Fri13

The flares are not registering to everything. Example in MiG-21Bis your gunsight pipper will jump to the flares if you have IR missile selected for launch. On other aircraft like Su-27 and rest the flares do not show up in the IRST systems or trigger anything like with example JHMCS (no idea about now but it use to be so) when guiding AIM-9X seeker. What people do not seem to understand is that the system is not a hot spot tracker. It does not go pointing the hot spots. The IR seekers does that in the missiles, but not the thermal cueing FLIR system in Harrier. The system has multiple configuration options that some are set pre-flight to mission computer in mission planning and some are programmed by the pilot, mainly to adjust the system to work better for the mission parameters. The system does not track hottest parts or anything like that, it is cuing pilot to programmed temperatures in scale, its size, its range (relative to aircraft altitude and look down angle) and what the surrounding thermal type looks like. The Razbam system works fine for missiles like example Hydra 70. When you launch those rockets it can track them to the end even when their rocket motor has burn out almost on the moment they fly off from the pod in couple seconds. What Razbam should do is to make the system to be able be configurable as simulator should, and then wait that ED will provide the new thermal mapping and FLIR system that should allow the player to configure the system for given heat values and differences. It will be challenging work for Razbam as they need to program the system to understand when the FLIR is looking a snow covered hill and there is a vehicle at day, night, sunset, sunrise or it is not operational or it is being heated up. It needs to be able do that differently when it is a meadow or forest. Where the player is required to learn what is wanted to be really pointed out by the system and then configure it to such scenario. The system doesn't care about target size as it only sees the heat. And flare is massive heat source in the eye of the FLIR and it should ignore a such based how the heat source size is programmed to be, like small, medium, large. If the scale is set to low that targets are searched for finer differences in the complex temperature changes then flares are ignored as they are too big difference in the scale.

It is not about clocks being out of sync, but the analog clock not showing the proper time as set. Our only hope is that someone else than Razbam itself will fix the Harrier because Razbam does not even seem to be interested to communicate what they are doing or fixing years old bugs. Like now our only hope is that someone like myHelljumper will get something to happen.

Is it suppose to be flush with the body? It can be that there needs to be a slight cap as it is just for moving ammunition from storage to the cannon.

I don't really get the wishes to see a IGLA instead a proper A/A missile. As you have just about 30 seconds time to launch IGLA once you activate the seeker, then the battery does and it is useless. R-60 you have nitrogen reserve for 30 minutes after activation. The R-60 is more agile for close maneuvers, but slower as it is fired from slow to stationary position. But if the IGLA is technically possible loadouts, then it should be there. Leave the politics and religion out of the simulator and concentrate to produce technically proper simulator and let mission designers make their politics and religion decisions... These ED double standards are not nice. They don't care about technical, historic or any facts but it comes to just their politics. Example: - Our F-16CM is mixture between tape 4.2 and 5.1 because they wanted to add AGM-154. - The F-16 shouldn't have LAU-88 launcher for triple AGM-65. - F/A-18C has a AGM-62 that was removed from inventory 10 years earlier, doesn't exist whole weapon in 2005. - USMC/USN F/A-18C Lot 20 was only using a AN/AAS-38 old targeting pods in 2005 and they didn't have ATFLIR or LITENING as those went to super hornets or D models. - Our F/A-18C and F-16CM has a AGM-65E2/L that is capable be launched for self-designation instead just 2nd party designate targets like older AGM-65E, and that improved missile came to production in 2011. In the Apache episode in fighter pilot podcast it was said that all american apaches are capable operate with stingers, they just don't carry them when no need. https://youtu.be/Q-AzSGRAza4 I look forward when the fighters can't detect the helicopters so easily and would really have challenge to fight at them.... Now they just point radar in the direction and "there it is!". https://theaviationgeekclub.com/attack-helicopter-crews-explain-why-an-attack-helicopter-if-properly-flown-would-defeat-most-fighter-airplanes-in-1v1-air-combat/?espv=1/amp/ "And as far as Doppler radars seeing rotorblades, I have hundreds of hours in a 4th gen helicopter that made that statement quite problematic.’" So simply put, Apache should have stingers option, and Mi-24 should as well get IGLA option if it is technically correct. And ED should stop to boxing arguments for specific year of modeling as they can't even follow their own argument about that. Instead stick to technical facts like if a module models software S2 that service time is between 1998-2007 then anything that is technically compatible with it is simulated regardless the year. But if something requires S2+ or S3 to be technically usable, then it is left out. The DCS problem is that all radar equipped fighters spot helicopters way too easily. Why they can utilize those crazy long range sniping even when helicopter is clearly in the clutter.

