Bananabrai

Richtig. 2+2 Config. Aber ohne Tanks hat der Tornado recht kurze Beine. IDS internal fuel: 4800kg (zum Vergleich mit Hornet/Viper ~10500 lbs) 2x1500L wing tanks (=2400kg / ~5200 lbs) -> wären dann fast 16000 lbs mit tanks Dir fehlt halt dann 1/3 fuel

As of my knowledge, TFR is still functional in the german birds, however it is not used any more. They froze the training for it, I heard. A bid weird. If it's broken, they need to repair it, but they never use it/do maintenance. 90s and early 2000 german IDS are pretty different to late GR.1 and GR.4. Targeting pod and guided munitions became a thing a lot later.

I would love to see an updated F-5. Best case for me would be twin-seated version. Would also be nice to get the Photo-/Recon-nose and do some recon with this totally underrated bird. Of course a refueling probe and the option for two Mavs or 2 more Sidewinders on pylons would be awesome. Unfortunately the AGM-78 got rejected already. That one would be quite nice, also for the Huey. And quite easy do make.

Ich sags mal so, es ist nicht alles Gold was glänzt. Die ASSTA 3.1 ist sicher nicht schlecht, aber einfach schon sehr stark für medium level bombing gemacht, die Triebwerke aber so gar nicht. Gestern in der Kafferunde einen Witz von dem englischen Testpiloten des Typhoon gehört. Der hat bei einem Meeting in Warton mal gesagt, der Tornado bräuchte auf 20.000ft statt nem Mach-Counter eher einen Abreiss-Kalender. Und die Briten waren einfach schon immer fleißiger mit Nachrüsten und Pflege der Fähigkeiten. Würde gerne viel mehr aus dem Nähkästchen plaudern, aber ich bin einfach zu dicht an der Quelle. Ich denke dass was auf Wikipedia und co steht, gibt einen guten Eindruck. Der Brite war halt wesentlich früher der Namensgebung MRCA (Multi Role Combat Aircraft) treu. Nur mal so als Beispiel. Die Insel-Leute konnten ihr leider sehr schlechtes SMS (Stores Mangement System) wesentlich vielfältiger programmieren. Kannst ohne problem 2 ALARM, 2 Sidewinder, nen TIALD und 2 GBU-16/Paveway IV mitnehmen, und das schon mit dem GR.1 Mitte/Ende der 90er. Mit 2 großen Portionen Kerosin. Abgesehen davon, dass das mit unseren HARMs (zu groß) / GBUs (nicht die richtigen Pylons am Flieger) nicht geht, unser SMS konnte sowas damals nicht mal. Was ich bisher nicht weiß, wie gut der SkyShadow im Vergleich zum Cerberus II und III war. Da müsste man mal an Erfahrungsberichte kommen...

The best dream I can imagine. Just be careful not to get wet

Hi there, sorry if this has been asked before. Does the F-16 we get also feature a terrain avoidance radar mode, which we could use at least for manual flight, like in the Viggen and A-4? I'm not talking about the TFR, I sadly know its not going to happen, as the FLIR isn't. As I understand, such a mode is "planned" for the F-18. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3285514&postcount=13 Sensors: A/A radar with TWS, SCAN RAID, AZ/EL A/G radar with MAP, EXP1, EXP2, EXP3, SEA, GMT, PVU, AGR, IRA, and TA AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR Targeting Pod Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) Link-16 AWW-13 Datalink Pod NVGs Other question: What else is there to be expected as in comparison to this entire list of features for the Hornet? What weapons could there be, except from the ones already mentioned in the sticky thread.

F-4 J/N/S would be awesome. I can also understand that they picked the E. The lineup you are talking about will take another 20 years... About the Cold War Hornet: Shouldn't it be possible to program a failure for the MIDS in the Mission Editor?

I wish we could have an F-4D after reading this. I always like the looks of the short nosed birds better. Well, that's not up to us to decide. I'm still happy about an F-4E

Die Performance der Titan RTX in DCS würde mich auch interessieren. Würde sie mir zwar nie zu den aktuellen Preisen kaufen, aber könnte mir vorstellen, dass sie besser als eine 2080Ti ist, solange die restliche Hardware mitspielt. Also falls da einer mal die Möglichkeit hat, wäre sehr cool.

