Leaderboard

Then a pair of Flankers appeared from behind a hill, and wanted a slow-speed, low-level dogfight..... How often does a Flanker leave you with a gun solution from dead astern?

In the end, I never saw the ZSU-23-4....

we shall spend hours scratch making graphics for obscure airlines from the 1980s, with complex curves across several different scaled tga. yes, this is how we will have fun but it is cool to seem em out on the apron like this

More test shots - enjoying gterl's map and VonS' atmospherics.

This was supposed to be a simple Armed Recon mission....truck busting with a Harrier. Not so tough, right?

View File M551 AR/AAV Sheridan V.1 M551 Sheridan. Pack contains new ground object for SF2 game. Basic modding skills are required to run this mod. (copy/paste, modd folder structure etc.) All ini files are beta....which mean it's there, it works but it is not final. I'm hoping someone will do correct ini edits. So do not complain if something is not working- just edit your way. also included is weapon file - cargo for C-130 with additional lines for Dels's C-130. So easy to play with. And also wreck objects is there. Just copy wreck lod and also lines for wreckobject .ini. all skins are in 2048x2048 format. So play with it, and hope someone will do better ini for this vehicle. credits: model, ini edits skins - me - JH. skin based on the Trooper work.. ive updated his skin. If someone wants psd templates let me know. regards. Jarek Hereda Submitter yakarov79 Submitted 03/31/2018 Category Ground Object Mods  

Had a nice early morning offensive patrol today, set to April of 1918, in the middle-east theater, with the latest atmospheric tweaks and smoke effects in use. Also tweaked is the missioncontrol.ini file now, and it's been giving me much smaller numbers of aircraft overall in the skies, in single missions (as realistic for some of these obscure WW1 theaters) - will roll those tweaks into a ver. 9.5 of the FM update pack as well. Happy flying, Von S

McDonnell Douglas Phantom F.1 - No.1435 Flight, RAF Falklands Air Defence Component, 1982 At an early stage in the Falklands conflict of 1982 four Phantom F.1's, drawn from No.229 OCU and manned by pilots from No.29 Squadron, were deployed to Ascension Island to provide emergency air defence against any potential Argentinian airborne commando raids (perhaps, using Hercules aircraft) or any air strikes launched from the carrier Veinticinco de Mayo. Whilst the latter was only ever a very remote possibility the UK Government viewed the establishment of a basic air defence component on Ascension Island as being essential to their plans to retake the Falkland Islands. Arriving on Ascension Island on April 14th, 1982 the four Phantom F.1's were allocated to a hastily reformed No.1435 Flight based at Wideawake airfield. The swift re-conquest of the Falklands then saw No.1435 Flight deploy to RAF Stanley during October 1982 to take over air defence duties from 809 Naval Air Squadron. No.1435 Flight was eventually built up to squadron strength operating Phantom F.1's initially from RAF Stanley and later from RAF Mount Pleasant until they were replaced by Eagle F.2A's in 1992.

On a whim, I dropped Jan Tuma's snow art into gterl's Italy map. Despite a few rough edges, the combination of art, map, and VonS' atmospherics looks pretty good for a 1999 game engine.

Lovely stuff, VonS. I really look forward to your update! Does anyone know where the sky color can be adjusted? Its a bit too saturated - vivid - on my rig, but VonS' clouds look great.

