Starlight

The system described was one of the earliest RWR systems. It was a four vector antenna (named Vector IV) which gave basical threat direction info. It was also linked to a bright red "launch" light in the cockpit, soon dubbed by weasel pilots the "Oh, sh*t" light, guess why... Anyway SA-2 launches were pretty easy to spot because they were huge missiles with a massive boost phase and a thick smoke trail. The only trick was to stay below any cloud deck, so it was possible to spot and outmaneuver any incoming SAM. So I don't think that tactic worked that much. And also weasel packages were often patrolling before and during the attack, drawing the attention of AA batteries... Anyway, even if todays SAMs and RHAWS are far more capable, that trick is still possible... RWRs intercept and decode signals to understand a *possible* launch. No warning system except MAWS (missile approach warning system) really detects a missile. They do only detect a shift in frequency, power or something else, yet the don't "see" the missile coming off its launch rail.

sorry but older SARH needed CW (continuous-wave) target illumination, didn't they? I think that a CW "painting" is/was the signal that a SARH missile lauch was imminent. And CW illuminator is clearly different from pulse-doppler radar signal....

1.2????? You're late dude. I'm already playing with ED's F-16 sim right now. And "tank killers" is history here.... :D

Imagine running Lomac, which is a software with typical low resource requests, together with a software emulator of a Mac, which would be another software requiring little system resources. you should be able to achieve a rate of one frame per year! I know there is the opposite, a Mac emulator for PC (PearPC, where the "pear" stands for the "apple"). But it is a software emulator for a hardware so it can't run really well. Anyway there would be no reason to run Lomac on a mac (apart from the alliteration between the words) Lomac requires powerful CPUs and powerful GPUs, and Macintosh don't have any of them at affordable prices. With the same price you get a G5 with a X800 series card, you can buy a P4 or dual core A64 system overclocked to 4 Ghz (or AMD equivalent rating) and a SLI 7800 GTX/X1800XT config, which would wreak havoc with the Mac.

Can you fly the F-15 equipped with all those pylons? In 1.02 if I added more pylons, the game crashed when a human player took control of the aircraft, even if you weren't carrying any bombs at all. I think it was due to the pylons added, which weren't managed by the program. Maybe I did some mistakes... I don't know... some 1.02 Strike Eagle ops http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=8820 another post: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=7725 Hehe, that Il-76 test.... It became famous :) An Il-76 which could drop a dumb bomb with the same precision of an LGB dropped by an F-117! http://digilander.libero.it/airsuperiority/ss/ScreenShot_718.jpg http://digilander.libero.it/airsuperiority/ss/ScreenShot_719.jpg http://digilander.libero.it/airsuperiority/ss/ScreenShot_720.jpg

I don't think so. many early fighters didn't have any IFF capability at all (unless just answering with their own codes). I.e. in an early F-16 which is not an ADF-version you can't know if the target you're locking onto at BVR is a friend or foe. sad but true.

I agree with EVIL-SCOTSMAN, 512 MB sticks usually perfor better than 1 GB sticks. It's just a matter of fact. Same brand, same model, same latency, 512 MB sticks overclock much more easily, and with motherboards equipped with four RAM slots, you could always go to 2 GB whenever you need....

I know there was a topic about how to make them work together, but I can't find it. Anyone here remembers how to do that? thx in advance

most of processing units aboard fighter aircraft are much less powerful than typical personal computers that we have at home. If I'm not wrong, the super modern F-22 Raptor, has Pentium I/II class comparable processors. That's not a big deal for a $ 100+ million aircraft. Even radar processors and things like that work with something like 512 KB memory, and the very early versions had even less memory. The good thing is that most of these components work even in extremely hard conditions, that is under heavy G loads and things like that. And, like Tom Clancy recalled in his "Fighter Wing" book, some of these processing units are low-powered, but can withstand the radiations from a nuclear explosion (talkin' about the B-1B systems). Our PCs won't survive that.

In Lomac you "kill" pixels blinking on a screen and a video about that may be cool, on that video there were some real people killed, and that's definitely not cool. And, even from the technical POV, original audio is much more interesting than music. I don't get upset, but I really can't see a reason why someone should like real war. Real war is all about killing, murdering, slaughtering. And with todays deadly weapons there is much more overkill than in the past. A lot of people who survived a war, don't survive the psychological repercussions caused by war. Do you find anything cool about that?

