MRTX

Range profiling also is possible with mechanical radars (for example the Captor-C of the Eurofighter can conduct NCTR through range profiling), they simply need to have a high enough resolution. And since the APG-70 is renown at its time of introduction for its ground breaking SAR resolution, i was wondering if it is also able to do so.

Like the title says i wanted to ask if somebody knows what type of NCTR the APG-70 uses? Whilst in theory it obviously is advanced enough to conduct NCTR with jet engine modulation, I'm not 100% sure if its resolution is fine enough for range profiling. It certainly would be awesome to have an all aspect NCTR capability.

With almost all companies out there trying to take away ownership of software and forcing people into subscriptions, i simply can't understand why you would want ED to follow that trend. The company is already anti consumer enough with some of its behaviour, so don't give them ideas.

I certainly understand the desire not to overcomplify things as long as it doesn't need to be done. Nevertheless DCS is still a simulator, with the goal of the supercarrier being to have the most realistic depiction of a Nimitz class and its operations. The fact is that we're obviously missing some rather important interactions and signals with the Deck crew when preparing for a Catapult takeoff, so i don't see any reason from a gameplay perspective in the light of what the Supercarrier is supposed to be that would speak against implementing afformentioned missing features.

I was wondering if you have considered developing a custom assets pack for Sinai? Whilst we obviously have access to tons of soviet equipment to depict the Egyptian armed forces in an accurate fashion, there isn't a single Israeli made vehicle available in DCS besides the Merkava. And yes i know that such asset pack poses a noticeable investment of time and money, but even a small assortment of IDF vehicles would go a long way in creating a more immersive experience on Sinai.

No that is the Striker 1 helmet. You can easily distinguish the two since Striker 1 has adapters for the addon nightvision cameras on its sides which Striker 2 lacks due to the camera being integrated into the helmet. On top of that the Camera of Striker 2 above the visor is ginormous, and impossible to miss.

Afaik. the Luftwaffe doesn't even operate the Striker II, and from what we've seen the HMD appears to be monochromatic which would also indicate that the helmet shown was Striker I.

How is any of what i said untrue? All capabilities i've named have in the past have been confirmed by EADS (later Airbus), industry partners who use systems in conjunction with the DASS, or are a given due to NATO standards which have been introduced back in the day. The ability for weapons guidance throug the MAW has in multiple instances been confirmed by Diehl Defence for their IRIS-T. Detection of aircraft and NCTR has been shown by BAE systems in their presentations for the Striker-1 helmet, in the Eurofighter presentation from EADS for the Norwegian government and in an interview of Panorama Difensa which clearly stated that NCTR was enabled with Block 10 Eurofighter aircraft through the DASS threat library. When it comes to the IFF capability, back in 2001 NATO STANAG 4579 was introduced with IFF standardisation for Ka-Band radars, so overall a simple software integration was the only thing nescessary to implement this feature for the MAW.

Don't forget the fact that the MAW is so much more than a simple missile approach warning system. Its basically a fully fledged 360 degree AESA LPI radar with all the bells and whistles you'd expect from a normal fire control radar. It can detect fighter sized targets to about 50nm. whilst being undetectable by almost all common RWR systems out there. On top of that it can perform all aspect NCTR, IFF and most importantly weapons guidance. It in theory should also be able to perform A2G functions (although unconfirmed). Now put the worldclass EW suite on top of that, and no matter the target the Eurofighter probably can detect it. In the end the DASS is the features that gives the Eurofighter unprecedented situational awareness compared to any other 4th. and 4.5 gen fighter.

I would rather make it so that george will keep slewing the TADS at the same speed and direction as the target traveled before loosing sight with it (simply anticipating the target movement to a humanly possible extent) and if george can't acquire the target within 5 seconds of loosing sight only then will he stop and report having lost sight of the target. This would pretty much fix 99% of the unwanted spam of george seeing and loosing the target due to a cluster of obstacles like trees etc. and ensure that a fired Hellfire isn't affected that much by the constant stop and go movement of the TADS.

