Mike5560

I just had the same problem. I RTB'd when I was about bingo. Never got credit for the mission. Spying on the package's Su-25s it seems only flight lead gets weapons off. And then they circle the target airfield doing nothing.

Either: 1. Have enough HARMS (~2 per TEL) to engage, and do not engage the Snow Drift radar. If you do, you'll likely be allowed to get closer to the site, but the track radars on the TELs will target you at random distances, which makes them difficult to target with HARMS. 2. Have other weapons in addition to HARM. Use HARM on the Snow Drift first to take out its SA, then move in terrain masked to engage with CBU / bombs OR fly at 30k fast as possible, take a gamble with GBU-38s. Should be able to release around 16nm range.

1. This is a non-standard targeting format; if this is the Raqqa mission, I'm familiar. Normally the JTAC will pass a 9-line and elevation is line 4.

I would think the SA-2 would be a good unit test, it operates at a lower band even than the SA-5; E/F/G band vs H.

I noticed this one the first HARM shot I took with the HTS. So I've been SAM hunting with GBU-38s; my hopeful workaround is to select the threat with the major and minor ellipse are small enough, and then immediately TMS down and rely on a TGP search. Another buggy thing I discovered while doing this is 95% of the time, the TGP remains slewed to where it went when I TMS up and TMS down on a radar.....but once in a while it slews back to the selected steerpoint.

I think there's possibly a legitimate issue here. One is potentially a bug, that the (HUD) target designator doesn't follow the targeting pod generated SPI. I don't know if that's accurate as-is for the F-16 though. I will say that attacking a moving target from the front with GBU-12s is a bit of a gamble. Often times from the front, the seeker will never acquire the laser with its narrow FOV. AFAIK, the ballistic solution isn't based on a moving target, it only calculates a solution based on a stationary target. If attacking from the front makes the most sense for other tactical reasons, it might be best to drag the TGP well in front of the target before release, drop, then reacquire the target, then lase. I just now tested hitting a BTR-80 going 45 kts on a straight road (from rear aspect) with no TGP trickery, just keeping on the target in point track. It appears to be updating the SPI position through the TGP.

I haven't noticed a marked difference in the JDAM accuracy. Killing main battle tanks with GBU-38s was about a 50% probability of kill from my experience from 2014 until the latest update. I just did a test with the Hornet and dropped 8x GBU-38s on eight separate T-90s and killed 5/8. More recently the flight profile was made more realistic, in the sense that the bombs maximize glide range for standoff. -This was probably necessary to model the GBU-54s, which do not use bang bang guidance. And before the update, their terminal velocity even flying a more ballistic path was quite slow (250-350 kts IIRC). I think there are some bugs in the sim logic that might need to be looked at, such as failing to reach the target on toss bombing; but then again it's not what they were designed for.

And the JTAC should be able to change their laser code. Everything IRL is changeable in mission except for the codes on the 12s themselves.

The L MAV has advantages that are much more beneficial to counter-insurgency operations (COIN). The target does not need to be an IR/EO significant blob, and with the laser you have much more precise control of where the weapon will impact. That said, it requires a man in the loop needing continuous lasing until impact.

I occasionally have the same comms issue in the F-16, though I havent had any issues with this campaign. Only thing I can suggest is make sure you use the VHF transmit comms key instead of the easy comms key. The runway headings at Kish are wonky. The two digits are rounded to the nearest 10 degrees of magnetic heading. So if a runway heading is 278 it should be labeled '28' and the opposite direction '10'. It might be an issue with the game, or an issue with the runway and what world magnetic model they were using at the time that causes a discrepancy in the game. I set my course knob to 090 for runway 09 "runway 10" and it's spot on.

Just to report an issue, I couldn't complete mission 11 (TARCAP). After reviewing the mission in the editor and the tacview file, I noticed a flight of MiG-25s that activated but did not taxi to the runway. After about an hour Id hoped there was a mission complete message that I missed so I RTB'd.

