Temetre

edit: See post below, found the problem. DCS weapon naming wasnt quite intuitive^^ Small question, I dont quite understand how the damage works, so idk if normal or bug: The AGM-154C behaviour seems basically unchanged by this script. Ive hit one basically 3 feet besides a T72 and it did 90% damage, as well as no damage to other close targets. That seems weak, considering they have a multi-purpose 500lb warhead? (or maybe multiple warheads, idk) Theyre in the list as "["AGM_154C"] = 305,". Idk how that number interacts with game mechanics, but it looks high enough to do more damage^^ Thing is also, ground combat, tank movement and AI in DCS is also extremely rundamentary. I dont really see why we need to wait years for some advanced fragmentation system? Not like I dont want a great weapon damage system, but why we cant have a basic, but ore functional system in the meantime? Especially when currently a lot of weapons are near useless because of the lack of AoE damage. Both compared to other weapons and reality. Like 2000 pound bombs are almost comical how weak they are.

I mean yeah im not saying the pod is unrealistic, but rather the idea that we would only use the LANTIRN in scenarios for the F16^^ The post felt like it said "its sad people want capabilities over realism" or so? Yeah I was concerned reading at first reading about the news, but ED actually turned that into a positive thing by apparently making the Sniper higher priority then. Great move! Frankly I didnt even knew that the Sniper Pod was coming, or that its actually gonna be a pod more modern than Litening/ATFLIR. And LANTIRN will be fun for more histroical scenarios im sure.

Yeah probably makes sense if it doesnt hold that long

I mean, as long as the symbol is indicating that its interpolating, then its not too bad necessarily? Gotta be aware what this means and what it doesnt^^ Looked at the manual, the only mention I found was specifically under the Aim 7 radar tracking:

Oh I see now, thats really strange! Gotta look into this myself.

Wow really? Shows how little I know lol, I was just using TWS how it works so well. Been learning the F-16 for a bit, now im motivated to dive a bit deeper into the hornet again!

Fair, maybe what Ive heard was specifically for when you already got hostiles identified or so. Gotta look up the F-18 stuff again, been a while.

I think that means the F-18 has locked the Datalink target, which is being tracked by other radars? The 18 can do some nifty tricks with networking, but im not too familiar with it yet. Additinally, when the F-18 loses a target, it can extrapolate the expected target position and try to keep track and reacquire it that way. Whatever it was, I think the jump at 1:40 was when your radar got the target back.

Wow, thats such a useful feature and I never knew about it! Thx Maybe I misremember, but I vaguely remember people saying the F18 was basically always kept in TWS mode, as long as there wasnt a need to scan a large area? Like the F-18 radar suite was built around TWS, unlike the F-16.

I dont think anyone is saying "I dont want a LANTIRN ED, stop the development". Having choice between Lantirn/Sniper will add a lot to the plane, im sure. The problem is that the DCS F-16 is sold with the prospect of simulating a modern fighter, and being limited to the ancient LANTIRN would clearly go against that idea and significantly limit the aircrafts capabilities. It shouldnt be surprising if people were disappointed about the removal of core features, especially when the plane is sold with it. Additionally, if I see it correctly, people in this thread argued that in 2007, no F-16 would even use a LANTIRN in actual combat scenarios? In that case its not even realistic.

Thanks to ED then, that is a reasonable way of doing things. I get the logic, but it wouldve hurt a lot to lose so much functionality until the Sniper XR comes back. And a "fake" litening pod is probably still more true to how an F-16 in 2007 operated in combat, rather than being limited to the ancient Lantirn. An F-16 flying combat missions in 2007 being limited to a LANTIRN seems to be the unrealistic thing, if all the references towards F-16s with Litenings are to be believed. Especially with the focus on target identification in that era, its frankly a silly prospect to rely on pods without any TV capability. Like, youre not even argueing for realism, youre just glorifying unrealistic limitations. And the Sniper XR was literally used on the F-16, so youre even argueing against real equipment?

