DCS A-10C QUESTIONS

[twistking]

Also thanks again for all the further informations concerning the radios!:)

 

 

what settings do you use for tanker-waypoint for aerial refueling. when flying the f-15 i would just have the tanker on 30.000 feet going relatively fast and i still could catch up easily and have a comfortable speed for the actual refueling.

It turns out the a-10c doesn't perform that well at higher altitude and you end up chasing the tanker for hours, or when the tanker is slower, you tend to end up flying to slow for comfortable, level flight.

What altitude and speed do you use for the tanker, which works well and is still realistic?

I would imagine, the lower, the better, but i also doubt, that a tanker would go below a certain altitude because of safety concerns etc.

Edited December 14, 2016 by twistking

[Gliptal]

About 12000 feet at 270 knots GS yields a nice 220 KIAS or so speed, which if I remember correctly is the speed used IRL with A-10Cs.

[twistking]

About 12000 feet at 270 knots GS yields a nice 220 KIAS or so speed, which if I remember correctly is the speed used IRL with A-10Cs.

thx :thumbup:

[MRaza]

The radar altimeter on the A10 only measures up to 10,000 feet. If I'm above 10,000 feet, is there any way of knowing my exact altitude AGL?

[Gliptal]

The radar altimeter on the A10 only measures up to 10,000 feet. If I'm above 10,000 feet, is there any way of knowing my exact altitude AGL?

Wasn't it 5000 feet?

[Hansolo]

Wasn't it 5000 feet?

Yes the A-10C radar altimeter only reads up to 5000ft AGL

 

The radar altimeter on the A10 only measures up to 10,000 feet. If I'm above 10,000 feet, is there any way of knowing my exact altitude AGL?

The radar altimeter is to assist you when you are close to the ground but once you are in higher altitudes there shouldn't be a need for knowing the altitude in AGL.

 

Is there any specific reason why you need your altitude in AGL when flying at 12,000ft? I mean if you are trying to maintain a specific AGL troughout then you'd be going up and down all the time depending on the terrain.

 

Cheers

Hans

Edited December 18, 2016 by Hansolo
Spelling

[Nu-NRG]

Wasn't it 5000 feet?

 

It is.

[cichlidfan]

The point being that if you are over a certain altitude, the location of the ground is not critical.

 

The designers felt that 5k was a good threshold.

[SmokeyTheLung]

In addition to what's been said:

 

I'm pretty rusty these days but IIRC the TGP displays AGL altitude from the terrain database. You might be able to access that info in the CDU but I'm not sure.

 

The radar altimeter on the A10 only measures up to 10,000 feet. If I'm above 10,000 feet, is there any way of knowing my exact altitude AGL?

[MRaza]

I was asking because I read that if you fly above 15,000 feet AGL, you are safe from MANPADS and AAA. But if the radar altimeter only goes up to 5k feet, you have no way of knowing your exact altitude AGL once you get above 5,000 ft AGL.

Edited December 18, 2016 by MRaza

[razo+r]

then set your altimeter correctly

 

or if it's even possible, use your GPS

[Yurgon]

I was asking because I read that if you fly above 15,000 feet AGL, you are safe from MANPADS and AAA. But if the radar altimeter only goes up to 5k feet, you have no way of knowing your exact altitude AGL once you get above 5,000 ft AGL.

 

Good point.

 

Then again, unless you like to test your luck, you probably wouldn't want to overfly a MANPAD just a few feet above it's max range. As long as you know the environment, you should have a general idea of the terrain elevation and thus your height above ground level. Over the mountains, you should definitely add some altitude if you suspect a MANPAD threat.

 

The TAD is a big help there. It doesn't show you the exact terrain elevation, but depending on the zoom level you get a good approximation and can adjust your altitude accordingly.

 

As far as I know, the exact same considerations apply to real life flying.

[MasterZelgadis]

If there's a JTAC in the area, he can give you the elevation. Not sure, but if you set a markpoint, you get the elevation, too. At least steerpoints set in the editor on ground level give you the elevation.

[twistking]

hey guys,

i was wondering how the hydra Mk5 compare against the hydra M151 especially within the restrains of the simulation.

