LetMePickThat

BETA 1.3 released. I reverted all SAM revetments to the Fixed Object category. Unfortunately, Ground Units aren't stackable, so that category can't be used for all props intended to raise other units. That means that these revetments can't be saved as part of a template. I had to pick the lesser of two evils, so I chose the one that maintains the basic function of elevated revetment: raising other units above ground level. All non-revetment objects are still declared as Ground Units, and therefore can be saved. This includes all HESCO barriers, fences, camo nets, etc. I am interested in your opinion though. Thanks, I'll give it a shot just to see what conflicts could arise.

Interesting. I am not using this mod myself, please provide me with a link and I'll see why that happens.

Yes, it's a problem caused by the new declaration of fortifications as ground u it's and not fixed objects. I'll release an update later on today. It's not supposed to be a Shilla revetment but a sandbag wall for infantry. As for the SA-10 radar, it's the same issue as the P-37, I know how to solve it.

Cheers.

They are now ground objects, this allows sites to be saved as templates and reused later in other missions/maps.

I'll try to find a way to add at least some props as ground units. As for the green camo, it's unlikely that someone could do it because we haven't got a paintkit per se, textures are baked in the model for now. However, if people keep asking for it, we'll consider a Caucasus version of the mod I think.

Thanks for keeping with us that long, and sorry for the delays... I'd like to avoid cluttering up the Ground Unit menu, even more so when we already have a ton of new units with the HDSM. I'll see what I can do about preset bases though. Maybe save them as static template and not regular template would do? Yeah, that's on me. Small coding error on the release build, I'll fix that in the upcoming hours. As a general rule however, the new radars are supposed to operate as EWR when used along Skynet IADS and/or MOOSE, not in standalone as the default EWR radars from ED. Not planned yet, first we want to expand the current set of units as well as adding new skins for the HDSM vehicles, so quite a lot of work in the pipeline already.

Hi all, ERO and I are proud to release the Beta version of the SAM Sites Asset Pack, or 2SAP. It is a simple, IC-compliant mod that adds some 3D props and radars to populate your SAM sites, FARP, or any base that you wish to build or improve. The mod was designed with the Syrian and Persian Gulf maps in mind. What the mod adds to the game: Various types of props, like: Protection berths for SAM battery elements, Raising berths for radar systems, Ammunition and command bunkers, HESCO barriers, in various shapes and sizes, A lot of fences, both with and without barbed wire, Different types of camo netting, which can be used to conceal vehicles or supplies, Sandbags walls, again in various shapes and sizes Various vehicles and pieces of equiment, like S-300 and S-75 reloads, spare bombs on trolleys, a forklift, mobile toilets, hedgehogs, a communication tower, container, FARP walls, ZSU sandbag protections, etc... On top of these 3D assets, four new Early Warning Radars are also incuded: The 1L119 "Nebo-SVU" radar, an early-2000 digital, VHF AESA design (a very deep modernisation of the 1L13 already included in DCS), The P-37 "Bar Lock", a 1950s-vintage 2D radar used by the Soviet Union and most Warsaw Pact countries, The 55Zh6U "Nebo-U", a modern, upgraded variant of the old 55Zh6 "Nebo" already incuded in DCS, A Generic Radar Tower, which can be used to mimic civilian radars in order to create a more realistic EW environnement. Limitations and bugs: Some models (including the HESCO tower) have mesh/collision boxes issues. Do not hesitate to report them so that we do not miss any. We are working on identified problems, and will update the mod accordingly. Download and installation: The mod can be downloaded at this link. It will be moved from Google Drive to Github in the near future, this thread will be updated accordingly. Once downloaded, extract to C:\Users\Username\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Mods\tech. All 3D props are labelled "ERO xxxxxxxx" in the Fortification category of the Ground Unit section, while the radars are labelled "EWR xxxxx" and are available in the Air Defense category. The S-300 SAM Pack is available here: LINK Versions: 26/06/2021: Beta 1.1 Initial release 27/06/2021: Beta 1.2 EWR radars fixed, they can now use the "EWR" task, and will report contacts and answer calls from players. Adjusted range and radar sensibility to better match real values. All units are now part of the Ground Unit category, in the Fortification sub-category. This means that groups made using these units can be saved as templates and reused later on in other locations (or even maps). Thanks to @=52d= Skipfor the suggestion. 28/06/2021: Beta 1.3 Implemented a workaround for the elevated revetment issue. All SAM revetments are now declared as Fixed Objects (a rollback from previous version). This means that they can now be stacked, and that other units can be placed on them without going through. This creates another problem: berths now can't be saved as part of a template. 18/07/2021: Beta 1.4 Fixed various issues Added various tents Added CA-compatible vehicles for testing purposes Added custom theme 28/07/2021: Beta 1.5 Added HARM codes for the various radars of the mod: 1L119 Nebo-SVU: same code as the 1L13 Nebo-SV (101) Generic EW Tower: same code as the 1L13 Nebo-SV (101) 55Zh6U Nebo-U: same code as the 55Zh6 Nebo (102) P-37 Saturn: same code as the 55Zh6 Nebo (102) 23/09/2021: Beta 1.7: Fixed an issue where some radars could not be used with the Skynet script, Fixed the GT.life value of all units to avoid the "spawn dead" problem, Added a few weapon carts with Soviet/Russian weapons. 15/12/2021: Beta 1.8: Fixed improper use of add_surface_unit(GT) that would cause duplication errors in DCS' log for various units. Added the following units: Armed: AAA ZU-23 Toyota armored technical AAA ZU-23 Toyota technical Unarmed: Toyota Camo Toyota Red Toyota Clown Toyota Desert Toyota Red 16/12/2021: Beta 1.8 Fix1: Corrected an entry.lua problem which prevented the use of the regular AAA technical. 16/12/2021: Beta 1.8 Fix2 Added mod documentation by @Rudel_chw (thanks !). 23/02/2022: Beta 1.9 Various bugfixes for the technicals 26/06/2022: Initial S-300 SAM Pack Beta 0.1 release 23/09/2022: S-300 SAM Pack Beta 0.2 release [LINK] Corrected typo in 5P85SU display name Corrected type in 5P85DE display name Corrected the 3D model of the Grave Stone Truck Corrected the issue preventing the 5V55RUD from displaying a 3D model Corrected the issue preventing the Mast-mounted Grave Stone (30N6) used on the SA-10B/S-300PS from working A site example: The new radars: Most 3D props:

