Cik

OK, so after a little more experimentation it does work if you 1. put the fire order on a steerpoint in the future of the ship(s) 2. have the condition be true when the ships arrive (if you flip the switch AFTER they depart the fire steerpoint they don't fire) is there any semi-trivial way to get them to just fire on call? user flips the switch and they just release the missiles at pre-planned targets without bothering with the waypoint system which may be finicky (players may arrive too early or too late to trigger the tomahawk fires) thx

yes. i've tried every weapon type (auto, guided, missile, etc.) in particular i'm using a start condition flag number 1 value 1 with a radio menu with a number 1 flag = true setting. shouldn't this trigger fire on the target once the message is flipped? granted even without the start condition it doesn't work. i've tried both fire at point / group with no success, in addition i put a invisible UAV over the target figuring that perhaps it had to be being observed by something but no dice on that either.

how the fug do you do this no seriously, even with "fire at point" (no recon required) they refuse to fire at targets less than 100nm when the encyclopedia says it has a range of 1200+km i just cannot get the ticonderogas to provide support, and normally i would just add more F/A-18C but they can't deal with SAMs so this is what i am left with. please help me as i have spent over an hour working on something that should be ESSENTIALLY TRIVIAL:mad:

fan song is an illuminator, it will not search very well if at all IIRC. AFAIK search is mostly mandatory for SA-2. i've had some problems getting it to fire at all, even with a bunch of rails pointed at me. as soon as i cross into MEZ it will hard lock me with the fansong and elevate it's rails, but it holds fire as i fly right over it at 15k.

it is an anti-ship cruise missile, it is just for ships. we will eventually get other short-range tactical anti-land weapons such as the SCUD-B, though.

the range ring on the map is 30-40nm. if it can be made to fire out to that range it will threaten the whole strait of hormuz from the islands, especially at the narrowest point. it needs some sort of surface search radar to go along with it though, whatever radar is chosen doesn't matter so much as long as it's functional. additionally we really need the ability to place "neutral" ships that report the position of hostiles to a specific side, so that we can use that sort of asymmetric targeting. ultimately you only really need an azimuth to point these things at. time of flight is relatively trivial in comparison with the speed of a ship so you might still wind up with the target in the seeker basket without accounting for target motion at all. it's nice to have them though, even if they are not perfect ATM because credible targets for campaign building were lacking before now.

there is no radar currently in the game for it. it seems to fire at 20+ miles (over the horizon?) if there's an A-50 and some SAMs in the mission. there doesn't seem to be any dedicated surface-surface radars in the game but theoretically you can just point the missile at an area designated by any spotter and it should work. maybe put a HUMINT ship somewhere near the probable target area assigned to the iran side(?) that would be enough to point the missile but i'm unsure how and when the game will pass intelligence between units or if it is capable of it.

it isn't sufficient. real ground battles are not really doable at present which means that in 99+% of cases a crippled vehicle is the same as an intact vehicle for calculating whether you have won the encounter or not. the real trick is instituting some sort of higher-level AI that can "soft-lose" in that it can decide to withdraw if it's taking a beating from air support and has no recourse in turning the tables on it. the enemy withdrawing is a temporary victory that damaged vehicles can contribute to, but as it is if the vehicle is not a burning wreck it's essentially still in the fight as there is no morale system. to some extent the damage system is an insufficient model, but to some extent the tools do not yet exist to have real ground battles that mean something.

theoretically, the guy with the longer stick wins (missile quality and inherited energy from forward speed of host aircraft) in practice it's mostly luck as chaff will decide whether your missile hits or not. winning 1v1 will simply never be reliable. even with significant energy advantages attaining a non-mutual kill is going to be luck of the dice for the most part. to win, bounce engaged enemies and maintain a high speed. ultimately, if you are engaged you should simply turn away and let your friends press. you brought friends, i hope?

there are plenty of theaters where you don't need SEAD support but it would be nice to have a real sead platform, granted we will soon have other problems like the SAMs being too rollable with basic "enter wez, release weapon" tactics.