Ahh that old familiar tale you say - of course, in the late 1960s the F-4 Phantom II finally had a gun installed, which meant that everything was better, magical unicorns danced around the sky and the Vietnamese MiGs would fall from the sky in droves! Okay so that didn’t quite happen….......what did? Note - These articles are a compacted summary of a rather massive topic and will discuss the F-4 and Guns in Vietnam mostly ignoring missiles. Vietnam will be used instead of SEA. And USN includes the US Marines for simplicity. Very different F-4s and Air Forces (USAF v USN) Firstly, with different equipment, ideas and ways of doing things the United States pretty much had different Air Forces in the US Navy (USN) and the US Air Force (USAF), so it is important to draw a big red line between them with a quick summary: US Navy F-4 Versions in Vietnam F-4B (F4H-1) – Second F-4 version but first major production version of the F-4. F-4J - Improved F-4B Major Differences compared to the USAF Air to Air Refueling with Drogue and Basket Use of AIM-9B/D/G/H versions of Sidewinder only as Short Range Missile. Never fitted Guns, and only rare use of the MK4 gun pod (mostly Air to Ground use). Internal ECM equipment. Different Radars (AN/APQ-72, -59 & AWG-10 Pulse Doppler) Had no flight controls in the back seat In 1972 preferred used of AIM-9G/H Sidewinder over AIM-7E-2 Sparrow Used more flexible Loose Deuce A-A formation tactics Carrier and land based (Marines) USN F-4J refueling drogue and chute style (USN) USAF F-4 Versions in Vietnam F-4C (F-110A) – Based on the F-4B with USAF changes. F-4D – Improved F-4C. F-4E – This is the (only) F-4 with the internal Gun. Major Differences compared to the US Navy Air to Air Refueling with Boom Used AIM-9B/E/J versions of Sidewinder Used AIM-4D Falcon for periods over the AIM-9 on F-4D/E External Podded ECM equipment Different Radars (AN/APQ-100, -109 & -120 ) Use of Gun Pods (SUU-16 & SUU-23) Had some flight controls in the back seat In 1972 preferred use of AIM-7E-2 Sparrow over AIM-9 / AIM-4 Insisted on sticking to the obsolete / useless fluid four (Welded Wing) A-A formation tactics right to the end. USAF F-4 nears the boom of a KC-135 in 1967 (USAF) Why no gun on the F-4 to start with? On the 18th September 1947 the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) became the USAF and with the limited budget constraints after WWII, Strategic Air Command (SAC) was seen as security priority and was thus given the major funding over the Tactical Air Forces (TAF). SAC culture dominated the USAF in the early years along with its doctrine of strategic nuclear bombing with massive manned bombers. Tactical Fighters (F-100/F-101 etc) under this emphasis on SAC now had two roles: Defend against enemy bombers as interceptors. (Air Defence Command / ADC) Low level delivery of tactical Nukes. (Tactical Air Forces / TAF) Apparently, Korea never happened because by the late 1950s bombing a target in a fighter within 750ft was more then good enough (with a Nuclear weapon) so not only conventional Air to Air training went out the window but also conventional bombing! One Air Force general noted about this period, General (Curtiss) LeMay had deliberately loaded the Air Staff with bomber guys, who were not well acquainted with things like air superiority or air-to-air combat, and who wanted to destroy enemy aircraft on their airfields. In 1957, LeMay actually tried to eliminate the TAF, but the possibility of the Army developing its tactical air support arm overrode this idea, and later that year LeMay reluctantly gave the TAF more funds to keep its mission from being turned over to the Army. Who needs fighters anyway? - the B-36 Peacemaker takes its toddler son for a walk in 1948 (USAF) Some of this thinking was perhaps driving the US Navy with their F4 program in the 1950s. The USN had a requirement to intercept Soviet bombers attacking the fleet above 50,000ft out of the range of gun armed fighters and thus from 1956 the AIM-7 Sparrow III was to be the primary weapon with a gun as secondary. By 1957 however the gun was deleted from the design because the new AIM-9 Sidewinder was to be the secondary weapon. Feeling in the USAF really was in some respects that the day of the gun had past, working at the Pentagon in Air Force Operations as a colonel in the early 1960s, Maj Gen Richard Catledge recounted his Pentagon experience with the antigun sentiment and General Momyer: I realized this two-star, General “Spike” Momyer[,] ran the Air Staff—very strongminded