Bananabrai

Hi folks, I am trying to re-find a SEAD / HARM patch I remember from my head, but I can't find it again. Maybe the right persons comes by and knows what bullsh** I have in my head ...^^ I did google search for 2 hours now and type all variations, maybe I am missing an obvious one or so. So the patch was a middle eastern patch, my mind tells me it was israeli or saudi, but who knows, maybe its a US Desert Storm one, or from the Lebanon war, etc. It shows a guy with a red and white turban, angry face, holding up an AGM-88 HARM. If my memory really is that bad, it could be a Sparrow or a Shrike as well, but I remember it being some kind of SEAD or Wild Weasel patch. Again, thats all what I remember how it looks like in my head. I really want to find that one again to bring it into another patch idea I am letting design for my colleagues as I leave my department. Thanks in advance.

Checklist states to not take off with external fuel (external transfer) switched on. (The official F-14 checklist says that as well, so it seems to be common for some jets) So I have the externals off all the time on the field, for take off and up until I leave the airfield area. Sometimes it takes some time for start up and taxi (explaining the jet to other pilots). Now, there seems to be a certain time span when the externals are just empty as soon as I switch them on. Other pilots have the same problem/bug, so I have this confirmed by 4 other pilots, in multiplayer. It happened only once that I switched the externals on directly after take-off and had no issue, but I told my wing men a few minutes later to switch theirs on and they were empty immediately. For the record, empty without filling the internals, I know that it feeds it to the internals if working correctly. The actual fuel mass just disappears.

Are altimeter settings below 28.10 inHG not possible? I can not set QFE for Nellis in certain conditions (QNH 30.07 for example). -> QFE would be 28.08 or 28.09. If that would an airfield I would like to attack, I can only set QNH and do the conversion on the fly.

I really can imagine that the F-111 was pretty heavy on maintenance. Supposedly it took 20++ % of the AF budget of maintenance for being something like 6% of the AF's force. Wasn't it even heavier on cost and maintenance than the B-1B? Maybe that, combined for all types together. Strike aircraft operate low, in dense air, at high speeds and are stuffed with high tech to keep their crews safe at that speed and altitude. Tornado was pretty maintenance heavy as well and performed similar in the Gulf war. 4% of the sorties for 20% of the losses within the first week or something. Read the book on GR.1's operational history. They could do their job, and they did, but at a rather high cost. Maybe you are mistaking reliabilty for 'how reliable could the perfect working airframe and aircrew do their mission"

To start with the F-111, I would actually prefer it over an A-6. I can understand people who like to see a whole Carrier Deck mix of flyable airframes from the same period in history. But I personally see more value in the F-111. However, I want to react to your OP, you're missing some knowledge about the Tornado here, and its historical background. The Tornado was a european design, not a US design. So the understanding of 'Multi Role' differs from US. It was about Multi-Role Tasking, whereas the US tended to design multi role loadouts. The F-4 Phantom for example, being a Gen 3 Fighter, already could carry a very wide variety of weapons, A-A and A-G. The Tornado is multi role capable in terms of doing for example: pin point strikes, RECON, ELINT, SIGINT, SEAD, DEAD, RWY attack, etc. Those are all A-G tasks still, and conducted with a lot smaller variety of weapons than in the US. And the main focus was on strike, the IDS ( -> Interdiction Strike) was the most produced variant. Panavia tried to advertise it as multi role in the US way by selling different sub variants, which were different planes though (e.g.: ADV) All in all maybe Europe did not understand multi role itself. The Typhoon was not able to carry any A-G munitions for quite some time. Europe had quite a different approach to things, also in an historical context. So I would not say that the Tornado is a multi role airplane, not like a 21 century F/A-18C or F-16C. Maybe like a 1980s F-16A and F/A-18A. And if it is, the F-111 is one as well. I see the F-111 as a Tornado with long legs and less focus on side A-G tasks of the cold war time. The Viggen really shows how planes were designed here. Do you see that as multi role? And to be honest, that is also a reason for me to have the Tornado as a favorite. We have quite a few US planes already.

