Rescue

I think in the A-10A its like the Bomb Tables for the F-5 or something similar old school like theory lessons. Simple as at 5000ft @ 200kn Launch within 1-6nm, while at 10k ft its between 2-8nm, etc. But i dont know at all. Greetings

Yes absolutely. Full flaps is required for a "normal" Case 3 landing. I don't recall rn if it's also required for the ATC Approach mode to work but ACLS is a combination of many systems working together (TCN, CPL Autopilot, ATC, Datalink, etc). Additionally: To land with half flaps is only allowed in some circumstances when something isn't working right. And if something isn't working right you would fly the plane by yourself and not using a bunch of system that lands your plane by itself. Greetings

Burn through range is - or at least was - around 22 nm. For everything beyond this you could use a Aim-7MH and launch it in HOJ (Home on Jam). But launching an Sparrow further than 22nm doesn't sounds fun IMO. Since AIM-120 B the Amrams have a HOJ mode but iirc it automatically switches to it when launched and jamming is detected. Also there is no way to select it manually. As quoted above the AWACS can burn through further and with the track file you should be able to get a missile on him. Greetings

I was shocked last year as ED came up with the idea to bring the Hornet out of EA, as there was and still is much to do. Even basic stuff as damage model and AI (+comms) are still unfinished. If I get a "full released" module i want those things to work properly. But I also understand that this thing is way to long discounted with EA bonus. So there are 2 things to do. 1. ED have to draw a line what things they want finished for release and what things will come after release (which doesn't cripple the "full release" part. I.E. Mk-77) 2. ED have to think about if they let the Hornet stay in EA until they get their stuff done or create a new step between EA and full release, like "Released but incomplete" or so you can see as a customer that this is very far in development and it's worth it's money but some things aren't still working right. Greetings

Yes. With QTY you don't select a number like dumb bombs but you select the stations you also want to drop bombs from.

CCIP works the same. Iirc all planes/ fire solution computers works this way.

With Mk84-Air on the list for the F-16, a Mk83-Air for the Hornet would be nice. +1

Anything planned about HSI Slew? I see a lot of "secondary" stuff in the wishlist and wondering about stuff like this what seems to be more important (imo of course) Greetings

Hey, any Updates when the TA (Terrain Avoidance) mode is coming to us? Is it still considered? Greetings

Oh. I also might add that the Countermeasures could use some optimisation. After AAR Spawn i had 60 Chaff and only 20 Flares. We could turn up the flare to 60 too. Greetings

Hallo there! First: I like this campaign and your work, Thanks. The first SP experience in DCS. And now the hard stuff: I played Mission 3 (Again, because i had to jump out after the AAR on my first run). I spawned on the carrier and choose the option to Spawn after the AAR. After Contact with Browser, i have done the show of Force. Smoke destroyed the Truck. The Insurgent Compound was destroyed by me. But after the following SoF and the Manpad engagement, the jeep (that we have to destroy now with gun) doesn't Spawn. At least i didn't saw him. That's why I told Smoke to get him. After some time wondering that nothing happens (and i still don't see something moving beside a bus) i looked on the Map and smoke was already on its way RTB. I now told him, i will take over. Smoke returns. After some searching i found a vehicle where the Manpad was launched but this was a Humvee. I engaged it and run out of ammo before destroying it. A GBU-12 (i know this wasn't part of the task, but i already thought something is broken) doesn't do any damage. I aborted the mission and saw the last targets name was "Browser Vehicle". I wonder if the spawn is corrupted. It's spawning the wrong unit or - if i got the wrong vehicle - it's spawning no unit at all. Thanks for looking into it. Greetings

Sweet reminder. I would like to have this one too. Although i don't have the knowledge if this was ever used on the F/A-18 or just tested. There are reports of usage on A-6s. Greetings

That's weird. The AGM-84 family shouldn't climb at all. The altitude your set prior launch, sets the maximum altitude. If your setting is higher as your launch altitude, it would even stay on its altitude. If it's lower it will decend to your setting. Can you reproduce it? Have you a track file?

