streakeagle

While I love the F3H as an ancestor of the F4H, the F4D is simply an elegant aircraft. All tailless deltas have major aerodynamic issues, but they sure look cool. The F3H may look a bit odd, but if it had the engine power and weight it was supposed to have, it would have been a decent design. As things turned out, the F4D was better. But both quickly became irrelavant. Once you have the F-8 and F-4, you have aircraft that are among the best for over a decade instead of just 2 or 3 years (look at all the fighters that came and went between 1945 and 1960!). The point of my thread is not to bash the F-8. Its combat record speaks for itself. I simply disagree with the assessment that it would have been a better choice for the fleet than the F-4, especially based on the idea that it was somehow magically more agile than it really was. For instance, by the numbers, I can show how the F-4 is significantly more maneuverable than the F-4. But Andy Bush is a fighter pilot who flew both extensively. In his opinion, the turn performance differences between the F-4 and the F-104 were negligible. He actually preferred the F-104 and even beat an F-15 in a mock dogfight while flying one. Now does Andy's anecdotes override published data from the manufacturer's? I doubt it. He may have been one of those rare pilots who would win no matter what aircraft he was flying and would be happy with the performance of his aircraft since he was able to win. Steve Ritchie praised the AIM-7E2 and F-4 Phantom, but how many other pilots got the results he did when given the same opportunties with the same equipment? The F-8 pilots in Vietnam were almost the only well trained air-to-air pilots on either side. The USAF had some awesome WW2/Korea veterans mostly at the beginning, and both the USAF and PVAF had some lucky and/or talented newbies, but by far, most of the pilots flying F-4s, MiG-21s, and MiG-17s were inexperienced and poorly trained leading to a lot of missed kill opportunies and/or unnecessary losses. The fact that F-4 pilots who completed Top Gun generally did as well or better than the F-8 pilots make it painfully obvious that you don't win a dogfight because your aircraft turns a little tighter or climbs a little faster, you win it by making better decisions than the enemy in the tradeoff between speed, altitude, and angles given the particular aircraft being employed and the initial conditions.

Ok, lets flip the coin. Instead of just two aircraft having a fight starting at the ideal range and altitude for the F-4 to win, lets take 4 F-4Bs versu 4 F-8Es all armed with only 4xAIM-9Ds. Are you going to claim that 4 angles fighters will beat 4 energy fighters? Even underpowered, less agile F4F Wildcats could successfully take the skies from A6M Zeroes when flown with mutual support. The agility of the Zero was largely nullified when you used more than 1 vs 1 scenarios. The four F-4s with 2 crewmen each could fight in the vertical, maintian better situational awareness and would probably win. Of course, if the F-8s truly have such awesome agility compared to the F-4, the battle might be a draw until someone runs out of gas and has to try to disengage... Like quite a few of the F-8 kills against MiG-17s (and surely a similar percentage of the F-4 kills). So which aircraft would have better endurance while using lots of afterburner for sustained hard turns and zoom climbs? In Top Gun, F-4 crews were taught to beat souped up A-4s and F-5Es in exactly the same sort of situations (as F-8 crews had already known how to do from the start). As I have never flown either aircraft in reality and can clearly show that the flight modeling in sims like the SF2 series is no basis for comparison, I can only judge by the historical record. Given everything I know, if I had to pick one aircraft to fly in combat any time from 1958 to 1975, it would be whatever the best F-4 variant that was available to me. If my mission might range from ground attack to air superiority, I would lean toward USAF variants as they always had better avionics for bombing in a given time frame while retaining the air-to-air capability. But, if my primary mission was air superiority, clearly, the Navy's access to better AIM-9 variants make the F-4B and F-4J the best choices. The F-4E would be much easier to fly and had a gun, but the F-4J's AWG-10 radar was greatly superior to the F-4E's APQ-120. Unlike the APQ-120, the look down feature actually worked and could find F-8s down in the weeds. While the Navy ultimately admitted that the slats were needed for safety, they never added the internal gun. It wasn't worth the weight, space, vibration, or loss in radar reliability (APQ-120s didn't like being vibrated by 100 rounds per second). SF2 makes the F-4E look better since its radar works just as well as the F-4J in the game, and it has slats and a gun, but consider the fact that in reality, even after the F-4E was widely available in Vietnam, that the F-4D was the aircraft of choice for USAF sweeps and CAP because of its superior radar. The SF series has come a long way, but aside from the slats and gun on the F-4E, all the F-4s seem about the same as long as they have been upgraded with a RWR. But in reality the F-4D was almost as good at ground pounding and a better air superiority aircraft than the F-4E and much better than the F-4B or F-4C in either role... as long as it isn't stuck with AIM-4Ds!

