Bananabrai

Imagine a country like germany, where not as much money is put into weaponry, as the big players put into it, especially after the reunification. Example, the germans used Hueys to cover Hueys in the Luftwaffe for certain tasks, when the threat situation would be lower and no Bo-105s are available. With that kind of thinking and availability of types as a pre requisit: Would you say there is at least some system except for the Mk I eyeball to use for very very very light RECCE in the Hind? Like the F/A-18 used Mavericks as visual/recon sensor or target finding in the early 90s. What kind of sights for example does the Hind use for targeting the Shturms? I mean, the did not always had the best intel in Afghanistan, or did they only fly pre planned attacks? Maybe there is also a link to a picture here in the forum already?

ah, good thread. I need to write some things down, as I am working on a 1988/89 CVN-71 mediterranian deployment (that of course turns into fictional histroy) - No GBU-30 series of course, no -154, no AMRAAM, no JHMCS - Didn't know the Navy had no -9M until Gulf War. - 7M is fine I think, when you consider the enemys you're facing in the timeframe. MH is just the loft variant, isn't it? - How were the E-Mavs used back then? With the Nitehawk or did other platforms / JTACs lase exclusively? - I read that AGM-88B did see a lot of use on ALPHA Hornets before, so as we have no B Harms I'd go with C. - What about the laser GBUs? -24 wasn't a thing I assume, but the -10 series? - Harpoon should be fine, although it's also the wrong variant I think. - Walleye should be ok. - SLAM was also only introduced with the Gulf War as far as I know. - all the unguided bombs and rockets should be fine. - Anything else? - Use a lot of A-G radar, i guess it was its best capability in the late 80s! - the biggest thing for me though is that in DCS i cannot limit data-link as much as I want. I know that MIDS has been a thing for quite some time now, but I think it wasn't ready back then. Or was it? Do I see it correctly that the Hornet was >90% used for A-G stuff, and only for the stuff the A-6 couldn't do? Don't know what that would be.

Another question, not be understood as a request or some speculation: Was there with any of the P-Hind users some that used early generations of NVGs? Can we expect to get a NVG for the Hind, or will this not be a thing?

Kann die echauffierung teilweise verstehen, wobei ich schon sehr viel Spaß mit der Mirage und auch mit dem Harrier hatte. Bier ist da für mich eher kein Vergleich, für 50,- kauf ich nicht 5 Kästen sondern 2, ich will ja genießen und nicht ertrinken. Aber wenn ich ins Kino gehe wird mir für 10 oder 15€ auch ein toller Film versprochen der fertig sein soll und manchmal ist er halt k*cke... Und dann sitzt man da auch noch 2-3h. 70€, so viel wie ~5-7 mal Kino, also max. 21h joy, das hab ich mit dem Harrier schon durch, wenn vielleicht auch nicht am Stück... Ich weiß ja nicht wie ihr das macht, ich habe bis jetzt bei fast allen Modulen die Geduld gehabt und sie gekauft als sie das erste/zweite/... mal im sale waren. Denk so mach ich das bei der Mudhen auch. Plus: ich lass mich dann auch durch diverse reviews spoilern...

What would the Su-30MKK bring in terms of A-G capabilites?

This. It's great to be able to use different freqs via SRS, but its better to just have it in the cockpit.

1974 it was for Onoda Hirō as far as I know, for some more unsure cases even later? I wait for that DCS mission^^ -> 'Fight Onoda Hirō - End the 2nd WW with the A-7E Corsair II'

To be honest, I don't know how the radar lock in the Tornado worked back then, in terms of lock specific radar targets, especially sea targets. The oldest Tornado Pilot I know is my dad (as a source for the oldest software and HW standard), and he flew ground attack (JaBo) between 1986-2000 and not with the German Navy (GN). The GAF back in the day used the radar similar to how the Viggen works in DCS. So there was no GMT mode as far as I am aware, but I will recheck. Instead you have pre planned coordinate, which is technically 'locked' by the INS and if I remember correctly, is then adjusted with the radar in a way that the flight plan/ nav points align with the radar picture. So very much Viggen style. The guy I know who was shooting Kormoran did that in the late 90s and early 2000s, when they just phased them out by shooting them all 'for fun'. I will try and ask him again if there was some kind of lock on to a ship like in a GMT fashion, or lets say 'Sea Moving Target'. But I agree, a lock prohibit until a range of 40nm is selected is not very smart. Maybe they expected the hardware to not be good/stable enough to keep a lock between 80-41nm. It's like in the F-5E where you can't lock air targets at the max range setting (40nm?).

mhm, sad

Ok, interessting. How about the Nitehawk pod? About the ATFLIRs NFLIR on the HUD, supposedly we get it... I hope at least, but thats what other people also heard. See my question and the answers below: It will still take some time until they've reworked the FLIR system in DCS completely.

