jenrick

Padlock, and zooming way in to see them out of my canopy are my solution. -Jenrick

I'd say the advantage that stealth high level has over low level penetration is the number of detection systems you can be tracked by and weapon systems you can be engaged by. At under about 3K everyone with a rifle has a chance of shooting you down. Good intel and mission planning will keep you from flying over enemy troops concentrations most likely, but all it takes is one lucky guy with a gun. Additionally you've got a much more obvious signature, screaming over head and breaking windows is gonna have some radio reports flying along to the ADC. Nothing you can really do about that. Everyone with a working set of ears can let the ADC know where you're at roughly. A high level penetration with stealth isn't going to tip anyone on the ground off unless they see the aircraft shilouetted against the moon or something. No noise or visible signature when done correctly. Far as detection goes you only got a very limited number of systems that will be able to detect or track you, and of course your stealthiness is designed to prevent that. Additionally there are few fewer aircraft and high altitude missile systems then there are small caliber AA guns, men with rifles, etc if you are detected. Arguably if you're located at high level, the threats are much more capable and deadly (an SU-27 vs. a grunt with an AK-47), but I'd say low level subjects the aircraft to a significantly higher chance of being engaged. This of course is all based on an enemy with some AD capability beyond individual troops with rifles. In the environment we're operating in currently higher level attacks just make sense, as there is almost no threat above small arms range. Contrast that with the Israeli experience in the Yom Kippur war, where the relative lack of concentrated ground fire made it safer to stay out of the higher altitude ranges due to the massive amount of SAM's being deployed. All things being equal I'd say being invisible beats being fast and low. -Jenrick

I'd say the creating "diversions" in the mission structure wouldn't actually be too difficult to do. The problem Jug noted, is that to truly simulate that sort of things there are ever increasing series of nested conditions triggered by other nested conditions ad infinitum. However we're not after a true simulation for the most part, merely a representation that masquerades as a true simulation. Just as the ground war of the SF universe ebbs and flows through a series of less then accurate calculations but still maintains a pretty decent appearance of being realistic the same can be done in the air. The mission title and brief is labeled "sweep" or "CAP" or "armed recon" for that matter. It's not terribly hard for the computer to setup conditions for the AI flight's to be intercepted, have their escorts fly over an AAA/SAM complex, etc to create these shifts. This of course creates the need to divert to provide cover, fly SARCAP, etc. Now why the heck there can't be an unattached flight on a sweep/CAP mission that can actually come help me out, I'm still not sure. -Jenrick

Tac nuke profiles in general are going to require VERY high speeds (FB-111, B-58, A-5, etc at max burner) and release altitude of several K feet to survive if you're not toss bombing. Strategic nukes are going to be from as high and as fast as you can get, then as noted dive and turn away. Take a look at the century series fighters, and their contemporary bombers. All were designed to fly in the 40-60K altitude range at supersonics speeds due to the flight profiles need. Now if you just have to take out that come building and don't care about coming home, I have to say that dive bombing with strategic nukes can also be an amusing past time. -Jenrick

Oh boy, next to dropping nukes of of a FB-111 or possibly super sonic low level night conventional missions in my FB-111, the B-1B is just the best thing for lots and lots of bombs realllllly low :) -Jenrick

Hmm I've got a low post count here, so I'll play ;) First off though, TK and the modders have done an amazing job so far. Hat's off to the entire community for continuing to expand and improved on a series most thought was DOA upon it's initial release. All right my list: - Improved avionics functionality as an option. For that matter, just the adding the ability for them to be created by 3rd parties if desired. Much as MSFS gauges can be used to wondrous things (GPS, simulate VTOL flight capabilities, etc.) through scripting having that ability in the engine would open up a lot of areas. Want a working TFR for you're FB-111, write one. Want to have a working bombing lobbing system, write one, etc. - Improved FAC's. Yep sometimes all you've got is a bearing and a target description. On the other hand.... I'd love to see the airborne FAC's mark target's, or have ground units pop smoke or the like. Also having a lot more radio chatter from the ground to the CAS would be great. Rolling in hot towards a unit under fire, getting a nine line CAS request, and having to formulate you're attack on the go would be an awesome experience IMO. - Dynamic mission re-tasking. Get pulled off of an Armed Recon flight for a SAR mission, or have you're pre-planned CAS loiter time cut short by a "broken arrow" call. Have to divert to an alternate target as the first wave already blew up the comm building (die comm building, die!) Get pull off of CAP for an intercept etc. However have them be related to what's going on in the battle space. Don't have a single aircraft just auger in to create a SAR diversion, if an aircraft goes down on a CAS or strike run though... - As a tie in to the above, Improved world busyness for lack of a better term. Campaign missions where you are just one plane in a big war are great. Single missions seem to lose a lot of this. Having just a busier world, with other aircraft and ground units going on and doing there thing would add immensely to immersion. - Improved ground attack options. First off being able to adjust the reticle depression on your sight while in game. That alone would give manual bombing a tremendous boost in accuracy and immersion. You only have yourself to blame if you forgot to depress your sight before you rolled in hot. Secondly and much more of a long term issue would be to have an increase in weapons fidelity in terms of locking on and selecting targets. LGB's are basically useless in the CAS or armed recon role. In reality so long as you or another aircraft can designate you can "tank plink" all day long with them. - An In-game mission creator, rather then an external program (something like F4 or LOMAC). Also as noted previously a way to tweak single missions in-game. I know a lot of that isn't going to happen as it would take a fundemental re-write of a lot of code I'm guessing. Little things from it though, like maybe just more audio chatter on CAS missions from the ground I think would be easily implemented and add to the sim. Thanks, -Jenrick

Okay took them apart for a good cleaning before they got installed in their final location in the new pit I'm building. Well I had a heck of a time getting the main spring back in, and now that I did I'm not totally sure I got it installed right. If someone happens to have a set of these and can snap a picture of the main spring installed I'd appreciate it. -Jenrick