Sinclair_76

Oooooohhhhhh I bet it's fuzzy dice!!!

In physics it's called jerk. position - velocity - acceleration - jerk - snap - crackle - pop

Sadly no, in order for these techniques to work effectively, the signal they produce must be larger than the true skin return of the RADAR, if the true skin return is larger than the jamming signal, it's more likely that the RADAR will track that instead of the signal from the jammer, thus providing no deception. What I was getting at, poorly I might add, is that noise jamming is very inefficient compared to deceptive jamming as you lose a huge amount of power covering the whole spectrum instead of jamming a specific frequency. That is assuming mode 3 is pure barrage jamming since it operates without receiving any signal. Where I meant that burn through range is not as issue, i specifically meant it for fox 3 missiles. The power generation in combination with their antenna size (which I would say is roughly equal compared to the -184 emitter) means that I don't think they can overpower the -184 J/S ratio even at short ranges. It is the missiles ECCM capabilities that are the real problem.

Wouldn't the SPJ trigger when the fox 3 goes active?

I don't have a full grasp on the ALQ-184 (both IRL and in DCS) but I venture it does more than noise jamming. In mode 1 and 2 it could, for example, use a velocity gate pulloff (VGPO) on the incoming missile (SCPanda's post). This mode does not rely on overpowering the enemy radar with wattage as does noise jamming. Therefore burn through range is not an issue.

Yes, The ALIC tables in the DED are for the HARM missiles. You can use them on the WPN page with HARM selected in SMS. The HAD uses a different table. Basically the 11 threat classes in the HAD are configured as follows. Recent RU/CHI SAM systems Legacy RU/CHI SAM systems RU/CHI SHORAD RU/CHI Search radar systems RU/CHI Naval systems Recent NATO SAM systems Legacy NATO SAM systems NATO SHORAD NATO Search radar systems NATO Naval systems ? Somewhere in these forums is a breakdown of ALIC / RWR and HTS classes.

The chaff dispersion is actually optimized. Though not by the main rotor downwash but by the tail rotor. That is the whole reason the bucket is positioned at that location.

Thing is, the Air Force quit the -154B project, (and Navy not long thereafter) not the -154A. It says so in your source. To add to the story. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-154b.htm As correctly stated by Dragon. The Air Force last purchase was in '05. This does not in any way imply that the weren't using the -154A up untill 2008.

I've recently been able to buy a used FSSB. Did not invest a lot of time in setting it up curve wise since I don't know what I am looking for anyway. Would you care to share your settings? Took me 5 days with a reasonable amount of hours to get used to. But after that AAR or formation flying in general is a different ball game.

Yes it can. A W48 would fit in the AH-64 D survival bay.

That reminds me. The pilot flying the Scorpion is Bert Rhine a Boeing test pilot, who flew the A and D model Apache as well. Might be an ED Easter egg.

These are the limits mover came with some time ago. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/268029-f-16-over-g-damage-as-of-27/?do=findComment&comment=4627617

What are you using instead?

Dutch SF have used the callsign Nassau. I would consider that more patriotic than Windmill.

I thought the 8nm was about the designator part and not the ranging part.

I would only use CZ when using a markpoint as steerpoint to slave the TGP to.

Yes. I am not fully versed in the logic, when the offset (delta) does and does not carry over. But Matt specifically mentions it in the markpoint video. So you could try to CZ and see if the offset resets.

You might have inadvertantly introduced a delta. That delta will persist untill you press CZ or TMS down (iirc). Matt specifically talks about it in his video @ 3:10.

Tried that but remains stuck.

When the HTS has a good solution regarding an emitter the TGP is pointing reasonably close. What I would like to do is move the TGP to the correct location of the emitter. But I can't get the TGP to move. Is there a way to decouple the TGP from the HTS?

I did some test yesterday as well. Loading the aircraft early in the alignment, will disturb it. Later on (40) it doesn't seem to matter. I need to test further to determine the tipping point.

I deliberately botched the alignment by not entering the LL on the DED. After reaching 10 I switched to NAV. HUD as well as HSI show no range, but the JHMCS does. I think the latter would be a bug. Could you give us a track file to work with?

If NVG's are installed it would explain why the JHMCS don't work.

Beside the point risen by @Deano87An alignment can be disturbed by aircraft movement. This could happen due to the jet wash of other aircraft. What also disturbs the alignment is movement due to weapons loading. But then the countdown of the INS accuracy wouldn't reach 10.

Apparantly when the RF switch is in either QUIET or SILENT it will be displayed in the MFD's. At the moment it doesn't. If this is considered a bug pls move it over to the BUG sub.