drPhibes

Since it's just a minor modification of the regular AI C-130 mesh you can probably use the template that's already available without having to change too much.

Nothing, according to the manuals. The only AGMs mentioned there are the 65-series and the 122. Wikipedia claims that it can carry the AGM-88, but without any official info I'd be sceptical of these claims.

A-10 tutorials for NTTR would be great (at least for those of us who only fly in 2.1), but I guess §4.1c in the EULA comes into play here, so you should ask ED before publishing anything.

TACAN or manual vectoring for finding find the carrier, with the option of using AWLS for the landing part when you get there.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3245183&postcount=108 But, as always, everything is subject to change.

Do they? IIRC, fusing and laser codes can be set by the ground crew, and I cant find any pictures showing an umbilical between the seeker/guidance section of a GBU-12 and the pylon, so I'm pretty sure that a GBU-12 can be dropped from any Mk-82 compatible pylon. But I have been wrong once or twice before, so if you have any technical documentation that says otherwise, feel free to post a link here.

Thanks a lot :) Here's an other interesting Harrier documentary, focusing on the first generation aircraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxzpKtbNKQ0

No. Belsimtek doesn't owe you anything.

Nope. This one: Here's the only cockpit shot I could find:

Copied from the TAC manual: Regarding A/A gunnery: don't know. Here's a link to the manuals: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.no/2016/05/av-8-harrier-tactical-manuals.html

The IMU is quite fragile, so it might have something to do with that. But that's just speculation.

Presumably that you shouldn't do multiple continuous axial rolls.

What are your sources? I'm pretty sure the antenna in the AGM-122 is practically useless at VHF/UHF frequencies. Here's a sectioned view of the AGM-122 seeker: (borrowed from ) The body diameter of an AIM-9 is approximately 5" / 127mm, so let's say the antenna diameter is approximately 110mm. By using a simple parabolic antenna gain calculator, with ideal conditions (100% efficiency), we get an approximation of how well the antenna works at different frequencies: VHF/UHF: 100MHz: -18,8dB 200MHz: -12,7dB 300MHz: -9,2dB Negative gain = a really terrible antenna at these frequencies. J band: 10GHz: +21,2dB 15GHz: +24,7dB 20GHz: +27,2dB So the antenna is about 4000 times (36dB) as effective at 15GHz than it is at 200MHz. This combined with the fact that it is pretty unlikely that the RF receiver is wideband enough to detect anything at these low frequencies leads me to conclude that it is unlikely that the AGM-122 can detect, track and intercept VHF/UHF EWR radars. But if anyone has actual technical data (no, wikipedia etc. is not a reliable source) that says otherwise, feel free to post it here.

The TDD part of the AGM-122 is described in volume 3 of the AV-8 TAC manuals, which isn't available online, so accurate information on the seeker specs might be a bit tricky to come by. But in general, building a seeker that is wideband enough to detect both VHF and J/Ku band radars (the latter operating at 100x the frequency of the former) and fits in the limited available space in the AIM-9 "host" is nearly impossible (at least using 1980-ies technology). It could however have several narrowband receiver channels tuned for different parts of the frequency spectrum. But without TAC vol 3 (or similar reputable sources), we'll just have to guess what it can or cannot do.

Thanks for the correction regadring MDA. Being in the ILS business, I just automatically think and speak in "ILS terms".

Sorry to say so, but feelings and opinions are worthless unless they can be backed up in some way, either with technical evidence, or personal experience with the exact type of aircraft in question.

Just curious: what do you base this on?

TACAN or VOR+DME is not a backup for ILS. These systems can guide you down to visual minima, but they are not landing aids, as they do not provide any horizontal or vertical guidance signals for landing. Simply put, they can help you find the airport, but if you can't see the runway lights when you get down to the decision height for non-precision approaches, you'll need to find somewhere else to land.

For the specially interested, here is a diagram showing the specified localizer coverage in the horizontal plane for FAA (right) and ICAO (left). The light green ±10° area is the main course guidance signal, while the dark green ±35° area is the clearance signal, which basically just gives you a full FLY RIGHT or FLY LEFT indication in the CDI until you intercept the main course signal. (diagram borrowed from an old Norwegian CAA handbook)

The areas of coverage are different. ILS only works along the extended centerline of the runway, while TACAN is omni-directional. For instance, if you're 100nm south of an airport with runways easy/west (09/27), you'd typically use enroute navaids like TACAN or VOR+DME (the civilian equivalent) to find the area where you can intercept the localizer, and then continue on an ILS approach/landing from there.

The angle at which the projectile strikes the target is kind of important here. It's simple geometry. At a 45° angle, the effective thickness of a 7mm plate is 9,9mm. At 30° it's 14mm. And in addition to the added thickness, armor piercing projectiles don't always go straight through a plate when hitting it at an oblique angle; they are usually deflected to some degree. If the combination of angle, penetrator kinetic energy and hardness is just right (or wrong, depending on which side of the target you are on), the projectile could simply bounce off. Or you could get deflection internally in the plate, leading to an even larger increase in effective thickness. Or TL;DR: 7mm isn't always 7mm.

The specs for Nammo M993 7.62x51 AP against 300 brinell RHA is 18mm @ 100m and 7mm @ 500m

Thanks to the OSD data from the high speed camera, it's easy to measure the duration from when the bomb first exploded to when the "big fireball" had all but dissipated. ~270 frames at 5400 fps = 50 milliseconds, or slightly longer than a single frame of PAL video (40ms). If that's your definition of a big fireball, then we're simply not speaking the same language...

Here's a Mk. 84: oiZTGHU3KkU Real bombs, unlike the Hollywood ones, don't contain bags of gasoline for added dramatic effect. FABs are, of course, a different thing altogether.

Yefim Gordon's books are very good in general, so although I can't remember if I've read any from the "famous russian military aircraft" series, I can recommend pretty much everything he has written. Very detailed and informative books.