Leatherneck new facebook image/picture

I'm curious about all these supposed issues with AWACS and the AIM-54. Surely a mission designer can just put a string of pretty impressive SAMs within the typical WEZ relative to the AWACS orbit, yes?

Impressive SAMs will catch out unwary F14 pilots, but you have to remember the legendary range of the AIM54, they could be fired fairly well out of range of most SAM sites.

Even if the Phoenix missiles turn out to be plagued by horrible performance, I wouldnt put it past inventive players to use their F14 as an AWACS of sorts. :thumbup:

Is the F-14 really in use? I thought they were ''stationed'' for no spare parts etc... When the conflict versus 'merica escalated, Iranian quickly discovered that the Tomcats were unable to fire any of its missiles which happened just after the Grummans engieers/crew/staff or whatever fled the country

Not true, that's an internet legend. Iraqi sources say they encountered F-14s in combat. (Let's not get sidetracked by kill claim amounts.)

Even if the Phoenix missiles turn out to be plagued by horrible performance, I wouldnt put it past inventive players to use their F14 as an AWACS of sorts. :thumbup:

They were sometimes used that way IRL by Iran.

Impressive SAMs will catch out unwary F14 pilots, but you have to remember the legendary range of the AIM54, they could be fired fairly well out of range of most SAM sites.

So just put the impressive SAMs in a ring around/line in front of the AWACS so that the legendary range of the AIM-54 is nullified... or am I still missing something?

So just put the impressive SAMs in a ring around/line in front of the AWACS so that the legendary range of the AIM-54 is nullified... or am I still missing something?

Sure you could put a SAM ring around an AWACS in a 100 mile (or larger) radius, and even reinforce it with tighter and tighter rings of SAM sites but how many people would enjoy flying and fighting on a server where more than half the map is covered in deadly soviet SAM sites?

Actuially no need to answer that. Im sure a lot of sim enthusiasts would enjoy exactly that kind masochistic scenario :smilewink:

Masochistic, or realistic?

Whats the range of an AWACS radar anyway? Why can't it be stuck on the far side of the map with the protection only intruding on the periphery of the battlespace?

It seems like real SAM networks should be masochistic anyway to me. Thats how they're designed, as meshed interdependent systems, but then DCS' weakness in the SEAD and EW department kind of stands out when you do that I guess.

^I agree. East German SAM coverage in the north:

Lübeck-Rostock is roughly 100km, same as Sukhumi-Adler.

From http://geimint.blogspot.no/2008/08/ddr-air-defense-cold-war-case-study.html

Btw

http://geimint.blogspot.no/2007/09/iranian-sam-network.html

Iranian SAM coverage over the Hormuz reaches south of Dubai. Of course this is at extreme firing range, not NEZ... but same goes for the Phoenix range quoted on this forum.

Impressive SAMs will catch out unwary F14 pilots, but you have to remember the legendary range of the AIM54, they could be fired fairly well out of range of most SAM sites.

 

Even if the Phoenix missiles turn out to be plagued by horrible performance, I wouldnt put it past inventive players to use their F14 as an AWACS of sorts. :thumbup:

They were sometimes used that way IRL by Iran.

Not only was it used as an AWACS by Iran, the F-14D was also used by the USA as a FAC(A) with the ROVER system providing real-time data and video to troops on the ground.

Anecdote:

In 1998 I was doing something similar with the police. The police helicopter had it's camera/sensor suite and it broadcast it's images down to my car where an operator could look at the images to help co-ordinate how we were going to deploy. My car had a CCTV camera and transmitter which broadcast back to the police CCTV control room, the helicopter broadcast to both my car and to the control room, the control room then linked those images back to the police mobile HQ. We first used the system to catch a gang that had attempted to murder a youth, it was a successful operation with the 4 gang members being caught, two by the thermal imager of the helicopter directing the police to encircle the suspects and the other two by my use of the CCTV on the vehicle to direct an officer to one suspect and then as a decoy to lure the other out.

Seeing how well that worked, and we made the system up in the field the day before we put it to use at a large pop festival where the incident happened, I can only imagine how the FAC operators could love the ROVER system :)

My little car with the CCTV and radio data link on it.

Surely, you can't be serious? I guess I missed the joke..

The new ones do as far as I'm concerned, but that's classified

and which has since been very much disproven based on the information from the Iraqi pilots and data found after the fall of the Saddam's regime.

