near_blind

A contemporary ARG would consist of an LHA or LHD, an LPD, one or two LSDs, two to four Arleigh Burke’s and maybe a Ticonderoga. lol, we all jumped on this one

All I'm trying to say is lua is one small part of the effort, and one I only started contributing to recently. Without the work of Hawkeye, Markindle and company, there wouldn't be assets to stick satisfyingly large boomsticks on.

I know devs within HB have been made aware of this document, and that someone with first hand knowledge of how the AIM-120 works explained to them what the semantics of command-inertial mean in the context of the AMRAAM, and what they likely mean in the context of an ARH missile with an IMU that shares a largely common development history with the AMRAAM. As it was relayed to me at the time, the feeling was that there wasn't enough detailed information about the -54Cs differences from the -54A, nor was there enough depth in the missile API to justify the effort to meaningfully differentiate the two. This was over a year ago, and also 2nd/3rd hand, so to be taken with grains of salt. I would be curious if this could be reassessed now that meaningful depth has been added to the AIM-120 missile API, and now that there is a giant Meteor shaped elephant in the room (or would that be an elephant shaped Meteor? )

Not at all! I use your Kidd quite alot in my missions for variety, but I'm pro Spruance because it fills a different mission niche. With SM-2 the Kidd is an effective area air defense platform, even though it has a lower rate of fire than the VLS Aegis ships, the SM-2 still provides enough depth that it can interdict most attacks that don't involve large numbers or deadly ASCMs (or both). The Spruance, even with VLS, never had Standards. They were Tomahawk (and VL-ASROC if it existed in game or had any purpose) buckets. They have a credible point defense capability with the Sea Sparrow and CIWS, but medium numbers of attackers, or anything but the smallest number of ASCMs will threaten to seriously overwhelm the ships ability to defend itself. As some one who mostly flies air to air stuff in the Tomcat, that makes it an interesting mission asset because it can be convincingly threatened by a less capable enemy force, which means your performance as the CAP is more impactful to the outcome of the scenario. For instance instead of multiple flights of Su-24s throwing Kh-31s, I can instead achieve a similar result with a flight or two of Fitters using Kh-29s, Kh-25s or even rockets. It also doesn't hurt that the class was ubiquitous enough that they could reasonably encountered in most potential task groups or alone, whereas there were only four Kidds. All of my arguments here also apply to the Knox class if we ever find a model for those. This is part of a large complaint I have where surface ships in DCS are either hyper lethal or capital ships, with very little variety in between.

I would do dirty things if anyone updated the Spruance model that's kicking around to the latest edm version.

Hawkeye does all the work, I showed up once and played with the lua is all

Think something that flies like an F-14B, has displays that are maybe 75% of the way to a Hornet, Link-16 capable, and a more capable modern radar with equivalent or better range than anything else in the game and you're in the ball park.

That's disgusting. I'll take four. (I personally draw the line at the BBPH proposals. Keep the Harriers off my gun platform)

16''/50 goes brrrrrrr Could I model those things? No. I couldn't model my way out of a burlap sack if I tried (and I've tried). Now. Could I theoretically remove all the definitions for the bofors and oerlikons, and then theoretically define four of them as the default game Mk15 Phalanx, and then theoretically take one 5'' turret on each side and define its barrels as the launch point for Harpoons and Tomahawks with a magazine matching the total number of tubes the ship had in real life? If I did, I bet it would be awesome and heretical in equal measure . In all honesty though, I've shot my proposed 16'' shell, some 5'' VT shells, and my hack job 80s refit to Hawkeye, and he's been very receptive. He's working out the next version of the mod and I'm trying to help as best I can. Hopefully it'll be out soon.

Not to toot my own horn, but that'll get fixed sooner rather than later. At least for the Iowas.