 

Although being described as "anti personnel", in real life i would expect the M151 to be also effective against lightly armored targets and especially radar SAMs, as the fragmentation should be able to destroy unprotected parts, like the radar equipment, the missiles (when carried openly, like with the buk), wheels etc.

The Mk5 however are probably only effective when they hit directly and with that feel somewhat inferior to the mighty cannon.

 

it did some testing myself, but with my mediocre aiming, both warheads performed a little bit underwhelmingly... and i could only verify that the M151 are also effective against unprotected cars, truck and gun-emplacements... which was to be expected though...

[Gliptal]

The problem is the low fidelity fragmentation simulation in DCS.

[twistking]

so, if in doubt, choose mk5, i guess?!

[Gliptal]

so, if in doubt, choose mk5, i guess?!

On the contrary, I always go with the M151. Even though they are less effective than they should be against soft targets, at least they don't require a direct hit. I'm not sure about IRL employement, but rockets are often defined as area of effect weapons, so I don't really expect to score a direct hit on a BRDM with a MK5 anytime soon, not unless I fire a whole salvo of them.

[Yurgon]

I'm not sure about IRL employement, but rockets are often defined as area of effect weapons, so I don't really expect to score a direct hit on a BRDM with a MK5 anytime soon, not unless I fire a whole salvo of them.

 

I agree. Up until recently, the A-10's rockets were used primarily to mark targets using White Phosphorus (white smoke), or as area of effect weapons (think aerial artillery) with the explosive warheads.

 

Not sure if ED has plans to incorporate APKWS, but in terms of rockets, that's going to be a game changer (or maybe it is already, not sure how far integration and employment has come in regards to the A-10).

 

Forum post

 

Wikipedia page: APKWS

 

(On the other hand, I'd much rather take the helmet mounted cueing system, hint hint @ED :D)

[Gliptal]

If they can't have laser guided mavs in the sim I don't think they'll add laser guided rockets unfortunately.

[twistking]

ok. thanks for the info:)

 

by the way, do you know if dcs models armor penetration for ground units, or do armored units simply have more hitpoints?

so would a barrage of HE warheads kill a tank at some point?

[Gliptal]

Hitpoints.

[Yurgon]

If they can't have laser guided mavs in the sim I don't think they'll add laser guided rockets unfortunately.

 

Did they ever disclose any detailed reasons for this?

 

We have the laser guided GBU-12, so laser guidance as such doesn't seem to be the problem. As I understood it, it was specifically about that Maverick.

 

In any case, one can always hope. :thumbup:

[cichlidfan]

(On the other hand, I'd much rather take the helmet mounted cueing system, hint hint @ED :D)

 

We all want that so much, but I don't think it is going to happen for the A-10. There are too many other related systems that would have to be upgraded (recoded).

 

I would love to be wrong about that.

[Pocket Sized]

Did they ever disclose any detailed reasons for this?

 

Yes. The laser maverick (and the laser guided rockets) are not used by the avionics suite we have. We won't be getting a later version of the A-10 unless ED makes a new contract with the USAF (not gonna happen any time soon). The maverick was removed because it was discovered to not be compatible with our suite.

 

Later avionics suites include mark points on the TGP, helmet mounted sights, and lots of other goodies that we probably don't know about.

[Yurgon]

I would love to be wrong about that.

 

That makes two of us. :thumbup:

 

Yes. The laser maverick (and the laser guided rockets) are not used by the avionics suite we have.

 

That makes sense, but I seem to recall that we are actually prohibited from modifying the game to include such a Maverick (and/or talk about such mods). It sounded to me as if this was due to contractual or secrecy reasons rather than just realism.

 

The most excellent book "A-10C Thunderbolt II Units of Operation Enduring Freedom 2008-2014" includes some mighty praise for the HMCS when it was first used in active duty. The pilots are enthusiastic about it and describe the shortcomings of the old TGP without HMCS - shortcomings that we all know too well.

 

I guess you're right that we're not going to get that modernized suite in DCS, but I definitely would pay full price for it. :thumbup: