whiteladder

There were a number of problems with it during the Falklands, there were some major serviceability issue after the long sea journey that affected the launchers and the missiles. There were also issues with the search radar. When you look at the missile launcher there is a search radar under the dome. This was used to cue the optical tracker in the right direction, when the gunner lined up the crosshairs on a target he would also get an in range light in his viewer. The Rapiers that were setup in the main British landing point of San Carlos water couldn`t use the search Radar because of the interference from the more powerful radars on the warships in the bay. This stopped the missile being fire at its maximum range. The last problem was that most of the Argentine Aircraft were targeting the warships, and presented crossing targets to the Rapier, which it wasn`t really designed to take on. The Government white paper after the war credit it with 14 kills, but I think its pretty much accepted it only score 1 confirmed kill.

I think the answer is yes and no, I think in parts of the envelope it matches quite closely and in others parts its way off. My test isn`t a good test of accuracy, because I tried to fly the most fuel efficient profile, it wasn`t a tactical profile. Although think I could have saved another 300lb of fuel with a better descent, if I had flown a proper Hi Lo HI profile I think I would have struggled to make it. Also I had no wind in the mission, that would make a big difference. Have you seen the following document AV-8B_Harrier_II_SAC_-_October_1986? This has a range of profiles and weapons loads with the specific ranges for each. I might try one of these with the fuel plan from the natop and see what it comes out like.

Just flew this and you can just about do it, but its very tight on the margins. I broke the outward leg like this Total fuel 7700 taxi 200lb total 7500 W/P 1 Climb to 30000 800lb total 6700 W/P 2 Cruise 13 mins at 71lb 923 total 5777 W/P 3 Cruise 13 Mins at 71lb 923 total 4854 W/P 4 Cruise 13 Mins at 71 lb 923 Total 3931 W/P 5 Cruise 11 Mins at 71lb 781 Total 3150 W/P 6 Cruise 40 Mins at 71 lb 2840 Total 310 W/P7 Land Climb to about 32000 and then trimmed it so that it had a steady climb of about 250fpm. The actual burn to start with is about 88lb, but as the fuel burns off and it creeps up in altitude by about WP4 the burn rate has dropped to about 69lb, at that point you are in front of the curve. Wp 5 is the Target and I reached that with about 3100 lb left. On the return leg the Wp 6 is the descent point at 77 miles flew most of this at about 45 Lb , I reached this with 1400 lb, I pressed on at 44000 past this point until I was at 1100lb, then cut to idle Landed with 707lb left in the tank , The trk file attached below. deepstrike.zip

Holbeach. I think you should try it with strakes instead of the gun pod. The drag index for the gun pod is 6.7 and the weight is 1300lb. A mk82 and the centre line pylon have DI of 3 and weight about 600lb. Not sure you would get 90 miles and still have 800lb left but would be interesting to see what difference it would make. The problem we have in game that the ff rates are off. To make the return leg the bingo fuel level would need to be 3000lb. At this you should get 352 miles at 44000 and .77mach. The ff for this should be 40lb with a descent to sl at 78 miles. This should allow 200lb for a vl and 600lb reserve, which would match the real world test.

Is there anyway with the current patch to plan how much fuel will be used on each leg of a route? I had started to do this with the charts from nfm-400. When I flew a test mission my climb figures to 30000 feet were pretty accurate, but the cruise figures were way off. I then found a thread that said the ff rates for the lower mach numbers is way off since a few patches ago. Given this is the vrest cruise sub page showing accurate information?

Spiceman it was your intercept geometry video in the hornet that got me trying to work this out in the first place:) Thanks for everyones replies they are really helpful

I`m trying to get my head around calculating what the target aspect is on a contact to run an intercept from the back seat. I`m want to work out the collision course, and get the appropriate lateral separation at 10 miles. When the TID is in Ground Stabilized mode and I can see the tracks true heading I can visualize its aspect. When the TID is in Aircraft Stabilized mode I have to admit I`m struggling to work out what it aspect is from the information that is being display to me. Any pointers would be much appreciated

The flaps were really only designed for use during landing, when the prototype K5054 was being tested it had flaps that extended to 60 degrees. The feedback from the test pilots was: “The aeroplane has rather a flat glide, even when the undercarriage and flaps are down and has a considerable float if the approach is made a little too flat. This defect could be remedied by fitting higher drag flaps. ‘In general the handling of this aeroplane is such that it can be flown without risk by the average fully trained service fighter pilot, but there can be no doubt that it would be improved by having flaps giving a higher drag.” So they recommended flaps with higher drag, they did suggest a 2 position control to allow either 60 or 90 degrees, But I suspect the design of the pneumatically driven flaps made this more complicated so they stuck with either open or closed.

The original Viggen had a computer with a similar spec as the An/AYA-6 computer. The ck37 had a memory size of between 2Kb and 8kb. But the Viggen Version in DCS has a computer that was introduced in the mid 70s and had a 128Kb memory, and is a generation newer than the original Tomcat computer. Also, although the number of definable waypoints may be low just think about what the Tomcat system was trying to do with 16KB. Some of this space had to be reserved for creating the track files for the radar contacts, in essence it needed to be able to create 24 moving waypoints on the fly when a track is created. I think is pretty impressive give the resources available.

