MBot

Try it again, it won't actually brake.

This issue is still present.

Any news on this?

I think this needs to be looked into again. According to the manual, the aircraft is supposed to be equipped with anti-skid.

I am sorry for being an idiot, but I simply not get it. Am I the only one that doesn't understand it? In this situation, steering left will do nothing to help track both targets. One will be lost when they get more than 40° from each other. Steering left will also not help to continue tracking just the left-hand target, as it is nowhere near the radar gimbal limit. The radar will track it just fine for quite some time to come without any steering being necessary. What is the useful information the X is transporting here?

Thanks for taking the time Naquaii to reply. I am sorry for being slow, but I still don't quite understand what the steering centroid is good for. Hopefully clarifying this now might help to find an easy to understand explanation for the manual. You mention: And the article says: What I don't understand is, as long as all tracks are within the +/-65° gimbal limits, my steering of the aircraft will have no influence on my radar's ability to maintain optimal target coverage. If I turn 30° right, the radar will simply gimbal 30° left. Target coverage by the radar will still be optimal as long as I don't reach the gimbal limits. So what is the criteria for the optimal heading? Just to be clear on this, the steering centroid is NOT displaying the lead collision steering (average of all tracks), right? As I read the first post, lead collision steering (or pure if selected) is displayed on the TID by the steering cue (little square), so this is a separate thing from the X of the steering centroid, correct?

Fantastic update. The first thing I am going to try with TWS-Auto is intercepting multiple incoming AS-4 Kitchen at 80'000 ft. So far this has been extremely difficult with manual elevation control. Having read the piece multiple times now, I still have troubles understanding the concept of the steering centroid. Let's analyze the following picture: Why is the steering centroid to the left and what would be the suggested action? I think I understand the weighting of the tracks. The friendly track has no weight. The unknown track is marked as Do Not Attack and has no weight either. Of the two hostile tracks, the left-hand one is marked as mandatory attack and is about to leave the scan volume limits, therefore it is weighted higher. Now here is what I assume will happen: The scan volume is going to shift left in order to keep the higher weighted track within its limits, until right-hand track falls outside the scan volume. When the right hand track is no longer updated and is dropped, the left hostile remains the only track with any weight and the scan volume will move further left to center it (illumination centroid). But why is the steering centroid offset to the left? No maneuvering is going to prevent the loss of a track when two tracks are more than 40° from each other and no maneuvering is required to keep tracking the left-hand hostile, as it is well within the radar gimbal limits.

I would say the A-G radar of the Hornet remains pretty essential for ASuW though.

The radar screen on top doubles as TV and can display the video of the Walleye received via the datalink.

Hopefully everything the A-7E carried: Mk-82/83/84 Mk-20 Rockeye AGM-45 Shrike AGM-88 HARM AGM-62 Walleye I/II GBU-10/12/16 Paveway II (external designation required) AGM-123 Skipper II (not sure if operational or just tested, external designation required) LAU-10 Zuni LAU-61 AIM-9 Sidewinder M61 Vulcan 20mm B27/57/61 Nukes Various naval mines ADM-141 TALD (decoy) AN/AAR-45 FLIR Pod (projects FLIR on HUD) AN/AAW-9 Datalink Pod (for guiding Walleye) D-704 Buddy Tanker Pod

Just a cool shot :)

I think this is a non-issue, considering that it is most likely the F-14A will be released before the A-7E.

USAF A-7D with (training) Mavericks: The Navy's AGM-65F achived IOC in 1991 just as the last A-7E left service. The Navy never used AGM-65A, B or D.

The A-7E will probably be the first official module with a terrain following radar, right? I think only the community A-4 had one so far. I am not certain, but I think the Hornet and the Viper only have terrain avoidance modes, not full TFR. The same for the Viggen (and the Corsair has terrain avoidance too).

Good luck and all the best for your exciting endeavour. I think you will find that the A-7 has a pretty solid following around here and is highly anticipated. One interesting question at this early stage might be what era you are targeting with your A-7E. Vietnam, Libya, Desert Storm or something in between? I guess the question boils down to LANA and HARM yes/no.

Actually, the AN/AAR-45 LANA FLIR-pod was already introduced in 1978. It was probably the first aircraft to have a FLIR image projected to the HUD.

Just a small correction, while the USAF A-7D did carry Mavs, the USN A-7E didn't. Basically the Corsair was phased out before the Navy started to use Mavericks (in the 90s).

There still is. The _ongoing mission gets replaced by a new mission each time you play it and you accept the mission results.

Ok that is unfortunate. In that case you can still play the campaign by just playing each mission individually (outside the DCS campaign interface). Just open the next mission (always XYZ_ongoing.miz) like a Single Mission.

Fantastic!

Not that I am aware of, you have to kill DCS in the Task Manager. Fortunately, campaign progress is not affected so it is ultimately just an inconvenience.

That seems to be a long standing DCS issue. For example I frequently get these freezes in Heatblur's Viggen campaign too.

I think we just need to wait until the issues with 2.5.6 are sorted out first. Then I will check if any changes are necessary.

I think this is a general misconception about HARM. Its small seeker doesn't have the precision to pinpoint the position of en emitter many miles away (when it is shut off). This generally requires dedicates ELINT platform that track an emitter over time from different angles. Neither is the INS of HARM good enough to guide the weapon to a direct hit (otherwise all A-G missiles/bombs since the 1980s would have been INS guided). I am sure the INS is good enough to guide the weapon towards a known silent emitter (PB mode) but unless the emitter turns on while the weapon is in flight, it won't hit. This is also supported by the combat performance of HARM during Operation Allied Force, where over 700 launched AGM-88 scored just a few hits. Anti-radar missies were able to temporary suppress the SAM threat but were unable to inflict decisive attrition.

Let's just wait until 2.5.6 stabilises and then look what needs to be done.