doedkoett

The F-4 is weeks away (insert 2-week-joke here, while I´d guess 4-8 weeks, so say 6), while the Mig-29 is months away (my guess is at least a year). I bet a copy of the Mig-29 module that the F-4 will come well ahead of the 29.

Usually you can trim the waterline symbol up and down on the SAI, so it isn't necessarily in the middle.

Anti-ship mission and dedicated anti-ship weapons are two different things. Even the Viggen, that could use two different anti ship missiles, was prepared to engage shipping with the use of dumb bombs and rockets. Remember that the Argentines attacked the Royal Navy in 1982 not only with Exocet-missiles, but also using Skyhawks loaded with dumb bombs. It took skill and bravery on the part of the pilots, but they did inflict heavy damage on several RN ships. If the job needs to be done, sometime you will have to use the tools that you have, not the tools that you´d want.

I don´t get it - is it against the law to fly SEAD/DEAD missions in an F-4E in DCS, or is it the use of the "Weasel" callsign in the video that is the great heresy? Maybe SEAD is only Wild Weasel if it´s from the Wild Weasel region of Vietnam, else it´s just sparkling SEAD...

Why not have a button "create new mission set", when clicked, it creates a mission/target automatically each time you click on the map. The mission data fields are automatically populated with default data, but editable if you want something specific. The sets could be displayed as units are displayed in a group, using < and > to swap between them, and the missions/targets could be displayed in a list, like waypoint actions, with arrows to move them up or down in order.

Yes, I presume so. IDK if the JDAMs have an INS in game. I mean, GPS jamming is not a thing in DCS, so there is little need for a backup. Haven't tried, but I guess dropping JDAM before 1994 (ie before GPS exists in-game) would just have them go ballistic. But it would be interesting to learn if anybody has tried and seen other results.

Since the bombs are ED, and ED seems to have their GPS-cutoff in 1994 I believe the bombs did use GPS (mission was in 1995). The precision with which they missed makes me believe they were GPS-guided. They weren't entirely ballistic, because that would not have resulted in the nice, albeit offset hit pattern.

No, the bomb will go to the map coordinates you give it, either by entering them manually, or from the mission planning tool or by designating it with the onboard sensors. The onboard sensors know where they are looking because they know where the aircraft is. However, if the nav system is off, for example 100 m west and 200 south of where it think it is, the coordinates will be correspondingly wrong - instead of the correct coordinates, the coordinates you will get are the ones corresponding to a position 100 m west and 200 m south of the target. So in a sense, yes, the designated point is a point relative to the aircraft, but it is translated to a point referenced to the earth, and that is where the trouble starts. If the bomb was laser guided, there would be no problem, since that "system" is totally internal to the aircraft. An unguided bomb would work too. But the GPS guided bombs uses an internal source (INS => Radar/TPOD) for getting the destination, and an external source (GPS) to get there.

Well, I think I can confirm that my problem was GPS-related. I made a quick mockup of the mission I played, ran it twice - once with the year set to 1995, and the second time I set the year to 2020. The first time the bombs landed in a neat rectangle, just a little bit offset from the actual targets. The second time they were spot on. So I guess that mystery is solved. I guess since I can´t blame the module, I will have to be mature enough to blame my friend who made the mission that set me up to failure.

That could have been the culprit - the bombs went where we told them, but but we simply gave them bad data due to drift. I´ll have to check that out.

Actually, there is video: (designation starts about 47 minutes in)

I have been playing around with the new JDAMs and I have noticed that bombs given their designation from the radar sometimes miss. Me and a friend tried to bomb four targets with four GBU-31's yesterday, and we designated the targets using the AG-radar. Out of four bombs only three were dropped as my wingman had the bug where the bomb disappears from the smart weapons page. All three bombs missed with quite a wide margin. The mission date is set sometime in 1995, so GPS should be active, and thus also EGI which should take care of any INS drift, right? Are we doing anything wrong perhaps, or does the radar lack enough precision for this kind of work, or do the JDAM´s need a bit more polish from Razbam?

I think it pulls down the visor on the pilot figure, but the actual view does not change. The F-15E visor works fine though, I used it last time I flew the Mudhen. The Nevada sun was mighty strong..