I can assure you France would gladly have traded their F-8s for F-14s or a French equivalent. F-4s are still in service because the countries flying them couldn't afford F-15s and F-16s much less F-22s and F-35s. The USAF and USN weren't even permitted to completely replace the F-4 with the F-14 adn F-15. Look at the Navy's budget in the 1960's though. They gladly replaced the F-8 with the F-4, only keeping some F-8s to serve on the smaller carriers. They Navy clearly believed the F-4 was the better fleet defence aircraft and had even learned to use it very well for air superiority, and once the skies were clear, it was a much better bomb truck. Apparently, things haven't changed much. When faced with major budget limitations and forced to pick one aircraft to perform every job, they picked the F/A-18E... a 60-foot long twin-engined aircraft with a 500 ft^2 wing, weighing 30,000 lbs empty, and an optional 2nd seat. Sound familiar? The F-4 actually had a bit more wing area (530 sq ft), but is darn close to having the same dimensions. The F-14 was not only too expensive, but too large and the F/A-18A/B/C/D was too small. The F-4 sized F/A-18E/F was just right. They were quite willing to give up some agility for the size increase, too. By giving up the cost of stealth and improving an existing airframe rather than trying to develop a new one, the Navy got a useful number of new airframes instead of being stuck flying the old ones untily they start breaking in half during ACM training.

