microvax

I did not factor in startup time that is correct, since on some FARPs red choppers start hot while blue ones dont or it is the other way around. Really not sure. I did omit that indeed since I didnt have good data at hand. If you have, lemme know how the numbers look if you factor that in. I do not agree at all that with shorter distance the differences in effectiveness become less prominent. Alone 1 10km trip takes an uh1 roughly 1 minute longer then an mi8, pure flight time. I have no Idea how to land the UH1 faster then the Mi8 but that might be my incompetence. When MI8 and UH1 were both sides I was faster on the ground and back up in the air then hueys by miles but again might be just me. But what I can asure you is that the gazelle needs a lot longer to land anywhere without dying or taking damage if you are not able to land on a road. The x2 I did choose was honestly a rough estimate and was intended not to make the mi8 look too good. I am a little bit confused about that one. But okay, we can for the sake of argument say they need an equal amount of time to land and takeoff. That literally is so far from what I have in terms of experience in all the helis that it really just feels wtf wrong but I am willing to just do it for sake of argument. So lets say 1 Minute for deploy and takeoff. And I am still not factoring in start time. I have no good data on that one. If you have, please provide it or do calcs with them factored in. So one averaged bluefor heli deploy takes you 8 minutes, Redfor takes 6,5 minutes. Bluefor could do 30 deploys per hour with 4 helis where redfor could do 17,5. If Redfor got one additional Mi8 per FARP it would be able to do 28. But again I do not think theese numbers are representative, maybee I will just take averages from people deploying crates from tracks at some point, depends if we get a real discussion going or if its just going to stay like "I have a feeling". I agree that bluefor technically has some amazing oneshot deploy capacity. Afaik all 6 Gazelles per FARP can take crates. So we could technically setup 2 SA6 two stingers and a ammo crate oneshot. How often does that happen. Yeee. Never seen it. The max I have seen working on one FARP is 3-4. Not even sure If I saw 4 working on the FARP. Thats why I did limit my calculations because 5 or more helos on one FARP is something which I didnt see so far. Usually we have 2 people running around building defenses and then jump to the next FARP to do the same. And in that scenario mi8s have the big advantage. Since our pilots are tied up an even more extreme amount of time with UH1 and Gazelles which have neither the speed nor the climb/high alt performance, nor the very good landing gear, nor the smaller threat by fighters due to no IRST looking at them. I think the setup atm is actually quite okay. Red has the way better machines in terms of Helos. Blue has more of the less potent frames. Both have their advantages and disatvantages. I could see one more Mi8 slot for Redfor without breaking stuff. It would make the not on comms people blocking slot problem less prominent without completely going over the top in deployment speed relation. I do not know if there is a imbalance someone would have to do some real analysis but since you already stated that not everything can be shown by math i think thats pretty hopeless and would be a waste of time. :D If you are so kind tell me something which cant be described by math. :D [Which would be necessary for it not to be able to make statements aka tell you things about things.]

I dunno, the problem I noticed most of the time was lack of mi8 pilots not excess while running red last round. I already mentioned not on comms people blocking slots. I get that problem. And I do not know why my calculations are silly, you didnt specify either. You yourself said, one needs an effective workforce if you need to attack and defend at the same time. If 2 MI8s run the same performance in defense deployment as 3 bluefor helis you have a very effective workforce. Average 80km transport flight an MI8 is also roughly 7 minutes faster. So Red does not have a Problem with effectiveness of its FARPs. Unless you can provide things I missed which heavily shifts the odds towards favouring blue. The other problem is blocking slots. That is a totally different problem from not having the capacity to do something. And I get that it exists. Only solution for that would be adding more helos to the FARP. That would shift the effectivenes or overall capactiy per FARP in terms of performance. I do not have hard data here but what I usually listend to is rocco desperately asking people to take mi8s from somewhere and it was pretty rare that the slots were taken. So I dunno. Its again a question if we want to keep the setup which is different in capacities for both sides or if we want to balance it. I dunno. I do not have a hard opinion about that one. But in the current asymetrical setup, which I love btw, I do not see a massive inbalance which would break it.

nah unfortunately no, it works over the export.lua. So yee DCS needs to be running and piping data through le export.lua.

