Eddie

Assuming a static point target, the WP/MP should be where you want the weapon to impact. The only time the TGP would have to factor in to the equation is if you're employing LGB at that point, unless of course you specifically require the TGP on target to provide rapid BDA etc. Moving targets would of course require TGP/LGB or Maverick. The idea is that you employ the weapon on to a fixed position which is always using the same switch flow, i.e. by always using the steer point as SPI generator when employing ordnance you vastly reduce the risk of employing a weapon while having the incorrect SPI generator selected resulting in the weapon going elsewhere than intended. Naturally, this applies to medium altitude engagements. For low altitude engagement things are different of course, as you'd be operating almost exclusively visually rather than performing system deliveries.

Indeed. One of the many reasons the TGP isn't a good tool to be using at low level.

That's fine, but the USAF do. It's real world procedure, and for very good reason. In fact when employing IAMs, using steer point as SPI generator is mandatory. Most of these issues stem from one simple fact, people often seem not to understand the the SPI is not a point you designate, it is a constantly updated position in 3d space which is produced by whichever sensor/system you set as SPI generator. This is why using a non fixed position (ie steer point) as SPI generator can have undesirable effects. While in sim those undesirable effects aren't a big thing for some, in reality it's how you end up dropping a weapon on friendlies/civilians.

As per my reply in the other thread, if your SPI generator moves to focus on a different position of course your SPI will change to match it. Your problem is largely caused by poor procedures, specifically relying on the TGP as SPI generator rather than using waypoints/mark points.

Your TGP is looking in a different position in each screen shot, of course your SPI will have changed position to match.

As I said, TOF is used to drive the DRC, which is part of the aiming aid/confirmation of parameters for a CCIP delivery. It applies to ALL unguided free fall ordnance delivered using CCIP aiming. For every given set of delivery parameters (dive angle, release airspeed, release altitude) there is a corresponding TOF (calculated using CWDS or similar systems IRL). As per the example image below, if you roll out at track altitude correctly on track as planned the DRC will sit right over the target and you simply let the pipper track up to the DRC at which point you pickle, at exactly the planned release altitude.

TOF is used to drive the desired release cue (DRC), it has no physical effect on any weapon. I think you're confusing TOF with function time, which is used to determine the cannister function delay where no FZU-39 is fitted.

Those shelters at Creech are designed for UAVs (Predator/Reaper) and not manned aircraft. They are supposed to be like that.

That all depends on what block ED are modelling, there are 3 different centre display types used in the F-18C (HI/MPCD/AMPCD).

? It's pretty easy, target tasking messages in DCS don't transfer elevation data (a bug) so the received point will be at MSL. Either copy the received point to a waypoint (TAD hook and hit OSB 16), which will have the correct elevation, or use the SPI broadcast function of SADL.

Nothing wrong with an educated guess. Once you understand the use/employment of a particular system it's reasonably easy to design a simulation that replicates real world functionality without needing any sensitive data at all. As with RADAR and ESM, an ECM model that operates in a manner that is a reasonable facsimile of reality is all you can ever hope for in an entertainment simulation. I really wish there were far more educated guesses in the sim, instead of blank spaces and absent functionality/capabilities.

Not sure I agree really. While not implementing such detail at all would still give a better simulation than we have now, I think it'd still be very limited. While you wouldn't need to model the techniques in detail, something as simple as having each technique as yes/no values to be set as capabilities against each ECM system, and also set as to if they affect each given emitter type would give a very effective model. That way you could have older ECM systems only able to employ, for example, barrage and/or spot noise jamming whereas current system could have everything up to and including filter skirt and/or image jamming for monopulse threat systems and everything inbetween. That combined with simple values for area of antenna coverage, maximum output power, max number of simultaneous threats that can be countered, and capable bands would give a very good simulation indeed when plugged into the die rolling method you describe.

In reality, you don't "turn on" the ECM system in the first place. It turns itself on if, and only if, it determines it can successfully counter a threat emitter. All the pilot does is consent to its operation by switching the system out of standby which would normally be part of the fence check. DCS very much does not match reality at all when it comes to ECM, either in mechanisation or useage.

