Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Just want to give this a bump after running into this problem. At the moment your employment options for CBU-99/Mk 20's are extremely limited and require relatively low altitude and lower airspeeds to guarantee enough time of flight for the bomblets to arm or disperse. The Mk 118 bomblets have no means of retarding airspeed once the canister opens meaning high speed/high altitude release profiles are a non-option. Compared to the BLU-97 bomblets used by the CBU-87/103 which do have a means to retard speed and increase TOF, the height of burst ends up severely impacting the CBU-99/Mk 20/Mk 118's terminal effects. These high-speed/high-altitude profiles are a must when engaging in a dense MANPAD/SHORAD environment to ensure you can stay out of their engagement envelope while deploying unguided munitions. @BIGNEWY or @NineLine is this feature planned or under consideration?
  2. This function is still broken. I'm adding a track file in the hopes that this may help identify or resolve the bug. Pages 350, 352, 359, and 361 of the F/A-18C module's manual all depict the proper presentation of the steering dot/cue; and it is repeatedly defined as follows: In conjunction with the ASE circle, the Steering Dot indicates lead angle steering to the locked target. Fly to place the Steering Dot inside the ASE circle to satisfy lead angle computations. This behavior is clearly not being exhibited in the attached track, and the steering dot remains "affixed" to the targeted contact making no corrections to establish a lead angle for either missile type demonstrated. ASE Dot -9M+120B.trk
  3. Self-lasing for an AGM-65E was not a thing until the AGM-65E-2 (introduced late 2011ish, USAF equivalent being the -L). Typically, laser mavs are employed in a buddy-lase or ground-lase type attack. Regarding the "lock" range, the DCS laser is hard limited to a range of roughly 7.5 NM. Regardless of the missile seeker's sensitivity, if you're self lasing you won't get a proper "lock" until that point anyway. If it does manage a lock past that range, it is locking to the "end point" of the laser in 3D space. tl;dr: buddy lase before trying to self-lase
  4. From my understanding of the TOO mode in the F/A-18C it does not use the missile itself as a sensor, it instead uses the RWR to generate the video image you see on your DDI. This is distinctly different from the method used in the F-16CM as it does use the missile itself as a sensor (HARM As a Sensor). This is where the disparity in compute power comes from. When you hand off an emitter in the F/A-18C you are commanding the missile to then narrow its search pattern to that specific type of emitter in an a narrower azimuth/elevation scan (in effect analogous to an STT as some else suggested) that is commanded/steered/vectored by the RWR. This cross talk between the RWR and the missile is what is missing in the F-16C, and what the HTS remedied to some extent.
  5. A single Mk 20/CBU-99 will not provide the required density in sub-munitions to result in a reliable probability of hit/kill. Your best bet is to release them in pairs or greater ripple quantities. There is a Harrier TACMAN out there that will recommend 4 canisters for a point target. Key thing to take away from this: you need enough sub-munitions to totally saturate a target area.
  6. I would suggest forcing Battle Damage Assessment to off in the mission file if you're planning on keeping D/L limited to F/F as that can unintentionally give some very critical SA.
  7. Well at this point we're not talking about exercising BVR, we're just racing to the merge and keeping it there. That's what 9X and the R-73/AA-11 are there to do: discourage the merge and increase the lethality of the tactic. If that is what you're after (just closing to a merge and fighting BFM), that's fine, but that is definitely NOT what BVR is, and i would argue that at that point you should just go fly one of the multitudes of other BFM tournaments or dogfight server.
  8. I think the limitations on D/L and AWACS are a very artificial way to force a fight into the merge and/or low. I understand you want to limit this to a historical time frame, and that's fine. I really like the idea of authenticity in that form, but artificially creating "blind spots" to "make it interesting" just puts me off, likewise with the munitions limitations. I understand the desire for a competitive environment, but war isn't a sport. These machines, technologies, and weapons are not designed to be fair, they are designed to offer the best advantage they can give to the warfighter, and expecting them to be fair is foolish (imo). To be frank these "deathmatch"-style fights are not my favorite thing, as there are considerations (like having enough fuel to RTB, or max trap weight/bringback considerations for the navy birds) that you can't really translate to the format. In any case, the lack of SA due to the limits of F/F datalink was really eye-opening to me and I have a lot to consider and learn from now. Thank you for providing this opportunity.
  9. You should keep in mind that the sub-munitions themselves require an appreciable time of flight before they are armed and that is generally what determines the minimum burst height. From Wikipedia: As for the "spread problem": the CBU-87 only contains 202 BLU-97/B sub-munitions, and each one of those sub-munitions contains only about half a pound of explosive, so expecting a single bomb to cover all that ground by itself is kind of foolish. The same concept can be applied to Mk 20 Rockeyes and CBU-99s: just drop more per release.
  10. According to a USMC pilot I've been in contact with the RAID/FOV button on the throttle will switch between RWS and TWS when a L&S target has been made. The workflow he described was as follows: 1. STT or bug L&S in RWS/LTWS 2. Depress RAID/FOV button on throttle 3. Radar will go into TWS AUTO at max volume depending on last selected bar setting 4. RAID/FOV again will enter SCAN RAID mode 5. Depressing RAID button again will exit SCAN RAID and return to TWS AUTO Hopefully ED can confer with their SME's and verify all this. Note: the pilot in question has been flying Lot 15-19 Hornets, so i would assume this is not a question of a newer software package. Especially essential functions like A/A HOTAS.
  11. I recently had a conversation with a current USMC pilot flying lot 19 Hornets and asked him about asymmetric loads and take off trim. His squadron is shore-based so this likely doesn't have much bearing on USN procedures. He stated that when flying such configurations, NO DIFFERENTIAL STAB trim was applied, only rudder trim. When I inquired further and asked if he trimmed the roll on wheels up, he plainly stated he didn't, he simply flew it manually to cruise altitude and then put the jet into BALT to "trim itself out". I was again, confused. From my experience flying it in game, BALT is a temporary measure. His response was, "It should stay trimmed where it is after you disengage the AP" EDIT: TLDR: Disengaging BALT should keep the jet stabilized and trimmed out in the current roll state. Unfortunately all I have is this conversation as a source, but I hope ED can confirm this with their SME's. It's a small QoL thing that would make flying the jet a whole lot easier.
  12. So does this mean that bug fixes for the Hornet are not part the OB for this week, or just the JSOW?
  13. AIM-7M and MH are now lofting if not closer than approx 2NM, and regardless of loft mode in SMS page. Loft angle seems to be around 30 degrees for approx. 4 seconds. Track file attached, as well as a few captures from Tacview. The attached .trk does not include data on minimum range loft, but I will provide one if required This was recorded in SP/ NTTR. AIM-7 LOFT.trk
  • Create New...