Seanner

If you like this sort of thing I recommend MS Flight Sim X....put a 747 on the aircraft carrier with 180 kt headwind and it becomes a VTOL. It's also fun (and easier) to fly around with the C172 in an 80 kt headwind, you can fly in reverse, forward, whatever..try looping the tower continuously..

I would be all for a loss in realistic avionics in exchange for something like this where the targets show up on the TAD as some symbol. If they wanted to go all out the wingman could easily provide a description too: AAA, 2 oclock, 10 mi, <some direction> of the <hill/tree/forest/stream/powerplant>. They could make the wingmen be reasonable wingmen in the reconnaissance department fairly easily. I think it's lame you have to tell them to attack and then say just kidding to "steal" their SPI.

Landed with stores minus 2 mavs that I felt needed to be shot at some planes. I thought there was 4 though :( I use the fully standard 10deg GS with SAS off so the wind and rudder doesn't confuse it or whatever... Just before touchdown kill the flaps to cut lift and avoid any weird turbulence induced unlandings. Landing was a bit hard but I forgot I didn't jettison the stores this time :/ I suspect it's fairly repeatable if done slightly more carefully. lol.trk

Technically since the CoG of the bomb is unlikely to be perfectly aligned with the CoG of the aircraft, the rotation of the aircraft would impart addtional "instantaneous" velocity...say the bomb is 1m forward and the aircraft is pitching 30 deg/s. The circumference of this rotation is 1m*2*pi ~ 6.3m, 6.3*30/360 ~ 0.5m/s. Of course that extra half meter a second will make the bomb go probably a millimeter or so farther. I'm saying all this so people don't get confused between the intuitive catapult effect of a rotation and the A-10's supposed physics-defying ability to NOT catapult anything...that's only because the bomb is not entirely coincidentally near the CoG of its launcher. If it was a bigger plane pitching faster and the bomb was attached to the nose, there would be a noticeable effect: 15m*2*pi * 60/360 ~16m/s. It still won't help the bomb go FARTHER because in order to get this extra velocity in the forward and/or upward directions, the plane would have to be diving (possibly inverted) just before release.. (edit: unless it had super awesome thrust vectoring and could spin in a circle while climbing at 45 degrees...the ultimate toss bombing or "discus bombing" plane). Either way, the bomb WILL follow a different trajectory if the aircraft is pitching vs. flying steady, however small the difference is ;)

As for gunning a BMP...your "high" speed isn't relevant because you are flying directly at the target. From his point of view your speed is 0. Your dive angle isn't relevant because you aren't going to be above his max turret elevation. It basically comes down to "can a gunner hit a stationary target esp. when assisted by fancy electronics?" and hopefully the answer is yes.

IMO if you actually spot it randomly at low level off to the side somewhere so you can't just HUD lock it, you apparently are close enough to use the TAD. Dropping marks with TAD is easy: 1. TAD as SOI a. Either just mark your current location presuming the TAD cursor is still in its default location on your plane or.. b. Zoom in if you aren't at 5 nm and slew a bit towards where the AAA is ... you have to be pretty close if you can see it from low level (say 0.5-2nm and you probably saw it cause it started shooting) so just slew it less than halway to the edge of the TAD and drop a mark. Based on your height and the angle to it you can get a rough estimate too. A 45 degree angle down to it means your altitude = ground distance to AAA...flying at 5k ft means it's a mile out. 30 degrees down and it's twice your altitude in distance. (edit: 1.73xxxx actually) Later when you want to attack: 1. use UFC to set mark point mode 2. select the AAA mark 3. make mark the SPI on TAD ... if it was anywhere close to the AAA the TGP will find it easily

H for helmet mounted sight, slave Shkval to sight, and---damn wrong game. You could try using the TDC by making sure its caged to the flight path marker / velocity vec whatever it's called and flying directly at the AAA briefly to lock the TDC on it. Then make sure you have TDC as SPI then slave all to SPI. The idea is your plane slews faster and more directly than the pod :)

In the track he has the steerpoint as SPI. There is the diagonal line coming off the SP box, and the bomb drops overhead of his intended target and ~1.5nm from the SP. 20 second fall time at 280 kts is going to be just about 1.5nm. Maybe you aren't holding the TMS forward long long enough. Also be sure the MFD with the TGP shown is the SOI before you do that. If successful, the diamond on the HUD representing the TGP target will have the line coming off it and you will see TGP in the lower left corner of the HUD. Also I don't think you need latch if you are autolasing...not that you cant turn it on anyway.

Also the laser doesn't work if you haven't slewed the pod away from a slaved point. Make sure you don't have the bigger crosshair in the pod picture...it changes to the smaller ones once you've slewed it.