That´s probably reflection from the dishes, and it occurs in real life according to "Starbaby" Pietrushka in an interview with Steve Davies in his podcast "10 percent true". According to "Starbaby" the reflection makes it pretty easy to find radar antennas with the ground mapping radar.

The Dragons Eye is not the onboard radar, it´s an AESA-radar carried as a pod, and given the imagery from other fighter size AESA-radars I have seen, the image will be more like a black and white photo rather than the grainy imagery we´ve used to in DCS. Vehicles will most certainly be visible. Ground radar has the advantage of not being hindered by clouds, something that can be a problem when relying on optronic sensors.

I can´t see that the F-15E would fare much worse than say an F-16 or a Hornet. If for example the ukrainians would be given Strike Eagles with the ability to carry a weapon like the Storm Shadow and AMRAAM missiles it would definitively be a step up from the Su-24 and Mig-29s they are using today. But on the other hand, they would still be vulnerable to SAMs and thus as limited as the ukrainian aircraft already are. But as we can see in Ukraine, with good intel, SAM sites can be knocked out by pre planned HARM-attacks or good old commando raids. So while the F-15E might be old today, I would not consider it completely outdated. As for loitering, looking for targets of opportunity. I might be wrong, but I don't think that is a mission that exists in a conflict with a peer or near peer, if ever. When this have been tried, like when hunting scuds in ODS, this was quite unsuccessful until boots on the ground could lead the aircraft in on the targets. But if that is done, and only on-board sensors are to be used, then the SE with the Dragons Eye pod should be one of the better aircraft for the task.

It seems lite take off trim is already selected when hot starting, in case anyone wonders why it behaves like it´s in t/o-trim even if it hasn't been selected. Not the world's greatest stick shaker here, but FWIW I almost only touch the pitch trim after start (nose down) and to trim it for on speed landing (nose up). Then again, when flying straight and level I let the A/P do all the work for me.

Yes! I also want this feature. Pretty please with sugar on top! Anyone who has come up with a workaround?

I think it works - I have tried changing channel and band, and then the interference stopped.

On the A2A radar screen. Flip NCTR to on, Lock a target heading towards you, interrogate using coolie right, and a text telling you the aircraft type should appear as long as you hold the coolie to the right. It takes a sec or two for the interrogation to take place.

It is the "Non Cooperative Target Recognition". I can't see any downside to having it turned on. What it does is that it compares the radar signature of your current target to a library and, if everything works, spits out what kind of aircraft you´re looking at. It doesn't tell you if it's friendly or not. That's the other IFF´s job. But if the enemy have Mig-29 and your side does not, a "Mig-29" as a response might be all you need. It seems to work only in certain aspects. Have not been playing around with it much, but head on aspects seems to work best.

The AP-page on the UFC tells you the minimum speed you need to be in for the Altitude Select to climb to the selected altitude. If you’re under that speed it will only hold your current altitude. Not so sure it cares what power setting you’re at, as long as you’re above the min climb speed.

I don´t know what you're expecting to see? If you have a steerpoint that should appear as a circle. If you want it displayed as a triangle (target waypoint) it must be named #T in the mission editor. If it is the target themselves you want to be able to see on the radar, then you probably should create patchmaps using the highest resolution. Note that you will have to have the target at either side of the nose to create a patchmap. To create a patchmap, press the OSB that says "TGT" in your pictures above, until it says "MAP", then toggle the various resolutions with the center button in the bottom row, the one that says ".67". If the marker turns into a rectangle, place it over the area you want to map. If the rectangle is X:ed, try selecting another patch map size or turn to take the target a little bit more offset from the nose. You´d probably have to be at the highest resolution (0.67 miles) to see the aircraft on the tarmac clearly, and to be able to use that you have to be fairly close. Cant tell you the distance, but 80 miles is way too far, and 40 too, I think. Gotta have more time in the cockpit to know that by heart.

Well, a "Heavily modified F-15B" used to sell the F-15E concept is a prototype/demo aircraft in my book. I meant what you said in my post. I am sorry if I was not clear enough.

In this case it´s Razbam. You can blame Razbam for a lot of things, but not the Su-25T or the Black Shark. I am sure some modder will discover how to mod the SE to carry the macho configurations depicted above. At least the the livery package is out, so you can create the wrap around euro I lizard scheme used by the prototype if you wanted to.