Dudikoff

Looks like a kneeboard feature or something so technically you don't have to bring it up just to bring yourself down. Great idea, HB, BTW.

That's what I thought, thanks. But, then, the maximum launch range should be shorter as the seeker needs to get a lock on before launch, which begs the question if this could (and would) be simulated in DCS? :)

Do your assigned keys work e.g. in Notepad? If your profile is active, it should type something (e.g. empty space when you press a trigger). If it works there, but not in DCS, then besides assigning the axes in DCS, you must also delete any key assignments for your controller in DCS (e.g. select any row under your controller column, select entire category, delete).

Yeah, I'm aware that AIM-7 requires an STT lock (except in FLOOD mode), but I specifically stated seeker lock before launch (LOBL) which is a different thing. So, just to reiterate, if I launch an AIM-7M in CW mode, I presume there would be no mid-course updates sent via PD mode and the missile seeker would then require a direct lock to target (which shortens the launch range to e.g. 20 km for a fighter sized target)? Because, normally, AIM-7M flies to an intercept point and receives corrections until it reaches the estimated seeker range where it activates the seeker and tries to lock on to the illuminated target (so, the seeker is in LOAL mode at ranges beyond its lock range), but I'm wondering what happens with it in CW mode.

If the switch is in the NORM position, does the WCS always trigger CW illumination no matter the AIM-7 variant carried? I guess the monopulse seeker in the later Sparrow variants can lock on to CW illumination as well, but if the WCS follows the same CW illumination/launch logic, does e.g. the AIM-7M seeker then needs to be locked on to the target before it can be launched (as this would shorten the maximum launch range)?

Thrust Vectoring? Of course not, that's on the MiG-29OVT which is the converted MiG-29M prototype fitted with thrust vectoring and the only MiG-29 variant to have had those. T in SMT most probably does stand for extra fuel, e.g. like MiG-21SMT with it's grossly enlarged spine containing extra fuel compared to the originating MiG-21SM variant.

Cool, thanks. I presumed that currently all active radar missiles are sharing the common ED model and I'd expect it doesn't support that feature yet.

So, the missile won't go active then and go for whatever? It makes sense, but is this possible to do in DCS?

As far as I understood how it works, this is not possible. The radar sends either course correction signals (midcourse guidance phase) or target illumination signals once it expects the missile seeker to be in range and it had sent a command to the missile to switch on the SARH seeker.

The coded part sounds like it's related to midcourse target updates (which may or may not be connected with periodical midcourse SARH target illumination flashes as this gets mentioned in the context of Phoenix here and there; e.g. at some point, when the missile starts diving towards the target, instead of using direct midcourse corrections, the SARH guidance is used to get the missile to the correct target before it goes active and at that phase the radar illuminates each target briefly with a different frequency encoded into each missile). Either way, the idea is to get the missile close enough to the assigned target so that one gets locked when the missile gets the command to go active, but if there's a friendly aircraft in that cone along with the target, well.. The missile's radar can't tell whether it locked on to the intended target or a friendly.

Looking forward to a video of showing all those circuit breakers in action. ;) I do hope Jester won't go HAL on us and will flip that eject command paddle to pilot position if asked to..

IIRC, BS2 was a compatibility update to BS for the then new DCS World concept started with the Warthog, but, I remember being disappointed about needing to buy it since the BS was supposed to have been built with the DCS World compatibility from the get go as it hadn't been released *that* long ago before the DCSW IIRC. But, nowadays, the module is quite old and expecting it to be constantly updated when the base system gets major graphical changes is simply not realistic at all as they're not really releasing new modules that often.

There's something similar in the Su-27 manual - during the midcourse guidance phase of the missile there are some limitations on maneuvering (the airplane shouldn't change its horizontal angle by more than 60 degrees per second; 30 for R-27R missiles made before mid-1986) to ensure correct calculations for the missile updates.

Yeah, same here. Given the lack of content shown, I had a feeling it won't be out any time soon when the pre-orders started, so it made little sense to me to rush with the purchase.

There was also a German page related to JG-73 pilots and they posted some effective range data for the missiles from their experience, but for the life of me, I can't find it anymore. Perhaps it was taken down. I do remember one of the things they've said was how they were negatively surprised by the R-27R range.

Perhaps they've used Behind Enemy Lines as a reference for the missile behavior.

Well, certainly not the overload problems which were fixed on the N019M by means of having more powerful Ts101M computers (and which were retrofitted to the older models during depot maintenance I'd presume).

More specifically, they said they don't have a reference document showing PTID pages and modes.

Yeah, I don't think so either from what I have read there. New cockpit and external model are part of the upgrade as far as I understood. We got these for free for the FC3 somehow (plus the FM's), but that's not a viable financial model for them :) If they add Igla's and MWS, plus the previously missing stuff.. I think it's fair to pay for that (if there's some discount for the BS2 owners).

What are the major benefits of R3 over R2? E.g. you could have gone with just the R2 and saved some money, plus kept the Target functionality.

BS2 is more or less working now, no? Just needs some cockpit fixes for the new lighting system. I'd expect they'd implement those before BS3 is released, but I guess that would also depend on the amount of work required. Perhaps it makes no sense if it's a lot of double effort better focused on the BS3 upgrade. Warthog 2, anyone? ;)

"Originally Posted by -Slayer- Do I guess everything correctly by CHA-3: - Needles - BKO - Electrics and possibly other unrealized things. - Real ins (errors, etc.) - new cockpit - New external model Maybe something else will be? Yes, except ins. However, maybe her hands will reach. While in terms of missile explosives and defense system." The translation is pretty bad, but there will be a new cockpit and external model, plus some systems. "Пока в плане ракеты ВВ и оборонная система." Apparently some air to air missiles (they mention R-73 but I'd presume Igla-V?) and defensive systems as well? Would that be another variant or another prototype airframe? Not sure what BKO stands for? I don't mind paying for these if there is some fair discount for the owners of BS2. I remember being annoyed about paying for the BS1-> BS2 upgrade which seemed quite limited in scope and came in a rather short time period, but that was so long ago that I understand they need to charge for any further updates.

Given the upcoming MiG-23MLA, the MiG-25PD probably wouldn't be restricted as it's similar or older tech. I' presume Razbam would be an obvious choice for developing it if their 19 and 23 sell well. Not sure if there are any export variant manuals available in the open, though. Both PD and some recon variants were exported so perhaps it would be possible to source some. I presume the MLA manuals are sourced from Bulgaria (?), but they only operated the RBT, unfortunately.

It was used as a Bombcat because the A-6 was withdrawn from service. He was probably referring to escorting A-6/7 strike packages while they were still around when meeting a MiG-23 was quite possible in real life (e.g. over Lebanon in 1983 or over Libya in 1986), not to mention in countless fictional Cold War scenarios that I hope we'll have.

It was the Defense Secretary's call to cut down F-14D numbers, IIRC (which still makes it a political decision, but I wouldn't bet it was primarily based on its reputation) and the Congress actually fought him on that initially by refusing to end the production. If they purchased at least 200 F-14D's as was planned, perhaps the proposed Tomcat variants would have stood more chance (with a different SecDef, I guess).