ACS_Dev

I think we may still be waiting on the option to mount single ATGMs on the dual racks as a weight-saving measure for low-risk flights. This was a very common practice in Afghanistan. In the same vein, the ability to mount the PKT instead of the Kord would be greatly appreciated.

A number of more qualified people have discussed the alleged inability of ED to fully realize this module, they make good points. I want to press a different angle, one that I feel I have a modicum of qualification to comment on. Let's suppose that ED does, in fact have the capability, willingness and stamina to accurately model this F-35. Let's suppose that it is actually realized, a full-fidelity, fully modeled and perfect aircraft dropped into the game. What the heck is it going to do here? This isn't about balance, I don't care about that. The F-35, in this game, would be a profoundly boring experience for those who want to use it for what it was designed. It is so profoundly powerful, high-tech and potent that I can't imagine I would find it very interesting in the environment of this game, or any game for that matter. Further, there is a massive gulf in what this game has vs what it needs to have for such a jet to even really exist. Let's discuss a theoretical sortie involving a 4 ship of Player F-35s vs a modern red SAM battery as an example. Realistically we are looking at more aircraft for CAP but let's ignore that. The pilots first plan and brief the mission, then walk out to the jets, inspect them and get in (none of which we can do) They start up the jet with the assistance of one or more crew chiefs (that we don't have) They communicate with Ground, C2 and probably tech support because 2010s and 4 F-35s (we don't have these things), also with each other (they actually don't, we still don't have working VOIP) They taxi and get armed up at EOR (we don't have this) They take off and check in (with C2 that we don't have) They get handed off to the main freq (I don't know 100% how it works but it is worth noting that our E-3 version is out of date, the ABM system is incorrect and the main freq doesn't exist) They probably tank (not possible to realistically do with our systems) They proceed on mission. The enemy probably can't see them, if they do it's with radars we don't have, maybe they do and send some 4th gens to intercept. Perhaps some modern Su-27, MiG-29 (no), J-20 (lol) or J-10s. We don't have any of these but even if we did they would all die, likely before seeing the F-35s. Said F-35s may use targeting data from the modern E-3 we don't have in order to launch the proper AMRAAMs we don't have via datalink. The enemy aircraft aren't even warned of the launch. This is one of the major points. It's not just about what is in the game but what exists in real life in the first place. The F-35 is just so good it's boring. Nobody is making it to WVR, the nerfed C-3 we have has nothing on a proper D-X. They reach the SAMs they need to take out. They could jam the radars we don't have using EW methods that aren't modeled but instead they just fly about 15 miles out and drop SDBs that the enemy can't intercept. Perhaps they have some GBU-12s that need to be disposed of so they just cruise in at 15k and drop them on the operator's foreheads. Second point. The best SAM we have right now is the S-300PS and its modeling is tremendously simplified. A system possibly older than the pilots attacking it. ED has a track record of adding 'new' SAMs at an absolutely glacial pace and nothing we have right now would be a significant threat to a proper F-16C Bl.50, much less a 5th gen. What system could ED possibly add that would be kosher for their employees to model and have a chance against an F-35? Are you suggesting that between now and the F-35 release, ED will not only make leaps and bounds in SAM system modeling but also introduce several new systems that have been requested for years with no shown interest from you? IIRC ED hasn't even developed a single TVM system yet! They fly back, maybe they are chased but probably not. If they are, it's a repeat of the previous scenario. They contact the Ops we don't have, do the code call that we can't, go through the ATC ladder that we don't have, land at the airfield, de-arm with the non-existant EOR crew and then debark and go to the debriefing room we don't have. Repeat for a couple days and the enemy, any one, is crushed. Does that really sound that interesting? Even if we are to believe that you will be able to safely and correctly model the F-35 (when you can't even seem to add failures, proper AMRAAMs, correct 3D models or finished systems to your representation of the most common fixed-wing military aircraft in existence), make tremendous gains in gamewide systems modeling and do everything else that's needed, where's the fun in it? The aircraft wasn't designed to be a challenge, it wasn't made to have difficult mission scenarios. Are we just supposed to have the enemies in our scenarios send mobs of comparatively obsolete 4th gen aircraft at it? Sure, it would be fun to fly around I suppose, but beyond that, nothing we have in real life and certainly nothing in-game besides other F-35s would be able to make taking one on a combat sortie interesting. I get the argument that this takes resources from core improvements, I know that you can't just ask developer in specialty x to work in area y. That being said, I believe that the resources being allocated for the F-35 project probably could have been better used with a different aircraft, of which there are many options I would recommend. Given your lowered bar for fidelity, wouldn't it make more sense to develop more modern variants of existing modules, for example an F-16C from 2015? Perhaps a more modern F-15C? Maybe you could even finish the current modules? This venture just doesn't make sense to me.

They would have to model a more advanced variant than a hamstrung AIM-120C-3 (the most modern AMRAAM we have) first.