Indeed. And there are quite a significant number of simmers out there who would spend more money on things like maps and other add-ons than aircraft modules. Me being one of them. For example, I haven't purchased anything from ED at full price since the A-10C (and I've only picked up CA in a sale) because nothing interests me, and I know quite a few who are the same. But I wouldn't think twice about spending USD60 on a good theatre.

That would be the US designation for it yes.

EPWIII has GPS/INS, as does EPWII.

Can't say to be honest, we're not even looking at 2000lb weapons at the moment, and if we did it'd be EWPIII as used on Tornado not GBU-10 or GBU-31. Certainly a max of four as only the centre and inboard wing pylons have AHDERUs needed for 2000b class weapon carriage, outboard pylons use ALDERUs. Not sure on any main gear clearance issues, but I suspect it might be the case.

Active IR countermeasures, yes. Flares, no. Once modern imaging sensor missile such as ASRAAM have a lock, no amount of flare is going to break it.

Don't speak/read German so can't be sure what that site is saying, but UK jets aren't cleared for 2000lb Paveway (EPWIII). T1 jets can only use EPWII and T2 P1E adds PWIV, can't really comment on the other operator nations though without checking as I don't follow their activities too closely (they're quite far behind us in general with the jet that it's pretty pointless professionally speaking). As for the argument at the crux of this thread, while entirely pointless from the outset, the answer is quite simple. Regardless of BVR or WVR and whatever the initial parameters, in a 1vs1 engagement whoever gets the first shot will almost certainly win. This is especially true WVR. It doesn't matter if you've got an AIM-9X or an ASRAAM heading for you, you're in for a very bad day unless you are very, very lucky indeed. The fact is, that for either jet manoeuvring on to the other guys 6 isn't all that relevant and in a head on engagement assuming it did get to within (or close to) visual range which ever jet got the first weapon off the rail would have the fight. For BVR, it's highly likely the F-35 would win, assuming it knew the Typhoon was there and got the first look/first shot which is certainly has the advantages to achieve. In an old school guns fight, yes the Typhoon has a performance advantage, but it's still anyone's fight really.

Is it a factor? Yes of course it is, just like not having any physical feedback of acceleration. But lack of those things don't prevent you doing it, it just takes practice. Or should I say practice of the appropriate skill set using the proper methodology. If there is no method or reason to your leaning process, you're never going to see the end result. Anyway, I and others have gone over all the techniques and procedures before on more than one occasion, and those posts, documents, and demo videos are all still out there.

If you're interested in reading some of the available material yourself, as well as books such as the above. The EW fundamentals publication by the USAF ACC training support sqn at Nellis is a very good read. Quite in depth and heavy for someone not familiar with the subject, but still a very good starting point. https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8ldbrc8xql77ew/Electronic%20Warfare%20Fundamentals.pdf?dl=0

Yes. Lots of it. But not simply practicing by delivering weapons, but simple flying skills. Weapon deliveries become much easier when you can point the jet wherever you want, whenever you want without consciously thinking about it. And this as well. But again, the first point leads to the second becoming a near unconscious process.

Wiki is only a bad source for those who don't check for reliable references, and confirm those references have been interpreted correctly (so granted, most people). The problem with wikipedia et al in general is that by using only publicly available information (obviously) they are only telling part of the story and more often than not missing significant details that actually change the ending of the story entirely. A little bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing indeed.

Yeah, both "sources". And in my experience "aviation" sites are often the most questionable of all.

There is more than enough information out there to develop a very detailed and highly accurate EW simulation in DCS, it's science, nothing more. And the internet is abound with numerous papers/book/reports/studies on the subject. No you'll never get data on exactly how the ALQ-131, for example, performs against threat X or exactly what technique(s) it employs against threat X for obvious (I hope) reasons. But you don't need that data to simulate EW. I have no idea where this idea that EW is somehow impossible to model just because some specifics of it are sensitive. The only things stopping ED producing a highly detailed EW simulation are having the resources and the desire to do so.