ExNusquam

Re #1. Make sure you're updating the AGE setting from the data sublevel. With AIM-120 selected it defaults to 4 seconds, which means that at anything more than a 140/2B sweep the targets will age out. 16+ will work for larger scan volumes. The other 2 are just how the Radar works (other bugs non-withstanding.)

The SLAM is actually about 2 feet longer than the anti-ship Harpoon, and anecdotally has a stupid nose high attitude during cruise.

The radar currently has no range gate on targets in MEM mode. The radar should extrapolate last known track motion and age when attempting to reacquire. Current behavior would be extremely susceptible to range-gate pull-off DECM, a technique employed since the 60's. Attached is a track where the STT lock jumps 12+NM (well beyond last known track position/vector). STT_HPRF_No_RangeGate.trk

When attempting to enter STT on a target there are issues with how the radar is commanded. When there is a TUC, the radar should be commanded to the PRF that the track was last detected on when attempting to enter STT. However, currently what happens is: In manual acquisition, if the current PRF setting cannot detect the target, the radar goes into a search raster. If INTL PRF is selected, the TUC will be detected and the radar will enter STT. In FastACQ (Sensor Select towards ATK RDR page with L&S or TUC), the radar enters STT with the current elevation bar PRF. If the current elevation Bar PRF cannot detect the target, the track goes into MEM immediately. FastACQ_PRF_Incorrect.trk

When in STT the radar should select the best PRF to track the target and PRF should not be selectable by the pilot. The radar should base the selection on S/N ratio of the track. Selectable_PRF_STT.trk

There's also some fun words you can pick up from various documentaries. If you go looking you can also find the approved abbreviations/suggestions for using chat servers to support ops. Part of the reason A/A missiles can be combined is that even if you don't hear the number, you can probably still understand what the other players are doing. There's vastly more variety in profile for A/G weapons. You'll note that sometimes you even hear the number truncated from comms in stressful situations.

From the Gulf War Air Power Survey: So obviously, in DCS, the acceptable level of risk is extreme all the time, so you can fly low-altitude and increase the accuracy of your dumb bombs. But operational realities of the last 30+ years have pretty much driven all Western air forces to PGM only.

If you want to get a feel for the RL process for this you can look at Joint Publication 3-30, Joint Air Operations. The steps followed for weaponeering are: 1. Target Development 2. Weaponeering 3. Allocation 4. ATO Development/Dissemination 5. Execution Once Intel/Ops (J2/J3) have developed a target and determined it should be struck, it is passed to a weaponeering team who determine what the ordnance options are to effectively destroy the target. They'll look at critical nodes, etc. and determine what ways a target can be destroyed and look at collateral damage, level of effort, etc. Once they're done, the target is passed to the Master Air Attack Planning team, who then figure out how to actually put that ordnance on target. They'll consider things like enemy threat, availability of friendly aircraft (and escorts), support aircraft, and ordnance levels at bases. For example, JASSM might not be available in sufficient quantity in theater, but if a target is really important you can fly a bomber in from Dyess to hit the target (with much larger tanker requirements). This can get complex really quickly. Once they're finished with it, it will be published in the daily Air Tasking Order. Individual units will be tasked to do specific things, and each unit will pull their applicable information. This will tell them what their targets are, time-on-targets, support assets, etc. It would then be up to the unit planners to determine final ordnance selection and get that uploaded, do specific flight planning, etc. Pilots would have input into this, but will have to conform with what is published in the ATO. If there's a serious problem, they'd need to go back to the ATO team to get it changed. Once all this is done, the mission gets flown. This obviously happens in a somewhat abridged fashion for any kind of dynamic targeting, but that's why if you look at any pictures from recent ops you'll see fighters carrying a variety of ordnance (so they have flexibility airborne). Sure, they're cheaper, but they're also less effective. If a dumb bomb is only effective 5% of the time (it's rate in Vietnam), it costs just as much an LGB that is 50% effective, and requires more sorties into and out of a target area than the PGM. There's a reason the USAF is pretty much a 100% PGM force these days.

Turn off Tacview if you have it enabled when running the 476th NTTR missions - the number of ground objects severely degrades recording performance.

