whiteladder

Iran has now admitted to accidentally shooting down the aircraft.

The Type 42 had a even more fundemental design flaw than the weapons fit, that was a lack of excess stability. This also affect the type21 frigate. When the RN new carriers were cancelled in 70's the ships designed to defend them were also cancelled the type 82, only 1 was built HMS Bristol. They still need an Air defence destroyer so was born the type 42, but because of cost it was designed at the absolute smallest size to accommodate sea dart and the associated radars. The RN was well aware of its venerbility to sea skimming missiles, and had looked into the feasibility of replacing the rear 909 radar with a seawolf launcher and Radar. But the weight of the entire system would exceeded the safe margin of stability. In fact the stability of the ship was so marginal that when the Phalanx was eventually fitted they had to permanently remove the ships boats to keep it within limits. The batch 2 and 3 versions of the 42 were significantly lengthen, but never totally overcame the problem. Similarly the was not enough spare capacity in the type 21 frigate to upgrade them to sea wolf and they were sold off early and replaced with the type 22/ 23's

It's a rate control system.

Here are a couple more points in addition to the great advice already given. When practicing set the wind in the mission to 10 to 12 knots running exactly down your approach to the runway. This will help a lot. Firstly don't start by going straight into a vertical take off. Hovering is the most challenging part of the whole envelope. Get used to flying conventionally at low speeds first, setup the aircraft at 800 to 1000 feet alt, on the centre line of the runway, set the nozzles to 60 deg ,flaps to stol and most important trim the elevators so the nose is level. If you don't trim correctly you start to fight 3 things at the same time, the nose rises which you have to control with stick imputs. The descent rate gets out of control, high descent rates are the surest way to start wing wobbles. So then starts the mixing bowl motion with the control column, which makes the pio worse. Trimming is super important, if it is set right you can concentrate on using the throttle to control rate of descent(more on this in a moment) keeping the wings level. Do loads of touch and goes like this, get used to keeping the descent rate steady,200 to 400 fps, smooth on the throttle, don't snatch it back and forward. Practice choosing apoint to touch down on the runway and try to hit it on each circuit. Once you are used to this run the same approach, but for the last part of the descent set the nozzle to 70 deg. The stage where the speed drops from 100 to 60 knots is where the descent rate can get out of control. The lift is transferring from the wing s to lift from the engine so concentrate on keep it below 400 fps. Smooth, steady speed and descent rate changes are the key. Repeat with the nozzle at 80 deg, very soon you will be able come to a steady state,small inputs on the stick and controlling the forward speed with small nozzle changes. You will be hovering without realising it. Also check this I had a stick with twist action for the rudder, when I got some pedals I didn't realise that the mapping for the stick rudder hadn't been removed when I setup the pedals. This was fighting each other and leading to Pios

Rüstsatz kits cause a huge headache when trying to work out what kit was used by which unit and when or at all. Then further add to the problem that some Rüstsatz kits became standard factory production fits , its easy for confusion to reign. And that`s not even just a problem from historical perspective, Focke Wulf themselves in 1944 had to reorganise their production office to try an keep track of all the different modifications being applied by maintenance depots and the 10 or so licenced production companies and then all the companies involved with refurbishments. I don`t think even the Luftwaffe high command had a handle on it. For example in Oct 1944 they ordered the firm Klemm to convert 20 planes a month (from new production and refurbishment) to conventional torpedo bombers (R14?) even though production of torpedo`s in Germany had ended in Sept 1944!

I haven't tried against other large aircraft but I`m picking up a Bear in PD search at about 200 miles and getting a PD stt at about 190 miles

I think the Chinese, North Koreans, Russia, Iran, might disagree with your assessment of how many combat vehicles they have. For the past 20 years Western airforces have mostly only been performing CAS mission in areas of the world with mostly perfect conditions for E/O sensors, in a fairly benign threat environment. Plenty of countries have been caught out preparing for the last war they fought, only to find the next one is completely different. Swap that for an area in Asia with a humid environment and a rainy season, an enemy who has a IADS and the ability to jam GPS, you might want to run interdiction missions with an aircraft with an a/g radar capability.

Iron Hand: Smashing the Enemy's Air Defences https://www.amazon.co.uk/Iron-Hand-Smashing-Enemys-Defences/dp/1852606053 I have this its a great book

The Falklands War was a huge wake up call for the Royal Navy, and although the lives lost were tragic, the lessons relearned have kept the generations of British sailors safer since. The type 42 along with design flaws that effected most RN ship of its era (no smoke curtains, electrical cable insulation that gave off toxic gases when burned, poorly design respirators etc), also had a major problem with its fire fighting water main. The impact (or explosion) of the Exocet fractured the single main that ran the length of the ship. This single point of failure was made worse by the fact that there was no way to isolate the damaged section and get pressure in the undamaged portions. The crew had no way to effectively fight the fire. The ships that came to help could only pour water on the outside of the hull, there weren`t enough standalone water pumps to bring onboard to tackle the blaze. The type 23 frigate incorporated all the lessons learned, and anyone who has been through damage control school at HMS Raleigh and spent any time in HMS Havoc (the damage control simulator) will testify how important damage control is taken now. I did my basic course way back in 1989, I don`t think anyone forgets the point when the instructors tip a truck load of water on a oil fire and the heat from the resulting fireball, flash gear not withstanding.

