TeaAndScones

Hello. Last year, I posted a thread here to ask anyone if they had any information on a possible Su-37 'Flounder-A'; an enemy that appears in the 1994 flight sim 'US Navy Fighters'. It was apparently, an A-10-like CAS aircraft, designed to support Russian troops against US forces in-game. No one did have any info. But since then, I have managed to find a small number of images that point to the aircraft's possible existence as a design concept, under the Su-37 designation. As you can see, it employs a cranked-delta wing design, not unlike the ground-oriented F-16XL. This allows lower stall speeds than a pure-delta design. However, the engine appears to be a standard turbofan, like those employed on fighter aircraft, rather than the turbofans employed on the A-10. Wouldn't this make slow-speed a bit troublesome? And here is the virtual depiction in US Navy Fighters, pointing to its intended role as an A-10-like CAS platform. If this sparks anyone's memories or knowledge of this aircraft, sharing it would be greatly appreciated. On a second note, did there ever exist a Naval version of the F-104 'Starfighter'? The above image is the depiction is US Navy Fighters. Despite saying U.S.A.F. on the wings, in-game, it is operated by the US Navy, under the F-104N designation, complete with CATOBAR gear. Any help on this would be great too. DatBritish.

This is for a future game project of mine. What kind of scenarios would F-14 pilots be put through, and what work would they have to complete on the ground? Thanks.

Will do. Cheers matey. :)

Last one was 'North Atlantic' in 2012. I want to believe otherwise, but it seems like TW has moved their priorities to Mobile Gaming. Plus, the fact that the last update for SF2 was in July 2013, I'm finding this kinda sad. Is this all because Mobile Gaming is more profitable that Simulators? If that's the case, I honestly thought TW was better than that. I have no problem with him expanding his horizons, but to completely disregard the fanbase he acquired, that have supported him since 2002, and to enter a market who have no appreciation for who TW is or what he did, seems like a slap in the face. Maybe he's secretly working on one behind the scenes, but I seriously think he would have let us know by now. Does anyone else know anything I'm missing perhaps? On a side note, where would you want the next SF2 to take place? I'd think something like the Falklands War would be cool.

Hmm, I've not had any of these issues. I suppose a question would be, are you using the TW F-14, or TMF F-14? That may help. I probably won't be tho. :(

Nice to see some Cold War vintage still in service and being upgraded. Real Soviet Engineering!

I became interested in TOPGUN after seeing the eponymous movie. In the Training Flight scenes, it seems the criteria for a legal 'kill' was radar-lock and above the Hard Deck. (Which you may have known, Mav broke and was reprimanded for it.) I know this would make sense in the real TOPGUN, but were there any other restrictions/conditions that would have to be taken into account to claim a 'kill'. Also, can someone please tell me, why, in Mavs tangle with both Jester and Viper, their Fire-Control systems were taking so long to lock-on? Dramatic effect maybe? Seems rather stupid considering Jester and Mav both had Mav and Viper in their gunsights for the whole time. Also, Mavs gunsight after 'switching to guns' was still has the missile-lock reticule instead of a pipper. Any ideas? Cheers. :)

Hi all. Just a quick question. I'm now in the stage of my game development where I'm writing out my scripts for in game events. One of these is Rocket Pod launch. Since I'm using proper Brevity codes, (Like 'Fox Three' for Multi-Target AA's, and 'Pickle' for Bombs, etc), I need to know the one for Rockets. Thing is, I can't find it. I thought it was 'Shotgun' at first. Makes sense, since a Rocket Pod fires multiple projectiles like a Shotgun, so can someone enlighten me here on this? Cheers from England. :D

Ah I see. That slipped me that possibility. Oh well, I'll just have to use stuff like 'Cleared Hot' and 'Off Target'. Cheers. :)

