mattebubben

No. Only Air-Ground mix is RB 05 and Gunpods or RB 75 and Gunpods. You can use Air-air missiles and Countermeasure pods in any combination with Air-Ground ordnance but those are the only 2 air-ground mixes that are valid.

But when it comes to the Audio signals and how to interpret them ingame. For most of the Air-Air Radars Emitter 1 is Search. And STT lock is Emitter 2-3 rapidly alternating. So its the Alternating 2-3 sound you need to watch out for since that means they are locking you. (And the onboard RWR wont detect missile launches so when you get locked by a Air-Air radar assume a missile is either incoming or soon to be launched and act accordingly which usually means get low and Run for it unless you get eyes on the launch) So in general Rapid Single tone beep = Bad stuff from ground (With the Pitch letting you tell what is what for example telling a Tor or a SPAAG apart). And two tones rapidly alternating (From the same heading) means Air-Air STT lock = Possible Bad stuff from the air. (its pretty distinct so its pretty easy to tell it apart from normal search tones)

And also CBU 97 are not guided weapons in the same way as the Bk 90 is. The CBU 97 is also unique in that the BK 90 dispenser remains after the submunitions are dispensed where as with the CBUs the Dispenser breaks apart when it dispenses. And i dont think those things are modeled by ED yet. Therefore it seems like Leatherneck has to make do with whatever solutions they can implement without ED support =P.

And you are sure that L-Mål is actually set to Gudauta? If you select L-Mål and go to Ref LoLa what numbers does it tell you? And do those numbers correspond to Gudauta if you double check with the Kneeboard. Its common on MP servers that you might have to input the L-Mål manually even if other Waypoints are pre-loaded. Dont know why this occurs but always double check the Landing waypoints before take-off and make sure its the one you want. (Might want to make it a Habit of double checking the LS as well since while it not needed most of the time for first take off its a good habit to have when Re-Fueling / Re-Arming at a different airfield). For me its Usually Anapa that became the L-Mål when it was not the Starting airfield (even if Anapa was on the other side of the map). Dont know what caused it but simply double checking the L-Mål numbers and correcting it when needed is a simple and easy fix (that works for me atleast).

Well actually. He was blaming the aircraft/module he is said so numerous times. (He realized that the Magic II launch missing was his fault but he still blamed the modules for the others things like the 530 missing and being unable to lock the enemy etc) Though im with you that he does not really deserve all the hate some people are throwing on him =P. Im pretty sure we have all had situations with a module (or in life) when we mess up but blame it on the equipment instead on ourself (often because we dont realize the mistake we did) so no need to shower him with hate for making a video about when he did it. I dont agree with his statements (and commented on his Video about the mistakes he made and that the module is not to blame) but that does not mean i think any less of him or feel the need to hate on him.

F-16A OCU is not a Retrofit. the F-16 Block 15s were delivered from 1982 (first Block 15) to 1996 (Last Block 15s). All F-16 Block 15s delivered after late 1987 and onward were factory built with upgraded systems (including a F-16C hud) and the ability to use weapons like the AGM-65,Aim-120 as well as the Penguin Mk.3 anti-ship missile as well as being powered by the F100-PW-220. Many of the F-16 Block 15s (and even some block 10s) were also upgraded to Block 15OCU standard but plenty were built that way as factory standard. But they still kept the old style cockpit displays etc with the only major cockpit change to my knowledge was the Wider F-16C style HUD. I dont care a whole lot personally if they made a Pre OCU or Post OCU F-16A but i think a F-16A OCU or ADF would probably make more people happy as they would have Aim-120s and the OCU would also have greater Multirole capabilities. I mean it can carry Agm-65s in Triple launch rails + Aim-120s and those 2 facts alone makes it a pretty capable multi-role aircraft. One more reason i would prefer the F-16A is because to me its more interesting. The F-16C is the Mainstream version that most people think of when they think F-16. Where as the F-16A was the most important version of the F-16 as its what laid the basis for all variants to come but it does not get anyway as much attention as the F-16C. I dont even think ive seen the F-16A in a sim (other then as a mod for Strike fighters 2) this would make it more interesting to have in a Sim to me then a F-16C would be since everybody already knows what to expect from it. And one more point. I just love the cockpit of the F-16A xD the Akward mix of analog and digital systems. its very similar to the Mirage 2000C cockpit in some ways with the radar screen being between the knees and the "Weapon panel" being to the left. Here is a Block 15 OCU cockpit. and here is a F-16A cockpit with the earlier Hud.