I don't use easy comms, and am pretty familiar with how the Viper comms work. Some missions, I cannot get the wingmen to listen or reply, so I am left to my own devices of engaging 4+ bandits. Even if the "flight" frequency is UHF and I change it to VHF, so I can monitor tactical and interflight. I don't remember if it worked for Coiled Viper, but I've had good luck on Island Style, Home on the Range and Night Life missions.

It only applies to Paveway II LGBs. GBU-10/12/16 have “bang bang” guidance.

Is it not trying to fly the route though? As in put you back on the actual line that is drawn between waypoint?

Appreciated! I will be sure to select information Alpha. Aside from the frustration in trying to pass the mission, I’m enjoying the campaign.

To piggyback on that, after hooking the SADL markpoint on the TAD, you can alternatively press china hat fwd long to slave all to the object.

Question: Two times now I have attempted and failed at the ACM (AIM-9s) mission. Both times, both aggressor F-16s were eliminated, and for sure I did not break the 100ft deck nor did I enter the container. Each time, Showtime called terminate and was instructed to proceed to waypoint six. Both times, when I crossed waypoint 6 on return, I received a text cue to check the ATIS. I switched to UHF 20 to grab the information, and F10 to select the correct one. However, there was no cue to contact approach, tower or ground the rest of the way home and both times I failed and had to re-do the previous BFM mission. Even in the absence of these cues, I pressed the space bar on each channel and no comms were made. Any idea what's going on?

Yup, my bombs are way overshooting the target at any altitude. I've only tried it on the PG map. JDAMs are not a problem at all. With the GBU-12s Im using Auto bombing First fuze off second fuze INST Code 1511 for both Bombs and TGP DDI set to trigger. Tried both point and area track WPT Box on HSI unchecked. TDC Depress with FLIR as "SOI" or selected (diamond) For some reason, it seems to want to release the weapon directly over the target. For 350 KIAS at 15,000 HAT the weapon should release between 5-7NM slant range. The A-10C LGB algorithm is without hitch, except for LOFT deliveries; which the A-10 was never meant to do anyway. In the hornet, I tried releasing high at 20k feet and near stall speed in hopes the bomb would nose down quicker; yet still overshot the laser region.

Overall the Hog is kind of the flagship module of DCS. In that sense, the satisfaction and level of detail is unsurpassed. The AV-8, even in early access, really impressed me. I can't wait until more systems and weapons are fully developed. But even just with what you start out with now offers good versatility and fun. The performance really surprised me as well. Aside from a bit of a slow roll rate, the jet easily hangs out at 450+ KIAS with the wings heavily loaded; but don't expect to vertically take off with much more than a sip of fuel and a tiny payload. Vertical landings are a bit nerve racking but satisfying once you pull it off.

I was trying to do some flight tests and then analyzing them on tacview, but my files are saved as only 1kb and do not record. I am using the latest version of tacview, 1.6.0. Aircraft I was using was Mig-29S, and this was on DCS 1.5. Is there a fix?