Show me the data from the manufacturer or NASA that shows F-8 turn performance at specific heights, loadouts, and speed ranges before claiming how it was more maneuverable. I have have never seen more than pilot anecdotes. Anecotes can't accurately specify heights, speeds, weights, or how well each pilot hit their aircraft's performance sweet spot whle denying the opposition his. Plenty of pilots from WW2 will tell you how plane x was better than plane y during one or more of their engagements while another group of pilots will tell you they experienced exactly the opposite. From the cockpit in a close-in dogfight, pilots cannot accurately ascertain angular rates, velocity vectors, or even ranges, much less specific excess power or other key ACM parameters. They are too busy fighting for their life to act as flight test data collectors. In certain specific geometries and initial conditions, a more agile aircraft will appear or even actually be out turned by a less agile aircraft. Likewise, a less powerful, slower aircraft may appear or even actually out accelerate or out climb a much more powerful, faster aircraft. Aircraft performance cannot be estimated accurately enough to compare relatively similar aircraft based on weights, sea level static thrust, stall speed, max speed, etc. Even detailed wind tunnel data doesn't fill in all the blanks. It takes carefully collected flight test data to draw valid conclusions. Air combat ranges like Red Flag measure all this data then replay it for all pilots involved so everyone can learn what really happened instead of just what they thought they saw. The F-8 wasn't even close to being optimized for ACM. Was it as maneuverable as an F-86 or MiG-17? Did it have a bubble canopy? Like all post WW2 jet fighters until the F-16, it was designed for speed and climb first at the cost of maneuverability. The F-8's wings were clearly swept for speed. For comparison, the F/A-18's nearly straight wings are far more optimized for ACM. Its swept wing and high wing loading gave it landing characteristics that were absolutely terrible, even worse than the F-4 despite having the variable incidence wing (which really only enhanced visibility by lowering the nose and screwed up manually moving the engine throttle to vary rate of descent). Above landing speeds it was a lot more stable than the F-4 at combat AoA, but that came from not being designed to fly Mach 2+. So, the F-8 gave up supersonic drag and a bit of power-to-weight to have a less delta like wing which meant a bit less induced drag. Now, did the savings in drag overcome the lower power-to-weight? Ps charts partially answer this, but it would really be nice if Vought had provided tables in the same format as the F-4. The one envelope you get from an F-8 pilot's manual is the Height-Mach diagram showing the 1g steady state flight envelope, which fits neatly inside the F-4 envelope. Where the F-4 was limited by dynamic pressure and temperature (if had enough excess thrust to go faster than Mach, but without modifications, the engines would melt down if it did), the F-8 was limited by drag (not enough power to exceed Mach 1.5). This implies that at higher altitudes and higher speeds, the F-4 would actually have better sustained turn performance than the F-8 as its lesser power-to-weight was cancelled out by zero-lift drag. Without much better data than is available to me, all I can do is speculate which aircraft would handle better at a given height and speed based on aspect ratio, wing loading, thrust loading, etc. If someone else has better data that can prove my best guesses wrong, feel free to post it here. As for the F8U-3, it was apparently superior to the F-4 in every performance aspect, but the Navy wasn't buying a dog fighter or a drag racer, it wanted the best fleet defence interceptor it could afford to protect its most valuable asset: aircraft carriers. The Navy concluded that for an interceptor to be effective, it had to have the best radar available and carry as many as practical of the best missile available that could be hauled up to high altitude and reach Mach 2 as quickly as possible. Equally important, the Navy decided that the aircraft must have a dedicated radar operator to ensure the narrow windows of time and distance between detection, lock-on, and minimum firing range were not missed. Apparently, the F8U-3 lost the competition because it had only one seat and carried at most 3 Sparrows to the F4H's maximum of 6 Sparrows. The same formula that led to the selection of the F-4 led to the rejection of the Missileer (too slow/underpowered despite having an early version of the AWG-9/Phoenix system). The F-111B almost met the criteria, but it weighed too much and Grumman had leveraged their inside knowleged and newer technology to wrap the engines, radar, and weapons of the F-111B in a lighter package that out performed the F-4 it was to replace in all aspects (F-111B performance was inferior to the F-4 in all ways except speed). The F-14 was the F-4 concept with better radar, better missiles, supposedly better engines (TF30s ended up never being good fighter engines), better cockpit visibility, and variable geometry wings. Notably, the F-14 retained the 2-seat configuration. The Navy was sure that the additional weight of a RIO was a huge advantage in both radar interception siutations and close-in visual range knife fights. The Navy really didn't give up on the fluid four formation, they just made the welded-wingman an integrated part of the element leaders, permanently in formation 1 meter behind them. USN F-4 pilots that successfully utilized their back-seaters had proven their worth. The F-4s had a 2nd set of eyes, which helped greatly in both defensive and offensive situations. Notably, the F-15 reverted to the single seat configuration, which the USAF justified by the digital improvements to radar operation. The USAF never wanted a 2-seat in the first place and waited a long time before doing anything to encourage a good relationship between the pilot and the "navigator" in F-4s. The F-15 was the size and configuration of a heavy interceptor/multirole fighter bomber (like the F-14 and F-4) but retained the single seat and lack of ground attack systems that would be expected in a small lightweight day air superiority fighter. Meanwhile, the small lightweight day fighter, YF-16, was purchased to replace the F-4 as a heavy multirole fighter-bomber. I am I the only person confused by these decisions? In my opinion, USAF leadership criminally negligent in their duties to defend our nation as best as possible within the available budget constraints during the 1960s. The USN did a lot better job of identifying and correcting its mistakes over the same time frame. In 1972, USN F-4s almost exclusively went straight into close range dogfights while USAF F-4s struggled to achieve BVR kills. It is pointless to argue which was more effective, since the most effective course of action would have been to use both. The USAF and USN finally came to this realization after Vietnam was over, working together in the AIMVAL/ACEVAL tests to explore the effectiveness of various weapons and tactics on the outcome of an air combat engagement. What took them so long? Shouldn't this have happened around 1966?

I much preferred the way OFP/Resistance provided a continous platform with lots of free upgrades until Resistance came out and tied up most of the loose ends. Going from ArmA to separate addon to ArmA2 to another addon in a much shorter time frame has left me behind. But if that's how they have to do business to survive, so be it. There are no other shooters of any interest to me. OFP won me over with its unique and realistic styles of gameplay. Open maps with open ended solutions to mission accomplishment with very challenging AI. I still play OFP/Resistance with friends. I would like to be able to do the same with ArmA2, but I only have 3 PCs that can even run it and I don't think any of my friends' PCs can run it at all.

