launchedsquid

does the AWW-13 pod need to be on the launching aircraft? can a buddy guide my Walleye?

Everything I ever read has said that the US Navy didn't launch F-14's with 6 x AIM-54's because they couldn't land back on the carrier with that loadout and would have to jettison some of them when they get back to the boat. F-14A_Tomcat_SAC_-_April_1977 also shows that Deck launched intercept was no AIM-54's at all. Infact, on second reading it seems to indirectly support the claim that the F-14 can't land back on the boat with 6 Aim-54's. Max landing weight arrested is 51,830lbs Fleet A. D. landing weight is 52,637lbs It could dump a further 807lbs and be on the max weight but it would only have 2,141lbs according to that document, reducing that further to 1,334lbs with the threat of bolters and finding the tanker, that would be risky. Do you know of anything that shows a Tomcat launching from the carrier with 6 AIM-54's other then a test, an actual US Navy fleet mission? I've never seen anything that said they did but quite a bit that suggests they didn't, although not explicitly saying they didn't.

ED isn't simulating a generic Hornet, it's a specific Hornet, specifically I think it's the third to last FA-18C ever delivered to the US Navy. Along with this they only want to include in the sim US Navy weapons systems that were available for whatever time period it is they are simulating, they say the 2005 time period. This is why we have the weapons we have available, only weapons the US Navy used prior to and including 2005. This is why we don't have the AGM-65G, it was available for a bit but they said they couldn't find any evidence that the US Navy ever used it so they took it out. If it was in the US Navy inventory and available to the Charlie Hornets after 2005, we miss out. The only exception to this that I'm aware of is the Litening TGP, the US Navy doesn't use it, but we (users) kept demanding it so they have included it because the ATFLIR is still too far away, waiting on other DCS World improvements before they can deliver it to us. I would argue that ED could go a little bit further and include any US Marine weapon systems the Charlie Hornets use along with the Litening, since the real plane is currently in service with the US Marines but it would only be possible if they have the documentation, maybe they just don't because it's too recent. I know other developers do it differently, the US Navy never launched an F-14 with 6 AIM-54's other then in tests as far as I'm aware but HeatBlur are making loadouts like that available, it's just how they want to do it. And this is her in the US Marines in July 2019 All the above being said, with a little bit of mucking about with the FA-18C.lua and the common_bombs.lua you can have the 4x(6xmk-82's) and 1x(4xmk-82's) loadout, it's a little bit funky in operation so you can't drop all 28 in one string but you can still drop all 28 bombs.

I'm seeing three Mavericks on a triple ejector rack right here aren't I? -EDIT- I've since learned it's called a A Triple-Rail Missile Launcher

Firstly sorry, I have no idea what that is but I know that even replaceable things like targeting pods generally stay on an airframe until it isn't viable anymore, the techs don't want to move them from plane to plane if they can just keep the same airframe in service with it. They can be delicate and moving them risks damaging them, something like a recce pod like the one in the pic, even if it's replaceable, would likely remain with the airframe for the same reasons. I suspect it's semi permanent because it probably takes the place of the radar, it will be interesting to find the true story though. -EDIT- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Tactical_Airborne_Reconnaissance_System It works with the Radar and replaces the gun.

As Tholozor said above, the PP switch is just an EA work around, the complete system is still in the works.

not "broken" just not complete.

EA can be as long as you like, you don't need to buy it at any point in EA. You could make EA be only one day, it's entirely your decision.

How many of you have actually memorized the SMP codes? Do you even have them (I do, but the majority of players don't). If we're not doing any other part of the exterior inspection then why focus on this part? We don't set the gun safety switch, we don't check the arming lanyard on bombs, there is plenty we don't do, typing in SMP codes isn't something we need to add. I do however agree we shouldn't be able to change our laser codes on the weapon in flight, I see why ED implemented that but I do agree that it should be set on the ground only, whether it's in the rearm dialog box (my preference) or on the kneeboard it doesn't matter.