Absolutely, the delay must be rough to work with. Even the active IR-control of a SLAM-ER is pretty hard to do. That said, a 2000lb warhead doesnt need to be a direct hit I imagine, assuming the correct damage model.^^ And with the aiming thats why Im also curious about wikipedia mentioning that it can also IR-home though, with an alternative sensor-head. Im curious if its like the SLAM-ER, where you use GPS to get it to a position, but then you can chose or make it find its own target. Yeh, in reality theres also a constant evolving tactics. In Desert Storm or Iraq War, SAMs just got erradicated or intimidated into inactivity. During the Kosovo war, the air defenses never got fully disabled, though they also couldnt stop the bombing campaign. But that also made NATO update their tactics and weapon systems afterwards. To some degree DCS just cant simulate that kind of dynamic environment and adaptation. It actually makes kinda sense that SAMs in DCS are easy to destroy, because once you figure out an effective way to destroy them, the AI cant change their tactics. Then again, Ive played a bit of liberation, and theres an IADS script, which is quite impressive, but I found that sometimes its a bit too perfect. Like, at times it seemed to make every single AA system act as if they are perfectly networked and coordinated, like theres never any mistake. That said, I really hope ED really does a rework on how easy/hard missiles and bombs are to shoot down. I can well imagine that its nearly impossible to shoot down lobbed GPS guided munitions aka our beloved CBU-105s, but as you say the AGM-154s are often flying low and ~450 knots, theyre probably also quite difficult to hit. Or even Mavericks, they are also quick and small, and only got a short boost phase, so Id expect them to be tricker to hit than a bigger HARM, which you can see coming on a ballistic trajectory from 40 miles away. Tho same with planes/helis really, the CIWS anti-air capabilities of DCS' BMPs are the stuff of legends. Or that one AK guy who 360 noscopes your pilot on 2km distance^^

To be clear I have no clue about that missiles, Ive just read wikipedia. Sounds like there they say weapon is modular and can have different types of seekers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-130 The AGM-15 page also mentions under guidance: IR homing I supposed would be what the AGM-65 does? No clue if the F-15E gets both sensors or so tho. But I definitely learned that this is a much more hefty bomb than a Maverick, less of a precision tank killer or so. Closer to a SLAM-ER or 2000lb JDAM. According to Wikipedia the SLAM-ER only has an ~800 LB warhead. I suppose with the Splash Damage script (or ED finally improving fragmentation dynamics) the 15/130 could be pretty devastating. I can see the utility in SEAD, though ofc as everyone playing DCS knows, guided missiles (even if burned out) get shot down with 100% accuracy by SAM, while unguided bombs are literally invisible. (except the AGM-154, but hey, its the US' fault they called it an AGM) So I supposed the GBU-15 could be a nice SEAD weapon :^)

Thx, mustve been wrong about the CFT mounted Mavericks, probably was a different missile. Guess like were stuck with the AGM-65 and its 70s quirks. So the 15/130 are basically like the SLAM-ER with datalink pod? I can see how that would work, and how you had fairly little reaction time to set theright target^^' The GBU-39 being lased makes sense for longer range shots. I think itll be still way easier to use than LGBs when used vs armored vehicles and lasing yourself.

Ah good to hear its stabilized to the actual horizon, thought i was crazy thinking about how I used the F16/18 radar. How much of a PITA it would be to scan a certain altitude if any pitch change would modify the altitude you might scan at 50 miles distance. Non-stabilized radar usage is more a thing during ACM or so. Pitch/Roll stab is gonna be on the F-4E Phantom, I imagine? Considering its a BVR radar after all.

Btw, reading up, F-15Cs could mount conformal fuel tanks as well, couldnt they? It only is an universal practice with the F-15E, but its apparently a similar or the same system. Was a bit surprising to learn after people talked like that was such a massive difference. Tbf maybe thats because theres really not that many differences. Most relevant C->E upgrade seemes to be more modern avionics.

So im not too familiar with the F-15E, but curious about its weapons, especially: What weapons can replace the AGM-65 on the F-15E? Would love if someone could help me with that. Because sure, the Maverick is amazing when it works, and one of the very few tools to hit moving targets without the complexity and risk of LGB-drops, but its also a giant PITA to use on F16 sometimes. Its such a powerful yet outdated tool it just screams for a replacement. And apparently theres stuff like Brimstones flying around, which sound pretty insane with their sensors and automatic targeting. So just going through what I see on that list, please tell if i miss something: 1. I guess AGM-15 and AGM-130 will be able to be directly controlled, or track moving targets via IR? Will they be as complicated as Mavericks and require boresighting? Also, if especially the AGM-130 has such a huge range, how does its IR imager work? Does it select its own target in the serach area? I know the british Brimstone does this, but thats much more modern. 2. GBU-39 small diameter bomb. Apparently the /b can be targeted with laser, not just GPS? I wonder if its gonna be like a slightly standoff LGBs, considering the JSOW also has a huge range and keeps speed quite well. Idk about limited laser range tho, IIRC it was like 8 miles? 3. The IR-tracking JSOW 154-C-1 seems just a navy thing, shame, but any chance on getting the equivalent of the GBU-53/Stormbreaker? Apparently thats an IR-tracking variant of the GBU-39? 2020 introduction I think, so quite late, but doesnt hurt to ask. ^^ 4. Im curious about the AGM-65 mounting. Ive seen pictures with Mavericks mounted to the CFTs, but the list just mentioned tripple-racks under wing pylons? Now Mavericks are annoying to use, but 12x Maverick would be kinda interesting nontheless.