I would think you'd have to use the method where your alt reads the FE on the ground or you risk crossing below a mountain peak...say the minimum safe alt is 5000 MSL and your alt reads 5100. Well....you may or may not hit a mountain when flying through clouds based on what the real alt setting was supposed to be...at least you'll know your precise slant range to the runway a millisecond before you die?

To add to what Inseckt said, stalling is a function of AoA more than speed. At 300 kts, if you yank the stick back, the rate of pitch will exceed the rate at which the aircraft's flight path changes -- quickly leading to stall. The A-10 is not FBW and will not prevent you from departing controlled flight -- it is up to you to pull back JUST before the point where you would stall (regardless of airspeed). Also, any sort of large degree turn will take far longer than the process of rolling and increasing gs, so there's in a sense no hurry to IMMEDIATELY turn hard...not that getting hit by a missile is fun...but if you have to break 90 degrees over quite a few seconds that extra 0.2 seconds of pulling back on the stick isn't going to matter very much...

Scroll the mousewheel. I wish they would reverse that with the volume..

Please view the quick track attached ;) Roughly 400 kts, 4g pullup to -70 degree flight path as back pressure is released and rpl 6 @ default spacing for victory. Done twice in a row as proof of validity. Note: worthless tactic ;) Anyway, IMO this proves that there aren't so many variables in releasing a free-fall bomb, and CCRP should be able to hit a target with no wind. inverted toss.trk

2+2=4? Does everybody at ED have this ability to state new information?

So what you're saying is, "cluster bombs have a higher chance of hitting a target than iron bombs." But does anyone know why the iron bombs always go long?

I've tried this with Mk82s and noticed that they go long every single time, regardless of my exact method. The things I've tried are: 1. T-12 sec 2g pullup until bomb release 2. T-15 sec 2g pullup until T-5 sec, then stabilize at 1g until bomb release 3. T-17 or earlier 3g pullup to high angle, but the A-10 cannot effectively do this and airspeed bleeds faster than the T minus comes down! Eventually, at 45 deg and a near stall, bomb releases No matter what, the bomb(s) misses by say 30m in a test mission I made with no wind (I'm not good at judging the distance however). My best results have been with rpl prs 6 (two racks of 3 each) aimed ~30m short and using an attack method like #1 or #2.

...instantly vaporized, much like when my friend and I tested launches on each other. In this case, according to the debrief, an AT-6 missile fired by a helicopter apparently impacted at the exact second I launched at some other target. It seems the game models secondary explosions. I have yet to be hit by ONLY an AT-6 missile, so I'm not sure if it would've mattered to use alternative tactics (i.e. not fire the maverick with (M) nearly centered in the threat scope), but I hope we've all learned a valuable lesson here. Oh and not having TrackIR makes me too lazy to visually scan for air targets...who knew there was a chopper 10 ft away? EDIT: Wouldn't the mavericks blow up regardless...the debrief is a little strange actually...

Just to add to what EtherealN said, you'd be slipping in a crosswind when the pitch lines were CENTERED -- implying the crosswind isn't affecting your flight path. If you are flying straight ahead relative to your nose, yet air is moving sideways across your plane, then relatively speaking your plane is slipping opposite of this air.

Alright I broke my promise to not respond. What you said is exactly it. It WOULD still result in a hung store. THE IMPROVED SOFTWARE DOES NOTHING OTHER THAN REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO HOLD THE PICKLE. (It can do more as I've suggested, but as a bare minimum it is strictly an improvement.) The launch can still be canceled, and will still result in the same issues as before. I was active enlisted for 3 years (palace chased to reserves) as an analyst, or "Maintenance Data Systems Analyst" which in theory means I run all kinds of fancy studies and use statistics to prove that certain parts break too much or whatever, but in practice means I create pie charts for the MXG commander to look at. There were ~7 other people in the office, and the job could be done by just me. The cause of this discrepancy in potential vs actual work is once upon a time computers weren't powerful and widespread, and it took a whole team of analysts (pie chart makers) to make enough pie charts on giant sheets of paper to send out across the squadrons for everyone to look at each day. Nowadays you press ctrl+c ctrl+v and update your excel sheet in 3 seconds, and bam new pie chart, then click send to all and you're done. There is about 1 hour of work a week, but the air force never changed its manning requirements. Actually there used to be 6 hours as it took a lot of manual labor to do the delayed discrepancy report, but I wrote a program to automate it ;) I would appreciate you stop throwing around impressive sounding acronyms like "USAF" as if it somehow wins the argument single-handedly. Yes, the USAF is powerful ... primarily because of the engineers that design technologically superior aircraft ... but that doesn't mean there aren't obvious flaws in what they do. The other good one is the usage of B-1s at Al Udeid to suppress individual terrorists (and therefore the associated vast KC-135 support, the costly repeated engine failures on the poorly designed aircraft, etc.). The threat level is sufficiently low that you could use a P-51 and strafe the guy. They actually used to use mere F-16s for the job, but the wing commander when I was there happened to be a B-1 pilot. Needless to say my questions as to why we were using B-1s for a task better suited to an A-10 of all things (I didn't ask them to the wing commander of course) were met with an effective "I'm a Major and you are enlisted." In this case I DON'T have enough facts, and maybe the threat of terrorism is deemed so high that having a supersonic strategic bomber tasked to killing a random guy with an AK with a bomb is warranted...but that's why I asked the question at least. Didn't get a real answer...