Exactly. As multi-vehicles systems aren't player-controllable, that's not something that makes sense to do. I'm glad you tried it though, that's an interesting experiment.

That's interesting. We have done some testing here too with CA, but not with the Polyana D4M. We have no plans to make that specific vehicle driveable, although I'm still trying to get point defenses like the SA-22 player-controllable via CA. That's the latest version. I will push a few bugfixes and suggestions in the upcoming days, it will then be to Auranis to decide when to release a new version, and which changes will make it through.

I recieved my order today. Works as expected, if not better. Thanks @Deltaalphalima1, this is a great product. The installation instructions are also crystal clear, which is always a bonus.

For now it's just a truck. It is intended to be used as a local command node in Skynet.

The latest release of the mod should give you a lock warning. Which version are your running ?

That's usually not a problem, except at very long ranges. Check your private messages.

I'll send you a private message.

Yes, but this assumes that your RWR is detecting the (relatively narrow) missile datalink, even when superposed with the main radar "ping" (sorry, my technical english isn't on point), that would not be a given. I know, that's why I used quotation marks. I don't, that's kind of the point. While I have an idea of how they would fare against an old SA-10A/B, I have no clue about how it would perform versus, say, a 92H6E2 using automatic frequency hopping and pseudo-random pattern modulation. It's either a launch warning as soon as the missile leaves the tube, i.e while you're still hundreds of kiometers away, or no launch warning but a lock alert. Assume that if you get a lock warning, you're pretty much screwed. This plus the tac page on modern airframes (16C, 18C) should give you quite a good SA. Again, I'm not against restauring launch warning for the 300s, but I'd need to see sources substantiating the claim that an ALR-56M would indeed detect, at least in the vast majority of cases), a 48N6 launch. Also, while I can get behind the idea that the 30N6/92N6 design is inherently more prone to launch alerts because of the need to emit the guidance waveform using the main array, this doesn't hold when speaking of the SA-12/23, where dedicated antennas on the 9S32 are used for missile datalink with no impact on the main radar's emission pattern. Finally, I think you're a little optimistic if you think that a 10 seconds-before-impact (or so) launch alert once the 30N6 switches to endgame guidance would allow you to perform any maneuver short of punching out.

