1980s Theater
-
My perspective from the same flight.
-
Damn, jealous of your SA, guys. I’m still struggling to keep a left eye on the RWR when fooling around with TGP or FCR during A-G, got me numerous times by surprise.
-
Cool. If you wish you can post about wishes and reports any issues to make better the theater. FPS, stability, balance problems, modeling issues, anything. Hopefully I can release an updated version around Christmas.
The biggest thing I have heard is that people want to use the AIM-7. Can you explain why none of the f-16s carry it? And what sources you are basing it on?
I’d like to see a campaign which is earlier than 1991, something like 82 or 81. Would be fun not to have AGM-88s or GBUs.
-
Also is there a way to model the range of the APG-66 instead of the APG-68???
-
Also is there a way to model the range of the APG-66 instead of the APG-68???
Yes, and it is modeled even in stock DB. Different F-16s have different radars.
-
@tyrspawn:
The biggest thing I have heard is that people want to use the AIM-7. Can you explain why none of the f-16s carry it? And what sources you are basing it on?
I’d like to see a campaign which is earlier than 1991, something like 82 or 81. Would be fun not to have AGM-88s or GBUs.
Because in RL only Block 15 ADF variant could use which are US based units and never left US for any conflict. They never stationed outside from US as I know and even they do it was a uique event. (Similar to the case when some Su-15 (!) stationed in Egypt.) The widely used F-16s did not have BVR capability before AMRAAM. Theoretically some Dutch and/or Belgian F-16s have the capability using AIM-7 but they never used this feature. The F-16A/C as a tactical fighter had only AIM-9s before AMRAAM.
One of the campaign will model a 1982 scenario - likely the Iron Fortress - and the another one campaign uses Korea map but red&blue will be configured as a Cold War scenario in Europe in 1987. I made first the '91 campaign, because in RL Block 25/30/32/40/42 have been produced and the current cockpit is the closest for these models. In RL in 1991 there were few LANTIRN but as I stated in theater descriptipn the campaign is semi fictional but mostly I stick to RL weapon systems on both sides colse to RL qty in 1991. As I can remember I put one Block 30, one 32 and Block squadron - 24 AC in each sq. - to model different F-16s. I just checked and I realized that I did not finish the weapon config of these squarons. Block 40 was intended use as SEAD and precision strike capabile Viper with GBUs + AGM-88, but Block 30 would carry only dumb bombs and AGM-45.
In '82 of course no one of F-16 will have any PGM except AGM-65 - which have the inaccuracy model - and Block 25 may has AGM-45 but I have to check this.
The campaign will be interesting when you will meet with MiG-23 and MiG-29 or other AC which have dispenser. You will feel the difference, the challange ration is much higher beacause the much different modeling values.
-
Please make fictional campaing with aim-7s for F-16s ??
-
Because in RL only Block 15 ADF variant could use which are US based units and never left US for any conflict. They never stationed outside from US as I know and even they do it was a uique event. (Similar to the case when some Su-15 (!) stationed in Egypt.) The widely used F-16s did not have BVR capability before AMRAAM. Theoretically some Dutch and/or Belgian F-16s have the capability using AIM-7 but they never used this feature. The F-16A/C as a tactical fighter had only AIM-9s before AMRAAM.
One of the campaign will model a 1982 scenario - likely the Iron Fortress - and the another one campaign uses Korea map but red&blue will be configured as a Cold War scenario in Europe in 1987. I made first the '91 campaign, because in RL Block 25/30/32/40/42 have been produced and the current cockpit is the closest for these models. In RL in 1991 there were few LANTIRN but as I stated in theater descriptipn the campaign is semi fictional but mostly I stick to RL weapon systems on both sides colse to RL qty in 1991. As I can remember I put one Block 30, one 32 and Block squadron - 24 AC in each sq. - to model different F-16s. I just checked and I realized that I did not finish the weapon config of these squarons. Block 40 was intended use as SEAD and precision strike capabile Viper with GBUs + AGM-88, but Block 30 would carry only dumb bombs and AGM-45.
In '82 of course no one of F-16 will have any PGM except AGM-65 - which have the inaccuracy model - and Block 25 may has AGM-45 but I have to check this.