OK, so after some fairly concentrated digging i haven't been able to find conclusive proof that SQUARE TIE radars exist in iranian service, but i have turned up some evidence that 1. square tie radars (standalone land based) exist and 2. they were exported by china in the past (see: SQUARE TIE export to bangladesh near the top) sources: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1119/MR1119.appa.pdf i'm fairly convinced at this point that it's the square tie. nothing else i can find else fits the pattern of "surface-surface FCR" of that particular age. there are a bunch of other ship-based FCRs in the modern PLAN service but nothing it would make sense (imo) to integrate with an ancient ASHM.

hey, it is SQUARE TIE. quoting international electronic countermeasures handbook p. 140 this source at least says it doesn't have any sort of midflight update capability and just flies into a terminal active using midcourse INS/GPS. so the radar serves only as target ID/orientation and not as any sort of guidance system apparently.

I think it might be the SQUARE TIE. sources: i'm still looking..

AM/UHF should both work (in my experience) based on what frequency he's on. try UHF. make sure you aren't keying up on interphone- you will have to use comms switch or the keyboard shortcuts which are alt numpad +- etc. IIRC.

what radio are you trying to use? what frequency is the tanker on and what frequency are you on and with whic radio?

plus the lifecycle costs. even assuming you can find a reasonable way to just bolt on an F15/16 engine, you'll have to retrain techs, write new TTPs, adjust all your pilots to the new performance, and then pay money for all of these things. in addition, the plane's chief weakness (vulnerability to IR missiles) might be harmed by changing engines. it's a "why rock the boat" proposition. the plane works fine, as long as it's in certain situations. new engines aren't going to solve the plane's top 20 problems in a modern engagement, and you'd have to spend a lot of money to "fix" the problem. if they remain in the inventory you'll probably see lifecycle part replacements and stuff which are absolutely necessary to keep them flying safely- perhaps some avionics upgrades to handle new capabilities coming into the force in general, but trying to turn the plane into something it's not would be too expensive and fruitless to ever be seriously considered just imo.

slow down to 350kn then pull on the stick this will win you 9/10 fights. your plane is simply more agile than theirs at low speed. as it is in game, you will out-turn flanker below 400kn quite easily AFAIK.

KC-135/10/30/46 would be neat. gets over the fact that the tanker AI is extremely inflexible really nicely. granted you'd have to do a survey to make sure that people would actually really fly the things online, which might be a bit of a stretch. granted there's a whole community out there of civil guys and it seems to me like that would be watching paint dry simulator but to each their own etc.

big wings, big nacelles, big body- lots of armor, and with payload that's even more weight and drag (especially with TER) upside: lots of lift, relatively resilient, able to carry a lot of payload, lots of gas and long station time downside: slow, high RCS, relatively low AoA tolerance because of big board wings

real trick is the avionics integration, not the ballistics. what should the SMS config pages etc. look like? there isn't a historical reference for it as it isn't implemented yet.

it's not very good. it has no filter, comes very slowly, doesn't really update you on things that actually matter. unfortunately this kind of ruins lots of the older modules, as they really, really need guidance to the target, which they won't get without a real human AWACS. 3rd gen aircraft are unrealistically bad ingame because they lack real target cueing they should have.

i would kill for the ability of the tanker to drag flights. as it is the tanker won't leave his track, ideally it should be able to refuel en route, either via mission editor or player audible "texaco fly 360 100 miles" "roger" that way you could rejoin your flight to the tanker and refuel en route, disengage from the tanker, fight, and then fly back. also useful for ferry, repositioning tankers in MP servers (where they are currently useless because of their total inflexibility) etc.

naval deployments are often less logistically complicated. they are designed to be a fleet in being, and so bring most of the stuff they will need with them. you don't need to fly in supplies (that often, anyway) or personnel. they will sail from wherever they are, whether that's a forward base or the states. "where will the carrier get avgas/weapons/defenses/food/personnel/maintenance etc." "ah, the carrier is ****ing enormous and has a surface group with it. so it will bring all the stuff with it." granted it's escorts will still need fuel (from a refueling ship) and you have to replenish occasionally via dock or picking it up somewhere. but you don't need huge, unwieldy air / land bridges unless you need tankers to get your tactical air somewhere, as that's not a capability USN has anymore. (save buddy store i guess) to answer your question, yes though. nothing prevents hornets operating from whatever airfield they want, except maybe the air force getting upset with them and wanting to be the ones to handle it instead.

i assume the viggen has flares? it also has mavericks iirc.. why not use those? failing that, rocket pop up with continuous dispense once past 1000' should do it. as long as you are dispensing, IR is basically useless. SA-6/10 should be no factor as long as you duck within maybe 15 seconds back to NOE.

i find the best training lesson is hitting the back of the carrier and then dying, repeatedly. really emphasizes that you should not be as slow as you are, i find.