Rainmaker

I would agree with the possibility of that...but...the -15 has had EGI since as long as I can remember and uses two INU LRUs and a filter to accomplish that. I think it’s one of those semantics and I’m not sure there’s necessarily a true answer as to what constitutes it and what doesn’t. Always up for being proven otherwise though...

To my knowledge...everyone has been laser(?) since the 90's(?). From my understanding of reading, INS signal was the primary signal and GPS was used to supplement/correct errors. This is referencing the timeframe of the F-16 ED is modeling. Whether that is still the same currently, I don't know. I also don't know exactly when/why the alignment time was reduced from 8 minutes to 4 minutes. If anything, that would be the only real "noticeable" difference that one might see.

EGI is not a box, it’s a process of combining different signals. This is just getting further off topic, but the F-16 blended signals using two boxes in the past. One GPS, one INS. Whether it’s a single unit or not now, I don’t know the answer, but functiomality would still be common between the two. It was good enough then for nav/precision weapons, so really whether it is still in use now or if something else is used, is more or less irrelevant IMO. No one out there is coming close to 100% fidelity on those systems anyway.

That would depend on what your definition of EGI is. If you are making the comparison to the newer units, then I doubt it...they appear to have still been in testing in circa '07. I used to charge F-16 INU batteries in the AOR on 42's, and they were using the same batteries the F-15 was. That was a few years after '07. If you are taking blending INS/GPS suitable for dropping IAMs/GPS weapons and updating the INS to account for drift...which is also referred to as EGI, then I would say yes. The answer to this is still a no. You are associating EGI to a specific product/part that makes it "EGI", it isnt.

That is not true for all aircraft sorry. There could very well be some that are, but definitely not all. From my understanding, the F-16 used MNF to blend INS/GPS before going to an updated system. INS primary, supplemented by GPS for updates. They were not mutually exclusive in terms of operation. You’d have to engage with someone with more indepth knowledge to know if there are any actual fundamental differences between the two or different terms for the same thing.

INS is INS. Adding EGI doesn’t mean there is no longer INS, or that there is no INU. -15E has had EGI forever and a day, still has INS/INU and uses an INS switch. INS is just supplemented by GPS, doesn’t mean it’s no longer there.

My point being I think people get way too spun up over features/systems and whether or not they are in the sims, when the reality is, they really don’t know what they actually do and what would be the difference between them being in the sim vs not. Folks are enamored with acronyms, leading to paralysis by analysis. In the above case for example, INS does not mean lack of EGI. But by the same token, how many would actually know the difference? Doesn’t matter in the end because everyone gets focused on reading an acronym and then making a direct comparison.

What exactly do you guys believe EGI is? If you are basing it off whether there is a switch or not that says “EGI”, I’m not really sure you guys understand.

POD IR does not work through smoke. Not even sure why this is an argument or why I’m even wasting my time typing this. There’s 500 videos put there of about every pod in the inventory on youtube, live leak, etc. Thermal imaging cameras vs pod IR is an abysmal comparison. Why not use all the video samples that are on the internet to prove the point? Why? Because they do the opposite.

One could call that a ‘high-speed taxi’ but we’ve had jets fly locals before knowing they were going to take the barrier on landing. Not common for approach end cables that I know of (and I don’t think you’d ever really want to do those unless you have to) but for departure end cables for sure. I’m not smart on commonalities of having one/both cables up or how many airfields have them at both ends though.

That wasn’t the case with USAF F-15s, so possibly an F-16 deal, or potentially non-US tests? In any event, not universal across the board

You would be correct there.

It’s not releasing from both stations on the left before the right or vice versa is it?

Typically, and probably by design, they do. When they don't, it's a bit of a head turner and a 'crowd pleaser' :D

Some aircraft have the ability to electrically disconnect the some of the equipment from the engines the case of failure, typically, fighter aircraft (at least US made ones) cannot. Anything like your generators, AMADS, hydraulic pumps, etc are considered 'accessories', they require the motor to turn them. Just like the wheels on your car, they need an engine and a drive shaft to make them move. Below is an F-15, but it’s the same concept. The silver piece he has his hands on is the shaft that connects the motor to the AMAD. They are bolted on as Lex stated above. All that stuff they are looking at is the AMAD, your generator, and hydraulic pumps. That shaft in the picture above goes into the back of that and spins the AMAD which turns the rest.

More or less, this is correct. JTIDS was basically a legacy system of Link-16 though, so more or less, the same as MIDS is now in terms of being a system of Link-16. Different terms for different platforms. JTIDS was a common F-15 term, still is in some circles, but now it is technically FDL (Fighter Data Link). Bunch of developers designing different things, that don't talk to each other on their own, and require a "host" to tie them all together. Typical military way of doing business :). SNAFU.

I’m aware. ;) I have a few ‘entertaining’ pics of shoveling crew bags into them, but I’ll refrain from sharing to protect the guilty. :)

That bomb on STA 2 spilled out all over the ground. Someone gonna clean that up? :)

Yes, you need to manually step through the stations a second time to select the right program. So it’s been mentioned, the L/R selection of multi-store racks is coming eventually which will alleviate that process. For now, it’s a bit more cumbersome.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, the 1.16 rule exists for a reason...it’s listed on the front of pretty much every mil document that’s out there.

Not gonna go down that road...google is your friend for flight manual material.

You can cast doubt if you want, but the information is out there. It is indeed correct. PP targets are not for ‘fiddling’ around, that’s not the purpose. The way it was originally rolled out was incorrect, and it was adjusted. Like it or not, it’s not incorrect.

If you only want to release 1 per pickle, for example, then you would need to unselect the stations once the coordinates are input. PITA, I get it, but it is what it is. I’m sure it won’t be as big of an annoyance as it now once they implement the data cartridge loading during mission planning in the UI. You’d be able to set all the primary/alternate coordinates before you get to the cockpit. For now, this is what we have.

The way it is now, is correct according to docs that are out there. People want realism, they have realism. Blame whomever designed the OFP for the real jet... With that being said, follow the first post in the thread. Box quantity and select the stations and the step option will be there.

In 18 years around the original LANTIRN, the LITENING, and the SNIPER...I never once hear of crews reporting a laser overheat. Not saying it can’t happen, just saying it’s more than likely very rare/non-existant. ‘Pod Hot’ bit failures are pretty common on the legacy pods, but don’t recall anything involving just the laser.