Dragon1-1

OK, so the stars aligned, Phantoms shacked the SA-6 radar (but not SA-2, thankfully I was so low it was no factor), and I managed to dodge the SHORAD. Big bang, got told to RTB. Wingman got shot down delaying the MiGs. Landed back at base, the mission did not proceed. So that's another bug to be checked. Rockets only works best on this one, BTW, particularly with pods set to ripple. They're draggy, but you can go fast, and the pods empty in a handful of shots. I did have a few rockets left (the ripple setting seems bugged, IIRC it should empty the pod with one trigger press), see if that could be a factor.

For what it's worth, that is unrealistic. With the basket, once you're in, you may rip off the probe, or the basket, but displacing outside some arbitrary box the sim wants you to stay in won't cause the basket to suddenly phase through the probe and return to its extended position. You can disconnect if you end up too far back, but not from getting too far forward, and to the sides, it depends on how much hose you've got left. If you slide forward and sideways, then as long as the probe doesn't snap off, you should be able to return and resume tanking. The crew can cut the fuel flow off if you're out of the box, but they don't have a whole lot of control over the basket.

I'm not struggling with navigation, I'm just annoyed by the constant "we're off course!" reminders, whenever I deviate from the line. They seem to trigger whenever I'm not exactly on the line between two waypoints, which is unreasonable to expect when flying VFR. The only way to fly to follow waypoints that tightly is using an INS. In the F-5, you may be following a river, or simply turning a bit sharper or less sharp when you overfly a turn point, leading to you being a bit offset, but otherwise flying a proper course. Also, you need to get fairly close to waypoint for triggers to fire. Save for the callouts, navigation is not too bad on this mission, but it just feels like it was made for a plane with INS. It is capable of carrying both, sure, but it's not very realistic for it to be doing so. The loadout should be set up according to what's the best tool to complete the mission, and the mission set up according to the intended loadout. That's how every other DCS campaign does this. Also, consider that with rockets and bombs, you can't really get up to 400kts (minimum speed at which bombing tables start) without afterburner. Using afterburner in presence of IR SAMs is a bad idea. While the loadout can be altered (and that's what I'm doing to make those missions play somewhat better), most people won't do that because in nearly every other campaign, doing that will break triggers.

Yet another luck-based mission. The Phantoms circle uselessly over the airbase, sometimes they kill or distract the SAMs, sometimes they don't. I would expect them to clean up the SAMs with Mavs and then help with SHORAD on the airfield. They don't even seem particularly eager to fight the MiGs. I hit the cargo planes with rockets (taking bombs on this one is just dumb), but the secondaries didn't seem to trigger. This campaign needs a review, and not just due to scripting bugs, but due to bad mission design. In particular, the default loadout for all air to ground missions is very bad, but not only does the mission dialogue imply that's what we're supposed to fly with (either way, relying on changing loadouts in planner is not the right way to build a mission), the objectives and triggers seem to be based on that. Repetitive (and unrealistic) radio messages with "navigation help" do not make it better, and neither does navigating by arbitrary "waypoints" along an arbitrary route. It's as if the missions were meant to rely on the F10 map. In reality, such a mission would've been flown by referencing landmarks (such as rivers and towns), which are plentiful in the area.

The RIO evidently had more guts than Jester does... He actually stayed in the plane.

Keep in mind that the Pave Spike was a bit of a crock IRL. At least we have the updated software version which doesn't hopelessly lock the pod up when you fat finger your switchology. The original version would go into "idiot mode" and stop responding to commands if it wasn't operated exactly right.

Are both you cranking after launch? Also, what's the bandit doing? Carroll could be referring to some scenario that they practiced, and this would not necessarily mean the aircraft are flying straight ahead at each other. The standard procedure after launching AIM-54s is to crank, considerably reducing closure. Speeds and altitudes also matter, the Phoenix works best up high, and if you're supersonic when launching it, you'll give it a boost. Honestly, I'm not sure if talking about ranges like that even makes sense. He might have had some canned scenario to work with (try Speed and Angels campaign, could even be the one Reflected reproduced there), but in combat, BVR timelines will vary based on a number of factors. You could possibly make your first launch at 100NM in some situations, though it'd likely be more of a posturing shot than something you'll expect to hit.