It was designed to operate all over the Soviet Union (Russia) and that country has as well high temperature and high mountainous lands. That is why their vehicles are made to operate from -50 C to +50 C as they need to cover whole country. But that argument about the rolling take-off, it was tested for how to get faster in the air. Like why you would first go to hover and then start to move forward when you can simply start rolling and take-off? The Mi-24 flying at 4000-5000 meters altitude is severe limitation for almost any helicopter, what brings the KA-50 co-axial design that works far better in high gusty mountain environments at high altitudes etc. But you are not operating in such conditions normally so it is just one place where you really want to utilize tactics to safely take-off and land. There are lot of myths about Mi-24 like it can't hover or it can't take-off without doing rolling take-off and all. It is almost 1500 rounds for the YakB and almost 500 rounds for the 23 mm cannon. So the 30 mm being 250 is just its main load then.

It was designed to operate all over the Soviet Union (Russia) and that country has as well high temperature and high mountainous lands. That is why their vehicles are made to operate from -50 C to +50 C as they need to cover whole country. But that argument about the rolling take-off, it was tested for how to get faster in the air. Like why you would first go to hover and then start to move forward when you can simply start rolling and take-off? The Mi-24 flying at 4000-5000 meters altitude is severe limitation for almost any helicopter, what brings the KA-50 co-axial design that works far better in high gusty mountain environments at high altitudes etc. But you are not operating in such conditions normally so it is just one place where you really want to utilize tactics to safely take-off and land. There are lot of myths about Mi-24 like it can't hover or it can't take-off without doing rolling take-off and all.

You are remembering correctly. The cargo was used sometimes for the extra ammunition. Like second set of the rockets and missiles. So why not have gun ammunition as well? That is something I would like to see in the Mi-24, as it would make it more different from others as you can land anywhere and resupply yourself in few minutes (hey, if it takes from ground crew to rearm in so short period, then it takes from the crew as well...) and get back to fight for a second set. We are not in Afghanistan. The same way was said that it is myth that Mi-24 carries infantry, but it still happens. It is not the normal thing but still. There is old video where the flight engineer and the WSO performs the rearming while pilot keeps engines running. Because your base can be 100-150 km away? It is a fact that it is not a normal procedure as you don't come with fully loaded up because you can, but you will add more helicopters for the flight or add another section if you need extra firepower and tactics. But the possibility is there.

So would you say that the improvements comes in other things than range increase, like more solid lock because improved processing and sensitivity?

We need to as well remember that no matter how people say that chaff is easy to ignore and it drops immediately out of the speed gate because it speed literally stops like 0.2-1 second after release, that every nation fighter is carrying chaff cartridges and selects a various ones depending the possible radar threats. If chaff would be so useless as it is spoken here, no one would never use them but come with only flares. (and those again as well be almost useless). And one scenario doesn't make a case. It is just one evidence among many, but more is required.

Seeing the Mi-24P gun ammunition being replenish, there is no way that you could get a 750 shells fitted to its box.

