Fri13

Likely the Sidearm should get nerfed for the range and the detection distance. As so many talks down about its range, it being a suicide to go against SAM systems and more fitting against like a ZSU-23-4 at 1.5-2 km. Now it has been effective to be launched against SA-8 from its maximum range (about 7-8 nmi) from about 2000 ft altitude. It seems to fly way too long distances at so thick air.

Remember that you don't need to align the INS, as just set it to IFA mode and it will automatically align itself with GPS on the start period. So as soon as you get INS aligned, you get map on EHSD and all HUD symbols as well.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3315598/

ASAP does not mean "NOW", it means "As Soon As Possible" and the key word is "As Possible" and it includes as well to make sure that the work is done properly. If your boss comes and say they want report on their table ASAP, it doesn't mean that instead writing a 20 page report you can just scribble 2 phrases and give it in two minutes. ASAP means that more effort is put on the task to get it done right. And if it means that delays must happen, it is fine as long you can explain the reason for the delay. As if the delay reason is that the person responsible for releasing the patch decided to go to buy some coffee and was not heard since then, then it is not a nice thing. But if it is reported that closed beta testers reported that the patch caused couple times a file integrity failure and required re-install, then most would be approving the delay. IMHO the patch should already be ready and done and just waiting the release when the announcement is done for it. So there is no last minute testing or working for it at all when the schedule is given out in a week accuracy.

I do agree that this should be with the pilot model, but it should as well be a possible without the model. So that the kneeboard is just located where the kneeboard would be. Yes, be it floating in the air, but just show it there. Actually it would be great that ED would finally make a proper 3D kneeboard to be movable in 3D space and resized in proper manner, even make it so that looking at it would enlarge it (bring closer).

You are expecting too much. It doesn't just take 5 min to start the game, check the RWR loudness problem, type the fix to a file, relaunch the game to recheck did it fix it, and then get it out out on next patch and if people confirms it is done - mark it resolved. No no no... It will take at least 5 hours. You need few track files to confirm it. There is requirement to validate the code and consult other programmer that is the fix properly done - when his has opening in his schedule. And then get the fix to the closed beta team that should then check it - if they have time for that week. And maybe then we see it marked in patch log as "Fixed" (no, not really).

Sure it is broken. Tried to be funny as this report is in "resolved" basket... So no fixes to be done as it is clearly already fixed. No matter how you can't move the TDC unless you start with the Right. The 2.7 patch log talks about a TDC ACTION/NO-ACTION being (incorrectly) added, that is raising little hope that this TDC movement problems could have been fixed as well properly.

Think about it how SAM systems would actually utilize their mobility and relocate themselves random times in periodic times (like every 10-15 minutes), or after each attack run etc. It doesn't take much to move behind a building or treeline for cover to wait a overfly, or wait inside forest and come out for a proper moment to launch etc. This of course on SAM systems that are highly mobile and not required to deploy complex systems to move. It would effectively render SEAD/DEAD missions far less possible to be done when the EWR maintains the threat positions updated to SAM systems near the area. This so that even if the bombs and such wouldn't be detected in time, you don't have time to release them as you don't find the targets until it is too late.

The quality of journalism these days is question of the speed to hit "Publish". Lots of information is just repeated, reworded and simply changed. Why you need to read dozens of articles to gasp a overall picture and then required to make your own judgement unless you find a some better source to reveal more insightful information.

I recalled directly the video you are referring to. It is part of their Syria series. Where the pilot says aloud the range of the R-27 variant and it is censored with a beep. Here is one of them: https://youtu.be/opI_sgUS8J4?t=1454 And here is from the Su-35 in Russia with R-77: https://youtu.be/z4vYgQc7WZo?t=1226

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25209/India_Buys__218M_Worth_R_27_Missiles_For_Its_Su_30MKI_Fighters#.YG2wlEVR3AQ "A contract has been signed with Russia for the acquisition of R-27 air-to-air missile to be fitted on the Su-30MKI combat aircraft fleet of the IAF," government sources were quoted as saying by ANI on Tuesday. The Russian missiles with an extended range would give an added capability to the Su-30MKIs to take on enemy aircraft at long ranges, they said." https://en.topwar.ru/178568-ukraina-sobralas-jeksportirovat-aviacionnye-rakety-r-27.html "The representative of the exporting company proudly stated that Ukraine independently manufactured all the components of the missile, from the homing system to the solid fuel engine." https://old.defence-ua.com/index.php/en/news/236-ukraine-to-develop-a-new-missile-derived-from-the-r-27-technology "SJSHC "Artem" is a Kiev-based company which is specialist in manufacturing and upgrading R-27 missiles. The Company’s current product portfolio includes R-27 missiles in various modifications, including R-27R, R-27ET, R-27UR and R-27UT-RT." https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/major-russian-contract-for-r-77-1-air-to-air-missiles

Anyone who says so has not seen the improvements in speed that a good whip handling gets people to achieve....

People, you don't clearly understand that this problem has already been resolved, just update your game and all is fine....

The 2.7 patch for Harrier doesn't mention anything about IRMV polarity bug to be fixed so only the crosshair would change polarity and maverick would lock on Hot or Cold based to that.

Doesn't make it easier when Razbam default start configuration is to have nozzles in 10 degrees, even in the air start. They should fix that and make the proper angles.

