Eddie

Tac form has almost nothing at all to do with that, and everything to do with mutual support and deconfliction.

Forget trim, just fly the aeroplane.

1. Negative G hurts, it really hurts, where a pilot can take 9 positive G, 2-3 negative G is the limit. Negative G also significantly reduces a pilot's ability to withstand positive G. 2. Aircraft themselves don't like negative G, it gives fuel transfer issues, as you'll see if you spend to long pushing negative G in the A-10C. As well as engine oil pressure issues, and ordnance is difficult to get safely separated from the aircraft under negative G. 3. Negative G is slow. You move the aircraft much more slowly pushing 2 negative G than you do rolling and pulling 4-5 positive G. This makes you and easier target.

It's something most (all) simmer who haven't gotten heavily into real world TTPs do. And it's one of those things where I've never really understood why the concept of always using positive G to move the aeroplane comes so hard to some.

Take a look at the YouTube link in my sig, you'll find quite a few demo videos there to give some thing to think about, they'll at the very least get you asking some more questions.

"Less accurate" is a relative term. If you do it right, you'll still get weapon on targets. But the ballistic path of the bombs is inherently less accurate and more vulnerable to wind etc as dive angles decrease. Generally I focus on high angle deliveries when teaching it to people as they are what people find most difficult and alien. The biggest hurdle is getting away from the "long dive at the target" most simmers tend to be used to. I suppose the thing to remember is you won't get anywhere in combat by dropping a single bomb, you're either going to be dropping two (steep/low) or even up to six (high/shallow) in a string to hit even a single vehicle.

At present in DCS, there is no relevance with any weapon other than MK-82AIRs. For the MK-82AIR, selecting nose only will not deploy the ballute. They are various configurations for the MK-82AIRs. Fixed Hi/Lo configure the IFFCC ballistic calculations & DSMS profiling for high drag and low drag employment respectively. Pilot option (and pilot option 1 & 2) allow the pilot to select whether the weapon is dropped in high or low drag configuration in flight by selecting a relevantly configured profile. IRL a weapon with different fusing options is treated as an entirely different weapon by the DSMS. So a MK-82AIR set to FIXED HI, and a MK-82AIR set to FIXED LO would have their own entirely seperate profiles. This isn't implemented quite right in DCS. In combat you don't use it at all. It's only used in training and is set for mandatory minimum altitudes relevant to the type of delivery being performed. In combat it's left at zero as the only abort cues you really need are for terrain/frag avoidance. No function in DCS. They are calibration settings IRL and are not altered by the pilot anyway. As above. TOF controls the desired release cue on the CCIP projected bomb impact line (PBIL). When performing a CCIP delivery you place the DRC on the target and allow the pipper to track up to it. As TOF is related to altitude (as well as airspeed and angle) releasing at the correct TOF also gives the correct release altitude, or more importantly means you won't be releasing below planned altitude. This is a difficult one to answer, simply because it's not a simple subject and would take up most of a "very" long weapons and tactics manual due to the numerous variations and considerations. To get you started though, lower release altitudes/higher dive angles are more accurate, the higher release airspeed associated with high dive angles also make you a more difficult target. However dive bomb/high altitude dive bomb (30 degrees dive and above) deliveries do take more practice to master. Low angle (LALD & LAHD) deliveries (20 degrees or less) are used for low altitude/pop-up deliveries. While they are easier to perform they are also less accurate than dive bomb and leave you spending more time at lower altitudes flying at lower airspeed out of terrain masking, which can leave you vulnerable to hostile fire and less able to evade anything that does come your way. Although as long as you do consider the threat they can be very effective and are the only practical way to deliver weapons when operating at very low altitude. Medium & Low altitude toss deliveries (MAT & LAT) are your CCRP releases. While they do very much have a place and a tactical use, they are inherently less accurate and are best employed for large/area targets with large bomb strings and/or when dropping CBUs. For LAT.MAT you're generally going to be dropping everything you have in one go. It's also important to note that MAT/LAT can be and often are performed with a shallow dive angle, although they can be done level if required/desired. Lastly there is the Visual Level Delivery (VLD). The VLD is the in the weeds, fly level and fast right over the target and drop a string of MK-82AIRs on their heads delivery. I wouldn't recommend such a delivery in the A-10C in DCS. The AI can't really be "surprised" so even a low level terrain masked approach is likely to lead in death against anything that can shoot back.