Hello! Yes, detection of anything is broken down to both active and passive. There's a few more detection systems onboard some military aircraft that detect other things that may not necessarily be other aircraft.... but just to highlight on the things you mentioned. IRST is mainly meant for detection of aircraft, mostly. Some systems will detect an aircraft or otherwise something IR significant and point out limited information to the pilot. Modes can include both manual and automatic scanning, while not actually showing the image of the target. Others can provide some or all of this capability AND provide a visual image to the pilot. Most, if not all systems can provide location data to slew a missile seeker (before launch) to the target location. Electro optical is any type of sensor, AFAIK, that will provide a display representation of the visible spectrum. I dont know if this includes the IR spectrum, but it may include some fusing, such as low light TV. FLIR is both a term and a brand name. It was a more common term in the past for sensors that we generally regard as targeting pods. Though the term is still used today and applies to sensors both including and, more commonly, not including targeting pods.....such as police helicopters, transport helicopters which aid in night flying. RWR is exactly what you said. Several different generations can vary from rudimentary versions that did not of themselves identify the type of the threat, to highly advanced systems. Older versions, circa Vietnam, would require an Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO) to recognize the type of threat based on the emissions received. Modern ones can be coupled with Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) to record a database of threats, even against newer systems for analysis. Some may transmit and mimic a host radar to deceive them. Other things are used, RF wise for passive detection, such as transponder signals, radio communications and being able to locate sources of emissions, such as on a HTS pod (F-16CJ/CM) Missile Warning Systems (MWS) typically use one or a number of IR sensors located around the skin of the aircraft, and look for specific IR significant events that match a certain set of parameters most corresponding with a missile launch. Laser detection systems and laser countermeasures work the same way as MWS. Aircraft are not the only vehicles to use MWS and laser detection. Some modern ground vehicles and armor equip them as well. Directional IR Countermeasures (DIRCM) can detect missiles and employ various infrared signals in an attempt to confuse or saturate IR seekers. RADAR; an RF transmitter and receiver. Most ones in use today are broken down into three types: Mechanically scanned/pulse doppler, Passive Electronic Scanned Array (PESA) and Active Electronic Scanned Array (AESA). Note that passive in PESA doesn't mean "no emissions". All scanned array radars use a large number of antennae to direct and focus radar beams. How they accomplish this is what separates the two. There's a great page on them somewhere and if I find it I will link it. Modern -ESA radars often have the ability to rapidly change frequencies. This can serve two purposes: First, this helps combat jamming; as jamming requires knowledge of the host radar's frequencies. Broadband jamming is possible but it requires an exponential amount of power to acheive the same effect vs against known frequencies. Think of a laser vs a flashlight. A one watt flashlight will likely not cause eye damage, where a 1 watt laser will almost instantly result in eye damage, due to the fact that it's coherent. The second purpose is to reduce detection by opposing RWRs. A frequency agile radar can often detect an aircraft whilst the target aircraft has no idea someone is targeting them, due to the fact that the pulses are so short and minute that it may appear as background RF energy. Note that many of the passive systems we mentioned reference the IR spectrum....which is very broad, especially in military terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared The term "IR" is very vague in this sense. If you have an IR strobe emitting, a laser designator pulsing on a target and a short wave IR beacon emitting......And say three detectors; a FLIR pod, a targeting pod with a laser spot tracker and night vision goggles.....then it's possible if not likely that any one of the detectors will only be able to detect one of the three emitters.

That would make advanced threats, buildings and vehicles as viable targets. Being that the SAR range/resolution of the APG-81 is classified, I think the case is not closed on whether or not it can discern people.

Depends on a lot of factors....A-10s typically fly at medium altitude and if guns are the only viable option due to proximity of troops, I would argue the target personnel aren't going to see the strafe coming. CBUs are in the inventory but haven't been used since 2003 for a number of reasons. You can never guarantee that a show of force will have a negligible effect. The gun is still very effective against troops, though not quite as much as a lot of public hype gives it. Agree 100% I think the largest limiting factor for CAS with the F-35 (currently) is the weapons it has been tested/ approved for. Which seems to correspond with the opinions of the pilots coming from legacy platforms.

Why is it only effective for targeting advanced threats?

I apologize for asking a question which leads a direction I didn't intend. I recognize that a pilot equipped with traditional NVGs will have detriments with heavy maneuvering and SA. It doesn't negate the possibility of such an interaction occurring, however. If there are such AFIs, AFTTPs that either say "should" not engage in WVR or "directs blow through", then please do not post anything not releasable to the public. The only thing I see as a hindrance to the jet WVR, specifically to RF 17-1 is its lack of AIM-9s. If the linked video is in any way indicative of the actual view, then clearly the IR view provides a more enhanced picture of the night than grainy NVGs, and does a damn good job of reducing IR bloom which is paramount to VID. And a Top-gun dogfight is only a scenario of many when "WVR" range is greatly increased with sensors.