Leaderboard

umm.....it kinda worked...

Home on a wing and a prayer.

Try this one, I may have forgotten to save my last change on the other one. KUSAF01_B.7z

Found this in F-16.net The first author, is investigating about several things in order to create a wargame (boardgame I think), and he asks... Yes. Your game is set up in 1983. It was a different world 34 years ago. There was no GPS. No computers in the squadron. No targeting pods (as we know them today). We did absolutely zero training for a Middle East desert scenario. Aside from the F-15A and the few F-16s available, there were no look-down radars. The E-3A was brand new, and there was no JSTARS. There were no NVGs or FLIRs. Very few aircraft had a reliable INS. Our tactics were closer to World War II than what is common today. On the other hand, in Europe there were huge numbers of F-104s, G-91s, Mirage IIIs, A-7s, an incredible variety of F-4s, F-100s, A-10s, F-111s, Mirage F-1s, Buccaneers, Lightning's, Alpha Jets, F-5s, Tornados, F-15s, the new F-16s, Viggens, Yak-15s, MiG-19s, MiG-21s, MiG-23/27s, Su-17/22s, Su-25s....and that was just the fighters. At Torrejon I spent a year working in Wing Weapons and Radar Strike. (We were the mission planning cell, among other things.) We knew that on average it would be dark (night) half of the time, and we would have lousy weather half of the time. Combined, we only expected to have decent air-to-ground weather 25% of every 24 hour period, and we knew that a Warsaw Pact armored invasion would not stop for night or weather. Many of our bases in Central Europe were within 150NM of the potential FEBA, and we expected the bad guy tanks and artillery to get that far fairly quickly. We expected Spetznaz units with SA-7s to be operating in and around our airfields. We expected to be operating under chemical warfare attack. We expected and planned for something like a 10% loss rate per 24 hour period. A big concern was "holding back" enough aircraft to accomplish the inevitable nuclear tasking that would be ordered as we were overrun. It was a different world. How soon we forget. I understand that you are making a game, not a retrospective real world training device. Games are supposed to be entertaining. Nobody is going to enjoy your game if they end up in a nuclear holocaust as they get overrun. You can do whatever you want in your game. You can have F-18s shooting Harpoon missiles at alien spaceships, or F-14s dogfighting Japanese Zeros, as a couple of (fun and entertaining) movies did back then. If you want to have napalm or a Hades bombs (as another really trashy F-16 movie had), go for it. If you want to have pilots with X-ray vision that can see tanks from 25,000' and AGM-65s that fly 12NM, that's okay. It's a game! Original http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=52915&sid=da3095945d5fffe899676dd8ee6d96d0&start=15 Really interesting part about weapons employed and PK's F-4 and AGM-65 in USAFE: JB, sorry to disagree, but we did use the AGM-65A/B on the F-4 in USAFE. Attached (I think) is a photo of my F-4D at TJ in 1982. Note the LAU-88 and TGM-65 on the right inboard station. Our combat loadout was 6xAGM-65. WSOs: Agree with JB. I was fortunate to get to fly with Vietnam vet WSOs with several hundred combat missions "up north". Some of them were outstanding. I basically made sure that we didn't hit the ground. The WSO worked the (ancient) radar, the ALQ-119, the ALE-40, the radios, checked six, did the time-distance-heading on our low levels, and alternated between launching AIM-7s and the AGM-65. They were VERY good. On the other hand, there were some that (as JB says) were weight and ballast for the CG. F-16A (Block 15) and AGM-65: I looked in my logbooks and don't find any Maverick missions in the F-16A at TJ before I left. I don't recall why TJ would have given up that tasking. However, we did employ the AGM-65A/B at Kunsan AB in 1985, and I launched a live AGM-65B at Nellis AFB in 1986. "Standoff": A little history on the Maverick missile; The F-4 and F-105 were the primary USAF air-to-ground fighters in Vietnam. They were "red reticle" or "iron sight" or manual bombers. We were terribly inaccurate, especially in combat conditions. I don't recall the exact numbers (and they were classified anyway) but to kill a Soviet tank, you had to physically hit the topside with a MK82 to kill it, and you had to get within something like 8 feet with a MK84. I worked with JMEMs a lot, and recall that an F-4D dropping 12xMK82 on a single pass had something like a 10% PK on a Soviet main battle tank. The main concern for USAFE was trying to stop waves of thousands of Warsaw Pact tanks rolling through the Fulda Gap. The MK20 Rockeye was one attempt to solve the problem. While better than MK82 GP bombs, it still had a pretty low PK. Another solution was the AGM-65. As I recall the AGM-65 PK was around 50% once launched. Therefore, an F-4 carrying 6xAGM-65 had a good chance of taking out three tanks, whereas an F-4 armed with 12xMK82 had a 10% chance of taking out one tank. Clearly, the Maverick was a much better tank killer than a GP bomb. Note that there was no mention of "standoff" with the AGM-65. It was not a "standoff" weapon, but a precision guided anti-tank munition. A little reality check on the "standoff" concept: When attacking a runway, the enemy defenses (ZSU-23-4, SA-6, etc) are not parked on the center of your target runway. They surround the airfield within a radius of 3-5 miles. Similarly, if you attack a bridge, the defenses are not located on the middle span of the bridge, they're on the hilltops surrounding the bridge. When you attack a tank on a battlefield, it is surrounded by 30,000 troops within 10 miles carrying SA-7s and six bazillion guns. When you say that you are employing a "standoff" weapon against a target, that does not "stand you off" from all the defenses that you have to fly over to reach said target. As JB said, in USAFE in the early 1980s, you had to get right in amongst them to deliver your weapons. There was no "standoff" as it is envisioned today.

