Refueling on the ground?

[Jordan4]

Hello everybody. I just started the campaign and after flying around for about 2 hours trying to find all of the ground targets I finally found the last group of t-72's the problem is I was bingo fuel a longtime before that. I landed at Batumi with 100 pounds left! I was wondering if this game was like Lock On in the sense that when you land you are re armed/re fueled. After landing I realized this was not the case unfortunately. Is there a command that I need to use or perhaps the radio? I have not figured out how to use the radio yet and have not had any practice with in flight refueling and im not sure if that is even available in the first mission. Any insight would be great as this mission took me over 2 hours to complete and Im one t-72 away from done! If I quit will the mission be a success? Or will I have to play it over because of that one tank. Thanks for your help.

[Grimes]

Assuming you are using DCS World. Try Left Alt + ' (Apostrophe). It will bring up the rearm menu and it will allow you to select your payload and how much fuel you want.

[Jordan4]

Not in DCS world but hopefully that will work. I just realized ive been flying all my missions with my landing lights on! How do you turn those suckers off?

[BigfootMSR]

On the far left and back side of the cockpit is a large dial. Turn it to say "INT" for intercom then press "\". You should be able to talk to your ground crew. Be sure to move it back to where it was so you can talk to other items such as the ATC.

 

You may need to have your radios on for that though. Middle radio left knob should be to main, top and bottom radio right knobs should be set to "TR".

 

You could also try opening the cockpit and pressing "\" without the radios and should be able to talk to the ground crew. When the radio menu pops up, press the corresponding "f" key to select that option. So, if the radio menu says "8. Ground crew" Then press "F8" to select that option.

 

As far as the landing lights, Its the same switch as your taxi light, located next to the anti-skid switch on the front left dash above the gear handle. Moving the elongated Taxi/Landing light switch to the middle position will turn off your landing lights.

 

Cheers!

[BlueRidgeDx]

Just FYI, the landing/taxi light extinguishes automatically as soon as the landing gear begins to retract, so there's no danger of flying around with it on. Even if it was on, it would be concealed within the nose wheel well. No worries!

[Jordan4]

Ok I accidentally pressed the button that opens the radio command menu and found out what I needed. Now I just need to figure what button I accidentally pressed to get to that menu! Please help! As far as the lights I must not be reffering to them properly. What I mean is the lights that are on the edges of the wings an the horizontal stabilizers. How do you turn those things off?

[BlueRidgeDx]

The lighting control panel is on the right aft console; look for a group of several dimmer knobs. There are two switches there - one marked Position Lights, and the other marked Anti-Collision. Makes sure they're both off.

 

Alternatively, you can simply move the HOTAS "Pinky Switch" to the center position. The pinky switch is the Master External Light control switch, and it overrides the lighting panel (with caveats).

[Jordan4]

Thank you BlueRidgeDx you wouldn't happen to be a V.A resident would you? Well I figured out the radio command button at least for the keyboard which apparently is " \ " could not find the intercom dial in the rear left panel however I will keep looking. So many things to learn in this game! You think you have it all down and then something pops up that you have no clue how to resolve. Its fun... Keeps you on the edge of your seat. There is something rather boring about " knowing it all ". Random thought here... I really hope the SU-25T comes into the D.C.S world. As far as I am concerned that addition was almost the first step towards the first D.C.S product. I wonder how much modification it would require to bring it up to D.C.S standard. After they do that obviously us lock on fans want to see a fast mover in the D.C.S universe. As far as I am concerned anything but a fighter jet will be unacceptable for the next incarnation. I love blowing up tanks and all but man do I want some good dog fighting, and with a more advanced B.V.R model that would surely come with a D.C.S sim it should prove to be very entertaining. I don't think a 5th gen would be inline. Id be happy with a mig-23 to be honest I just want to get in the merge a shoot stuff. F-16 block 52+ would be pretty cool too. But I think everybody would go ape shit for a SU-30 series fighter maybe even an Indian MKI. Or maybe something random like a JAS-39 Gripen or a Rafale. SO MANY GREAT CHOICES! I cant wait to see what the first true fighter will be to D.C.S. I know about the Mig-21 Bison project however Im not sure if that will be of the same caliber due to the fact that it is independently devoloped and not worked on by the same production team that is responsible for real D.C.S sims? Not really sure about that any insight would be great. Will the Mig-21 Bison be a true D.C.S Sim? Or just some knock-off?

