PFunk1606688187

No problemo. :)

This one's easy. Start with the speed and follow the pattern as drawn. You can then determine what G load achieves sustained turn performance at a given weight and altitude. To understand what it means also involves knowing what weight your plane is typically, what drag you have (I don't know how these old figures relate to modern ordnance so just assume 4-8 is typical for a loaded A-10) and so you can get a feeling for what loads to shoot for when turning at a given regime. So look at things form the perspective of typical ops. You know you're in a knife fight, you're gonna have to turn to defend yourself. You drop everything you can and are left with 2*AIM-9, 1*TGP, 1*ALQ-184. With 60% fuel the plane weighs about 35000 pounds. We know the engines produce better thrust low so you're gonna want to help yourself by getting into the weeds so ignore higher altitude figures. Great, now lets look at the chart. 300KIAS@5000MSL gives us a sustained turn rate of 2G 300KIAS@MSL gives us about 2.6G 250KIAS@5000MSL gives us about 2.7G 250KIAS@MSL gives us about 3.1G 225KIAS@MSL gives us about 2.9G 275KIAS@MSL gives us about 2.9G So we can see that to stay near 3Gs of potential turn performance without bleeding off speed badly you need to stay low and drop lots of stuff. If you're ingressing at max load and full fuel though you're in trouble since at 45000 lbs at 250 knots at sea level you're down to 2.4Gs. Turning will inevitably knock you down to the middle 200s but you can diligently avoid getting any slower by not exceeding the above mentioned loads. Go compare that to turn rate and radius charts and a bunch of other stuff and you can estimate which part of the envelope the A-10 has its best chance in.

Some types of charts are basically universal in terms of how you read them, its a scheme and once you learn it it becomes clear. In the case of the A-10A's -1 supplement it has a lengthy explanation of how to read every single chart presented. It also includes lots of little side charts with it that basically boil some of the charts to rules of thumb. In terms of applying these figures to daily flying sometimes its blatantly obvious what they're intended for, such as: "OPTIMUM CRUISE ALTITUDE FOR SHORT-RANGE MISSIONS Standard Day"

Training usually comes with everything involving flying. Are there any specific charts you're talking about? Maybe I missed where someone pointed them out. Oh good, we've graduated to this phase of the discussion. :laugh:

Its not even just about Sniper versus Litening as much how old the one we're using is compared to whats being fielded today. There are newer versions of LITENING pods that would equally put the one we have to shame. Ours is as far as I can tell more than 10 years out of date. EDIT. I just read that the export version of the Sniper XR is called PANTERA.

Actually you just need a Swedish diesel electric.

Is that what this thread is about? The idea that some people think flying is either about ignoring all numbers (which makes no sense because you have instruments everywhere) or about doing nothing but reading performance charts in one hand while flying with the other? Welcome to the internet, home of the false binary argument.

I just use my keyboard's numpad as a UFC. Combined with the keys on the Insert->Page Down cluster and the Arrow Keys I can get just about anything I need.

I wonder what Topgun classes are like. Surely they don't spend the whole time talking about their feelings....

Masochistic, or realistic? Whats the range of an AWACS radar anyway? Why can't it be stuck on the far side of the map with the protection only intruding on the periphery of the battlespace? It seems like real SAM networks should be masochistic anyway to me. Thats how they're designed, as meshed interdependent systems, but then DCS' weakness in the SEAD and EW department kind of stands out when you do that I guess.

So just put the impressive SAMs in a ring around/line in front of the AWACS so that the legendary range of the AIM-54 is nullified... or am I still missing something?

I'm curious about all these supposed issues with AWACS and the AIM-54. Surely a mission designer can just put a string of pretty impressive SAMs within the typical WEZ relative to the AWACS orbit, yes?

What do you mean by "optically targeted"?

That was already answered. The answer is 'kind of'.

All I'm gonna say is that anybody that ever dropped a bomb by "feel" before CCIP probably never hit a damned thing.

INS drift was a serious issue for A models and without an INS update during a long flight it was possible that drift could make all coordinates good for little more than an "in the ballpark" estimation of position. I read one story of a long long CSAR flight done during Desert Storm where the A-10 pilot had suffered so much drift due to not being able to update that coordinates he had on the downed pilot's location were basically useless and he had to use a combination of visual references to the terrain and homing to the strength of the radio signal (by flying til it didn't degrade, not by using some fancy homing mode) in order to find then re-find the pilot after tanking. GPS is amazing isn't it? Though lets be aware that in real life GPS jamming is a real problem for a proper hot war and as such I believe that elements of things like Red Flag involve simulated GPS jamming (I think). In that situation INS drift is likely to re-enter the equation, though not for us since GPS is not actually simulated in DCS, its imitated and so there's no way to even pretend its jammed except by turning EGI off. Even so I don't believe HARS is fully modeled either.

I think that pushing the A-10C to the limits of whats possible would be a good model for doing other modern jets that use similar or identical systems, much the same way the F-15 super sonic FM and the F/A-18C A2G radar will be used to help develop other modules.

I wouldn't even call it ECM. If it were indeed a useful simulation of it then no doubt ED would have tweaked it to be remotely useful in context.

That seems like total cheese. Its like an infinite counter-parry move, street fighter style. He does the attack combo and you do the block combo and as long as you keep that up its all good.

To spare us the anguish. Yes, thank you.

I always knew it that the jammer was basically ineffective since it only successfully jams outside of the effective firing range of any given system and we only think it works because the SAMs are so stupid that they lock you at ranges far beyond one that they can fire from.

Everyone memorizes at least some key bits of performance data, even if they don't realize it. For the A-10 one of the easiest and best references is the standard climb speed schedule that is 200 KIAS minus 1 knot per 1000 feet above Seal Level. Kind of a useful rule of thumb of this pig. Why wouldn't I want to know that? If I were serious about wanting to be able to maximuze the A-10's performance in a knife fight if I get caught and forced to defend myself through aggressive BFM then I would probably want to know some other things like corner speed and sustained turn rates and such just so I can practice in that regime and then get a feel for it. I honestly think that people who make the argument about feel versus numbers are missing the point that most feel is derived from training with numbers so that you don't need to think about numbers when you need them.

If VR is a device that is going to become a legitimate part of the mainstream multimedia experience then there are going to be competitors. They're all basically at this point putting their own spin on the same concept. Down the line I don't see why compatibility for multiple VR devices can't be possible in games. I certainly don't want Oculus to be the only VR device to receive compatibility support from developers.

Nope, this is all passed on to me conversationally.

I think thats clearly wrong since one of the advertized features of the CBU-97 is that munitions that don't find a target become inert. They shouldn't be blowing up at random like a CBU-87.