TLTeo

I thought the Rafale only started getting AESA after 2010, and they used a PESA before. Also, how does the SPECTRA system compared to the Praetorian DASS on the Typhoon? I thought the two were fairly comparable.

So I just thought of one argument we might, possibly, be able to make with Razbam. It probably won't work, but here goes. @RAZBAM_ELMO's arguments are always that "you need to fly a profile and you need a stabilized pipper" There should be a Twitch VOD of Elmo using this profile to deliver Snakeyes fairly accurately. What that means in practice is you need to enter a 30ish degree dive (rather flying in a straight line) a few thousand feet off the target, deliver at a sensible speed of, say 400 KIAS, and you need to track the target with the pipper rather than walk it up to the target and then pickle. Notably, this profile is nothing like the level bombing profile Jojo showed, which instead is more similar to CCIP high drag bombing in the Viggen. The procedure Elmo showed is different from, e.g., delivering weapons in the Viper. In that jet you don't keep the pipper on the target, instead you put the bomb fall line on the target and pickle when the pipper is on top of it - e.g. here. This is also what you would do with a fixed sight that doesn't have a CCIP mode, like in the F-5. What is striking to me between the link and what Elmo showed on Twitch (I don't have the link unfortunately) is that in Mover's video, the jet pulls off the dive safely a few thousand feet off the ground. This profile is more or less similar to dive toss CCRP delivery (which I think you can do in the Mirage?). Meanwhile, Elmo was a couple hundred feet off the ground by the time he pulled out of his dive, which I highly doubt is SOP. It kind of makes sense this would happen too - high drag bombs obviously slow down after release, so you need to drop them closer to the target for them to hit at a given dive angle. My point is, I realize that a Mirage has a different computer than e.g. a Viper, and is not as focused on A2G, but I honestly do not see how it's possible for a standard delivery profile used in real life to be that unsafe.

Yeah you just need to input some TAKT/IN code I can't remember off the top of my head. I think the ideal step to reproduce an AJ would be to introduce an option in the mission editor that disables TERNAV, rather than going through a computer code. That's not really all the story either because iirc the cartridge system is also part of the AJS upgrade (and in fact, TERNAV is stored on the cartridge rather than on the plane), but it would be close enough imo. edit: also, the JA retrains some ground attack capability, hence the A. I'm fairly certain it could still employ unguided rockets.

And more relevant to DCS, Iran flies the F1 to this day.

RB's official stance is that it's a user error. Make of that what you will.

Yeah it's been too faint since the lighting was changed.

Because unlike more modern planes, in the Tomcat the HUD is not really part of the main flying instruments, but rather it's an aid for weapons employment and (to a lesser extent) navigation. For maneuvering, you should reference the instrument gauges and/or VDI instead. Some pilots would just turn the HUD off entirely during landing.

In DCS the lock range of the Walleye is definitely dependant on what time it is, in a way that is arguably unrealistic. You can get a lock only 2-3 miles from the target at 7 am, but at 5-6ish miles around 8am, even though the lighting conditions appear identical. In real life, anything that's optically/TVuided (like the Walleye, or some Maverick variants) will have awful performance in low light conditions, while IR guided weapons (assuming the target is "hot" enough) will perform much better

The L-39, C-101 and Spitfire all have different variants. The upcoming Mirage F-1 will as well.

Eh, you're comparing apples to oranges imo. The Viggen and Tomcat may still be labelled as EA, but they are feature complete and have been so since launch, more or less. Per the last trailer, the A6 model is already at an extremely advanced stage, or ED would not have included it. Meanwhile, the main system in e.g. the supposedly out of EA Harrier (the ARBS/DMT) is not simulated at all (just to name one glaring issue out of many) nor will it ever be because RB claim they don't have enough information on it (despite the patent explaining the exact functioning of the system being available on Google). And RB have announced dozens of modules "in the pipeline", but they haven't shown anything beyond either a very early 3d model (e.g. A29, Mig 23, EE Lightning) or tests using ED's existing 3d assets (the Strike Eagle). Honestly as it stands, it looks like the A6 is much farther along than anything that isn't a Hind, F4U, Mirage F1, MB-339 or Mossie (or possibly the Apache, but we will see...). Oh and btw, I think the talk about variants is redundant. It's clear from the trailer that we're getting at least a TRAM jet, and a SWIP is highly likely given it would coincide perfectly with the Tomcat timeframe.

Thanks for the info Blaze1! I assumed the STARM disappeared together with the platforms dedicated to launching it.

Again, the fix is to switch the HUD to A/A or A/G (maybe cruise as well? I can't remember, I haven't flown the Tomcat in a while and I don't have access to my pc right now) mode.

It only has a refresh rates in modes for which it's not particularly important (takeoff and landing if I recall correctly?). In combat modes the refresh rate is perfectly fine.

Correction: only the A-6B carried the STARM as far as I know. By the time the weapon upgrades reached the A-6 fleet, the HARM had long replaced it. Also, the Tomcat most definitely was used for ground attack, it more or less replaced the Intruder in that role after all. But yes, as Silver Dragon pointed out, the A-6E could carry much more varied ordnance than the Tomcat. But really, what the A-6 brings compared to the Tomcat is the interaction between pilot and BN (bombardier navigator). As the name implies, the BN is responsible for all weather low level navigation (mostly using the radar), locating the target, and steering the pilot onto it. In the same way that a RIO drives an intercept, a BN drives a strike mission. Imagine flying a Viggen with a much better radar, and having someone next to you actually focus on interpreting that radar picture and giving you instructions on how to fly.

Yes, it really is classified, HB have literally stated that in this thread.

Exactly. It's not hard to teach an AI to not break the laws of physics, but it's next to impossible to teach it to fly BFM well (which is why a lot of the people doing it for the US Navy are using machine learning to do it, and even then those codes still have a very very long way to go).

The built-in campaign is by Baltic Dragon so it's going to be good (same guy that did Raven One, the training missions, and the Mig19 and Mirage campaigns). Other than that, there are no 3rd party campaigns but that's common to many DCS modules really.

Nice, I'm excited to fly it!

I expect it to be slightly worse in air to air, since it has an older, slightly worse BVR missile and radar, and it isn't a FBW jet (so I'd expect it to be less agile). In air to ground it will probably be a different story depending on exactly what Aergees go for, because some F1s could carry laser guided bombs and missiles, laser designation pods, as well as anti radiation and anti ship missiles (although from what I've read, it's unlikely we're getting any variant that's compatible with the Exocet).

It would be a pretty cool map/pack, but it is absolutely not realistic to expect to release that many assets (and full fidelity modules!!!!) in the course of 2-3 years, nevermind one like your pdf seems to suggest...

Yeah as far as I understand, the whole going active when it shouldn't thing should be fixed now. And per the second link, the lofting is not on HB's side, which is kind of why this thread was re-opened here after one identical one in the HB section.

No, the new guidance has been implemented (link), but per HB it only affects the interaction with the AWG-9 and what the pilot needs to do to guide the missile, not how it lofts (link), which instead is on ED.

Yeah, I don't know the F106 as well as other aircraft, but from what I've read the differences are in the ballpark of e.g the L39 and C101 modules, so even less than the Mirage F1 Aviodev is working on.

Minor correction - the M61 on the F-106 was not carried internally, it was carried in a pod attached in the weapon bay. I think you had to take 2 fewer missiles (or no Genie) to make room for the gun pod. This is the weapons bay with the gun pod: And this is without:

Air Force, not Army The US Army can not and does not operate armed fixed wing aircraft.