I would rather have a functional rwr from the wrong plane then no rwr at all. It's early access pre-release, by definition it isn't complete. The Hornet initially had the threat rings displaying the wrong threat level, but it was fixed in an update. I'm sure the Viper will have things that aren't implemented yet, but crucially it will have things that are implemented wrong, and they'll be fixed in an update. We all want an authentic and accurate Viper, but during early access pre-release, especially during the initial release, we should expect things to be wrong, point them out when we know, and expect a fix down the line. As with all modules, if you need it to 100% right from day one, wait for release. Some people have rightly chosen to do that with the Hornet, they new they wouldn't like the bugs or inaccuracies so they stayed out, and while I'd still say to them the bugs and inaccuracies are worth putting up with, I can respect that decision. Buying a released module that claims to be complete and complaining about inaccuracies can also be respected, if done the right way, and even when done wrong, at least the complaint is valid. But buying into an unfinished module prior to release and complaining it isn't 100% authentic doesn't get my respect, ED never claimed early access pre-release modules are feature complete. I wouldn't delay purchasing the Viper because it has the ALR-67 instead of the ALR-69 because I'm sure that would be fixed, if it even happens.

I'd like to know if anyone heard any news regarding Coupled Steering. My understanding is that our mission computer is running OFP13C based on a comment made by Wags... a year a go :) (12-09-2018, https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3714670&postcount=8) hopefully that specification hasn't changed. A1-F18AC-NFM-000 2.9.2.6 Coupled Steering (MC OFP 13C AND UP). The coupled steering options are: WYPT, OAP, SEQ#, and TACAN range bearing. To engage coupled steering, the desired steering option must be available and selected on the HSI display, MC1 must be communicating with the FCS, then press the pushbutton next to the UFC option display window displaying CPL. Engagement is indicated by a colon appearing in the window next to CPL and a CPLD advisory on the DDI. The flight controls are coupled (azimuth only) to whatever active steering mode that has been selected (boxed) on the HSI display. Once coupled steering is engaged attitude hold and heading select A/P options are not available. CSS is available in pitch only. Lateral stick displacement greater than 0.5 inch causes the autopilot to decouple from the steering mode. Great circle course can be selected to the fly-to-point, or a selected radial (course line) through the fly-to-point. If course line is selected prior to the fly-to-point, flight controls capture the selected radial, overfly the fly-to-point and continue on the out bound radial. A coupled bank limit option is available on the A/C data display and allows the pilot to select TAC or NAV bank angle limit mode. Selecting NAV limits the bank angle to a maximum of 30°. Selecting TAC limits the bank angle to a maximum of 30° to 60° (depending on airspeed). Refer to Chapter 24 for detailed navigation steering information under Waypoint/OAP, Auto Sequential, and TACAN Steering.

set the desired runway heading, use tacan to head to the target airfield, at ten miles turn 90 degrees to the airfield direction and maintain the tacan needle at your 90 degrees and whatever distance your now at from the airfield, it will be like 8 miles or something, as the course needle moves turn onto the course, boom you'll be somewhere like 6 miles out on the runway heading using tacan only.

You should actually set your bingo fuel differently for different situations. In CNATRA P-826, Chapter 2, 202 FENCE CHECKS, 1 Fence In, d. BINGO – Set to Joker fuel. and 2 Fence Out, d. BINGO – Set to divert fuel. This manual is specifically regarding BFM in the T-45 but I'd imagine the training received is largely transferred to the F/A-18C. As always, if you know better then please correct me.

Firstly laser guided mavericks are AGM-65E. The only way I know is to read up on them, google them, it becomes second nature eventually, when someone says AGM-65E they might as well say laser MAV because to me it is the same thing. I don't think there is a shortcut for this, sorry.