It would just be nice if ED could finally give us a clear answer of what is planned to be implemented, instead of just leaving us with this question to speculate. I know ED already got my money, so there obviously is no rush for them to act. Nevertheless it would just be nice if the promise of improving communication with the community would actually be uphold. And yes i know that the commnunity managers are also not blessed with infinite wisdom of what is going on at ED and in the end are basically just the messengers, but overall the sour taste of an attitude somewhere in the realmsof "The customer will always be our b*tch" has remained over the years.

The problem is that most of the interesting features of captor are enabled by software and not by general hardware design. So there is almost no basis to even make an edjucated guess on the performance of a lot of functions and the interleaved modes.

One thing which i hope to see implemented with the Eurofighter in DCS is, that it can also use its EW suite not only to interpolate stationary radar sources but also triangulate moving radar sources like aircraft and ships via datalink with a second eurofighter.

Yeah, 360 degree radar coverage is gonna be awesome. Can't wait for some poor mig to think they can try and sneak up on you whilst you already see them from 30nm.

I know this is only a very minor detail regarding the animation, but the canards of the Eurofighter are actually meant to counteract up or downwards pitch in order to keep the aircraft controllable due to its relaxed stability.

The only Eurofighter's ever delivered to the Luftwaffe without the rear MAWS antenna, were early tranche 1 aircraft (about 20 of the 33) Overall don't worry, the vast Majority of German Eurofighter's is equipped with the rear antenna. And if the 3D model we've seen in the trailer is any indication to go by (regardless of the livery), HB/TG have definitely thought about it at least. (and i simply can not come up with a logical explenation why we shouldn't get it)

So far i really love the nautical pack! One small thing that imo. could really be an awesome addition to it would be some somali style pirate skiffs and fishing vessels. They would make the pack a one stop shop for all the antipiracy mission assets you would need.

Currently there is no info confirming or denying any form of terrain avoidance of the Meteor, but i hardly believe that this is a capability the missile posesses on its own with the help of internal hardware. That would simply require the missile to have a sophisticated worldwide terrain database and a guidance AI that could process all of that data to anticipate possible target movement which could lead to terrain masking and plan maneuvers acordingly. Nevertheless it would make sense that all these capabilities are integrated into the guidance given to the METEOR by the Eurofighter, since it would be a rather "simple" task to make the nescessary software implementations into the aircraft. And since it extremely increases the lethality of the missile, i hardly believe that such a valuable capability has been left out when Airbus and MBDA integrated the meteor. Of course take all of this with a grain of salt since this is pure speculation!

Honestly just give us the option to adjust the IHADSS position both horizontally and vertically! Overall there is no single position of the IHADSS which will make everyone happy, since each headset has slightly different sweetspot sizes, and everybody is wearing theirs differently.

Sorry my bad.

Although this obviously seems to be correct for M3, my biggest question is if really nothing about the hotas commands and functions has changed with newer tapes up to M5.1 ?

I just wanted to suggest adding the feature of the TADS showing the MGRS its looking at and the zulu time. The only problem i have is not being sure if this is either accurate for our software version or if its just a feature of the recording but not actually shown to the CPG. Maybe some of you have a better insight on this, any info to clarify would be awesome. (the picture is from an engagement in Afghanistan 2009)

Another big problem which i see is the fact that nobody at truegrit has any firsthand experience with using PIRATE apart from maybe a mission trainer. And since the exact performance of PIRATE is classified and the public info either without context or unprecise, there is no way of at least guesstimating its performance without some SME's who actually have used PIRATE irl. (And have fun finding any SME who's allowed to disclose such information)

A big thank you for the effort!

No worries i know that the TSE for the M230 only works in conjuction with the TADS and that the LMC combined with continouos lasing is required. Here also is the trackfile showing the issue. M230 test.trk