EtherealN

I'll bring it up, thanks.

There's another thing I don't quite understand here: Let's assume the US gets angry with sweden and blacklisting it and there are components affected. Does this not simply mean that exports to sweden are prohibeted? How would Switzerland be affected? Wouldn't it have to be switzerland that is embargoed for this to hit them? (Especially considering that nowadays, a lot of the Gripen stuff is british.) And of course, if Switzerland were to be embargoed by the US, they'd be even more boned if they had an exclusively american fleet of aircraft. But really, the risks of either Switzerland or Sweden getting placed under a US arms embargo is... remote. If you worry about that, then the only real solution for anyone is to do 100% of their advanced arms development and manufacture domestically.

It's a capability. Depends entirely on what their doctrine is, which I don't know. A small country may actually help that, since if you come under attack you would otherwise have very few and very obvious targets. All depends on how they want to organize things, it's a capability that they have available. You're not following. If they want them, they would get them. Your accusation about them not having ARM's being a problem is completely false since precisely that - if they wanted them, they would indeed get them. If they don't want them, no problem. They're were looking at buying a patrol and aerial policing thing anyhow, so ARM's aren't really relevant. ...except they're not locked into Swedish weapons. As already mentioned: the C/D already operates with swedish, american, european and french weapons. The E/F can operate with anything it wants from the west, including americans. If they decide they want american ARM's, they'd get them. And they could even buy them directly from the americans. So what is the problem? Because the Gripen has a higher readiness ratio. If you want to maintain a constant capability of 4 aircraft ready on alert for intercepts, you'll need a smaller total fleet with Gripen than you would with the F-18. (And the maintenance done is also a lot cheaper, and the flight hours is about a quarter of the F-18 - but the plane still has all of the nice buddy-launch capabilities and so on you have come to expect from a modern fighter like the Typhoon etc. What it doesn't have is a huge radar. Relevance in Switzerland? Not so much. But it is an AESA at least.) How fortunate that BAE and those guys have bought up all of that stuff, then. Swedish-American relations are, in the case of the E/F, irrelevant for everything except the engine. Though really not even there either, since it's fundamentally the same engine the Swiss are already using, and what used to be Volvo Aero is now a british company. I repeat: this is not the C/D!

As I said. But it's not only good for that. It is also good for mountain terrain. Check out Switzerland. STOL-capability is very nice when large parts of your terrain is mountainous, allows you much greater freedom in where you operate within your territory. Are you talking about the C/D's again? Also, how is this in any way an issue that the swiss don't already have? Which is where the part you ignored is sort of relevant. ;) The thing is that the "B" jets are getting so old the HAVE to be replaced. The options then are to replace them with more of what you already have, which is expensive, or replace them with something that is cheaper and designed to perform exactly the same job the things that are being replaced were doing. Seriously, the Gripen has better serviceability, better readiness, and STOL, at a fraction of the cost to get new F-18's to do the same job. The Gripens are not being asked to replace the F-18's. They would get there to replace the F5's that have to be phased out no matter what due to age. The swiss people did, however, elect to just not replace said F5's. Here's the thing you don't seem to quite follow: replacing the F5's with new F18's would, for the same capability at the job they are supposed to do require MORE airframes, that each costs more than the Gripen to buy, and each costs more to operate. At the same time, going Gripen E/F instead of F-18's for the F5 replacement would REDUCE the vulnerability to US export embargoes. ...and, at the same time, they'd get to decide exactly what capabilities the E/F should have as a full partner. You seem to be arguing as if they were considering the purchase of Gripen C/D. They're weren't.

