Jump to content

Rick50

Members
  • Posts

    1001
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Rick50

  1. Not too likely IMO. That tends to happen for larger weapons hitting older tanks that have not received ANY upgrades at all. The term is "spalling", and pretty much any decent army with even a modest budget, have long ago upgraded even their oldest tanks and many APC's to have internal "spall liners", basically kevlar panels that trap the steel fragments of spalling. Thus protected. And we aren't even considering kevlar that some tank crews mIGHT sometimes wear inside the tank during a particularly risky hour. Of course that's rare because air conditioning is also rare in most tanks. Edit:: If the 30mm was an explosive round, and hit an APC that did not get a spall liner, not get standoff armor, or explosive reactive armor, then yes, it would likely have a bit of spalling flying around inside creating chaos.
  2. Recently I saw a recommendation for helicopter sims that a very light or even removed spring makes it easier to fly a heli in a sim with better precision. I have a spare T.16000m stick, and I wonder if I can remove the stiff spring, but wonder if it won't work properly anymore, or if it would be fine??? I suspect this won't work, but hope I'm wrong. What do you think???
  3. Ah, perfect, that's EXACTLY the info I was looking for!! Thank you!!!
  4. I might be able to source a Pro Flight throttle quadrant, that normally is sold with and used with the Yoke. I saw a review of the yoke and throttle, and now I'm not sure if the throttle quadrant can be used by itself WITHOUT the yoke. I think it can, as I've seen that some people double them up and have six levers for various multi-engine aircraft. I want to use this throttle quadrant with other controllers, including joysticks from other brands... is this possible? Can i plug it directly into any USB port and expect it to work on its own? Or can it ONLY plug into the Saitek Pro Flight Yoke?? :huh:
  5. AFAIK If you do multiplayer, or larger missions with many units interacting, the consensus seems to be that 32gigs of RAM is the new "recommended" amount. Both officially and also unofficial observations by the users.
  6. I think I heard of someone doing that, I think he said it worked. maybe.
  7. It never went into production, but the RAH-66 Comanche had fly by wire. I think there is a modern version of the specops "Littlebird" advanced prototype that features both fly by wire and even the ability to operate as a drone flying some by autopilot commands and by an operator handflying from satellite comms. I have no idea if this is in service, I think it's likely still in R+D or testing phase. Boeing is/was testing this. The idea was they could do all the normal missions, but if the situation was extreme, they could run it unmanned to fly supplies into a hot LZ, if the expectation of being shot down was unacceptably high but felt the flight too important not to do. Think there was a full glass cockpit aand the ability to use Hellfire among other things. Here's a bit of info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-6 hmm, no mention there of FBW systems... but I'm certain that I read somewhere else that they had a FBW system running on a prototype variant...
  8. Anyone have any luck lately? Is he able to come back at some point or is this a permanent thing?
  9. One thing to consider is that the spacing is no necessarily an "all or nothing" choice. Just because you might in RL spread them 40-80km away, doesn't mean you need or even WANT to spread them out that much, as several have pointed out. BUT... that also doesn't mean it really makes sense to always pack them close together like on a single soccer field, easily taken out by a single AG weapon. Maybe spreading the parts out by say 1 KM for a small concentrated site, to maybe spread over say 5 km for a more survivable configuration, might be more desirable. Still close enough that they could install hardwire comms if needed, launch bearing might be more accurate than if the radar is 40km from the missile launching... but also require the strike package to do more recon, have more intel, and put in a lot more effort to down that SA-10 than if they are all packed nice and close.
  10. Canadian Kiowas were very simple back in the day, but some did have Mini-TAT, which was the GE M134 762 Minigun on a bottom centerline mount that stuck below the skids. Though I never saw it, I assume it folded up for landing!! No, I don't know details. For a long time I thought it was a fixed aiming, like on a warbird, but I have heard that it MIGHT have been aimable by servos and using a HUD on an arm and grips... but again, no confirmation of that. It might have been made by Emerson maybe.
  11. 1. Tornado IDS (interdictor/strike) I'd buy it! Actually I'd buy any of the ground attack Tornado versions, it's just that for me, the air defense version doesn't excite me as much, not sure why.
  12. I have to admit, this looks promising!
  13. Nice! Some simple solutions that look effective`
  14. Rick50

