dreamed up the specs... true, I don't like those either, recently I saw a video for a B-2 Spirit mod, and it had afterburners and could go well over Mach 1, maneuver like a "clean" Viper... very silly. Not for me. But I'm not proposing anything like that, I'm suggesting a serious mod, like the T-45, the A-4E, the C-130J mod that features a working cockpit, realistic performance, multi-workstations and so on. Flies just like real. An open team, testing, tweeking, upgrading, evolving over time, maintained with care. I think that's the only way we'll get anything like a BUFF or Bone into DCS that's worth a daarn!
  5. Vampyre, I "get" your idea of "less than full fidelity wouldn't be worth including". But let's explore this a tiny bit: B-1B has four crewmembers, all with their own task stations. B-52 in modern form has... 6 workstations, two pilot and four crew doing armament, defensive, EW and so on. So what? Well, that means to get that "full fidellity Bone or BUFF" in the air and then to the fight, you'll need 4 or even 6 online humans, who know those workstations to at least 90% competency... because if the EW guy messes something up endangering the mission, you'll have several other players suddenly rage-quit after 1 to 10 hours of "flying" in the backseats with no good windows to even see outside...and go jump into fighters where at least they get some action and don't have to rely on other's incompetence to doom his plane, he can accomplish it all himself! Or... would you wish for those other workstations be done with AI ? Considering how much systems programming that would take? And then getting an AI to not act stupid... and getting the AI to work competently and take orders as they were intended? That's... well that's a huge investment in resources to accomplish. Look, I don't know what the answer is. I propose that a freeware mod is the most likely to get us to something vaguely like the real thing in the shortest amount of time, with potential upgrades as time goes on. I get the problem of "abandoned mods no longer work", but maybe that is more a function of poor planning for long term community use... maybe once fully released, a module team should give the keys to programming to others who understand how it all works, and allow the community enough access to update the mod and keep it working even 5 years after release if the original team members have disappeared? Ok, but let's discuss a payware module proposal: I think that a super simple FC3 level "complex bomber" is not the way to go. But that a 4 or 6 multi-crew Full Fidellity "complex bomber" is so unlikely, costly and possibly impractical, that this too is not the way to go. What does that leave us with? Something in between, a payware plane that's neither true "full fidellity" nor FC3 simple, but that could be flown and operated by one human player, with a bit of AI assistance, for something that is medium complexity... I'm imagining something that would be a little like the player's experience of complexity of the A-10C, F-16 and F/A-18C modules, perhaps with an AI assistant much like Heatblur's Jester. It would fly just like the real thing with a complex flight dynamic FM. It would have aproximations of the tasks from all the workstations... but not "EXACTLY" require the same taskload of those workstations, to cut down on the workload of the single human player, and to help simplify the coding of the module. The net effect is that it would still be a bigger challenge to fly fight and survive in the Bone/BUFF/Hustler, than in a HornetHogViper... but still be something a dev could accomplish in a reasonable number of years before offering EA, and possibly have a decent ROI. How might this feel to you?
  6. Well, I see and agree with both of you... and combined with my own earlier thoughts, it would seem as if getting such an aircraft iis unlikely at all. I mean, we just got another bomber in DCS, the Shenyang... took years... and it's AI only... Edit: I'm not saying the Shenyang AI bomber took years or huge effort to make, just that it's been quite a while since ED released an AI bomber, which perhaps shows how their focus is at this time.
  7. Sure, and so would i, if it still had a good effort to make it quality. Thing is, ED seems to be focused only on high fidellity, full complexity of systems, for it's products after the so-called "FC planes". The "FC's" were the legacy jets that originally were from Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3, which were amazing at the time, and still fun today. And I'd think that an "FC level bomber" would be great fun, but ED doesn't seem to want to go that route. Such things aren't important in a mod, basically the users are either happy with a mod or they aren't... which is why I think that for real fancy airplanes like B-52, B-58, B-1B, and sure, even the B-2 and/or B-21, it makes a lot of sense to do them as mods, maybe with many contributing to it! Imagine one or all of those planes, as a free mod, done to a similar level of quality and realism as the Anubis C-130J SuperHercules, or the T-45 Goshawk... They look good, and do a great job of replicating the feel and look of the real planes, but don't need licencing, don't need to have every publication that is unobtainable, and if it's not %100 well don't complain too much since it was done by unpaid volunteers!
