Aginor

Thanks, but I think we are getting increasingly off topic here. So back to the Harrier: I wonder what they really used those mk81s for. I mean, they are pretty ineffective, at least as dumb bombs. I still couldn't find out if and when they stopped doing it. So Razbam, I don't know if there were different sub versions of the Harrier over the years (between the NA and the plus), and I'd love to hear more about it. Are you aiming for a certain time frame, such as the early 90s or so?

well, that's a good start. :)

Yeah, they surely have their perks, that's why they developed the SDB and the GBU-29 (that last one was based on the Mk-81, it was canceled though). Same goes for guided FFARs. EDIT: ...although I wonder if that is true in DCSW. With the blast and fragmentation simulation we have now those would pretty much require a direct hit to do anything...

Does anyone know whether the Mk-81 is still in service or when it was retired? We just had a small discussion about that on the german forums because I thought it was retired from all US forces after Vietnam but I can't find a good source for that anymore. It may have been the USAF only because it is still listed in listed in the "NAVAIR 00-110AV8-4" from 1986 (page 12) but I have no newer source than that available. I wouldn't mind to be able to throw the old firecracker, I just wondered.

Self-quote damit es nicht so unübersichtlich wird. Laut GlobalSecurity und anderen ist das Projekt mit der gelenkten 81er (GBU-29) ca. 2010 zugunsten der SDB eingestellt worden. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-29.htm Über die normale Mk-81 habe ich immer noch nichts, das neueste ist das Dokument "NAVAIR 00-110AV8-4" (s.12), also immerhin der Harrier. Dann wäre das durchaus OK die Bombe mitzubringen, wenn die Razbam-Jungs einen aus den 80ern bauen, selbst wenn die Bombe inzwischen (wie ich immer noch glaube) in der USN bzw. dem USMC ausgemustert wurde. EDIT: Hab mal im englischen Teil gefragt, gibt ja ein paar "ordies" im Forum. Evtl. weiß es einer besser als wir. :)

Teile der Handbücher sind manchmal unclassified, oft von älteren Systemen. Das sind aber nicht besonders viele in Relation zu der Anzahl die es gibt, und (oft große) Teile der Dokumentation sind auch viele Jahre später noch als Verschlusssache gekennzeichnet. Gerade wenn es Waffensysteme oder deren Bedienung betrifft. Bei der Mk-83 weiss ich das, aber ehrlich gesagt habe ich hier im Moment keine Quelle über den Einsatz von Mk-81 vorliegen, die ich als habwegs aktuell bezeichnen würde. EDIT: Letzte meiner Quellen war von 1986. Würde mich also für Deine Quellen sehr interessieren. Was ich finden konnte ist dass seit 2003 angeblich eine gelenkte Version verwendet wird. Über die normale Mk-81 jedoch nichts. EDIT: Hab nochmal in paar Dokumenten nachgeschaut, auf den Loadout-Optionen von F/A-18C/D und F/A-18E/F taucht die Mk-81 auch nicht auf.

Haha, yes, that's me. Someone gave me a hint on how to give rep despite those mobile browser problems (opening the link behind the + button in another tab works), but until then I really had that list. I rep people pretty often, especially new users who are trying to be helpful and/or add something to the community like mods or so. But honestly, I think many people don't care. I didn't even notice there was a rep system for years, only discovered it in 2013 or so.

"Classified" ist vieles, um nicht zu sagen alles, zumindest soweit militärische Waffensysteme betroffen sind. Das sagt grundsätzlich über die Machbarkeit nicht viel aus. Solange man aus legal öffentlich verfügbaren Quellen seine Daten bezieht ist das in Ordnung. EDIT: Zu den FFARs: Jop, ist mir auch aufgefallen. Weiss nicht wie die auf free flying kamen. Möglicherweise wegen "FFB", was manchmal für free falling bombs verwendet wird bzw. wurde.