individual, very knowledgeable individual, who did his homework on everything. . . . It was his belief and his concept that future airplanes would not have guns in them. There was no need for guns. I couldn’t believe this when I came across it in the Pentagon. So I built a flip chart briefing, with my convictions, why we needed guns, more for air-to-air than for air-to-ground. . . . Anyway, I found it was an uphill fight. That every colonel, every major, in requirements, whose business I was getting into, believed as their boss did. So I really went uphill. I built my chart, got my ducks all lined up, and went to my boss, [Major General] Jamie Gough, and gave him that briefing. He said, “Well, it’s a good story, . . . [but] you are going to have to run this by Spike Momyer, and I’m not going with you.” . . . So I went up, got the appointment, put my stand in front of his [Momyer’s] desk, and started in telling him why we needed guns in airplanes. Well at one point in this—he stopped me several times and gave me a few words on why we did not, and [that] essentially missiles had taken over. Missiles had taken over for air-to-air . . . and other kinds of munitions [had taken over] for air-to-ground, so there really was no need [for obsolete guns]. Well, I thought I had a pretty good argument, but didn’t convince him. I remember he’d beat on his table and say, “There will be a gun in the F-4 over my dead body.” That was his attitude. Seems strange that despite the many limitations of missiles then, such as they couldn't be used at the close ranges guns were used at, and they had no way to ID aircraft Beyond Visual Range makes it look at if Momyer was towing a party agenda for flashy new technology. [Even if the technology was crap] The USAF took on the F-4 as part of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s drive to get the services to use standard equipment with commonality. He was also interested in the conventional side of things and saw both the A-G potential as well as the A-A potential and thus the USAF received the F-4C (originally designated F-110A). (Note: yes this was potentially one of the few things McNamara did that wasn’t a complete catastrophe!) Of course, the F-4 wasn’t the only aircraft of its time without an internal gun (another reason seen given is that pilots would never have closed to gun range to take down a bomber carrying Nukes.) Some other Interceptors of the era born with no internal Gun: F-102 Delta Dagger F-106 Delta Dart (Some later got a gun under project Six Shooter from around 1969) Su-9/11 Fishpot Tu-128 Fiddler Su-15 Flagon MiG-25 Foxbat Some Interceptors that had the gun removed: Lightning Fmk3 CF-104 Starfighter (Early) A gun was later incorporated MiG-17PFU Fresco MiG-19PM Farmer MiG-21PF/PFL/PFS/PFM/FL (PFL and PFM used by the VPAF in Vietnam along with the gun armed F-13 and MF) F-102A Delta Dagger interceptors (USAF) Getting a gun on the F-4E McDonnell first proposed an internal gun for the F-4 in 1961 however it wasn’t until a potential limited war in Vietnam looked likely in 1963 that this was taken more seriously by the military for Ground Attack / strafing. By 1965 combat experience determined that a gun was a requirement and it was trialed in the F-4, and thus the F-4E was born with a nose job and new APQ-120 Radar: This shows the 22 modules (Line Replaceable Units / LRUs) required for the APQ-120 radar Adding the gun solved all the problems yes? The original gun muzzle caused a few problems. Firstly gas ingestion into the engine inlets caused engine flameouts and secondly it made a loud whistling noise that apparently notified the enemy troops (and their Dogs presumably ) long before the F-4 got there. The muzzle had to be redesigned and the later F-4Es have a longer gun muzzle under the nose. Also not shown in the diagram above, the gun assembly and ammo drum took up a lot of space in the nose and the dish/antenna size was reduced. The Westinghouse APQ-120 was an early ‘Solid State’ radar (derived from the APQ-109) and being Solid State must have helped in reducing the obvious vibration issue when you have a massive Gatling gun sitting next to 1960s electronics! Despite this it still exceeded the reliability requirements and was similar in that regards to the F-4D radar that had no gun in the nose. Ex F-4 flyer Walt BJ stated that the APQ-120 in the F-4E had about 20-25% less range over the APQ-109 in the F-4D. Didn’t the F-4E just wipe the floor now it had a gun? During Operation Linebacker I & II (1972/73): The USAF F-4E