Latest version (literally flown a few days ago), the AI F-5E detects and reports targets at 45nm. Not only is it far beyond the capability of the F-5's radar to see a MiG-21 sided target, the range scale doesn't even go past 40nm.

I don't think PTID changes the trapping technique. Two spoiler versus four spoiler DLC would be more relevant, but the theory behind it is the same, all indications assume you have the jet set up in full landing configuration, and if you don't, they will be off. So even if you never touch the DLC wheel, you want to have it extended. Either A or B NATOPS can explain that in detail.

I do hope we get it for DCS someday. I've seen WIPs from two different devs, one even showed the wing sweep at one point, but no official announcements.

You know, where was this one movie where they had F-5s do that a time or two... Yeah, real tactic, and it would confuse TWS. If AWACS or other assets could watch them take off and form up, it'd be less of a surprise, but it would have been an issue.

That's where you're wrong. In RWS, the computer does minimal processing on the signal before sending it to the DDD. That you can see multiple hits doesn't mean that a 70s computer can. Basically, the computer needs some tolerance around a hit to make sure it jumping around due to radar's inaccuracy doesn't cause another track to be created. If multiple hits are within this "tolerance box", the computer will classify them as a single track. Engaging up to six targets with Phoenixes is possible... just not when they're far away and in a tight formation. You seem to think a computer must be better at reading the radar picture than a human. This may be true today, but it definitely wasn't in the 70s. Even something that looks obvious to you may not be so to the computer. If that was not the case, there would be no reason to have RWS mode.

Watch again. Which of the planes did you see flying there for a brief moment? TG might not be big on publicity, but they're working on it. While the Wags' usual line wasn't said, the idea is there.

Did you watch the release video for Cold War Germany?

I'd also suggest you reconsider using rockets on the F-5, and especially loading them together with 5xMk82. This loadout was not used IRL and there's a good reason for that. While the F-5 can fly like this, it struggles to get up to 400kts where the bombing profiles start. This is part of why all the strike missions in the campaign aren't nearly as fun to fly as they should be. I now tried with a 5xCBU loadout, and it flies much better that way, though I have yet to figure a good attack profile that still keeps me out of the flak. In general, instead of the arcadey "haul as many individual munitions as possible" mindset, try to consider what weapons would a real air force would employ for a given sortie, and then adjust the damage expectations accordingly. CBUs are now usable, but for a lone pair of F-5s, they can't really punch a whole lot of big holes, especially if they want to live. For the same reason, the guns are generally not worth considering in a high threat environment. Another thing you should consider is flare-only CM loadout on every mission that doesn't deal with radar threats. This is an example of what a proper QC pass should do, on every mission. There are many more improvements like this that could be made, for most missions.

In general, this is another mission with a randomness problem, too many factors piled onto the player at once. Oh, and either make the FAC immortal or make him fly a little further, he sometimes soaks up SAMs and gets shot down. Oh, and it's a second mission in which a "waypoint" (you really should have been using either landmarks or TACAN fixes in all mission, this isn't the Hornet) is placed right on Pshana, which is lousy with flak. Overflying it gets you shot at unless you've at 8K or so. At least enemies there are marked on the briefing map, but that same map implies it's meant to be overflown, which is a dumb thing to do.

All that means is that you can use DLC more extensively, not that you should, nor that you have to. If you fly a good pattern in first place, you shouldn't need it much, because all you'll do will be tiny corrections with the stick and throttle to stay on the ball. So not a "full time job on the DLC". If you're banging it around through the approach, there's something wrong with your technique. The goal, in the carrier approach, is to end up on speed, with the correct rate of descent, and on the correct glideslope. The DLC can help you with the latter, if you've already got the former two down. Basically, you're on the donut with a steady ball, but it's steady too high or too low. DLC can help you slide it up or down without affecting the other parts of the alignment, but again, fly a good pattern and you'll have it steady right where you wanted it in first place. It's there to help you with the burble or perhaps fix small mistakes, not as a crutch for bad technique.