OK, I have reached the fun limit of FC2 for me playing 1 vs. 2 heater only missions. The MiG-23s were nearly impossible to beat. You cannot stay out of firing parameters for both and can't make a mistake in terms of throttle, flares, altitude or you get popped by an R-60M. I did beat them, but it took quite a few tries to get to the point where I could kill one without the other killing me immediately afterwards. The 2nd MiG-23 was always right on my butt while I was shooting the first, so I learned to go to idle and pull g to bleed speed. Forced the overshoot, killed him with my choice of guns or heater. I could get the AI to go for this every time, but I still had a high probability of getting popped by an R-60M. The MiG-29s were even more difficult: add helmet mounted sights with off-boresight capability and much greater maneuverability. The whole time you are tracking/killing one, you need to be popping flares and even then you will get killed by the one of the two before even killing one of them quite a bit of the time. I can dodge about 3 out of 4 R-60Ms, but they each carry four, so typically they have fired 1 to 5 R-60Ms by the time I am dead. I did "win" one time by hosing the first one quickly with a solid gun burst then snapping up the other one with a heater. But, after quitting, I discovered the guns kill wasn't a kill yet. I didn't see him flying around anywhere, but he had not hit the ground yet. The AI did not impress me that much with 1 vs 2 gunfights, but with R-60Ms, they are pretty damn mean. The only problem is, realistic or not, it is no fun to get popped almost every fight. I want to dogfight, not fly around near the ground at idle popping flares steadily until I get blindsided by an R-60M.

I never get tired of F-101 Voodoo screenshots, especially ones that look as good as that :)

F-8s could not get onto the tail of a MiG-17 any easier than an F-4. If they were getting onto the tail of a MiG-17 in a level turn, the MiG-17 wasn't turning or had hit speeds where it couldn't turn. Statitics such as kills per engagement reflect the entire war. The F-8 had good pilots the entire time. If you look at USN F-4 units in 1972, you will find that they did every bit as well as F-8 units. The three principal reasons F-8s did so well compared to the F-4 over the same time frame (1966-1968) were: 1) They got most of their kills with the AIM-9D, a missile far superior to the AIM-9B. 2) While their guns did not directly contribute to their success, the extensive training they received on how to dogfight to use the guns got them into position to use the AIM-9D despite being far less maneuverable than their MiG-17 targets. 3) They rarely had to fight MiG-21s. Even the F-105 got a significant number of kills against the MiG-17 almost exclusively with guns. Maneuverability was not the key. Being aware of the MiG-17 and taking the correct course of action to counter it was the key. Tecnically, F-105s got more kills than F-8s, so we should get rid of the F-8 and F-4 and switch to the F-105? Put those same F-8 pilots in F-4Bs with AIM-9Ds and you would have gotten the same or better results in the same engagements. Take the USAF pilots and throw them in F-8s and watch them do as bad as they did in the F-4C despite having AIM-9Ds, because they still won't have the ACM skills it takes to beat an angles fighter with an energy fighter.

I completed the 1v1 heaters only. The MiG-23 got my several times before I solved my problem. I had rear aspect AIM-9Ps vs all-aspect R-60Ms, so I had to survive the merge to position for a shot. Performing missile avoidance tactics made it difficult for me to maintain visual contact. I would merge, lose sight of the MiG-23, then end up getting shot while circling/looping to look for him. Or, while maintaining visual contact I would get hit by one or more R-60Ms. Finally, I learned to zoom in visually and use trackIR to maintain visual as I dove low in idle tossing chaff and flares, after the merge, I select afterburner and pull through the vertical, then look for the small dot moving against the terrain. If I spot him, I out perform him, line up for a tail aspect, and win with a single AIM-9P shot. The MiG-29 got me first time, but all the practice against the MiG-23 ensured that I nailed the MiG-29 on the 2nd try using the exact same formula. The Su-27 brought a new surprise: armed with R-73s, but I gained AIM-9Ms. First try, I dodged two R-73s, but as I realized I had AIM-9Ms and nosed back up for a point blank face shot, I died of a point blank R-73 face shot. Second try, I knew I had AIM-9Ms, dodged two R-73s and scored an AIM-9M face shot at point blank range. He never even had a chance to pop a flare. As I had expected, FC2 plays the same as its predecessors once missiles are back in the fight. The entire fight is about correctly employing missile avoidance maneuvers. If you can master that, then the focus shifts back to the fun twisty close-in dogfights.

