KlarSnow

That is correct as is. Ripple multiple releases one store from every selected station with each release pulse. Quantity determines the number of release pulses. So in this case with 2 stations selected and quantity 2, you would release 1 bomb from each station per pulse, or 4 bombs total.

GBU-12C is correct for what we have in DCS, GBU-12B is for a variant of the GBU-12 we don’t have yet (fixed fin paveway 1 variant). GBU-10M is the correct option for what we have in DCS as well. The other GBU-10 options are for GBU-10 variants that don’t exist in DCS.

Enter 61 into the pitch value. There will always be paralax and at close range or in the ground it will look strange just due to the pod being 10 feet under and 5 feet right of the HID. But a pitch value of 61 seems to get it fairly aligned

Try going into your saved games/DCS open beta/Config. Backup your inputs and options.lua files and then delete the entire config folder. relaunch the game, quit and then copy your backed up inputs and options.lua back into the new config folder. This has resolved multicrew issues so far for everyone I’ve talked to who has run into them. Just be aware you may mess up your inputs and settings if you do not backup the files described.

Coolie up short will step the PDT and cursors through the SDTs. Boat switch aft will undesignate whatever your cursors are over.

Which AIM-9 are you seeing the issues with? The AIM-9J/P do not tell the jet where the seeker is pointing, and cannot be cued to a radar lock, so once uncaged the seeker circle disappears and you only hear the tone. AIM-9M/L do tell the jet where the seeker circle is pointing, and can be cued to a radar lock, so they should behave similar to other aircraft.

Some notes about the AAR system. 1: You should never need ORIDE, its only used in certain failure states IRL. 2. When the Slipway is open your external fuel tanks will depressurize (until the FUEL LOW caution comes on) and it will shut off the tank 1 and CFT transfer pumps (regardless of FUEL LOW caution). What this means is if you leave the slipway open your external tanks (and any gas in them) will be unusable, and your tank 1 gas will only gravity feed (very slowly). CFT gas will also be unusable since they do not transfer without the transfer pumps on. Forgetting to close your slipway after refueling can leave your aircraft with only 13,500 lbs of usable gas even though your totalizer is showing 30,000 or more. Once you burn through all the internal gas to the FUEL LOW caution (1000 lbs left in the left feed tank or 600 lbs left in the right feed tank), you will then get the external tanks (4100 lbs each), but the CFTs (4900 lbs each) will never feed until you close the slipway.

Check your weapons select switch. If you are in GUNS, the left MPD is overridden to A/A radar and forced into command.

open the canopy or have the ICS mic switch on. Just cracking the canopy open really quickly lets you talk to them.

That is not a Strike Eagle, that is an F-15B heavily modified. The F-15E never had the MER's and TER's and instead went for the tangential pylons on the conformal fuel tanks. That loadout only existed on that specific jet very very early in the Air to ground F-15's development, when they had not decided on which configuration they were going to use. Well before the F-15E was ever flying in a configuration like we have in game. There is no reference for how the MER's and TER's were integrated into the software of that specific jet, and its cockpit and interface configuration would have been completely different from how the F-15E ended up being. So there is no way to in a full fidelity manner model that setup or configuration.

If the current F-16 is performing to match a block 40/42 then it is significantly underperforming. The GE-129 installed in the block 50 has 29,000 lbs of thrust vs the PW-220's ~24,000 lbs of thrust. If you are matching the PW-220 Engined block 40's performance figures with an aircraft of the same weight and 5000 lbs more available thrust, then there is something significantly wrong.

It’s a 1.8 limit on the pods, not 1.6, and these are limitations as in things may break if you go over them. Not the jet can’t go faster. the CFT limit is 2.0. Also these are operational limits, as in the pilot should not exceed them. Not physical limits. You can exceed these especially with the -229, but something might break if you do. If you look at the -229 performance indexes in the -1 the clean jet with CFTs and -229s is easily accelerating above mach 2.0 even though the chart is cutoff at the CFT limit of 2.0.

F-4E's in the USAF all just had variants of the J79-GE-17. I have found no thrust difference for any of the four variants listed in the -1; A/E/F or G. All are listed as being 17,900 lbs of thrust in max afterburner and 11,870 in Mil power. The only difference is the E/G are low smoke with different igniters.