I noticed the same with the S-11 TELAR launcher. Very difficult to see, despite them being clearly active, considering they shot at me with the search radar destroyed.

^ Neat, we got a pretty clear picture now. 120C is either pitbull or otherwise only controlled by the aircrafts FCR pre-launch, and the 120D is where the missile becomes more autonomous/datalink-active or so. Mostly ive learned that the Aim-120D is awesome and I want it Especially because the F-16 radar can be a bit of a malaise in the after. (though maybe im just bad or ECM is weird/bugged)

In that case I probably just confused a few things, maybe with the SLAM-ER or so.

@Kalasnkova74 Thank you for the writeup, its always fun to read stories like that! With fighter planes and their gear, many people will just throw around claims that get taken on face value, but the reality is often so much more complicated than that. Doubly so when even the politics inside and outside of the military affect decisions in a sometimes nonsensical way. The Aim-4 history certainly reads like a story from a time when even militaries sometimes didnt understood missiles, as long as they werent directly connected with the projects. Especially the Sidewinder is a fun story though. An actual underdog, yet to become so much more. So good it even created a proud tradition of soviet heatseeking A2A-missiles (dang it xD).

I think the F-15E can carry 8x Aim-120, then 4x GBU-39 (small diameter bomb?) under each wing, and then something on the central pylon? I wonder how the GBU-39 will work though, I read somewhere the under wing pylons arent wired for JDAM and guided ammo. So maybe limited to laser guided or pre-programmed?

And thats of course correct. I wasnt convinced about no swiveling pylons, so I doublechecked. But then got confused because there are pictures of so many different wing configurations. Everything from 2-8 pylons. Specifically what mislead me was reading "the outermost pylons cant rotate", which Ive seen a few times besides pictures with 4 total pylons. But in reality its of course 2 rotating pylons PER wing, which is clearly a ton without the internal bay. Probably doesnt even need more than 2 pylons on normal missions, considering the 6x MK-82 mounts seem quite popular. I know this is probably nonsensical for anything realistic, but I cant deny this looks kinda fun: http://www.adf-serials.com.au/gallery3/var/albums/F111/F-111-A8-146/F_111_with_48_Mk82_bombs.jpg Could they actually carry that many bombs in a worst case scenario? Kinda like how the 6x Maverick of the F-16 is a worst case scenario loadout.

That actually made me do a double check, because that would be such a critical design flaw. The entire concept of the plane is a) carry a lot of bombs and b) sweep wings for best performance. The Tornado has swiveling Pylons that change direction with the wing sweep. For the F-111, apparently the outer pylons dont swivel, so they can only be used in one static wing position. That seems like a pretty big limitation to its payload, only 2 pylons if you want wing sweeping? Fun fact, the F-14 got around this problem by mounting its payload on the fuselage and shoulders in front of the moving wings. Had the problem that the "moving wing" was only a fraction of the planes lift area, however. edit: So F-111 can carry 12x 500 pd bombs on the inner pylons. Then 12x more on the outer ones; apparently it can drop the outer pylons after expending the bombs, and start sweeping the wing? I guess its not that bad if you are reliant on unguided weapons anyway, which seem to require less clearance usually, but still a big limitation. Swept wing was still a big challenge to do right I suppose.

Aight, then my bad, looks like I misunderstood you. What threw me off was the "diverges from reality", which sounded like you were asking to have absolute realism. If you just ment the problem should be at least vaguely simulated (and configurable) to acchieve realism in an area thats been ignore till now, then thats totally reasonable indeed. Does indeed fit together with the logistics factor you mentioned.