Fubar512

And just what does that have to do with the original subject of this thread? All classic TW titles have a singlemission.ini compressed into the FlightData.cat. If you can't see it, you're probably not looking hard enough...

That's not totally accurate. An AI flight that's assigned to launch from the same carrier that the player's flight launches from, will use the (visible) carrier. If you have WoV, check out the "Haiphong Strike "67" mission, in the downloads section, and you'll see A-6s's and A-4's from another flight using the carrier.

Not if it's in Iran....

The sand would absorb the blast.

Low level dash to the border

Apart from the obvious (destroying what amounts to a raised "hole" in the ground), why would one go to a heavier weapon? If there's a target inside an open-topped earthen revetment (ie., something called a "plane" or an "aircraft"), the best way to destroy it, is with a CBU.

I'll bet dimes to donuts that you have nested folders. Reread the KB entry, specifically item #2.

Mr. T says: GET SOME NUTS!

Are you serious? http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=30658

LOL, a bit off topic.. I once found myself broke a few days before payday, but had promised tp take my girlfriend out for dinner. As I was deciding which jacket to wear, I decided to try on a leather jacket that I had not worn since the previous Winter. Much to my surprise, I found a pair of crisp $50 bills in the inside pocket . It seems that the last time I'd worn the jacket, I'd gone to Atlantic City, and had won some money....

There are two Su-25 WIPs. Wpnssgt's and Marc's.

Iraqi Fulcrum-A

Also, the relevant statement is a "modifier", which implies a multiple, ie 1.0 = set standard, 2.0 = 2x the standard, etc. This differs from ground objects, which have an actual "RadarCrossSection" statement, not a modifier.

Be aware that ground objects in this series have had RCS values for years, if not right from the onset.

It depends where they "hit", and the the location (or lack of) of hit boxes. For example, the first FM for one popular model had no hit boxes defined for the rear section of that model, and missiles seemed to explode harmlessly against it, until someone corrected it.

Fuzing distance as it applies to weapons in this series has no effect, in as far as proximity from the target is concerned. The weapon will still only detonate on contact. Hopefully, this will be resolved in the future, possibly in SF2, or with its follow on titles.

30 or 40 miles is a bit far, in-game, and well out of the SA-2's envelope. If tasked with eliminating SAM defenses around Haiphong, I normally cruise at altitude while I let my wingman loose on the AAA, and target the nearest SAM radars with my Shrikes (the sites immediately north and south of Haiphong). I then wait for the sites off to the west to light off their radars, and engage them with STARMs when they switch from track to acquisition (guidance) mode.

In my experience, it's best to carry a full load out of ARMs, and have your wingman loaded out with CBUs. You take out the SAM radars, and task your wingman with eliminating the AAA threat in the immediate vicinity of the target area. The real AAA threats are the 57 mm and larger weapons, as most strike packages will fly high and fast enough so they won't be bothered by 23 & 37 mm guns.

Well, you certainly have an issue, as evidenced by this: It's kind of hard to use Shrikes and STARMs against AAA, right? And, your priority targets during such a mission should be in the "area" of the airfields, not inside the airfield proper. The airfields during such a mission are generally the targets of a strike package, your task is to neutralize the SAM threat. There's a WoV mission in the downloads section, titled "Haiphong Strike 67", which I recommend trying.

Very simple. Fly an Iron Hands mission instead of a SEAD, and you'll be tasked to kill SAMs.

No 'effin way. The Torno should, at best, be slightly better than the default "1.0" RCS value, or about 0.98, and it has no provisions for IR masking (no "beaver tail" or side dam diffusers), so it's IR signature should be left at the default "1.0". In fact, from a side profile, its RCS should be greater than the default, due to its over-sized vertical stabilizer.

Well, a Phoenix is much heavier to begin with, and that renders it at a marked disadvantage agility-wise, when it comparing to something the size and mass of an an AMRAAM. The '54 was designed to be a long-range bomber killer. The fact that "its faster", is again, a moot point against an agile target. LPI radar in combination with GPS, means that at least in theory, that one can acquire ranging and position data on a target with a single sweep, secure the radar, and then launch a missile "dumb" at the target's projected flightpath. As the missile approaches its waypont, it lights off its radar, and acquires the target without any further guidance from its launch platform.

The AIM-120D has almost the same effective range as the last generation of the AIM-54 (rumors are, 180 km), and something on the order of 3X the PK as the '54C. Its seeker head sports an LPI AESA radar. So, why use a 35 year old missile design that's not been upgraded since the late 80s/early 90s? Also, the only thing preventing the B-1B from exceeding Mach 1.4, is its low-observable inlet design. It's within the realm of feasibility to modify the design in order to allow it to supercruise.

The easiest fix (which I'm surprised no one's mentioned) is to simply set the horizon distance to "normal". That alone will significantly reduce your CPU load.

MiG-17s are all but uncontrollable above 450-475 KIAS. Their unboosted controls suffered lock ups in the pitch axis, and they went into a wing-warp induced dutch roll above that speed. The '17 also had a roll-rate that was inferior to even an A-6 Intruder.