Alfa

I don't know anything about the ATFLIR(too recent for my research) and I cannot remember exactly what can go where, but from the dark corners of my mind, I seem to remember reading that the MPCD can display any menu selectable format except A/G radar.

The DDIs introduced with the "Night Attack" version(Lot 12 and up) can display green, red and yellow for menu text, but only monochrome(green) for imagery. The MPCD is full color though and can display most of what the DDIs can.

AI has always been able to do things the rest of us can't :) Thats how its working - listening, emitting, then listening again to see if lock was broken etc(automated). The problem is that ECM in the sim is very simplistic. It only involves the noise jamming technique, which in turn is much too effective and will instantly jam anything when employed even for a brief second. People were exploiting this online in exactly the way you said you wanted to and, as winchesterdelta1 said, it was the very reason why the warm-up feature was implemented :)

Ok thanks for the clarification :) . So its really more of a "hybrid" system and, as GG said, sort of a forerunner of actual FBW.

As Basher said, the F-18 does - apparently its not very easy to fly the aircraft with it, but it allows you to limp back home in case of complete FCS failure. I can imagine it was a Navy requirement for the same reason that they often prefered twin engine designs. No it doesn't. I don't know anything about civilian aircraft, but all FBW systems I know of have multiple redundancy, so an additional mechanical back-up isn't there let you fly on as normal in case of a freak FBW failure, but rather as the last chance of saving the aircraft - or, in the F-18 example, at least get it back to an area where the pilot has a chance of being picked up quickly after ejecting :) .

Didn't know that the F-15 FCS had an electric back-up either - an interesting solution since its usually the other way around(FBW with mechanical back-up). Anyway, the nature of the flight control system differs somewhat depending on the particular variant of a type - e.g. the F-14 has a hydro-mechanical FCS, but the F-14D has an associated digital system to help control the aircraft and avoid dangerous departures. New versions of the Flanker(such as the Su-35) have a more sophisticated digital FBW system in place of the original analogue one. The "baseline" MiG-29(9.12, 9.13 and 9.13S) and the upgraded MiG-29SMT have a hydro-mechanical control system, while even the initial versions of the MiG-29M and MiG-29K(from the late eighties) had FBW.

Always hated that movie, but as far as I recall the lead character had the first encounter with a new MiG version(that they called "MiG-28"). Considering that the movie is from 1986 and the MiG-29 was introduced into service in 1983, I would say that this would be a better match than the MiG-23, which had already been in service for over 10 years by then - i.e. not really a new never-seen-before type. Another candidate could be the MiG-31(from ~ 1981), but that doesn't really match the small nimble type(F-5) used to represent the "MiG-28" in the film.

No but the F-18C version being developed for DCS was, so that alone also makes it more needed for this than for the F-15C. I am sure that you could find use of NVGs on pure fighter aircraft - e.g. for air refuelling at night, but USMC_Trev is right that its much more relevant for strike fighters such as the F/A-18C. I recall reading that F-18C squadrons are often specialising in particular tasks and that those which are operating primarily in the fighter role seldom carry the NVGs unless the specific mission calls for it.

Well I don't know if I can be that more specific, but if you look at the initial F-18C(Lot 10 and 11) cockpit as it was introduced in 1987, you will be hard pressed to find much difference from an F-18A . It got the IFEI(integrated fuel and engine indicator) and new style UFC, but other than that it looked just like the F-18A cockpit. With the introduction of the Night Attack version(Lot 12 from 1989), the F-18 got a much improved ability to conduct strike missions at night. In this connection the cockpit got a major upgrade - a lot of which had to do with NVG compatibility. In terms of displays, It got a new raster HUD, tri-color DDIs and the MPCD - all NVG compatible. The cockpit lighting system was modified for NVG compatible illumination of panels and standby gauges(certified for NVG use). On the INTR LT panel there is a switch that, when set to "NVG", keeps manual illumination adjustment within a NVG compatible regime(and some of the dials were changed with odd shapes - I assume in order to be able to find the right ones by feel). There is a storage box for the NVGs at the rear of RH console...and the wall covers were painted black :) .

There is a lot more to the NVG compatibility than just the black wall panels - the entire cockpit(new HUD, DDIs, MPCD, panel and stand-by instrument lighting etc) was modified for this with the Night Attack version(from Lot 12 and up).