I think it's just a question of computer hardware, isn't it? Building a complete radar simulation of all the aspects of radar returns from different materials and different angles, along with effects from climatic conditions and near and far broad spectrum Electromagnetic emissions etc, this would end up being a radar only simulator running at lower then real time, enthusiast level hardware would not be able to faithfully do that. This combat flight sim had to simulate radar in some way but it can't be truly faithful to real radar, it can only really simulate what the display's would show, you have to have a limit somewhere or we'd all need super computers to run the game.

You can fly from Anapa to Tblisi on full burner at 1.8+M without external tanks. You can fly for nearly two hours without external tanks if you follow the FPAS page. With external tanks and following the FPAS page you can do a lap of the black sea in a 3+hour sojourn. It's not that the Hornet has "short legs", it's that the A-10 has incredibly long legs, and that people get "range anxiety" when they see the fuel level go below half.

I turn to 90 degrees (for the sake of argument we'll say 90 degrees to the left) and then maintain the target at 90 degrees by turning gently to the right. I use the position dot on the litening's DDI display to adjust my positioning, if it falls to the rear I increase bank, if it starts to creep to the front I decrease bank. I never get close to blocking the laser.

As USA Recon said, find a multiplayer group that'll be willing to train you up, they exist and you'll have more fun talking and joking with them while you "accidentally" learn the things your practicing with them. Don't be intimidated, we were all beginners at some point and some groups really will be happy to take the time to teach you what you need to know.

Hey everybody, This is a question for Eagle Dynamics and the other 3rd parties building WW2 planes (and other assets). I remember hearing from Wags, a long time ago, that WW2 modules were (relative to 4th gen fighter jets) reasonably easy and faster to make for ED and the other 3rd parties, and could be good modules for you guys and girls because they can be done quick and earn money for you faster then the long lead time of the more complicated jets. I got the impression that they could be completed in a year or so compared to the multi year projects like the Hornet or Tomcat. If that was correct, is it still correct? priorities can change, and with bug fixes being more urgent for example, and the huge updates we've seen to the base DCS World sim, I know things can change. I know that there are a few announced WW2 planes in the works (I'm really looking forward to the Mosquito) but they seem to be taking longer to be released then I expected, I'd hoped they were so easy and profitable so we could see more of them and you guys and girls would be keen to make more as well. I'd also love an update on they're progress if there's anything that can be shared. Keep up the great work, I really love flying in DCS and whether I'm being milsim like or a complete bonehead barnstormer I'm constantly appreciative of your hard work.

does anyone know why 9's are so unwanted? infact why can't it be 1111 to 9999? (I'm assuming 0000 would mean the laser wouldn't fire). If you know and can share the reason I'd love to hear it, just for trivia's sake.

touchdown at -1200fpm! VV far above the E bracket! W above 10 degrees nose high! are you trying to prove the brakes are made of cheese by showing how far away from a nominal landing configuration someone has to be flying just to bring it to a stop?

I've experienced both the bombs hitting and missing. Last night they were massively late to release so never pitched down enough to see the laser, under 4 miles to target at 20,000 ft, the night before they were on target each time. I have no idea why it would be different, same mission, same targets, different results. One of the guys I was flying with tried to replicate it and his were on target. It's got nothing to do with the laser, the bombs are still mostly horizontal as it passes over the target, they'd never see any laser spot. Manual release from 10 miles until 5 miles to target work fine, so that's how I'm doing it for now.

Airbrakes out, full back on stick, throttle to ground idle, if I wasn't on the brakes I'll be off the runway before I get to 50 kts, and the anti-skid does nothing to prevent mile long black lines being left on the runway.

The PP1/PP2 stuff is just a work around at the moment, eventually we'll be able to assign targets to each weapon as opposed to the current system of assigning targets to each pylon.

TOO and PP are pretty interchangeable in my opinion, depending on your mission. If I'm going after a lot of preplanned targets I use PP and type the coords in on the ground, that lets me drop them in quick succession. It I'm flying without a planned target and I only intent to drop one I use TOO, the ability to reattack if necessary without reinputing the coords is the only advantage I can think of however (even though that is reasonably unlikely), otherwise PP would be just as effective as far as I can tell.