SwingKid

Rephrased: Why are FACs worth protecting with money and anti-missile missile containers, when capital ships of the blue-water navy are not? -SK

Alfa, In regards to the SA-N-11 "Kortik"/"Kashtan" naval system, Do you have any information that the SAM plays an actual anti-missile CIWS role, besides the coincidence that it employs the same search radar as the guns? I don't have any information to back this up. For example, when the system is installed on small ships that have no other SAMs on board, then the Kortik seems to be fitted with missiles. But on larger ships like Peter the Great, that have more space and are already equipped with longer-ranged SAMs of their own, the Kortik CIWS seems to be set up as a gun-only system, with no missile launch tubes at all: http://www.warships.ru/Russia/Weapons/Guns/Kortik/ http://pvo.guns.ru/naval/kortik_photo.htm Why would they remove the Tunguska SAMs from the higher-value assets, resulting in a shorter-range, guns-only CIWS, if the missiles were making a contribution? -SK

I have the original Russian text on which that web page description is based, where it's made clear they are talking about Tunguska. The irony is that the Pantsyr system they thought they were describing IS the system that was developed in late 90s to have anti-missile capability... it was developed specifically because Tunguska has NO such capability. Fair question though, their mistake. -SK

"During the entire flight time of the missile, the gunner must constantly maintain the crosshair of the optical sight on the target; the deviation of the missile's flight path form the line-of-sight is automatically computed and used to generate course correction signals. These are then transmitted to the missile in flight through the tracking radar, which during a missile engagement sequence doubles as fire-control radar. Missile employment is only possible in daylight and fair visibility conditions, because the target needs to be tracking with the optical sight for the entire duration of the engagement sequence." http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/2s6rpt.htm -SK

Lock On won me away from Falcon 4 even when it was still Flanker 2.0, by allowing to fly different aircraft from different countries. I really, really miss having a dynamic campaign, but in the end - DACM was even more important to me, and that's something that nobody in the Falcon 4 community seems to have figured out, even after seven years of modding. Despite Lock On's many (IMHO) gameplay disadvantages to Falcon 4, I also like the Russian- and English-language communities here - always pulling in opposite directions to keep the sim "honest" and real. That's a huge asset. That said - I still usually recommend F4 over LO to newbies. If you'd prefer LO, you'd probably already know, regardless of my recommendation. And are probably not a newbie. ;) -SK

Well I can certainly agree with this, but I would disagree that it's a good thing. IMHO it's not so much that TrackIR is great (which it is) - rather that Lock On's standard SA without TrackIR is horrible. Texture fonts that are unreadable at default zoom levels, off-screen RWRs, malfunctioning HSI, transparent buildings, unpredictable padlock, and view controls that took over half the keyboard like an invading alien army - it all combines to create an SA-blind, view-manipulation nightmare that doesn't exist in any other sim I've played, that can only be efficiently controlled by TrackIR. I think of TrackIR like the third-party mods for the HOTAS Cougar - yeah they're great, and thank heavens they exist, but it would be nice if they were an option, and everything still worked okay without it... :( -SK

According to WAPJ, another problem with targeting the low-frequency EW radars was that ordinary terrain becomes ever more reflective at lower frequency. So, the reciver antennas are receiving EW signals from a wide area. An SA-3 officer later confirmed that they were aware their low-frequency search radar could not be targeted by HARM. -SK

I'm scared to land any airplane! ...without ground effect. ;) -SK

Насколько я знаю, в США таких пассивных ракет нет. -SK

Давно мне кто-то ответил на вопрос (наверно автор, Андрей Фомин), что Р-27П и Р-27ЭП действительно есть, но никогда не пускается, потому что в России нет мишени с бортовом РЭБ. -SK

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/792557/posts -SK

There was a Yugoslav MiG-29 that took a hit, lost an engine and cracked the windshield, landed, then later took off on a single engine to ferry to a different airbase, IIRC. -SK

http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lomac/review/critrev.htm -SK

А скажите пожалуйста - на -31 так же не используют? Или, только лётчики Сушки дураки? ;) -SK

Часто надо излучить целы, чтобы их РЭП передать. -SK

My desktop has 219 icons... :( -SK

I thought Merseberg was supposed to be south of Nobitz -SK

I apologize for confusion, but I seriously didn't understand its meaning. If I go right now and jump into a Cessna, activate Master switch and turn ignition, the engine will not start? Why not? If you want to follow a proper pre-flight checklist, then I'm interested to know - what is preventing you from following such a checklist already now, in Su-25T AFM? There seem to be plenty enough realistic controls and features to do so, if it is wished. If it's only the lack of mouse control, then, ok. But if it's something else, then I fear that whatever it is, that same thing may still prevent you from following checklists in v1.2 Ka-50... even in 100% realistic simulator. What concerns me is when people ask for "extra complexity," when they don't even know what that complexity is - nevertheless, they expect developer to know. -SK

Ok, we use tie-downs at my airport, never use this. Electric master already exists in AFM (ONE) Multimode wingtip and gear lights already exist in AFM Visual check only - should always be in this position from previous flight I don't know this one. Maybe we fly different Cessna models. May be already set correctly from previous flight. Not required for engine start. Pressure altitude adjustment already exists in AFM. Not required if aircraft was recently flown. No mixture control in jet aircraft. Throttle already needs to be in correct position in AFM, otherwise engine may be damaged. No carb control in jet aircraft. Ignition already exists in AFM. (TWO) Not required for engine start, but ok. From all of the above, what would you propose to change in existing AFM engine start? -SK

Azimuth or range? Azimuth gate-stealer should be filtered away by a slotted-array radar antenna. -SK

Two? -SK

Your fears are misplaced. From what we know of Olgerd, he is more such "masochist for realism" than you and I put together. I interpret his comment as, "no matter that we will give you twenty switches - you are still either clicking them on the screen with a mouse, or plinking on a keyboard, and both of these are equally ridiculous, stop arguing which is realistic. You should all be building home cockpits out of spare jet parts, to use the controls we are planning!" :) -SK

SkyWars. :) http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/board/index.php?a=topic&t=63 Welcome to the forum! -SK

From what I understand, they still plan to make the cockpit fully clickable. Oleg's comment is that they will support both systems - fully clickable cockpit, and fully programmable keyboard/HOTAS interface, as exists in Falcon 4. I'm sorry that my relief and happiness frightens you - I'll try harder to be disappointed in future. ;) -SK

You mean Hans Island, and Denmark? Close. No worries, it's easy to mix one Viking barbarian with another. For example, I have that problem with Alfa all the time. :) -SK