had 22 claims in 25 (known) engagements including 7 gun kills The USAF F-4D had 27 claims in 30 (known) engagements with no gun kills So firstly, if you add an internal gun but still don’t train anyone to use it then despite any figures nothing really changes. Secondly the missiles and radars had improved since 1965 regarding close in capability and so the Gun was starting to look very secondary by now. Considering the extra effort required for guns in skill, fuel, risk of collision, and making themselves more vulnerable, a missile would be the priority weapon regardless of the USAF training issues. What about the gun pods? Stop gap measures meant some squads using the 20mm SUU-16 and SUU-23 Gatling gun pods on the F-4C and D respectively – however despite some success these were somewhat inaccurate and the extra drag had a noticeable effect on range. Looking happy to be here - SUU-23 Gun pod on the center line station of an F-4 (Clive Camm) Some championed the Gun pod such as Korean war ace Col Frederik “Boots” Blesse after it became a useful strafing tool for South Vietnam sorties. USAF Col Robin Olds was a tad less enthusiastic: The gun pod wasn’t so much a speed penalty as an object of increased drag and fuel consumption. But that wasn’t my objection to the gun pod, I refused to carry it for 3 basic reasons; It took the place of five or six 750 lb bombs. Only my older and more experienced fighter pilots had ever been trained in aerial gunnery, to say nothing of air-to-air fighting. There were perhaps a dozen of them in the 8th TFW. I had no intention of giving any of my young pilots the temptation to go charging off to engage MiG-17s with a gun. They would have been eaten alive. Instead they fought MiGs the way I taught them and did so with notable success. The US Navy briefly trialed and used the 20mm MK4 (GAU-4) Gatling gun pod mostly for A-G but this was determined to be useless in operation with technical difficulties and also meant the preferred configuration of centre line drop tank only could not be carried. The not so successful MK4 (GAU-4) gun pod at China Lake (Dave Woolsey) Did the Navy not want an internal or any gun? For the primary purpose of fleet air defense, ‘missiles only’ it seems was deemed adequate. When in combat over Vietnam some Navy pilots wanted it and others didn’t. The gun pod was not persevered with and even an offer of free SUU-16/23 pods from the USAF was turned down on one occasion. We can deduce that if you reshaped the F-4J nose like the F-4E then you also have to reduce the radar dish size and forfeit range which might not be the best idea regarding fleet defense. Simply plonking in the APQ-120 with less range and no useful lookdown/shootdown capability was probably not going to win USN favour. Even spending the money on a modified APG-59/AWG-10 still gets you reduced range at the end of it. The APG-59/AWG-10 in the F-4J had some good lookdown techniques (for its time) and was considered superior. However even without the gun the F-4B/J Phantom avionics suffered from heavy carrier landings: I had a USN F4J pilot in my back seat one night gunship escort mission (can't for the life of me remember why) and he marvelled at the radar pickup. I asked him why he thought it was so good when he was flying the J model. He told me after about 4 'standard' carrier landings the radar wasn't so hot anymore. (Walt BJ) So, what did the Pilots say about Guns, Training, and Back Seat Drivers During the Vietnam conflict a Secret project (Red Baron) took place which compiled every A-A engagement fought. As part of that the aircrews were interviewed where available, giving quite a mixed view. 3 April 1965 F-4B USN front seat pilot (with 1000 hours) There is a need for a close in weapon as a backup on any mission……………….Guns would also be useful as an air-ground weapon (stopping a truck convoy, for example) 10 July 1965 USAF F-4C front seat pilot Gun not necessary; it will get people into trouble. Would like capability to fire all missiles on the F-4 with Centreline Tank on. Less minimum range for missiles instead of guns…….Because lack of ACT at time of event, did not know how to manoeuvre the F-4 as well as he could later after some experience. 6 Oct 1965 USN F-4B front seat pilot Fighter needs guns or short range missile……………..Turning and acceleration rate of MiG-17 was impressive. The MiG leader was aggressive and a good fighter pilot. 