near_blind

Is it possible that the deck sliding during alignment could be negatively effecting alignment quality? I've noticed that cold starting from a carrier with any sort of rocking leads to a far more rapid degredation than what I see from a land based start. I'll try and get something more concrete, but my apocryphal example was error of greater than ten miles after taking off from the carrier, tanking, and flying 200 miles to a Target without incurring more than say 3G

Awesome, thanks! :thumbup:

American surface ships fail to engage YJ-83 ASCMS fired by the Type 52B destroyer and Type 54A Frigate. Ticonderoga CG - Will not engage with SM2, CIWS does not track missile Perry FFG - Will not engage with SM2, CIWS and Mk13 launcher do not track incoming missiles CVN-74 - No reaction: RIM-7 and CIWS neither track nor engage CVN-70 - RIM-7 launchers will track and engage, CIWS does not track or engage. Russian ships seem unaffected. The Pyotr Velikiy and Slava both engage with S-300s, and the Neutrashimy will engage with SA-15s. US Ships will engage YJ-62 missiles from the Type 52C Destroyer. Bug was observed in OB 2.5.5.33057 and OB Hotfix 2.5.5.33184. Test mission and track attached. MissileStrangeness.trk MissleTest.miz

Right now the elevation entry doesn't seem to do anything so long as it's set > 0. For a target located at 3,000 feet MSL, I set one bomb at MSL, I've set one at 1 foot (assuming ASL), and a third at 5,000 feet (deliberately wrong). All bombs impacted within twenty feet of each other. I'd assume this is WIP, because this can not be how the weapon functions in reality. I find it difficult to believe the F/A-18 has a terrain database accurate enough at the resolution required for that sort of accuracy.

I too am unable to connect to the WebGUI either locally or remotely. Any attempt returns this entry in the log

I'd also like to know why there is a discrepancy between the range difference between when the AWACS apparently detects a contact, and when it is transmitted to receivers on the net. Also, is there a place where the maximum range of the system in game is documented?

The coolant for the AIM-9L/M should last roughly 150 minutes (at least per the video below) from the time you press the SW COOL switch.

Are we complaining that it's an un ranged shot and assuming the crosshair is the same proportions as in DCS, the Eagle is way outside 2000 feet? To be fair, that's a valid point. I wasn't there and I don't know what their rules were for an unranged shot. That said, I'm sure that no Eagle driver has ever stiffened their gun funnel in an effort to fudge the range and get an embarrassing hud tape of a inter-service, inter-platform rival flying through their gun pipper.

Do bears poop in the woods?

It's usually referred to the AIM-7M H-build in documentation, not that there's a lot of it publicly available. The AIM-7Ps are a separate, distinct thing. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-7.htm https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104575/aim-7-sparrow/ (Note: F-1 refers to the AIM-7M software version, not the AIM-7F) https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=600

Also keep in mind the AIM-54 has a three second release delay where the AWG-9 is feeding data to the missile and the mechanical linkages are being severed between when you pull the trigger and the missile falls clear of the aircraft. By default, you can't launch another missile before the first completes it's launch process.

The AWG-9 Doppler modes have two filters. You are describing the Main Lobe Clutter (MLC) filter, which removes contacts with a closure rate of +/- 133 knots from the aircraft's ground speed in a look down situation. This is the filter we're generally talking about when we discuss notching. There is a second filter, which is a hardware limitation. PD needs target Doppler shift to function. If a contact is moving at the same velocity (+/- 100 knots) in the same direction as the emitter, there will be no change in rate and thus no Doppler shift. The radar will be unable to see this contact in PD mode regardless of relative altitude, and the aircraft needs to maneuver to create a change in relative closure or use Pulse. Notching isn't really the correct term for this situation. It's impractical to attempt as a defensive tactic, but it is something the F-14 crew needs to keep in mind when working a tail chase. It's all described in the manual http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html#pulse-doppler-mode

I was referring to ED's AIM-7MH in game. In real life it was a software upgrade, in game I think that translates to a more aggressive loft profile and better CM rejection.

Are you planning on incorporating ED's H build -7M?

I hadn't noticed it until Magz started talking about missile bore sights but the ASE circle on the VDI appears to be missing, as do the steering cues for the HUD and VDI.

VF-84 was disestablished in 1995. After that VF-103, up to that point know as the Sluggers, took the Jolly Rogers name and livery (amongst other things).

