Xeno426

Question: If you don't have this expansion, will you be able to play with someone that does? It would be nice to have a "free" version that only allows someone to have the aircraft in the game world, while the paid version let you actually use the aircraft. Kind of like Company of Heroes and the expansions.

I'm someone who doesn't like to provide answers to other people without credible sources to back it up. A forum post does not constitute a credible source. A properly documented interview with someone that works with these systems does. Why is that so hard to understand? You also seem to be operating under the false assumption that requests for citable sources means the requester doesn't believe anything that anyone has said without it.

*sigh* And I have proof of his credentials, how? This is a forum. Consider this: if I was going to write a university paper, what kind of source would a professor allow? Do you think the quote of a forum user by the name of "Burnout55th" would qualify? I somewhat doubt it. I know this is pretty demanding, but when I want to provide proof for something, I like to be able to present something more substantial than "it's in a video game" or "a guy on some forums said so".

I've been able to find no documentation, and forum posts hardly constitute "reliable sources".

Anything more citable?

Apologies if this has been asked before, but after several forum searches nothing came up. How many Mavericks can the real A-10 hold? The game allows a maximum of 6 on hardpoints 3 and 9, but several other sources I've read (like this one) claim as many as 10. Is this accurate? If not, where can I find more accurate (citable) sources? I'm willing to bet ED did their homework on this, and that the 6 maximum is accurate, but I'd like something I can cite.

Bumping in hopes of a response.

You just aren't using the correct kind of capsule.

Hopefully this is the correct forum for this topic, but I'm confused about the designations of the aforementioned weapon systems. I've seen the Vikhr designated 9A1472 (online and on these forums) and 9A4172 (in the manual and the game). Which is correct? Furthermore, why isn't it 9M1472? I've never seen "A" used in the GRAU designation for a missile. To my knowledge, "M" is used for missiles and "K" is used for the complete complex. According to Jane's Air Launched Weapons, the AT-12 "Swinger" is the 9M120 Ataka/Vikhr, first making an appearance at the '91 Dubai Air Show. The 9M120M/9M121 is called the Vikhr-M, and carries the DoD designation AT-16. The 9M114 is the AT-6 "Spiral", and the 9M114M1 "Shturm 2" and 9M114M2 "Shturm 2" are both the AT-9 "Spiral 2". The "Shturm 3" is also found in a four-round pod. How much of this information is correct? According to Wikipedia (unreferenced, of course) the AT-12 is the 9K118 Sheksna. However, according to Designation-Systems.Net, there is no 9K118. The "Sheksna" name is instead applied to the 9K116-2, falling under the AT-10 "Stabber" NATO designation. Finally, in DCS the Mi-28 carries the 9M114 Shturm, IIRC the AT-6 "Spiral". What is the proper designation for these systems? Is the AT-12 really the DoD designation for the 9M120? Is the 9M120 the "Ataka-V" that the Mi-28 supposedly uses? If not, what is the 9M120? Is there any truth to the 9M120M being the Vikhr used by the Ka-50/Su-25T?

When was this? Any information on why it went down?

I haven't tried the Vikhr on the inner pylons, but the S-25L works fine when fire from the inner pylons. I've tried unsuccessfully to use either the KAB-500L or KAB-500Kr from either inner or outer pylons. It just follows a dumb bomb trajectory.