Ipergallo

Hi, In caucasus theatre, SA-10 track and shoot down players without LOS and without RWR warning on F-18C. Attached files: Tacview and Track file. training-AirGround-20241001-231829.trk Tacview-20241001-231853-DCS-Client-training-AirGround.zip.acmi

What about the RCS of a JSOW? Normally JSOW have à very low RCS because of the stealth design of the weapon, so what is the RCS of this weapon in DCS? Why a weapon designed especially for SEAD missions with à specific stealth design is always tracked and shoot down? Thank you in advance for the answer.

Ok, what is the problem? Also my opinion "is subject to change", and I really don't appreciate your answer, is not really "correct" to say that an opinion is relevant or not, so please try to be a little more gentlemen with opinions differents than yours. Thank you and have a great new year!

Edit: Yes I'm sure. Please, this frame that you have posted is the only visible in the whole video and this frame is very low detailed than about 30 seconds of the very close detailed video of 2023...by the way, in the frame that you posted some central panels of the cockpit are missing. So please, stop with this, It's your opinion, I have my opinion and is different than yours, have a great new year.

Thank you for the answer; I'm not really convinced but it's my problem, have a great new year!

Ah ok, so it's a downgrade, but we can't say this because in 2023 video you don't say that "it's the US version" ok now it's clear! So every 3D models and textures and details of the one in 2023 video version is now "updated" ok ok if you say so it's ok... Why not? For me is the opposite: in 2024 there is no details for cockpit or 3D modeling, only cinematic... but as I say, if you want to justify the DOWNGRADE with this, It's ok, why not...

So you have noticed the "Downgrade" in CH-47 version between the version annonced in 2023 and the version of the 2024 video... What do you think about standard F version and ICH-47F?

So... another reponse that song like an excuse, please let me know why ED have to simulate a specific configuration without ANY other implementation of any other nation that use the F-18C? Peoples that pay for purchase a module dont have any contract with US Navy, and by the way, configurations of F18-C for US Navy aren't the same in loadouts for the USMC, so actually we have an F-18C US Navy configuration with some payloads from USMC like litening II and others. Ok, Swiss F-18 have a specific pylon for aim-120C but are Swiss, ok Australians are stranges because of kankaroo... So next time in module purchase sheet, in the title, please put F-18C US Navy exclusively only and only so is immediatly clear. Thank you.

We speak about 1000 lb class weapons... GBU-31 is a 2000 lb class weapon... so... so... so two yeas passed and any response, there are docs, there are photos, there are... always the same Torquemada that block any F-18C implementation in weapons stores... Why? I think that... (sorry I can't find a photo for that so I can't say...) ED have find a brilliant solution for any Torquemada, but... for some reasons, that I don't know, only for F-16C harm gate resolution... Why we can't have a double rack BRU-55 for GBU-32? No response in 2 years... Why we can't have a single rack for aim-120 ? No response... If you think that is no good for a Navy F-18C, purists can always use payload restrictions in ME... Why we can't have a single rack for rockets? No response... If you think that is no good for a Navy F-18C, purists can always use payload restrictions... 2 years of no response... Thank you!

Hi, thank you for this script. There is a way to get an order in the menu and submenu? Alphabetic or numeric order?

I confirm that this problem exist, I just noticed this yesterday evening during an intensive PVP BVR exercise. Sometimes happen also when you switch between ACM and TWS, but if you lock at a target in TWS and then switch to Auto the problem come in almost 1 of 3 engagements, I can't for now reproduce the exact scenario for this problem but If I find I'll tell you. Thanks...

Ok, so next one is an APG-79 upgrade for all hornets? Actually USMC operates F18C with APG-79 upgrade. Is this the real or not? Swiss pylons have nothing of a special pylon, NATOPS are not the only reference for an F-18C. Next time in description of module please write: US Navy model of this year without any upgrade. It's exactly what I say, evidences or documentation is only a photo or an old/new Natops manual that change almost every year, supposed to be the 2008 version that you can find easily on the net, but you can find evidences that It changes often. So no photo, no party. And is this the reason for we don't have yet a dual rack for GBU-32? Nevermind, I give up.

So, let me know, if a fan boy comes in this forum and say there isn't a single rail LAU-127 mounted on F/A-18C, ED team change our module for make happy this guy? Actually there are LAU-127 single rail everywhere on earth that mount single aim-120 on almost every fighter that use AIM-120, so what? Where are, exactly, the evidences for this? In photos or what? Please let me know where are evidences that an F/A-18C can't mount a single rail Lau-127. F/A-18C historical operators: US Navy US Marines Australia Canada Finland Kuwait Malaysia Spain Switzerland So, you are about to say that no one of this operators never mounted an AIM-120 in a single rail? Please answer me with evidences, documents and so on. There isn't any logic in saying that an F-18C doesn't mount a single rail for an aim-120.

Hi, you can find plenty of evidence of it being carried like that in F-18C too, like actually we use the same configuration for AGM-154 that share the same rack system of Jdam, we actually use a dual rack for GBU-38, supposed tu be a BRU-55.