Soviet jets do have anti-skid.

Yeah - as far as I can gather, a dual AMRAAM pylon assembly weighs something like a 1000 pounds each.

In the German Luftwaffe manual for the MiG-29, there is a chart listing limitations in regards to speed and acceleration(Gs) for external stores. When carrying e.g. two R-27Rs on the inner wing pylons(the only ones compatible with the weapon), there is no speed limitation other than those that exist for the aircraft as such in various flight regimes. There is a slight limitation in regards to acceleration - max +8 /-1.5 Gs for the R-27R, while its +9/-1.5 for the R-73. For fuel tanks however, the maximum allowed speed is Mach 1.5 with the centerline tank and 0.9 for wing tanks. Acceleration limit is +4/-1.5 for the centerline tank when full/partly full and no limit when empty - for the wing tanks its +4/-1.0 when full/partly full and +6/-1.0 when empty.

On the real aircraft there is a counter on the front panel(see attachement), but I don't know if this is currently working in the sim.

The DDIs can display practically anything that the MPCD can, so you should be ok with just two MFDs. The MPCD is multi-purpose, but is used primarily for the moving color map. However, the map can also be displayed on the DDIs - just not in color(only monochrome).

It can carry 120 in total(4 boxes of 30 cartridges).

OK - then the range should probably be a little better(given the large RCS of such a target) :)

As already mentioned, it seems that this CM panel in the screenshot is now obsolete in connection with the DCS Hornet. But there seems to have been three different types used in the Hornet - the one in the screenshot(which I have only seen in F-18A/B), the one you mentioned depicted in the NATOPS manual(without the bottom selector dial) used in both A/B and C/D and finally the "clean" one that I believe was introduced with Lot 18 in connection with the switch to ALE-47.

The seekerhead of the R-77(9B-1348 ) has a published acquisition range of some 16 km against a target of RCS=5m2, so if the "Pitbull" range Ironhand mentioned is as observed in the sim, then its pretty much bang on the money.

For those who are interested - IIRC the ALE-47 has four main operational modes: - automatic where the system gathers information from various sensors and, when appropriate, initiates dispensing automatically without any action from the operator(pilot). - semi-automatic - really the same as above except that it doesn't starts dispensing automatically, but only prompts the pilot to. - manual - a continuation of the system in the previous ALE-39, where the pilot can select between a series of preset dispensing programs. - dispenser by-pass, which gives the pilot direct control of the dispensers - there is a switch on the CM panel to turn it on/off.

Well the Hornet has always had a map display in color - the HI(in the -A/B and early C/D) and the MPCD(in the Night Attack C/D). The DCS version even has the new AMPCD(an LCD based retrofit from 2004), so that would be a reasonable expectation :) .

Yes thats the general perception and perhaps it is the same, but the account I referred to claimed otherwise - namely that the guidance was modified which btw also should involve a longer reach of the datalink. But again I don't know about the accuracy of this information. But then there is also the matter of the WCS of the MiG-29 not being compatible with the -ER unless modified for the purpose. It does seem to suggest that something is different - e.g. how would it determine whether a target is within missile launch parameters of the extended range version if it isn't integrated as a separate entity and identified as such when hanging on the launcher? :)

No it was just something I came across at one point - IIRC in a historic account for the development of Russian air-to-air missiles. But I am not sure about the authenticity(i.e. who exactly wrote it), but it did sound like someone with an insight, so I thought it worth to mention in connection with the quote GG posted.

I honestly don't believe in the feasibility(or practicality) of "buddy illumination" for SARH missiles as some kind of super capability. No offense, but I think you have a very simplified idea of how SARH works, what it involves and what restrictions it imposes on the carrier - there is a reason why everyone(including the Russians) have moved away from it :) .

Yes but the quote started by saying that the R-27R(and T) didn't perform to specifications and fell short of the claimed superiority over the AIM-7F - then said that the R-27E version was much improved and did exceed the Sparrow by a large margin. What I meant by the quote being unclear was whether this was due to improved kinematic performance alone or also involved improvements to guidance.....and as I mentioned, I have read something to suggest that it did. No but that was what the account I read suggested - i.e. a way of trying to match launch ranges despite having missile seeker heads with shorter acquisition range. Ok - so they could be a little "pumped-up" as well?