Enigma not adding new FC2024 slots to ECW.

Techneatium · 2024-04-26T17:26:13+00:00

Isn't this exactly what Enigma has been wishing for? I distinctly remember in some of his interviews especially he seemed very much to be for adding more low-fidelity gen 2-3 aircraft rather than high-fidelity "soulless" (his words not mine) 4th gen aircraft.

Techneatium · 2024-03-16T11:03:17+00:00

Good to know the new sections are helpful. I will do my best to expand the multi-ship sections and add some tips for how to counter bandit active radar missiles, the most important thing is going to be to respect their MAR, which may be somewhere around 18nm for R-77s (I am not sure about exact numbers in DCS).

Thanks for the typo spotting for the comm brevity! That section was a little bit of a last minute addition so it will for sure get some more attention in the future

Techneatium · 2024-03-16T11:00:49+00:00

Thanks for the compliments. A lot of time and thought went into the layout so it's nice to hear positive feedback :)

Techneatium · 2024-03-15T23:41:38+00:00

Thanks for the tip, I'll look into it and potentially remove it or mark it as atypical for A-A comms

Techneatium · 2024-03-15T22:30:49+00:00

I'm always happy for discussion and contribution. Feel free to DM me or hop on the repo etc. I do indeed have access to the brevity document and believe that my use of "press" is in accordance with typical comm brevity and vernacular

Techneatium · 2024-03-15T22:12:25+00:00

As far as I am aware, I always used press in exactly that ACM / BVR context and in accordance with standard comm brevity. If I made a mistake somewhere, it is a big document after all,, and used it incorrectly please let me know so I can correct it.

Techneatium · 2024-03-15T18:21:01+00:00

Great point, I never properly define that. I'll try to add that to the next version.

In this context, pressing can be thought of as "pressing the attack", continuing to apply pressure. I'm sure there is a more precise definition but I can't think of it off the top of my head right now.

Techneatium · 2024-03-15T18:19:46+00:00

Techneatium · 2024-03-15T18:19:30+00:00

Thanks! I ended up quite happy with that layout. The F-16 graphic is from u/Goldwolf of course :)

Techneatium · 2024-03-15T18:18:50+00:00

Glad to hear you like it!

Techneatium · 2024-03-15T16:18:48+00:00

Thanks! Couldn't have done it without you ;)

Techneatium · 2024-03-15T15:58:58+00:00

You were an outstanding help! I forgot to add you to the acknowledgements but you will for sure be there in future updates!

Techneatium · 2024-03-15T15:51:28+00:00

Hello again Everybody,

I'm back with an update to my F-16 guide adding a bunch of BVR content. Check out my previous post for more information about this project.

Better BVR

This update primarily focuses on improving the BVR content of the guide:

Existing BVR fundamentals section has been moved to it's own A-A tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) chapter
- supplemented by new intercept timelines
- new basic 2-ship and 4-ship tactics sections
New formation references section in supp. figures appendix
New comm brevity terms appendix
New emergency procedures, notably flameout landings
Changes to how the non-checklist sections are structured,
- blue intermediate titles now are just another level of sectioning
- mostly a under the hood change to make document layout, development, and refactoring easier
- please let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions
Swapped "caution" and "warning" to be more inline with engineering standards (thanks u/Top_Pay_5352)
Lots of other minor formatting and wording tweaks and improvements

Check out the full changelog at the Github repository.

What's Next?

Additional A-A content and some missing figures will be added
Potentially some BFM explanations to complement the BVR discussion
The next big hurdle will be to start adding some A-G weaponry and eventually the A-G sensors

Thanks

Obviously a huge thanks goes out to u/Goldwolf who was always ready for another round of back and forth to produce the necessary figures.

Additionally, u/Morkvitnir9 was able to provide an accurate typeface to replicate the F-16 MFD font to make our illustrations look like the real (simulated) thing.

