Bananabrai

Thanks. That actually helped a lot and is very interessting. Although things seem to be bit inconsistent, maybe in terms of the real Navys planning. Example: I was looking at 1988/89 The page for the CVN-71 says it was deployed to the Mediterranean with CVW-8. Itself consists of the listed sqadrons: VFA-15 Strike Fighter Squadron 15 “Valions” VFA-31 Strike Fighter Squadron 31 “Tomcatters” VFA-87 Strike Fighter Squadron 87 “Golden Warriors” VFA-213 Strike Fighter Squadron 213 “Black Lions” VAW-124 Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 124 “Bear Aces” VAQ-141 Electronic Attack Squadron 141 “Shadowhawks” VRC-40 Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 40 “Rawhides” HSC-9 Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 9 “Tridents” HSM-70 Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 70 “Spartans” But one photo of 1988 shows the Jolly Rogers abord. Are the squadrons also switching? I guess I have to find the historical CVW-8 composition then. Anyway, still very helpful

Hi guys, a brief question. Is there no such thing as 'Visual Operation Charts' in the US? In the Caucasus it is very similar to what we have in Germany. See Kutaisi for example: https://www.openflightschool.de/mod/book/view.php?id=625&chapterid=482 And my homeplate in Germany: https://www.rocketroute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/DFSAD2EDJAMEMMINGEN1-551x780.png Notice that the outline of the CTR is marked as well as ENTRY and EXIT points. We are flying the YaK-52 and Helos out of Creech and struggle to get a common flow without such aids. Any idea how the real helos approach Creech visually? Do they just get a talk on?

I will look for it. To the topic of 'why': Thanks for the info, I knew the reason. The jets were on the pad with full external tanks. I will try and do some tests for consistency inside an all new mission.

Hi all I am looking for the guys out here, that know the US Navy fleet deployments and the squadrons aboard for several periods. Personally I don't like it when very illogical things are happening or units are around, that wouldn't have been around, even though I like it when conflicts go into a hypothetical direction. At the moment I am thinking about scenarios on the Syria map. Of course, multiple come to mind. But for now I am mostly interested in 3 periods of time. 1984-1990 - War of the camps (which followed the 1982 (1st) Lebanon war): A fictional scenario in which the NATO tries to 'liberate' Lebanon of Syrian influence. 2001 - As power shifts from Senior al-Assad to Junior al-Assad: A fictional NATO involvement after aggressive actions by the new leader. 2011 - Syria civil war: NATO gets involved (/wants to get) from the beginning. Please do no not discuss about the topics, I don't want to have a political discussion here. I simply wanted to build something else than a complete historical correct conflict with the also correct outcome. I use DCS as the sandbox that it is and want to flex things a little bit, I know, this means getting into alternate history,... So my question is: What US Navy vessels (out of the ones we have in DCS) could/would be involved for the different times? Which would be the most realistic ones at least? And which squadrons were on those vessels at the times? Unfortunately we don't have different models/skins for the Tarawa-class, but I found out that the LHA-2 Saipan and LHA-4 Nassau were deployed to the Mediterranean frequently. For the Super carriers, I think the CVN-72 A. Lincoln and the CVN-75 H. S. Truman (although that one is not old enough for the first period) were also kind of deployed to the Mediterranean frequently. The information could also suit Caucasus scenarios, so I think it would be very helpful for mission builders in general. I think the time period is difficult in general, as the US deployed a ton in the Gulf region from the early 1990s onward. So Wikipedia is not very helpful.

I think what we need is a ArmA style four coalition setup. If I remember correctly, there was - Bluefor - Redfor - Independant - Civil which for DCS could translate to: - Blue - Red - Independent - Neutral With neutral being not aggressive but could be engaged. And most important, choose for each and every mission whether Independent is: - hostile/friendly to Blue and Red - ... to Blue - .. to Red - ... to none

No on-board device! Of course only the original rockets with the retrofitted guiding section. The rest needs to be sorted out with JTAC or another platform lasing.