Incorrect. It's fairly cheap to buy, yes. But purchase price is a miniscule part of the equation. (If we compare from the MRCA bids in India, btw, the russian planes was not that much cheaper in flyaway cost, but they are more expensive to operate.) It also costs about a quarter as much to operate, per hour, compared to F-18's, Eurofighters, and Rafales. It has excellent shortfield capability, which is nice for countries with either dispersal doctrine (like sweden, unsure about Switzerland) or mountainous terrain (like Switzerland). It has a range issue, but the model discussed in this instance has a considerable range extension over the older versions - and that's not a problem at all for Switzerland, since that is a small country by area with no foreign engagements. It's mission readiness is excellent, even with basic, conscript, maintenance crews. If you were to fill the requirement with more F-18's, what you'd get is: - Less planes. - Less flight hours. - Less readiness. Now, if you have a big budget or (like the British and French) concerns about deploying your airforce with global reach... Yeah, there are better things to buy. But as a small country with defence/air policing as the main task for the plane, the Gripen is optimal. It gives you what you need at a good price to buy, good readiness (meaning you need less planes than you would with other jets), and cheap maintenance. Now of course, if I understand the result of this correctly, the option that the people selected was to simply not buy any new jets at all. I think you'll find that all jets, including the F-18, fall short of meeting a pricetag requirement of 0. :) Huh? You mean the Americans would block export of british, french, swedish and brazilian technology? We're talking about the 39E/F here, remember? The one that will use european technology and weapons? Hint hint! ;) What remains that is american is that the engine is a GE-derivative. Weapons will be french and euro, radar systems swedish (possibly with Brazilian involvement) etc. So yeah, I guess the yankees might decide to block old Volvo Aero (now known as GKN plc of the United Kingdom) from building engines developed from the old GE F404's and newer F414's. I'm sure the british know how to handle that situation, should it occur. ;) The F414, btw, is an upgraded version of the engine the Swiss already are using on their F-18's. In the older, current service Gripens, it would in fact be the same engine. Gripen can already equip multiple cruise missiles, so it can perform DEAD fine, using missiles developed by Bofors and EADS. The future capabilities in this department of the E/F is not set in stone: if the Swiss had elected to buy and wanted it, it would get it. By definition, since the deal the Swiss would have signed would have included exactly the ability to be in on deciding what it should get. Seriously, you should remember that there are currently two key versions of the Gripen flying - the A/B and the C/D. Those have received upgrades within their class as well. The C/D is the one with NATO-compatibility. But the swiss were not considering the purchase of either of those - they were considering the Gripen E/F and a seat at the table of deciding what said plane should get.

Всем привет, Лучший способ связаться со службой поддержки Eagle Dynamics - через веб-сайт. Войдите на сайт и выберите поле «Поддержка пользователей» в меню. If you cannot use this method for any reason, please write to us at support@digitalcombatsimulator.com https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/contacts/

Hi, we have a customer support system that you can reach through the website: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/ We would need some more information about what is happening, and what exactly was changed on your system and any notable parts that were not. In association with the upgrade, did you reinstall Windows? If you are reusing an old install, please try this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=94531

You get what you pay for indeed: in the case of the Gripen, you get a lot more flight hours than you get from the Hornets. Depending on what you actually intend to do, that can be critical. Or are you of the opinion that they should try buying F-22's instead? :P That would be a very expensive air policing jet... :) Jet fighters is not just a case of throwing money at something making it better.

Also, note that F117 retirement doesn't have to be about detection capabilities threatening them. If I recall correctly, they had quite poor serviceability - they cost a LOT in maintenance and required a lot of hours of maint work to fly. The introduction into service of the B-2 can also have removed the need for them. Yes, the B-2 is bigger, but it flies longer (so "spies" can't look at airbases nearby to see when they take off, like allegedly helped with the downing of Vega 3-1), higher, carries more weapons, and has more advanced stealth features. (The 117 has the polygonal surface because computers at the time of design did not have sufficient numbercrunching power to allow RCS-optimization of curved surfaces, apparently.) Development of radar absorbant paints and materiels has probably also advanced a lot since 1983. Web archive gives this, btw, for the cause of retirement: http://archive.today/20120805134431/http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp#selection-1152.31-1197.284 The F-22 will assume the role (since the F-22 has been given attack capabilities as well, the 117 becomes a surplus). Since that retirement in 2008 though, the US hasn't had a need for the role that was filled by the F-117, which might help explain why we haven't seen the 22's being active in it (yet?). The 35's will probably pick up the role when they enter service, as well.

I like the shattering glass sound effect for exploding planes. :)

Hilariously though, it was "sold" as precisely that: cheap. Indeed, it was even claimed that it would MAKE money. :D (In the end it turned out maintenance costs and all of that were far higher than anticipated, meaning that it was not as "profitable" as intended for commercial contracts.)

Just noticed this: Are you using STT (Single Target Track) or TWS (Track While Scan) mode? When locking a target in STT, that is, obviously, just a single target you are engaging. You are also alerting the target to the fact that you are acquiring a firing solution. (His RWR will start screaming.) TWS is what you generally want to use, for two reasons: It is relatively "silent": target RWR will not know you are "locking", but will know that your emitter is there. It will look just the same as when you are just scanning. It allows "bugging" (selecting) up to 4 targets for simultaneous engagement. After you have your targets bugged and start firing weapons, the first weapon will go to target 1, second weapon will go for target 2, etcetera.

That should be the one, yeah.