First let me start with your last comment. That is not true. I Specifically mentioned F-16A OCU or ADF both of whom have medium range Missile capability (With the ADF having the Aim-7+Aim-120 and OCU having atleast Aim-120 capability not sure if it could also use Aim-7) the F-16A OCU was also able to use the AGM-65 making it a pretty decent multirole aircraft combined with the unguided munitions it could carry before. And now il go to the top of you post. For me its not that i favor the F-18 over the F-16. But its that i dont have a unlimited amount of funds so if i spend money on aircraft i generally want them to do something that what i already have does not do. If a F-16C and F/A-18C came out at the same time its likely i would go for the F-16C because it has some features i prefer (Single engine for exampe) but i dont have a significant preference either way. But when the F/A-18C comes out it will be something i simply have to get since its the First Proper Multi-Role aircraft in DCS so it will be different from anything we already have or anything we will have for some while. And while yes the F-16C is a different aircraft they share most of the capabilities and i for one would not be ready to dish out that money for an aircraft that have so similar capabilities etc i would most likely get it at a sale or something further down the line but i dont think i would be able to justify paying full price for 2 similar modules. Where as a F-16A (and if its a F-16A i think a Block 15OCU or ADF would be the most likely as they are the most capable of the non MLU F-16As) is different enough for me to justify the day one purchase for myself (As well as the fact that i simply prefer cold war era variants which i why i would also have preferred an earlier F/A-18 either a early C or an A) And did i ever say what should be put into the game or what others should buy or prefer? All i said is i think im in the minority who would prefer a F-16A over a F-16C (or if a F-16C id prefer a 1980s Block so because cold war is simply my preference) something which im pretty sure is correct and obviously you are not a member of that minority but each to his own. Its all about personal taste nobodies opinion is worth more or less then anyone else's. And i have never said i blamed anybody who thought differently from me...

Im probably in the minority. But i would LOVE to get a F-16A probably Block 15 (either Early model or a later OCU or ADF for those who want 120s etc but still keeping that old style cockpit etc). I just really like 1980s era aircraft / Scenarios. And a F-16A with the old style cockpit would also be different enough to be worth making as it would operate and feel different from a F/A-18 (where as a more modern F-16C or AM/MLU aircraft would more or less operate in the same way as the F/A-18C). And there are still some F-16A OCU / ADFs in service in some nations (and they served in the US National guard untill around 10 years ago). Id be more hyped for a F-16A then i would a C since as i will be getting the F/A-18C a F-16C would be to similar for me to justify getting both other then on a sale. But a F-16A would be a day one purchase. a F-16A could possibly also be easier to get permissions for.

Just a quick search shows another small Museum that is about 1h drive from Lund. https://goo.gl/maps/3ZwTFYMoGkk Its has multiple Saab 35 Drakens (Including some Danish Drakens) as well as a JA 37 Viggen. If you have the time for a somewhat longer trip id say go to the Swedish Airforce Museum in Linköping as its the biggest and most complete aviation museum in Sweden (As well as Linköping being where all the Saab aircraft are being built and its also the place were you are the most likely to get a glimps or a Gripen flying other then going close to where the Active Fighter wings are based as Gripens often fly from the Saab Airfield in Linköping) If you dont have the time for a longer trip then id say go to Ängelholm or Aeroseum outside of Göteborg. Ängelholm is also where the F10 Fighter wing was based https://goo.gl/maps/8e9im9ewVDU2 Aeroseum outside of Göteborg is probably larger (Been there but not to the Ängelholm museum though Aeroseum looks to be larger) and its also pretty cool as its based in underground mountain hangars. Österlens is a smaller Museum so it could be cool aswell. Though its about the same distance from Lund as Ängelholm and seems to only be open some days a week were as the Ängelholm museum seems to be open all days between 10:00 and 17:00. And Ängelholm has the added benifit of being the location for a Fighter wing that flew the Viggen (aswell as Being the Last unit operating the Draken and they even operated the Gripen for a short time before it was closed down).

my guess would be that he is talking about a Canadian skin for the Viggen.

She is looking good =). Even if the Colors are not really spot on its allot better then what she looked like before they repainted her. Wind and weather had not been kind to her. Some more info about this aircraft in particular if anybody is interested. It was built in 1975 and was delivered to the F 15 wing where it served for most of its life with the code 15-18 (15 being the Wing and 18 being the Aircraft) she was upgraded to AJS standard in 1993. Sometime after that she was transferred to the F10 wing (Either After the AJS upgrade or when F15 was shut down in 1997 im not sure) where she became 10-18. And then she was finally retired and as mentioned donated to that museum in Spain. (Information is from https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_%C3%B6ver_Saab_37_Viggen which has this type of information about all Viggens built its in Swedish though ^^) Its always painful to see these beauties suffering outdoor but i guess they are still among the lucky ones (as the majority of Viggens where Scrapped )

The AV-8B NA can carry a Targeting pod for Lasing etc. (IIRC its the Litening TGP just like the A-10C has) Note the TGP on the centerline on the picture posted on the last page. So it will be able to find and laze targets in a similar way to the A-10C (when TGP is carried).

Stupid question. But are you guys removing the Cover before pressing the Rensa button?.

By Q3 or in Q3 ? :smartass:. But kidding aside really looking forward to it and you guys will have my money for sure once it comes out ^-^.

Not a Viggen thing its a DCS thing. AI have chaff/Flare even if no Chaff / Flares are loaded. So its the same on the Mig-21Bis and others etc its not a Viggen problem.

Ive always been interested in the Virtual Nose break thing so this is good news. Know if i could just figure out how to make this work...

