TIMBER SOUR

There is no difference in accuracy between CCIP and CCRP; that is a myth. They both use the exact same ballistic data. The perceived difference in accuracy, if any, is because people tend to use CCRP with a level or shallow dive delivery, but tend to use CCIP with a steep delivery. IFFCC is going to be more accurate as the dive angle increases because the ballistic path of the weapon is shorter and easier to predict. Use CCRP with a steeper delivery, and you'll find it to be every bit as accurate as CCIP. As to the original question, a persistently dashed PBIL means the weapon impact point is out of the HUD FOV. A steeper dive angle, greater airspeed, or lower altitude is required to place the impact point in the HUD FOV; preferably all three. And remember, the point of a CBU-97 is to spread the skeets out laterally over an area target. If the canister is in a 88 degree dive when it functions because you released it from an A-10 at 11000ft, what do you think the spacing is going to be. How effective is the weapon against an area target when all the skeets are densely packed?

Again, ALN UNS is a normal condition when sitting stationary on the ground, or when flying for long periods in unaccelerated flight (straight and level). Make several large heading changes in order to increase the quality of the Transfer Alignment and regain the RDY indication. I can't say for certain that DCS handles re-arming of IAMs without flaw, but generally speaking the indications you're seeing are easily explainable. Of course, it goes without saying that IAMs require a platform (aircraft) EGI solution accuracy equivalent to a full gyrocompass (ground) alignment. So unless you see a 0.8 nm/hr EGI drift rate on the ALIGN page, IAMs shouldn't work.

There's lot of misunderstanding and incorrect advice posted above. ALN UNS means Alignment Unsatisfactory. The EGI transfers position and rate data to the weapon using something called a Transfer Alignment. If the quality of the Transfer Alignment is poor, you will see Degraded or Unsatisfactory indications on DSMS. To rectify a poor transfer alignment, you need to maneuver the airplane, specifically, make several large heading changes. Seeing ALN UNS is common on the ground while sitting stationary for 10 minutes in the EOR. Regarding an in-flight alignment, this too requires you to fly a constantly varying flight path, with smooth constant rolling maneuvers to create heading changes. In-flight alignments do NOT require you to fly straight and level. Doing so would result in an unacceptably poor alignment.

I didn't read the description, but if the video was filmed at BFI, then its probably pre-dlivery test flights being flown, and there's a checklist of things to accomplish on each airplane before customer acceptance. RAT/ADG deployment is likely on the checklist, hence the video.

The "/B" means that the particular component is expendable. The "A" means it's the first revision (i.e. it's the second version). Don't forget that rocket propellants are not necessarily solid cylindrical masses. They can be hollow, and or contoured to adjust the thrust profile. It's possible that a careful redesign of the shape could obtain the same or greater range with less propellant.

The requirement to achieve 4g in 2 seconds during a SEM is not to prescribe a maximum onset rate; there's no reason to delay your pull. It's there solely to define the MAXIMUM time allowed to achieve the MINIMUM g in order not to: 1) hit the ground, 2) frag yourself, 3) descend below the MIN ALT set in DSMS. If it takes you 3 seconds to establish 4g, you will do one of those three things. If it takes you 1 second to establish 3g, you will do one of those three things. You need to establish AT LEAST 4g within 2 seconds in orderfor the HUD abort cues to be valid. Also, there are symmetrical and asymmetrical (rolling) g limits associates with each store on each station. The information can be found in TO 1A-10-1-1 which is freely available on the interwebz. Look in the External Stores Limitations section. Finally, DCS severely undermodels the flight strength of the A-10 airframe. There is absolutely no reason for the wings to be separating at 7.5g...at an absolute minimum wings are stessed for 1.5 times the expected ultimate load. It's necessary to strictly adhere to the g limits marked on the accelerometer. Momentary excursions that would merely require a maintenance inspection in the real world, results in the wings falling off in DCS...

Ok, Chief.

tl;dr Not everything attached to the leading edge of a wing is called a "leading edge extension", not sure where you got that from? Maybe its a language thing? I grant you that all of the different secondary flight control surfaces on the leading edge (slats, LEFs, Krueger flaps, slots..) can be generically referred to as Leading Edge Devices (LEDs). But again, that's American Aviation English. Maybe that translates into something different in other languages.