Moin, was soll die Teilhabe den Kosten? Und was kostet das ganze überhaupt? Ich müsste dann ja das nachholen, was du bereits schon gemacht hast. Mit was für einer Summe rechnest du, bist du fertig bist?

The Mirage is the only true delta as 'tailless delta' here. Viggen has a double config, thats completely out of the row. The MiG-21 has a 'tailed delta' which is pretty close to a conventional layout. The F-16 has the same layout, but I have not seen it being mentioned as a delta so far.

Wird halt Zeit für einen Tornado GR1 und der ALARM dazu. Die kann dann erstmal fein im Loiter-Mode abgefeuert werden und hängt dann über der pre-planned/designated location am Fallschirm und wartet nur darauf, dass das Radar wieder angeht. :music_whistling: Das Verhalten aud der Blue Flag ist aber tatsächlich cool. Gefählt mir, auch wenn es so natürlich hart ist. In wirklichkeit wird aber auch eher SEAD wie DEAD geflogen, da eben die Besatzungen auch nicht so gern drauf gehen wollen.

The ME is in some respects so limited, that it is hard to only state bugs but no features. For my level of MEing, there are actualy not that many bugs. 1. Change coalations after intital setup 2. Remove trees and objects does not sync in multiplayer 3. "spawn on ground" or "spawn on ground (hot)" function for client aircraft (I count this as a bug, as I modify the file myself after every update) 4. Rivers and lakes are not considered water for appropriately sized ships (Lake Mead is big enough for AShW exercises) 5. No indication that AI waypoints are too short for a given task (already mentioned) Features: 1. Polygonal trigger zones, at least triangular and rectangular, country borders (PG and Caucasus) and airspaces (NTTR) "trigger-zone-able" (nearly a bug for me) 2. FARPs with scaleable FARP-zones/mobile FARP zones (road bases for Viggens, Hornets, Harriers, already mentioned) 3. Better Weather UI (easier dynamic weather setup, multiple layers (XPlane 11)) and actual real time weather like in FSX or similar 4. Hidden units not actually hidded, but faded to ~20% or hidden but shown when mouse-over + easy key binding to hide/unhide objects 5. Setup for a multi level F10 radio menu for cascaded triggers/new units spawn/... (like MOOSE; ex.: F10 -> F1: blue, F2: red, -> ..F2.. -> F1: SAMs, F2: Patrols, F3: Flights ...)

I am having some deviation of this error. I have an older mission (not that old, post v2.5, worked 2 month ago as supposed), where UASF Aggressors was put on the red fraction manually by myself at the initial setup. I opened the mission yesterday, clicked on a red UASF-Agg F-4E, un-clicked, clicked the unit again and from now on this unit is a blue USA fraction F-4E. The USAF Aggressors are still listed with the red fraction in the general mission parameters, but I can not set the unit to USAF-Agg, as it is not available in the units drop-down menu. I checked the mission.lua in the .miz file. USAF-Agg is listed for red, as supposed. I try and post my mission here the next days.

I am having the same problem at least with "CAP"

Well, the Canberra is a high altitude bomber with no burners. You would never get such a range from a low flying bomber. The TSR was huge, in size and financially, and the UK wanted to build it on their own. It would crtainly have been a great aircraft, though less airframes I guess. And less of a bird that unites us. I think the Tornados range is pretty good for its small size and relativley high weapon load. A jet of this size with 28 tons of weight is quite ok. My dad was an IDS backseater. At Red Flag they used to take off first and come in last. With a GR1 with two big tanks or a 3-tanker config you have a way better range at low level, than a F-16 with two 600gal tanks, at least if I my calculation is right...

True. I like the Viggen as well. But you are missing a good point here. The Viggen was build to defend Sweden. If you are familiar with aircraft design, you're going to see that pretty quick. You need a quick turn-around time if the enemy is on your territory. But it's not designed to strike deeper into enemy territory. One crew member is barely enough to perform a 100% accurate strike. You got 9 waypoints, you drop all bombs at once and you have to land if you need fuel, although you can land in the woods. The weapon system only allows for certain combinations. The Tornado is also capable of landing at a road base, only with less good wheel brakes. The F-111 is a strategic strike platform, as is the Tornado. (at least the UK ones with more than 5000 kg of internal fuel) per definition. I wish you good luck of performing a strike on an outpost, bad weather, night, 500 miles out, alone in the 'pit. You simply need two people for that. I see the Viggen as kind of a 'strike-interceptor'. The others are long range 'strike-fighters'. These aircraft look more similar than they are. About the point "plenty of SEAD around": I think the Tornado is way better at SEAD than a Hornet.

