Eddie

That is a Mk-82 Snakeye, which was replaced in service by the Mk-82AIR. Not a Mk-81. The Mk-81 is the smallest of the Mk-80 series and is approximately 250lbs, it was retired from service after Vietnam. The snakeye would be great to have though, if and when we get an aircraft of appropriate vintage to employ it.

It most certainly will. The INS is the primary guidance system. Just as in the A-10C itself (any any other military aircraft for that matter) all the GPS system does is provide position updates to the INS to correct for gyroscopic drift errors. It takes at least 10 seconds from release for JDAM to acquire a valid 3d GPS position. If the time of flight is any less than that, or if GPS jamming is in operation, the weapon guides to the target solely using the INS. WCMD is INS only and does not have any GPS assistance.

They are, as you suspected, two terms for exactly the same thing. JDAMs and WCMDs are both types of IAMs.

Indeed. But the Viper is better though.

There certainly are CM systems that can counter the likes of newer AA-11s, AIM-9X, and ASRAAM. And they are hardly secret, DCS already has a basic inplementaion of an early version of such systems in the form of the IR Jammer on the Frogfoot. Google AIRCM and DIRCM. Such systems are however very costly to deploy, so only the likes of the US, UK, and a few select others have them in operation. And they are the only way to counter the latest gen of IIR AAMs. I can't comment on the AIM-9X or AA-11 with much authority, but I can certainly say that the ASRAAM (UK spec at least) doesn't give two hoots about flare.

True. However, it's worth considering that the airborne frag pattern for a impact detonated Mk-82 is 3000 ft x 3000ft for 30 seconds. Of course much of that is the fragments coming down, but still, frag is a significantly sized part of the weapon effect. Regarding the MK-84 though, it's also worth noting that despite being 4 times the weight of the Mk-82, it has nowhere near 4 times the effective power. To illustrate, the optimum ripple spacing for employment against point targets is the Mk-82 is 75ft, for the Mk-84 it's only 150 ft. Of course it's true that all weapons are in some respect less effective than they are in reality though.

Nope, that there is another DCS inaccuracy. A blinking pointing cross is a bad thing, it means the lock is unlikely to survive launch. What you want is a solid pointing cross, which if you watch the video more closely is what you'll see. And yes, before you ask, it is in the ever lengthening "to be fixed" list. It's also a somewhat of a pity the video start with the Mav set to correct polarity so you don't see that working. Another aspect not modelled in DCS. If you look at this vid from 24 seconds you'll see polarity and keyhole in action, or rather what happens when you forget (even the pros struggle sometimes).

These are test firings. The video streaming is done by instrumentation specifically added to support the tests, it does not exist in operational missiles.

Indeed. I still think the current theatre is too damn small in the A-10C, let alone a fighter. But others do and can think differently, it's allowed people.

Well the missiles need to be boresighted on the ground prior to takeoff to ensure thing are correctly aligned/calibrated. One of many, many things not modelled in DCS (although the function works, the reason to use it isn't there). You can also change the boresight in flight so the "caged" position is something other than the normal if you want. Although there is little reason to.

It adjusts the missile boresight.

The only way to "restore" mission progress at the moment is to make use of Combined Arms. If we need to restart our server due to a crash etc, then the admins tend to just jump in a CA role (on the Red side) and spend some time killing all the units that were previously destroyed (by using red unit to kill red units). Not ideal, but it's the only real workaround for large missions with 1000+ units like ours.

Yes absolutely. In the 476th we commonly have missions that use almost the entire theatre running for 100 hours and beyond of actual mission time. The server itself can be running for a couple of weeks including the time it is paused when empty.

TMS Left Long will space stailise the seeker head. There is no "ground stabilise" IRL (at least as far as those who have played previous sims will think of it), except for as part of the Force Correlate track functionality.

Then I suggest you practice a lot more. Because not only is it quite easy, it is also the "normal" method of employing Mavericks. Even the A-10Cs spend more time training to operate without a TGP than they do with one. In fact, as with just about all military aircraft, there is a specific qualification/training required to actually fly with a TGP. Every pilot first learns, and masters, how to operate without one. And why on earth would you need a software upgrade, all the functionality is already there, and always has been? From suite 3.1 and even in the A model.

