near_blind

That's the use case for the direct control mode. Trying to query every map object for jester to find would likely be... problematic.

LANTIRN LTS doesn't have Laser Spot Search, so the other aircraft will have to verbally talk you on to the target. If it's at night and they have IR laser capability, they could visually mark it. No.

LANTIRN takes ~10 minutes to spool up from the time Jester hits the power button.

Lull them into a false sense of security with the conventional weapons and then _*boom*_. Hit 'em with the ol' fission boosted razzle dazzle.

Hey! This is DCS. Recent experience shows if I show a picture of something on a test jet and then make loud enough of a ruckus, then it gets added to the plane! B-61s, some Harpoons, a couple HARMS, a Walleye or two. You think an SM-2ER could fit in the tunnel?

Because it's not a safety thing, it actually takes that long for the aircraft to pass the necessary information to the missile and configure it for launch. The LTE is shorter when the ACM cover is up because the aircraft is passing less information to the missile (thus making it more susceptible to missing irl).

Which search radar are you using? The site needs a Tin Shield and a Square Pair. The Flat Face is listed as an option for the SA-5, but the site won't engage with that as the only present search radar. The site as configured in this mission will engage an F-14. soyuz.miz

It would appear the exact functionality provided by the switch changed over the lifespan of the Tomcat.

Not a bug, but more just curious. Anyone happen to know what the LT/RT value on the second TID line is indicating?

The Radar won't display contacts with closure of >1800 knots as it is currently implemented.

The Tracker and Savage were in service, and the A-3 would be entering service roughly the same time as the majority of Essexes were rolling through their SCB-125 conversions. The Navy put some surprisingly big things onto small decks.

Sadly no, I don't have access to them anymore.

Would it happen to reference an AIM-54A by any chance? because it would appear the carry over between that variant and the C isn't 100% :rofl:

I've read training documentation from the 90s that explicitly references the usage of the switch post launch.

Post launch the RIO should have the ability to manually send an active command via the PH ACT switch.

Is correct post launch behavior of the PH ACT switch going to finally be added?

Because for all intents and purposes, the AIM-7 contemporaneous to the AIM-54C is a totally different missile compared to the AIM-7 contemporaneous to the AIM-54A. Just like the AIM-9L to the AIM-9B.

That's excellent for our AIM-54A variants, but the AIM-54C is not an AIM-54A. Would you design an AIM-7M off the documents for an AIM-7E? How would you rectify digital versus analogue? Conscan versus inverse monopulse? Physically versus digitally set manuever gain limitations?

Could they have though, in a meaningful way? My understanding is that the AIM-54 does not have an understanding of it's own position, or the position of the target. It performs a pre-planned fly out maneuver, and then approaches the target first off directive instructions from the radar, then SARH guidance, then ownship ARH guidance. If that is correct I don't see how the A could do an own ship activation beyond a simple timer: all state calculation of the positional state of the missile and target are calculated or estimated by the AWG-9 and broadcast to the missile. Compare that to the AIM-120 (and proposed behavior of the C). The AIM-120 is passed the predicted position (and state) of the target, and is aware of its own position relative to that location. It will fly out to that location and go active at the appropriate distance. Updates to the target's position and state are passed to the missile and the missile will update the predicted intercept point and how it needs to maneuver to achieve that intercept. If the launching platform ceases updating the target information (dead, lost, turned around), then the missile will still fly to the last known target position. The reason people seize on command-inertial and the addition of an IMU and digital computer is that these additions fit with the idea of the missile being more closely aligned with the AIM-120 system of control than the AIM-54A system of control. If we have to guess on how the AIM-54C works, asserting that it works like the AIM-54A is just as much a guess as asserting it works like an AIM-120A. Why choose the most conservative option which provides the end user the least variety in weapons options and provides no great incentive to choose anything but the longest stick? Why this high a bar of evidence for the AIM-54 compared to say, an SD-10, or a Meteor?

Should be fixed for the next Tomcat update

What would happen in the past was the values for HBs parallel Sparrow were updated to reflect changes made to EDs Sparrow. HBs Sparrow is being removed from the game next update because it's no longer needed: they were able to fix the reason the copy was necessary. Starting then all aircraft will be using the ED Sparrows.

I would like to live in a world where we got an AIM-54F, M, and Hotel build M, but alas it isn't so. That was pertaining to the Sparrow ECM and Loft issues. They have also worked with ED to consolidate back down to using just the ED sparrows instead of a parallel copy, so there should be a single source of truth going forward.

1. You don't need to delete anything, jester will overwrite the existing value for a waypoint if you ask him to input a new position for that waypoint. 2. Yes