If your engines got hit, they no longer produce energy via the generators. This will result in a offline jet. With battery only you have just a limited systems supported (just think about your start up after the battery turned on). Check NATOPS "Both Generators inoperative" to get a oversight. You can land the Hornet with one engine but the loss of both engines is literally a full loss of the jet. Because it's FBW it's not very controllable without power. With Battery still operational, start APU, try to restart a engine. (...) If an engine cannot be restarted or a suitable landing site is not available, eject.(...) (Natops "Forced Landing"). With combat damage involved it's likely that you end up with the eject part. 1. Limited Damage model that easily result in both engines dead 2. No Engines = No power. Restart or eject. Greetings

There is still a lot to do on the Hornet. I rather would like to see the Hornet another year in EA, than releasing it as "done" with still missing features. AI wingman is one thing to name only one thing. ED will provide further support and will work on it even after EA though. But to name it "done" with missing parts and a wingman that can not be controlled seems like a wrong path. Greetings

+1 Yes, please! I was about to request this too. Or a setting in the rearming menu would be okay imo.

Quote from the Hornet mini updates i suggested on page 1: "Also, we have had to move the Mk-77 to the post-Early Access release list for weapons. Not only will the Mk-77 require a new object and napalm effect, but an all new warhead type needs to be created (quite different than HE and pen-aid warheads) and all units and objects will need to be updated to account for this all, new weapon type. As you might imagine, it's going to be a lot of work to support this."

The Hornet Updates (first Page) somewhere, there is a article about the MK77. In short: Because of many things that have to be coded from scratch the Mk77 is delayed to "post Early Access". Iirc both mine types (destructor and quickstrike) got cancelled. Greetings

I don't know if i get your problem right, but are you aware that the SLAM doesn't climb? If you set FLT to high (what's 25k ft iirc) but you launch at 18k ft, the SLAM will hold it's altitude and does the rest as normal. If you launch at 18k ft but set FLT to MED (what's 15k ft iirc) the SLAM will descent to 15k ft and keep it's altitude. Last Phase seems okay I think. Greetings

I totally support the wish for a Auto-Tank feature that can be enable/ disabled in the options and also can be forced to be disabled by server. While I can now AAR, i absolutely understand that some people can't invest their playtime into it or want to get frustrated after work (Overall it's a game and you want to relax somehow). An Auto-Tank option would open up accessibility for noobs and some advanced players that can't AAR in multiplayer server or on multiplayer squadron missions. Infinite Fuel is not really a option for multiplayer. Greetings

So what in detail you want? If i understand correct - and everyone feel free to correct me - its a Mk82 (what we already have) with PBXN-109 explosive instead of something else (what doesn't matter at all in DCS). You may also want the grey coating that is used by the Navy thats already request several times (that also avoid a cook off (what also don't matter at all in DCS)). I support grey bombs for Navy planes but i don't see what you requesting with "BLU-111" Greetings

Hello. I would like to drop this link here, that i found recently. https://www.dstorm.eu/pages/loadout/loadout.html Points out some payloads that was carried in ODS. Shows also that the already used BRU-33 and other stuff. Greetings

Today i found the NAVEDTRA 14313B. This Document stated that the BRU-55 is fitted onto the BRU-32. Again BRU-55 is stated that it doubles the amount of 1000lbs bombs. It against refers to MIL-STD-1760 also to non-MIL-STD-1760 armament. Down the document it refers to the publication of the NTRP 3-22.4-FA18A-D (which should be public) for the authorization of any load of weapon and stores. Unfortunately I haven't yet access to a copy of NTRP 3-22.4-FA18A-D. There is a link online that doesn't work yet for me. Maybe some of you may have a better chance. Nice pictures med-taha! Greetings

Pls delete. Wrong Thread. Thx.

See: See: In conclusion it should be possible. Even more if ED keeps the way that the AGM-154s can be carried as double ones. Still no clear stuff but a lot of indications. Greetings