    Mirage F1 Poll

    All I know is we can use another Mirage! And being this is the F1, with high wing and tough landing gear, make it interesting and have a unique look! If memory serves, I think there was a Persian Gulf operator, Iraq? I think they used F1's to attack Persian oil rigs back in the 80's...
  15. Not sure... but ya I think it could happen. On really advanced military aircraft though, some have thermal imagers pointing in a 360deg arc to detect the rocket motor plumes of SAM's launching. THOSE would alert your Threat Warning Receiver of a missile launch. A TWS is an advanced RWR but that feeds more information sources to it. I think the SA page on the Hornet is much like a TWS, but also incorporating data link from other sensor assets too.
  16. I'm sure you have more experience than any of the rest of us with the actual SAM equipment. But... looking at some very basic info about SA-3, that's a system that's at least 17 years OLDER tech and tactical doctrine, and was probably developed with simpler threats in mind, than the seemingly very complex S-300 / SA-10. For instance, I'm sure SA-3 was tasked with downing enemy bombers and fighters... but was it designed to shoot down ABM's ? Cruise missiles? Any threats flying at treetop level? I think those were new challenging requirements for the S-300 engineers. Then there's Vietnam. The USAF and USN experience in Vietnam, dealing with SAM traps, doing Wild Weasel missions, using anti-radiation missiles... that all appeared AFTER the SA-3 first got into service. By the time S-300 was starting it's design phase, the engineers would have learned that America was developing the HARM, and that they would have to figure out ways of preventing the destruction of their SAM systems. So I have no doubt there is some dramatic differences between even an upgraded SA-3 compared to S-300 of any era, and the newer S-300 upgrades probably make it into a beast even compared to the earliest S-300. There is also the experience in Syria... some 10+ years ago the IAF did an airstrike in eastern Syria, near the border of Iraq. nearly the entire flight was done inside Syrian airspace. The IAF said they did not use stealth aircraft. Syrian air defense apparently didn't fire a single shot at them, despite being in the airspace for hours. Apparently IDF managed to infiltrate the air defense communications and all but "blinded" their system from even really knowing an air strike was underway. Not sure how they did it, could be software exploit. Could be physical interception of comms cables, like the SBS did in Iraq, digging up comms wires and physically cutting it! When I got out of the army, I still knew enough to go back in and be familiar with everything. But by the time I'd been gone 15 years... that was no longer totally true. And nowdays, I'd probably be a little lost: a lot has changed in that time, so while some things are probably the same, a lot isn't anymore! I also did get to see that there are sometimes a giant difference in capability of the same class of equipment, that would defy belief of those who hadn't actually seen the new. The only true constant is change!
  17. True, XP11 does have that, actually i think it appeared in earlier versions too. But I seem to recall that the user could turn off that feature if they didn't like it, giving perfectly flat runways if you checked a box. options are nice!:pilotfly:
  18. Ok but just because it's not a "replacement" for the Hog, doesn't mean it's of no use to the USA. It could help with border patrol: long loiter time for pennies, electrooptics and SLAR for surveillance (being developed now for the Brazilian AF), carry either Stinger or 9X for drones UAV's and unauthorised sneaky aircraft (along with the Browning .50's). But I think we also need to seriously consider the cost of wearing out very expensive airframes too early, like Hogs, Hornets, Rhinos Raptors and Growlers. None of these is cheap, replacing them earlier than we planned becomes extra costly for the taxpayer, and arguably reduces combat effectiveness. Then there is the pilots. None of them signed up to play video games in a sea-container. Sure, it's vitally important work to operate Reapers, but what pilot wants to do that for his entire career? Instead of "stay in the can or quit", they can rotate them through A-29 deployments, keep them happy, remind them how to actually FLY a real plane. Then send them back to the seacontainers, rotate them through on a regular basis to keep them from becoming bored or disillusioned. Keeps the pilots happier, keeps their actual piloting skills sharper, and may translate into savings in reduced drone losses, by keeping pilot operators' situational awareness higher. Then there is the super-fast super expensive jets. Raptor, F-35. It would be nice to get more pilots to have seat time in them, but with limited airframes, maybe the ideal is to have some do some time in cheaper A-29's too, as not all training has to be in the most expensive fighters ever made! Remember