According to which credible sources?

I'm going to guess we're getting an F4U-1A and an A6M5 Zero. The cockpit on the left of the banner is clearly a Corsair, and the IJN flag is on the right. There are better matches for the Corsair, yes, but the Zero is by far the most iconic and will sell the most copies and probably have the most information on it too. The -5 variant should be pretty competent in combat.

Other hints: the LN website has a P-38 and F6F in the background, both of which were used a lot in the Pacific Theater and at the same time as the F4U/A6M. You can even see a clear wireframe around them, suggesting they have created models for each. It's possible these are AI models for a Pacific Theater. Oh yeah, Cobra mentioned their new aircraft would be shipped with theatres, and you basically need one for these planes. I do hope I'm right, because VEAO's P-40F could join in the fun as well! Solomon Islands would be great, as lot of other historical battlefields like Midway and Wake Island don't offer a lot of playing area and don't cover a lot of time.

The only evidence going against this is the mention of LN developing a ground radar model, which the recently unveiled F-14A/B does not have. Development for later down the road?

Not only was it used as an AWACS by Iran, the F-14D was also used by the USA as a FAC(A) with the ROVER system providing real-time data and video to troops on the ground.

 

Anecdote:

In 1998 I was doing something similar with the police. ... <snip>

Cool info, thanks for sharing :)

I'm going to guess we're getting an F4U-1A and an A6M5 Zero.

I hope you are right ! :thumbup:

I would prefere an F4U-1D but i will be a "first day buyer" of any version of that so iconic plane ! :pilotfly:

I dont see DCS in WW2, thats an IL2 thing.

So no WW2 birds for me in dcs, simply due to the lack of visibility.

edit: Except Me262! I´d love that thing, or any multiengine plane.

I dont see DCS in WW2, thats an IL2 thing.

Little bit late now don't you think? Anyway as has been stated literally a million times DCS is multi-period. That's the current situation and the future road map - best you get used to it.

I dont see DCS in WW2, thats an IL2 thing.

 

So no WW2 birds for me in dcs, simply due to the lack of visibility.

 

edit: Except Me262! I´d love that thing, or any multiengine plane.

Not sure if post is serious.

According to which credible sources?

Look it up. It's not like there are credible sources claiming that IRIAF Tomcats shot down 160 Iraqi aircraft alone. Supposedly, Iraqis didn't even lose 160 aircraft in total (but around 150 or so IIRC, not counting the army aviation like helicopters which add up to another 100 - and this was due to all causes, not just shot down).

Apparently even the author admits that the data is wrong and one-sided after contacts with Iraqi pilots and more information has been available recently (like confidential Iraqi documents presenting an audit of all the losses). This is all hear-say, but then again, so is his book basically.

Look it up. It's not like there are credible sources claiming that IRIAF Tomcats shot down 160 Iraqi aircraft alone. Supposedly, Iraqis didn't even lose 160 aircraft in total (but around 150 or so IIRC, not counting the army aviation like helicopters which add up to another 100 - and this was due to all causes, not just shot down).

 

Apparently even the author admits that the data is wrong and one-sided after contacts with Iraqi pilots and more information has been available recently (like confidential Iraqi documents presenting an audit of all the losses). This is all hear-say, but then again, so is his book basically.

You need to provide me with the sources you are getting the research from to refute this book because I want to see them.

The research into F-14 Iranian Tomcats has been published by one of the most reliable and respected sources available and like any research it is not all accurate - however it is not all hearsay either. If you have anything to refute the research then you need to provide it!

No actually the author Tom Cooper defends the work passionately...............here is an example -

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=25753

Little bit late now don't you think? Anyway as has been stated literally a million times DCS is multi-period. That's the current situation and the future road map - best you get used to it.

I agree with him tbh. DCS doesn't do WW2 planes nearly as well as BoS does. The physics, damage modeling, spotting and AI are all problematic in DCS for anything with a propeller. I have DCS P-51, it leaves a lot to be desired. That won't stop people from churning out WW2 planes for DCS, but I won't buy them. I'm certainly not alone in that either. LOMAC/DCS has always been about relatively contemporary stuff. I think it can safely drift as far back as the 1960's, but anything below that is beyond the capability of the core game engine to perform well. It simply wasn't built for it and short of a major overhaul of the physics and AI, it's never going to do it well.