Rainmaker

Using the ball and chain is about the best you can do IMO. The pipper will allow you to steer and give CCRP cues using the desinate function so in a way, I think you are getting what you want.

Not a lot of reason to attempt to loft from high altitudes as flying higher kind of defeats that purpose. You could dive-toss since the A-10 is handicapped by speed/energy, but I can’t see much more of a use than that. Your loft method would be much better preserved for low level deliveries, and probably by aicraft capable of scooting across the ground faster than an A-10. There’s probably a decent chance that the A-10 doesnt include a loft delivery method for some/all the reasons above. I know some aicraft do though, to include LGBs and IAM weapons

Don’t have enough SA on what is goin on in the C’s world to know the answers

Looks like you have a target ID’d and desgnated judging by the HUD symbology, which would give AUTO release cues in the HUD. Try hitting the NWS/undesignate button?

Es have had ADCPs for a long time now. SATCOM as well. First started as converted ACMI pods due to the crappy LOS capability of the radios in places like Afghanistan. Radios were changed out later.

The C was well behind the E, and the E grabbed many of those updates, in some cases first. The radar and JHMCs was probably the biggest difference everyone talked about.

The E isnt going anywhere anytime soon, plenty of things in the books that are started and still yet to come. Far from being “outdated” too. Still cant touch the weapons load capabilities and the amount of tonnage they can deliver per fighter outside of a bomber.

So are you speaking from actual experience or flight sim experience? The guy you are replying to is speaking from the earlier. Going off what your profile says, it looks like you are speaking from the later and attenpting to present as fact.

The radar upgrade was doped out as “coming soon” a long time ago. Originally I think the plan was to give the E’s hand me down V1s from the C. At some point in time, in between sourcing funding, the plan changed...which is never out of the norm.

Looks too skinny and too long to be a LITENING, could be wrong though. Looks almost like they were looking at the possibility of adopting the same pod the Navy has. The tracking diamond and gates look navyish too, I’ve only seen crosshairs and a box. JHMCS could be a possibility, but I don’t think you’ll see any publically available info on the 236 other than it being a RECCE pod. The 82 has been around for a bit, just mired in bueracratic stalemates due to funding. The AF had plans for it 10 years before the operational units started seeing it.

The air force has WRM tanks that are “kit tanks” made from cheaper parts, etc. not sure if the navy has the same. They can fly them when the threat is high enough they may get shot at. The tanks arent cheap, but not as expensive as an airplane.

Just keep in mind, the manual that is publically available is light years behind the suite that is currently in the airplane, or what was in the airplane 15 years ago. Data link didn’t come until 2001, limited IAM capability not even in the airplane till circa ‘05, then things kind of started to pick up from there. Hopefully, having a license though Boeing, they are able to aquire some updated material to model systems off of. The -34 of 25 years ago is a lot different than what is in there now. With such high fidelity stuff that’s out there now with jets like the A-10, F/A-18, etc...it’ll be pretty far behind in capability if you try to integrate them in with the newer stuff. Of course, as I write this, I sure there are tons of people that are awaiting the F-14/Mig-21 releases, so what do I know. :lol:

BRAA

May and will are two completely different things...doesnt matter if the odds are 1:10 or 1:10000.

That would be my thought as well. Possibly needing to be put in the bug section over the “wish list” section of the forums?

I may missed a discussion the topic already, but has anyone been able to confirm/deny the ability to access either while under WoW conditions? With regards to the MMs, the flight manual says that NAV mode will be defaulted with WoW and motors running, but it doesnt really say the MMs are disabled. Some of the pilot checklists reference selecting MMs on the ground as part of preflight ops so they contradict each other a bit. Same goes for the CMD programs. Would be really helpful in setting radar modes, chaff/flare programs, etc. I know the MUMI implementation would help some with this but it seems as though you shouldnt be locked out while on the ground. The 22.4 manual probably answers this stuff, but to my knowledge, it’s not in the public domain.

No track file, but tested this myself. Same result. Side tones change as does lower HUD symbology for the different weapons, but range carets on the ASE circle maintain the same data as the last weapon selected when the radar page was available. ASE circle also stays if gun selected.

Changing seat height does not change the head to top of seat relationship. The breaker portion of the seat still hits the canopy at the same point in he sequence. Maintaining a gap keeps them from scratching the hell out of the canopy with the helmet and nogs. It’s pilot preference, some sit higher, some sit lower.

Keep in mind what may be a current capability and what ED is attempting to model with the data they are able to acquire in order to model systems.

With varients like the -120D becoming operational, many of the “old” requirments are not really all tha necessary anymore.

Does the navy use the larger flare cartridges that are only 15 per bucket? Perhaps just a graphic difference over what’s simulated?

Ah, okay. Could always be a bug, could also be an area that has not been truely developed. I guess a lot of that would depend on exactly what its breaking when you ask for the failure. Perhaps trying normal flight and switching off both generators manually and see what the result is there?

Achieving super cruise is one thing, doing so while being fuel efficient and in areas no one else can operate in is another. The -22s capabilities are still pretty special. The -22 is still way ahead.

Are you triggering generator failures by turning the generators off or by shutting down the motors?

I can’t speak for the -18 directly, but in the -15 world we have what’s called an FQI rollback that will happen during engine shutdown. The total total(that’s what we call it) will commonly roll back a few hundred pounds as the jet powers down. It doesn’t happen when shutting off external power hence why we either have to get a fuel reading before shutdown or apply external power for the FQI to be accurate. With the -18 being digital, not sure if the same thing applies to them. For us, that could either be a product of the FQI itself or the signal that comes from the signal conditioner (box that takes all the inpits from the fuel probes and controls the FQI). Of course this is all trivial information which doesnt mean mich to anyone here. :)