Yeah, in my wet dreams :D

the pilot zip seems to be corrupted or something; WinRar gives me the following message "the archive is either in unknown format or damged" thanks for trying, anyway! kjakker's seems to be working now. A little repainting to remove the USAF helmet tag, and we're golden!

List of Freeware Assets Needed for Operation Darius 2 for Strike Fighters 2 Series Titles This is a current list of all assets needed to complete the full reboot of Operation Darius. Since its release, many – if not all – of the air assets included in the original release by Eric ‘eburger’ Howes have since been rendered obsolete by newer and better examples. I would like to include these newer examples in the re-release. Some of these creators are signatories under the Freeware Agreement, most are not. I’m covering my bases here because the last thing I want to do is make someone mad. “Seeking forgiveness is easier than asking permission” might work when you’re talking to your boss, but around here, it’s a good way to end up out on your ass. Here’s the list of CA Freeware files I am asking permission to use. Original OPDarius Infrastructure - @eburger68 New Iraq/Iran Terrain (2003-2018) - @Menrva A-10C Pack - @Spectre8750 F-22, F-15 Eagle and F-15E Strike Eagles Packs - @viper63a F-35C and Saequeh - @FastCargo Tornado GR1/GR4 & F/A-18A/C Hornet Beta - @Dave EF-2000 Beta Pack - @ace888 Marine Rafale F3/F4 - @JAT81500 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Package - @EricJ Desert Falcons (F-16E/F Block 60) - @Spudknocker JH-7A Flounder - @NeverEnough JSTARS & E-3A Sentry Packs - @daddyairplanes Su-25SM - @dtmdragon VFA-102 & VFA-195 Skins for Super Hornets - @SidDogg P-3C - @Florian P-3F Skin - @strahi This is not a complete list of assets I will need. This is just what I need to begin play-testing. There will almost certainly be additional files I may need, but I consider these among the most important. I appreciate any consideration these creators are willing to give because without these files, the project is pretty much a non-starter.

Been corresponding with gterl about objects for the Mark 2 version of his Italian front map. Among other things, he requested some maritime objects. First experiments below. I'm tinkering with a wake concept that would be a transparent plane on the water surface, part of the LOD. While it would not be dynamically animated, anything would be better than the stock game's wake.

Oh, and CA will be the only location this will be distributed. Forgot to include that.

Thanks for the work you put in. See you around!

Hell hath no Fury...

... and last part of avionics, central warning panel.

There seems to be a bit of a RAF theme going on :)

When you simultaneously rammed two enemy airplanes and are still alive, remember - this is the time for a BAIL OUT! Laughing out loud :) The screenshot has been edited with Adobe Photoshop CS6. Unexpected turn, right?

missile launch !