The campaign will be interesting when you will meet with MiG-23 and MiG-29 or other AC which have dispenser. You will feel the difference, the challange ration is much higher beacause the much different modeling values.
Well it’s not that the Air force didn’t want to send the Block 15 out of country, it’s the fact that it was virtually obsolete by the time the block 25 ADF came out. My old unit had retrograded A models until the mid 90’s when we swapped them for Block 25’s. We flew those until 2008 when we switched missions. Regardless of the historical accuracy, I like the lack of PGM and other weapon choices within the squadrons. It really limits your capability and makes your mission more clear. With that said though, I know for a fact that there were F-16 units in the ROK that had Aim-7 capability, not sure how many though.
-
……
The campaign will be interesting when you will meet with MiG-23 and MiG-29 or other AC which have dispenser. You will feel the difference, the challange ration is much higher beacause the much different modeling values.Are you still putting chaff/flares on acft that never used it in RL?
-
Please make fictional campaing with aim-7s for F-16s ??
I can release a file in “extras” directory, which make possible to use AIM-7 on Block 15 in 1982 or for other theater. It will allow AIM-7 for squadron stores. It can be selectable this file via F4Patch if someone make it, because I’m not able to use it. As I know only one file controls the SSD (squadron stores) in the DB.
-
Are you still putting chaff/flares on acft that never used it in RL?
The dispenser availability on DPRK’s MiG-23’s is uncertain, but it is good for gamebalance therefore I allow it, to meet at least one fighter on red side - excet the very small qty. of MiG-29, only one squadron in late '80s - which is capable to show some resistance. Except this I did not allow dispenser for AC which did not have in RL. J-5/6, H-5, Su-7 do not have any dispensers as well as any variant of MiG-21/J-7. H-6 may get, it sould be considered.
-
Why didn’t the mig-23 have dispensers in real life? It’s been pretty standard on all fighter aircraft since 1960s and I would be amazed if such a capable fighter (mig-23) wasn’t designed to use countermeasures.
I am really looking forward to an older campaign (1982 as you say) and updated squadron loadouts.
Also in this year 1991 did the older blocks have TGPs like those modeled in BMS? I
-
Why didn’t the mig-23 have dispensers in real life?
Ask the leader of USSR… MiG-23MLD got, therefore theoretically it was doable on othe MiG-23 variants. I never was able to understand why was not added such a cheap and simple system for any AC which was had enoght space for them. It requires quite small area or the “add-on” item on airframe case only minor drag, but the self defense capability IMHO is much more important as small range degradation.
I can only guess:
- We are talking about thousands of AC. Regardless of how simple (?) the application it had to be done on such a huge AC fleet, but the “star of USSR was in descending state”. They simply did not have resource for this project and wasted other “who has bigger ***” stuff. I think here about Kirov class cruisers, Typhoon class subs, and n+1 new ICBMs, etc.
- Even if they had resoruce to manufacture the older airfarmes were not designed to fulfil the requirements of later upgrades. Many of airframes served in USSR fleet as they were manufactured decades ago. (In WPC either.)
- Even if they were able to manufacture the thousand of dispensers and their support equipments the maintenance philisophy of USSR was different. It was not possible making the retrofits/upgardes whitout serious work. I’m mean on the home base, they had to be undergo an “overhaul” process in an industrial facility. –-> $$$$ + time + lack of capacity.
After the experience of Afghanistan Su-25 dispenser was doubled, Su-17/20/22 got new and new dispensers on upper side of fuselage - the original 2x6 or qty. were expanded with additional 8x32 cartridges - Su-24 also got two new cartridges next to vertical stabilizerts. All AC which did not have dispensers - and all MiG-21s and older strike AC - were scrapped soon from USSR’s inventory.
You can see here dispensers.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?8230-Suggestion-for-database-data-supply&highlight=data+supplyAlso in this year 1991 did the older blocks have TGPs like those modeled in BMS?
Yes, I do not know how can be linked with TGP “flag” with older stuff. FreeFalcon long time ago had LANTIRN but as I see BMS did not have, therefore, even I know I can’t solve this “historical” issue. There are some more which I’m not able to do. For ex. F-111F requires a new HP position, during the '80s and early '90s they carried ALQ-131 under fuselage.