The F-8 didn't "perform" better than the F-4, it simply had pilots well trained in air-to-air combat tactics. Something US Navy F-4s did not have until Top Gun and USAF F-4s never got until after Vietnam. All the way back to WWI, people in the know knew it wasn't the crate that determined the outcome but the pilot unless there was a huge gap in technology or problems caused by mandatory doctrine. USAF pilots in Vietnam were not the only ones who suffered as a result of doctrine and rules of engagement. NVAF pilots got roasted a few times due to the limitations and failures of their GCI system. Operation Bolo being the most famous case. Had the MiG-21 pilots not had to wait for GCI instructions to run for cover, they probably would have lost only 1 or 2 instead of 6 or 7 MiG-21s that day. The weather was horrible and it was easy to hide in the clouds and go home. But GCI was stunned by the discovery that the inbound flights were air-to-air F-4s and not strike F-105s. They hesitated way too long before issuing orders to run for it. If there had been more officers like Robin Olds and they hadn't been forced to do things like fly Fluid Four and switch to AIM-4s rather than adapt their aircraft to AIM-9Ds, the early years in Vietnam probably would have gone so well that there wouldn't be much to fight by 1972.

I only have the demo for now. I could never get ArmA running fast enough to be fun on this rig, so it is a pleasant surprise how well ArmA 2 runs on my ancient rig. Win 7 64 + HD 4890 is giving me the same benefits in this game as it did in SF2. It seems to capture the best points of OFP AND add the best points of ArmA while otherwise working much better. I am tempted to buy it, but I already have two copies of ArmA I will never use because ArmA 2 came out before I could get around to buying a new rig. I am sure missions in the full version will load down my single core A64 3800 too much. So I may settle for the demo until I either get a new rig or ArmA 3 is released.

Meteor cockpit? If someone is cranking out pits, I would think having high quality correct pits for every non-flyable stock aircraft would be a great direction to go :)

Keep in mind, you still need to get the latest DirectX 9 updates as well to run the old SF1 series.

Not really surprising. Entertainment in any form that appeals to the masses has been reduced to simple easy to repeat formulas: movies, sitcoms, reality shows, books, etc. With music being more akin to mathematics than any other form, it makes sense the those seeking to make millions selling music figured out a formula that works and haven't failed yet. Consider all the '60s pop/rock'n'roll hits. There were a handful of writers cranking out most of the hit songs while the groups that sang them were often composed of random people, some of whome were not even talented in any way shape or form. Some of the girl groups swapped out members as necessary to keep the group cheap and on the road. At best, Peter and Mike of the Monkees were actually musicians. Need I mention later versions like Milli-Vanilli? There are some greats that are wholly original that lead the new waves of music rather than followed. David Bowie constantly went down new paths and stayed on top for almost 20 years. Like her or not, Madonna was a trend setter for about the same length of time. At the other end of the spectrum are groups like the Beach Boys who were stuck singing the same ten songs for their entire lives with very few exceptions. I did find it interesting comparing their list tof my own CD collection. I counted about 38 songs in their routine and I have 17 of them. While the chords may be similar or even the same in all of those songs, chords are not unlike percussion. Most songs could be reduced to chords and a drum beat and sound very similar. What really stands out in most songs is the melody and/or the voices used to sing them as well as the arrangement of instruments used to play them. Musical styles that focus on the beat with little or no melody all sound the same to me. My wife is from Colombia and all Latin reggaetón songs sound the same to me: loud obnoxious percussion accented with some periodic catch phrase. There is even one song I have heard at every Latin party or club I have ever been to with the reptitive catch phrase being "gas-o-li-na" pronounced "gas" "oh" "lee" "na". There are other lyrics being mumbled under the Latin reggaetón drum beat, but they are wholly inconsequential. My all-time favorite group is Pink Floyd. Anyone who has listened to their complete catalog of music has experienced a dynamic range of sound. But their most popular albums Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, and The Wall more or less evolved into a formula centered on Roger Water's themes. So much so, that Roger Waters went his separate way since he didn't need the rest of the group to continue his music. Meanwhile, the remaining members spit out two more albums where they did their best to infuse the themes of their best albums with an updated sound to bump up their pension funds. I still like their post Roger Waters albums (as well as Roger's and Dave's solo work), but how much does that say when I am the type of person who likes Lady Ga-Ga's Poker Face?

