drPhibes

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.

I think you're underestimating the actual cost involved. First of all, there aren't many wind tunnels in the world that are large enough for full scale aircraft, and renting the tunnel at NASA Ames (the only one I could find with some quick googling; there are probably a few others around the world) isn't cheap. Second: no warbird owner in their right mind would ever risk damage to a multi-million dollar aircraft for such an experiment. Good scale models and accurate CFD simulations is the only feasible way of obtaining this type of aerodynamic data, and even these "cheap" methods are extremely expensive (if done right), especially considering that DCS is a tiny niche market compared to other sims and games in general. If spending a few years digging up existing relevant data saves you x% of profit margin for the final product, it's often worth the wait.

I have only flown the unarmed version (no pylons/hardpoints mounted), and it does not have the gunsight mounted.

Schwitzerdütsch (and maybe also Bavarian) is the only proper German. All that hochdeutsch-nonsense is cheating :P

IIRC, someone from the Razbam team mentioned some time ago (either here on the forums or somewhere on FB) that it was already being tested by ED. But all these "when will it be released?"-speculations are pointless. Read the manuals instead, so you're prepared when it goes live :)

Often, but not always. As several people have mentioned earlier, the Gazelle was released the same day sales started.

I had a quick skim through both the AV-8B and SH-60 manuals, and none of them mention any landing aids (just, as you mentioned, TACAN, which at least helps you find the ship), so it seems that you'll need to land visually.

You could just overwrite the Russian audio files with the equivalent English files, but I'm not sure if it will pass the integrity check with the changes that have been done there lately.

Check your axis assignments, and make sure that radar elevation isn't bound to a slider or something else where you don't want it. IIRC, I had problems with this happening to some aircraft (can't remember which) some time ago.

I know this sounds like complete crazy talk, but you don't actually have to buy a new module the first week after it is released. If you are unsure if it's worth buying yet, wait for a complete feature list to be published (like I'm doing).

Several do. For instance Burning Skies WWII. All the "F-s" are disabled. It makes even finding the runway at the obscure Normandy airfields a chore...

Then you are, of course, welcome to not buy the module and ignore the fact that it exists. And feel free to check what you have to pay for equivalent products for the other sims [that shall not be named....

Zlad is the only thing worth listening to: ...and Audiopain:

Hanging out of the door of a Schweizer 300 with my Sig P210 would beat the Huey any day! And maybe even the Mi-24P. (and no, this is not one of the wishlish thread derailments that seem to pop up everywhere these days).

But whatever the reason may be, "fixing" it is easy:

There could be several reasons. The most obvious is licensing issues; if you want to use Garmin's registered trademarks commercially, you need their permission. Which usually costs money. An other aspect could be possible publicity reasons. If Garmin should feel that a simulated version of their products give an unfair/inaccurate representation of the real world product, they might not be interested in allowing use of their names or proprietary IP.

Fortunately there were no injuries, despite the fact that the missile hit the ground few meters from the spectators. It did not explode on impact (presumably because the warhead didn't arm in time). And the year was 1977 (May), not 1978.