Agree, had the design flaws the type 42 damage control system not been in place she would probably survived( although would have been forced to with withdraw from the conflict) HMS Glamorgan was hit by an Exocet that definitely exploded and the damage control parties were able to bring the fire under control. Anti ship missiles are not very good at sinking ships,

I would love to see a Tornado in game, especially the GR1. I do think though people are going to be disappointed with its range. One of the compromises the RAF accepted with the Tornado was a much shorter range than some of the aircraft is was replacing (Canberra and Buccaneer), and the aircraft it wanted (TSR). Against this was the higher dash speed at low level and a avionics suite designed for all weather attack.

Does it need to know where the Ground is? Isn`t it just using the angle rate change from the HUD TD the same way it would if the DMT was providing the angle rate?

I don't know if the AV-8B had this, but the Gr7 had Terprom from 1996 and this can be used for bombing solutions. I think there was a specific British UOR to improve night bombing accuracy, fully integrating it into the weapons system.

The British also had their own EW fit, they used Sky Shadow Jamming pod and a Boz Chaff/flare pod. Also I think the ADV version was one of the first Jets to be upgraded with a towed radar decoy

I recently designed and 3d printed a Sabre for a modelling project.

The main difference is the wing, the Tempest had a much thinner wing, which significantly improved the aircrafts performance. The was a slight change in the airframe(21 inches) to allow an extra fuel tank in front of the cockpit on the Tempest, to offset the loss fuel tank space in the wing

This thread is missing an essential element: Raaid

How far away from the laser spot were you? It is range limited, I haven`t ever been able to pick up the spot outside 14 miles and sometimes as close as 7.

I don't think the C model uses man in the loop at all so the IR seeker can be abstracted in the game.

The wide/narrow LST scan is really useful. I have made a mission with OH-58 acting as a fac lasing some artillery. The wide scan takes quite a long time to find the laser spot, if you create a new waypoint from the nine line to find the general target area and then switch to narrow it makes it much quicker to run the attack.

This from a NAVAIR Report in 2001 and is specifically about the baseline c variant: Incorporation of ATA allows for target discrimination and precise aim-point selection by the F/A-18 pilot during the mission planning phase. The mission planner selects desired impact angle, attack axis, and target aim-point from intelligence target images. The JSOW mission planning software then develops a file consisting of a scene-based template that is loaded into the aircraft and is subsequently downloaded into the weapon. Once launched from the aircraft, the JSOW weapon is guided via a GPS aided inertial navigation system until the ATA feature is automatically employed during the terminal phase of the flight profile. The ATA software correlates the scene-based template contained in the mission file to the image as seen by the imaging infrared seeker and guides the missile to the pre-planned aim-point. Options are being studied to enhance mission utility with target of opportunity capability. This round of testing follows successful flight tests conducted late last summer that verified the ATA software and performance. The second phase of captive flight testing will be completed at the Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, Calif. test ranges.

Rudel, I have these the, printer build the print in .05 micron layers so it took about 2 hours to print:

I have been working on the following for a while now, just finished. It`s a 1/48 Hawker Typhoon made by Italeri. I designed and built the Napier Sabre Engine myself in Autodesk Fusion 360 and printed it on a Anycubic Photon 3d printer. Hope you like it.

When Rapier is used with Blindfire it doesn't use the optical tracker. Although the optical tracker can be slaved to Blindfire , the guidance is being controlled by the radar. In fact the optical tracker can be switched to a second target while the first engagement is taking place to rapidly start a second attack. Blindfire tracks the aircraft and the missile, the missile is commanded to the correct line of sight through radio commands from the launcher. BAE went onto to use pretty much the same system on the Seawolf system( although this has 2 command channels and can guide 2 missile against the same target). In fact the type 911 radar used on later Seawolf installations is based on blindfire.

When I did my apprenticeship at the MOD our electronics instructor was ex RAF and to illustrate the dangers of high voltage equipment used to show people the scar on the top of his bonce where he had leaned into a live Rapier Unit and it had arced across. We all kept one hand in our pocket after that. I was also at the Farnbrough airshow at the BAE System tent the first year the F117 flew in. They had a early FSC demonstrator there, which they showed it tracking the F117 on radar as it flew in and then flip over to automatic optical tracking as it landed.