How would does the Nitehawk and the ATFLIR pod compare to the Litening we currently have in terms of capability? (Apart from the NFLIR of the ATFLIR, I know what that does) Do they have largely different resolutions, zoom levels, does the Nitwhawk also can put FLIR image on the HUD, etc.? I think it's an interessting topic. I also like that Walleye is included, as we can recreate older scenarios with the Hornet more easily in that way.

True, but I think they still would model it functional, as the hardware technically is still present and wokring. I would just not want anything newer than ASSTA 1, as the GMR picture is pretty shit to look at on the new NHDD. I would love to know how the GMR picture looks on the GR.4s TARDIS and if its at least of the same qaulity as the CRPMD. The TARDIS probably good for MIDS stuff. Other than that a ASSTA 1 is still able to do the same job as a earlier ASST IDS (ASST were the standards before ASSTA). Up to that point capabilities got only added. Effectively MW-1 was out of use by then, but the function was still part of the SMS in ASSTA 1. I still think a TIALD/Desert Storm GR.1 would be the best blast, as you could still fly it the same way as a 80s GR.1, with the "drawback" of having the slightly newer ERWR II radar warning receiver.

Hi, thanks for your feedback. Are you shure that only 40nm was selectable? Or are you talking about the effective range? I have the confirmation from 3 Tornado WSO's that 80nm range was at least selectable. I have to admit though, the Tornado GMR was not really optimised for AShW. That's propably the reason why the Buccaner was that much better, which I do not want to deny. The Tornado's radar was, as the name says, a ground mapping radar (Tornado GMR). The whole airplane was more optimized for "land-warfare", which might be one of the reasons, the GR.1B was not carried into GR.4 modernisation. There is another thing I want to point out. As the Tornado is newer than the Bucc, the ship technologies might have evolved as well in this time. And it could be the case, that ship technology might have evolved faster during that time. Just a theory or an idea though why newer airplanes are sometimes worse as its predecessor. Off topic, there is that story that some people with the italian airforce thought that the F-104 is more capable than the Typhoon... I leave that for someone else to tell. Another point might be, that the focus on AShW was deliberately not put into the radar. Other very high value assets were put into service, maybe they wanted to rely on the Nimrod or others on purpose. It's kind of stupid, but it's even done today. The Typhoon for example is still A-A optimized, even though at the end of the 90s (when deveolpment still could have been shifted) it was clear that: 1. Tornado needs a replacement at some point, with all its roles, which is not just GBU truckin' 2. it was possible to build airframes that can do A-A AND A-G very good (F-18, F-16,...) But see, now the government has a reason to develop a new separat airframe to replace the Tornado, because Typhoon can not take all its roles (with the GAF) And one more thing, at that time ELINT was also becoming more important (later there was even a specific Tornado ECR variant deveoped for that, with its ELS) Maybe they didn't see the need to recon a ship at 100nm+ with a radar, because they could detect it more or equaly reliable with ELINT triangulation, without emitting radiation.

It's been a while since I last unwraped my brain about this stuff. Thanks for the refresher. There is one point that comes to mind, hope some HB staff is reading this: To change the target approach was not working for me the last time I was testing it some 1,5 years ago. I had some red ship sitting behind a quay wall and ironicaly I was able to hit that with a RB-04 but not with a RB-15. The RB-15s final approach is way lower than the RB-04, you can really see that it wants to hit the target on the waterline. So I tried to change the cruise (83) and final target approach (86) to a higher level (831... and 860...). I can't remeber if the 83 (cruise) was working, but target approach defently rammed that RB-15 into the quay wall. Can someone confirm that issue after putting in 860 / 860000?