1. Die Möglichkeit besteht. Je nach Flugzeug und integrationsaufwand. Das entscheidet jede Truppe selbst und Navy und AF können da unterschiedliche Anforderungen haben. 2. Bsp.: TGP target handoff für Maverick ist genau das selbe. Klar kann man alles mit der Maverick machen. Aber man kann ja auch onboard Senoren nutzen. Und die sind bei jedem Flieger anders und unterschiedlich schnell.

Das ist egal, der Flieger ist aber nen anderer. Bei der Verarbeitung der HARM-Daten kannt auch viel im Flieger ablaufen. Selbst wenn es die selbe HARM Verison ist, heißt das nicht das Such-Zeiten und -Pattern ähnlich sein müssen. Vielleicht verarbeitet der eine Flieger alles im defensive computer, der andere teil es zwischen Hauptrechner und attack computer auf, etc... Oder es wird bei einem flieger in der HARM verarbeitet. Was als Sensor genutzt wird ist ja dann wieder ne andere Frage. Das Prinzip ist klar? Letztendlich ist das Thema ja eh durch, wusste nicht das HARMs bei der Hornet noch verändert werden. Aber das klärt sich ja dann wenn das in der Hornet mal final ist. Du musst deine Fragen auch so stellen das ich sie beantworten darf ^^ Das kann ich also nur mit ner Frage beantworten: Muss denn unbedingt die HARM die "verschiedenen Frequenzbereiche" sehen? Was das Äquivalent zum HAS-Mode beim TOR angeht, muss ich die Frage offen lassen.

Haha, you are my man! Wenn DCS den TOR oder EF 1:1 realistisch machen würden, wäre hier regelmäßig der shit-storm unterwegs :'D "Die Sch**** geht nicht, fixt das!" - ... Die Sch**** geht halt in echt auch nicht (immer)^^ Muss ich jedes mal dran denken wenn ich den nächsten Main Computer crash hab. Wobei, ist ja auch ne (nicht open) beta. Anderes Thema: Hab ich hier und da schon öfter gschrieben, aber die Briten waren schon immer weiter. GR.1, GR.4, A400, EF... Die nutzen ihr zeug halt (kann man DE jetzt nicht direkt vorwerfen, darf ja jedes land selbst entscheiden wo und wie es agiert) und fixen es dann.

1. APKWS! Had to mention it after a comment in the Hornet + GBU-54 debate at least for the small 7x tubes... 2. hoist, awesome but hard to make, a whole new sim environment 3. RWR, deselect-able in the ME (like weapon pylons)

Would be cool to carry a more oldschool combination of LANTIRN and the TFR/AAQ-13. Would be enough for me to not wish for a Block 40. Could also be prohibited easily by not having LANTIRNs and AAQ-13s on base for those who don't like it.

No, that is actually the right behavior. The RWR gives you an indication of what it sees. If it sees a fighter radar emitting it's tracking (not searching) frequency, it tells you. You might think that you are locked, but how should an early generation RWR know, if the signal is for you or not. The RWR also doesn't know, if there is a buddy in between you and that emitting hostile fighter.

Cool, so we will get APKWS for the Huey then?

Hi guys, didn't expect to kick off such a nice thread with loads of information. Thanks for answering my question at the beginning. I knew that the Mi-24 was a lot more "basic" design than the Ka-50. But I did not know much more the Ka-50 is "sophisticated" than the Hind-P. It really is very much another helo then, which for me personally makes it a bit less interesting but for sure I will not say this in general. The A/C enthusiast inside me is still very much impressed.

