Leto

Serious? Russian A-10s vs US A-10s? Sorry, I was hoping for a little bit more realism. I am out.

So under normal "A10" circumstances with A/A thread Gau+CBU had been a very good choice for yesterdays mission. And you always can spread your units to not be an "easy" target where 1 CBU destroys 6 units. Just put more space between them and it will be harder. And don't forget: you set wind already for not make it easy with CBU.

To your question: is CBU necessary? No. But with that argument you can eliminate every weapon till everybody is fighting with guns. But here is why I think CBU-97 is a very valid weapon and should not be banned: Under normal circumstances there is nearly always A/A thread to A10 in target area. You self stated that A10 is easy prey for Su27/Mig29. Even Su25T is by far a better fighter compared to the A10. So by nature A10 must not fly high. GBU-10/12/31/38 need at least 6'000 ft height over target to become reliable. MK-84/82 in an area like yesterday still need 3000-4000 ft height for not damaging the aircraft. MK-82 Air is a joke in precission. You would need lots towed under your plane and that will make you vulnaerable because of the weight. Rockets (HEI-151) do no harm since 1.2. Look at Sandmans Tacview. 7 Hits on one target and still moving.

I did. He killed 2 units with gun, I killed 16 units with gun. What's your point here? My point with R-73 is about your point with CBU. Your argument is: Same with R-73: Gun can achieve similar result but takes a bit more effort and more dangerous than just finding an A10 and fire away. With the sensor field of view of R-73 you even don't need to be pointing at the prey. Look at it and fire. Far more easy and effective than AIM-9. But my point isn't about not using R-73. It's just about your argument.

@ Endy: Ok, for the same reason you will stop using R-73 on A-10s, ok?

I don't mean any offence here, Endy, but what is your intention? Making it impossible for blue to win a mission? Look at the facts: Mission 4 had no red fighters for 90% of the time over the target area, and most of the time no Su-25T and Ka-50 due to technical problems. You said yourself that in the end it were only you and Greg on red side. So with no opponent and all the blue forces doing best as they could they barely accomplished the mission goal in time. Mission 4 with all the FC3 disconnects was a special situation due to technical problems resulting in disconnects. I don't see the solution for that in cutting down CBU's. On the other point I agree with you: it would be better to have more pilots on red side. Maybe Su-25T and Ka-50 red only.

Hey Cookie... read 3 posts above :music_whistling:

@Greg, Endy etc concerning crashes please have a look at this http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=98319 may not be the solution to all problems but at least we can minimize to a certain degree

A-10C

Shame on you, Eddi. You are ruining the placebo effect :D

@Greg: This seems related to our problem with CTDs http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1612456&postcount=53 Post #53 from this thread http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96879

It was on our way to our main target. It represented a danger to us and other allied flights because of manpads, shilkas and ZU-23s. So it was a valuable target and not empty. That's why I attacked it.

@ Endy: I agree, no sense in arguing with you. The good thing: we will see in this mission who was right.

Let me first ask you again: where did I "try to attack you with arguments you don't appreciate" ? What were they? And back to your question: May we stick to reality and what happened in the last two missions or do we want to make decission on made up scenarios about what could happen no matter how unrealistic it is? It's just unrealistc to assume 10x A10 will kill 60 tanks in one minute and argue on that base. Plain and simple. We will not see that. Let me ask you a question. Do you fly any DCS product or just FC3? Because I wonder where your idea of "slewing the cursor on mav screen and pressing release" is all it takes comes from.

Endy, neither I cry nor I do behave like a child. On the contrary. And where is the attack on you "with arguments you don't appreciate" ? I ask to fix a problem when it appears and not on biased assumptions in advance which you did. "60 tanks in under one minute" ...please

That's exactly the point. I would ask you to change things and restrict loadout if it turned out they did not work as intendet but not on biased and unrealistic assumptions in advance. Thanks Greg for making that clear.

Good idea, Endy! Let's ban CBU's (not only 87 because of fps hit but also 97 because they are effective), let's ban Mav's and while we are in the mood let's ban also the GAU/8 and TGP. I am sure you will find a reason for that. MK82 only for A10's! Seriously, man... as you stated yourself the A10 is an easy prey for you. Look at the last two missions. It has been like a point and click adventure for red side jets to shoot down A10's. Just with no "adventure" part in it. How much more boring do you want to make it for you? And A10's have hard enough time to get near their target area before Su25 or Su7 or MiG29 jockey kills them. And I don't see any of the A10 guys whining about limiting the other side's AA capability because A10 is not a fancy dogfighter. Given the amount of A10's on blue side on the one hand and what results they achieved on the other, you can't be serious in starting your ban this and ban that concert.

Most probably there is an update in the pipeline which will be released today. Just be patient, I'm sure ED-Team will fix that in the one or other way very soon :music_whistling: :D

Schau mal bei unserem =[33rd]= Sebur auf der Seite: http://www.sebuga.de oder schreibe ihn mal direkt an. Soweit ich weiß hat er sich neulich mehrere Sitze zugelegt die hydraulich voll beweglich sind.

@ Greg: have you sorted out the problem with AGM-65? Can we load more than one Mav on a rack?

and yes... no wind and latest possible drop for CBU105 so it has a very steep angle

That's true to some point. I don't know if it is still valid data but under 1.2.1 I took a test with targets set up in concentric circles. This is the average out of 10 tests I've flown: CBU 105 HOF / targets destroyed 500 / 10 700 / 7 1200 / 13 1800 / 20 3000 / 15 So... yes it does matter given that you have a couple of targets spread over an area. HOF 1800ft was in that case of target arrangement the best choice. When you have like let's say 5 tanks next to each other HOF 500/700/900 will minimize winddrift and most probably do the job. But that will only work in a flat environment. Try this in mountainous area and errors will increase dramatically.

Now that would be a cool invention... let's celebrate the missile awareness day together :thumbup: I'll bring some phosphorus torches and aluminium foil :D

Blue Side A-10C in one Flight with Havoc :thumbup:

If you talk about HOF (where the CBU opens and releases the BLUs) it is 900ft... though 700ft is possible If you talk about release... well... that depends on situation. Theoretically just above your HOF but practically you want to have some space between you and a target you gonna lay CBU-97 on. Optimum for me is 8000ft and above