Its worth remembering that the An/AYA-6 computer that handled Radar correlation, threat Id, prioritization, jammer steering, navigation and data display to the pilot an Rio had just 16K of Ram originally. For comparison just the text in this thread comes to 14.3Kb

What happens in this situation. You take a AIM-54s shot in TWS not STT, and during the flyout you lose the track, the target notches or something. Presumably the missile at that point continues towards the last target update position it received. What happens if you then regain the TWS track, does the missile start receiving updated midcourse guidance or is it on its own from losing the initial track?

Few more pics in this article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6695955/Wreck-carrier-USS-Hornet-discovered-South-Pacific.html

The Haynes manual on the F-14 has a section where they talk about this: "The AN/AWG-9 was married to an early mechanical gyroscope-driven INS, which was relatively reliable. It did, however, have a propensity for failure during dynamic flight. When this happened, AN/AWG-9 processing (which relied on the INS to determine the F14 dynamics and the radar tracking to determine the bogeys dynamics )suffered. Following an INS failure, the RIO would rapidly switch the AN/AWG-9 into pulse mode and use basic geometry and mental gymnastics to keep track of the radar picture."

It has to do with the history of the replacement for the GR3/Av8a. Originally there was 2 different development streams. The British requirement in addition to needing a bigger bomb load also had requirement for a higher rate of turn for an improved air to air capability. They therefore were designing what was called at the time the big wing Harrier, basically the GR3 fuselage with a new wing, with wingtip pylons for Sidewinders. In parallel with this the Americans were working on the Av8b, which they had a lower requirement for Air to Air. As is usual the Brits didn't have the funds to carry on a seperate program, so joined the Av8b program and while they had to accept a lower sustained rate of turn they did want to in improve the basic Air to Air capability. The design was past the point where the wing tip pylons could be incorporated, hence the pylons on the outfitters.

Migs are full of character, my favourite modelling subject.

Thought you might like to see the 3d model I have been working on for a 1/48 scale Eurofighter Typhoon model. The following is made in Fusion 360 and then I will 3d print them in resin.

As some people have pointed out is worth noting that in addition to using small inputs you have to fly an accurate approach for a hover landing, specifically height and and AoA. I suspect if you watch when you start to get the high oscillation they are starting when you get below 60 knots and your rate of descent is high. I know I was struggling with getting in down to a specific landing point without mega wobbles, but I was coming in way too high (1500 feet) and using the flight path marker like I would on a conventional approach. This was leading to a rate of descent that guaranteed wobbles.

I installed dcs world and the Harrier module yesterday, but the copy of the pocket manual I have in the Harrier Doc folder is not showing this procedure. Where do I find the most upto date copy of the guide?

Thank you gentleman, that is very kind of you to say.

Been Building this for a while, finally completed at the weekend:

Not as much as a published author it seems He also states it in his book on the developement of the F-105.

Maybe you should tell that to Peter Davies , because on page 45 of his book "F105 vs SA-2" he says: "Missile crews also realised that they could track incomming Weasels on radar, watching for one into a climb to loft a Shrike at them and then turn off the radar. They realised too that the Shrikes exhaust gases contained tiny metal fragments from its solid rocket fuel. These gave a strong enough radar trace to provide warning of an oncoming missile" :thumbup:

Sam operators in Vietnam were able to detect Shrike launches and switch off their radars. In particular they were able to detect the metal particles emitted by its rocket motor.

The invasion strips started to be paint on some aircraft on the 1st of June, the majority being applied on the 3rd and 4th (remember that D-Day was originally planned for the 5th).

The air wing of the ships is varible depend on the mission. It would normally be some thing like 24 helicopters and 6 Harriers. But during OIF 1 they operated 4 ships in the northern gulf, USS Bonhomme Richards with 24 Harriers, USS Bataan with 24, USS Tarawa with 6, USS Nassau with 6. This was because of the shortage of airfield space because many Gulf states refused to allow their airbases to be used. Once the fighting had started and the Iraqi airfield at Ahmed al Jaber was captured the Harriers on the ship would fly their initial mission, usually with an top up from tankers, land at the FOB at Al Jaber refuel and rearm, fly another mission and so on until there operating slot was done, then return to the ship. Their was also a stretch if highway near Baghdad used as FOB. Flying from the ship they almost always used 2 external tanks, litening pod (if availble otherwise buddy lased) and either 2 gbu-12 or 2 Mavericks or 1 gbu-16 and 2 sidewinders, which they stopped once the airthreat had diminished. During the war fight phase the gun pod was hardly used, the Sam threat keeping them above the height where is could be employed. After the war fight had ceased and they were fighting the insurgents the gun pods were used again. I would recommend getting Av-8b units of operation Iraqi Freedom by Osprey publishing lots of info about the stuff you are asking about.