Distance has nothing to do with this issue. It's not a problem of the radar being unable to burn through jamming, the issue is the missile needs to be told to look for a jammer when it's launched. Right now the code in the F-14 that tells the missile to look for a jammer instead of a regular target is broken, so the missile will *never* guide on a target that has active ECM. It's been reported, it is apparently fixed internally, hopefully we'll see the fix for this in the next patch: This particular issue is specific to the F-14, you shouldn't have any troubles in the Hornet. I just tested the provided mission with the right group set to "never jam" at the initial waypoint and my Sparrows guided fine. AA ACM Test-9-7.mizTacview-20210822-090705-DCS.zip.acmi

You are shooting at MiG-29Ss, which possess a jamming system. Currently AIM-7Fs, AIM-7Ms and AIM-7MHs (when the ACM cover is raised) cannot guide on targets with active ECM. The cause of this has been identified and should be fixed in the next patch. By default, DCS AI will activate their ECM when locked in STT by a hostile aircraft. This behavior can be modified by changing the Options -> ECM setting, or as you've done, by disabling their reaction to threats.

Since the 16th of June. Really the entire WCS probably shouldn't work with bleed off, but that's a separate thing.

You need that on to pew pew.

Is your bleed air on?

For real? There's been a thread in the bug forum since at least February and a thread pops up about it at least once a month. We can get you tracks if you need them. If I can supply my entirely suppositional and mostly uninformed opinion: I don't think the lofting and ECM issues with between the Tomcat and Sparrow have to do with values in those files. The F, the M and the H are all defined as HOJ capable, the F and M can't engage anything with ECM, and somehow the ACM switch position determines whether or not the MH can. Likewise the ACM switch no longer affects whether or not the MH lofts. These issues seem to have appeared when ED implemented their big rework of the AIM-7 seeker logic back at the beginning of the year. It seems that some sort of data is not getting passed from the F-14 to the AIM-7 at the time of firing that would tell it to HOJ or loft. I'd like to be wrong and hope the unified sparrow fixes it EDIT: actually, extremely silly thought without evidence: The F and M aren't supposed to loft, and the MH isn't supposed to loft when the ACM cover is raised. Currently the F and M don't HOJ, and the MH doesn't HOJ when the ACM cover is raised. Is it possible whatever tells the missile to loft got mixed up with whatever tells the missile to HOJ?

Not sure if it's a major issue, but it looks like in the unit definition, the Sea Sparrow launchers are set to the bushmaster mount connectors, and the Sea Sparrows have connectors for 42 missiles spread across two launchers, while the RAMs have connectors for 22 missiles across two launchers. The Sea Sparrows should have 8 per, and the RAM launchers should have 21 per. Perhaps their definitions got swapped at some point?

I mean, if we want to throw the (v) shade, I generally wouldn't boast about being Master and Commander of the bouncy castle. The bug "driver" has transitioned from actually have to *gasp* fly the plane to being a passenger themselves. Oh sure, they gave them a stick to let them think they're in charge, but we both know the flight control computer is what's really making the decisions for where the monkey is and isn't permitted to go or do. I'm not even sure what one's supposed to do with all of the time savings, enough of the Hornet's systems are so automated I can't tell if MacD was afraid the computers would get offended, or if they thought the operator would get bored after anything more than three clicks. If they made it any less dangerous, they'd have to paint it day glow orange. Maybe I'm just salty because the least they could have done is put Tetris on one of the screens so I'd have something to kill time with while the jet was aviating and navigating for me.

These bugs are specific to the F-14. I'm merely guessing here, but I think the issue is the interface between HB's F-14 code and ED's missile code. The latter made a substantial update to the AIM-7 family back around New Years, adding more depth to how the seeker works, and how ECCM work, and I would guess that the aircraft is now responsible for supplying information to the missile about the state of the target its being shot at (telling it to loft, telling it to HOJ), and perhaps the F-14 isn't doing that right now. I'm mostly sure HB is aware of the issues, I certainly complain about it enough to them each patch. Based on past comments, I get the impression that their missile people are busy updating the AIM-54 code to take advantage of features ED developed for their AIM-120.

Unless the mission maker has specifically changed their behavior, AI equipped with jammers (and the Tu-22M has a jammer) will start jamming when locked with STT by default. The M will not guide on a target using a jammer because of an existing bug.

Which type of Sparrow, what was the target, and was the ACM switch up? The F and M can't engage targets with ECM. The MH currently won't track targets with ECM with the ACM guard up.

Having observed an Air Force and Navy flight crew try to communicate, I can say with immense amounts of effort and only minor displays of violence, they can almost understand each other. almost just don't mention 'oblique'

Bingo. When you get closer Jester gets closer he tries to make a VID using the TCS (or Mk1 Eyeball), and if there are multiple sides using the same aircraft, he gets confused about affiliation.