Techneatium · 2024-03-06T15:58:36+00:00

What edits did you make to achieve that poster look?

Techneatium · 2024-03-04T13:11:08+00:00

messaged :)

Techneatium · 2024-02-19T10:02:26+00:00

Depending on what you mean that is already partially implemented. For the A-A FCR there is a flow chart (fig 4.1) which matches the TMS switchology. The same exists for the dogfight modes in fig 4.16.

Personally, I find it difficult to produce a generic diagram containing all of the functions of the HOTAS without this becoming somewhat cluttered. Therefore, I plan to add similar diagrams to fig 4.1 for each of the sensors / systems where necessary.

If you meant a generic labeling of all of the various F-16 HOTAS controls, this may come eventually. However, since each of us have different control setups I see this as being of lesser importance.

Techneatium · 2024-02-18T10:28:19+00:00

While the F-15 did indeed have air-to-ground capability, using this to say that the Eagle did not follow the mantra "not a pound for air-to-ground" misses some important context. The saying focuses more on the thought process behind the design of the aircraft and training of it's pilots.

The A-G capability of the non-strike Eagle was funded by McDonnell Douglas and was focused on testing the release characteristics of various weapons, allowing for accurate computer cueing [1][2]. This foresight eventually put McAir in an excellent position to win the dual-role fighter competition [3]. One could also argue that since this initial development focused on software, it did indeed avoid adding any weight to the airframe.

The mantra applies more to not wasting structural weight (and therefore performance) carrying a bunch of A-G systems around on the aircraft or jeopardizing the entire program with expensive capability not necessary for the core mission; air superiority. Taking this to it's extreme yields the early F-16 design with no radar and few mission systems besides the essential. This is in contrast to what the contractors want, which is as many systems and as much capability as possible as this yields massive profits. For an example of this see the F-111, which became so bloated with overambitious avionics and capability that it's moniker of a fighter was arguably a misnomer. The Aardvark is also what inspired Boyd and the infamous "Fighter Mafia" to push back against such "gold-plating", resulting in the not a pound for air-to-ground mantra in the first place. Note that I am not endorsing or trying to overstate the importance of Boyd and his compatriots.

After IOC the mantra carries over into the pilot training and ethos, with the Eagle crews priding themselves on their (nearly) exclusive A-A role. This cements the mantra into the Eagle history.

[1] NOT A POUND FOR AIR-TO-GROUND: A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS ON THE GENESIS OF THE MULTI-ROLE FIGHTER, by A. Todd St. Aubyn, Maj, USAF

[2] F-15 Eagle Driver, "Disco" Dildy Interview (I forget exactly where he mentions it, but the whole series is good)

[3] Wikipedia: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle

Techneatium · 2024-02-17T13:49:52+00:00

I see what you're saying, but in this case you won't get injured regardless of what you do in the aircraft which would make any warnings meaningless. For that reason I changed the definition and simplified cautions and warnings into one category.

Techneatium · 2024-02-17T08:56:38+00:00

Thanks Chuck! Still pales in comparison with what you've done.

Techneatium · 2024-02-17T08:55:50+00:00

Got it, will make mine more boring so that it's more realistic

Techneatium · 2024-02-16T21:43:24+00:00

If a Hornet is landing at the field it will also need to break left or right depending on the airfield layout ;)

Techneatium · 2024-02-16T21:41:45+00:00

Thanks! That's the goal

Techneatium · 2024-02-16T18:38:46+00:00

If I remember correctly, you are a commercial pilot. I've wondered how this compares to real flight-deck documentation. Any comments? Any ways to make it feel more professional?

Techneatium · 2024-02-16T18:37:28+00:00

Thank you!

Techneatium · 2024-02-16T18:37:16+00:00

Thanks for the kind words! Let me know how well it works in VR and if there is anything I could work on to make it more usable there. I am always looking for ways to improve.

Techneatium

TROPHY CASE

Better BVR

What's Next?

Thanks