I'm actually a veteran aircraft aerodynamicist with a long history on real aircraft programmes going back 25 years. I now teach aircraft design at multiple Universities in the UK, as well as providing consultancy to industry on aircraft R&D projects.
I have a long-standing interest in the flight mechanics limitations of historical aircraft and am curious about how these constrained their operational use.
So you want to make a 3d object for Strike Fighters?
I've managed to get a working Rapier SAM battery. But... it requires mods to the EW Radar data.ini file to set the network to the right values for the version of Rapier in use. Also, to enable the launcher to traverse, elevate and fire, requires that some of the commented-out parameters in the data.ini files for the launchers need to be restored. I've finally gotten to the point where Rapier systems can fire at and kill aircraft.
SAM site construction, seeking a guide.
Thanks... I have now been successfully (!?) shot down by a working Rapier site. The key lies in making modifications to the files in the SAM packs. The EW Radar item is set for a non-existent network, RapierSAM, which needs to be edited depending on which variety of Rapier you're using, as the 1E and 2A field standards have different network identifiers from the basic derivative. The files describing the launchers need to be modified too, as, critically, the lines decribing the azimuth and elevation of the launchers have been commented out, and need to be restored. With the restored settings, my advice when crossing targets defended by Rapier sites (EW Radar, Blindfire radar and Rapier Launcher) is to stay high enough or move fast enough to make it difficult for them to track or reach you. Rapier is a SACLOS-guided hit-to-kill weapon, and even with the radar systems taken out, it can still engage optically, if you're close enough. Rapier was exported widely, including to the US, who used it for protecting USAF bases in the UK from the mid 1980s until the end of the Cold War.
I've been trying to work out how to plug together SAM sites for Blue. Some of these (Hawk, Patriot, Bloodhound, Nike) work pretty well, once you've identified the appropriate surveillance and tracking radars. There are some limitations. The usual configuration for a Bloodhound site involves eight missiles and a mobile Type 86 radar. It's not too dissimilar from the classic SA-2 site. But... the one real bugbear. I've not managed to find a working configuration for Rapier, either in the Mk. 1, 1E or 2 forms available in the SAM packages. It's puzzled me, as I've been able to fly ferret missions where the Blindfire radars acquire me, but no response from any of the launchers. I'd be keen to know what I'm missing.
The two other F-111E squadrons at Upper Heyford (in the 20 TFW) were the 77th and 79th TFS, both of whom I visited during the 1980s. The Upper Heyford wing was also reinforced by EF-111A Ravens of (I think) the 42nd ECS from about 1984-85. The 48th TFW had the Pave Tack installation, while the 20th TFW tended to carry unguided munitions. In NATO exercises during the 1980s, the F-111Ds of the 27 TFW deployed to the UK from Cannon AFB, usually taking up residence in the HASs at A&AEE Boscombe Down, somewhat further south than the F-111E wing.
I'm intrigued, because the RAF did not deploy entire units in Korean, only exchange pilots on secondment to the USAF and RAAF. The Fleet Air Airm *did* deploy the Hawker Sea Fury though. The frontline RAF fighters of the time would have been the Meteor F Mk 8 (used by the Aussies), the DH Vampire FB Mk 5 and, from 1952, the Venom FB Mk. 1. At the time of Korea, the RAF were more heavily engaged in their own operations in Malaya, and were stretched my meeting commitments in Europe. Delays to getting the Avon running with adequate surge margin in the Hunter meant buying in interim solutions, including the Venom, and the Canadair Sabre IV, which was deployed almost entirely with 2ATAF in West Germany. The SF2 version of the Venom FB4 is *interesting*, it has lower wing loading than the MiG-17, and, at low level, is more than capable of out-turning it. Performance in the vertical plane isn't great though. Venom vs. MiG-15 is an interesting one. The two major shortcomings of the J-47 powered Sabres were a lack of firepower (and why the USAF never fitted them with cannon is a mystery to me) and too low power/weight ratio at altitude. The Venom has the same kind of power limitations, but has a much better offensive kick with 20mm Hispanos.
I've had a little play with it, and it's fun to fly. A couple of simply-fixed issues though: 1. The Air-to-air and Air-to-air long range loadouts do *not* include weapons. The 30mm Aden pod can be loaded up manually though. 2. The war role for the T Mk. 1 included support for Mixed Fighter Force tactics, revolving around popping up from ground clutter to take pot shots at whatever was trying to catch up with the Tornado F Mk. 3, which was able to maintain a little distance by staying unloaded. In this role the Hawk T Mk. 1 would carry the centreline gun pod and AIM-9s on the wing pylons. One of my friends remembers doing this fondly when a student at Valley, and blagging a front-seat ride with one of the instructors on an ADEX. Apparently popping up below and behind Dutch F-16As who were otherwise engaged in trying to get close enough to a Tornado ruined their whole day. Hawk-neck, from flying at 8-9g sustained at sea level, was at one point a major issue for the aeromedical chaps. I'd expect to see the AIM-9 variant change from -9B through -9G to -9L with time. These days the T Mk 1A and T Mk. 2 tend to carry the ACMI pod for exercises.
Now trying later scenarios (UK photorealistic, 1978) with the basic Rapier installation for airfield point defence. There are three options for the launcher, plus three identically-named versions of the Blindfire radar. I'm not sure how to configure a version of an early Rapier site that works, as so far I've yet to see one launch.
Intriguing. The high landing speed and structural design of the MiG-21 would make it a very difficult aircraft to land on a carrier, much less the small decks of the RN Light Fleet carriers. While the Mig-17 is a possible candidate for navalisation, and even more so the Yak-25 and it's derivatives, the first Soviet fighter that does not need long runways from the late 1950s through to the late 1960s is the MiG-23. As a point-defence interceptor, the Fishbed has very limited ability against key threat aircraft, but particularly the FAA Buccaneer fleet, which make life very difficult for any aircraft without a look-down/shoot-down system capable of engaging targets at low altitude.
I've now cracked it, although it needs a workaround. I noticed that the launchers were empty, but on 'refly'-ing the same missions, missiles appear on the launchers. I've been running a scenario involving protecting V-bomber bases against a Soviet pre-emptive strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was pleased to find that Bloodhound is a real killer of incoming threat aircraft, right down to low level. Historically, there were 8 squadrons of RAF Bloodhound SAMs deployed to protect the primary V-bomber bases that ran in an arc from Finningley in the north to Marham in the south, with missile batteries deployed to cover the area behind the front-line Lightning interceptor squadrons. The Bloodhound units were essentially static, although shorter-range Army Thunderbird SAMs (which used the same radars for tracking and illumination) were also deployed as more mobile pop-up assets, probably to protect dispersed V-bomber flights at secondary airfields.