There should be ways to enforce the loadout, although not very easy. Option 1.: While hosting a server you can set an option that clients are not able to change their loadout at all. The problem is, you have to place yets with all different variations of loadouts you want the clients to be able to use. While rearming, you will get the very same loadout again. At least that was an option some time ago, I havent used it ever, so I dont know if it still exists. Option 2.: Some servers check the loadout for validity while taking off, e.g. Blueflag. There should be a way to use such scripts to "kick" players using a "no no"-loadout, also considering not only the type, but the number of rounds as well. Just a question for myself, to Scrape: So although you have never seen it and it was never used, is it technical possible to wire up all 4 (both sides) stations to those T-connectors at the same time, or could the SMS then not handle the links? Asking because: On the bird I am working on, we need to re-wire stuff to use either fuel, or a LDP/TGP, or a GBU... Although this takes some time, we do that. So I see this as a matter of not changing the wires. I wouldn't be fan of having vipers flying around with 12 Mav's, but I have my guys "under control". I simply ask my people to not fly like that online and it works for me. If I join another server, I have to get on with the people on it, or I leave. We will never get to a solution on such debates. Some people like to fly just that airforces very same variant and want it to be technically or operationaly (two different things) as real as possible. Some others would like to fly other airforces birds which are close relatives to our bird...

Hey together, My question: Is the Hind version we get capable to get coordinates of of the position it is looking at with its targeting system? The question relates to / leads to: Can it be used to give coordinates to other aircraft attacking? My knowledge about the Hind is close to zero and I want to change that a little bit. Feel free to tell other things about the titels systems so I get an idea of what it is able to do. Thanks.

Das mit den HARMs wundert mich etwas, also das es in der Hornet nicht passt. Eine Bedienung wie jetzt in der Hornet und mit Scan-zeit in der Viper schließen sich nicht aus. Selbe Waffe hin oder her, bei den HARMs gibt es auch einige verschiedene Blocks. Die deutschen bekommen auch nicht die selbe AGM-88E AARGM wie die Navy hat. Solche eine Implementierung ist immer auf den Flieger bezogen und dessen Kapazitäten. Beim Tornado bspw. sieht der Suchkopf die Emitter fast instantan (-88B). Die Bedienung ist wieder völlig anders.

Hi, I am not sure about all of them, but I will try to help. 1. As far as I learned, you keep the pipper as good on the target as possible, so that the release gets more and more accurate. It is a good habit anyway because the plane is able to track the speed of moving targets for the rockets. 2. That. I think you can also press it a little bit earlier but thats how it works. 3. As far as I can remember the pull up cue should be displayed by your flight directors in the ADI/your artificial horizon. Not sure if it is properly displayed in the HUD. 4. I lately had the impression it is the center of the salvo. Unsure about that. Would make sense, it is like that in some other planes as well. 5. Speeds of 0.7 to 0.9 seem to be good. Maybe 0.9 is a bit fast. 400-500 knots equivalent is good for most planes in dive bombing with emphasis on 450-500. More important though is that you keep your speed rather constant and avoid to accelerate from 0.7 to 0.9 in the dive while releasing. After all you to experiment a little bit maybe, I do the same sometimes, as there are not so many videos on the viggen. Hope I could help, cheers!

If you are looking for strike rather than anti-ship, there is too few servers (at least in my eyes) There were some Swedish guys with a server called 'RED Sands' or something like that, in the Persian Gulf. It is missing for while now, but there is a new one I discovered 2 days ago. Something like -=Red strike=- or similar, also based in Sweden and plays the new Syria map. They have some pretty nice strike targets around. The Factorys on 'Blue Flag' Syria are also nice to strike, you need a couple of passes though if you are alone. Apart from that it's mostly CAS style servers/missions around.

From the above posted report, the ASW part is strange. Can't imagine that the Tornado GMR had just 40 nm of usable range for ships. I need to find some german navy pilots. From my knowledge, the GMR should be a little bit more capable than the Viggen AJ radar, but very comparable.

Well, I was wrong about the ALARM phase out then. I see the critic of the pilot there. HARMs self destruct simply by the velocity they have, If they hit nothing. Very useful. In my opinion it's true that the ALARM is not such a good SEAD weapon for dedicated SEAD missions. It is however a good SEAD self protection as a ride-along weapon for other missons. An example would be a flight of GR.1As doing reconnaissance, covering their photo-run, etc. We are starting to get good dedicated SEAD platforms in DCS, the F-18 is okay, JF-17 is good and the F-16C B50 is a true SEAD bird. But the ALARM can be seen as a way better SideARM.

