Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About MBot

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It was in an interview with the ED CEO last December:
  2. Considering that the A-6E with a buddy pod has virtually the same fuel offloading capabilities as the KA-6D, wouldn't it just make most sense to provide this? In fact, even the KA-6D frequently carried the buddy pod. I appreciate the AI KA-6D, because this was historically part of the air wing and stood out visually with its high-viz markings. But from a playable capabilities point of view, it offers nothing over a regular playable A-6E. I assume the biggest issue with human tankers (dedicated or buddy) is that it requires implementation by ED first, including AI programming for AI
  3. ED's own plans for the F-4 seem dead, they said that it would be in the cards for 3rd parties now. HB doing a naval F-4 are highly likely now in my opinion.
  4. That is correct. It was in fact USS Forrestal that was the last supercarrier to deploy with Phantoms (F-4S) in 1982. Coral Sea and Midway kept deploying with Phantoms a little longer, because they were too small for Tomcats, with Midway doing the last F-4 cruise in 1986 and then switching to Hornets completely. So this falls in place nicely with Heatblur's decision to initially go specifically with USS Forrestal out of the 4 units of the class. Curiously, USS Forrestal deployed with Tomcats for the least amount of time out of every contemporary carrier (just 6 years from 1986 to 19
  5. For me, this has been an issue with the MiG-21 for years. The problem seems to me how the canopy is affected by some kind of environmental lighting, i.e. the brightness of the terrain around you. The reflections on the canopy change massively depending on the type of terrain below you. Look at the screenshot below. I had trouble to see the runway directly ahead of me though the gunsight. The same effect often also be seen on the canopy, depending on attitude and brightness of terrain.
  6. Neither of these target aircraft has a jammer, that is why you get hits. Neither the MiG-21 or MiG-23 from the Constant Peg Gen III has a jammer, that is why you get hits. The F-4 doesn't have a jammer either (unless a pod was equipped, which in this mission they have not). The Su-24 has a jammer. Can you confirm that you get Sparrow hits on them? In my tests, AIM-7M do not track Su-24. Again, the Su-27 doesn't have a jammer unless unequipped with a pod. The MiG-27 has an internal jammer, thus your Sparrows don't tr
  7. Genuine question: You would prefer to not have Saratoga at all versus having a Saratoga with some incorrect masts or antennas? Because HB current plan as far as we know is doing only USS Forrestal.
  8. I really hope that HB doesn't think they have to model all the differences between each ship in the class or do USS Forrestal only. Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough. I do strongly suggest that they just switch the name and the number between all 4 members of the class. Not having Saratoga, Ranger or Independence because some different mast arrangement would be a big and senseless loss. There are probably only a hand full of people that would ever notice such details (I might be one of them) and this is a flight sim after all. Having all the significant names of the cla
  9. This sounds incorrect. Maximum target altitude for the 9M3M3 missile (introduced 1976) is 14 km according to East German sources: http://www.rwd-mb3.de/pages/3m9.htm Perhaps ED is simulating the original 9M3M missile with an engagement altitude of 7 km, but I do not recall that the SA-6 had such a low engagement altitude in DCS previously.
  10. MBot


    Phavorite Phantoms: 57 Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Keflavik, Iceland. Defending the Iceland from Soviet bombers 1978-1985 11 Tactical Fighter Wing, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, 1977-1981 347th Tactical Fighter Wing from Moody AFB, Georgia. Picture taken 1986 in Nellis. New European camo, but the aircraft should still be in Vietnam-era configuration. Note Pave Spike and GBU-12.
  11. MBot


    Regarding the Vietnam vs 80s Phantom discussion, I would go with a late but pre-ARN-101 USAF F-4E (so the variant preceding the ARN-101 variant that Belsimtek had originally planned). This variant had an extensive service history, operating from the late stages of the Vietnam war, fought heavily with the IDF/AF in the 1973 Jom Kippur war (some aircraft actually still in USAF camo as they were emergency transferred directly from USAF units) and remained in front-line service well into the 1980s (86th TFW in Ramstein AB, Germany flew them until 1986). With this you get both worlds, V
  12. 6 A-7E from USS America supported the Tripoli area (8 Shrike and 16 HARM fired). I also refer to "Osprey Combat Aircraft 102: F-111 & EF-111 Units in Combat", where F-111 pilots mention concerns that Tomcats patrolling off-shore might mistake them for enemy aircraft when coming off target. No, the F/A-18 is not capable of terrain following flight in instrument meteorological conditions. Sorry, but you are very wrong about this. While the A-6 did perform all-weather CAS for the USMC, this was not its mission in the Navy. You must under
  13. The Navy provided fighter and SEAD support for the F-111 in the Tripoli area as well. The F-111 required a fleet of tankers, the A-6 a fleet of ships. Both dealt with reaching the target according to the doctrine of their respective service.
  14. It did. Just look at Eldorado Canyon in 1986. Both types operated side-by-side, carrying out a similar mission. The F-111 struck in the west in the Tripoli area, A-6 struck in the east in the Benghazi area. Both areas were heavily defended (A-6 got shot at and dodged SA-3). By the way, one F-111 was shot down by a Shilka while the A-6 didn't suffer any losses.
  • Create New...