Hazardpro

It was implemented on block 12 hornets with the AN/AAR-50 TINS and was planned for our jets also with ATFLIR but the requirement was dropped because of NVGs. Our block 20s still have the cockpit controls for it (below the UFC on right side).

If the mk84s are carried on the rotary launchers it makes sense the doors won't need to open all the way, because they will only drop from the center.

Before NVGs (some) F-16s and F-18s equipped for night attack had the capability to project FLIR video on the HUD for nighttime navigation like the F-15E can with Lantirn. The F-16/F-18 we have in DCS are 2000s era so had that capability deprecated in favor of NVGs.

There is no auto-lock. What the radar is doing is simply designating a track as L&S. You need to go back to the manual and review the difference between radar modes.

Note that you can use the laser before you designate to get an accurate slant range for dumb bomb delivery.

Theorycrafting aside, the fact the USAF is currently buying new F-15EX should be a good indication they still consider the strike eagle a useful platform.

Again, the ballistic calculations under the hood are the same for both, the difference is in CCIP the jet has no idea where the target is and has to rely on the pilot to manually input when release is desired. If the jet knows where the target is in advance it can compute the desired release point automatically, hence "AUTO" mode. You're right that nobody is manually aiming the bomb release, they are using AUTO mode. Per the hornet SMEs that have talked about it publically, they only train for AUTO.

The only real difference under the hood between CCIP and AUTO is CCIP relies on the pilot's input to release at the right moment whereas AUTO allows computer control which is always going to be more precise. I don't think there's an issue IRL with dropping bombs accurately in AUTO, it's either a DCSism or you are not doing something correctly.

In case anyone is curious there are engines out there newer than the F100 with auxillary oil systems designed to maintain some OP in -g regimes. The ones I know of are actually commercial engines so it's a concern even for airliners which obviously aren't meant to be perfoming in airshows but could still end up in flight upsets for other reasons.

Right, was just responding to all the earlier replies that were talking about the oil system. I'm not as familiar with the F100 specifically but oil starvation would present very differently than what's in the game. I think that level of detail is probably beyond what's necessary in DCS anyways. It's not full fidelity engine simulator.

Operational tanks, as opposed to empty hulks on a firing range, are usually full of very energetic ammo/charges which can burn quite spectacularly when penetrated.

What's simulated in the game seems much more like fuel starvation than oil.

Use the undesignate button to command RTS (Return to search) from STT or ACM. It's probably more useful to think of the undesignate button as the RTS button in AA master mode. I think you can also force a return to ACM from STT with the SCS but haven't tested it. I've also read the Super Hornet has another ACM search mode you can return to out of STT where it searches around the STT to try and move the lock to another target, but that's a different aircraft with different implementation.

Yes I agree the performance in DCS does seem to be a bit off. Though also keep in mind if we're comparing the published performance numbers of both engines they are going to be most likely figures for static testing at calibrated STP sea level. So if you are testing those ratios in game you should be sitting on the ground with the wheels chocked or you are introducing more variables.

I literally walked through the math in my post, they should have about the same fuel burn, maybe 10% more for the Hornet. The fact the Hornet has 2 engines has nothing to do with it.

Interesting, I must have been thinking of the Sparrow. Still think the delay is going to be governed by something mechanical that has to happen between when then the commitment to fire is made and the motor is ignited.

Yes, comparing the TSFC and rated thrust for these engines the F404 in DCS is performing maybe 10-20% better than expected over the F110. It's been done 2 or 3 times in this thread already. Not 200% like you were saying, that's just ridiculous. We compare engine fuel consumption by thrust, not weight. The publicly available numbers I've seen have the F404 (at full burner) with ~10% better TSFC than the F110 and produce ~20% more thrust (2x engines), so you would expect maybe 10% greater consumption for the F-18, not 200%.

Do you have a source for the delay being required for data transfer? Seems more likely it would be required for the mechanical functions of the missile, gyros and hydraulics.

I have a hard time believing there's a noticeable delay for such a data transfer. More likely the limiting factor would be spinning up the IRU and energizing the missile's control hydraulics.

They are not the same sized engines. The F404 is much smaller than the F110.

The F404 has ~10% better TSFC than the F110 at full burner so 12% less consumption makes sense. Not sure where you are getting the 2x from...

Hellfire and Maverick are different classes of weapon born of different requirements. Hellfire is an ATGM meant to replace TOW for helicopters. Maverick is a PGM designed for use against all kinds of targets that you might not want to overfly with conventional bombs, not just vehicles but also bunkers, depots, bridges, ships, HQs, etc.

Sounds like OP is just speculating here based on public descriptions of the modes of the APG-73. I don't think that's enough for ED to change how its simmed.

So, a few things here. First of all, armor against 7.62mm and shell fragments is basically the minimum amount of protection possible so I don't know why you keep quoting that as if it's significant. Not really enough to protect you from a direct hit of any kind, not even a mortar bomb. Second of all, the exact capabilities of the HARMs warhead are probably classified but it's safe to say it's not designed as an anti personnel weapon as you seem to believe and its steel/tungsten fragments are intended to have anti-material effect given its purpose. And finally, 150 lb (68 kg) of warhead is a lot, comparable to a large artillery shell.

grade A nonsense right here