Yet the pilot can cancel release by letting go prematurely. Please link me to the secret forum so I can gain a "clue" into the dark underworld of bomb release software, where variables and anti-variables have to be kept seperate lest they collide into pure variation. EDIT: You could even have a "cancel" voice command if you are so sure about the dangers of quick buttons. You can make the system function EXACTLY AS IT DOES NOW except for the part where the button must be held. I honestly can not state this any simpler, and it's repeatedly met with confusion. I guess I DON'T have a clue, I will stop posting now...I concede defeat to my audience, but not to my idea.

If that's how you feel, then you change the consent window to be as small as needed for the bomb to be prepared much as in the current version...say 5 seconds. You state the pilot has to hold it for 5 seconds, then suggest that the flaw is he can press it 10 seconds before THAT. Why? I'm saying you can just make that 5 second press into a tap 5 seconds before the bomb drops. No one is saying the pilot consents a week prior to release and trust that the software will conduct the entire campaign for you. EDIT: Apologies to SH for blowing your mind with this post.

I have enjoyed our conversation very much.

That is my job. I wrote my own flight simulator as it happens. I use DCS: A-10 and it crashes frequently! I'm not convinced of this at all, nevertheless I won't be doing anything drastic myself. One possibility is the world oil supply dwindles, and less-than-superpower countries will freak out when they lose the ability to defend themselves because they don't yet have solar powered tanks. So they invade another country for oil, and as the more and more countries end up in this situation and freak out further, nukes start flying. Oil is running out in the meaningfully near future, btw. Less reliance on ever advancing warmachines as a means to "keep peace" and more reliance on not hating different religions will assist with the transition into the oil free future. Your brain is a biological computer. With enough processing power/memory, one could write a program to simulate what the brain does, and then you would have a computer brain (Data on Star Trek TNG). I don't know how you are defining common sense, but not every program has to be a rigid series of steps to execute. Some programs "learn" as we say, even though at the lowest level neurons are simply being re-weighted to produce new output (just like in your brain...one example is jellyfish: a worldclass backgammon program that taught itself to play). If a computer that thinks like a human has no common sense, then neither does the human. I agree, but you have to be careful with that line of thought. Software that works works perfectly minus hardware failure. I've never had a calculator to blame for getting a wrong answer on a test. If you are implying that complex software is too dangerous to be relied upon, that is too vague of a statement to resolve the current debate. We increasingly rely more and more on software as it consistently outperforms the alternatives. Your car uses software to control the engine. Software can defeat Gary Kasparov. Software can defeat Ken Jennings. Software makes your TAD more than a chart. Software can determine that a bomb can or cannot be dropped, and importantly, more accurately than the pilot can. Software can be so good that software enhanced humans are called cheaters (aimbot, wallhack, norecoil...). To make a statement like "software is buggy" as your official counter argument... Well my official counter counter argument is pilots make mistakes... In fact it's precisely that humans make mistakes that software ends up buggy, but where software can be improved as bugs are found, humans will still be clumsy humans. ====================================================== In each case, the pilot presses Consent whenever he consents, and the bombs drop when the program determines that the bombs should drop. I see no inconsistency...the program would be designed to ensure (as much as possible) a successful attack...the pilot is only there to say "ok go ahead" i.e. consent. Why does he have to sometimes say "consssssssssseeeeeennnnnnttttttt"? ======================================================== You are the first person to have nothing to say on the matter other than "I don't like your posts" with a link to a thread where the OP essentially says "screw everyone that has an idea" ... and of course it's your thread. This is where the discussion turns from barely heated into flame war. *Makes own relevant thread* http://forums.eagle.ru/****you

