Blaze1

I guess that's fair enough Naquaii. I do understand your position. Just to be clear, are you saying that you have no evidence of the -54C using command-inertial guidance or that you know it does, but don't really know what that means, that's to say, although it sounds the same, the basic guidance method could be very different from the AIM-120s?

I completely understand yours/Heatblur's reluctance to simulate the -54C without hard data, however you could look at it both ways. Considering you have no hard data, creating a -54C with slightly better chaff resistance, may be just as inaccurate as modelling a -54C based on the -120s guidance methodology. So in a manner of speaking, this gives you a some freedom.

The user manuals are technical manuals and can describe functions and systems useful to an adversary, e.g operating frequencies, ECCM methods, sensitivity, fusing characteristics, seeker FoV etc.

No problem Grater, thanks for the link. I thought it would be a government entity, but the NAVAIR numbers could still be useful.

I watch that documentary a week or two ago and I don't remember that part. I'll have to check it again.

Where did you find that little gem Iron_physik?

Grater, if you can post the name and location of the documents, that could help with an FOIA request.

ED are currently going with the 4 HARM loadout because it's stated in the -1-2 manual, which is also relevant in terms of its date, so their reasoning is completely understandable. I'm of the opinion that HARMs are only authorized (for launch) on stations 3 & 7, but this is only based of comments from individuals here, that appear have worked around the jets and or have done solid research on the matter, as well as information from an old foreign -34 that may not even be applicable here. I'm sure in time, even if material evidence isn't available, if there are enough SMEs to confirm HARMs on 3 & 7 exclusively, I'm sure ED would reverse their decision (just my opinion of course).

It's also mentioned in the older Greek -34 manual.

While Sidewinders on the Intruder probably wasn't common, they did fly with them.

Yes, those are the ones Iron_physik.

The main cockpit differences between a full SWIP jet and a TRAM jet are: 1) Integrated Missile Panel (IMP) on the horizontal center console. 2) AN/ALR-67A(V) 3) New warning lights either side of the gunsight. CCIP was introduced on both SWIP & TRAM jets, as TRAM aircraft also received the OFP software updates.

I was just about to post how if it's a TRAM, I'd like to see the AWG-21 variant, but then remembered they stopped shooting the Standard by the mid 80's, which we already covered in the other A-6 thread I think.

I wonder if the A-6 was the first tactical aircraft to make use of AMTI? The A-6A had this feature within its AN/APQ-112 track radar.

The A-6E TRAM (mid to late 80's) has those gun pods catalogued as legitimate stores, so I wonder when they were removed?

Yes. The A-6A could carry and launch the Sidewinder missile as well as up to four MK-4 gun pods which had an air-to-air capability. I think the A-6A was cleared for the AIM-9G, not sure about the 'H' model though.

I just found out about BriteCloud a few days ago as it happens. The earlier ones I remember being marketed or in development, were Gen-X and I think one called Poet or something like that.

Wdigman, my understanding is that they fit into the chaff & or flare dispenser crates.

This one made me laugh:

The main internal differences off the top of my head are that the SWIP jets featured: AN/ALR-67(V) Different warning lights (pilot side) Digital fuel gauge Integrated Missile Panel

"...Ya see, Iron Hand's my thing "

Fisherman, the Walleye is TV guided and the SLAM IR guided as far as I know.

bC3660, did you ever work on any of the PAT/ARM jets?

Your welcome. I think STARM disappeared because cracks were being noticed in there motors apparently, but at the same time HARM was reaching IOC, so the STARM was retired. MBot