Hi. I'm in the process of designing a top-down shooter game, where the player pilots an F-14D and shoots down enemy air and ground targets. The working title is 'Super Tomcat'. However, I'm kinda concerned this would land me in trouble if I were to publish the game. I get this idea because names like 'Tomcat' and 'Eagle' are all corporate names rather than nicknames, like 'Turkey' and 'Double Ugly'. So can someone shed light on this issue? As an extension, are designations like 'F-14D' and 'F/A-18E' trademarked too? Cheers. :)

Will they continue working on it? We haven't heard any news from them regarding the project since October '12, but then again they haven't made an official notice of cancellation. Would it be a waste potentially having 2 Tomcat modules? Who's would you rather see released? I'm personally looking forward to Leathernecks offering, since their Fishbed has had me in Analog Heaven since they released it. Since IRIS now seem to be more concerned with FSX, I think I've stopped caring about what they have to offer.

Ah I see. I'm just looking through manual to 'After Burner II' on the Mega Drive, and it mentions your craft as the 'F-14XX Skycat'. I suppose I'll have to come up with something similar if I don't want to pay royalties to Mr. Grumman. :/ Thanks anyway, I'll take your advice anyway. :)

I've heard this so many times, but have no idea what it actually is. For example, I've heard it as: - An ACM where the attacker performs a series of high g 'turns' to 'burn' off energy to prevent an overshoot. - A situation where an aircraft has fired off the last of its ordnance and then disengages the target, (turns), and egresses at high speed. (Burn.) Any help here would be thanked, cheers. :)

Ah, I see. That cleared that up. I suppose it's also a bit less relevant today, as aircraft have gotten heavier, the light wing loading needed for T&B maneuver would prohibit it.

What I've noticed about realistic flight sims is that their campaigns spend a lot of time in the air and little time about the story/setting. I was wondering if it would be viable to have an Ace Combat 5-style story implemented into a realistic sim. Or would that create issues with the dynamics of the campaign and stuff? Thanks :)

I wouldn't want this movie to be made out of respect for the late Tony Scott. Otherwise it's all like "Eh, we didn't need him anyway." :P Then again, I suppose if the film centered on a 'rivalry' of sorts between Man vs. Machine, it could turn out to be slightly okay. DatBritish.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/32720/ http://store.steampowered.com/app/32730/ http://store.steampowered.com/app/32740/ Seriously? £21.99 for 15 year old games? Is this a sign of 'aging well', or Novalogic trying to pass these off as new games? Not saying their bad games, (I bought all 3 + a few other games in a bundle for £21.99), but I mean, come on, newer games like Strike Fighters 2 and Flaming Cliffs 3 exist for similar prices and are much nicer simply by virtue of being more modern. If they were something like £7.99 a piece, then fine, but nope. :P DatBritish.

The R-60 is a very lightweight missile. While all missiles share the characteristic of extremely high Thrust-to-Weight ratios, because of how small the R-60 was, it could be assumed its was much higher than its contemporaries. This, combined with its light weight, could give the R-60 a noticeable maneuverability advantage over, say, an AIM-9L, which is a comparatively large missile. This had the drawback of comparatively small warhead of only 3 kg. However, given the fragility of fighter sized targets, this shouldn't be such an issue. This all results in a very compact missile. This also gave the advantage of being able to have multiple missiles on racks, where a larger missile would only allow one on a pylon. (An example could be on the MiG-25; You could either have one large R-40T, or two small R-60's per rail.) Another point to draw from the above, is that, it seems the R-60 gains its superb mobility from very conventional fins, rather than advanced means, like thrust vectoring, which could significantly increase the cost of a single unit, which, given that a large stockpile would be needed in a war scenario, would eventually stack high up on the budget listing. The point I'm making here is that, for a dogfight missile, where engagement ranges are very short, and the targets are fighters, would the idea of a short-legged and less potent but very fast and agile missile be better than a larger missile with a larger, heavier warhead and thrust vectoring with a longer range? I know the R-60 has been outclassed by today's missiles simply by virtue of being made from obsolete technology, but, would a missile built by the same design philosophy, with modern technology, be an effective alternative to the generally 'large warhead, long range' dogfight missiles we see today? I personally think so. Thanks for reading.