It doesn't change how the RWR works, just allows it to be displayed on the screen at all times.

Aside from learning where the key commands are, the game is meant to be learned by trial and error while flying, though there is a pdf instruction manual and my SARH tutorial listed above is a quick shortcut. I have made keyboard map for the latest SF2 mappings as well: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6892&hilit=keyboard+layout

Much needed? I already have a Skyraider pit I enjoy using :)

Nice work! I know many have asked how to do this. With radar and RWR displays always visible, SF2 becomes a bit more like Jane's Fighters Anthology that typically had four popup windows across the bottom showing radar, rwr, targeting video camera, and performance envelope.

Completed the 1 vs 2 DACT. Cleaned the pair of MiG-23s clocks with no resistance. Had to play MiG-29s twice, 2nd time got into a really good groove and smoked them both quickly. Su-27s almost went down on the first try, but I lacked the finesse I needed when I dropped my nose in a stall and missed the shot. By the 4th try, I killed the first one as fast as a MiG-29 and didn't take too much longer to get the 2nd Flanker. I am guessing the pilot quality in the opposing aircraft is dumbed down slightly for training purposes in these missions? or is there a setting I am missing where I can increase the AI skill level? I don't think I should have even a 50/50 chance against a MiG-29 in a knife fight and I can beat a pair of much superior Flankers, too. If by chance this is the best the AI can do, I think SF2 is much better than FC2 in dogfighting AI. Now, I could see that the Flankers were very maneuverable, but they didn't take advantage of it very well nor did they take advantage of 2vs1 tactics very well. They should split well before the merge and force me to pick one or the other or fly straight through. Instead, they only split after the merge. If I take too long to kill the first one, the 2nd will convert on to my tail and kill me. But the AI seem far too susceptible to being suckered into an overshoot while leaving me with plenty of energy to paste them with gunfire after they slip into my forward quarter. Tomorrow, I will try to complete all of the heaters only DACT missions. I expect I will get clobbered in that unless I learn how to employ flares correctly.

File Name: F-105 Early Tail Numbers File Submitter: streakeagle File Submitted: 18 Apr 2010 File Category: SF2 Series Add On Skins This mod is a quick fix to revise the default camouflage skin to have the early tail codes. I have used the stock silver skin tail numbers and added the "USAF" above them using a stock Third Wire "USAF" decal. I have included an Excel spreadsheet listing the tailnumbers included and documenting as much as I know about that tail number. I have also inlcuded jpg files from the internet that show what quite a few of them really looked like. There are three basic variations: all white, black "USAF" with white number, and all black. This is a completely separate skin so it does not overwrite any of the stock skins. It is a copy of the default camo skin with ini edits to use the new tail codes. To install this, simply copy the "Objects" folder extracted from this download to the "Objects" folder of the desired install's mod folder. This pastes in the new skin for the F-105D and F-105D_66 as well as a new folder for the F-105 tail number decals. This mod may be used by anyone to do anything as long as it does not involve payware. The base decals were stock Third Wire decals, so they definitely should not end up being reused in any form of payware. Click here to download this file

