Rainmaker

The X is for sure. Not sure on the others as I’ve never laid hands on them.

FWIW, the C’s mech system in DCS would translate over to the E just fine, however it’s missing some things like a proper pitch/roll ratio mechanics, rudder limiter system, etc. A lot of the other basic elements of it are done, and done pretty well.

See my post above about the ratio controllers for the first part. Essentially, the system is supposed to deliver the same G command for a given stick force, no matter the conditions, as long as the jet is capable of doing it. The C in DCS for example, should be a lot easier to fly in terms of being able to pull on the stick and knowing what you are going to get out of it. CAS can and will null out surface inputs in the are of the flight control system it has control over if it doesnt like what you are trying to do with the stick. To say it has a limiter would be an incorrect statement though. It tries to no let you get into an area that it knows is unstable. What it can’t really do is limit the mech inputs that the pilot is giving through basic cable/pully inputs. It’s far from what you would think a jet with an AOA limiter would be able to do, like the -16 for instance that can just tell you ‘no’ to any inputs you give it if it doesn’t agree with you.

No. A-E all use hydromech with CAS. The jet is not FBW. Stab travel is 2/3 mech movement and 1/3 CAS assisted. Rudders are 50/50. Ailerons are purely mech. The diff between the A-D and the E is an updated FCC that’s digital 3 channel. More redundancy and CAS isn’t as prone to be kicked offline. Most of the mech system is basically the same and works the same. As for the rest. The mech system has pitch/roll ratio controllers to modify surface movements to give a consistent G for a given stick deflection. Even still, there are certain flight envelopes that doesn’t apply.

You are incorrect. Single seat jets have been nuclear capable for a very long time.

So the same as pretty much every other fighter in the US inventory, and others in foreign countries...

define ‘major’...

You basically model a large boom and a bunch of things on the ground either destroyed/damaged. That’s what you get, and what most want...but that’s very very far from a nuc weapons det. There is no realism in that...that’s asking for a pizza, and eating 1/20th of it.

You are obviously not speaking from a standpoint of not really understanding nuclear weapons effects, yes, even the smaller ones. So are many others in this thread, hence my comment above. There is no such thing as a small nuclear weapon. Secondary and tertiary effects are basically exponential. People scream ‘realism’ over and over again, but at the same time want to ignore certain parts of it because either they don’t fully understand it or because it spoils the entire argument.

The ‘facts’ in this thread are pretty funny.

Documentation often precedes implementation...sometimes by years.

I would say that leans that argument in the opposite direction, unless they chose to include the feature beyond the date of the year they are modeling. Not offering an opinion for or against that...but contracting/funding/implementation is normally a years long process, not just a few weeks/months.

But...would the thoughts on that change as we’ve progressed farther into high aspect weapons? And maybe not necessarily restricted to 2C. Outside of training rules, if you found yourself In a fight with a fighter that you know has the upper hand, and what point does someone trade in what they got to maybe get that really high aspect off boresight shot, or ever maybe one that’s very similar in a high threat environment where you really don’t wanna go spinning towards the floor. If nothing else, just to keep him/her busy. In some aircraft, you perhaps at least have that choice In trading it all in where others might be disadvantaged. At the same time, recent history has lacked that BFM fight where you have guys floating around in a scissors where you really need rear aspect missile shots, or even more restrictive, a gun. I realize this is all theory...there’s about as much foresight as us going nuclear with another county...plan/theorize all you want...at some point it all may go out the window.

I gotcha. Can you slew in ‘auto’? Perhaps it means to say that you can’t when it’s actively tracking but you can once it enters INR (IE it loses an active track) so you can try to retrack the object? I don’t know of a way to make it manually enter INR, it just does that to try to keep the pod in the right area when it becomes masked, loses a track, etc.

Perhaps referencing ‘auto’ mode for the pod vs ‘auto’ mode for bomb delivery where the pod would be caged to the bombing pipper?

Uhhh....what?

Notso is/was an actual flyer, I would say he understands that better than all of us...just sayin’.

Yeah, at what point does it become about the ability to dump the airspeed and get the nose rated around to get inside the WEZ vs the constant debate over sustained turn rate/radius. You may end up at 200kts, but if that means you can go to 40, 45, 50 alpha and get the nose pointed where you need it long enough to let a missile go, turning at 20* per second is somewhat moot. That is...unless you miss. The eagle can do it well, the hornet can do it well, of course the -22 does it well...and then your left talking about planes like the -16 that have an alpha limiter which might be a hinderance in some cases. The plane that has one of the best turn rates out there might be the one that ends up having to dodge missiles the whole time.

Anti-skid effectiveness is reduced as you get slower. Depending on the system/aircraft, anti-skid is disabled all together anywhere between 15-50kts.

at what speed?

What’s your airplane? Just curious. Come from a maintenance background myself.

If you are trying to compare heavy/passenger jets to fighters in terms of stopping power, you are far off the mark. Smaller brake stacks, a lot less of them, only two main tires...there’s not even a slight comparison there. Fighters aren’t made to use up the brakes, they are very prone to generating a ton of heat, etc, etc and that’s with light landing weights. Anti-skid systems meter the brake pressure, so in a lot of cases, you get less pressure than you would with the system turned off. The system is designed around control, not max stopping power.

You havent spent a whole lot of time around real fighters have you?

Well, You are pretty far from describing the whole system. But point still standing, they are more dissimilar than similar In the example you used. To what degree? It’s the difference between a jet that can still fly and one that doesn’t.

The intent of that was to not go down a rabbit hole on the -15s system (this is the -18 forum after all), merely to clarify your comparison to it as far as stick positional movement with that of the -18 isn't comparable. For the -15's CAS, it's force related, not related to movement. Is CAS limited in control surface movement without mech input? Yes. Is stab deflection limited with CAS off? Only in some instances, so CAS is not always needed for full movement either. But, the -15s stick doesn't require movement to sense input and make schtuf happen, the -18s stick apparently...does. See the following "The FCS isn’t responding to inputs until the pilot overcomes the breakout force and displaces the stick. As is illustrated in this in this document about the F-15’s FCS from NASA." That is the part that's untrue. I'm not sure what the -15 dissertation that followed was for or attempting to achieve. FWIW, at 250 knots in your example, he/she/it should be at a 1.0 pitch ratio or very close to, so putting the stick in the seat pan expecting more out of the AFCS is pretty futile at that point. At that speed and thinking you will see 7, 8 ,9 G...well, good luck The only real thing that CAS is going to increase at that point is rudders (15* CAS off/30* CAS on). But no sense going down that road either, because again, it's an -18 forum. Manual trim is another topic in itself as it manually operates stab positions through mech cable/pully, as well as resetting the center position. The -15 also does the same laterally. The -18 again, non comparable, because it's not using that side of the system under normal operation. I'm a -15 guy by trade, spent far too many hours crawling over/under/inside parts of her than I can no longer contort my body to get anywhere close to the places I once used to have to reach, so my understanding of the -15s operation is pretty descent. I have pretty good books available to me when it comes to the rest.