Cytarabine

Ironically right now with the magic TOO mode in the Hornet and the TPOD symbology it is easier to put a waypoint on a SAM site in the Hornet then the Viper (the TOO mode is almost a poor mans HAD right now).

Initially the SA-10 wasn’t intercepting missiles if they were going supersonic, this has now been fixed so your PB shot is outta luck there. You’re going to have to launch from closer, well within the engagement range of the SA-10 which makes it a lot more challenging. Alternatively you can try and overwhelm it if you have multiple members in your flight.

The Viper should have a CRUS page in the DED which has functionality similar to the FPAS system in the Hornet, just not modelled yet. I really don’t see the substantial avionics advantage the Hornet has, things work differently but they still work. The AZ/EL page is nice, but it’s not a game changer, the HSD page is at least as good as the SA page (and is not fully modelled as yet), and the advantage in the Hornet JHMCS is a feature of development state. The only avionics advantage that might change things is the ASPJ as most air to air Vipers are probably not lugging an ECM pod.

Amazing. Just took my Viper for a spin over the Caucuses map and it is like a whole new map which doesn’t feel so out of place alongside the excellent more recent maps. Great work!

Oh if only we had a -5Mk2 or a -D

To a 9X? Sure. It’s from an entirely different era. Compared to contemporaneous weapons it’s same ballpark. I’ve never found it a particular problem. You can’t just ‘put MICA’s on a 2000C’, it doesn’t carry them. That would require a -5F which is a different aircraft with different avionics. If RAZBAM make one one day I will order it day one, but let’s not end up with a frankenmirage.

Disapointing, particularly the GEN-X decoy and the Mk 77.

So other than the jittering clouds with the shader version @Woona has put together it is performing better than 2.5.6 and looks great. I also repaired my install which seemed to help. Hopefully they fix the clouds at the horizon soon because it is quite distracting.

The only thing I can think of is for air-to-air where you can retain a cheek mounted station for an AMRAAM/Sparrow, but the tradeoff for ground pounding is pretty big given if you want to carry more fuel you are going to have to occupy one of your wing hardpoints. The ATFLIR gives much more flexibility in the strike role (we've become accustomed to the LITENING being on a cheek station as well, but I don't think US Hornets carried the LITENING on cheek stations, only on the centerline hardpoint).

On the block 3 Rhino’s you certainly wouldn’t want to be dropping the centreline pod without a good reason given it contains the IRST hardware.

If I am getting down in the weeds - NVG’s otherwise JHMCS. Will be interesting if ED implement the NAVFLIR in the ATFLIR pod (actually it’s mounting adapter) with the raster HUD rendering. Even less reason to bring along NVG’s.

Why would you drop them? They aren’t in unlimited supply. In truth you would only drop them if you are in a situation where the extra drag or weight would be detrimental (dogfighting, emergency situations etc).

The Hornet has now on a couple of occasions (both over Iraq and Syria) shown how the ability to swing from one role to another mid mission is important so it wouldn’t make sense to not have crews do both as you can’t swap mid sortie. That isn’t to say every pilot does every specialised role.

It shows. The Hornet has turned into such a beauty, so many capabilities in one package. Very excited for the next release as the Hornet approaches completion, though it is going to feel strange when things are complete, will miss getting another new feature on my Hornet.

Well it doesn’t carry the lighter warhead Mavericks that the Air Force planes do. The Viper can’t triple rack the heavier ones either.

It is, in the SA page. See section 12 of Chuck’s guide.

The Hornet has ‘rules’ to classify contacts and basically you need two sources to declare a bogey a bandit. They can be from IFF response (remembering this is a lack of response so can really just say not a friendly), NCTR or a donor. You can also assign a contact yourself with PLID.

The Tomcat doesn't have jamming effects on the radar display though. Hence why I wondered placebo (currently only been testing it against AI as I haven’t had time to get online much).

Yeah JSOWs are meant to have a low RCS but the SA-10’s pick them off easily. Kind of defeats the purpose of the JSOW to be honest.

Just watched that this weekend. It was really good (and yes I am a bit of a fan of the Walleye, it is such an oddball weapon compared to the LGB’s and JDAM’s that it is a lot of fun to use).

I find the main advantage so far (whether this is placebo or not because who knows which modules are affected by jamming) has been stopping Tomcats launching Phoenixes with impunity due to their range. I keep my jammer on until around 20nm when I can send an AMRAAM their way and have them have something to think about while beaming the inevitable Phoenix headed my way. Once within 20nm the jammer stays off. At any rate within that range their radar is going to burn through as well so you are just shooting your self in the foot by having it on. For ease of use I have the jammer switch mapped to a spare button on my HOTAS. (and yes HoJ shots should follow a less efficient path I think)

I guess in some ways it does open Pandora's box a little bit. If they add the GBU-54 to the Hornet (on the a 2005 Hornet operating now would carry it) then they would face the same argument for the JASSM on the Viper (which is a bigger issue given the Viper lacks any cruise missiles) and so it goes on. Maybe we will get it with a Super Hornet future module, or they do a weapons pack for the Hornet (ASRAAM please ).

Cold start usually. I think it is because I mostly like to fly a complete sortie, or if I am just practicing a skill then it will be air starts on a training scenario. If I played more multiplayer then I might autostart more.

I use Process Lasso to make sure DCS only has affinity for the physical and not logical cores. It's probably just a placebo but it seems to help.

I just hope they don't model an early HTS version that was designed to just work with HARMs and was not very precise but provide the HTS pod that would have been used with a Block 50 Viper of that era that can provide co-ordinates to support precision guided munitions.