At this moment it is better for F-16 fans that ED concentrates fully to Hornet, as sooner the Hornet is out of Early Access with all wanted features and in good condition, then more time and effort is moved to F-16 and it starts to be complete faster.

https://cat-uxo.com/uxo-types/fuzes/fmu-140-fuze So only adjustable by the weapons crew and for 10 pre-defined altitudes between 300 and 3000 feet (90-900 meters). And then a secondary timed fuze. https://cat-uxo.com/uxo-types/fuzes/mk-339-fuze And that has in-flight (pilot) selectable fuze mode from two options, both that weapons crew sets on the ground for wanted timers. It makes more sense to use the Mk 339 as all the pilot needs to do is to check which timer has needed fall time / altitude before release, and then simply fly over the target at the proper altitude related to that (like have a timer of 1.2 seconds that gives example ~800 ft fall time and then fly 800 + wanted spread altitude (ie 300 ft) over the target, so 1100-1200 ft to get proper release) Edit: So what we have here again is that ED should require pilot to set the fuzes in kneeboard/rearming/mission_briefing screen before take-off. And then pilot to fly based the set parameters for the fuzes.

Maybe that made possible to slip in something extra for the Hornet as well? At least Wags released the new video about Hornet and it felt like it would have been got ready just for next path but they could get it now for the 14th release?

I got that, but when people think in the terms of "capabilities" more as "I can win more with this, so it is more fun" is just personal character. Just like it is to enjoy from challenging and limited earlier fighters. Like one can enjoy dropping JDAM from a 10 km altitude on a target that is visually visible on ground, while other likes to fly below 100 meters and try to time properly the bomb release on target that will require correct pop-up and dive angles with speed etc. The funny part as that what you pointed out that Harrier we have is actually from 1985 but it is as high tech as is Hornet from 1983. Both are "obsolescent Cold War era" aircraft - equally. Yet when I sit in a AV-8B N/A and then F/A-18C, I get always the feeling that Harrier is much more high tech than Hornet is. But it could be just the visual look how ED and Razbam presents them. But one thing I do agree is that Harrier has much better interface design and system logic than Hornet (and F-35 even) does. That is something that makes Harrier so pleasant to fly and operate in the digital battlefield compared to A-10C or F/A-18C etc as you get to focus so much more to the situation on the ground that those others feel so much more from the past than Harrier does.

Nope. And smileys can be used multiple bad ways: "him)))) Even Soviets used US AAMs))))))))))))" That is what I see. Well, he can be happy etc for Swedish tech, but it doesn't mean it is to be concerned about. It is more about the correctness that should be.

Soviets copied (literally) AIM-9A and produced own K-13 that gave them plenty of experience. But after that Soviets made own missiles. And they got very creative with them. While Sweden did use US made weapons, they practically built all rest of aircraft with their own experience using the technology parts US offered. Sweden is one of the largest weapon suppliers, even before USA existed. Sweden is not a peaceful country but sells weapons to everyone who is interested. It was one of the major kingdoms back at the time and very aggressive conquerer, even when it didn't get such dominance like GB did. But Sweden is a Great Power state. Sweden has done many great advancements and productions, but it keeps low profile in them. Swedish know how to do business and they don't feel shamed if they buy something to be used in theirs, when others don't know what they even sold to them.

So majority is already done or coming. So if the current selection has been done in sake of maximizing the profits, then it means that in the future there are less popular aircraft options and that means profits are going to be smaller (or worse case marginal). Like there might not be any more demanded aircraft than F-14, at least I wouldn't even bet that F/A-18C has been more wanted than the star of famous Top Gun movie that even got people to recruit to Navy. There will always be some minor groups that are willing to buy some less known aircraft, but that is the problem that if group of 1500 buys one and other gets only group of 300, it will signal something business wise.

Only once did the Multirole capability be used in the Hornet at the Gulf War, and people make "Multirole is critical feature and capability!". And no, you don't know that Harrier can do "some air to air" as you are totally ignoring that AV-8B+ Harrier (the 2/3-3/4 of them all) has the same capabilities as the Hornet does. It just has little smaller radar dish size so the maximum detection range is little shorter. But otherwise same capability to go Air2Air combat. Harriers are even going to receive a JHMCS and AIM-9X II in 2023-2025 (they are last in the list to be upgraded, just couple years before retirement). So you are just pulling straws now... APKWS II is 100% backward compatible, even our Hornet with its 2005 software versions is capable (and used operationally) carry and launch AGR-20A. Same thing is with Harrier, fully capable and operationally used. The difference is just that Razbam actually did it correctly, while ED is denying it with double standard claim. But that is Off-Topic and already dealt topic.

Apache Kiowa Warrior Iroquois Chinook Cobra Super Cobra Sea Stallion Sea Dragon Super Stallion Thunderbolt Warthog Hornet Fighting Falcon Super Viper Eagle Super Eagle ..... All are as childish names as well to be "honoring" a Indian tribes, various birds etc.

Hornet can't do all those things that Harrier does... https://youtu.be/h1cx4ZdyGyA?t=338 https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-066.pdf "The F/A-18 Hornet dropped more than 17,500 tons of ordnance against a variety of targets. Its multimission capability was demonstrated on 17 January when a flight of four F/A-l8s encountered two Iraqi MIG-21s about 35 miles from their target. The F/A-18s acquired, identified, and destroyed the two MIGS. then shifted to an air-to-ground role and dropped their MK-84s. This was the only such incident in the Gulf War."