Have you guys tried changing the direction you approach the target from? Since there are some directions where you will have a better chance to succeed then others. (Terrain masking or just the Shilkas not being able to range on you before you can launch at the target and go evasive). Did the mission 4 times. First Time i flew according to the Waypoints going the most direct route and was punished for it. (Nailed by Shilka just as i dropped the bombs) Second and third i entered the target area in a more roundabout way and i got away just fine while using CCIP bombs. And for the 4th time i did it with rockets (again not going direct path). So did it 4 times and only got shot down the first time when i approached head on. (and hit the target on all occasions even the one i got shot down). So its completely possible to survive it one might just have to consider the best direction to engage from.

Does the Mig-23-98 have any significant cockpit changes compared to the earlier variants (new Hud or displays?). Or is the cockpit mostly unchanged?

Nice thanks =) But in addition have you been able to look for the SKI 37 yet? To find out any possible information about the KB Chaff/Flare pod when it comes to numbers of chaff (since the current ingame number feels very low for a pod that size/weight especially considering the way it appears the pod would have been used).

Considering that the A-7 (and all other Razbam projects requiring Air-ground radar so A-6,F-15E,AV-8B+ etc) have been said to be on-hold untill ED has finalized and released the Air-Ground Radar coding they are doing for the Hornet i dont think its likely that the A-7 would be release before the hornet. (Especially with how many aircraft Razbam currently have on their lineup so even after the air-ground radar code is released It might i dont know if the A-7 will be the first aircraft they will resume development off). I wish the A-7 would be released first though as its one of my favorites =).

From those dates im Guessing that you belonged to F7? Gustav Blå?. And its nice to see a AJ 37 Pilot on the Forum=).

Yea the SU-17/22 is one of the aircraft i want the most in DCS atm =P. It would Fit in Really well. Especially if we made it a SU-17M4 or SU-17M4 with Sead capability (and maby even a version with the TV-Display to use TV guided weapons).

how effective was it at destroying the targets?. Since maybe one part of making it "MP friendly" was making it more FPS friendly by reducing the number of explosions and its impact on fps?. Did it destroy the targets you wanted it to destroy or did it just overfly them without any real damage. Since it would be kinda funny (in a sad way...) if they fixed the guidance for MP only for it to break in some other way xD. (Would be pretty typical for DCS though ^.^)

what version did you try? MJ1? MJ2 or mix? I find that the Mix works best. (maby a bit better then it should since it seems to be using a homing type submunition for the MJ2 instead of how it would work like in reality. Though considering how much Fragmentation etc is underperforming in DCS atm id say its fair to make it work in an unrealistic fashion to get realistic results if they cant get realistic results but having it work like it should). But atm i find that MJ1 and MJ2 BK 90s are not that effective (due to the poor Explosive Damage modeling of DCS) but the BK 90 MIX (which has a Mixture of MJ1 HE and MJ2 AP submunitions though as stated the MJ2 submunitions of the MIX version work differently to how they should) is very effective and is capable of taking out convoys of 5-10 vehicles with a single dispenser. Though i dont know how many servers will be using the Open beta version (since todays patch was only for the Open beta version) so BK 90 still not working on stable.

Guys the Problem you guys are mentioning (G-loc when leaving autopilot followed by crash) is due to Negative Gs not Positive Gs. And Pilots are much more sensitive to Neg G then Pos G. What happens is that as the aircraft accelerates into the Transonic region it will begin to pitch down (and this has to be counteracted by Stick pressure or by Nose up Trim). The same thing happens but the other way around when you are trimmed for Supersonic flight and decelerate below supersonic speed which will cause a Pitch up movement (Though this is much less of a problem since you are unlikely to G-lock from it.) The problem is that when using the Autopilot the autopilot will keep the aircraft nice and level but it will not change the trim of the aircraft (instead using the Control surfaces as it you where applying stick pressure). So when you leave the Autopilot the flight controls will be centered and the aircraft will have an extremely rapid pitch down movement resulting in heavy Negative Gs (due to the high speed) and it will usually result in G-loc. So to avoid this remember to always have some back stick pressure (forcing the nose up) as you disable the autopilot (when in the Transonic or supersonic region) in order to counteract the Pitch down effect. 3-4 Negative Gs will be enough to cause a G-Loc where as 6-8G positive Gs can be held for several seconds before you start to get a danger for Blackout / G-Loc All Gs are not Equal when it comes to G-Loc and you need to be careful about pulling Neg Gs. And guys lets also differentiate between Blackout and G-Loc. Positive Gs cause these effects in this order. Grey out (There is graying of vision) Tunnel Vission (getting closer to a Blackout as the field of view gets smaller and smaller with the black closing in towards the center). Black out (No vision but still retaining consciousness you just cant see) and then G-Loc (Pilot looses consciousness for an Avg of 12-15 seconds). a Negative Gs cause these effects (and at much lower G numbers). Red out (Vision turning red as you are pulling Negative Gs and getting closer to G-Loc). G-Loc (Same as in Positive Gs). So you guys are saying Blackout but it sounds like you guys mean G-Loc and especially if its pulling Negative Gs. http://gizmodo.com/why-the-human-body-cant-handle-heavy-acceleration-1640491171 More info about G-Forces and G-Loc from Negative + Positive Gs etc.