the F-117 nighthawk squadrons didnt fly JUST the Nighthawk, they also flew... hmm, I can't remember for sure, but I think they flew Corsairs and Talons, partly as a cover story, partly to do day flights, partly to reduce airframe hours on the stealth, and so on. I know the Hogs had to undergo quite a refit to reinforce the wingbox of the airframes to extend the life of A-10's, back nearly 18 years ago. Apparently back when they were made, few thought they would still be needed in 2029... the thinking of the time was "make it able to take a serious hit and keep fighting", but that in the long term, the airframe was meant to have a shorter hours of flight time, to make it cheaper and faster to engineer. Remember, the A-10 Warthog was more an "emergency get this plane designed and flying and over Germany ASAP!! Like YESTERDAY!!!" kind of thing, in response to the realization that the giant Soviet armored columns would steamroller over Western Europe in HOURS. It wasn't really designed to last forever. It's awesome that it's done so well so far, but also keep in mind it won't last forever either, and maybe keeping it's flight hours for when we really need it very badly, is maybe a better choice. Look, the A-29 may not be the best or cheapest option, but I'm simply suggesting it's not the dumbest idea either.
  19. Look, I'm no expert on S-300, I was just going off the claims from the Wikipedia page, suggesting that components can be 40km from a central point, thus I suggested my interpretation that some components might be 80km from each other, opposite a center point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system First paragraph. Now keep in mind... this is Wikipedia. And while I do generally trust it's content, there's no absolute guarantee of perfect information accuracy. Sometimes mistakes are made, sometimes missinterpretations, poor memory, deliberate falsehoods for specific reasons (military secrets and all that), and I'm very far from anything resembling an expert on this stuff. But I still maintain that I find it VERY unlikely that S-300 in the real world, would be so tightly parked as to all be within 100 or 200m of each other, perfect for a single JSOW A or a couple of clusterbombs. Just doesn't make sense to me. If that HAD to be that close, the Soviets would have seen that as a near-fatal flaw in the design and engineered solutions back before 1980 for the then-new S-300. Remember, it was developed from 1967, and first versions fielded in 1978, and continued development improvements through 2005 (presumably then development then shifted to S-400 ?). Look, JDAM and JSOW are good options to deal with S-300, but not all by themselves with just a couple units dropped. I think it needs the addition of HARM's, cunning sneaky attacks from low level (pop up from behind a hill, drop JSOW from say 8 miles maybe?), get some TALD decoys to confuzernate it, maybe get F-117 stealth to laser it, and Tomohawk it, and so on. Thing is, it probably wouldn't be alone either: TOR and Tunguska units may help defend the S-300 too, from sneak attacks and slow bombs. Maybe someday EW such as jamming or spoofing may show up in DCS. I'm just suggesting it's a little much to expect a single Hornet to render an S-300 useless in a single pass, on a routine basis, whether you can do it in DCS or not.
  20. Well, that's all good an all... but in real world S-300, components of the system can be spread across 80 KM... so that would complicate JSOW targeting. They don't seem to be spread over two football fields of space, except as a default setup in the mission editor.
  21. Hi, I'm looking for rel4y 's email, if it's ok to share it, thanks!
  22. It's not directly comparable... but i think maybe I found a reason for the heat/barrel warp appearing like this. I know that for most of it's existence, the ARMY version of the Browning .50cal, the barrel would overheat very rapidly. I mean crazy fast, even despite the much slower cyclic rate of fire, and much thicker/heavier barrel (as compared to the flight versions with high rates of fire). Is it possible this well known quirk of ground .50's has mistakenly been assumed by a dev, to be exactly the same in jet use? I think maybe this could be. Let's keep in mind, that despite the higher rate of fire, 400 knots of air cooling should cool any barrel a lot more than say a light breeze for the infantry versions! So I would assume the barrel would be less likely to overheat in a Sabre, than the typical Army ground versions. But I think the history and pilot anecdotes would be best to consult on this matter. At one time, I heard someone's opinion that the reason for ground barrels overheating, may be due to the rifling twist rate being too much, that it was causing unnecessary friction buildup. Seemed a bit plausible, but then maybe the faster twist might have helped ensure stability at long ballistic distances? I dunno, kind of academic to the discussion. All I know is the few times I fired one, it got hot very fast!
×
×
  • Create New...