pr1malr8ge

Well, lets give my .02... I'm looking forward for the f18 and not because I want to do what the a10 can do. It wont replace the a10 for cas. It can't. It as other have said doesn't have the loiter time nor the low altitude ops the a10 has. In simple terms You don't/shouldn't loiter in the f18 below 10k agl. which makes visual spotting well A LOT harder. So with that. I want to fly the f18 for the sead/strike purposes. Go blazing in launch harms maybe a bomb or 2 then turn around and high tail it back to the ship. If I want to sit around and look for something to blow up Ill fly the hawg.

Even though mig29 su27 ect is a "Large" aircraft when standing next to one. In terms of scale compared to a bomber/tanker/awacs like a tu95 bear, kc35 ect ect. they are considered Small. With that being said. The F15 radar is able to see contacts to 60nm and beyond but realistically that's figured into the bomber category or Large aircraft when the radar mode was developed for the sim. While I have at times seen fighters out that far, this was because the aircraft was co-altitude and dead on the nose and I was in narrow search pattern. Even then It if memory recalls I could not lock nor did the contact stay on the screen. how ever I can see the tanker & awacs just fine at those rangers. In dcs fighter contacts don't show up till like FeeFifofum mentioned less then 50nm. So no, it's not an issue on your end or really on the end of the sim either.

You guys might like this one Ss402giBAqM

I agree, how ever here is how its done for anyone who wishes to know. In the address bar of the youtube video you wish to link at the very end will be an equal sign so like for this f18 comp video the link is you would then copy everything after the equal sign. in this case OFGhJbM5sXE would be copied. you can either select the youtube link button or you can type in replace the { bracket with [ in the quoted example.

I'm doubting that "size" is an issue. I do believe cost was the factor they left out civi ILS.

Yes but the difference is that last I checked the aim7 hoj will not work if radar is burned through. The harm doesn't matter how close you are before launch.[obviously with in reason]. It makes for a completely passive attack that has a much better chance of hitting a target then a hoj launch. Since the launch platform can use radar for ranging and be able to huck it with in close ranges. But who knows will have to test this out. I think you missed the point of the conversation.. We are talking about launching a harm against airborne radar.

Does anyone know if the Harm ingame will be able to lock and launch against airborne radars? Kindof be like the Mav A2A launches in the day with the a10

I maybe wrong as I have not read any of the f18 manuals. How ever Weapons delivery I.e. Bombs should for the most part be identical. CCIP and CCRP. Only difference is ingress/egress speeds. Maybe I'm wrong but There isn't a whole lot of different ways to drop a bomb. But yes be prepared to learn a new jet!

As far as I know only the aim120c can re-acquire. By the way, the f15 [as far as I know not modeled in game] if it looses STT lock will automatically engage Flood Mode and the aim7 might be able continue tracking as long as the target is in the Hud's cone FOV, less then 30nm & held in that POS. The Missile probably also would need to be in terminal guidance and the target also be in the FOV of the target since it will no longer have Mlink guidance updates. Now, Here is how I deploy the aim7 Rear aspect on a target trying to burn out of the engagement but too far for a aim9. WVR high AOA target. Seems the Aim7 loves these. High Altitude high M [fl450+ M2+]head on launch sub 10 miles. This requires nose down pitch at launch and maintain the dive till intercept. This scenario seems to work the best for me. It's a probability that due to the speed. I've had a few people manage to escape the initial missile but by the time they do I'm already on them like white on rice and an aim9 or second sparrow finishes them. Back in the day a WVR Flood launch was the f15s equivalent to the 27et.

Well, Haven't seen a better pics yet but here ya go

I think that is a graphics card/driver issue.. I suggest maybe trying a clean install of your graphics driver.. If you're using Nvidia. get the latest driver. when going through the install there is an option for a clean install.. This will remove all drivers then install the new driver.

If memory serves me right. When A2A is selected in the C model the aim9 is uncaged and wonders but starts in the upper side of the hud. Tl0mAWYNaw8 5dAaZIXveCw http://cdn.edgecast.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/245570/manuals/A-10A%20Flight%20Manual%20EN.pdf?t=1487667695

This is what the Hud looks like when m-151 rockets are selected. HeAxQCj31xY

When you switch to air/air mode it auto selects the aim9 as your missile. and guns will always be active in what ever weapons mode you're in. So to recap.. Say you're currently in a bomb run with a gbu ect ect and in ccrp mode and you have to cancel that run due to spotting an air target. Just pressing 6[i have weapons mode on my HOTAS so I think A2A is 6] will imediatly switch to the gun funnel and activate the aim9 seaker and grawl cue. From there once you have your target locked in the aim9 by a high pitch tone [by either moving the nose to center on your target or by slewing the aim9 seaker] pressing the pickle [weapons realease] button will fire then aim9.

No problem.. I want to re-itterate, I have never flown the A version of the a10 only the C full fidelity model. So I do not know exactly how the Sidewinder works in the A. I wouldn't see why it wouldn't be the same but then again who knows.

This might best be asked in the A10a section of the FC3 board then the f15.. In the the A10C module, when aim9 is selected the seaker is caged to the center line of the aircraft and has a circle that rotates around in the hud. From there I use my TM warthog throttle joystick to then move the aim9 seaker cue to the aircraft or I just move the nose of the aircraft to achieve a high pitch lock tone and launch the missile.. w3W9FLL7Adg

I also don't like russians choice of their ADI either.

From my understanding the color was chosen because it was "studied" and determined it causes less eye strain or a calm/less stressful than other colors ? It's just a personal distaste in the color choice. I'd rather deal with more eyestrain if it resulted in less disgust each time I get in the cockpit.

comparable generation with out lift aids? Only thing in us design that I could think of that could be compared with out lift aids designed for high mach would be the F4. I'm not even going to look at the tables as I suspect you're trying to compare airfoils designed for subsonic | low mach flight.