He explicitly said so, the only phase of the approach where you might use the DLC is a high ball close. If there's no high ball, you don't touch the DLC other than to turn it on. It was Victory's in notes on landing the Tomcat. He took it down pending FM changes, but I've got an old version. He told it the way he did it. All corrections are done with stick and throttle, except for one, and even that shouldn't happen if you're flying the ball correctly. If you don't mess up earlier in the pattern, slow reacting engines won't bother you.

This is another mission that doesn't play well in the current version. Running in from the back works (so say this in the briefing!), but rockets are random by nature, and Colt flight doesn't seem to do much against the MiGs. The wingman just gets shot down, but then, AI can't really do high speed low level attacks that are the only way of surviving a run here. Either way, the way DCS calculates damage, 50% on a convoy this big seems excessive. As it stands, you get two passes max before the MiGs get you. If it wasn't for that, it'd still have been a painstaking effort of picking off all gun trucks with rockets or cannons. Also the Strela-10 is not "MANPADS". It's a light IR SAM that's somewhat more capable than your average shoulder launched missile. Not by much, considering the Igla that we have is anachronistic, but it's something that would have been good to know. Also they do have onboard reloads, I saw them shoot at least three times each, though there's a delay after two launches (the crew has to pull out the spare missiles out of the trunk and load them).

It should be engaged for carrier ops, because of the aforementioned hook-eye distance thing, if you leave it off, it'll not be in proper landing configuration. You do not have to use it. As in, the advice I saw about it is (from a real pilot) "if you are high in close, bang twice on the DLC". Nothing more. Stick and throttle, sure, rudder in turns, to stay coordinated, but you should not need the DLC most of the time.

You don't need to use the DLC to trap. It's perfectly possible, and in fact recommended, to land using just the throttle. DLC makes it easier by giving you an option to raise or lower your aircraft without adjusting its attitude. The airbrake is needed because the F-14 has such low drag that without it, it'd come in way too shallow. You do not use it to control the jet.

You could always try to get added to SecDef's Signal channel to get more accurate information...

I'd rather have the Mary-2 airbase, so that we could get a Soviet Top Gun campaign. It would be a perfect spot for the upcoming MiG-29.

All of those things contribute. The problem is sheer difficulty and randomness of the mission. The R-60M turns the Su-25 into something that can put up a fight against the F-5 down low, and they outnumber your flight two to one. The Igla bushwacks you and your wingmen when you least expect it, and it's hard to avoid overflying that particular patch of ground when trying to stay on top in the dogfight. It's also smack-dab in the middle of the area when the merge happens, and it's hard to see that there's anything in that area until they start shooting. AI Phantoms also get mixed in with the MiGs too close to the big SAMs, which proceed to take potshots at them, making their fight with MiGs take a long time, sometimes allowing the MiGs to win. Either of those elements individually would have made the outwardly simple task at the heart of the mission difficult (even with the old R-60 the Su-25 is no easy target), but would not have been too bad on its own. Together, they make it extremely frustrating and luck-based. If you're lucky, the AI can clean the area almost on its own. If you're not, Su-25s will kill your wingmen and mob you, or one of them will drag you over the Igla. As it's impossible to control who the AIs will attack, it more often than not devolves into a furball, and the R-60M makes extending from a Su-25 armed with them a risky proposition. QC should focus on the general playability of the missions. Ideally, the player would get in the briefing all the information needed to accomplish the mission, it should require neither trial and error nor luck, just good tactics. Also, a good idea would be to have SAM FCRs shut down, and only waking up when the player gets close. That would preserve the SAM threat and their area denial role, while not interfering with AI that might wander into its WEZ. In this mission in particular, the Phantoms come in very fast, making the SAMs think they have a shot, which is thrashed the moment the AI starts maneuvering and loses speed, but this disrupts their formation. It would also be realistic, an FCR wouldn't be turned without the EWR tracking anything that could be engaged.

If something in the cockpit wears out long before the rest of the panel, and there's no good way to fix it without outright replacement, then it's a design issue.