The DCS manual contains contradictory statements regarding the Gun MRC. On one hand, it says that the MRC indicates when "recovery must begin", while the illustration depicts a centered MRC as meaning the aircraft is "at minimum recovery altitude". Those two things are different when the aircraft vertical velocity is non-zero. In order not to penetrate the MIN ALT set in the 30mm menu, you will need to begin recovery prior to MIN ALT if you are descending. The amount of altitude lost during recovery varies according to dive angle, thus at greater dive angles recovery must begin sooner. The Gun MRC symbology reflects this by displaying a time-to-go until recovery must begin. Just imagine if you were shooting a 60 degree High Angle Strafe with a MIN ALT of 500ft. The MRC would allow you to kill yourself if it didn't take into account the vertical velocity.

Just so you know, what you seem to be describing are not slats. Slats are secondary control surfaces on the leading edge of the wing that increase the camber of the wing and energize the boundary layer to increase stall AoA. They're usually - though not always - full-span, and can be found on airplanes like the F-14, A-6, F-111, Tornado, and even late-model F-86s. They're also found on most transport/commercial aircraft, like the C-5, KC-10, MD-80, and dozens of others. Slats differ in operation from Leading Edge Flaps (LEF), which can be found on most newer fighters like the F-16, F/A-18, F-35, F-22, and others. Some airplanes don't have any sort of leading edge devices at all, like the F-15, CRJ-200, and every turboprop I can think of. The point is, you keep using the very specific term "leading edge slats", but I don't think that's what you mean. The vapor forming structures you're describing are usually called Leading Edge Extensions (LEX) or Leading Edge Root Extensions (LERX), or informally "strakes".

The Gun MRS is based upon relative TIME, unlike the CCIP MRS which is based on an absolute ALTITUDE. The top of the Gun MRS represents -5 seconds from the set MIN ALT based on current aircraft motion, while the bottom of the scale represents +5 seconds from the set MIN ALT. Therefore, at any given altitude, you will see different MRS indications depending on aircraft vertical velocity.

What does any of this have to do with leading edge slats? The only aircraft pictured in the OP that even has slats is the Tomcat, and they're retracted. Maybe you mean LEX/LERX/strakes, etc.? In any event, there are plenty of opportunities for better vapor and atmospheric effects...but I imagine that it's a graphics engine feature that ED needs to support internally as opposed to a hacked effect created by a third party. Look at the RATO pods for the FISHBED...cool, but kinda half-baked without ED providing proper support for the effects.

You're exactly correct on both subjects. The settings in question are never modified by the pilot, however. The aircraft-specific values necessary for accurate boresighting and ballistics are stored in non-volatile memory of the IFFCC/CICU. Any values entered into the HUD menu would be added to the stored values, resulting in erroneous data. The values in the HUD menu are only used in rare circumstances to correct for known deficiencies that affect the whole fleet. For instance, an IFFCC error resulted in high-drag AIRs going long, so a temporary fix was to adjust the Offset and Ejection Velocity settings until the software could be updated.

DCS contains ephemeris data for the GPS constellation, so even things like predictive RAIM are possible to calculate. Unfortunately, DCS A-10C doesn't seem to use the data, nor does it model INS drift which makes the whole point moot anyway. Red Flag is a perfect opportunity to practice Contested & Degraded Operations (CDO), which include degraded/denied GPS environment. Too bad we won't be able to use it in the upcoming NTTR theater.

I'm in for this. Been waiting a long time for a solution to this. Good work. Edit: Any chance the final design will have the correct button shape, like your original render?

What's wrong with pointing out errors in a forum that's dedicated to...pointing out errors? Why wait until things are set in stone before pointing out an error? Why not say something early while it's more easily dealt with? Why the need to bash anyone and everyone who is anything other than mesmerized by what they see? It's entirely possible to love something, but still want it to be better. Sometimes its just as easy to model something correctly as it is to do incorrectly, if only the developer is made aware of the error.

During ODS, cyber took town the IADS and SEAD was very effective at mitigating the radar SAM threat. The result was a medium-threat environment best dealt with by flying at medium-altitude to avoid optically guided AAA and the IR SAM MEZ. TGPs are great in that scenario. What I'm telling you is that not all future wars will be fought against goat herding insurgents in AOs where the most lethal threats are SA-7, 23mm, and SA/AW. See Iran, Taiwan, DPRK, Crimea, etc. I get the feeling that you think I don't understand the benefits and advantages offered by an ATP. I think the benefits are obvious...when employed from medium-altitude in a permissive environment. But it should be pretty easy to deduce what tactical problems are encountered when employing the TGP from low-altitude in a high-threat environment. Sensor masking, achieving and maintaining target LOS, excessive heads-down time, excessive switchology, etc, are all limiting factors. Low-altitude tactical navigation, low-altitude tactical formation, and surface attack (tactical) are core A-10 competencies, and training revolves around operating in contested, degraded, and operationally restricted (CDO) environments against near-peer adversaries. So clearly, DoD and USAF think we might need to be ready to fight a "real" war.