Well, there seems to be no consensus on that. I have found conflicting information about how RWRs issue a launch warning for SAM sites. According to you, the launch alert is issued because it switches to a "specific waveform for guidance". This, to me, is what triggers the lock warning, not the launch one, much like switching to STT on a fighter doesn't trigger a launch warning even though a engagement-quality track is obtained. One could imagine a hard-lock on a target by a Flap Lid without subsequent shot. Similarly, you can perfectly guide a round through mid-course using a TWS-like or another "soft" lock mode, only to actually lock the target for guidance at the end. I had some discussions with Chizh back in the days, and to ED the launch warning is triggered upon interception by the RWR of missile guidance datalink commands. On top of that, LPIRs make detecting changes in the scan pattern less likely, not to mention the fact that a change in the emission pattern could just mean the activation of LPI protocols, and not a lock/launch. At the moment, this is how DCS issues launch warnings, as far as I can tell. Additionnal bits of info can be found in the thesis "Detection and jamming of low protabilty of intercept (LPI) radars" written by Aytug Denk at the Naval Postgraduate School. Discussing LPIRs and TVM engagement (the case of the S-300P), he states that: "Unlike an active radar homing missile, the missile does not alert the target to the fact that it is homing in on it by illuminating it with radio waves. Typically, the target will be aware that it is being illuminated by the SAM radar, but it will not know for certain if it has been engaged. Modern phased-array radars, by virtue of their thin beams and low sidelobes make detection by the aircraft even more difficult. [...] Some receivers using conventional interception techniques can not efficiently detect and identify LPI radars. Mismatched waveforms used by LPI radar cause RWRs and conventional ES systems to detect the LPI radar at very short ranges, if at all. In these cases the RWR/ES system’s detection range is much shorter than the operational range of the LPI radar, providing a detection disadvantage for the RWR/ES systems and a lethal advantage for the radar versus a potential target platform. An increasing number of LPI radars are incorporated into integrated air defense systems (IADS) and modern platforms and weapons, such as anti-ship missiles, and littoral weapon systems. These LPI radars create a requirement for modern armed forces to develop new techniques, strategies, and equipment to counter them." Of course, if you have any sources about how RWRs deal with LPIRs, I'm super interested. There's also a gameplay component to it. DCS doesn't allow us to have a launch warning past the mid-guidance phase, the only options we have (for now, at least) are to either have a launch warning as soon as the missile leaves the tube, or no launch warning at all. The problerm is that for long-range missile with a three or four minutes-long flight, having a launch warning right off the bat makes defeating the system very easy. I have made various changes to the kinematics of the PMU2, V and VM rounds. The idea would be to test the new missiles at the edge of the engagement enveloppe and tell me if the results match what you're expecting.

That's how they work in the mod. You will get a lock warning, but no launch warning. Non-locked guidance isn't implemented though.

Hi @flag02004, I'm coming back to you about that range issue. Are you up for some testing of a custom version of the mod ?

You should get a lock warning, but no launch warning. This was reworked quite a few times so I'll need to check.

80/90% in single drop? Because the issue isn't really with single bomb attacks, the launch parameters are tricky to get right but this can be managed. The issue is more that because the launch parameters are quite restrictive, firing multiple JDAMs at multiple targets usually results in a large proportion of misses. Sure, I can drop one JDAM at a time, but at that point I'm better off using good ol' GBU-12s.

Yes, I'm usually using point track. I'm aware of the ground issue with area track, but this isn't the issue here.

Hi all, I'm having a hard time getting JDAMS (and L-JDAMS in non-laser guidance) on target reliably on target. I'm using a SPI designation using the TGP, then dropping in CCRP when in range. However, firing near the upper and lower bounds of the engagement range, the reliability of the bombs is really low, with impacts 20 meters or so meters away from the target. Fiddling with impact angle and azimuth doesn't seems to change that. Is there any trick I'm not aware of ? I found out that firing at roughly two third of the range give good results, but this means that ripple fire on multiple targets isn't doable...

OK, so here I was happens. The 5V55R in the mod is depicted as having a max kinematic range of 75km, and a max range for low altitude shots of 27km. This is more or less in line with what's known of the S-300PS system (note that what a low altitude launch is in DCS isn't clear the max range fot the . Now, this works for the S-300PS because the SA-10B is kinematically limited, not radar limited, meaning that the missile is the bottlneck in the system. This is seen by the fact that the LZ's max range is bound by target altitude. Here, the ratio between the max absolute range (75km) and max range at low altitude (25) is 3. The ratio we used for the 48N6 is lower than that, at 150/30=5. Same for the 48N6E2 (200/33=6). The problem this creates is that it makes the missiles highly dependant on target altitude for launch, as if the limit of the systems was the kinematics of the missiles themselves. This problem is compounded by the fact that both the 48N6 and 48N6E2 have a very high ceiling, meaning that the line from [max low alt range,min alt] to [max range, max alt] is very steep. Since the real S-300PMU1 and PMU2 are radar-limited and not missile-limited, the range limit for engagement against low targets is basically defined by radar horizon rather than missile performance. Instead of having maxrange/maxlowaltrange ratios of 5-6, they should be around 1 or 1.1, meaning that the target altitude at max range is less of an issue than maneuverability. I will try to implement these changes and see if it creates any unwanted effect.

Yes, they all detonated. Yes, further digging made is clear that there is a performance issue against non-maneuvering targets at long range. I think I know why. I'll make a experimental build, try it and report. That's not where the problem lies I reckon. Organic sensors on the 300s should allow for a max range shot. I think the problem has to do with the geometry of the allowed engagement window, defined by the maximum kinematic range, maximum launch range at low altitude and maximum interception altitude.