Edited August 23, 2012 by Jordan4

[BlueRidgeDx]

Jordan,

 

I used to be a VA resident (Dulles/Sterling) when I worked for the airline depicted in my avatar; that was back in 2003-2005. Our radio callsign was Blue Ridge, hence my forum name.

[Jordan4]

Cool that's very close to where I live.

[BigfootMSR]

"Random thought here... I really hope the SU-25T comes into the D.C.S world."

 

the SU-25T is already included for free in DCS world

[Revelation]

I think the poser was wanting(intentions) the SU-25T brought up to DCS standards.

[Jordan4]

Revelation that is right. I want the Su-25T to be upgraded to D.C.S standards. The A-10 is plenty fun however I find that the vast quantity of different weapons that the SU-25T is capable of carrying creates a very high entertainment value. From the 5 different types of rockets, the guided rockets, all the different missile systems especially the Vikhers, and last but not least the mighty awesome and incredibly devastating SPPU-22 gun pods. It really seems like in real life the A-10 is limited in its capabilities by its available weapons. Mavericks are really just too big and heavy and relatively difficult to employ compared to the Russian counterparts. The maverick is really overkill for most situations that it is used for and the A-10C would be served better by a cheaper smaller system that could carry more missiles. When the SU-25 goes into battle it can take along about 20 or so atgm's. The A-10 can only take 6 at most! JDAM's and GBU's are great and all however the A-10 is a dedicated CAS plane. An aircraft that has a max speed of less than 450 M.P.H and without the ability to climb to high altitudes with heavy weapons payload does not make a great guided bomb platform. Especially when you can just throw an F-16 into the air that is able to release bombs from a greater standoff at a higher altitude. The A-10 is a C.A.S dedicated platform and would be better served by a greater variety of rocket types, atgm's and even maybe gun pods! Sure it can loiter around for a longer time but think about how much longer it takes for an A-10 to arrive than an F-16 or a strike eagle. I would imagine that the fast movers have enough time to at least acquire and engage their targets with bombs more often than not within their loitering window. And as great as the gau-8 is it is excessive heavy and large compared to the GSH-30-2 which I think is a largely underestimated weapon. Its fire rate is more than 75% of the Gau-8's and its size and weight are a small fraction of that of the GAU-8. Sure the 30x173 is slightly more powerful however I am not convinced that it is enough to make the 30x173 capable of much that the 30x165 is not, and that is especially true when firing HE. With a larger ammunition capacity I think the GSH-30-2 would make a comparable gun platform with its fewer barrels still provide an overheating threat. The A-10 may be a better flyer however as it stands it doesn't seem to be able to bring enough armament to the fight. To add fuel to the flames the SU-25T is capable of true S.E.A.D missions, not just hoping to find a long range S.A.M in a targeting pod and hoping to lock a maverick on it before it launches on you. When I think about how great of a flyer the A-10 is it seems to strike me odd that it is equipped with such underpowered engines. I really wonder how hard it would be to upgrade the TF-34 to produce more thrust or just scrap it and throw something more powerful in there, why not a turbojet? Clearly the A-10 could never be a supersonic aircraft but a little more speed, better climbing, and overall a better thrust to weight ratio would really highlight the great flying dynamics of this plane which I believe are however far superior to the SU-25T. They seem to have really cut short what should be the best C.A.S plane in the world by limiting weapons variety, and giving it anemic engines. Any thought?

Edited August 24, 2012 by Jordan4

[Jona33]

Comparing the A-10 to the strike eagle and F-16.

 

F-16 can carry two GBU's and 510 rounds of 20mm max and it's endurance still isn't great.

F-15E, incredible platform, can deliver 8 GBUs and 940 rounds of 20mm with an excellent endurance. However, a 500lb bomb is sizeable, a tough enemy 40m from you and the vulcan won't cut it.

The A-10 arrives, 4 GBUs, 1150 rounds of 30mm, possibly two rocket pods, the same targeting pod as on the Mud Hen or F-16. Excellent endurance, slow, easy to fly while getting ready to shoot. Resistant to just about everything you an throw at it. I know which one I prefer.

