Katj

The only figure I've ever seen is 40,000 feet, which is obviously a rounded number. I guess it varies a bit with atmospheric conditions, how much fuel there is onboard, what the RIO had for breakfast, etc. In DCS I'd say it's usually somewhere between 40 and 45 thousand feet, but I haven't done much testing at different temperatures and such. Anyway, I'm going to guess that the A was slightly faster, and that max speed was at a slightly higher altitude. If that altitude difference should be measured in hundreds or thousands of feet is something I won't even guess at.

Yes, that was exactly my point. Although the peak power is not the same as the energy per pulse. Those are different physical quantities. I get what you're saying, though. A 200 kW peak power radar firing 100 pulses per second, each with a duration of 500 microseconds, ends up being a 10 kW average power radar. Something like that.

Can you not find it? If I remember correctly it's under "Mission" for the Hornet and "Instant action" for the Tomcat.

At the very least it's comparing apples to oranges. Some source might say "The Eagle has a 11 kW radar" just because the power requirement for the radar is 11 kW. As in it's fused for 11 kW. Or the Tomcat has a 6 kW radar output, as in the actual microwave radiation emitted is 6 kW. Or maybe it's just the power requirement of the antenna itself. Yet another source might say that the MiG-31 has a 200 kW peak output radar, but that probably just means that it reaches 200 kW for a fraction of a second in the pulses. Much in the same way as there are gigawatt lasers. The actual energy emitted is pretty modest, if it was continuous you'd need a fairly large nuclear powerplant to run such a device.

Are you aware that there is an "instant action" mission for supercarrier case III? Perhaps it doesn't do it for you, but it's good enough for me, at least.

People always forget that back then the F-15 only had Sparrows for "bvr". The Iranians seem to have utilised the Phoenix with great success, so it's hard to say that they picked the wrong bird.

You can tune from 225 MHz to 399.75 MHz on the arc-159, which is the radio in the front seat. You can have Jester do it, but he will only tune the -182 for you. If I'm wrong, tell me how to do it, it shouldn't be possible. I'm not saying this explains your issue though. I failed to get in contact with Stennis the other day, but I thought the briefed frequency was incorrect.

You can't dial any lower than 225 on pilot radio.

As IronMike said the audio feedback is excellent. When she creaks just right you max out the g-meter at 10 without snapping the wings. Of course at very high speed you have to be a little bit careful with the onset. I usually go instantly to 5-7 g and increase a bit more carefully from there.

It would be nice if we could have private markers (visible only to the person who made them) for our flight-planning needs, and public markers to share info with others.

I see, I've been told that it doesn't have abs before, something I've always found a bit odd, but perhaps the one who said it was referring to the effectiveness of the system or something. Does it have anti-skid on the front wheel? @RagnarDa, I do pump the brakes like you propose when I really need to stop quickly and it works fairly well, but I rarely need it because she stops so quickly anyway. I haven't done so many road landings, though. But I do use brakes when I land on the Stennis, for instance.

The brakes are so powerful that the wheels lock, and any perturbation will then make you skid sideways. There is no ABS on the Viggen, so the solution for you is probably to be more gentle on the brakes. Since I have brakes bound to a button I can't do that. I don't know if the Viggens brakes are too strong, but I know that they are enormously more effective than the Fighting Falcon brakes.

You really don't need asymmetric breaking in the Viggen, so you could just bind one of your axis to symmetric braking and leave the other unbound. I don't have pedals (yet), so I have brakes bound to a key, and they are all but unusable. As soon as you touch them you will start slipping, even in dry conditions. I usually just use reverse for slowing down.

It's inconceivable that engineers in metric-land would do calculations in imperial units. Plenty of input data is probably in SI units anyways. The computer doesn't care, but it doesn't get to decide. If it's not all SI units under the hood we can expect it to crash and burn mars climate orbiter style.

I'd bet it's all SI units under the hood to begin with, as no engineer in their right mind would touch imperial, then converted to imperial in the UI layer to please the pilots.

The "stinger" is just what holds the trigger at the appropriate distance from the charge, allowing the metal jet to form properly. It's not there to transfer kinetic energy. At least not in any round I'm familiar with. Of course the jet itself will have the kinetic energy of the shell plus whatever the shaped charge provides, so the kinetic energy of the shell isn't wasted.

Yeah, but that's just the setting you should have on the weapon selector to CCIP.

I definitely find it easier, as in more relaxed, with some sweep. It doesn't have to be bomb mode, but bomb mode is fine. I have to work harder if I go auto, although I have now learned how to do it. What makes auto harder is exactly as you say, lift changes more with thrust, and the aircraft is very nervous in pitch, easily leading to PIO for beginners.

I wrote that CCIP requires QFE, and gave the settings for CCIP. I said nothing about plan bombing.

There's no confusion as to whether it needs QFE. The BK90 will normally use its radar altimeter and respectfully ignore your QFE. The only confusion is whether it's at all possible to make the weapon use QFE instead of radar altitude. From the manual: "Radar altitude will be used for the altitude calculations if the radar altimeter is operating, if not, the barometric altitude is used." When testing I cannot get it to use QFE by disabling the radar altimeter. Perhaps the altimeter that is referenced above is the BK90 altimeter, which you can't disable as far as I know.

I'm sorry I missed it! I would have liked to see your development environment and workflow.

You need QFE for CCIP (high drag bombs, nav, plan). And long range arak. Basically the modes that don't show the radar ranging fin. You don't need it for BK90, it has a radar altimeter so it will follow terrain. Legend has it that in a distant past you could set QFE and disable radar altimeter to make BK90 not follow terrain (to hit a target on a steep hill), but this doesn't seem to work anymore. Perhaps it broke when that ED missile API was implemented, along with the selectable altitude. RagnarDa would know, I assume.

I'm not saying it's a very good cas platform, but if you bring 4 mavericks you can fulfill that role reasonably well. Range and loiter time are not bad if you fly at reasonable speed. Also you're not a sitting duck to enemy fighters, you can bug out with short notice, which is very good in MP. You sometimes hear a GCI calling out to an Su-25 that enemy fighters are closing in and they go something like "oh, so I'm going to die?" whereas in the Viggen you might respond "ok, tell me when I need to leave" It's not a very good a2a fighter, but it's not that bad compared to other third generation jets. Compressor stalls are not really a problem if you keep your speed up, which is what the tufted duck (vigg in Swedish) likes anyway. Oh, and it has reverse for awesome stol performance but more importantly you can always find a parking spot at even at a busy airport.

Perhaps there's something related to axis inputs. Someone ought to fly a sortie using only keyboard (as in unplug the joystick) and see if it replays correctly.

I don't have this Jester problem you're talking about. How do you navigate the menu? I just use the default keys, I disabled the looking variety.