That is a very different issue than the speedgate settling time. The speedgate settling includes the 2 seconds for the radar to settle, and 2 more seconds for the missiles speedgate to settle. This is all before you commit the launch. once you commit the launch there will still be a delay from trigger squeeze to missile launch as the missile goes through its launch process. You cannot make the commit time happen any faster without hardware changes. you can shoot the missile before the speedgate settles if you don't wait for the four seconds, which has a high probability of a ballistic launch that does not guide. Again the speedgate issue in particular only applies to AIM-7E, E-2, and E-3. F's M's and better all do not have that particular delay or issue. If you have a good lock you can shoot 7F, M, MH, or P immediately. There will still be a commit time and a launch process that will result in the missile taking a second or so after you squeeze the trigger to come off the rail, but you do not have to wait any more time.

The 4 second delay is due to the sparrow needing to settle its speed gate. This is a very real limitation on AIM-7E/E-2/E-3 sparrows due to the analog nature of the missiles. AIM-7F's and beyond do not have this limitation. You can fire the missile before the 4 seconds are up but the chance of it acquiring the target is very low if you do not wait. This is very clearly laid out in F-4 weapons manuals and checklists.

Like I guess if we wanna be this level of super pedantic about what is realistic or not, no skin pre-1987 should be on any tomcat we have in game right now. Since the -135 blocks all never existed pre-1987. No 70s skins should be allowed right now, nothing from the first Libya shoot downs etc…. Kinda think AIM-9D/G/H is perfectly fine as an option on any of the tomcats we have in game. The missiles don’t exist yet but whenever they do of course they should be on the F-14.

The jets had IFF from the beginning, a transponder to respond to interrogations. The Combat Tree system was an interrogator that interrogated Soviet Transponders, not Mig-21s having interrogators (not saying they didn't have them). All Combat Tree shows is that vietnamese Migs had IFF Transponders, not necessarily interrogators. These are not the same things. The phantom wasn't designed in a vacuum. It was designed to intercept things with the support of other entities that could help with the ID, and was intended to be vectored against incoming bomber streams with very clear ROE solved from the moment they began the intercept. In hindsight of course that wasn't how it worked out, but there was nothing really "behind" about it. Its just how the evolution of air combat and doctrine works. You build your systems based on how you think will best win the fight you assume you are going to have. When that's not the fight you end up fighting, then you adapt. Again the Phantom (F-4C) was in service with the USAF and USN for like 3-4 years before it got the AN/APX-76. It had them for the next 40 plus.......... That's a very short time in its entire lifespan without them. And it only manifested itself in a poor way due to the conflict they were in in 1965-1967. The first Phantom v MIG engagement of Vietnam was a USN F-4B engagement, They targeted and locked the incoming Migs and fired a single Sparrow each head on at the VID (around 3-4 miles). Two shots, two kills. This was 2 years after the Phantom had entered service. You wouldn't be wrong for thinking after that engagement that maybe not having an interrogator wasn't a big deal, and using sparrows as your primary weapon was the right choice.

B-8 grip is what the F-4E has. Trigger for air to air, pickle button for bombs, AAR button for uncaging missiles and disconnecting from AAR, Trim hat, nose wheel steering button, and an autopilot disconnect lever. Thats it for the stick grip.

The IFF for the Phantom is the AN/APX-76, It was installed as early as 1966-7 on F-4C's and D's. It was standard on F-4E's. The AN/APX-80/81 get a bit confusing because they are either a combined AN/APX-76 and Combat Tree (AN/APX-81), or just Combat Tree on its own separate from the AN/APX-76 (AN/APX-80) Technical Order 1-F-4-753, Installation of air-to-air IFF system. Production Effectivity: All F-4E, Retrofit Effectivity: the stated F-4C's and F-4D's. At least as of 1970. Here is the TO effectivity from a 1970 F-4C-1 (which also applies to F-4D/E) And here is the line from the CNI section that directly labels it as the AN/APX-76, This btw is the exact same system as was installed and is currently implemented on the F-14 in DCS.