100% agree with you. It's a dramatic document. It may have a technical POV, but in the end it's just about war and killing people... real things. it doesn't need music, it will NEVER be cool such a video.

keeping in mind that AGM-84 is one of the smallest ASM in service, ASMs are a lot bigger than AGMs. The AGM-84 is actually twice the size of the Maverick. Given that both missiles don't feature stealth designs and that the Harpoon has twice the size and the wings of the Maverick, I assume its RCS is quite bigger, maybe twice. And that makes difference. I knew that the Tunguska derives its systems from naval ones, but the way one system is designed/tailored usually reflects its employment. I don't think that was just a copy&paste from naval to land system. CIWS are something like videogames (even if they're deadly games). Most if not all of them are automatic systems, fully "hands-off", because a ship is supposed to be targeted by more missiles at once and the defense systems must be quick and precise, like no human could be. CIWS however are a "last-ditch" weapons, which may work if the outside layer of ship-mounted SAMs has worked too. No CIWS system could handle a full attack aimed at a single ship. Tunguskas are still manned weapons systems (while surely filled with automatic and computer-aided devices), and its operators I suppose are trained for anti-aircraft purposes. I think that Tunguska could detect missiles like AGMs, but I don't think they could easily track and destroy them in a modern battlefield, which is definitely not an ECM-free environment. So what could happen in quiet system trials in Moscow outskirts (but I've not seen yet any proof of Tunguska shooting down a Maverick-sized target) I don't think could really happen in RL on a crowded FLOT, so I think it wasn't needed to be implemented in Lomac. If you read first-hand accounts of SEAD battles in the last four decades, you see that the most usual reaction to ARM/AGM launches (ground crews can't know what's coming off the wing of attack aircraft and who is targeted to, since most are passively guided weapons) is the shutdown of the system, in the hope that the attack weapon misses its intended target, if it was the AA system. Over Vietnam (1965-72) and Egypt (1973), Syria (1982), Libya (1986), Iraq (1991) and former Yugoslavia (late 90s) there were some of the most efficient AA umbrellas ever seen in the world, yet I've not read any account of ARM engaged by AD, whatever it was, SAM or triple-A. Sure, they hadn't the Tunguska, but I don't think it's just a matter of hardware, I think it's more a matter of mission, training and opportunity. The AD task is to protect land forces from fixed and rotary wing aircraft. And I think that's enough. And would you risk such a valuable asset to engage an AGM instead of engaging an aircraft? Anyway, when ground operators learn what an ARM is, they simply shut down their radars or change frequency (but that usually is made in automatic preset modes) whenever they see a possible ARM launch. Over Iraq, during Desert Storm, F-16 armed just with iron bombs, when threatened by SAMs, just used typical ARM-launch calls over radio frequencies monitored by Iraqis, and that often was enough to have the enemy radars shut down. And also in many other air wars, just the presence of a Weasel aircraft in cover pattern was enough to keep silent enemy radars. Again, another Weasel pilot told that the Shrike was a very inefficient weapon, yet the North Vietnamese often shut down their radars when they saw it coming off the wing of an aircraft. That is just my theory, but after some reading I'm pretty much convinced that is closer to RL than Tunguskas and Strelas shooting down AGMs. Notes: The drawing comes from "Modern MIlitary Aircraft: A-6 Intruder" Squadron/Signal Pubs Most of the first-hand WildWeasel accounts are taken from "Iron Hand: Smashing the enemy's air defences" - a wonderful book about SEAD that I've already mentioned in some other posts.... but it's really wonderful!

CIWS work in a different way than AD do. CIWS' job is to intercept missiles aimed against the ship they have to defend, while ADs usually engage aircraft flying over the FLOT. I think that their systems/radars also reflect their job.

I'm not an AD expert, but that sounds very strange to me. And if it happens with SAMs it sounds even much stranger! I'm not saying that a Tunguska (which is a very capable system) in some trials could not shoot down incoming AGMs like Mavericks, yet I think in RL it's not gonna happen that much. Tomahawks and ARMs are completely different things compared to Mavericks. Tomahawks are more like small aircraft which fly in TF profiles, but they fly for a long time so they can be intercepted by a working IADS and thus an AA site in its path may be alerted. ARMs are easier to spot because sometimes SEAD aircraft try to catch the AD's attention, to make them emit in their direction and to fire ARMs "down the throat" (in self-defense mode). Anyway, while Tomahawks are large and relatively slow, ARMs are small and usually very fast. AGMs are not as fast as ARMs but they usually are even smaller. Then you must consider gunners' reaction times and the fact that acquiring, identifying and engaging such a small target with a battle raging out there, would be extremely difficult. If the radar was able to acquire mavericks, it would probably see also bombs and AAMs launched/dropped by any other aircraft, so how would the crew react? If I were a gunner in a AD system and I see something coming out of the wings of a tracked enemy aircraft pointing at me, I'd shut down my radar and hope that it's and ARM which can lose track of its target. Shilkas and Tunguska are expensive and important battle assets, so I don't think they would be wasted in engaging AGMs. And even if you invoke the "self defense" theory, most of the times, even if a Tunguska detected an incoming AGM, it would be impossible to determine who it's directed against! So if ED didn't implement this feature, I'd have been happier.