Any high-threat scenario will force the A-10 to operate as intended and designed: at low altitude using terrain masking. If you think you can unmask, slew the TGP around looking for a target, point track it, slave all, roll-in, center the wagon wheel, switch SOI, command track, respect the 30-30-30 rules, and RIFLE before you get murdered by MANPADS and AAA, well... Let's just say that's not how it's done. You get two slews while looking at the Mav page, and if you haven't locked something up and RIFLE'd, you come off dry and remask immediately. You always strive to reduce the number of switch movements when employing weapons, thats why the A-10C got DSMS with preset weapon profiles. The last thing you want to be doing is making 6-9 switch changes between the time you pop to the time you SEM. Thats basic stuff. This has nothing to do with the pilot "messing up" or missions that are "poorly designed". It's simply a tactical reality. Also, why do we have the same conversation about Force Correlate over and over? The fact that DCS allows FC to be effective against point targets at all, let alone from ludicrous range, is wholesale incorrect. If you have any desire to simulate realistic employment of the Maverick, don't use FC for anything other than large targets like warehouses and bridges. It's almost as bad as the people who use the Mav as an air-to-air missile. Just no.

The argument is that when operating in a high-threat environment that drives the A-10 down into the low-level regime, the TGP will be ineffective and therefore you should be proficient at employing the Maverick without sensor cueing.

I grew up in Dayton, learned to fly at the Wright-Patterson AFB Aero Club, and visited the Air Force museum (now known as the National Museum of the United States Air Force) literally a hundred times or more. It's an epic place to visit that's far larger than both of the National Air and Space Museum campuses in DC combined. There's an extremely well-done virtual tour that lets you explore the museum from the comfort of your home, although nothing replaces seeing it in person. I remember when there weren't any railings preventing you from touching any of the aircraft. And to this day, aircraft still leak fuel and oil onto drip pans placed under engines and wheel wells. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/virtualtour The tour has audio and subtitles available. The cockpit panoramas are nicely done as well. Anyway, look here for the virtual tour:

Old school Super 80 (AA), or the 88 (DL)? I spent a lot of time in the jumpseat of the 88 commuting to and from IAD. Sweet machine! And like you said, barely any engine noise. It made taxiing seem weird because you had to look at the engine instruments for feedback. That and the amount of noise and vibration from the brakes. Check your PMs.

Hey, Wind noise is a bitch. The CRJ is pretty loud in cruise because of it. I remember how comparatively quiet it was the first time I sat in the jumpseat of a 767. I felt silly wearing my big David Clarks, when the widebody guys were wearing these dainty single-earphone joints. ECS noise is a huge contributor too. Something not simulated in DCS at all, unfortunately. Nonetheless, the A-10 powerplant manual gives the TF34 noise "splat" diagram, and mentions that the measured sound level in the cockpit is 80db.

As posted earlier in the thread, the noise level in the cockpit at MAX power is about 80 decibels. I'm not sure where the notion comes from that it's quiet inside of an uninsulated fighter aircraft cockpit? There's a reason why pilots wear earplugs under their helmets. I'd rather that DCS simulate the sound environment as it actually exists, i.e. without any artificial attenuation. If I want to simulate what it sounds like with a helmet and earplugs on, I'll wear a helmet and earplugs (or turn the sliders down). Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if we could actually route helmet sounds (VMS, Sidewinder, radios) to headsets, while other sounds - including the engines - go to the speakers.

More accurately, while the DC fuel pump is located in the left side of the fuel system, it is able to supply positive pressure to the entire fuel system. However, the fuel crossfeed valve is normally closed, so if you want to start the right engine first using only the DC fuel pump, open the fuel crossfeed valve.

As others have mentioned, no, it cannot. The A-10's Low Altitude Autopilot (LAAP) does not have any ability to control the ailerons, so it is limited to maintaining the heading that existed at the time of engagement through rudder input only. This is pilot-selectable in the CDU. Selecting an FP from the FPBUILD page using the LSKs will toggle between AUTO and MAN mode. AUTO mode will sequence to the next Steerpoint when passing abeam the current Steerpoint within 1NM.