G.J.S

https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/08.airborne/karte031.en.html Public gen on the type used by Longbow.

Shouldnt that be “the car in front WAS a Toyota . . . “

That is a fantastic painting, very very impressive. Great subject, wonderful colors, timeless.

or access to aircrew . . We ain’t getting’ any younger!

I haven’t flown Hornet in a great many weeks, does the radar still have that ‘cone of limited detectability’ extending straight out the nose? Try putting the expected target about 10 to 15* off the nose and see if you gain a pick up. Also I would gain a bit more altitude.

The SR-71 would need a carrier at least 4 times longer than anything in the inventory for a start, AND a major redesign (view over nose would be ridiculous at low IAS), carrier storage? Maybe if the wings fold and the front 30 feet including cockpits can fold over backwards and lie on top of the aft fuse. If it was talked about, my next question would have been ‘what the fook are they smoking?’. I still maintain however, that there is no way the -15 or -16 could use a carrier in any capacity. I’ve been close enough to plenty of them - it is incredibly easy to land base a Navy aircraft, to ship base an Airforce spec aircraft just won’t happen as they are not designed for the environment, are not protected FROM the environment, and structurally are not strong enough (relatively speaking) to withstand the rigours of Naval flight ops. The Tornados I used to fly were designed for Airforce use, yes they had a tail hook (of sorts) - and admittedly they could land on a carrier - ONCE. It would have ended up FUBAR as a result I guarantee it. The F-4 I flew for just over two years prior to Tornado, was designed initially as a Naval aircraft, and was stressed and had a higher level of corrosion resistance in the structure.

I’m not on steam myself, so cannot confirm, however a quick google indeed shows that is correct.

This from a rotary wing friend of mine . . . Have you tried doing some “push ups”? Literally, start on the ground and get into a 5FT hover slowly by rising slowly and then holding there, then land. Do this a few times until you can hold position more often than not. Then whilst in the hover, try a slow on the spot turn though 90* either way without losing height. When you can reliably do this, then go up to 50FT and do it again, then 100FT. Then move onto translations - going from the hover at whatever height to another point (one end of runway to the other maybe) and back again, visualise the piano keys as the desired points of hover and touchdowns. Practise at this as much as you need - you can’t practise too much! Then practise flying away from the airfield, and circle back to come to the hover exactly above the piano keys as before. Then you can move onto more complex manoeuvres, like sideways flight, rear wards flight (level!). In all events though, small movements and pre-empt the result.

Looks like the rocky terrain textures have become corrupt. Have you tried a repair? https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/repair/

Okie dokey . . . . F-16's yes - adversary role land based 'N' variants and widely known. But never from a carrier. F-15's of any mark? . . . No, flat no. The amount of modifications required to enable a trap and launch would be tantamount to a complete redesign - a prohibitively expensive undertaking for what would never be more than a handful of airframes. Just off the top of my head it would require a landing gear beef-up (and possible complete redesign due to narrow track), hook attachment point major reinforcements, wing redesign to encapsulate a fold mechanism, and many more.

This i didn't know . Thanks for that fella.

C-17 isn't operated by the USN. They may have had a few outsize loads hauled by them if they couldn't use a -130, but they are owned, operated and crewed in the US by USAF personnel.

. . . As a little caveat to this, while generally true and accurate - it’s the things that DONT move across a field of view that can be very dangerous. Another aircraft on a crossing path can appear to not move relative to your canopy bow for instance, and can indicate a collision course aspect. Missiles will lead you, but a direct collision from a crosser will appear to not move at all relative to you. From the rear, a non mover can also indicate a pure pursuit inbound, but with a much less chance of collision.

The -71 isn’t ramjet powered. At speed it “behaves” similar to a ramjet, in that at M3+ ALL of its propulsive thrust is from the reheat (afterburner) section - dry thrust provides nothing - and inlet suck provides little if any propulsive force. All thrust is from the burner plume only. From M1.8 upwards to M2.8+, inlets provide a suction that contributes up to 20% of the propulsive force but tails off the closer to M3 the aircraft got. I believe that the problems in miniaturising effective Ramjet ‘engines’ is one of the main reasons for its seemingly late appearance given the relative age of this tech. And personally, I think I would rather have a chemical rocket engine rather than a Ramjet engine A2A missile, because in a slow turning fight a chem rocket will light off and give its expected thrust, a Ramjet would need quite a few knots already under its belt in order to go off like a scalded cat - not enough airspeed and a Ramjet engine will in effect choke itself with a rapid series of unstarts, producing nowhere near enough thrust. Chemical engines for missiles are IMHO always going to be more reliable.

I have not used VR, I use TrackIR as it just clicks with me. However, first and foremost from your description of twisting and nearly losing your HOTAS, I would certainly recommend a NON swivel chair! As for having to twist your head around to extremes, that I can attest to, is realistic. It can also be used to a aggressor fighters advantage, in trying to make the pilot of the aircraft being hunted in close WVR to cross control. Welcome to the other facet of air combat . . . . Neck pain!

I wonder if, somewhere in the future, we get a Mod of a Skyraider - itself an excellent aircraft. . . . . And I wonder how long before we would be able to REALLY drop something nasty . . . .

They are safer, as there is no need to carry combustible oxidiser, and also the missile can have much longer ranges or burn times. Only downside I can think of is that you need at least a couple hundred knots at launch to enable the engine to work.

While it’s not something that I would partake in, I can see the attraction. If the host sim could correctly model thermal turbulence (above fire pockets) it would add a wrinkle that the sim pilot would have to be very wary of in trying to douse the base of a fire, or create a break. If the fire can self propagate - then there is the desire to halt it before it reaches or surrounds urban areas. Could be an interesting twist.

Perfectly chilled . . .

. . . . And by the same token, the wingy should have checked for a clear shot (AI not capable yet?).

The F-22 shows up in the loadout screen for me . . . I'm going to say you likely have installed something that has ar5ed your installation, or NOT installed something that you should have, try a repair. *See the last sentence that Nightstorm wrote above . . . . I'm guessing he may have it . . .

See here, at “Payment information”. - https://virpil-controls.eu/payment-info

CCRP accuracy would depend on winds between you and target, any shear or direction change would make CEP larger. Mk84 blast radius should negate most reasonably small miss distances against a soft target however. Personally I don’t use CCRP much, if at all. CCIP is my preferred method from a low pop-up.

One of a few issues with Nellis bud.

I would have thought that with Phoenix/AWG-9 mid-course updates (especially over longer ranges), you can notch the missile or you can notch the fighter, but you may not be able to notch both at the same time.