Huh? Why would you want a Maverick to hit a fighter, or any aircraft for that matter? They are an air to surface weapon. No, you only need to know where to release the weapon. That can be determined via a multitude of means, from precision coordinates provided by another party of onboard sensors to simply visual release on the right area. In the case of air to air weapons yes. But as this discussion is primarily catering for air to surface weapons, no. Again, huh? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're referencing, but the Maverick has no INS, it is simply Optically guided. It does not know or care where is it pre-launch. There are also no RADAR guided Maverick models, only Optical (both visual light and IR) and LASER. Even JDAM doesn't need to be have target data sent to it in flight, that can be (and often is) uploaded on the ground. The only thing it needs is a starting position to be provided at release by the launch aircraft to start it's INS on the right track, but even the accuracy of that isn't vital provided the weapon time of flight is greater than 10 seconds (the time needed for JDAM to acquire GPS).

A few of those aircraft can't carry any ARMs. Actually, depending on the aircraft and the weapon system in question, your friend is absolutely correct. The Viper "can" use the HTS, it does not "have" to. Nope, targeting pods are not "required" for any of them. Most modern RADAR guided weapons require no support from the launch platform (especially true in the case of air-surface weapons), and even LASER guided weapons do not need the launch platform to provide a LASER spot, any aircraft or ground unit can do it. SNIPER or any other targeting pod is not required for Maverick, in fact Maverick itself can be(and has been) used as a makeshift targeting pod in the days before such pods were common . And nor is the HTS required for HARM. In fact of all the aircraft capable of carrying HARM, only the F-16 can carry the HTS. All other aircraft use the HARM in the "HARM as sensor" modes.

SUU-25.

Well, to be pedantic, a hyd reservoir won't typically store pressure only increase the systems fluid capacity. The accumulators however do store pressure, using nitrogen bladders which are compressed as fluid is pumped into the system.

Yep, one of several long running bugs/inaccuracies with the A-10C that have long been reported.

Still WiP. It takes a long time to turn out the approach and departure charts.], especially when they have to be made from scratch in most cases as there are no real world charts to use as a base. This means that the procedure has to be developed in line with real world IFR rules etc, before it can be charted. Although the charts for the current theatres might not be released as we've had to make a few modifications to the sim (TACAN, ILS, and ATC frequencies) to allow for realistic charts and procedures. So without those mods (which would likely prevent people flying on public servers) the current charts would not be valid. Hopefully that'll change with future theatres and we'll be able to release our charts, and much faster as well. Nevada should be quite easy as we have the real world charts to start with.

The Missile approach Warning System also acts as a laser warner.

Third party modules may never be on Steam. Although it may be possible to install them into a Steam DCS install It is up to each third party team how they sell and distribute their products. Not ED.

Even the DTS for the USANG didn't have any 'classified' stuff in it. But that goes back to the USAF not allowing ED to use the same implementation in the DCS product. Yeah, I saw your PM, but didn't have time to reply at the time, and then forgot all about it. I'll send you a reply when I have chance to sit at my sim PC and give you a decent answer.

A bit of both really. As with RADAR, ECM, and other things, while a lot of things do fall under the "classified" umbrella those things aren't neccesarily relevant to replicating the function of a system in a sim. For example, what flares do, and how they do it is not at all classified. There are plently of scientific paper online to allow very detailed modelling of expendable countermeasures. The things that are protected are specifics such as how effective a given system is against a specific threat, or the exact method is employs to counter a given threat. We don't need to know either of those things to simulate it. However, as was the case with A-10C, it may be the case that when an operator is providing information etc to help develop a product, they may also ask/require that some aspects are changed. Even if they are not really sensitive. And of course development resources are a very big factor. If ED had the same resources as the like of EA we'd likely already have the electronic battlefield and more realistic countermeasures etc. There is also a case for some simplification. While people like me would happily see everything modelled as accuratly as possible, the majority may not be too keen on 20 odd layers of menus to play with just for the RWR or MWS.