-
Yes, I do not know how can be linked with TGP “flag”
In FM’s, Additional Data area
Has_TFR 1
Has_TGP 1
Has_HTS 1RAM22
-
So, if I turn off instesd Sniper LANTIRN is used?
-
The dispenser availability on DPRK’s MiG-23’s is uncertain, but it is good for gamebalance therefore I allow it…
I am sorry, Molni, but I don´t think it is correct to do it. Just to make my point: Why don´t you add some new weapons to the acft of North Korea or make the range of the SA-3s a little bit bigger?
You are the one always looking for realism, so I really cannot understand why you are doing that. If you want “game” balance, put some soviet regiments helping North Korea from the beginning on of the war with real loadout. -
I am sorry, Molni, but I don´t think it is correct to do it. Just to make my point: Why don´t you add some new weapons to the acft of North Korea or make the range of the SA-3s a little bit bigger?
You are the one always looking for realism, so I really cannot understand why you are doing that. If you want “game” balance, put some soviet regiments helping North Korea from the beginning on of the war with real loadout.Agreed!!
RAM22
-
Another data point: North Korea has some of the most poorly trained pilots in the world, primarily because they don’t have the budget to maintain a high level of proficiency. This was also the case back in the early 1990s, and it would be fair to assume without further data that an air force that can’t maintain its own pilots wouldn’t bother to do a force-wide countermeasure upgrade that wasn’t standardized for the airframe.
-
I had tweaked one of molnyfalcon`s campaigns according to some real life order of battle datas and as i remember add a couple of block 15s with Aim-7s.
If molnyman says ok, i can email the necessary files.QT
-
I am sorry, Molni, but I don´t think it is correct to do it. Just to make my point: Why don´t you add some new weapons to the acft of North Korea or make the range of the SA-3s a little bit bigger?
You are the one always looking for realism, so I really cannot understand why you are doing that. If you want “game” balance, put some soviet regiments helping North Korea from the beginning on of the war with real loadout.In TE the range are correct for all SAMs. If you check my suggestion thread you will see that SA-2 launch against an approaching target at ~20-22 nm. Even if you turn back you mostly cannot outrun the missile. This is why I set eng. rage.
The theoretical max. eng. range against closing target is about 57 km with latest SA-2 variant, but in Falcon because of radar modeling values and jamming there is no sense to set such a big range. ECM is on –-> missile is wasted.
Moreover, you cannot set, because regardless how big the range SA-2 does not want to use the value. I’m speaking here only about TE tests. Yes, I have tried tweaking dat file either, did not work. You can set as big value as you wish 20-22 nm is the max, something “overwrite” in the background the values.
Campaign is more serious, the problem the campagin engine itself. SAMs behavior is different from TE. It is not my fault that SAMs do not use the capabilites hich I provided them. In TE eng. range can be 20-22 nm but in campagin the typical is 12-13 form SA-2. –-> It is not my fault the SA-2 eng. range mostly same with SA-3’s. I have seen only some launch form 15-16 nm. Likely you never tested the SAM behavior and never checked the possible issues. I have done it during the developlement and I have mentioned as I can remember.
I can increase the range for SA-3 but it has no sense. The result will be bad. SA-3 will waste missiles because tactical fighters simply make some direction changes and simply fly outside the DLZ after the launch and also jamming resistance and other factors are counts. I set the eng. range by recommendations of guys who made the SAMsim and of course following the RL eng. zone chart.
Are you speaking AC squadron where you mention regiments? Because there are USSR AC in campaign, they will join the campaign as ususal, when the force ration reach a certain level. I can add an extra MiG-29 squadron because in RL also had DPRK therefore it can be “hide” without political issues. But I never will give Su-24/27 or MiG-31 for DPRK… As I can remember I also add only some SA-6 and SA-4 even in RL DPRK never had. The “real” term concerned sometimes for OBB but mostly for loadout and weapon capabilites. In my DB flares are not just ornaments agains even AIM-9M and R-73. They are not holy weapons anymore.