Exactly, and that is the problem. You need a system where the AI goes through the process of classifying and identifying unknown contacts. As well as what to do should a contact not be classified friendly. The big thing to think about is something that many forget (or don't know in the first place) IFF can only ever confirm friendly, it cannot, and does not determine someone is hostile. You need to have a set of conditions, which can classify a contact as hostile, depending on a chosen RoE. For example., how do you handle a friendly aircraft with an IFF transponder failure, what do you do to prevent it being fired on by its own side's GBAD or CAP?

You've totally missed the way IFF works. Military aircraft use all 7 (or 5 depending on the age of aircraft) modes, so they all need to be modelled. Even aircraft without interrogators (most of them) need the transponder functions modelled, to enable them to be interrogated by others. Then you have to decide how to handle things for the FC3 level aircraft. The big hurdle isn't simply enabling the cockpit controls, but designing and developing a systems for the AI (both air and surface) to use IFF in a tactical sense. There is nothing preventing IFF being modelled from a security classification point of view, what it does and even how it does it is no secret. And there is no need whatsoever to know the protected aspects in order to model it in a sim. The only hurdle really is development resources.

Yep. I'd like to see JDAMs that actually have more than just the 3d model in common with the real JDAM as well. But hey, that's just me. ;) The mere thought of pattern releases gets me all excited.

You mean formation flying isn't just for airshows? Waaaaa? :eek:

Well yes. But to be honest, "we" don't employ them with LASER guidance anywhere near as often as INS/GPS. Especially the EPWIII. So for us, that's the big thing. In fact in 13 years in the RAF I only ever saw EPWIII loaded for a couple of strike missions, and that was in 2011 for Libya. And I tell you what, the TGP footage from that mission was a good watch. 20+ 2000 lb. & 1000 lb. EPWs landing in a complex less than 1 sq/nm makes a bit of a mess.

Yep, and in that case it's even more appropriate, because the Enhanced Paveway III is in fact a GBU-27, albeit with the addition of the enhanced guidance package including INS/GPS guidance. We just don't use US designations for anything in UK, so we don't call it a GBU-27, we call it simply EPW III.

Yes and no, the GBU-27 was cleared for use on the F-16C in 1999 and was actually employed by both the F-16C and the F-117 over Iraq in 2003 as well the over the FRY during Allied Force. The GBU-24 is more commonly used, but both are fundamentally the same weapon, only the aerofoil groups differ between the two.

What do you want to know? Bearing in mind a comprehensive weapon delivery & tactics manual would be longer than the sim manual, so anything given on these forums will be non-exhaustive rule of thumb in nature ).

2+2=42552155

None of the above. Yes more players increases the probability of issues, but what exactly (as in what line(s) of code) is the route cause. That is what needs to be tracked down.

Yep. Entirely defeats the tactical purpose and philosophy behind formations. Such things look good in air shows, but have less than zero tactical use.

;)

Just fly with the AoA indicator in the best cruise band (first white band). Around 220 KIAS at most weights. Best cruise alt will vary depending on weight and drag, so needs to be calculated in advance. But, what GG said.

It should, when an SA-13 is actively tracking you and therefore ranging, yes.

The MWS, and all other aspects of the defensive aids suite we have in DCS have little in common with their real life counterparts. The real systems are far more capable and "intelligent".

MAWS on Typhoon can already do that, and show real time range/position and time to impact, as well as some other "stuff". There are a few different types of MAWS, UV optical is a rather basic low cost type. The MWS on the A-10C is a very basic system with some significant limitations, as is the case with all UV optical systems, although there are things that can be done to reduce false indications IRL even reflections from the sun 'can' cause false alerts.

Maverick polarity selection is not modelled in DCS. But it does mean what you're thinking. In he case of the Mav polarity does not refer to whot/bhot, but the contrast of the target in relation to the background. IRL it's purpose is to tell the Mav if it should be locking onto a light/hot object on a dark/cold background or a dark/cold object on a light/hot background. If you have he wrong polarity set the seeker will not lock on. And it applies to both CCD and IIR Mavericks.

For anyone who's ever been curious what it's like to fly a combat sortie in the 476th, here is a video of a 2 hour Air Interdiction mission flown on the Operation Georgian Storm dedicated server scenario. The video has been edited down to just over one hour in length, with much of the transit and admin portions of the flight removed, it was also necessary to cut out some sections of combat preparation etc. to stop it being even longer, but hopefully not too much. No music, no special effects, and no joining together of multiple takes to make things look good.