IMHO, get the CD. definitely. You can play it whenever you want, wherever you want. No activation hassle. The biggest drawback with activation is "what happens if the company who sends the activation numbers shuts down?" Instead the biggest drawback for the CD version is "what happens if I lose or damage the CD"? (since starforce can't be cloned yet) One of these conditions (CD version) depends on you, the other (download) depends on others. I prefer to rely on myself. Furthermore I bought the CD version from Naturalpoint, and I had a great service at a very small price. An original printed CD with DVD case and printed cover. cheers

don't want to start a flame. my post wasn't supposed to hurt anybody, I'm terribly sorry if it did so. I just noticed some unusual features as seen from the sky. I found strange that after some years a military airfield still bore so many signs that it was bombed. Full stop. Anyway you don't have to see a political thread every time one writes about your country. You had war, and I'm sorry for that since I hate war and violence. I hate each and every war in this world. But, even if it just happened few years ago, I feel it like something belonging to the past. Now we live in peace, we are talking in a free forum, we are lucky enough to be able to play computer games. Maybe we support the same soccer or basketball players... just enjoy the fact that now we live in peace. and don't try to start political flames everytime your country is just mentioned.

'Some' F-15s parked at Andrews AFB ;) Some F-16 activity at Aviano AB, Italy Hope the steering is ok for this C-130 pilot, at Brindisi AB, Italy Israeli F-16s parked at Decimomannu, NATO training range, Italy Israeli C-130 and NATO AWACS parked at Decimomannu, NATO training range, Italy 'Some' USN/USMC aircraft parked at Fallon NAS Some F-15E ops at Lakenheath, UK 'Some' A-10 Ops at Suwon AB, South Korea Libyan Mig-25 Some 'small boats' at Oceana An Iranian F-4 Phantom ready for takeoff at Bandar-Busher Iraqi shelter penetrated by LGB at H3 airbase, Iraq. Every shelter in that base has such a hole on the top. The runway has some obstacles maybe to prevent unwanted takeoffs... bombed airbase close to Belgrade, Serbia (don't know why it has not been repaired yet... a new runway was built nearby) detail Mig-21s parked in open space at belgrade

:( I'll try to "use" my 6 years old cousin who was born in the USA.... she should be interested in an F-16CJ manual.... Anyway I've found a pricelist with all their manuals, they're quite expensive, but they've really got everything you could need! http://www.aerotecdata.com/pdf_files/aircraft_manuals.pdf

really? could you please tell me where you've found it? or could you send me a copy? As a possible exchange I have a manual about NCTR technology (300 pages with discussions about SAR, Radar imaging and NCTR... maybe useful if you're planning an F-15E for Lomac :D )

only with IE, though.... if you browse with Firefox you won't see anything but crap....

mmm, one of the latest (and most interesting roles) of the F-4 was as SEAD platform. I don't think you could get any manual on ARMs and ECM devices ;) For aviation fans, I suggest reading a wonderful book: "Iron Hand: Smashing the enemy's air defences" by Anthony Thornborough and Frank Mormillo. Great reference on SEAD mission, from its birth (Vietnam era) to present (Iraq and Kosovo ops)

I'm really sorry... I don't have any of them and those html pages are really disgusting, I can't understand how they could write'em in that way... maybe an automated (and hardly working) tool did a scan-to-html.... but it's a really horrible work!

No, you're asking too much! I just have the maintenance manual for Jeep Cherokee 2.5 TD and Skoda Octavia Wagon :) and I'm not sure even about that! :D

mmm ok... strange that those manuals are still so highly classified, since the Hornet is in service with so many countries... and also the Tomcat, there was an Iranian Tomcat handed to USSR at least 20 years ago and now it's no longer in service in the USN (and the Phoenix technology is old and it's not going to be transferred to the SuperHornet) As far as US helos, this is what I got: (you can find them on eMule too...) Tm 1-1520-238-10 - Operator's Manual For Ah-64A Apache.pdf Tm 1-1520-240-10 - Operator'S Manual For Ch-47D Chinook Helicopter.pdf TM 1-1520-253-10 - Operator's Manual For UH-60Q Blackhawk Helicopter.pdf

.... and for less detailed yet useful info on USN/USMC aircraft http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/ each pdf file you find in that directory is a "standard aircraft characteristics" sheet. you may want to take a look at them ;)