Eddie

The issue of SU-27/Mig-29 symbology being discussed is solely related to implementation in sims, namely Falcon and DCS, not real aircraft.

Why are we still having to guess range? Why do we still not have any indication of elevation? Why do we not have different search, lock, and launch tones based on emitter PRF & Frequency? Why do we still have RWRs that cannot ever determine hostile emitters from friendly ones? Why do we not have the options to control if the RWR displays search RADARs? Why do we still have RWRs that cannot do sensible threat prioritization. and why can we not select RWR control options to influence that prioritization? The list goes on.... Real RWRs do a LOT more than any sim has ever had.

That is the F-16E (Block 60). It was sold to the UAE and they are the sole operator with 60 aircraft that were delivered between 2005 and 2010. The USAF/USANG are still flying F-16C Block 40 & 50. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html

They don't. It isn't a matter of opinion, but a fact of RADAR mechanics. And since when is the consensus/implementation of RWRs in two sims (neither if which model RWR operation especially realistically) something to base inferences of real world operation on?

While you are of course correct, it still means that the air pressure in the mission was so high as to be beyond the realms of the possible. If it were a lower than standard pressure then it'd just mean the airfield in question was at a high elevation, but a higher than standard pressure would mean, either, an airfield below sea level or high atmospheric pressure (or both). I haven't had time to do the maths, but I'm not convinced there is an airfield anywhere in the world low enough for such a high QFE. And a quick test in DCS show that the highest the air pressure can be set to (with standard weather) is 790 mmHg (31.10 inHg), and there are no airfields below sea level in DCS. So I can't even figure out how a QFE of 3857 is even possible in DCS, unless someone had used dynamic weather and manually entered the pressures. Of course that ignores the fact that ATC shouldn't be giving QFE anyway, or at least you should have the option to request either QFE or QNH.

As Paul says, you can carry 6 Mavs. But doing so increases maintenance requirements on the aircraft, and given the other issues already discussed (weight/drag) it isn't done often at all. Not to mention the fact that in most cases there simply won't be enough targets to warrant such a payload. So it is absolutely true that 6 Mav (and 4 Mav) loads aren't generally used in reality, but they can be if the mission requires it.

Around 4 is a very nice drag index to be working with. In the 476th we have a maximum permitted drag index of 11.00, which is more than enough for any practical weapon configuration, although most configurations we fly are no more than 8-9. Personally I try to keep it below or as close to 6 as I can for a Hi-Hi-Hi mission, and as you've said if you don't need AIM-9/ECM for the mission (which if you're able to fly the mission at medium altitude you probably don't) leave them at home. In addition, on a medium alt sortie I'll only carry 575 rounds of 30mm to loose a bit of weight, as using the gun is unlikely anyway. And the same goes for rockets, if you're at medium altitude for the whole mission using rockets is unlikely, so leave them at home and save on the drag. The only thing I never change is fuel load, we always start with full tanks. But the ranges/mission durations we fly in the 476th tend to be longer than most (from what I've seen) at around 150 nm radius & 2 hours duration (although still quite short when compared with real life). A few other things I (we) do, are we only carry LAU-88s (4 Mavs total) on low level sorties where Mavs are to be the primary weapon and we don't carry a TGP at the same time, likewise if we do carry other ordnance with LAU-88s it'll just be 2 CBUs/4 Mk-82s and 2 rocket pods. If we carry TERs with Mk-82s, it'll only be 2 of them for 6 bombs total, and we don't carry GBU-12s on TERs (way too much drag, and totally unnecessary). My most common weapon configurations would be, standard equipment of ECM + 2 AIM-9M and: 2A65X4M82X1L131, 2A54X2C97X1L131, 2A65X6M82X1L131, 4A65X2C97X2L131, 2A65X4G12, 2A65X4G38, 4C05X2G38. And those are for our most common scenario which includes SHORAD, MERAD, LORAD, and Air threats. So naturally I don't use the PGM loads all that often, and if I do it's pretty much a "one pass, haul ass" mission.