Such a feature would be amazing. Totally supporting this.

Thank you Sir.

I remember that mission, it felt pretty immersive. Can't remember if it was magic though. I looked at the mission file because I wanted to that as a coop action back then and as far as I remember, the illum was dropped by another AI flight.

What is the code for it? Just found the info that it has been integrated.

This is very early one, the old ESRRD is still missing. Early production or prototype German standard IDS, pre ASSTA 3 The first one is not a GR.4 pit, or at least a pre-production / in-the-middle-of-the-upgrade one. It's missing one of the big features of GR.4, the large pretty dominant TARDIS. The second one had no caption and was posted below a GR.4 picture. To be clear, it's a IDS (pre ASSTA 3 cockpit) It could be an ECR (also pre ASSTA 3). Controls for the FLIR are on the left side and not visible, the WCP is the same although the ECR as no guns.

So after poking around here and there I can at least bring a bit of light into the dark. The maximum selectable range for A-G radar was 80 nm. Thats 148 km who want to compare that to the Viggen. None of the pilots I have spoken to in the past weeks was in the German Navy. They were all flying with the GAF. However they also did play around at ferry flights and so on. They are not so different from us^^ One of the guys said that he could make out a large vessel at 60-40 nm.(= 110 - 70 km) But that of course depends on size and 'stealth'-technology of the ship. That would also fit the expectation of other types of the time and even with the Viggen performance in DCS. I find it hard to believe that the Bucc is told to have a better performance. Maybe it had a similar performance, the newer A-G radars are also only slightly better in performance and the ship technology evolves as well. A large bulky oil tanker may be visible for more than 80 nm, but that would count for the Tornado as well. Edit: I had to go over the report again. The author claims: 180 nm (the "normal" setting), that would be 330 km. I don't know how well a radar can see beyond the horizon, but you have to be at 8500 meters (= 27.880 ft) of altitude to see this far in a direct line, no additional effects taken into account. How does that sound? Sounds odd to me.

Das kann gut sein. Wobei das eher weniger Einfluss auf DCS haben wird denke ich. Das neue Bewaffnen und Reparieren bspw. dauert in DCS ja auch nicht so lange wie in echt. Wenn man es realistisch gestalten möchte muss das dann der Missionsbauer berücksichtigen.

Die Bilder vom IIS (ECR Tornado) konnte man sich während des Fluges mit dem CRPMD anschauen. Muss also nur bei den RECCE pods entwickelt werden. Bin am Wochenende schon mit meinem Geschwader eine Mission im TARPS Stil geflogen, mit dem LANTIRN im 2-ship. Hat sehr Spaß gemacht. Auswertungen haben wir dann über Discord Streaming gemacht, indem wir in die scrrenshots reingemalt haben. Den Taschenrechner mussten wir eh raus holen. Ein Auswertungs und -planungs interface in DCS wäre toll, genauso wie eine Art integriertes SRS und super viele andere Sachen. Solange das aber nicht da ist, ist das für mich kein show stopper für einen TARP. Ich persönlich würde den TARP initial auch einfach nur mit screenshots nutzen.

Ok, da kann man nichts machen. Das DCS in vielerleih hinsicht limitiert ist wissen wir ja alle. Davon lass ich mich bei Missionsdesign und -umsetzung allerdings nicht ausbremsen. Fotos lassen sich im Kniebrett ja schon anzeigen...

Die Auswertung muss doch garnicht in DCS stattfinden. Wenn man sich rein auf DCS funktionen verlassen würde, wären viele Missionen die wir im SP und MP fliegen nicht möglich. Nur ein Beispiel: für die ELINT der Viggen gibt es ja auch eine Option die Daten in CombatFlite für die nächste Mission mit einfließen zu lassen. Zusätzlich: Noch vor 4-5 Jahren konnten wir uns auch nicht vorstellen wie eine Jester-KI oder Multicrew genau umgesetzt werden soll in DCS. Also nur weil ein Framework noch nicht da ist, heißt das ja nichts. HB hat auch einfach mal angefangen ein A-G-Radar für die Viggen zu machen damals.