  8. Right, but you know what I mean. B-52's also carried Harpoon ASM's, ship mines, and maybe even torpedos. Boeing 737's carry torpedos, Harpoons and other ordnance, but no one's confusing a P-8 Poseidon or B-52 with an F-35 Lighting or Superbug or Tomcat... I'm just saying that while it may be very important to the sea defense of Japan for the last three decades... many of us are more interested in Phantoms of the era when they were still the "King of the Fighter Hill".
  9. !!! Did you have any fuel left by the time you got way up there!?? Last Starfighter... does it come with a joke making reptile in the back seat, and a special button for "death blossom"?
  10. Sure, we could look at things in different ways. But budgets have to pay for things this year at today's prices, not some undefined "scales of economy" pricing 20 or 30 years from now. Thus, putting 14 meteors on a Eurofighter will indeed cost taxpayers and bond holders 39 mil USD this year. There's no avoiding that. Well, not without a budget crisis and likely change of government! I would agree that it's unlikely any EF would carry 14 of them all at once. At least not often anyway, but in special circumstances it might be a needed capability. I think it's much more likely that the 14 stations capable of Meteor use, were wired, to enable more/better options for arming up for long range strikes, where one might have three tanks, a few smart bombs, and a couple of ALARMS or some other anti-radiation missile. Suddenly there's not much room for defensive AAM's... but if you could put Meteors on the remaining stations, that on most fighters would even have, that could prove decisive for a small strike package operating on it's own. In that respect, it makes quite a lot of sense. But the fact is, just as fuel and maintenance, spares and training all cost big money, so too does the munitions, whether smart or dumb or "big brain", and that's all I wanted to point out.
  11. The process of getting an airworthyness certificate for a component, doesn't just take time, it takes a LOT of money. Money invested, to get the certification, because there's lots of tests to ensure it should be good for flight. So it may be the same "part"... but essentially you are paying extra for the time money and effort someone put in, to get the tests paperwork and approval. Sometimes homebuilt experimental people will use components that have never been tested. Car engines straight out of cars. Recently I saw that someone used the grip from a CH Fighterstick, for his homebuild aircraft. I've also seen some people have home-made HUD displays, run by Raspberry Pi computers, displaying things like airspeed, attitude indicator, and probably a few other items. But those... well they are taking additional risks because of all the components not tested for flight. The plane I flew in, was a homebuild experimental, sure... but it was built by a career Airforce maintainer. It was his third homebuild. He used a Vans Aircraft kit build. Every part was certified with the exception of the avionics. And the final plane was certified by an inspector. IMO it was probably safer than many fully certified factory aircraft that might not have been as well maintained! Vans also has the most number of completed aircraft, I believe something like 14,000 units flying, which is an awful lot! It had a flight stick, four seats, cruise of 210mph (about 330km /h ), and enough cross country range to exceed one's bladder!
  12. I'm not really interested in the modern upgraded Phantoms, because by 1991 those were no longer the tip of the spear for any airforce. All/most of those airforces had newer jets, the Phantoms kept because they were costly but paid off, and still pretty good, but were no longer the top dog. Nothing wrong with that... Japan's Phantoms seem to be kept in better shape than when they first rolled out of the hangars in St Louis, a serious point of pride, and still formidable! But Japan has had Eagles for a very long time too, along with other newer jets. I want Phantoms from the era when they were the king of the skies, the sledghammer of doom with power and speed. When their appearance caused Mig pilots to shudder and focus real hard on their next few decisions.
  13. Right, but how many will the airforce have, at near 3 million PER SHOT?!?! 14 meteors per airframe x 2.8 = 39.2 million Yes, it's likely you'll bring most of those home for future sorties... but dang. The biggest threat to airforces nowdays is not SU-57 Felons, or stealth J-20's or Sukhoi Su-75 Checkmate, or great pilots with lots of training... it's costs vs budgets vs needs
  14. Dang it. Ok thanks.
  15. Rick50

    CF-5's coming soon

    Well, I'm going with sneaky Canadian Ninja paint!
  16. Have we gotten any confirmations about an F-4 Phantom module, yes/no ? I mean, seemed too early to know what variant, and what developer, but I'm just wanting to know if there was a translation or interpretation issue, or if someone truly has begun work on a Phantom? Or is this still somewhat muddy?
  17. Ah, the Starfighter! Converting fighterpilots into test pilots whether they are ready or not! I can't wait to fly this challenging beast of speed!