There is a count-down timer on the HUD. Also, it's not strictly "fire and forget". That term gets used too widely. A sidewinder is "fire and forget", because after it's left the rails there literally is nothing you can do for it. Active radar guided missiles however are not, unless you are firing so close the missile immediately gets it's own radar lock. For the OP: The AIM-120 starts it's flight guided by your radar beam's reflection on the target, exactly the same as an AIM-7 or the russian R-27. This is because it's own radar is small and weak - necessarily so, since it has to fit in the nose of a missile as opposed to the nose of a big jet. After launch, you get a timer on the HUD that displays the expected time until "pitbull" - that is, the time when the missile will chase the target on it's own, on account of having closed enough distance for it's own radar to acquire and track the target. Support the missile until Pitbull, THEN you can "forget" it. A handy trick, if you are unaware, is to "crank" after launch: that is, turn such that your target is just inside the edge of your radar scope. That way you can keep supporting the missile without unecessarily closing distance to the target and the possible retaliatory shot that might be heading your way. It also places you closer to abeam, making it easier for you to defeat a possible retaliatory shot. EDIT: There are other ways of supporting modern missiles, though, that are not implemented in the sim - partially because that stuff is way classified. Missiles like the AIM-120 doesn't fly a lofted proportional intercept IRL, it does a lot of waypointing stuff to help it in case support is lost (but support is still good to have!). Late versions (I'm unsure about A and B, but I think C? Someone will probably say.) can also work with datalinks, meaning that they can be fed target info while in flight from any friendly airborne asset, including stuff like AWACS. This means that TODAY (as opposed to late 80's-mid 90's) said F-15 would have been able to "lock" and launch the weapon even without lighting up it's own radar. (To my knowledge this has been tested on Eurofighter and Gripen, don't know for sure about F-15 and Rafale, but I'd be VERY surprised if they didn't have the same capability.)

No "solely" for the Nevada theatre. Nevada will be the first map to use the new tech, where Nevada has been a sort of testing ground for it. But it's not like ED spent 4 years on this stuff just for Nevada. ;)

Also, a more detailed damage model might do nothing to fix "glitching". "Glitching" is a case of not detecting the event at all. Having the "event" be more detailed does nothing if the "event" function is never called at all. So yeah, those are different things. Always more to do. :)

The problem is: what did you hit? If the sabot hits your gearbox, it's game over. If the sabot hits an empty tail section that, in the case of the Ka-50, pretty much only contains some linkages to rudders... At most you'll sever the tail. And the helicopter will keep flying. A classic example of this was the Hurricane in WW2: if hit by enemy projectiles on the side of the tail, the only thing available to really damage is a couple of wires running to the elevator and rudder. Anything else would just put holes in fabric and possibly place some indentations on the steel trusses inside. In your example, said extra "rounds" might, depending on where you hit, do nothing other than leave the aircraft. Attack helicopters are not tanks. To "pressure kill" the crew, you need to hit the cockpit. And if you hit the cockpit with a sabot, pressure is the last thing the crew in question is worried about. ;) This can of course vary between different types of chopper though. But in the case of Ka-50, Mi-24, Mi-28, AH-1, Tiger and AH-64, a hit outside of the cockpit will not cause pressure buildup in the crew cabin. Usually it is only the crew cabin that has a great amount of armor, meaning that if you hit somewhere else said pressure will typically have a lot of other easier ways to go than into the cockpit. This is the thing we're saying: it can be catastrophic for the helicopter. It also can be non-catastrophic. It all depends on where on the chopper you hit, what's inside there, and whether the chopper can fly without it. The Ka-50 is a bit unusual here since it actually can fly even if you remove the tail section. Obviously, most choppers do not have this ability. (Equally obviously, a chopper that is actively attacking you will not display it's tail section, so a hit would be very likely to cause catastrophic damage. But a chopper flying perpendicular to your aim has a large portion of it where hits would not be "catastrophic" in the true sense of the word - though yes, the chopper would most definitely stop doing what it's doing and try it's best to get home.) Further to that, there are aerodynamic considerations as well. You might be having volumes enclosed by the hull simply to preserve your aerodynamic efficiency. Tail rotor assemblies are a classic here: you need to get proper arm for the anti-torque rotor, and you need the assembly going aft to be aerodynamically sane; but you can't fill it with crap or the chopper would get tailheavy and refuse to fly at all. So even in a chopper with an anti-torque rotor you can very easily get a section that is completely empty aside from some rods and a transmission bar. A hit there may or may not be catastrophic - remember that this is usually not armorplated, just thin steel sheets. That means pressure will vent out through popping the hull sheets before popping anything else, and there also isn't much material to provide spalling. (But of course, if you hit a load-bearing member, or the transmission, it's bye bye chopper.) Yes, but a helicopter does not have one room at the center for the crew, like most tanks. It has a room at the front for the crew, in the case of an attack chopper sealed off from the rest and being the only part (typically, aside possibly from the gearbox) with real armor. There's other doors, windows, etcetera. What exactly would happen I'm not sure of, but I am fairly sure that it'll be easier to pop panels and windows than structural members, and the same with accessing the gearbox "room". Finally, do recall that we're talking about a munition made to penetrate armor. That is different to the outer hull of most choppers, aside from crew compartment and possibly gearbox. They do call them "flying tanks", but that is a bit of a misnomer.