Based on what a RL Hornet guy posted on a different forum: Gear up as soon as the AoA indexer comes on (weight off wheels) Flaps at 200 KCAS MIL at 230 KCAS Gear should be in the wells by 240 KCAS

I can think of one jet I've flown that always required about 1/4 unit right rudder trim when you accelerated through about 0.5 mach.

That's really not accurate at all, unless you're talking about something like a LNG tanker. Tonnage correlates with survivability, and modern merchant vessels can be orders of magnitude larger than typical warships. That chapter of Fleet Tactics also includes several charts/tables comparing displacement vs hits to put a ship out-of-action or sink. In most cases, there has not been an appreciable decrease in number of hits required to put a ship OOA in studies done after WWII, despite the reduction of armor. While Hughes argues that improvements in armor could make warships more survivable, in general cost vs. maneuverability/speed win out. This paper by Schulte should be required reading before people talk about ASM effectiveness. It notes that large merchant vessels were surprisingly survivable, with only 7 being sunk to ASMs. Other sources on the conflict note that only about 1/3rd of merchant ships were actually sunk due to hostile action.

[REPORTED] Reselecting CAP-9 Causes Crash Loadout: 1xCAP-9 on STA 1, 1xFPU on STA 5, 1xTCTS pod on STA 9. A/A Select Aft 1st Action: "9M 0" on HUD, Seeker Circle, no tone A/A Select Down 2nd Action: "GUN XXX" on HUD, valid gun symbology A/A Select Aft 3nd Action: "TST 1" on HUD, Seeker Circle, tone A/A Select Aft 4rd Action: DCS Hangs indefinitely. Because the game does not actually crash, I have no logs, etc. Is there any additional information required?

That's not a Rhino unique feature - APG-73 can also do SAR patches. It won't do them as fast or with the same IPR, but it will do them.

That's not how the hornet works IRL. CMS programs will be set in a data cartridge during mission planning, and are loaded via the MUMI page post-start.

If you find yourself using the same programs consistently, you can edit the CMDS_ALE47.lua file with custom programs. Just make sure to re-edit it after updates.

To answer everyone's question about the rail, per A1-F18AC-NFM-200 Fig. 11-2, AIM-120 has drag counts published for "Fuselage" and "LAU-127". LAU-127 requires a LAU-115 DRA, and the LAU-115 can be loaded on pylon. This gives the impression that AIM-120 can only be carried in pairs on the pylons. Can anyone find a picture of a single AIM-120 loaded on a SUU-63? Super Hornets can carry a single LAU-127 on a SUU-80 outboard pylon, but I've never seen a Legacy with a single AIM-120 on a pylon.

VRS is using the F/A-18 maintenance manuals for reference on stuff that's not in the NATOPS. It provides a more in depth reference to the tactical systems and functions of the aircraft. They are declassified, but run at a hefty price (~$1000). Look up an addon called "FSX@War". The guy who's working on it has managed to get ground AI units to move about a battlefield and engage each other. The ground units are also fully destroyable with the TacPack. He's still working on getting airborne AI to engage, but even so, it's pretty impressive. Once VRS gets a more final version of the actual module that the TacPack runs on, other FSX developers will be able to use that same module to enable the weapon systems on their own addons, as well as make them MP compatible. If other developers get on the bandwagon, FSX has the *possibility* of becoming a global combat sim. Also, just so you know, NDA's on the TacPack beta team have been relaxed, so there are a ton of new images and new info over in the VRS Tacpack forums.

IRL, it's not the FAC that's doing the marking, it's a separate artillery battery. The FAC would give them a "grid to mark". See: http://www.sebastianjunger.com/photo/specialist-gutierrez/next?context=user

The Legacy's are still frontline, serving in concert with the Supers. The Rhino is very much fully deployed. All air wings have at least 2 Rhino squadrons, with CVW-5 recently replacing the last of their Cs with Es. Also, if you watch the PBS program Carrier, you will see that they are largely used for the same roles on deployment. The Cs just need to hit a tanker a bit sooner ;) I am very excited about having a Hornet done DCS style. Not only are Hornets nifty little planes, I also won't have to learn everything from scratch. (VRS FTW)

If you read Tiger's post, he states that the effect on the ground is controlled by the HOF setting, but the bombs are not properly animated. I haven't investigated this myself, but I would trust him on this.