marcos

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx As I predicted.

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=690&pagetemplate=release 300nm range.

Cheers. Damn. Putin's like an 'It Girl'. He gets everywhere.

Flanker, is that a fuel tank on the Ka-52's left wing or a KMGU?

Never said it was???

Well I think that's the point. You don't actually have to learn FPV, it's just intuitively obvious.

Well I think that's as good as an inadvertent admission that FPV is better, if not having FPV makes things more difficult.

Cool. Looks like they're bringing back the 250lb Paveway (GBU-58 ): http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1840 Should be good for lesser targets.

Ah, so I wonder if: EPW II = GBU-48 Paveway IV = GBU-49 EPW III = GBU-50 There's certainly some conflicting information here: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/paveway-2.html and here: http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/enhancedpaveway.cfm

:megalol:

Interesting. I struggle to keep up with the Paveway nomeclature but AFAIK the Paveway IV is a Mk-82 warhead with the GBU-48's enhanced guidance (laser + GPS/INS)? The Paveway III is just a GBU-10 but with more efficient guidance software?

Or aliens with large heads.:D

I know that the wings of the F-15K were built in S. Korea, so maybe they ****ed up. TBH, it's very difficult to visualise what they're talking about. I think by 'upper wing' they mean the JASSM fin.

I wonder if it's a problem caused by the small seeker head on LGBs. I noticed that the new LJDAMs have a wider seeker head. The smaller seeker head could mean that the bomb has to be pointing in the right direction to see the target lase and therefore takes a flatter trajectory, whereas a wider head can see more and guide itself on a more ballistic trajectory. Other than that I can't see why the bomb guidance system wouldn't just plan a more typically ballistic route to the target.

If they made airliners for fat people, they would look like that.

From an engineering-style control perspective, closed-loop is better than open-loop. There are many degrees of open and closed loop but the Su-25T system is broadly open loop. The HUD tells you left or right and right and wrong but it does't tell you how much left or right, or how right or wrong you are, so the drive cannot be proportioned to the error. As such, from a purely analytical perspective, the drive will tend to lead to more overshoot and/or a slower response time.

SBL IFX http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2993 http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-01d.html http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/about/ngtr_journal/assets/TRJ-2000/FW/00FW_Waypa.pdf SLIRBM/SLGSM http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/slirbm.htm http://www.atk.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-and-atk-complete-booster-system-demonstration-for-proposed-u-s-navy-intermediate-range-missile/ http://www.atk.com/news-releases/atk-and-lockheed-martin-complete-second-motor-test-for-proposed-u-s-navy-intermediate-range-missile/

Bingo. Thanks.

autoupdate.txt?

So what do I do to update? Thought it was automatic with 1.2.1?

I think we should realise that the Su-25T is pretty old at this stage and not make assumptions about newer stuff. My comments pertain only to the Su-25T navigation as featured on DCS AFAIK.

Nobody said they hated Russian planes, nor that they couldn't fly without an FPV for that matter. They just said that the FPV was better and that's what they would choose. Same issue with the gimballed targeting pod. I'll say again, the issue isn't that people can't use the Su-25T navigation system, it's just that they find it worse overall. Try to see it as using a hand-pump on a car tyre versus the automatic pumps you get at garages. You can use a hand pump, but would you want to?

I'm currently at 1.2.1.5970. Is that the latest?

So if you undo a DCS auto-update, how is it fixed? Automatically?

If you do a system restore, will you lose a DCS update?