lunaticfringe

Grooves ain't been cool since Hyde's dad sold out. So better he not have his moniker wasted so. ;)

Just wanted to mention that a number of retailers are running Samsung's Fathers Day promotion for the next two weeks, and you can get a free Gear VR with the purchase of a Note 5, S7, or S7 Edge. Actually picked up a Note 5 from Best Buy this week, and they permitted me to get the VR at no charge today, even though the promotion just started this morning. So if you need a new phone and are interested in the Galaxy hardware, keep this in mind.

Doesn't actually matter; the longer the range, the *less* the relative aspect change a target can make against the weapon.

I have already provided Leatherneck with 2-2-13, and was their source for F14AAP-1.1.

Something to keep in mind is that the AWG-9 used frequency modulation as a technique to get around range ambiguity- subsequently, the ability to do this in a discrete fashion is already built into the system. Tie a specific modulation pattern to a missile as part of its tuning sequence, and invoke that modulation at the exact moment the TWS sweep should be looking in the airspace of a target needing update, and you just gave a specific missile its data. Meanwhile, the AWG-9 processes the return it sees just like any other pulse. Depending on the bar/azimuth setting of the radar in TWS, there is essentially two possible timestamps for duration between sweeps. If the modulation is constructed with both a cue (to tell the missile to look) and a simple data package- such as modulation plus a secondary "off" modulation that somehow denotes range or a timestamp, you just gave actual range, or a component from which range can be computed using simple time, speed of light, and the weapon's own downrange travel and off-boresight shift to the target. Even an analog system of the day would be able to perform the computations just using its own speed (based on the specific launch/loft profile invoked at launch- of which there were several) and, generally speaking, not need the secondary part of the suggested modulation package- just the modulated ping to say "THAT GUY". As far as the number of NPS thesis excerpts, DTIS/NTIS reports, and a few applicable NAVAIR documents, the -54A's datalink was very limited; with what I can ascertain, you're likely looking at simple changes in profile, designating active/HOJ, or perhaps updating the relative aspect indication to the weapon to something other than what it was told prior to launch (see: left RIO upright panel). When the AIM-54C became available, all sorts of magic happened with the DL in conjunction with the change to command inertial guidance. You don't know what value would be found by a missile getting anything in the way of a range update as part of a reflected signal transmitted by it's launching aircraft at, accounting for atmospheric loss, 98% of the speed of light, because the target might have changed course and/or velocity in the time it took for... ...the most recent target pulse to be received... ...the AWG-15 to compute the apparent range... ...delay between bar/scan evolution (~6 seconds)... ...the AWG-9 to transmit the new modulated pulse... ...the pulse to reach the target aircraft and reflect... ...and the reflection to reach the missile in question? Do you legitimately think a target is going to change these dynamics in an integral fashion in perhaps seven seconds to a point where the missile can't use it? A target moving at 500 knots hasn't moved a mile and a half in that time. And engagement dynamics being what they are, if they haven't gotten a shot warning or are otherwise occupied, the the aspect isn't making appreciable difference on the Doppler side of the house. Missile sees the return, adjusts for angle, and calculates new internal estimate of range. The weapon doesn't specifically need that data, but in proportional navigation every little bit helps. And depending on the methodology it's trivial for the weapon to compute raw range from transmission, rather than its power.

As far as you know. It could be SOP, it may be situational, it may not- that wasn't the item of contention. What was is that maneuvering NWS couldn't be deactivated in the F-15C, and that is false in accordance with the -1. Beyond that, the real point of discussion is not the function of NWS in the Eagle-C, but the fact that it is exhibiting a tendency in multiplayer that it does not in off-line usage. Whether one or the other is the correct tendency isn't the issue, but the fact that the employment of steering methodology on take off is different, when in fact they should be the same. Now, do I think somebody is running around in the 45-degree maneuver mode on TO? Nope- because that's asking for trouble. And the short travel range deactivates as soon as the strut first extends.

Sure you can- actuate the paddle switch under your right pinkie.

Same place all the fun stuff like this comes up these days- rhymes with "TJ". And no, I don't want the 1-3CL-1.

Which? TO 1F-15C-34-1-1 1 February 1979 Non-Nuclear Weapon Delivery Manual F-15C/D? TO 1F-15C-34-1-3 15 January 1995 Non-Nuclear Weapon Delivery Manual F-15A/B/C/D MSIP WITH VHSIC? F-15 Armament Handbook McDonnell Aircraft Company 1979? Because I have hardcopies of the latter two on my shelf, and digital of the first, and none of them show it for the air-to-air tasked F-15A/C Eagle.

Saitek is currently on its last legs surrounding licensing, having terminated 40 percent of its workforce in February. This doesn't simply extend to Rock Band, but that silly simulator they fronted millions for in sponsorship a couple years back. Not exactly the best track record in decision-making with respect to their marketing and cross-promotional dollars.

Not really, as far as I can tell. Here's the sequence.

Uncage/Cage are not *modes*. They are *functions*. Boresight is boresight- the missile's seeker is pointing dead ahead. Scan is what you *think* as to being "Uncage"- the missile is looking in the field programmed by the FCS: the FoV. Uncage is something you do AFTER HAVING A LOCK ON. The reason this matters is because a *mode* is what the FCS will default back to if the acquisition is lost.