I don't see specific "set of skill" in there. Like "You can now launch missiles 5% faster" or "You have just spent skill point for advanced radar operations, allowing you to slew TDC 10% faster" (sorry, couldn't resist making exaggerated examples) but be more realistic about the pilot physical conditions. As well as in reality, you don't get to be the new guy in the squadron and do everything that the old guys are doing. So you need to go through the learning process and all. In a up coming dynamic campaign that is as well important, where as a new virtual pilot you are not to be sent to dangerous / high risk missions and you don't get the latest and craziest weapon loadouts for that reason. It is just optional possibility to make the virtual pilots as careers. Like example the online competition (air quake) behavior would change if you could lose all your progress by getting killed. So the reasons to try to escape from situation, to avoid it, to not to be doing something so stupid in first place would become apparent. Aborting mission would be acceptable thing. Landing on the carrier would be more stressful etc. (and of course all these as well requires the proper penalty systems where some n00b doesn't just want to kill you on the cat because decided to just crash on you for fun).

Totally. First Woman to Fly Harrier Jet in Combat Joins Team https://youtu.be/5IEJf_SDGC4?t=368 Fighter Pilot on NEGATIVE-G's (Don't do it) and Flying Upside Down https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5xKukgnfGQ&t=210s GOING SUPERSONIC with U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds! Pulling 7 G's in an F-16 -Smarter Every Day 235 https://youtu.be/p1PgNbgWSyY?t=1550 So having a virtual pilot that one needs to maintain and have some exercises to build the withstanding and all before getting to turn fighting and all. It would change the gameplay where players with more experienced virtual pilots would be able to pull more G's and recover faster from the effects and all that. But if you lose that virtual pilot (KIA, MIA, POW) then you lose that virtual pilot and you need to "build a new one". Totally optional, those who wouldn't want to enable it wouldn't need to fly with the rules. Those who do not want to join on such server, fly on others etc.

Those are required to require player to put effort to advance in their capabilities and missions. And when you get the advancements and better capabilities, you start to protect them so you don't lose them. That will generate the troubled/stress to player to be more careful and mindful what they are going to do and not to fool around and take stupid risks. And when player starts to consider risks and possibilities, their gaming style changes and they start to take things more serious. So of course it needs to be a option to be disabled in the mission design, but not if server enables it or the campaign sets it On. There are players who do not want any realistic G force effects. There are players who do not want realistic head movements or any restrictions to anything. There are players who want all the latest tech and weapons and all.... So of course there will be players who do not want any risks to be killed and they have right to be playing it that way if they so want.

I believe that Mi-24's never fly in combat alone but at least in pairs, and in the cold war era there was the two sections where each had four Mi-24's. It is dynamic, inside a fog of war etc. But Hind doctrine was not designed to be alone. Maybe a one Mi-8 that is escorted by 2-3 Mi-24's when picking up some troops or something from dangerous place. The US has a Huey that could have been send alone to pickup a special forces team or something, to minimize the detection that way. But Soviet Union didn't really had anything as small as that if the Mi-4 doesn't count. The US defined fairly nicely the UH-1 line with the AH-1 to make a nice small tactical group, but Mi-8 + Mi-24 doesn't really make anything like that. Maybe the KA-27 for assault operations, but I don't know. The soviet pair is more of a full force engagement than trying to sneak around. The KA-50 is a nice proof of concept how easy it is to operate a combat helicopter as single pilot. The workload is really smaller than a multirole fighter pilot has, but that is more about the capability of hover and slow speed as your window of opportunity doesn't appear so quickly and you are not so high to be under threat of various targets. So you have more time to move and more time to pick your targets from your point of view. But then again in DCS at this moment it is not so often simulated as mission designers do not really have moving targets so much where a fighter gives nicer opportunity to engage them from above, where helicopter at low angle will have fewer (if at all) attack opportunities. If we would have a more realistic AI for ground units that would hide and conceal the troops in start, and then at least on moment when someone blows up, the whole combat environment would change dramatically. Less time to be high and above, but same time less changes to be at low. And that might be case where Mi-24 would really show its capabilities by offering "go fast, hit hard" approach where at the rear comes Mi-8's to drop troops and they get to deal the ground war then forward.

Yes but both players in two helicopters has AI as WSO to scan ahead with 3/10x optics. And with two you can fly and lure MANPADS, SAM or AAA to engage the flight lead while wingman observes from the distance and warns about incoming missiles or fire so targeted can release flares and maneuver properly. Being in one it is more likely a missile or getting shot to side/rear without neither noticing it.