The US Military has always preferred its fighters to have the ability to perform limited air to ground missions going back at least as far as WWII, if not further. The F-14 as designed was no exception. The A/G display mode, bomb wing sweep mode for the pilot as well as the bomb specific munitions programming options on the RIO's armament panel have been there since the beginning. As the Tomcat approached IOC, the program as a whole was running over budget and over schedule, and in the context of the larger draw down of the US Defense Budget post Vietnam, the program was in serious danger of being cancelled. The decision was made to eliminate the operational validation of the A/G capability as an attempt to expedite adoption. The Navy didn't really want to squander its whiz bang new fighter carrying bombs into the teeth of an enemy IADs when a CVW already had three VAs as it was. This decision also lead to the withdrawal of the USMC from the F-14 program (they already had pilots in the RAG). Various attempts, forays, and experiments were undergone in the 80's to see about finally validating the capability, but neither the budget or the organizational inertia were there. The impetus to finally get it done was the collapse of the Soviet Union and the accompanying air threat. Validation of dumb bombs had begun by 1990, squadron level adoption of the A/G role began before or coincident with the announcement of the A-6's early retirement. What the death of the A-6 did was open up a capability gap in the long range, precision strike role that the Hornet could not fulfill. Quick thinking and creative budgeting produced the LANTIRN LTS, and secured the Tomcat's future for the next decade. To OP, all three variants of the Tomcat carried and dropped bombs in combat. All three variants would eventually carry the LANTIRN pod.

The F-14A being simulated is from a mid-late 80s time frame. During that period the USN had not spent the money to verify carry or release of air to ground weapons on the jet. Doctrinally, the Navy was only interested in using the aircraft in a purely air to air role, and to an extant the F-14 community actively fought any attempt to add any ground attack mission to their responsibilities. Due to a number of factors, the F-14 community realized in the early 90s that without embracing a multi-role capability, the aircraft would likely be retired early, and allocated funds to verify the functionality of the original air-to-ground programming written by Grumman in the 70s, and verify a set of loadouts that could be used. This occurred for all Tomcats (As, Bs and Ds), but our A is modelled off a period before this happened.

This is pretty nifty! I have a question though. Is there a reason the script variables are obfuscated? I'm trying to edit an existing script to play nice with this script's radio menu, and trying to trace the logic is difficult as it is now.

In a previous stream Wags talked about filling out the Iranian unit list. Are there any plans to add Iranian shore based anti-shipping missile launchers and surface ships?

What you're seeing is the LTS pod. LANTIRN as conceived and deployed was a two part system. The AN/AAQ-13 was a pod containing a terrain following radar and a FLIR for low level navigation at night or inclement weather. The AN/AAQ-14 was a targeting pod meant for use with LGBs and the Maverick. The system was intended to give F-15Es and F-16Cs enhanced low level and PGM capability The F-14 uses a variant of the AAQ-14 called the LANTIRN Targeting System (LTS). The LTS includes a integral GPS assisted IMU which allows it to accurately determine it's position in space without relying on the F-14 (at least the A/Bs) relatively inaccurate navigation systems. To my knowledge the F-14 has never, nor was ever, equipped to use the AAQ-13 Navigation pod.

The AN/ASQ-173 is a dedicated LST device, and is a derivative of the Pave Penny found on the A-10 and A-7. The device enabled the F/A-18 to locate targets marked by either a ground based FAC, or other aircraft. Bare in mind this was before the widespread proliferation of targeting pods on aircraft, so finding targets was more difficult. LSTs were all the rage on attack aircraft (Note the Pave Penny, the ARBS on Marine aircraft, etc.) because it offered a relatively unambiguous way for a FAC to provide the exact location of a target to the pilot. The AN/AAS-38 Nite Hawk was developed to allow the F/A-18 to effectively identify and attack targets at night. The original version did not have self lasing capabilities, and saw limited use in the first Gulf War. The upgraded AN/AAS-38A introduced a laser targeting device (LTD), allowing the Hornet to self lase and autonomously employ laser guided bombs. The Nite Hawks LST was less capable than that of the ASQ-173, so it was not unheard of to see aircraft operating both pods simultaneously. Not in game (yet) is the AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR, which is the pod that replaced the Nite Hawk in Navy service beginning sometime in the 2000s. This is the current fleet standard, and is what we should see on our F/A-18. The ATFLIR's LST is also capable enough as to eliminate the need for the separate pod. The LITENING is used solely by land based Marine squadrons. The LITENING was acquired to simplify logistics as it is also used by the AV-8B Harrier. When deployed on a carrier in support of Navy commitments, a Marine squadron will use ATFLIRs instead.

You shouldn't be able too. The F-14's wing sweep scheduler allows the pilot to manually select any sweep angle greater than the current optimal sweep angle. You cannot command it to sweep the wings farther forward than the computer thinks is optimal unless you use the emergency wing sweep slider, which again, you shouldn't.

From what I understand it'll be the initial early 90s post-conversion configuration with early A/G stuff thrown in. No PTID, DFCS, LANTIRN, or Sparrowhawk. More might follow, but that's contingent on other variables.

1) The F-14A+ and the F-14B are the same aircraft, the name was changed for logistical reasons. 2) The F-14A and F-14A+/B both be included in the F-14 module