In good daylight, it doesn’t not make much, if any difference. IIRC, in dim light, with it “deselected” you can see the cockpit textures/instruments as if they are somehow lit by another source. With it selected, the cockpit instruments/instrument panel are dark and you need to use whatever cockpit lighting you have to see them.
I know that seems backward but, again IIRC, Deselected gave you a sort-of lit cockpit; selected was dark (until you turned on the lights).
I know you can change the coords displayed in F10 map with alt-Y or something like that. That lets you put the cursor on the map and get the location in varying formats to use depending on plane and system.
And in the words of the great Mr Garrison, “That’s ok, Eric, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people.”
As you may have guessed is that I am looking towards the day when we can plot PP JDAM targets in the ME or Mission Planner Map and have them appear in the Hornet as PP targets on the JDAM page.
In fact…[picture the cheap wavy/blurry effect they use on TV the somebody is remembering something]
Way back when…I was instrumental at getting the first GPS quality targeting systems onboard USN aircraft carriers; called Precision Targeting Workstation (PTW). For those keeping score, GW CVN-73 was the first in the LANT fleet to get the entire PTW suite. It was our goal, even back then, to get the target coords data from the PTW into the brick that goes into the jet. Why? For some obscure reason, we were averse to installing these multi-million dollar pieces of gear, only to have the end result be some numbers scribbled on a sticky-note…silly of us I know.
[Back to the present]
That said, in the mean time in the DCS world, using a sticky-note is the only way to go if you don’t use a WP. So getting the correct coord system displayed in the ME or F10 is important.
Is it just me - or does the Kuznetsov seem to be much more impenetrable to attack than the new Nimitz supercarrier? Definitely not a scientific test…but I set up two scenarios attacking both with anti-ship missiles from two 4-ship flights and the Nimitz got hit multiple times while the Kuznetsov seemed to hold its own with anti-aircraft missiles and CIWS. I would understand the argument that a Nimitz class would never operate alone, and the picket ships would be the ones that would do the heavy lifting when it comes to defense (if not the Air Wings of course)…but I just wanted to confirm that the Kuznetsov has more teeth than the Nimitz?
The philosophy of American doctrine is to “shoot the archer, not the arrow”. Thus you have an extended defensive area where you are conducting ASW, ASUW, and AAW with the goal of killing the platforms that shoot the ASCMs. Then, for what does get shot, you have the Aegis ships to take out the majority of the missiles inbound the carrier; the carrier’s point defense systems to take care of the (hopefully few) leakers that get through.
I’ll have to look at the numbers but in general the SA-N-9 is more capable than NATO Sea Sparrow or RAM. Plus I would speculate that the CADS-N-1 has some advantages over CWIS Phalanx.
The MiG-31K/Kinzhal was after my time so my understanding comes from what I just Googled. An air-launched, nuclear tipped ballistic missile with some cool end game maneuvers. Yeah, that will put a damper on your day at sea.
The doctrine of killing the archer is still sound. The range of the missile and the capabilities of the launch platform make executing that doctrine problematic, to say the least.
To paraphrase Clausewitz, everything about war is simple; but in combat, even the simplest of things can be very difficult.
Excellent points re. The AIP subs. Dumb press making a very successful exercise look like a loss.
Re. Kinzhal and DF-21 (ta roo!), Getting the archer would need a LOT of range. Something hornets are not known for. Would tomcats have been able to deal with shipkiller foxbats?
Does the C model 35 have legs on it? It does have longer wings… But is it enough? I doubt it. The flying dorito would have plenty range to be able to counter DF-21 I bet. But I know Will, you can’t discuss it. So don’t.
Well, while it’s true that there is a great lesson in losing fights, and this is the point of military excercises, the USN did request that the Swedish Navy extended the Gotland sub’s stay in San Diego for another year, past the year she already spent there…
I don’t think they’d do that unless they had use for her services.
During the first year in the US she had twice as many operational hours, compared to a typical year in Swedish waters.
It was probably a fruitful partnership for both Navies.