Eddie

If you say so.

It's a normal configuration to give more flight time, it's not that often they fly without tanks. And they don't make that much of a difference, at least not when compared to the same configuration on other aircraft. The tanks are specifically designed to have low supersonic drag, for example. And the FCS is clever enough to adjust G/AoA limits in real time as the tanks drain, with empty tanks there is a very minimal difference in handling from a clean jet, the drag is the only factor.

The fact that we were limiting ASRAAM to 2 NM (and simulating export spec missiles), when its actual range is in double digits should say all that needs be said. And yes, we were flying with tanks (two on most sorties). It was a training exercise, for both sides and it served its purpose. But you've got to let the Indians have something she they travel all that way.

I'm pretty sure that in DCS at present it's because the F-15's RADAR is more powerful that is archives "burn through" sooner, not because the Fulcrum's ECM is weaker. I've never seen any kind of ECM type/power configuration anywhere in the DCS files. Happy to be shown otherwise however. Although obviously in reality RADAR output power is a factor, the main factors are the ECM output power and radar cross section of the "target". (NB following vasty simplified to illustrate the point) "Burn through" happens at the point where the "target's" real RADAR return exceeds any false return(s) that the "target's" ECM can generate. In some cases it is entirely possible that ECM "burn through" would occur well within visual range, or even not at all. This is especially true for modern deception techniques vs. older RADAR systems.

In this very thread...............

So you can't spot a group of vehicles, unless you're cued to within a single vehicle's length of said group of vehicles?

A 6 digit grid is the normal precision given for a bomb on target engagement, which are most JTAC/FAC(A) controlled engagements. 10 digit grids would only be given for bomb on coordinate attacks, and would be specified in advance. Within 100m should be more than close enough to get your eyes onto the target, although that said the AI JTAC doesn't do talk ons to build on the grid.

:doh: Probably because you're thinking in terms of how most DCS players use targeting pods vice how they are most often employed in reality. Not to mention, that could be a ferry configuration, for example. As is most often the case with three tank fits.

To add another reference to go with PFunk's post. http://www.476vfightergroup.com/showthread.php?3131-Air-to-Surface-Weapon-Delivery-Methods

That's a LITENING pod, not LANTIRN. But yeah, last I saw it was USMC operating from surface bases only (Navy are still using the ATFLIR pod). Haven't seen anything to suggest that has changed. Already possible for the AI Hornet.

Here you go.

Indeed, it's generally only used to break down larger grid/kill box for holding/coordination rather than targeting. That example was written a long time ago and was intentionally very simplistic due to the intended audience (it was actually written for ArmA and just quickly tweaked for DCS use in the early days).

It's just an example grid reference that's all (instead of writing grid XXXX), and then the keypad reference within that grid. Otherwise A16 has explained the meaning of the keypad system.

Feet/nautical miles/knots are the international standard units for aviation. The Russians are very much out of the ordinary for using metric units in aviation. Nautical miles/knots just comes for the Maritime world, and have been used since the earliest days of aviation. The only real advantage is that to some areas of the world (US & UK especially), imperial units just make sense, whereas metric units don't in the context of aviation.

It is clearly defined when to use it, in the emergency checklists. It's there because failure to disengage the SAS could result in loss of stability/control in the event of a hydraulics failure. This requires immediate action, not action in a few seconds after you've figured out which system is actually affected and which isn't. Remember, the bold face/red items in emergency check lists should be performed from memory immediately, not by reading the checklist step by step. The systems on single seat aircraft are designed to support/aid that.

Awesome, thanks.

Hadn't seen the closure speed, so thanks. Not turn rate, no. LOSR is the rate at which an object moves across your view (measured in a 2 dimensional plane), usually in degrees per second. An object with a LOSR of zero would appear fixed in space. Used in missile guidance etc (missiles using proportional navigation attempt to zero out LOSR), and very useful in calculating weapon capabilities and developing counter tactics. Most AAMs, SAMs and AAA systems have a maximum target LOSR that they can deal with.

Vyrtuoz, Any chance you could add Line of Sight Rate and Closure Rate as telemetry options?

Tonopah actually. "Area 51" is R-4808A.

Again, R4808B-E are not used for most NTTR activities, and are generally no fly areas for non-US aircrews participating in exercises. The same is true for R-4809A.

Because Groom Lake isn't part of the NTTR and isn't used during any exercises in the NTTR. R4808A is a "no fly" zone.

http://ww1.jeppesen.com/documents/aviation/business/ifr-paper-services/airport-signs.pdf

What on earth are you on about?

It would do. Using inertial rates at all when employing ordnance is a bad idea. INR is really a fallback mode used when either the pod can't obtain and optical track or looses one (neither of which happen in DCS sadly). And the LASER won't actually fire when using INR either, the source of many an auto lase failure amongst newbies in my experience. And your SPI didn't get "reset" it just moved. Semantics, maybe, but those kind of comments/thoughts help reinforce the idea that a SPI is a fixed point that is designated once, which it isn't. ;)

It should, yes.