fltsimbuff

An empty A-10 weighs around 13 tons, and has far less tire contact patch than a semi truck (weight distribution). It's going to dig a trench if you get it stopped in the grass. That IS realistic behavior. AFAIK ED is already taking into account rolling resistances and weight of the aircraft. Maybe ED will one day add an "easy taxi" mode for people that text while taxiing :)

Mid-course for the Phoenix is a supplement. It keeps it headed into the "basket" as that "basket" moves. Remember the guidance was designed in the 1950-60s, and the other radar missiles were beam-riders and pure SARH. The Phoenix was an improvement with terminal active homing and autopilot. Target sorting is unlikely going to be a big deal attacking multiple real targets close enough to conflict, especially with the range and angular precision giving a rather large resolution cell for the radar. Velocity measurements can help with chaff sorting, no datalink necessary. What data can the missile not get via the radar reflected from the target that it can get out of the data link? I am talking circa 1950/60. GPS helps in modern times as it is absolute position a GPS-enabled missile can use, not position data relative to the fighter. Azimuth and range data isn't helpful as it is relative to the launching platform, not the missile. Steering commands or any other reference to the target locations require the launching fighter to track the Phoenix too (there's no evidence I've seen that it does, and see below for the reason it probably can't.). Let's look at this another way. Have you seen a diagram/parts list showing a rear-facing data link antenna or wave guide for a datalink? Any indication the AWG-9 tracked the missile as well as the target so it could provide more meaningful updates than target motion deltas? The Phoenix would have a hard time picking up a data link with it's radome pointed away from launching platform without one. Then there's the detail of the Phoenix lofting at altitudes far above where the fighter's radar antenna is ever pointed. It's not a big deal. My opinion differs from yours on this issue, as we have discussed previously, and we can't find definitive proof either way. Let's just leave it at that, and if you ever come across hard data that shows use of a datalink, I'd love to see it.

I know you are trying to be a pedant, but that is *terminal* homing. Guidance further out can still be homing.

Chaff close to a target hides exactly where the target is. Mid-course doesn't need to be exact, just near enough to see the target when it goes active. The mid-course is irrelevant to sorting out chaff once the missile goes active. So chaff would not be that big an issue for SARH vs datalink. Not saying datalink isn't better, just that SARH is not as big a handicap vs countermeasures as you seem to think it is, at least not for mid-course guidance purposes. We haven't established there IS a data link. Some sources say data link... more sources say SARH. It certainly would not need both, but we don't know which of the 2 it uses. I am leaning toward SARH because I have seen a lot more in support of that method.

Yes. No definitive source one way or the other.... at least not right now. I am saying that this method is as valid as any other put forth, so there's no reason to throw out SARH. I've seen other sources indicate track data is transferred to the missile in flight. We probably won't know until the appropriate docs become de-classified. As far as countermeasures... at the distances mid-course is used, chaff certainly won't be that effective, as the separation between the chaff and the real target will increase quickly. As long as the radar in the fighter illuminates the right target, the AIM-54 will fly toward the right target as the chaff falls out of the resolution cell of the radar. If the chaff is close enough to get illuminated with the target, that's still accurate enough for mid-course. Chaff close enough to the target to fool radar will still put the Phoenix close enough to see the target on its active radar when that comes on. If the fighter's radar is fooled by the chaff instead, that would affect the accuracy of the M-link data as much as using SARH. I read somewhere that the Phoenix needs the target illuminated by the AWG-9 once every 2 seconds, which restricts the scan volume of the AWG-9 to 4 bars/20 degrees azimuth or 2 bars/40 degrees azimuth while providing mid-course to one or more Phoenix missiles. No idea of the accuracy of that statement though. So my point being, there's no reason to throw out SARH guidance. There are still plenty of indications that it was used.

I don't know where you get that idea. Multiple sources I've read say the AWG-9 illuminates each target it is tracking periodically for the SARH mid-course guidance of the Phoenix. I don't see any reason the guidance system in the Phoenix couldn't maintain a track of its assigned target with periodic pulses for mid-course, as long as the AWG-9 keeps illuminating at intervals.

People may be taking it too literally. It might be better if it said "ASW in DCS?" Adding only submarines wouldn't accomplish much, as there would need to be a LOT of other things added besides submarines to make it meet the level of simulation DCS is known for... I, for one, would like to see it someday. I played Dangerous Waters back in the day and it can be a lot of fun tracking subs and ships by passive sonar. Voice command really adds to the realism for ship/sub simulations.

I would go into game controller calibration and see if it shows continuous pressure on the button to determine if there is something broken. However, I don't use TARGET as the native support in DCS works fine, so can't really assist there.

VMWare ESXi also has requirements for Passthrough (VMDirectPath I/O) to work in the first place. One of the requirements is VT-d support for Intel or IOMMU for AMD chipsets. You may need to enable it in the BIOS as well. You'll find that depending on your graphics card choice, the passthrough may not work at all.

I could be wrong, but I've always taken the X (if it is the one you are talking about) to mean "Stop trying to drop a bomb and pull up before you plow into the ground" and thus mostly ignore it. It sounds like you're basically dive-bombing, which does tend to be a more accurate delivery method versus shallower dives. I haven't seen modern aircraft use this technique much, probably due to the danger (you make a great target for AAA while making a steep dive). There's my 2 cents, though I am by no means and expert on dumb bomb employment.

It looks like the guy in the video thumbnail is feeding it.... What do they eat?

Isn't that the way it goes though? The computer industry keeps looping back on itself with refreshes of older technology. Same with Mainframes to PCs to the cloud, and Serial to Parallel back to Serial again.

Shape isn't everything. The 530D also has a stainless steel body, and weighs more than the AIM-7.

The development isn't totally done yet, and pilots are still training (not to mention the changes being made by Lockheed Martin that require updated training). The US also doesn't have any actually deployed yet. They are all still being used for training. When an aircraft is still being developed, it helps to be nearby the developers. The Australian pilots just started training in January 2015, and the simulators are in the US. The planes have officially been handed over to the RAAF, and the RAAF chooses to let the pilots learn to fly them before sending them home.

I managed to start it up, taxi and take-off, and accidentally fire missiles without touching the keyboard, so it seems quite clickable to me. It seems to be primarily fuzes and some communications systems that aren't at the moment. Now to find that manual...