Blaze1

Excellent picture Deano. Thanks for posting it.:thumbup:

I don't have any questions just yet Steve, but this is great to hear.:thumbup:

It's strange that your request was denied gyrovague. I'm pretty sure I've seen a couple of videos for the A-4 and A-7 (official training videos) describing operational use of the LABS. While LABS delivery may have been classified at one point in the tactical manuals, I don't think that's the case anymore. I wonder if the denial was due to the A-4 still being in service with some forces.

Good question.:laugh:

As far as I recall, the stabs of the legacy hornet should remain fixed at the trimmed TEU position throughout the cat stroke. The Super Hornets FCS on the other hand increases the stabs TEU command as the jet nears the end of the cat stroke. The Super Hornet has significantly larger stabs than the legacy model, so my guess is that the FCS software was rewritten in this fashion, to reduce drag and increase catapult end speed.

That's the PAD (Passive Attack Display) that was mentioned here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3799199&postcount=1154

The new UFCD isn't referenced in those early manuals. The line drawings in those documents don't fully illustrate the details of the design. I think the confusion stems from the fact that the illustrated display is drawn as a single, square screen, rather than a row of six linear LCDs as seen fitted to actual, older aircraft. The UFCD controls are the same however, whereas the newer system features slightly different knobs and the buttons are now rectangular rather than square.

It wasn't my intention to stir up an argument Rainmaker. I was confusing the UFC upgrade with the night vision lighting upgrade, wrongly thinking they all occurred together.

Kev2go, I don't think the UFC upgrade was available in the early 90's, early 2000's perhaps, but don't quote me on that.

Yep, there's a funny story about that. I know the A-6 in the early to mid 80's was equipped with an 'urgent' update to detect continuous-wave emitters (SA-6). It was a very basic detection system fitted to the glare shield. Two indicators (also fitted to the glare shield), one for the pilot and one for the B/N consisted of a set of 2 lights (green and amber), signalling whether the threat was on the plane's left or right side.

Hi SgtPappy I'm not so sure that the ALR-45/50 was an unreliable system, particularly for the time period in which was developed. From the reddit posts by TomcatRIO, I get the impression he was referring to the ALQ-100 rather than the ALR-45/50.:dunno:

You see, "......, Ironhand's my thing :laugh:." ":unsure:"

Glad you found that helpful Fri13.:thumbup:

Thanks HVT, that reminds of a GW/Janes F-15 mission.

A-ha :thumbup: The surface of the travel pod isn't as smooth so that should've been a give away. None of those jets are carrying the GBU-15/AGM-130 series weapons, so are there other reasons for carrying the D/L pods or are the GBU-15/AGM-130 loaded on a different aircraft (unseen) within the flight?

It looks like a travel pod on the centreline, but that can't be right given the other stores being carried or can it?

Generally classification (for in service U.S aircraft) is not the issue, the issue is the amount of unclassified data available. Just because information is unclassified doesn't mean it's accessible.

That's a really good video by Redkite, so a big thank you to him.:thumbup: One little correction (I think), the 'RATES' modes is ground stabilized, however it uses aircraft attitudes and LOS rates to maintain track, so is far more prone to drift than the 'AREA' or 'POINT' modes and as such is more of an intermediate mode for when tracking is lost for what ever reason.

I see. In peace time would that lead to an abort?

One of the things I love about the Intruder, were some of the weird and wonderful configurations of how bombs were loaded on MERs, when the MERs weren't maxed out.

DLC:

What's that when it's at home?