Hey ho, I just compared the MIL values of the real AF T.O. with the ones in the DCS manual. (T.O. 1F-5E-34-1-1-1980) I wont post it for obvious reasons. DCS manual says: 20°, 1500ft, 400KIAS -> 80 MILS 30°, 2000ft, 440KIAS -> 79 MILS T.O. says: 20°, 1500ft, 400KIAS -> 120 MILS (Section VI, Table 6-10. (Sheet 3), page 6-59) 30°, 2000ft, 440KIAS -> 96 MILS ( as above (Sheet 4), page 6-60) Maybe I am digging in already reported stuff, please tell me. Anybody knows why there is such discrepancy? Which ones are best to use? I want to do it by book. Thumb rules are welcome, I have read a few, but procedures would be ideal.

Hi guys, a lot of conversation here, very nice. Was off for a couple of weeks, business at the former JaBoG 33... Tornado wing :D So I went through the couple of last pages and have to answer a few questions and correct some things: 1. ASSTA 2 was never a thing with the German Air Force. Airbus (had some other name back then) did develop it, but it became a part of ASSTA 3. In ASSTA 3 however, only the CRPMD (Combine Radar and Projected Map Display - "The round center thing in the back seat") and the radar/map projector in the front seat got replaced bei MFCDs. The TV/TABs remained (there are still some in the GAF) and get replaced for MFCDs with ASSTA 4.1 There happend other things, but just that you know how the cockpit changed visually. The old E-scope got changed as well as far as I know. About the MFCDs. They are nice, of course. But actually the old CRPMD had a way better resolution for the GMR (ground mapping radar). I heard a bunch of back seaters saying that for ground radar usage the new birds are actually waste/rubbish. Remember that for my resume at the end... 2. About Night-Cap: first I have to complete the equipment list, it has a Doppler radar for height The Tornado was very much night capable out of the box. More than other birds at that time, with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions being A-6 and/or F-111. NVG was not a thing back then, but I read that the British had field/combat modified jets ('Einsatzsofortbeschaffung' in german) in the early/mid 1990s for their combat operations. Have to check my GR.1 book. 3. About the British variants: The GR.1A had NO canons. Both sides were fitted with SLIR (side looking infra red). Same for the GR.4A. It was the GR.4 that had only one. The standard GR.1 (and GR.1B) had two canons. The GR.1B is a standard GR.1 which is wired for the Sea Eagle. It's really not a different variant. So Sea Eagle should be thing for DCS GR.1. Integrated FLIR came with the GR.4, LRMTS was a thing with the GR.1 and was very useful. Back in the cold war days, the main problem was to get a height fix, to have your bombs actually hit. Every WSO from pre GPS days tells that. LRMTS made it way easier to get a good range and height fix on the target, for me big reason for GR.1 over the German IDS. 4. About the weapons: The Germans use the IRIS-T but only since about 10-15 years, as the British used ASRAAM on their Tornados later on as well. Early 2000 and earlier only AIM-9s were a thing, for all nations. MW-1 and JP-233 were mentioned. Which one is better? I dont know. Essentially, the JP-233 always carried 2 types of submuntion. MW-1 could be fitted with single types but also different types at the same time. I heard that the MW-1 had more punch, but it were German pilots who said that... In the early 90s the British used the JP233 for runway denial in Iraq, it worked, but it was only useful for a couple of days. Iraqi airfields were very huge/wide and those mines which were dispensed were not very useful. I heard the would have liked to be able to use the MW-1 and not use mines but instead more denial bomblets. What really stands out for me personally is ALARM, which to my knowledge was scrapped with the introduction of the GR.4. This ARM is pretty versatile (more than other ARMs) and could be loaded to complement other loads. (On the stubs for example) For me it is kind of a must-have. A 2-ship flight could cover itself with 4-8 ALARMS in Loiter-Mode and still perform a good strike. British philosophy was not to have a dedicated SEAD asset, but that the flights could cover themselves and all birds should have the capability. JP-233 was also scrapped with GR.4, Storm Shadow was introduced with GR.4 (British and Saudi). KEPD