In effect, what is happening is that current DCS functionality accelerates the process- uncage is swapping between no-scan and scan (as illustrated), boresighting the missile to pure depressed from gun cross, or permitting search within the FoV circle (the collapsed circle versus the expanded pair), or remaining slaved to the radar. When acquisition is made through whatever means, the FoV circle is being removed along with other data (when radar slaved), and immediately showing the seeker position on the target, or decoy/other heat source. This is what would happen with acquisition plus the uncage press. So the function is correct, minus the press in between.

This is incorrect. No lock functionality (commonly known as "uncage", but is a misnomer across other types) is different depending on the specific airframe, because the seeker is still being directed to function within a specific region for pilot reference; what that reference is remains based on the FCS logic of the aircraft in question: The F-15's no-lock pre-acquisition seek function in DCS is basically correct, as it hunts in the depressed FoV circle. Uncage with a track removes this circle, showing seeker acquisition. Uncage without a track defaults back to the FoV circle. The F-14's no-lock seek pre-acquisition function (designated as boresight) places the weapon on the ADL (armament datum line), cycling that line up and down. The F-16's no-lock uncage follows a specific pattern that is different from both of the above aircraft; it is not the default of the weapon itself. "Uncage" merely decouples the seeker from the radar. If you are forced to decouple (due to no lock, or are "proofing" the shot to confirm valid seeker track), the seeker is going to go where the FCS tells it, or fixate on what it already has acquisition of. That the switch is called "uncage" doesn't mean that it is a specific function of the missile- it's still being told to do something, and do it in a fashion that permits the pilot to know where it is.

"...and videos of YT show it in F-15C." Thanks for playing.

No it doesn't. Thanks for playing, though.

USAF FWS F-4 Phantom II Non-Nuclear Delivery Course Manuals on CD http://www.ebay.com/itm/272226311699?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1 on CD http://www.ebay.com/itm/272227359525?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 Coming soon: F-15A/C RTU Manuals NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-2-2-13 Various other training, technical publications

Both. You press the button and it lights up as an indicator.

The most applicable manuals would be 2-2-16.2, as well as the 2-2-16A sequence. You're not getting them. Especially the A suffixes. It's already been attempted. Hell, I couldn't even get 01-F14AAP-1.1 out of NAVAIR with a FOIA, and that has no conformity with Iranian hardware, period, and had to go a different route to get mine. The United States Navy is very particular about what it permits, and what it will fight for, with regards to the US FOIA. Example: the USAF research we know as Project Red Baron, the second and third volumes, were reviewed post-declassification by an acquaintance of mine in the late 90s for his elective work at the USMC CSC. At one point during the process of work, the copies available for him to review were fully declassified- not one single line of redaction over thousands of pages. Returning perhaps a year later to continue his study, entire sections were redacted. Pages of nothing but blank boxes covering up the text. That was in 99. I FOIA'ed a few sections of the reports in 2013. The redactions were still in place. 1999 was already 25 year mandatory declassification territory, meaning the USN is still playing the technical card. This likely stems from Sparrow, which is still in their inventory in the M variant and has maneuvering profile that remains almost verbatim to the E2, which was detailed in full in said text. And that said- even the classified sections of the Operational Maintenance manuals may not hold the ultimate descriptors of what is going on; most of the hardware is line replacement, rather than repair- it's faster to give the BIT faults to the technician, give him the specifics of what he will see in the failure mode, and tell him to swap X box, rather than to describe the entire nature of what is happening under the hood. The -1A and -1T may give hints, but again, those aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

More aptly to be a lit MSL PREP, but a failed BIT on the RIO's TID. The pilot doesn't have any interaction with the tuning other than activating the signal function to the missiles, and he doesn't have any faults to display from it. Management would likely be all on the RIO side with the Computer Address Panel, although I don't have the applicable manuals (all with the prefix *A) to tell you specifically yes or no.

SW COOL can initiate cooling, or it can be initiated by throwing the ACM MODE switch under the left cover. Either way, it does light up to indicate. MSL PREP initiates cooling of AIM-54s, and performs tuning of both AIM-54 and AIM-7 missiles. If the LIQ COOLING switch (RIO cockpit, left hand console) isn't thrown to AWG-9/AIM-54 prior to takeoff, you're SOL.

DDD shows range, rather than rate, while in PD SRCH, RWS, and TWS modes, functioning as a B-Scope. Velocity Search shows the values as rate information.

Not at all. I used the Mil with 30 degrees because its: a. its an averaging of stall (Mil and Power Off, and you'd note the same on the AB chart), and effectively the point of standard wing stall calculation if you run the raw numbers for the F-15. b. The Max Power Chart makes his contention even worse, because it would show the Eagle having almost three G available at 165 knots, but only able to sustain 2 in accordance with the two gauge STR chart. b. I have a wife going into labor (just going through browser windows on my phone now waiting on a final ultrasound, thus I saw this response) so I'll save the time for games with actual children, instead of grown ones. ;)

Simply not worth the time.

Kindle: $5. Awesome book. http://www.amazon.com/ROGER-BALL-ODYSSEY-MONROE-FIGHTER/dp/1605280054