Yes we haz 6 gazelles and 2 uh1s per farp. You have 2 ka50s and 2 mi8s. mi8 needs 4,8 minutes for a roundtrip 20km including one landing taxed at 0,5 minutes. UH1/Gazelle roughly need 7 calculating 1 minute for landing. 4 blue pilots can do 34 deploys per hour like that, while 2 mi8 can do 25/h. 3 blue pilots can do 25 deploys/h. So yee, given that 3+ is pretty rare and redfor already can do the same with 2 helos which bluefor needs 3 for I do not see the necessity unless I am retarded. I mean I see the problem of not on comms people taking slots but there is no real solution unless we mix helis again.

run the track of your blueflag visit, then you can rewind that as often as you want. :)

Bug is solved afaik. PEBCAK was the only one I had.

its not as easy as that... go here: http://imgur.com/a/xrc6o You get the Idea after a few pages. Question from me would be if the swedish aim9j got seeker upgrades at some point to make it all aspect. Also if technically you could carry AIM9L on the outboard stations. AFAIK the interfaces are the same and I have even seen some pictures with it beeing on the outboard pylons. But as allways that doesnt mean it has been cleared to do that or ever did it. But since the charts do not include BK90s as well, I was wondering. :)

Its indeed adding a whole dimension to the "are the strikers still in danger" question if GCI has no picture. And for a2g you have to rely on eyeball and other methods.

Hmm yeah no ELS then, still would be probably possible to see radar on the same frequency as the jamming. So directional info, overfly, mark, throw a BK90.

If it has a record option, that indicates that it has a broadband receiver. I mean it would not make much sense if you wanted to gather intel if you can only receive stuff from your own radars. Unless you want to detect Viggens landing at the next best McDonalds during excercise, driving through the drive in and taking back of with a "fresh" set of supplies. ;) To some extent receiver frequency is going to be limited, but general radar frequencies of the time should be included to make it usefull I guess, since also Jammers will be operating in that spectrum. But I dont know the specifics of the receiving part of the Radar, but it isnt neccessarily limited to the frequency of the emitter. If the passive mode can be used like the a2g map and curser can be placed that would be faboulous. :D

much want such need, many bk90s and rb05. ;D Honestly cant wait for heli hunting. RB05 for the bantz, gunpods for efficiency, aim9s for the average unsuspecting helo. If the a2g radar has enough resolution to spot helos on the 15km scale that would be brilliant. BTW. A dev said something about passive radar modes, can it be used as poor mans ELINT ? That would make bk90s a quite formidable weapon against portable Radar threats. inb4 all the sa6s in Blueflag get insta nuked.

Gib info already ! :DD I cand betray myself anymore that my mirage is close enough to a Viggen. :D

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/img/malmen76/37arm-01.jpg second from the right. 150rpg, 3degrees downwards pointing iirc. mounted on the inner wing stations, not the fuselage ones.

I guess Pedalkraftgeber would be similar. Theese non Viking english speaking people didnt get the memo that a Geber => giver ist a sensor not a generator. :D At least thats what my intense guessing at swedish yields in this case ! :D

Well, kinda depends on how the radar works. For PRF this is very much true, HPRF has a way bigger detection range then lower PRF, due to the much higher duty cycle. For bars and azimuth it gets tricky and is largely dependant on the algorithms used by the Radar computer. But let me cite the manual "The manufacturers claim that RDI will detect 90% of 5m² RCS fighter-sized targets out to 66 nmi (122 km) in clear air using a four-bar search pattern over 120° in azimuth, and 60 nmi (111 km) with a single-bar pattern over 30° in azimuth, dropping to 50 nmi (93 km) in pulse-Doppler look-down mode." In general, less azimuth doesnt necessarily mean higher energy density in a way that matters for range. If the antenna speed is decreased, then yes, the radar will paint the target for a longer time per echo, so the return will be bigger, which can possibly result in a higher range. If its the same antenna movement speed is the same as with a bigger azimuth, well, the energy density is higher, but each return has the same strength as in a bigger azimuth setting, so you get higher refreshrate => better track. But again, it highly depends on how the Radar Computer handels stuff. So we kinda have to depend on what le manufacturer claims unless someone can get a RDI radar Computer and reverse engineer its programming ! :D

Noice ! :) Will do testing within the same parameters and report back as soon as the update is live. Best thing about RAZBAM, you get reactions to bug report from the devs within days and not decades. ;D Honestly great work ! :)

Air to Air TACAN works. Air to ground TACAN works.