This was just a hasty mod. Using the jpgs, better decals could be made. But some of them would need custom skins and/or decal ini files to get it 100% correct. The point of my mod was to stick to the stock generic skin which is far more practical for campaigns and historical single missions. I made this for me, but like all of my other self-serving work, I don't have any problems with sharing it (in the hope that someone else will pick up the ball and carry it further than I did). The documentation shows not only a wide variance in the tail numbering color, size, and location but also at least 2 or 3 ways to paint the camouflage scheme. The game engine only allows you to assign one skin per flight and a starting tail number index for the first aircraft in the flight. So there are limits to building historical missions with the aircraft skinned 100% correctly. The only way I see to get around these skin limitations is to make all flights contain only 1 aircraft. Unfortunately, this results in strange behavior for the AI. Independent aircraft will not provide mutual support they way a flight will. i.e. if you have a 4 aircraft flight that gets jumped by a MiG, they will all engage the MiG and/or cover each other's tail... especially if the flight leader is the one being attacked and/or counter-attacking. Four independent aircraft will try to complete their assigned mission as long as they are not directly attacked. Engaged aircraft turn and fight while unengaged aircraft continue to fly waypoints. In some situations, this behavior is preferable, but most of the time it is more realistic if the entire group fights or flees together. I have been working steadily on one simple mission, endlessly varying parameters to try to recapture as much of the historical situation as possible. I have varied aircraft placement and grouping, AI pilot quality for both sides, environment, formations, etc. This also led to these tail number decals, as I discovered what the aircraft involved in the mission probably looked like at the time. I intend to release the mission in several variants so others can see how the game engine works and play the version they like best. While I intend to provide a version that covers the mission from takeoff to landing, this will be the worst version to play since the all-knowing AI make it impossible to duplicate the original surprise conditions. The enemy MiGs could magically appear at a certain time to create the element of surprise, but where will the player's flight be when this happens? I am favoring the board-game style approach of placing the aircraft based on the locations during initial detection. But again, the all-seeing AI that reacts to aircraft directly behind and below them makes it extrememly difficult to surprise the AI. The stock formations keep the aircraft far too close together compared to historical doctrine. The quick fix for the fluid four is to break the aircraft up into individual flights, but as I mentioned before, the AI doesn't fly to smartly in that situation. So I am favoring having two pairs. Historical spacing can be used between the two pairs. If the 2nd pair is assigned to escort the first pair, they still work together and per historical doctrine, the flight leader becomes the primary shooter while everyone else maneuvers to protect the flight leader. But a stock flight of four is much easier to place and still behaves better in some ways. Presently, aside from these decals, the only other thing I have released related to this F-105 mission is my hand typed copy of the original USAF Red Baron report, which can be found here: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7540

Throw the right kind of rock into an air intake, then tell me throwing rocks won't do :)

The missiles of the time were slaved forward, but the IRST gave you a display that let you steer your nose exactly onto the target. Then it was just a matter of waiting for the target to come within range of the missile seeker. Radar would eventually have to be used to confirm range unless you got within visual range. The F-4Bs original purpose was to intercept bombers with the mission specified as "fleet defense", which is rather defensive. The USAF F-4D added a lot more support for ground mapping and bombing, making it a much better multirole aircraft. The F-4E not only added the internal gun and slats, but had an even more capable radar and weapon system for ground attack making it by far the best multirole variant. Whereas the F-4J, like the F-4B before it, was focused on providing the best possible interceptor until the F-14 could be delivered. Of course, thanks to digital technology, the F-4J was at least as capable as the F-4D in the ground attack mission. IRST was less important because radar was starting to work really well, even in lookdown situations and the weight and space it would occupy was much better spent on ECM given the SAM threats encountered in Vietnam.

The effective range would depend on the environment as well as the target. Clouds are made of water which block, reflect, and radiate IR energy. At high altitudes with cold clear skies, IR would work very well, especially against targets flying at high speeds with heat not only from their engines but from friction. IRST is a tool commonly found on interceptors. The F-4 and F-14 were both fleet defense interceptors. The F-102 and F-106 were continental defense interceptors. Interceptors in all of these cases meant stopping high altitude and/or fast Soviet bombers and/or cruise missiles. While radar has much better range and isn't blocked as much by clouds, IR is passive and much higher resolution. Before the age of uncaged IR seekers, it was also a good way to find and track targets for IRMs which could then be steered in acquistion parameters. In broad daylight with clear skies, the human eye is more than adequate, but at night is when IRST really shines as a useful sensor. But modern Thermal Imaging which provides a video rendition of the target is much more effective at providing the same service.