Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Rick50

  1. Anyone have any luck lately? Is he able to come back at some point or is this a permanent thing?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. I have to admit, this looks promising!
  6. Nice! Some simple solutions that look effective`
  7. 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...
  8. 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.
  9. 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!
  10. 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:
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Hi, I'm looking for rel4y 's email, if it's ok to share it, thanks!
  15. 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!
  16. Thank you for the tips! This hobby is expensive enough as it is, nice to save a few bucks here and there!! :thumbup:
  17. Rick50

    JSOW is OP

    JSOW is awesome, but yes, it's cost is the reason the JDAM is so common, as JDAM is much cheaper. And yet, since it doesn't need fuel or turbines, JSOW is sill much cheaper than the powered standoff cruise missiles like Apache, SLAM and variants.... the 154 is kinda half-way between the two extremes in cost and capability, which makes it a very nice choice for the mission planners IRL. There's an old saying: "No bucks, no Buck Rogers", loosely translated means performance costs big money. And just like space exploration costs big, so too does war and aerospace! My point? Simply that while we have all sorts of amazing super capable weapons... we the public usually have no idea of quantities in ordnance depots. Some of these weapons don't number in the 10;s of thousands, but in the hundreds or even less. So design accordingly: limit the number of Hornets designated for JSOW deployment, somehow.
  18. Thanks for the tips for flying this bucking Bronco!
  19. it's a shame about the suspension, hope he can regain his posting rights in future! Any chance I could get his email too? This sounds like a great upgrade!
  20. how have these mods held up for you guys? is the felt still a good idea? And is there similar grease as an alternative?
  21. I Can't afford the more expensive options. But... will the Thrustmaster TFRP Pedals (the cheap one, not the expensive TM rudders) have good enough toe brakes to taxi a warbird taildragger ? Or is that a lost cause? Or be good enough to fly a heli decently?
  22. I look forward to the Tucano, as it offers a different experience than all others, a small mud-bomber that we will likely see more in real life in the decades to come. In an industry all about making things bigger and WAY more expensive, so expensive that nations have to slash the number of airframes to buy just because otherwise they can't buy at all... the A-29 goes the other way: affordable in significant numbers by nations of limited means. That it offers capabilities few other airframes do, such as time on station, the sensor turret with a GIB, integrated PGM's... and future possible capabilities such as the side looking a/g radar, this will be one to watch! I think there will come a time when the USAF may well buy a modest number of them, not because they are affordable, but because they are proven already and a cheap way to retain pilots tired of "flying" drones forever. I'd buy a DCS A-29 module!
  23. Rick50


    I had a lot of fun with the AN-2 Colt in FS2004, it's a fun aircraft to fly! Now if it comes to DCS, where the military role is front and center, yea, I'd buy this plane! As long as it comes with the ability to move equipment and cargo, troops and paratroops, then it will definitely be worthwhile! Of course I also look forward to the BlackHawk and Hercules too...
  • Create New...