Two players in two Mi-24 becomes as good spotting things as two players in one. As you fly in formation of closely and you can share directions that you are looking for. In the same helicopter the benefit is that WSO can aim the proper target for you over short discussion and you see his crosshair in you pilot gunsight, where you fly cross on cross and shoot. Alone the AI needs to aim at proper target for you. So you might need to adjust AI target selection of you can't spot target yourself. But overall it is better for in two separate Mi-24P because only pilot can really utilize rockets and gun. And having twice the firepower is great thing for one attack run. As well capability to split and attack in turns will be more effective than attacking with one helicopter. There is not really a reason to fly together as WSO can't really do anything else than ATGM launching and target designation for pilot gunsight. And two helicopters is better than one. Especially in P that is one man pilottable helicopter more than two.

Then I say that simulation of the DCS hardware requirements are unnecessary...

Got to say that I did not even think about that logic. Not joking. As that is really a valid reasoning in the DCS Universe. But now my brain hurts.

The AI with ATGM will be as well like a Shkval in KA-50 but with a difference that AI will automatically spot and lock on targets and engage when you are ready (or maybe even autonomously) because you just need to get their crosshair inside your gunsight pattern. So thinking KA-50 with automatic Shkval target detection and recognition is closest match. Then as pilot you use rockets and fixed gun as you please. Other way to put it, it is like a KA-52 but without modernized targeting systems and fixed gun. Or as a Mi-8MTv8 with rockets and gunpods for pilot but instead ATGM the AI utilize 12.7 mm KORD by your command from the side. So you fight with it pretty much alone as whole thing. The P is far more enjoyable in SP than V would have been, as it would had left just rockets for the pilot to utilize. Where WSO would have used gun and ATGM. But if V would have been able be equipped with GUV, then it would have retained the option for pilot to use a cannon, machine guns or grenade launchers among rockets and be more like P. So anyways flying as single player is not a problem nor advantage over MP as long AI spotting isn't horrible.

Great thread and nice work for the community! Totally should pin it.

NM

IMHO if the ATFLIR that has a IR Marker is technically compatible with the Hornet, meaning it is the pod internal updates itself that only communicates with the OSB's functions to offer (pod runs everything the DDI shows the video from the pod and sends back the OSB pressing that then triggers all functions inside the pod itself and presents them again as video to Hornet) so that it can be taken in use later on when it got in service. So if someone has information about would it work that way in 2006+ years, then there could be hope to get a ATFLIR version that supports that IR marker.

I hold opinion that things should be there only if it is technically possible. So if someone wants to go for very specific software version or specific what ever, it should then be all locked to that one and that is it. No mixing up various different year versions and only limit every possible action and mission to that one unique year. So if Hornet is for 2005, then it only is capable fly in missions dated to 2005. As otherwise realism is required to be accepted, and that is that specific version of the aircraft is operational as is in many other years than just one. It means that our Hornet is not just from 2005, but it is operational as is from 2005 forward. And this opens up the possibilities to get realistic technical limitations for missions and mix different aircraft to fly together. I believe it is confirmed that it was possible to mount it so by confirmed by SME. Don't know, just a believe. Again, consider what would happen in missions where you have in a whole airbase a 36 NITEHAWK pods, 1 ATFLIR and 5 LITENING AT? In multiplayer you would see that someone will rush to be first to equip the ATFLIR.... And what happens if they go and crash on the ground in first mission? The Hornet pilots would be angry when the AV-8B Harrier pilots carry the LITENING AT while they are restricted to NITEHAWK.... Or that Harrier pilots get to fly without TPOD as the DMT is better than NITEHAWK is, and don't require to spend station for targeting pod. Yes, it is not restricted than by the mission designer will. Just adjust the loadout possibilities in the base/carrier and you get to make fancy realistic missions or just fantasy ones. Interesting thing... Is that certain? Exactly! Let us to choose that what to do with realistic setups (with the technical compatibilities, so no AIM-54 for Hornet or AIM-120C to F-14 and so on). I still would hold on the technical compatibility level. So like here, if the ATFLIR doesn't have the IR Marker, then it doesn't have. Unless ED wants to make two versions from it. And I would totally accept that. Like it is not nice that A-10C uses LITENING AT as Hornet, but AV-8B received the LITENING G4 (2009 variant) that is better than ATFLIR. It had previously LITENING AT. It would have been nice to have option to carry either one, so you can decide in missions that which one is available to you. If you make mission as 2003 when LITENING AT was available, then you can disable the time filter and still allow equipping the G4 variant. Same way we could get ATFLIR with or without IR Marker capability and improved video quality. Like the Litening G4 in Harrier has the dual IR marker and laser designator mode. So you can designate target same time as you are marking it visually for friend with IR laser. It is real win-win situation how you can very effectively show where to look and point the LST mode, and they can deliver the weapon on it or get own laser on the spot. I don't know would a ATFLIR have a such dual-mode at all or not... I see benefits as long it is one option more in the loadouts. As what was pointed out, the IR Marker was added to eight ATFLIR pods as prototype earlier, and then later (after our Hornet) it got added with enhanced image processing. So win win for everyone.