Battery life of the AIM-120 in DCS is 100 seconds (1:40)

The AIM-4D was in many ways a generation ahead of its time, it had a cooled seeker that had "semi All aspect" capabilities (in burner and at or forward of the wing line) it had the ability to be cued to the radar in some field of view off boresight, and it was pretty maneuverable. This all however was marred by several very severe drawbacks "most" of which were due to its integration with the F-4, not really the missiles fault itself. F-102/6 drivers and other jets (draken/Mirage 3) that utilized it had none of the issues that were prevalent with the Phantoms implementation of the AIM-4D. The primary issues that gave it its terrible reputation were 3 fold. First, most egregious and obvious was the 2 minute cooling time limitation combined with a 3-5 second time to actually get the missile cooled and ready to fire. This issue was actually known and the fix was on the way before the AIM-4D was deployed to vietnam, However it garnered such a terrible reputation that by the time the fix was in (2 hour cooling limit, ability to pre-cool 2 of your 4 missiles and have them ready to go for 1-2 hours instead of 2 minutes) was implemented essentially right as they were relegated to the sideline in 1968, after 1968 most AIM-4D's had the extended cooling implemented. The second issue that was also solved by the same or same series of modifications was that cooling the Falcon and not employing it, meant it had to go back to the depot (Stateside) to get refurbished. The deployed units were not able to refill the coolant bottles in the field after they were popped. This was also fixed by the same series of modifications that gave the missile 1-2 hours of cooling instead of 2 minutes. The above two issues were primarily issues of the F-4's integration of the weapon. The F-102 and 106 did not have the fire control switchology complexity that the phantom had because the Falcon was designed to be integrated with the 102/106 Fire control system. It was kinda hacked into the phantom and that's why so much of it was suboptimal and complicated in the F-4. You were essentially manually doing all the things that the 102/106's Fire Control would take care of automatically (cooling, readying, cuing, and "uncaging" the seeker). The cooling and readying also weren't an issue because the missile was carried internally so all of that was handled by the internal weapons bay systems on the 102/106. The LAU implementation on the Phantom was essentially a bodge to make it work and it did not have all the systems and integration to support the missile that the 102/106 had. Finally the third issue that was never fixed was the contact fuze. No prox fuze and no larger warhead was ever installed on the AIM-4D. There was a follow on variant of it that was cancelled in the early 70s that potentially would have fixed this, but there was no appetite for it and the AIM-9L was already in the works and was going to be better anyways at that point. It should probly be implemented, although it was out of TAC service by at least the 80s, it would be a fun if difficult system to employ if implemented properly. For my money I would want both the pre mod and the post mod versions available to play with. Theoretically it had quite a lot of capability for the time, and I'm sure in DCS it would probly do much better once people have some practice than it ever would have done in the real world.

Are you leading the target into the wind? or directly lasing the target. Lead it into the wind and you'll find you are hitting more. This is a real issue with PW2's you must account for winds with your laser spot placement.

This is not a larger CEP. A larger CEP would be the bomb landing in any direction around the target. This is not leading the bomb enough or not giving it enough energy to achieve the CEP. These things are not contradictions. You can have a 1 meter CEP weapon that if you try and employ it suboptimally it will not achieve 1 meter CEP. This is what is occuring here. CEP's as small as 1 meter are also generally only for static targets.

It does not look like a bug, with GBU-12's releasing into the wind or with a crosswind and against a moving target you need to lead the target otherwise it will land short. A Point track will not do this automatically for you, you have to manually estimate the lead and hold the crosshairs in front of the target. Here is an example. 10 knot target with a 20 knot wind at altitude, 10 knot wind at the surface. I estimate a designation/SPI well in front of the target to ensure the bomb has enough energy, and then when lasing estimate 1-2 vehicle lengths is enough, the bomb lands ~1 meter or less from the back of the target which is close enough to destroy it, should have lead it a little bit more for a perfect impact. GBU-12's do not have any capability to pull their own lead and will sag and get curved off course by the wind, you must manually correct for this. Moving wind.trk If this is too difficult or complicated, a GBU-54 will pull its own lead and compensate for the winds, it is a much smarter bomb than the GBU-12. A GBU-24 will also do this. Moving wind 24.trk Moving wind 54.trk

Yeah there is no trade off. The APG-63, 63v1 and 70 are capable of Low PRF, which is what you use for ground mapping. All have been since the beginning of the family. There is no detriment to the air to air capabilities at all by improving the air to ground capabilities. The original APG-63 and the 63v1 had air to ground mapping functionality as well btw. May have never been used but it was there.