Taurus is the German counterpart to Storm Shadow and came with ASSTA 1, as did GPS. 5. About the ECR: I think I have to clarify some things about the ECR (and with it IDS). HARMs can be used on both birds (to this day) As correctly mentioned, they are only used on ECRs in the GAF, but they could use it on IDS birds. The main factor of the ECR is the ELS, that's not a secret. Emitter Locating System. Apart from that it is actually not as special as widely believed. It does emitter location. We can do emitter locating in DCS already. The performance is pretty hard classified. Only thing to tell about that, the US thought about buying the ECR for a while, that comment to how good the ELS is. But other than that, it once had IRLS (IIS) [infra red Line scan / Infra-Red Imaging system], thats not so much of a secret and it once had ODIN, a pretty crappy Data link system, only could do ECR -> ECR (no other bird had that) And it has a FLIR. Also more of a toy from what I heard from actual users. It had the same Jammer as the IDS did, so there is not so much EW magic happening. It is really not that big of a thing. It has no guns. It's a dedicated SEAD/RECON Tornado, I think an early variant is doable. It is nice. But I think it is not necessary, the other variants can do the same thing except for the emitter location, and we would never get its real performance. A GR.1+GR.1A+GR.1B packet would have the same use. And those birds are pretty similar, a lot more than the two F-14s we get. Plus SkyShadow was the better Jammer, but still, EW is crap in DCS atm. Just wanted to mention it. Resume: So for you guys, I don't know what you want, but if you love that cold war striker with a fancy A-G radar (for its time), the earlier birds are simply better. I dont know how good the TARDIS (the British replacement for the CRPMD), I think it is pretty cool. I also think the GR.4 is very capable. But the Tornado was forced into a roll it never was intended for. It did medium altitude CAS and RECON for the last 20 years but the original equipment was not used for that any more. GMR and TFR (Terrain following radar) are not really used any more. I think F-16, F-18 and F-15E will be platforms that can do those things better, apart from carrying 9 Brimstone maybe, or 4 Storm Shadow. But they use less fuel at medium alt. while having better engine performance and agility. The Tornado really is a brick at 15000ft and above, and I am not talking about dogfight. It has to go 450++ knots and below 10000ft to shine. For me it's a GR.1. It had LGB in the 1990s, ALARM, early equivalent of a TGP (TIALD), a nice A-G radar, Sea Eagle (GR.1B) but also that older stuff and could use it to its full potential. My dad was a german IDS cold war WSO, even they said the British simply had better equipment, except for the SMS (store management system). I would be thankful for a ASSTA 1 or earlier IDS, an Italian one, those have ILS. But apart from the GR.4 being very fancy, we have a lot of fancy stuff already and they do better. I think we will be disappointed of an ASSTA 3 (or more) IDS or a GR.4 with the other birds around.

I recently did a night time test in single player out of the mission editor. Even though I communicated with the ATC, no lights were put on. Is this a known bug for Creech AFB?

No problem. Just drop me a message here or on Discord. ( Bananabrai#2968 ) More info on our guys: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4177269&postcount=17 F-4 will be the next big thing for me as well, as long as there is no Tornado announced...

Hi, I am not sure if I can trigger your interest, but: I am from germany as well, and as long as there is no Tornado, the Viggen will stay as one of my favorit modules. I founded a german virtual squadron, the vJaBoG 34 "Allgäu". Long story shortened for you: We're basically trying to keep things very simple and fun, but still want to learn proper flying beginning with the YaK and ending on the F-5. There is more to it but we can talk about that later. I really like to fly the Viggen to its potential, however I am struggling to find pilots to fly it with , and most of the time I am alone in the bird. So to have a proper 2-ship I mostly fly other modules at the moment. If I catched you're interest and you happen to have time on a thursday between 2000-2200 LCL, just raise your hand...