Nothing to forgive, as I don't even know what we really have received.... As what we have doesn't really match anything specific in 2005 or USMC or USN. But if USMC didn't have LITENING AT for other than D models, then C models should be without LITENING and utilize something else, so again: "Currently, Marine F/A-18 Hornets are not authorized to employ laser-guided bombs (LGBs) when illuminating a target with its NITEHAWK targeting pod, due to the pod’s low fidelity and increased chances of target misidentification. As a remedy, the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as F/A-18 air forces around the world, are in the process of selecting and integrating a new targeting pod. Where it means, USMC and USN F/A-18C Lot 20 Hornets should be using AN/AAS-38 Nitehawk, as only USMC F/A-18D Hornets had the LITENING and carrier based A+ and C were with USN using NITEHAWK as well while waiting to get ATFLIR. So none of the F/A-18C Lot 20 from USMC or USN should be really carrying either one of the new pods.

Were everyone using them? We already know three things: "As a remedy, the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as F/A-18 air forces around the world, are in the process of selecting and integrating a new targeting pod." 1) Not everyone used ATFLIR 2) Not everyone used LITENING 3) NITE HAWK was the most used one and to be replaced by either one of those. That is my point. As while the 2-4 ATFLIR were in use, I wouldn't say that they were really used. And if few LITENING were used, I wouldn't say that that was only thing they used. As in 2006 they were in process to select what is their next targeting pod to be acquired and used. So very well those videos can be the tests performed for qualifications purposes. It doesn't mean that LITENING is the primary sensor in 2005 for F/A-18C Lot 20 USN Hornet. The video hasVMFA-242 that is the USMC https://www.1stmaw.marines.mil/Subordinate-Units/Marine-Aircraft-Group-12/VMFA-242/ So the documentation still applies: "Since then, the Marine Corps has announced the intention to purchase sixty LITENING pods for use on F/A-18D Hornets, which were originally scheduled to receive the ATFLIR. Both the LITENING AT and the ATFLIR are capable systems and both represent a quantum leap forward in terms of capability for the F/A-18. Both pods have multiple features, such as FLIR imaging with magnification, electro-optical imaging with magnification, laser designation, and laser-spot detection, eliminating the need to carry multiple pods and thereby freeing weapons stations for additional ordnance." "As a remedy, the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as F/A-18 air forces around the world, are in the process of selecting and integrating a new targeting pod. The contenders are the LITENING AT, in service with Marine AV-8B squadrons, and the Advanced Tactical Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod, in service with Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons. Current plans have the Marine expeditionary (land-based D model) Hornets slated to receive the LITENING AT, while the Marine carrier-based (A+ and C) Hornets will receive the ATFLIR." So the video is about the only land-based D model having LITENING AT, but not the Carrier based C hornets that is to receive the ATFLIR instead LITENING AT.