Thanks for the info!

I saw this and was curious what it meant for people who use the HARM in DCS so I got the files and have posted them here for others to see. I don't fully understand the methodology of what every term means so there will be some interpretation, but the raw numbers are here. First, some terms: "Boost" is the boost phase, occurring at or soon after launch. "March" is the second propulsion stage, occurring after the boost phase has completed. "Fuel_Mass" is the fuel mass. I don't understand why it matters other than possibly changes to the weight of the missile in flight, if modeled. "Controller" houses the data on when after launch each stage occurs. In this case, it would appear that the boost phase starts immediately and the march phase originally started at 1 second post-launch but now starts 3.4 seconds post-launch. Red denotes old values, yellow new ones. "Impulse" is the strength of the propulsion. I am not a rocket scientist and can't claim to know more but I believe that it correlates with "work_time" to total the overall propulsion strength of the motor, something I get by multiplying the two values. It's a messy estimate but it makes sense to me and matches up with my testing. "work_time" is the duration of the motor burn. With the terms out of the way, I did some math: The old missile had 25.5 units (presumably kilos) of fuel in the boost phase. The new one had 70. For the sustain ("march") phase, the old one had 101.5 and the new one 57. These two values are equal at 127 units of fuel. No change there. The old missile had a boost phase duration of 1 second, while the new one lasts 3.4. The old missile's sustain phase lasted 20.4 seconds while the new one lasts 12.5. This is in an overall reduction of propulsion time from 21.4 seconds to 15.9 seconds, or more than 25% . The old missile and new missile share the same boost phase impulse of 235 while they differ in the sustain phase strength at 226 and 206 units respectively. Multiplying these values by the amount of time their respective motors burn for yields totals of 235/799 and 4610.4/2575 units respectively. Adding the two totals up gets 4845.5/3374 units respectively. This is an overall reduction in 'propulsion units' by 1471.5, or more than 30%. Screenshots and the original files are below. AGM_88_October_Patch.lua AGM_88_September_Patch.lua Thanks for reading.

Планируется ли добавить возможность нести по одной ракете на пилоне, как это было особенно распространено в Афганистане?

I can't understand russian and likely never will, so I was using translate here as well. I asked the question based on this comment, referring to the S-300V returning to LOMAC. I could preach to the choir on this for hours. In a recent update eagle dynamics added the SM-6 to the game files, a SAM from 2013. This is beyond the timeframe of any of our existing modules yet they add it anyway. Meanwhile the most modern S-300 we have is more than 30 years older. I'll just leave it at that.

Unfortunately unlikely at this time.

I have linked the files, there is no boost phase, instead it has a slightly lengthened sustain (marsh) phase. A sustain phase is still propulsion, just not meant to make the missile increase velocity as much as the boost phase.

We aren't that deep in the weeds yet. As it stands the AIM-120C in DCS does not have a boost phase at all. The weapons file I referenced states that the AIM-120 has a boost phase for initial propulsion and then a sustain phase for maintaining energy. The AIM-120B in DCS has this but the C gets rid of it completely. We have an official Distribution A government document stating that this is wrong. As it stands, who in their right mind would approve an "upgrade" that makes the main missile for their air force both weaker and heavier? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Hello, This request was brought up in a previous thread that has since been deleted for some reason. We should have the ability to take missile racks that only have 1 of 2 missile rails occupied. This is nice for low intensity conflicts and was probably the most common configuration seen during the Mi-24's actual combat history until recently. In the original thread I spent several hours compiling well over a dozen pictures from a variety of conflicts spanning almost the entirety of the Mi-24P's service history, in particular the Soviet-Afghan war, in which 2 rocket pods and 2 ATGMs were a staple loadout. I am extremely confident that it is a realistic option, if not the default option. Now we have Afghanistan, home to the Mi-24P in Soviet use. We have the missiles and the rockets but we are forced to either fly with asymmetric loadouts or waste precious weight on more ATGMs than we need in an unrealistic manner. Please allow us to take racks with only one ATGM on them. Image Source: "Mil Mi-24 Hind Attack Helicopter" by Yefim Gordon and Dimitry Komissarov

Well they are modeling them nonetheless, as such these things should still be at least attempted. This is not the place for such a debate.

I did find one source confirming this: ATP 1-02.1 (Distribution A). It includes two relevant brevity terms: "CHEAPSHOT: Active missile data link terminated between high and medium pulse repetition frequency (MPRF) active." "PITBULL: Active radar guided missile (e.g., air intercept missile [AIM]-120) is at MPRF active range." So yes, the AIM-120 should have both. If you have any other uncontrolled and credible sources, I would greatly appreciate a link.

This is the exact problem. I don't think you should be requesting things when you know your only source is controlled.

So what leads you to believe that the AIM-120 should have MPRF and HPRF?