Wie wäre es den mit 4x AGM-84E SLAM? Die kannst du auf eine geringe Flughöhe einstellen und sie sind auch noch schneller als eine JSOW. Für einen kleinen Bunker könnten sie reichen.

Balkans, Fulda gap, GIUK, Baltic Sea are the ones I am hoping for as well! I really wait for the Falklands so I can start getting further away form the warmer maps and have snowy missions. (except Caucasus) My strongest wish though is an improved map system in general so the map size can steadily grow. (or engine, I dont know what is needed for that) I would really love to have Germany (Fulda Gap) and Balkans on one map for example, or have the GIUK Line together with the Baltics and Norway. That's what I hope for before they make more maps. Finished products are obvious for me, I think UGRA knows that, so no need to mention it that often.

Sehr geile Sache. Leider haben sie das TARPS nicht erwähnt.

Ich weiß, aber ich denke du verstehst das ich das so nicht 1 zu 1 beantworten kann. Es gibt halt verschiedene Möglichkeiten, evtl kann bei einem Flieger die HARM wirklich nur einen Bereich abtasten (~DCS F-16) und bei einem anderen Flieger mehrere simultan (~DCS F-18 stand: jetzt). Du kannst ja im millisekunden Bereich auch Daten auslagern, usw. Also ggf. sieht der HARM sensor tatsächlich alles gleichzeitig, oder auch nicht. Letztendlich kommt ja für die Hornet noch eine andere Simulation der HARM, somit können wir uns dann fragen, ist es dann realistisch, auch wenn wir das dann genausowenig beantworten können. Könnte dir über die beiden eh nichts sagen, die BW hat auf jeden fall ne andere Philosophie.

Good to know. I will use QNH then and do the math. Not a problem for me, I just was curious.

The ARAK's for CAS work fine for me. I often hit 6 separate targets in 6 passes with impuls mode fine. I keep a steep angle and have the trigger unsafe as soon as the pipper is very stable on target for as long as possible for a good radar ranging. I often depate with myself whether to take 4x RB75 and have 4 splashes safe, or take the ARAK and try to splash 6... AKAN + Rb05 work not as good for me in terms of accuracy sometimes. Maybe I always miss the right shooting point for the gunpods...

Hey ho, Will the F-16 we get be able to perform some sort of ELINT, like the Viggen can do in game? Maybe in conjunction with the HTS and/or ALQ-131 (if thats the jammer we will get) Thanks in advance.

Hi folks, I am trying to re-find a SEAD / HARM patch I remember from my head, but I can't find it again. Maybe the right persons comes by and knows what bullsh** I have in my head ...^^ I did google search for 2 hours now and type all variations, maybe I am missing an obvious one or so. So the patch was a middle eastern patch, my mind tells me it was israeli or saudi, but who knows, maybe its a US Desert Storm one, or from the Lebanon war, etc. It shows a guy with a red and white turban, angry face, holding up an AGM-88 HARM. If my memory really is that bad, it could be a Sparrow or a Shrike as well, but I remember it being some kind of SEAD or Wild Weasel patch. Again, thats all what I remember how it looks like in my head. I really want to find that one again to bring it into another patch idea I am letting design for my colleagues as I leave my department. Thanks in advance.

Checklist states to not take off with external fuel (external transfer) switched on. (The official F-14 checklist says that as well, so it seems to be common for some jets) So I have the externals off all the time on the field, for take off and up until I leave the airfield area. Sometimes it takes some time for start up and taxi (explaining the jet to other pilots). Now, there seems to be a certain time span when the externals are just empty as soon as I switch them on. Other pilots have the same problem/bug, so I have this confirmed by 4 other pilots, in multiplayer. It happened only once that I switched the externals on directly after take-off and had no issue, but I told my wing men a few minutes later to switch theirs on and they were empty immediately. For the record, empty without filling the internals, I know that it feeds it to the internals if working correctly. The actual fuel mass just disappears.