I thought we're going to get the NAVFLIR with the ATFLIR (maybe at a later point though). That's at least what I heard.

Only thing I could say, technically, as the Tornado is a cooperative project and work must be shared, we should have known if they change something. That's at least how it is suposed to be. There are even some british guys still working for Tornado projects, even though UK has retired their birds. Of course the reason for that is that GAF and ItAF (AMA?) are still operating the Tornado and they need to take care of their workshare. (at least they need to support it) That beeing said, I heard some rumors that the RAF changed some things (to unkown extend) on their radar with the GR.4 (or later on). And there is nothing official on our side to be found.

It never got removed (GAF). An airplane configuration change always must be approved and certified. You cannot simply remove equipment. You either have to certifiy the whole airplane new (with new or missing equipment), or if you just disable it or put in a weight dummy, you have to certify, that all other equipment in the sphere of influence is still working properly. Otherwise you would make a weight & balance change without touching the FCS, and that would be illegal in terms of certification and approval to operate the type (btw the FCS in the Tornado is very old and it was decided quite early that no more changes would be made). With the GAF the TFR is, at least to my knowledge, disabled with introduction of the ASSTA 3.0 or 3B standard. The training for automatic TF flying was removed even earlier if my info is correct.

I was also confused that I had to do a bit reading to get a hang of what bomb is for what purpouse. Are all these weapons available in the A8 listet in the ingame enzyclopedia? Would be usefull to know what should we use for what type of target.

Finds voll cool. Hoffe nur das sie das INS bald mal fixen, mit dem unegwollten Turbo alignment braucht man zur Zeit ja nicht nach Wegpunkten fliegen. Aber da die Mirage ja doch durchaus low level mit snakeyes Spaß macht, ist ein Radar TA mode schon was schönes.

So on facbook it looks like we will get a TA (terrain avoidance) mode for the baguette. Sounds good to me, I am excited.

Eine Frage die den Erbauern der neuen Systeme evtl auch direkt hilft: Ich habe 2 NVME SSDs: 980Pro (PCI 4.0) und 970 Evo (PCI 3.0) Mein Board hat zwei M.2 slots, einer ist direkt an der CPU angebunden, der andere über den PCH (Chipsatz). Derzeit habe ich auf der 970 Evo mein Windows und diese im "PCH slot" DCS und andere Games die ich oft zocke sind auf der 980 Pro in den "CPU slot" wäre es besser das ganze anders zu machen? WIN auf die schnellere platte an den CPU? DCS auf die selbe platte wie WIN?

Lol, we don't even have replicas for all the pits and use Wharthogs somtimes. Never had a snapped throttle pinkie though.

Hat jemand einen Vergleich der Verarbeitungsqualtät zwischen Virpil und WinWing? Edit: ich hab gelesen das die Frage schon öfter gestelt wurde. Bin mal gespannt ob noch mehr Berichte kommen. Zu meinen Virpil Produkten: Hab nun schon seit 2 Jahren einen CM (revision2) [nicht daselbe wie CM2] throttle und WarBRD base + CM stick. Der Sitck könnte echt aus weniger plastik sein, aber was die verarbeitung der Base und des throttle angeht bin ich immer noch sehr zufrieden. Bzgl. Qualtätsberichte über WinWing auf Youtube (westlicher Qualitätsanspruch): Wenn die Amis auf Youtube (Jabber, RedKite etc.) sagen das WW gut verarbeitet ist, traue ich dem auch nicht so ganz. Die haben doch auch nochmal andere Erwartungen, bei denen ist 'gut' einfach was anderes, das ist auch garnicht schimm.

H-6 would be a real game changer, a true one, not like the last promised game changer. I admit, bombers might be difficult for the map size we currently have. But it is not that you really have to fly long sorties / are only able to fly long sorties. And we also don't know how big the Marianas will get and we know that the Falklands will get big. I hope they will really pioneer this thing, lets have a bomber in DCS! I don't even care about the variant and I cannot say that for all other available and currently known future modules.

Das Doppler Radar sollte auch auf "SJÖ" stehen, wenn du 'feet wet' bist. Und natürlich wieder zürück auf Land schalten wenn du feet dry bist.