Hey, I don't know all of them, but a few. First you have to understand that the British like to use their own way of designation. Example: Take a Volkswagen Golf, generation three (1993-1998 or so). In Germany, people will say "Golf three". In the UK people say something like "Golf Mk. three" (Mk. stands for mark) I understand it as a way of clearly stating the generation of something. The GR1 is their first iteration of an IDS Tornado, or Tornado in genreal, because the row is like that: GR1, F2, F3, GR4. So in full something like "GR1 IDS", where the "GR" more or less stands for the role "IDS" (InterDiction Strike). Its their way of describing the role, like the US with F-111, A-10, SR-71, and all those letters as role designation. Now to the differences. The planes were very similar across the nations in the early days. One big difference was the additional fuel tank the British GR1s had in the fin (vertical stabilizer). As of my knowledge it holds approximately 500kg of extra fuel, so the British could hold up to 5300kg whereas the other two nations birds were at 4800kg of internal fuel. Another difference was the SMS (Stores Management System, where you configure and select the stores) where Germany had a "digital" one and the British birds had a pretty easy/standard one A third notably difference is the "Laser Range Finder & Marked Target Seeker" (LRMTS). Its the right hand sensor (Note that the FLIR on the left side came only with the GR4) and does what it says. It was not able to designate a target for a guided bomb run. There are possibly other A/C specific differences, for example the British later on used two small stub-pylons per inboard wing station, whereas the other nations used only one per side. And then there is the different stores of course. The British used dual carriers for their iron bombs, so they could fly with 8 instead of 4, or 5. They sometimes used bigger external fuel tanks (2250L vs. 1500L), although Germany had those big ones as "single use, war time, drop tanks", but never used them as of my knowledge. The UK had a target designation pod quite some time earlier than the other nations. The TIALD was operational used in the 90s already. The list goes on. I guess the different stores which were used are already stated by QuiGon and are also described on wikipedia. https://www.tornadosig.com/variants.html

Mature GR.1 is the way to go! Plus, the GR.1 is closer to the other IDS's. The development drifted apart with introduction of the GR.4. Complete overkill, but who cares, it should even carry two more on the other stubs :helpsmilie:

Hey, I once requested this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3486753#post3486753 Someone made it, but the quality is not too good. Maybe we could combine this request for East and West german markings :pilotfly:

One canon less, but a huge display instead of the CRPMG in the back. And wasn't the Storm Shadow in right form the early GR.4 days? However, other weapons do give a lot more satisfaction if you nail it! A FLIR is very nice, I would really love one, but I would rather not trade it in for the Sea Eagle and JP233. (As far as I know, those were discontinued on the GR.4)

Hi, is there a chance of adding this recon script to the MOOSE framework? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=168275 Here is the last version of the guy who made it. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2899133&postcount=22 Would be a nice addition.

They indeed lost capabilities. The resolution of the MFDs is lower then the CRPMG. On the CRPMG the details were more nuance. TFR is frozen, they're not even sure if they can be reactivated. So no low level in bad wather any more. They gained 3 JDAMS, more is not cleared yet. They mostly gained in EW stuff, but that would not affect us. So in terms of DCS, we would even get less, if we get a modern bird.

late GR.1 with GR.1B option (possibly even GR.1A option) I see it as the most versatile Platform. Why? - The big fuel tanks - Twin-stub pylons per side, you can fly yourself a SEAD escort with 4 ALARMs while carrying other stuff on the belly - Even more fuel in the fin - TIALD, a TGP with temperament - GBUs - GR.1B would give us Sea Eagles - loads of other nice toys I would take a GR.4 over any ASSTA bird, you can't see s*** on those MFDs Italian IDS would be nice as well. They got Maverick-rails, though I'm not sure they ever used them with the according "sticks"... The rest of the nice German stuff would fit on them (MW-1, Kormoran, AGM-88B/C) And they got colored TV/TABS at some point, but not sure when.

Im Flieger selbst im Flug würde man ggf. zur Vereinfachung die IPs aus dem Kniebrett nutzen.