Do you have any opinions/beliefs about aviation that go against what the majority would want you to believe? I'll give some of mine. - (Circa mid-1980's) In a realistic scenario, an Su-27 would have more than a good chance against an F-15. A common belief is that the F-15 would pwn an Su-27 because of superior Sparrow missiles and avionics. While this holds true, why is everyone so keen to miss out the fact that it was rules of engagement in the Vietnam War that prevented the Sparrow from being used fully anyway? Should the same circumstances apply here, an F-15 would likely need to visually ID the Su-27 before being cleared to engage. Here, the Su-27 would have the advantage of superior low-speed maneuverability and high 'off-boresight' R-73 (AA-11) missiles, which would outclass the F-15's AIM-9M's. - The IRIAF's F-14's should be scrapped and replaced. Given that Iran's defense budget should allow, (Which it should do, given they've been able to keep these ancient birds airworthy this long, and that they've made a reverse-copy of the AIM-54), they should start investing in some new planes to replace these F-14's. and generally some of their other Western aircraft. The West is no longer offering support to Iran for maintenance of these Jets, so I would consider looking at somewhere like Russia to provide for their future aviation needs. The F-14 is a clunky, maintenance-intensive plane, and it's simple economics that something will become more expensive to maintain the longer it is kept operational. Plus, the F-14A's air combat capabilities would be completely outgunned by US F-22's and F-15's, in a hypothetical air-war over Iran. They simply need something more modern to protect their skies with. These are some of my examples. Please post yours below. :) DatBritish.

By laws of armed conflict, shooting a parachuting Pilot is illegal. But as long as that pilot is still in his plane, would shooting directly at him still be considered a war crime, or just an immoral thing to do? Thanks, DatBritish.

In Janes USNF (1994), an enemy aircraft was the Su-37, but wasn't the tech demo fighter it actually was, but a ground attack aircraft with armour similar to the A-10. Where could Janes have possibly got this completely false information for this game, especially considering they're one of the top names in military intelligence.

Hi guys. Getting myself a Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog for chrimbo. I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on how to set it up. I was thinking like maybe setting it up on a modded chair with a centre stick and left hand throttle, but that might be a bit cumbersome. So, yeah, any suggestions, let me know :3

As missiles are gaining range and reliability, 300+ km range radar-guided missiles are no longer out of the ordinary. However, as Stealth is also becoming more widespread, would this counteract the effectiveness of said missiles? Radar-guided missiles, obviously require a valid contact on radar to lock-on. However, since stealth will remove that contact, BVR missiles will be ineffective. I know that there are varying degrees of stealth, but in general, the effectiveness of radar-guided missiles will be nullified. I know that certain long-range IR guided missiles exist, like the Russian R-27T/ET, that use the IRST instead of radar, which could potentially work against stealthy targets, especially if the target is 'large and hot, like the F-22'. However, I can imagine that IR hiding technology used in the B-2 Spirit will become incorporated into fighter sized aircraft quite soon from now, so then no current BVR missiles will work. Because the radar and IRST's would be ineffective against these supposedly low RCS and IR targets, would this eventually lead to random encounters with hostile aircraft of a certain area of land, that take place WVR, and thus dogfights will ensue? If so, I wouldn't be removing the M61 to make way for that bloody ECM pod on that new super-stealth fighter R&D... Please let me know what you think.

Someone may or may not have proposed this, and to the trained aviation expert, possibly very silly, but this just popped into my head today while on AC5 listening to AWACS Thunderhead droning on. :P Say, the missile is launched by a Fighter Jet, but the missile's guidance system and launch Aircrafts radar screen is slaved to the local AWACS' radar. Given that the fuel/propulsion allows these ranges, and considering that AWACS radars are usually more powerful than Fighters radars, this could allow for missile launches hundreds of miles greater in range than a lot of other long-range AA missiles. I'm probably missing something here that would make this impossible, but please comment on what you think. :)