23 April 1966 USAF F-4C front seat pilot Improve the performance of the AAM and the gun will not be needed…………Training safety restrictions severely limited air-combat-tactics training prior to deployment to the combat area. 23 April 1966 USAF F-4C front seat pilot The need for a F-4 gun is overstated, although it would be of value if it could be obtained without hurting current radar and other system performance. If you are in a position to fire guns, you have made some mistake. Why after a mistake would a gun solve all problems. Also having a gun would require proficiency at firing, extra training etc. Have enough problems staying proficient in current systems. If the F-4 had guns, we would have lost a lot more, since once a gun dual starts the F-4 is at a disadvantage against the MiG. 23 April 1966 USAF F-4C front seat pilot Felt that he had very poor air-combat-tactics background. Prior background was bomber and other multi-engine. Transition to F-4 oriented toward upgrading a qualified fighter pilot rather than training a pilot with no fighter background. 25 April 1966 USAF F-4C back seat pilot Gun is not particularly desirable, if the performance of the aircraft is degraded by an external installation. Also, one might make the mistake of getting into a turning battle if a gun was available 25 April 1966 USAF F-4C back seat pilot Capability of the F-4 is being wasted by having a pilot in the back seat. The pilot is not adequately trained as a radar observer. Need a radar expert in the back seat. The pilot back seaters main goal is to be upgraded to the front seat rather than master the radar. 26 April 1966 USAF F-4C front pilot It is a fallacy to say that you can bring the F-4C home and land it solely from the back seat. You’ve got to blow the gear down and then there is no antiskid system; there is no drag chute handle; there is no fuel gauges or switches; you may be limited to using internal fuel; you can’t dump fuel or jettison tanks. A gun would be nice in an F-4C as long as it was clearly understood it was only a weapon of last resort. Soviet fighters are more capable than US aircraft inside gun range. 29 April 1966 USAF F-4C back seat pilot It was not necessary to have a pilot in the back seat of the F-4 except during night A-G missions when a pilot may more capably advise the aircraft commander. Actually, a radar officer would be more interested in the back-seat operation than a pilot would be. 29 April 1966 USAF F-4C front seat pilot It would be undesirable and possibly fatal for an F-4 to use a gun in fighting with a MiG because the MiG is built to fight with guns and the F-4 is not. 30 April 1966 USAF F-4C front seat pilot Training was not really adequate for this engagement, didn’t know what the back should do in a hassle such as this. 14 June 1966 USN front seat pilot Guns would be most useful for the ResCAP role but not particularly valuable in the air to air role. An F-4B from VF-111 Sundowners giving it some - just because (USN) The F-4 Phantom II Dogfighter? As we know the F-4 was not particularly the most agile fighter in theatre and turning at a slower speed was a bit of a problem. However, US fighters had seldom been the best turners in previous conflicts such as WWII (think F-6F Hellcat V Zero) ……power and speed could make up for it and were often better attributes to have. In 1966 the US Navy flew “Project Plan” flying the F-4B against a series of fighters to determine how good it was in an Air Superiority role. It concluded that contrary to what F-4 pilots thought the F-4 was the best air to air fighter in the world (including the F-8), if the F-4 stayed fast. To fly the F-4 however in BFM/ACM you needed to have training and a lot of experience (like most jets of this era). One particular characteristic of the hard-winged F-4 was “Adverse Yaw” at slower speeds where the pilot had to make the turn using rudder pedals instead of the stick. If the stick was used the chances of departing were very high – somewhat fatal in combat. Now stick a pilot in the cockpit with little training and you can see that in the heat of battle adverse yaw becomes quite serious (not just A-A but avoiding SAMs etc). Of course, pilots just simply avoided going anywhere near adverse yaw if they could however that meant they could never max perform the jet if they needed to in every situation. Adverse Yaw was all but eliminated by adding leading edge slats to the F-4E with the 556 "Rivet Haste" Mod late 1972. Too late to have any real relevance for Vietnam though. In Part 2 we look at the very different training aspects of the USN/USAF/VPAF, the F-105 / F-8 paradox and the myth / legend of Colonel Tomb.

