Vault

AS do you think the M-61 has been modeled accuratley?.

Check out Eugene Fleeman's book on missile design, He specifically states that missiles with a round nose seriously effect a missiles aerodynamics compared to a tapered nose. The nose on the R-27T is actually one of the worst shapes for aerodynamic efficiency. My point is that if round nose cones are as inefficient as Fleeman states, ED might of actually simulated the ET's range accuratley.

My condolences to Poland and it's people. Very sad news. R.I.P.

The attack on that Nissan Bongo's occupants was blatantly outside ROE. The gunner states "go on just pick up a weapon" as if looking for any excuse, but he didn't pick up any weapons and the Nissan driver was unarmed but yet he still got cleared hot. Unless the video was edited to exclude datails that could of possbily warranted the attack on that Bongo that was murder. That clip was a D-I-S-G-U-S-T-I-N-G example of the epitome of humanity, wish I'd never watched it TBH and I have to agree with Viper nasty shit like that doesn't belong here.

You're not having alot of luck lately are you Viper...

Double LOL.

Look under mice and other pointing device in device manager IIRC TIR is a mouse emulator so it may show up under there. If it's dead you can do no harm taking the casing off and checking the connections from the USB cable to the device. Loads of people throw perfectly good peices of kit away because of something simple like a broken circuit. Because you have no LED's lighting up on the device I suspect you may have a broken circuit. If you lack the skills ask someone who does have a clue to have a look, could save youself mega bucks.

I don't have TIR but have you tried a different USB port?. Is the TIR device recognised/enabled under device manager?. Is the USB port directly connected to the mainboard IE not a powered hub?. Have you tried the TIR website for troubleshooting guide?. Is TIR inside warranty?. If you're outside of warranty open it up and check the 5v DC connection from the USB cable to the TIR device, if you have a multimeter test the whole cable from USB plug to TIR device. On the USB plug the -/+ supply are the first and fourth gold plated connections inside your USB plug. Sounds like it's either fried or you have a break in the circuit. Good luck hope you fix it.

Has the Flanker's trim increments been improved in FC2? When I used to play FC you had to turn auto-pilot on and off to to get the Flanker to trim dead straight without any stick input.

Wow some people are so uptight! Chill out it's only a game. That comment was a tongue in cheek reply to the comment below. ;)

I understand why people want the Flanker donning R-77's because the Flanker sucks big monkey balls, but that's still no excuse for sacraficing realism over favouritism and ego's. :D

Custom LOPE'd unrealistic payloads FTW!!, big rofl.

Is there any changes to AWACS logic in FC:2.0?. Thanks.

GG your argument has came down to Grammar. Enough said. Goodbye.

No it defines matter. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object

Low observable highly maneuverable objects. Objects can be anything. Here's what objects means. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object Object can also be used when someone objects to being told they don't know what they're talking about. ;)

RTFL :lol: http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/military/972.html

Self-concoted fairy tales? Mythical? you should take that up with UESA's lead engineer Paul Farrell, I'm not qualified to comment on UESA's performance figures because those figures are classified. I've only reiterated what it said by the engineers, you seem to think you know better than them, so who tells fairy stories is open to interpretation. GG Tharos self confessed radar supremo or Paul Farrell lead engineer for Raytheon's UESA multi million dollar LRIP, now whose your money on? At least you admit you don't know.

You didn't read the link did you. Read the link it states aircraft as well.

You really are having a hard time accepting the FACT that you don't know do you lol;). The information you require is classified like it or not. GG with respect keep your "conservative guesses" to yourself. I ask for facts not guesses.

And that's semantics for I don't know what I'm talking about so I'll get out of this one. I've interpreted everything correctly. Dr. Pilotasso stop reading brochures and read the white papers by Tim Farrell. Here's a basic insight into the E-2D's CEC and UESA and maybe you'll understand what you're actually talking about. http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/military/972.html Cruise missiles are used as an example. The E-2D's UESA is also used for detecting and tracking LO airbourne targets and handing target data off over link-16 as the senior engineer states in the link above. GG you're having a hard time accepting the fact that you don't have access to the accurate classified information that is required to make a calculation on the E-2D's UESA's detection range against a LO aircraft. So don't expect people to take your guesses as gospel. Let's be honest you don't really know do you.

Thank you for correcting me Dr. Pilotasso. Raytheon's senior UESA research and developement Engineer :smartass:. Lockheed and Raytheon claim UESA's high performance detection figures against low RCS targets at long distance, not me. They're also not my "internet brochures". Who are you and what qualifications do you have to claim otherwise?. You know nothing of UESA's performance but you're very quick to dismiss it. To implicate that the E-2D's UESA is only utilised against ASM and CM is bullshit, the E-2D's main role is AEW of ALL airbourne threats. ASM and CM have a very low RCS. If the information posted earlier in this thread about the more realistic RCS performance of 5th gen aircraft is true and they exceed the RCS of ASM and CM then the E-2D's UESA could detect a VLO fighter.

Sure you can have an educated guess but you don't know enough of the facts that are required to make an educated guess. If you have issues accepting that it's not my problem. RCS detection of UESA is questionable, how low is low?. I have no figures. But why would the USN want the capability of detecting and handing off low RCS airbourne target data to fighters on a datalink?.

Educated guess? you have no facts or figures of neither target RCS or UESA performance so it's very optimistic to even call it an educated guess, it's more like a stab in the dark. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guess Why would the USN E-2D's want the capability of handing off tracking data of LOW RCS target over a datalink?.

E-2D's UESA UHF can track a low RCS target that's over the horizon, a decade ago a UHF based FCR didn't even exsist, this technology is very new. People guess when they don't know. You don't know the performance of the E-2D's UESA against the F-22, you can only guess. Quite confident?. You sound like you're reassuring yourself. The fact is you don't know what the performance figures of the E-2D's UESA is. The USN says it can detect low RCS airbourne targets at any altitude OTH. The fact the the E-2D's UESA can detect all airbourne threats as well as hand off high rate tracking data over a fighters datalink obviously means that the fighter recieving the tracking data over the datalink is being given a way of attacking a target with a low RCS without using his own radar! now why would you want to do that?.