I'm not sure I understand here. Of course your engagement envelope is larger against a stationary target. Does not need magic with RVRS for that. Similarly, against a stationary target that is not armored - why aren't you selecting an HE round? "Personal experience" is not really an argument. Military men are no less susceptible to cognitive bias than anyone else. Of course it is "possible" to kick a system over the edge through disturbing said system, but saying something is theoretically possible is not the same as saying it will ever happen in practice. It is theoretically possible for you to run straight through a brick wall. Won't realistically happen, though...

Source? This looks like you don't quite understand the dynamics of RVRS. Further, you need the qualifiers of the state at which this would be true: for this to become physically feasible, the helo needs to be close to entering RVRS to begin with. And of course, DCS does not model atmospheric interaction between bodues - that would require turning the atmosphere in the game into a liquid. Good luck running that on anything outside of NASA or MIT. Depends entirely on what exactly it hits. A sabot round is a subcalibre munition that is built to penetrate. If it hits unarmored parts of the helicopter it will pass straight through it without imparting much at all of it's KE onto the helicopter. For the energy of the round to do damage, you need to STOP the round (compare with so-called "dum-dum" or "copkiller" pistol rounds with normal FMJ's). In the specific case of the Ka-50, it also has a much smaller area that is vulnerable since it's all just the pit and engine/gearbox assembly, as opposed to conventional helicopters that have sensitive unarmored drivetrains aft for the anti-torque rotor assembly. Correspondingly, a Ka-50 hit aft with a Sabot or similar will just see the Sabot flying straight through, making a neat little hole, but relatively little energy transfered from the round to the helicopter.

Doublecheck in the Module Manager that you haven't accidently installed it. If so, simply click the trashcan to uninstall.

That one does not. Current MacBook Pro's only offer discreet graphics on the top model. Everything but the top model has only the Iris Pro.

Well, our readiness isn't exactly better than the Swiss, and we have some 100ish "operational" Gripens. But that sorry state of affairs is less a question of the airplane and more about that office hours thingie - and us implementing a totally rad new spare parts ordering system that guarantees no-one will have the spare parts they need. :D What I would say on this question is that the Gripen does make sense in the air policing role: it is a lot cheaper to operate and maintain and can operate from more basic facilities. But since you already have the F-18's I don't know if it could be said that the Gripens are required for that. If those Hornets were not there the Gripen would be a pretty obvious choice for Switzerland though, IMO. ("Serviceability" - as in, planes ready for action with little maintenance done - is one of the big strong points of Gripen; as long as you don't mess upp your supply chain completely like we Swedes did. :P )

Note that a sound being "real" actually says a lot less about quality and actual realism than you might think. You don't get a good sound mod simply through sticking a microphone up to a real jet. (Though, in actual fact, most DCS sounds does have that provenance.) Making good sounds requires taking said sound recordings and processing them appropriately for use by this specific sound engine. Otherwise the result will end up less than optimal, no matter how "real" they are. A skilled sound engineer will get you a more realistic result with a "fake" sound than a mediocre sound engineer will with a "real" one.

As mentioned: there are no "thrust" gauges. Think of this as the engine RPM gauge on your automobile. It does not tell you how much power is presently being produced by your engine, only how fast the crankshaft turns. Seeing the engine RPM gauge in your automobile tells you very little if that's the only information you have (that is, no speed gauge, no gear indicator (if automatically shifted), no sound, etc). In the case of the afterburner, it is literally happening "after" everything else, as previously mentioned. (Indeed, the earliest operational afterburners were modifications tacked on behind existing jet engines!) Due to that, you should not see any change in turbine RPM nor engine temperature when operating the AB. If you see it, something is most likely catastrophically wrong with your engine, since hot gases are apparently moving forwards past compressors and stuff. ;) It really is like having a rocket motor on there, just in a sort of funky position. (And of course that it's still airbreathing, so it doesn't quite qualify as a rocket, but you get my drift.) From wikipedia: "A jet engine afterburner is an extended exhaust section containing extra fuel injectors. Since the jet engine upstream (i.e., before the turbine) will use little of the oxygen it ingests additional fuel can be burned after the gas flow has left the turbines. When the afterburner is turned on, fuel is injected and igniters are fired. The resulting combustion process increases the afterburner exit (nozzle entry) temperature significantly, resulting in a steep increase in engine net thrust." Here, you can consider the engine design a bit closer: the turbine sectins are fairly obvious here, as is the afterburner section. Note what the wiki quite said about "extended exhaust section"; the RPM and temperature gauges are in the engine proper, amongst the turbines. Thus they get no information about what's happening "in the exhaust" - as far as they're concenrned, that stuff has already left the engine.