Alfa

I already explained that bit in my previous post. When the switch is in "NORM" position, "Spin mode" will automatically be shown on the DDIs when conditions leading to a spin are developing - if they occur, a command to put the stick left or right appear on the DDI. If the pilot complies, the FCS will enter spin recovery mode and "Spin mode engaged" is displayed on the DDI. I.e the display mode is called up automatically, but actual activation is manual. When the switch is in "RCVY" position, "Spin mode" will be shown on the DDIs at once regardless of the situation. If conditions leading to a spin occur, spin recovery mode will automatically engage and "Spin mode engaged" is displayed on the DDI followed by instructions to put stick left or right. I.e. the display mode is called up manually(by putting the switch in "RCVY" position"), but actual activation is automatic. Its all in the NATOPS manual :)

Good point on SAM sites using a combination of radar/IR missiles, but that would only work due to the tracking radar popping up on the RWR(and subsequently being ID'ed). But what if the IR homing missile is launched from a SAM system or aircraft using only optical means for target tracking/acquisition? :)

Oh - so thats probably the reason then :D .

As for the first question - I don't know, but I doubt it. The switch doesn't actually do much itself - in "SPIN RCVY" position it just forces "spin mode" to appear on the DDI and initiates spin recovery mode automatically if/when the right circumstances are met - giving instructions to the pilot where to put the stick. With the switch in the "NORM" position, the FCS will only display "spin mode" on DDIs when the right circumstances are met and give instructions to the pilot where to put the stick - the actual recovery mode is then only activated if the pilot complies. But IIRC in both cases the FCS will only stay in recovery mode if the pilot follows the on-screen instructions - otherwise it will transition back to CAS mode, which is why I don't think you can use spin recovery in the way you suggest.

^^ Sounds good :)

What type of missile shot you down?. As blkspade said, the Hornet does not have any sensors that can detect an incoming IR homing missile, so the dispenser logic cannot react to that. The ALE-47 system as such can if installed on aircraft that have an MLWS(Missile Launch Warning System).

Yes from a pilot's perspective - what other perspective is there? I doubt that "extended functionality" will go as far as letting the player act as handler on the hangar deck(or flight deck for that matter). And I don't have a problem with people doing unrealistic things in the sim, if it just so happens that its possible. But it currently isn't and the problem is that implementing it takes away ressources that would be much better spent on things that have a real impact on the experience *from a pilot's perspective* - i.e. flight deck operations that both adds to realism and allow for proper mission possibilities. I think its clear to everyone that the good people of Eagle have their plate full just bringing the Hornet up to published specs - and to achieve proper carrier operations for it, there are a lot of things to do both in terms of interaction with the carrier(including flight deck procedures) as well as with the naval side of things in general. Well the displacement restrictions are only for non-Black sea powers, but ok it does apply to a Nimitz class....although the US never actually officially accepted/signed the convention :) . But large non-Black Sea units(e.g. Ticonderoga- and Burke class) transit into the Black Sea all the time though, so no problem with realism there. Doesn't matter what I am willing to do - its what ED is willing to spend resources on and having only the Black Sea map has in the past been cited as the very reason why they didn't want to work on the naval stuff - i.e. that large scale naval operations were considered unrealistic(in part due to the Montreux convention) in that theatre. Personally I always thought that was a silly argument, because the naval units aren't Black Sea specific, so it was always only a question of when to do it - now there is a more appropriate map for the purpose, but the overall naval environment is still seriously lacking. Not me - I never fly the damn thing :D Again its not about forbidding players from doing unrealistic things if the sim allows it nor about introducing restrictions to that effect. Its about spending resources on implementing unrealistic possibilities, when there is so much else and much more important things to spend the energy on. Yes unfortunately :D "If say ED does allow you to spawn inside the hanger", then thats their prerogative and I don't care if people use it . But I still think it would make a little more sense to allow more than one player to spawn on- and take off from the flight deck. a). the ships in question(Nimitz and Kuznetsov) for separate carrier modules are not of that category. b). ships that are "on the smaller side of things" with the inability to put more than half a dosen aircraft on the flight deck at one time, are restricted accordingly - you cannot conduct large scale operations involving dosens of aircraft unless you can put them all on the deck and prep them beforehand. c). even if pilots are asked to board their aircraft on the hanger deck(in order to speed things up), they still don't drive them around on the hanger deck. IMHO it doesn't make any sense at all - sitting in the cockpit of an aircraft being towed around or even "riding brakes" is a far cry from taxiing around under own power. The only aircraft I can think of for such vessels are helicopters - which are stowed away in the hangars with rotorblades(and sometimes the entire tail section) folded up - how are you going to drive that out of the hangar....or are you again on about pretending to be a handler "riding brakes"? Indeed! - and frankly that is where the effort should go....which is my whole point.