 

Also, the sheer rate of fire from the GAU and the PAC control means when you're attacking tanks it's preferable to be in the A-10. Show me a video of you destroying a T-80 or Abrams in a single burst with the Su-25T. EDIT: SADL and TAD anyone?

 

Another EDIT: The maverick seems to be a far more reliable weapon than the vikhr and being fire and forget you don't need to continuously dive in on a defended target so your missiles hit, you can shoot from 5-6 miles and then turn around and leave.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Jona33

[Eddie]

Did I just read limited weapons capability and A-10C in the same sentence? Really?

 

The A-10C has every weapon system it could need in the Air Interdiction and CAS roles, what more could you possibly want. Rocket and gun pods? Why would you want to trade Maverick, JDAM, Paveway, WCMD or even conventional CBUs and bombs for what are the least effective weapons systems. There is a reason that western nations stopped using external gun pods (Harrier aside) a long time ago. The same goes for rockets, they are great for area suppression and engaging dismounted infantry, but that's it. And many other weapons are far more effective.

 

The A-10C is designed for Air Interdiction and Close Air Support, with the former being the primary role of the aircraft in a conventional war situation.

 

And food for thought, a DCS level SU-25(T) would be much less capable than the A-10C. There is much more to life that just the number of weapons you can hang under the wings and what your max airspeed is.

[Laidback]

If you can't find the dial for the INT, just open your canopy then use the radio menu.

[Jordan4]

F-15E, incredible platform, can deliver 8 GBUs and 940 rounds of 20mm with an excellent endurance. However, a 500lb bomb is sizeable, a tough enemy 40m from you and the vulcan won't cut it.

 

Lets face it... the gau-8 is an incredible system however I imagine that more often than not a pilot only decides to come in for a gun run if he is out of guided munitions. It is generally used as a secondary back up weapon with the most of its usage being to engage the targets left over from other weapons attacks. So what I mean to say is that if all your going to be doing is dropping a JDAM or gbu than waiting 2 to 3 times longer for that air support to arrive is a big downside. Plus when your talking about SAM countermeasures the Strike Eagle is gonna drop that bomb from as high and as fast as its sensors allow then its gonna gtfot. The A-10 might be able to take a beating but that's only because it is much more likely to receive one.

 

Did I just read limited weapons capability and A-10C in the same sentence? Really?

 

Why would you want to trade Maverick, JDAM, Paveway, WCMD or even conventional CBUs and bombs for what are the least effective weapons systems. There is a reason that western nations stopped using external gun pods (Harrier aside) a long time ago.

 

Relative to the SU-25T yes I think that there is a large difference in the amount of weapons options available to take to the fight. For example the S-25L guided rocket carries a large payload, can be used against moving targets and probably cost a fraction of what a mav costs. Sure rockets may not be pinpoint accurate but once you get close enough and launch a few S-13's its not ganna be hard to make a kill on whatever your aiming at. All without the extra weight of a bunch of mavs or bombs. As far as gunpods are concerned I believe they allow for a much greater area to be engaged than with the gau-8. And sometimes you dont need a 30mm round to get the job done. Think about how many stored kills an SU-25T has vs an A-10C with any given load out. How many enemy positions, trucks, light armor could be destroyed with a big loadout of rockets/gunpods? Who knows for sure but its deffitnley more than the amout of bombs an A-10 can carry. And as far as the Vikher is concerned obviosley they have the K-29 at their disposal however im sure they realized as do I that sometimes you dont need a big fire and forget weopon and once effective S.E.A.D is utilized than you can fly towards the target all you want. The west sort of contradicts itself. On one end they say using " multimillion dollar aircraft for strafing is a waste " And then they built a C.A.S aircraft around a strafing system! To me its very similar to the whole 3rd gen fighter concept of " not needing a gun " and then as soon as they get into the merge with a mig the pilots go screaming for a fix. With a system like the SPPU-22 gun pod effectiveness is drastically increased and to an extent becomes a smart weapon. If we made a similar system utilizing a pair of A-50 guns or maybe even a pair of GAU-19's than that would allow for alot more area to be covered in a strafe. And would make long range almost indirect strafing possible. Im not saying that every engagement would benefit from this however it is likely that many would.