Wieso die Laser Mav streichen? Spielst Du auf die Entfernung der Laser Mav an der A-10C durch ED an? Das bedeutet nicht dass jemand anders nicht eine eigene Implementierung in DCSW einbauen darf. ED durfte IIRC nur diese nicht verwenden und hat sich auch - da die Waffe in der gegebenen Suite der A-10C nicht verwendet wird - auch nicht die Mühe gemacht sie neu zu implementieren. KI-Flugzeuge in der Sim (Die F-18 glaube ich) benutzen sie ja auch noch. Zur Sidearm: Sie hat nicht die beste Reichweite oder Sprengkraft, aber ja, man kann damit Ziele bekämpfen. Weiss nicht ob sie eine Shilka killen kann, denke aber in Realität zumindest so beschädigen dass sie ausgeschaltet ist. Gegen eine Patriot, S-300 oder selbst eine SA-6 würde ich es nicht riskieren, aber kleinere Feuerleitradars und evtl. auch einen Tor oder eine Tunguska könnte man damit schon erwischen. Ich stutze eher bei der MK-81, ich dachte die sei kurz nach Vietnam ausgemustert wurden, irgendwann in den 1970ern. Hübsches Array an Waffen.

That would be great. And even better as soon as they fix that annoying instant spotting on ground units.

Yes it is soul destroying! Which is why we are hoping for something exciting every week. :) Example: I am waiting for promised ATC improvements since 2011 and I am still here, so it can't be THAT harmful. ...well, next week maybe.

Thanks for the update!

Any CH-53 would be cool for me. I don't mind if it isn't the exact version as long as someone makes a German livery for it.

I hope it will be either a big Normandy news update (including ground untis and all that stuff) or an update on the Hornet progress today...

Do you have any mods installed? If yes try uninstalling them, in both cases try a repair. Something might be wrong with you install.

Hab geschaut, leider nur MiG-15, MiG-23 und MiG-21, bisschen Mi-8 und L-39 noch. Falls Du da auch Interesse hast sag Bescheid. MiG-29 waren dort nicht stationiert.

Ich schau auch mal nach, ich habe das Buch "MiGs über Peenemünde", da ist einiges an Bildern drin.

Both have. Just like you and me. My join date is 2011 because I lost my old account. And even that doesn't say anything, many of us have been flying DCS and its predecessors much longer than posting here. And post count? Seriously? Sithspawn has a huge post count and we all know he is just the biggest spammer here. :smilewink: Everyone with more than 3000 posts in ten years probably is. Including me. :lol: EDIT: Oh, and @topic: At some point in summer probably. But could easily become december for all we know. Everything is subject to change.

That's actually a very good hint! I occasionally notice that when doing refueling practice I grip my stick until my knuckles become white. Doesn't help with precision. You have to try and relax, keep that breath under control.

I think you misunderstood my intentions. 1. The P-51 is a 70 year old plane. It is a trainer, but not something you would use today. When I say prop trainers I mean Grob G120TP or T-27 Tucano. Modern props. 2. I don't plan to get any more trainers. I do own all existing ones and don't need more. I just wouldn't be angry if anyone made more, especially if they are not too similar to the four existing ones, which are all land-based, three of them are jets with very similar performance. If people want them, then by all means someone should make them. EDIT: That's right! I prooobably wouldn't have bought the T-27 but a A-29 is much more interesting!

Nice!

I agree that combat aircraft are more needed than trainers, especially in a virtual environment in which it doesnt hurt if you crash the expensive jets during training. That being said: I am glad we have trainer aircraft, and even more glad that all of them also have their use in combat (As soon as the C-101CC arrives. Looking at you, Aviodev!) We have both western and eastern trainers and I won't be angry if we get one or two more, like some prop trainer). And of yourse you have to see it this way: The devs have to start somewhere. A trainer or otherwise simple aircraft is a good place to start because of less complexity, and you get access to those planes much more easily, which is VERY important when developing a DCS plane, especially if it is your first. So if I have the choice between a trainer with limited combat capabilities, or no aircraft at all, I choose the former. Especially if it is the initial project from a dev team who wants to build up skills and money for the planes I really want. ...and last but not least: If you don't like trainers don't buy them. Vote with your wallet, as the saying goes.

Very nice!

Good to hear! There were some NVA liveries for the MiG-21 in the past, but sadly they don't work anymore, so new ones would be very welcome. :) Same goes for German UH-1 and F-86 liveries.

Agree with what the others said. A-10C is for CAS, Viggen is for strikes. You could use the Viggen for preplanned CAS, but not really well. Combined they are very cool: Let the A-10C do the precision works and use it as a FAC(A) to talk the Viggen strike packages to the targets. That way you can do CAS with Viggens. :)