As USSInchon said, pilots only enter their aircraft on the flight deck when they have been made ready for flight(fuelled and armed), which btw also happens on the flight deck for safety reasons. So from a player perspective, there is really nothing to do below on the hangar deck. All the newsletter mentions is "working elevators" - that does not necessarily mean that ED plans on having players "spawn" on the hangar deck. Working elevators would be useful for the general "feel" of the carrier environment - i.e. having empty aircraft moved onto/off the flight deck as part of simulating deck procedures.

Yes thats the way it has always been. With the Hornet, it would be good with the naval ranks in addition to the USAF/USMC ones - ie. : Ensign: 0 Lieutenant jr grade: 15 Lieutenant: 30 Lieutenant Commander: 60 Commander: 120 Captain: 240

Unless the system has been changed in recent years(which I doubt), then its simply down to flight hours. Edit: sniped again.

Yes thats correctly understood - the ALE-47 has four main operating modes: - Automatic: the system determines the threat situation via input from various sensors and automatically starts dispensing accordingly without pilot intervention. - Semi-automatic: same as above, but instead of dispensing automatically it only prompts the pilot to activate. - Manual: same system as in previous ALE-39 - i.e. the pilot selects between several pre-set dispensing programs. - Bypass: gives the pilot direct control of the dispensers to release pairs of chaff/flares e.g. via the "Dispense" button on the left cockpit wall.

Oh didn't know about that - I just saw the mod on the DCS download page and haven't tried it myself(prefer the original Russian). AFAIK its just a texture mod, so do you mean that the inner(Mach) scale on the gauge is painted incorrectly?

Well there are ways around that - you can already download cockpit mods with every decal in the cockpit translated into English :) . Well "systems" is a wide term - a full DCS module comprise advanced modelling of everything that makes the aircraft fly; hydraulics, pneumatics, electric system, fuel system, engines, aerodynamics etc. as well as all onboard devices for controlling it; flight control system, instrumentation/displays and associated sensors, navigation system, radios etc. Then there is all the combat related stuff; weapon's system, radar, IFF, RWR, ECM etc. Edit: sniped by zhukov032186.

Yes it is - note also that the right engine is running at a little lower RPM than the left.

ASM - Advanced System's Model. Developing every single missing part of the system's package, that has not already been done(or is in the process of being done) for other aircraft. Yes but to assign "clickable" actions, the functions they activate must be implemented first. Yes the F-15C in FC3 lacks many radar modes/functions of the real aircraft and uses the old radar logic, while a more advanced(realistic) radar model is being introduced for the F-18C. But then this should also provide a good basis for upgrading the F-15's AN/AGP-63, given the relationship between this and the Hornet's AN/APG-73. Well the fighter "that put ED on the combat flight sim map" was the Su-27 :) ...and that doesn't seem to be on the table for a "full DCS module" either. But other than that I agree - I think most people would like to have at least the "iconic" fighters; F-15C, Su-27 and MiG-29 upgraded from FC3 to full-spec DCS modules.

