Muchocracker

What would the practical difference even be here vs pre-briefed using HRM pullup selection. The mechanization is already there to send it at a steerpoint and HRM pullup will let it off at any angle inside of the DLZ. I feel like this may be just switchology and terms being changed at some point, either before or after and ED just used the documentation they could find.

It's the automatic acquisition mode and or command into STT if you're in RWS or TWS. In RWS AACQ is a system roe matrix'd highest threat target the radar has and is signified by the large green cross. If you command AACQ it will command STT on that target. In TWS it just commands STT on the current L&S. All of this is specific to A2A mode and radar selected. SCS is a multi-function and context dependent switch. It will do different things based on master mode, DDI, and sensor selection. If you're looking for a2g specific SCS functions then you need to look at that specific system. Putting the AG radar in track mode isnt really needed for mapping. But it is needed for GMT and SEA

Change the speedgate to WIDE

This is just not the case and is counter to how proportional navigation works. The lead points can possibly shift a wide amount yes, but the longer the range the lower the line of sight rates become, and by extension the commanded accelerations are proportionately lower, it's just basic geometry. You can watch it yourself with an aim-7. It will not be doing maximum performance turns at 25 miles. You're comically overstating how hard these missiles are turning in F-Poles, this is especially true for later generation high G capable ones. It's not going to be hitting anywhere near its maximum G capabilities until very late endgame and the aircraft is doing the right maneuvering. Even then it's rare that you see amraam's hitting 40G.

Yes it's a little bit of a contradictory statement. The range that the missile can chase down a cold target is the minimum abort, not the no escape. The no escape zone is really where the missile has enough airspeed (and lift to create the required G) to match most or all evasion maneuvers except for going fully cold and accelerating in the opposite direction. But where that line is isnt always the same. By using the crank and F-Pole you can shrink that NEZ because it's forcing the missile to do drag inducing mid G turns to match them. This doesn't actually defeat the missile at all and isnt suppose to in an A2A context, but what it does is buy yourself time to close the distance and make *your* own missiles deadlier. While reducing the amount of time you have to stay cold to fully trash that missile.

No, There are no general purpose configured penetrator warheads

It's not neccesarily unconventional it's just up to the design philosophy. There are many X config missiles that use bank-to-turn, particularly the ramjet powered types for intake air-flow reasons. Some designs also leverage BTT to maximize control authority in a single axis.

The helmet wasn't aligned during your coldstart. They added that function some years ago.

You're gonna have to make tracks and demonstrate it not working for you. I use baro alt to hold orbits over 5 degree bank angles all the time with absolutely no issues

The encyclopedia is not accurate and doesn't reflect what is in the actual LUA files.

yeah this is still an issue even if you use the MFD bypass line. I saw it last night.

the mission may be out of date and still has the bombs loaded using the old fuse system.

Source? It has absolutely everything do with the NATOPS, which makes explicit reference to HALF/FULL flaps settings being a separate set of flight control laws from AUTO that are takeoff and landing focused. Nor is there any stated permitted use of AUTO in takeoffs and landings. The procedure is to use HALF or FULL and increase stabilator trim according to gross weight and Cg.

it is NATOPS carrier launch procedure. The trim behavior is dependent on the flap switch

it's not obvious. The screenshots posted from you and others are all indicitive of cross-wind conditions. Multiple people have been repeating this over and over again. Nothing has been given to suggest there is an issue but you keep insisting on there being one. This is why i keep asking for a trackfile, because this is not going to go anywhere unless there is proof that is repeatable.

then post track and show it dude. IF it's an actual problem then ED has to have trackfiles for diagnosing. But nothing you've described yet sounds like a problem

You're going to have to post tracks of this man, because everything you're describing is proper behavior of the velocity vector and pitch ladder as it shifts with crosswinds.

Scorpion wasn't even on the market yet in 2007 and HMIT wasn't over until 2010.

You can question the selection of timeframe and block selection. Throwing a tantrum and demanding they add/do things are not accurate because of flawed "logic" helps absolutely nobody.

It's a good question lol. 2b is super limited on weapons

Idk what is so hard to understand about this. The timeframe ED gave is end of block 2B just before 3F went IOC. AARGM-ER is not even being integrated until block 4. It has nothing to do with "can" do something. It's if that thing was actually done.

we shall we wait and see

If there is documentation to support that it has the function. It doesn't get added just because something else has it.

you're flying in cross wind. That is how the HUD is supposed to behave, the pitch ladder stays centered on the velocity vector unless you cage the HUD.

i hate using it on anything but case 3's in mode 1 ACLS just because it fights all of my muscle memory for flying on speed.