[Eddie]

Lets face it... the gau-8 is an incredible system however I imagine that more often than not a pilot only decides to come in for a gun run if he is out of guided munitions. It is generally used as a secondary back up weapon with the most of its usage being to engage the targets left over from other weapons attacks. So what I mean to say is that if all your going to be doing is dropping a JDAM or gbu than waiting 2 to 3 times longer for that air support to arrive is a big downside. Plus when your talking about SAM countermeasures the Strike Eagle is gonna drop that bomb from as high and as fast as its sensors allow then its gonna gtfot. The A-10 might be able to take a beating but that's only because it is much more likely to receive one.

 

Except here's the thing, you won't be waiting 2 or 3 times as long, because a long loiter time means it's more likely there will be a CAS jet overhead when you need one. Besides, just how slow do you think the A-10 is? In reality it's only moving at around 200 knots slower in terms of ground speed that the fast jets, yes a Viper might be able to do Mach 2, but in reality it'll be spending it's time between 300 and 400 knots.

 

If the time/distance is such in an emergency CAS situation that the Hog would not be able to be on station in time, there are still faster aircraft available, although it's also unlikely that they'd arrive in time either.

 

But that aside the Hog loiter time is a result of it using engines that are more efficient at low level, even at 300 ft and 300 knots the Hog still has enough fuel for 2 hours of flight, a feat no fast jet can match.

 

And the GAU-8 is just as much of a primary weapon as anything else, in fact in the CAS environment it's generally the most employed and sought after weapon system there is.

 

That's not to mention that CAS is only one aspect of the A-10s role, and in fact in a conventional war scenario not the role it would be carrying out most of the time.

 

Relative to the SU-25T yes I think that there is a large difference in the amount of weapons options available to take to the fight. For example the S-25L guided rocket carries a large payload, can be used against moving targets and probably cost a fraction of what a mav costs.

 

Here's the thing, in the real world you don't carry every weapon possible and more often than not you will never find enough "targets" to employ them if you did. Cost is secondary to mission effectiveness.

 

The S-25L may indeed cost less than the AGM-65, but then it should as it's less capable and less effective.

 

Sure rockets may not be pinpoint accurate but once you get close enough and launch a few S-13's its not ganna be hard to make a kill on whatever your aiming at. All without the extra weight of a bunch of mavs or bombs. As far as gunpods are concerned I believe they allow for a much greater area to be engaged than with the gau-8. And sometimes you dont need a 30mm round to get the job done. Think about how many stored kills an SU-25T has vs an A-10C with any given load out. How many enemy positions, trucks, light armor could be destroyed with a big loadout of rockets/gunpods?

 

Again, here's the thing, yes it is hard to kill what you're aiming at with rockets. It's why they are area suppression weapons. You can believe what you like about gun pods, but that will not change the fact that they are obsolete and not longer used for a reason.

 

In the real world a flight goes up, attacks it's assigned target with one or two passes, depending on the threat level and then, hopefully, comes home. You only sit there doing the "tank plinking" done by many simmer if you have a death wish.

 

Who knows for sure but its deffitnley more than the amout of bombs an A-10 can carry.

 

Who knows for sure? Well the people who operate said aircraft for starters.

 

..and once effective S.E.A.D is utilized than you can fly towards the target all you want.

 

No you can't. SEAD does not and cannot eliminate every threat you will face, the clue is in the name, SUPPRESSION of enemy air defence. SEAD will suppress, not necessarily destroy, the LORAD and MERAD systems, and maybe if you're lucky some of the RADAR SHORAD. But all the AAA, MANPADS and much of the embedded SHORAD will still be there.

 

The west sort of contradicts itself. On one end they say using " multimillion dollar aircraft for strafing is a waste " And then they built a C.A.S aircraft around a strafing system! To me its very similar to the whole 3rd gen fighter concept of " not needing a gun " and then as soon as they get into the merge with a mig the pilots go screaming for a fix. With a system like the SPPU-22 gun pod effectiveness is drastically increased and to an extent becomes a smart weapon. If we made a similar system utilizing a pair of A-50 guns or maybe even a pair of GAU-19's than that would allow for alot more area to be covered in a strafe. And would make long range almost indirect strafing possible. Im not saying that every engagement would benefit from this however it is likely that many would.