No not really a "hodge-podge" of variants. The "Su-30KN" was a multirole upgrade for the "basic" pure interceptor Su-30(aka Su-27PU) and the export version of this(the Su-30K) - i.e. it retains the 10 pylon layout, but gains multirole capability. Its true that the Russian airforce(or PVO at the time) only operated a handful or so of the Su-30 interceptors, but some 18 units were exported to India as the Su-30K. These were later returned to Russia when India purchased the more advanced Su-30MKI instead. The returned former Indian Su-30Ks have since been upgraded exactly to Su-30KN standard and resold to Angola. Here is an article about it: https://airforcesmonthly.keypublishing.com/2017/09/27/angolan-su-30k-breaks-cover/

IIRC the Su-30 was carried over from as far back as Flanker 2.0, where it was depicted as the initial interceptor variant(aka Su-27PU) and assigned the same weapon's fit as the Su-27. Sometime along the way(I believe in Lock-on) it was assigned with armament of the proposed "Su-30KN" multirole upgrade for Russian Su-30s(hence still only 10 pylons) - an upgrade that was initially offered along with those for the Su-27(Su-27SM) and Su-27UB(Su-27UBM). No not if it was the Su-30K(downgraded export variant of the Su-30/Su-27PU pure interceptor). But if it was an Su-30M, it should- this was the very first multirole variant of the Su-30. It was first proposed for Russian service, but rejected and instead offered for export as the "Su-30MK" and thus forming the basis for all the subsequent nation specific sub-variants. Probably just an age-old mistake, that no one has bothered to correct over time. Correct. The IR versions of the R-27 must use rail launchers, which in turn cannot be used on fuselage stations due to the proximity to engine inlets.

Yes plus launchers & racks...I wouldn't be surprised if the dual rack itself weighs a couple of hundred kg. Anyway, a different aircraft and off-topic I guess, but I doubt some 130 kg worth of AIM-9+LAU-7 on the wingtip of the Hornet is a problem for the wingfold mechanism.

Heh no neither did I. The ordinance weight on folded wing panel on the MiG-29K is about 3 times that of wingtip AIM-9s on the Hornet, but the dual S-25 on the Su-33....those alone must be well over a ton!

The folding part of the wing only has one station, which in turn can only take a Sidewinder - so some 85 kg + launcher. See attachment......just saying :D

The 7.5 G design-limit is calculated for a gross weight of around 32000 lbs. The dry-weight of the aircraft is around 24000 lbs, while the total internal fuel capacity is ~ 10800 lbs. So at 100% internal fuel, you are at around 35000 lbs.

The Su-33(Su-27, MiG-29 etc) do have a laser rangefinder in combination with the EOS, but its short ranged(IIRC some 8 km) and for longer range the radar is employed(short bursts).

Attached is a placard for HUD indications in various WCS modes of the Su-33 - translation: Индикация на ИЛС прицельного комплекса Су-33 (Indication on the HUD of the Su-33 sighting complex) В дальнем ракетном бою (long range missile combat) A. Режим "РЛС" (A. Radar mode); "обзор"(search) -> "захват"(capture) -> "Автосопровождение"(auto tracking) -> "Пуск"(launch) Б. Режим ОЛС(B. EOS mode); "обзор в большом поле"(large area search) -> "обзор в малом поле"(small area search) -> "захват"(capture) -> "Пуск"(launch) В ближнем маневренном бою с использованием УР (close range manouvering combat using missiles) A. Режим "ОПТ"(A. OPT mode); "обзор"(search) -> "захват"(capture) -> "Автосопровождение и пуск"(auto tracking and launch) -> "Выход из атаки"(exit attack) Б. Режим "Верт"(B. Vertical mode); "обзор"(search) -> "захват"(capture) -> "Автосопровождение и пуск"(auto tracking and launch) -> "Выход из атаки"(exit attack) В ближнем маневренном бою с использованием ВПУ (close range manouvering combat using guns) (Didn't translate that.)

Maybe you should learn to read and not manipulate quotes you clearly didn't understand before trying your hand at sarcasm. The first part of your quote concerned required closure rate for a specific radar mode of the N019/N001 and has nothing to do with doppler notching, but was in response to the OP's claim that exactly these radars would loose track as soon as the target does a 90 deg. turn because there would be insufficient closure rate. The second part concerned Darkfire's response about doppler notching - i.e. that doppler notching is a specific condition that you can try to force by flying a perpendicular course to opposing radar, but does not occur automatically as soon as you make the turn. Besides, the OP concerned specific weaknesses of the N019 and N001 and whether they could be exploited in the sim....doppler notch is not just a "Russian thing".

No I can understand that - the text you quoted is not very clear and seems to contradict itself. I think it would be necessary to find a better description of each radar mode, what they provide/limitations and how they are used.