Thanks for that.. The image didn't look right for a SU so I went off of the rear empennagewhich looks identical to the Mig29

Might help if the included picture was that of the production model SU Let me help on that While it is a lifting body design, so is the f15.. I'm not quite sure it's as blended as you make it out to.. How ever I do agree to some extent. Same thing as so you could claim is the f15 all though less distinct to the that of the su27 and A LOT less then that of the mig29 IMHO your analogy on the m2000 to the raphale is a bit outside of what I'm discussing.. It's hard to argue the point but at the same time since they are made by the same company and not meant to counter the latter it is a bit ambiguous. The bottom line is this. The su27 was designed to go up against the f15. It is in my personal opinion from what I've read that in order accomplish this LERX/slats were needed. I am not faulting the Sukhoi for this. If one can do it with a less "complicated/cheaper" design then why not? I would do it.

I don't keep a record of what I've read on line or watched online. It is a fact the su27 was designed to compete against the f15. It's also known that the Russians didn't have the technology advancements or the concern to spend top dollar in their designs. Hense the lack of flush rivoting. While I could be wrong but This is what I remember when I read/watched an article/documentary about the su27 mentioning the inability to duplicate the wing of the f15. It's not exactly outside of the relm of possibility that the Russians couldn't do or couldn't afford[justify] to replicate the wing of the f15 during the time period it was designed in. as far as you're reiteration of the LERX to providing extra lift at high AOA is redundant I have not disputed that fact. The question that begs to be answered is with out them and the slats, could the Su27 achieve the same control over the same AOA envelope as the f15 wing? If it cant then they were needed to meet or exceed the design of the f15. Which is how I perceived the article/documentary I read/watched. While what I said in my first port wasn't exactly meant in the context of the way I delivered it, it was in concept how the OP was referring to how things handled. Now as I said in my last post I NEVER said the design was POOR I said inferior to the f15. This does not mean anything else. It means what I said. it is less, lower, quality/grade as compared directly to another object. Since I was comparing it directly to the f15 and did not generalize the wing as a whole to all other wings it was not a statement of overall quality.

I distinctly remember reading an article or maybe a documentary in regards that during the design of the su27 they tried to roughly copy the wing design of the f15 and was unable to do it.. Not sure if that was due to cost or due to the inability to actually manufacture it. There was also mention in that article about the need for lex to give the chosen wing design to match or out perform the f15. I'm sorry I do not have a link. as its been a few years since I seen/read it. Given your statement how is that not in the same confines of what I said before? Could what you say not be considered that the extra lift is needed in high AOA due to wing design and to accomplish this LEX is needed other wise it would not be able to perform adequate enough when compared to the f15 wing? The su27 was developed specifically to go up against the f15 Just the same I read somewhere also about the f15 wasn't given LEX for the reason they concluded the wing design was great and the cost adding lex wasn't justifiable. Wish I still had the links/articles for that. Now, let it be known I never said the su27 wing design was poor. I just said it was inferior to the design of the f15. The only "Poor design" IMHO of the SU27 is that gawd awful color they chose for the cockpit & the lack of using flush mounted rivets. Does anyone have any calculated numbers of the reduction of parasitic drag if the rivets were flush? I've always been curios about that. Again I still stand behind my statement in that by removing LEX on the su or adding lex on the f15 & a relative CG between them will result in the f15 having the edge in all aspects of the flight envelope including HAOA.

Both wings on the f15 and f22 are cropped delta wings with altered dimensions for stealth and area. For the most part the airfoil design I.e. cross section is relatively the same. As far as my saying that the SU sucks with out the LEX is simple. The wing/airfoil design is inferior to that of the F15. This has nothing to do with fanboyism. The Russians were unable to manufacture a wing/airfoil that is comparable or onpar with that of the f15 wing/airfoil. [At the time of the su27 design inception either due to a cost point or due to limitations in their production environment] Thus to compensate they had to include LEX.. If you were to re-design the f15 wings leading edge[not dimensions or air foil design] to allow adding Leading edge flaps and altering CG by changing what INT fuel tank is used first you will then out maneuver the su27 in all aspects of flight. Before you comment about CG and fuel. The Su27 must burn through its forward tanks to get an aft CG allowing the cobra maneuver. Now as far as your anology of removing a tail hook or radar does not have bearing in how this conversation was going.

Comparable to flying a brick. Not sure I agree.. a flying brick to me would be an F4.. With enough power even a brick will fly I.e. F4/orbiter. While Yes the F15c is an extremely stable aircraft it surely isn't deplorable in regards to agility. The issue that you're facing is the lack of instability that the su27 has. The "aft" CG that the su27 has allows a quick response in Nose pitch coupled with the LEX and large control surfaces allows for response in the upper AOA. Take away the "band aided" fixes to the SU27s wing design away and you will then have a flying brick. The thing with the f15 is that the wing design is pretty close to perfect. If you look at the F22 you will notice is is pretty close to the same as the f15 but with LEX. Both are cropped delta. I would not be surprised if the original design phase of the wing for the f22 wasn't borrowed from the f15. [should state 2nd design after the original concept was trashed by Lockheed] What I'm trying to get at is that the su27 would be a dog with out an aft cg and LEX. If you add the same features to the f15 then you essentially have an f22 which can perform the same maneuvers and more then what the Su27 is capable of doing. and YES the f22 can do the cobra with out the use of TVC but back to on track I can see what you're getting at in terms of how it flys. I just can't see explaining it as a "flying brick" more to me I would say it flys like forward hockey player. Vs the su27 that is a defensemen with figure skates ON! one wrong move and you've got broken ankles err Wings/vertstabs