Yeah, seems like that will bug report it then to get feedback if its supposed to stay like this or if that will change. :) Thanks for the feedback guys ! :)

Agreed, and that is how it works ATM from my point of view. I have had situations where I lost STT for a few seconds and once I reaquired the target the missile did go for the target. But only in some limited cases, where the track of the bandit didnt change all to much.

If you select any CCRP ordanance which can be set to ripple quantity 02 or more bombs will release on trigger activation without a designated target. Small demonstration video. Each time I cycle to the outside view, I press the trigger to test if bombs are going to release.

So after I did investigate the rocket pipper inaccuracy, I tried to find out under which circumstances CCIP and CCRP lead to bad accuracy. I set up 4 Msta SPA and approached each one from one direction with varying terrain. I did choose different terrain to identify if the ranging solution and thus the solution is borked or if it is again a HUD representation issue. The impact pictures looked like this: First CCIP, the impacts for East, South and West approach are all over the place and fall short to varying degrees. Only the approach from the north works as well as I would expect it to work: From the spread I would expect a ranging issue, but first lets look at CCRP, if it was a ranging issue CCRP should disperse in a similar way. CCRP To my surprise it doesnt at all. For the first part they fall all long instead of short, also they are pretty tightly grouped. Also they all fall long to the same extent pretty much. This indicates that the CCRP cross is simply represented in the wrong place on the HUD, but there is already bug reports for that. My point here is, the calculation of solutions in that point works fine, but the representation in CCIP doesnt. To save myself and everyone else from expecting a bug when there is none, but only my incompetence or something else, I have recorded a few approaches. On the CCIP ones I drop all but one bomb, so its clearly visible when I drop on the target. :) CCIP1 CCIP2 CCRP1 CCRP2 Wild CCRP snippet from a Blueflag session just to demonstrate the issue exists in different parameters in the same way EDIT: Supplied the mission so you can see yourself. :)

Az', really plox ! :D I mean that I do not think that the mirage would have some "bonus but really inaccurate a2g" irl. :D OFC its a primary a2a. But if really wanted to be a competition for the f16, which it was as far as I can see, it really has to be more accurate in a2g then this. Or do you think this is fine ? ;DD Also, RDM to RDI was mainly radar upgrade right ? Or was a downgrade of the balistics computer made, so the a2g pipper would be in space ? :D :P Jojo posted a red flag 1995 in french video where a 2000c dropped a bomb, pretty sure it was a c. Trying to find that one. :D http://m.ina.fr/video/CPC08003568 Well it was a 2000D. Rip me, still does anyone really believe a 1980s airplane gives you that terrible solution calculation ? And honestly do you think this huge inaccuracy is correct ? I mean the original small pipper we had was more accurate. I could kill things 24/7 with that. But this one is just, I dunno. :D Colminator would be better I guess. :D EDIT: Want to correct myself here, I do not think the solution calculation is off, the representation on the HUD seems to be the problem.

The Mirage is a multipurpose airplane. I intentionally do not say multirole, because that might stretch it a little but picturing it as a pure a2a with some a2g "bonus" is simply not right. Like look how many footage is out there of Mirages dropping bombs in excercises etc. The mirage weapon systems have enough data and computation power to properly calculate the intersection of a plane and a object of known ballistic capabilities. If the Computer is powerfull enough to calculate a guns solution vs. an aircraft, then it is powerfull enough to calculate such a simple solution. So it would be pretty lazy of Dassault to just be like ah no no need for that. Also its an 1980s frame, where you reach the point where some countries even considered PGMs unnecessary due to the high accuracy new computerized systems combined with radar ranging delivered. Also as gavagi pointed out, AOA depends on weight. So speed calibration would not make it better but would have the exact same outcome. If the mirage a2g solutions would be wit a certain inaccuracy around the target, okay, but depending on weapon type they pretty much are off in the same direction, which indicates a wrong solution calculation.

I have been doing research why and when the mirages rocket pipper is off. At first I thought it was connected to the dive angle, but it isnt. I am pretty sure naow, that it is connected to AOA, if it isnt, well, its still way to inaccurate in some cases so I consider it a bug. :) Here are two videos to indicate the issue. : High AOA, the rockets fall way to short, pretty much the amount in degrees the FPM is under the pipper. low AOA, where the FPM is over the pipper, the rockets fall a little bit long.

You can. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2928785&postcount=3168