Install it in 1.2.6, activate, run MP and login to your account. That will register the serial to your account and you'll then be able to download via the module manager in the 1.2.7 open beta.

A few from last night's sortie with Stuka.

While reducing the fuel gives you a gross weight just below max takeoff at 4500 lbs, that payload gives you a drag index of 12.48, which is off the charts. With that I'm surprised you can stay in the air, never mind break 300 KIAS. In short no, no you shouldn't be able to do 300 KIAS with that payload.

If anyone wants to fix this themselves in 1.2.7 just rename A-10C-CPT-CLK-02.dds to A-10C-CPT-OFF-CLK-02.dds.

That's a very old video, and the technique isn't the best. Power should be applied the second you start the pull out. See the videos in the playlist below.

Eno, check page 2 of that thread, I added the amendments there. Pretty sure I've posted the full list a few times in other threads as well.

No. Our version is a Longbow with over 200 modifications and upgrades. Easy to spot from photos in Afghanistan as we keep the longbow radar installed on all aircraft all the time, whereas everyone else doesn't.

You NEED the speed and manoeuvrability, in order to avoid and defeat threats, maintain formation, employ the necessary tactics, and save fuel. The big thing you're missing here is that in the real world, we don't add more weapons tot he aircraft, we add more aircraft to the mission. And 12 mavs? Even of you could find enough targets in the real word which is doubtful, no sane pilot is going to make 12 attacks on the same target, even if they do have enough fuel to do so.

It's very, very common. Especially when working with/as a FAC(A). But you don't really try put the smoke 'on' the target anyway. Firstly it's obviously not always that easy to do, but secondly it gives the target advanced warning of the attack (of course that isn't applicable to the AI on DCS).

Weight, drag, cost, practicality. If you don't often need more than two in reality, why go the hassle of configuring the aircraft to carry more? Especially when it would require a redesign of the wing structure and hard points. And that's ignoring the tactics & procedures aspect.

No. In fact more often than not, things covered by ITAR are not "classified" in the colloquial sense of the word. ITAR covers hardware, software, or knowledge with originates in whole or part, in the US. So, potentially everything, for example if a major avionics component were covered by ITAR, its design documents and specifications may well be to. If something just contains a tiny subcomponent that is subject to ITAR, then the whole thing becomes subject to ITAR. Hell my notebook at work it covered by ITAR, simply because some of the material I deal with and discuss is covered by ITAR and therefore any notes I make on such matters are also by extension ITAR controlled, even the conversations that led to those notes are subject to ITAR. In short, ITAR is a royal pain in the arse.

No, containing material/information subject to ITAR would cause it to fall under ITAR restrictions. DCS doesn't contain any such material, and ED wouldn't have been given access to such material when developing it, hence it is not subject to ITAR.

Pretty simple tbh. Exactly the same way, but you use a geographical/manmade feature as your reference. You don't really want to be referencing the "target" at all when running in, because such small things are easy to lose sight of, instead you are looking for more visible features that you can use as aiming references. For example, you could "drop your weapons 100m east of the t-junction". Such things may not sound all that scientific or precise, and they are not, but that's how it all works. Essentially, when employing unguided munitions in a 21st century aircraft you have all the same problems when it comes to locating the target that pilot's had in WWII/Korea/Vietnam etc, you just have better targeting systems than they did. There are other things you can do to help out in some situations as well. Illumination flares dawn/dusk (when it's not dark enough for NVGs), IR Pointers/LASER at night, and white phos rockets or LASER during the day. Of course most of the tactics, techniques, and procedures than can be employed can only be used when flying with other people in MP.

The normal (automatic) IFFCC wind correction is more than enough in 90% of situations. In the other 10% (high altitude/high winds) even entering wind data won't lead to magic, and given that DCS does not provide accurate wind data during briefing you won't know what to enter anyway. As long as you employ the principles discussed here, you'll be low enough, fast enough, and steep enough that it won't make much difference anyway.

One day......