  18. I vaguely seem to recall that someone wanted to use a satellite datalink for BVR AAM mid-course corrections and maybe even full targeting. Anyone hear of such a thing or is this maybe just a figment of imagination? I'm not 100% on whether this would even be plausible, given that satellite coms inside a tiny airframe for an AAM could be problematic... not the electronics, but for antenna size. Recently I've heard of a couple of projects for very long range BVR missiles, ranges something like 150-250km or something? Is that kind of range even practical for use in the real world, given that most of the time a vis ID is needed?
  19. I'm gonna make a suggestion, one I've made for a few different aircraft proposals (sorry if I'm a broken record!): PBY-5 Catallina / Canso mod! Not sure if multicrew would be possible with a mod. But otherwise, it has benefits: much more likely to be finished much quicker. If documentation is missing, no problem just don't model that part. No licensing permissions? If it's free then it's harder and less likely to get stopped by the rights holder. Uncertain payware dev will make money off it? No problem, no expectation of profits means no need for profits, just put in the time and effort you can, and colaboratively it gets finished. I've proposed the free mod idea for the B-52, B-1B and probably something else I'm not remembering, largely because those are complex aircraft to create the systems for, poor availability of deep documentation, risk for return on investment, and the demanding nature of purchasers of high fidellity pay modules in DCS could make it difficult to please, and how Boeing and Rockwell may have zero interest into offering a licensing deal, and who really knows what they'd charge you for the licensing?
  20. True. Buddy of mine gave some other examples... I can't remember them, but basically he mentioned that a certain item is actually a standard high-volume automotive component... but the "airworthy certrified" component is the SAME EXACT product, but sold with this other sticker, because this 3rd party went through the laborious process of getting that component tested, retested and then go through the mountains of paperwork to meet FAA certification. Same component... but one is approved, the other is not. "Experimental hombuilt" class aircraft teaches a lot about this: Dynon makes AMAZING avionics systems for general aviation, but up until about a year ago, their stuff was not approved, and thus could only be used on "experimental" aircraft. The result? For $6000 you got avionics systems that put Boeing Next Gen and most fighters to shame... but you couldn't mount it in most aircraft because they would lose their airworthyness status (at least I think that's how it works?). Recently Dynon finished the process for full flight certification, and so the fully certified versions cost... I can't recall but I think it was about $30,000usd ? I think Dynon isn't abandoning it's original market though and still offers the "experimental" units at a nice price. I flew a plane 3 years ago with the experimental class version and it just blew me away at just how much useful data was being presented! Now.... that said, not everything in aerospace is actually the "same". There is likely a huge difference between a professional military simulator flightstick and the sticks we use at home. But is that difference in build and quality really of any use to us home pilots? Does it make sense to spend as much on a professional stick, as that new car in the driveway? Eh.... probably not. We aren't pulling G's. We don't have hundreds of pilots through the sim every year for two decades of use. We could spend that money better on a cheaper stick and other things we need and want, so it doesn't really make sense to spend giant amounts of money on pro gear, most of the time.
  21. I think one of the little secrets is that inventories don't have all that many advanced air weapons in the first place. Recently someone looked up the somewhat current pricing for an Amraam and was hovering around a million dollars. It's kind of like shooting a tiny fighter plane that's expendable, to kill an enemy plane. "Well DUH!" yea ok I guess that's obvious! But the pricing means that airforces may not have a giant inventory of spamraams to give you on your 6th sortie... sure, attrition from your own airforce losses means you will end up with missiles intended for your wingman who got shot down last time... but still, if you run out there with 8 BVR's and get cut down by a Strella or Archer, you didn't just lose the airframe, you also lost 8 very costly and not easily replaced missiles that other pilots could have used. I could see how doing "beast mode" BVR-truck could make a lot of sense and tactical advantage for certain special situations, but it's probably not a good idea for "most" situations.
  22. Thanks guys, I somehow got the impression the Longbow would be a real handful for systems management. Between all the hat switches, the MFD's, radar modes, all the other dozen or so sensor systems, I got the impression... Dumb question: are Apaches, Longbows and Guardians equiped with autopilots? I mean, I wouldn't think they would get much use most of the time, but for long boring ferry flights... or loitering for hours at one point, I could see it might be useful to reduce crew fatigue? I know that at one time, only a couple of helos had autopilots, I think the early ones were the Sea King and maybe the HH-53C "Super Jolly Green Giant", but I don't even know if that was when first introduced or a later retrofit? But today it seems you can get autopilots of brand new helos of nearly every size... maybe not a Robinson, but even the smaller Bells apparently offer them.
  • Create New...