In other words, it really IS a good idea since apparently everyone else in the world knows it? So you are agreeing with me? This no doubt is why the F-15 is being phased out as America's air superiority fighter in favor of the P-51. Also what is "SSI"? The software needed to check some parameters for weapon release is minimal: if master arm & g force < # & alt > # & bomb armed & bomb selected & etc drop bomb As for skynet powered A-10s being more expensive, that is the eventual future. We in turn will have more and smarter (possibly automated...perhaps a genetic algorithm will accidentally produce the world's best combat aircraft) computer scientists with better tools by then to assist in development, keeping costs more stable. It might cost a trillion dollars per plane, but only by the time the GDP is in the quintillions. Otherwise I offer you a piston engine triplane for your thrifty combat needs. I also offer Falcon 3 as a sufficiently fun flight sim, instead of this fancy, expensive DCS nonsense. TrackIR and real HOTAS and pedals approaches a grand. Multiple monitors could be another grand. The highly complex software that has to run or simulate the software the A-10 runs, AND simulate the A-10, AND simulate the world around it only costs $60. Software is pretty much the cheapest commodity in the universe when you consider it's freely reproduced. That effectively drives the cost per copy to 0 as the number of copies approaches infinity. One guy spends time and writes a solid weapon delivery program and mankind is forever improved (or worsened...). If the two of you (Eddie, Viper) could consider your two posts taken together: Eddie: the idea is obvious and widely used already Viper: the idea is too expensive I realize I made myself the target in this discussion so the psychological effect is to try to prove me wrong, but it would appear you guys are contradicting each other in your attempts to do so.

Exactly as he must do in the current implementation. You make it sound as if by holding the button down you are clear for evasive maneuvers. If your point is that you can release the button and then maneuver...the software in my version would handle the fact that you just aborted with say a 3g turn and would stop the release just as sure as letting go of the button would. If you try to argue that well maybe 2gs won't abort it but still mess up the release, then make that the cutoff point. The system can even be programmed to handle multiple parameters based on altitude, temperature, bomb weight, gs, etc. Either the bomb can be safely dropped or it cannot, and no mistake will be made because it's by a deterministic computer program that has had the bugs removed. Sufficient margins would be present to account for instrument inaccuracies. If you are really unsure you can give it an override switch that lets you press the button down as long as you want. Another benefit of a single press / single consent is it is the gateway to a more complex automated release system that would for example prosecute multiple targets using the marks you set up prior. My A-10D will have a program that drops 4 JDAMs as fast as possible on targets pre-selected with 4 marks added to the attack plan...the CDU would have flightplan/mark/mission/attack for example. You fly to your release area, pickle, and 4 tanks die, as opposed to pickle for just long enough to let one drop but quick enough so you drop 3 more before you leave your launch window. It requires more skill and effort than strictly necessary, however small you may think the requirement is. Why not automate it? Speaking of which, my A-10E will have a few cameras instead of a pilot, and I'll fly it from my home. My A-10F will be flown by skynet, and I'll be asleep. This A-10F will not have a pickle button AT ALL, let alone some arbitrary requirement to hold it. Perhaps the software can run an infinite loop in a background thread while awaiting weapon release to simulate doing nothing productive? The overall philosophical debate is man vs machine. Giving more power to the machine obviously reduces the relative power of the man, but the machine is already more powerful than the man (you cannot punch as hard an Mk-84). With advances in processor speed / memory / etc, machines are also becoming smarter than men. One day nobody will even be there to consent to weapons release, because future scientists proved the weapon sub-program to be superior to the best human pilots with 99.9% confidence, along with the fact that it can be mass-produced. Of course by now war would have to be obsolete, and we would be living in Star Trek TNG utopia where all food is replicated. (What would be the purpose in sending automated machines to attack other automated machines? They would be too powerful in their mass-production-ness, intelligence, speed, firepower...a threatened enemy would be forced to launch all nukes...and the world would basically end except a few lucky people that would be back to bow and arrow. This is probably the more likely scenario than the Star Trek version, and I predict the world to end before the next century. Computers are simply too powerful. In conclusion, the real reason we SHOULDN'T make pickling easier is it is the slippery slope to the end of all. Unfortunately, this route cannot be avoided so easily, so for as long as tech improvements are seen as improvements, my A-10F is better than the A-10C.) One must see the big picture. Billy Mitchell saw a bigger picture than most, but smaller than the whole picture. He saw that planes could change war, because planes are good at war, but in a still bigger picture, more advanced planes (more generally: more advanced weapon systems) threaten human existence, which is perhaps a portion of an even bigger picture where what does it mean for the world to end? Maybe it doesn't even matter because all of life is merely your brain hooked up to some electrodes and you don't even exist in form, and nobody else exists (your brain is running on fake signals sent through the electrodes similar to the illusion of the Matrix). This argument therefore is not real, and you are more or less dreaming it. Philosophical issues can sway even the tiniest arguments one way or another because the issue rapidly diverges into asymptotes such as "the world ends / doesn't end / doesn't exist in the first place". Future A-10 and other military improvements may end the world. If they will, should we abandon improvements? Without being able to answer these questions definitively, the current trend seems to be towards technological advancement. Going with this, I want my future A-10s faster, smarter, and more automated. I'll be damned if I press the pickle. EDIT: Rereading the OP, one sees that this thread wouldn't even exist if my change had been in effect.