there are whole hog packs at DAT site, but you must have all prerequisites filled to download from them, and even then only download once or twice a day, 1/4 that on days that have d or y in them (yeah they dont have the greatest rep, check my signature). for here, pretty much go the franken mod route although there are less restrictions on acquisition/usage. Not everything is available at either site, so there will be some holes in what you seek unfortuneatly

Improved (X)AIM-4H Falcon missile with proximity fuse and enhanced maneuverability. A hand full of these were test fired in 1971ish and solved all the shortcomings of the AIM-4D but the USAF ultimately went with the AIM-9 as its IR missile system. Semi-recessed missile slots. Replacement had SAC continued with escort fighters?.....

Got it - thanks. Some atmosphere shots below of the Nieuport 24.

Progress shots show the endless hours spent testing and tweaking.

The same tubes for the removal of spent cartridges ... Machine-guns of the Red Baron.

F-100C with tripple Mk.4 FFAR launcher and AN-M64 bombs

New river tiles and a Star-Strutter for good measure...

not sure who made old one... but i know who made this.... so .... it is on CA...in download section Special Hercules Over Vietnam.. but there is no really target drone model...at least not yet...

A lot of the 1stGen to SF2 conversions are forgetting this supremely ciritical file. When one has an aircrft that is tagged Exported=TRUE it is vitally important that a userlist is either created new or adated from a pre-existing one (a good example would be my JASDF F-86 skin pak, those that downloaded it might have noticed that it came with a new userlist, while not fully complete, at least there was SOMETHING for the game engine to use). This goes for GroundObjects as well. Now, it's not just a matter of "is it Western/NATO, or Soviet/Warsaw Pact user" -- you HAVE to list the nations that use/used the thing! (that, or create non-exported, nationalized clones of said objects). You can have all sorts of oddities (like I recently encountered); for example, TF-104Gs parked on the ramp with Iranian markings!! Simply put, even terrains that have an active LimitedNations=TRUE statement, and an accurate terrain nations ini well still have the odd-ducks popping up all over the place. What is the Userlist.ini, you may ask. It's a file designed to absolutely limit which nation gets how many of what airplane (or groundobject) for how many years. They can be found scattered through all the various ObjectData***.cats, located in the main core game install. For editing, you'll need to extract them, using Gerwins Cat Extrator tool. Here's what a standard entry looks like, this from the F-4E_72 Phantom: You can see it only has 2 nations listed, and the Availability is based on how many that air force operated. A rule of thumb that I've found (actually someone else did, and it was in HIS users ini for something I downloaded), for trying to figure out which of the availability tags to use is: RARE: Less than 100 COMMON: 100 - 500 VERY_COMMON: Greater than 500 One might conclude that "VERY_RARE" is something substantially less than 50, or even less than 18 (a normal US squadron strenght). The first questions one asks in "How do I find out what countries used this aircraft, over how many years, and how many did they operate?" Well, that's where the skull sweat comes into play ... you have to get out the books, hunt across the Internet and roll up your sleeves and get down to it. Personally I've found that, even with all it's errors, Wikipedia gives a fairly accurate listing of "who got what" and pretty close to "when" ... obviously some educated guesswork is involved, but in the end it worth it make the mod right. Read the full article, and with a little bit of cleaverness and the skill to 'read between the lines', one can make a accurate guesstimate as to operational years. Countries are already listed in said articles. Is it time consuming, and frustrating? Sure it is ... especially when trying to hunt down some obscure country that used the aircraft for only a few years, and in very small numbers. But, in the long run, it's better for the End User ™, than seeing complaint posts about "I was bounced by Soviet Vampires flying on the Wagstaffistan map. Can anyone fix this, or tell me what's wrong?" So, yeah, spend the time; try to get it a close to Real Life ™ as possible. You won't get it perfect ... shoot, even the stock aircraft occasionally appear with wrong markings (example: Chinese Meteors that bounced me in a F9F Panther while flying in 1951 Korea!!!) In short .... make the effort. In the long run, it create better mods, and more fun for all involved. Questions? Comments? Clairifications? Post them on the regular Forums, either in General Discussion or Mods & Skinning Happy Researching! Wrench kevin stein