 

So you take a gun equipped aircraft, and add external gun pods on to it? Which means that at least two hard points cannot be used for other stores, on the off chance that you'd use a lower calibre, less reliable, less accurate weapon system instead of the internal gun you carry around all day long.

 

That is one of the more insane things I've read on these forums as far as arm chair strategist's ideas go.

[Jordan4]

Except here's the thing, you won't be waiting 2 or 3 times as long, because a long loiter time means it's more likely there will be a CAS jet overhead when you need one. Besides, just how slow do you think the A-10 is? In reality it's only moving at around 200 knots slower in terms of ground speed that the fast jets, yes a Viper might be able to do Mach 2, but in reality it'll be spending it's time between 300 and 400 knots.

If there were A-10's in the air waiting for every single patrol to get into a fire fight and then just swoop in and save them than sure that would be more effective than waiting for a faster jet to come in. Unfortunately that is not the case. You request air support and if you are so lucky to receive it you wait for that air support to arrive. That is unless you are on an operation that is specifically set up and expecting air support than you may be lucky enough to have those assets in the air. My friend who was in the 10th mountain said the A-10's took the longest time by far to arrive for C.A.S ( The AH-64's were apparently parked in most of the major F.O.B's so they were never to far from a patrol. So I am not entirely sure were you are getting the idea the A-10's are just waiting to swoop down to save you on a moments notice. Oh and im sure when you are receiving fire that extra 200 knots would make a big difference to you because every second is a second that you could be dead. Not to mention an A-10 with any substantial load out will not achieve an optimal cruise speed. So the difference could in some cases be more than 200kts. Sure the jets may not be in full afterburner to come to your rescue however depending on how close there station is then they potentially could and have fuel to spare. They have the ability to do so if necessary. Why would making the A-10 faster be bad? I'm not sure what your objection to that is.

 

Here's the thing, in the real world you don't carry every weapon possible and more often than not you will never find enough "targets" to employ them if you did. Cost is secondary to mission effectiveness.

 

The S-25L may indeed cost less than the AGM-65, but then it should as it's less capable and less effective.

Perhaps we are imagining different scenarios. I am speculating about a large scale conflict. Not a counter insurgency. A target rich environment where you never have enough weapons. That is not to say that this is likely or would happen all the time even if there was a large scale conflict of that sort so yes you do have a point there. Not every mission will even require that much ordnance however the one that I am imagining does ; ) How exactly is the Mav sooooo much more effective than an S-25L? Cant really think of much other than the fact that it has a longer range and in some versions can carry a larger payload. However for some targets they have similar capabilities not to mention how much easier target aquisition and guidance is for the S-25L ( no finagling with mav seeker ). As long as you have rockets why not make some guided? If we didnt think the S-25L was any good than why are we developing laser guided Hydras?

 

Who knows for sure? Well the people who operate said aircraft for starters.

Are you or were you an A-10 pilot? That is very cool and obviously you insight is much more accurate then my pure speculation. Thank you for being here to clear up my conceptions. I do however think that just because one is a pilot does not mean they are experienced enough with every combat scenario to know whether or not for sure what I am saying is true or false. I guess for that matter neither do I but then again that is why it is speculation that all.

 

..and once effective S.E.A.D is utilized than you can fly towards the target all you want.

Very true I did somewhat imply that just because S.E.A.D has been performed that you can just fly around without a care in the world. I suppose I was imagining that EVERY possible S.A.M threat was some how magically eliminated and thinking again you never would really know. That is unless you made enough close in passes and weren't shot down.

 

So you take a gun equipped aircraft, and add external gun pods on to it? Which means that at least two hard points cannot be used for other stores, on the off chance that you'd use a lower caliber, less reliable, less accurate weapon system instead of the internal gun you carry around all day long.

Well when you have 16 atgms on station I suppose you have the luxury of carrying such a weapon. Lets say you only get 8 out of 16 Vikhers on target and two fail to penetrate or produce a kill ( maybe still a mobility kill however ) In this extremley unlikely scenario you have made the same amount of kills as all 6 Mavs on target. All without having to play around with the mav seeker until it achieves a lock. Perhaps the inaccuracy of the gunpods is one of the things that I am advocating for. Just saturating a target area with fire. I know this is just pure speculation and I know that it is based on my experience in sims which doesn't even closely resemble the way things happen in real life. This may be a stupid questions but have you used the SPPU-22 in the SU-25T for lock on? As far as it is modeled in the sim it shows to be incredibly effective on soft to lighty armored targets ( not sure how the 23x115 performs on light armor in real life im not sure if they have saphei and I doubt there is apds or apfsds ) It seems to take the place of rocket pods performing the same mission however with a high degree of hit probability. I am not so much advocating that these weapons be a replacement for GBU's or Mav's however I think they are more of a supplement. As long as you are going to have rockets why not have a larger variety? Something you can handpick for your mission. If you are likely to engage a lot of infantry or soft targets than why not have the option of a gunpod? The mav is great for certain missions however I think that a smaller atgm should be an option so that more missiles can be carried with less weight. How are these insane ideas? If you need a gbu or a mav then equip them however why not have supplement weapon available in case you think they may come in handy. I appreciate your input and I was hoping for a good discussion so thank you for sharing your ideas. However I do not appreciate the notion that my ideas are insane. Please keep this civil. Thank you again for sharing your ideas and opinions. Edited August 25, 2012 by Jordan4

[Jordan4]

Show me a video of you destroying a T-80 or Abrams in a single burst with the Su-25T

You mean in Lock on? Ok Ive done it before, sure its easier to do in an A-10 but I think that is purely based on flight dynamics and not the gun. The GAU-8 is only marginally more effective in real life. That's not a matter of opinion but fact. Its rate of fire is only 900rpm less, and its ammunition is only marginally less powerful which is irrelevant when firing at an MBT's top armor. The only true disadvantages are by the nature of having fewer barrels it will be prone to overheating/barrel erosion much quicker, and as the SU-25T is set up it only carries 250 rounds. However if you were to mount that gun on the chin of an A-10 and give it the same ammunition capacity I do no believe you would see a drastic difference in performance. I do not however know what the mil rating is for the GSH-30-2 so that is the only unknown in my equation. I will post a track of what you requested as soon as I have time to setup my HOTAS Warthog for the SU-25T.

[Jona33]

Ok, then go on and take out another 7 only with the gun, while you're at it you could try lobbing 4 mavs at tanks in one pass and be 90% certain of kills, and when you run out of ammo just press a couple of buttons and bingo, any other asset in the air can have your target shown on their TAD or similar. In the case of the apache you could simply lase the target and let their LST find the target for you. And do all that at night. (Hint, the mercury pod is sh*t in RL.)

[Jordan4]

Yep they both have there advantages. I think overall the A-10 is the better platform, however there are definitely some aspects about the SU-25T that I think would be welcome to the A-10 to make it an even more potent adversary. The A-10 has no light/medium atgm capability. You don't always need 125lbs of shaped charge warhead to take out an mbt... Plus the mav targeting procedure is outdated and cumbersome. It would be much easier if you could just track on tgp and launch. Your launching 4 mavs in one pass? Damn I got some practice to do to catch up to your level. However I highly doubt that in real life 4 targets could be acquired and engaged in one pass... especially since common practice is to take evasive maneuvers directly after an engagement so that capability would not count as a real benefit in my opinion which could be wrong. Not to mention anything the mav can do the KH-29 series can most likely do as well ( aside from being able to mount more than 2 per sortie ) With the vikhers a skilled pilot can engage multiple targets in one pass by launching a missle right before another impacts and then quickly acquiring the next in the shkval plus you got 16 of those mofos at your disposal so missing one or taking more than one hit to produce a kill aint all that bad and more than makes up for the guns lack of ammunition capacity compared to the A-10. Plus any vehicle that take a hit from a vikhers and isn't killed with most likely have some operational capabilities disabled/be a mobility kill. Not to mention for any target that is not an M.B.T the vikhers has a high likely hood of killing that target (APC's/IFV's)

Edited August 27, 2012 by Jordan4