rkk01

As the title really…. with some bigger maps, I’m wondering what sort of range can be achieved from the Mossie - incl weapons of course.

Phone glitch double post…? @BIGNEWY @NineLine - please delete

One of my relatives spent a short time at Bodø - evacuating troops in 1940… then Arctic Convoys to Murmansk and Archangelsk in 1941 and 1942 … very keen to get some flight hours on this map. Must have been all those sorties in F-19 and EF2000

Still for a Hawker Hunter… https://youtu.be/0Za9HTsaK8M?si=RmoOUpIpFbVVPrUe Tornado…? I know one has been announced, but 14 months in and nothing on the sub… Whereas IFE seem to be progressing their MSTS version Jaguar…?

Thanks @Rudel_chw - I see those every day… will look up the mod … and that really is hot off the presses… Will download the Admiral’s Albion as well

Wait up… that’s a Type 23…?

Had a fly around East and West Falkland in the MB-339 this pm… … and voted to keep the Sat imagery. I flew at various altitudes, including low level trying to use the terrain to mask approaches to various warships. Its a lovely map ETA - wheels touched the tarmac with 3kg of fuel remaining

Sorry, but that is incorrect (although I agree there are a number of inconsistencies, especially RAF Mount Pleasant) Anyway, back to assets, and whether there was any intention to offer a Falklands conflict timescale. There’s “what we have” and ”what was teased” … both of which were mostly fixed around 1982… NOT MODERN So, what we do have: HMS Invincible - deffo there in 1982 Three RN Leander class frigates - all with the twin 4.5” gun, so roughly ok (except Andromeda had been refitted for Sea Wolf, so is actually pre-Falklands condition) Castle Class - era appropriate for 82 Chilean Leanders - not considering those ARA Santa Fe - era-appropriate for Falklands Conflict… definitely didn’t do much after 82 ARA 25 Mayo - era appropriate for Falklands Conflict in 82, largely laid up after 86 What was teased Well, I might have forgotten a few bits (Tactical Pascale vid lists), but: Type 21 Frigate, Type 22 Frigate, Rothesay Frigate, Type 42 Destroyer, County Class Destroyer, Oberon Class Submarine, HMS Hermes (a must), RFAs, including the LSL, ARA General Belgrano, various merchant ships incl Canberra and Atlantic Conveyor… So, pretty much 1982 Which is all pretty much relevant to having a Sea Harrier… I get it that there are difficulties with the SHAR, but IMHO, all of those missing assets is why the map seems to be a bit of an unloved orphan child

That’s my concern Yep, exactly this Completely bonkers - we even have the correct aircraft carrier for the Sea Harrier but not a single suitable aircraft to fly from it - Gazelle at a push, I suppose

I kind of understand the difficulties / opposing viewpoints, but am struggling to understand the “total block” type outcome… Razbam’s head honcho Ron / @Prowler111 explained in an interview that the Sea Harrier radar system was a major sticking point, but that the Harrier GR3 might be possible because its ground attack role meant no air to air radar. So, OK, that’s got some logic to it… BUT there is a lot of written material and surviving SMEs for the FRS1. A bit of searching suggests flight manuals and info on the Blue Fox radar should be available. I guess the problem for a dev / publisher may be that those aren’t available from “official” sources. I certainly understand that the AMRAAM carrying follow up Sea Harrier FA2 / Blue Vixen radar was highly sensitive. Most info on this platform suggests documentation and physical radar sets were destroyed (for Blue Vixen) BUT - the counter arguments… No DCS aircraft carry actual radar sets Every single DCS aircraft uses a simulation, a best estimate, etc, for every single system. Surely there must be sufficient info to model the FRS1 / Blue Fox to at least the level of the other “same era” jets…? We only have to see the ED F-16, F-18 etc radar updates to realise that these were / are best estimates that continue to be improved. To cap it all, if you head over to the Heatblur True Grit EF Typhoon sub, there’s a thread on which version of the generations later Captor radar the Typhoon will ship with (and presumably with Meteor and Iris-T…!) let’s hope Raz get to return to the FRS1 - South Atlantic map desperately needs it and both the Sea Harrier and Cold War RN assets would also be a good fit for the Kola map

My initial response would be to stick with the satellite imagery… but as per one of the early posts, it would probably need some comparative screenshots South Atlantic is one of the most stunning and atmospheric maps in DCS, especially if you set dark and stormy weather conditions. It would be a great shame to lose that… Either way, it’s great that South Atlantic continues to receive love and attention As a Brit, I’m always going to push for the expanded 1982 assets pack, but I understand that this is going to be a polarised debate. Personally I would fly SA much more with the full set of UK and Argentinian assets that have previously been showcased It seems odd to me that there isn’t greater love for Falklands Conflict assets on this sub, yet elsewhere the wider DCS forum appears wildly keen for more Cold War assets… (A RN task force would also fit the forthcoming Kola Map) ETA - Haven’t voted yet… will try to get some up to date cockpit time today before voting)

That’s my take, unfortunately… … and the point of this thread was around the degree of fidelity required to allow a DCS module As @Mars Exulte states ^^, DCS aircraft don’t have a radar… just an approximation of how a particular unit performs - in which case you’d expect sufficient osint material to allow the FRS1 and other UK aircraft to be modelled Agree that the FA2 is a totally different issue

Just need ED to implement arrestor wires in the core game, and Razbam to fix them in place

Which also kind of makes my point… The Danish F-16A and B are Block 1, 10 and 15 models, with MLU upgrades, whereas we have a block 50 F-16C in DCS… If these 1980s era Vipers are still subject to sensitivity, then it stands to reason that the DCS modelled Block 50 F-16C would also be. Radar, avionics, missile performance in DCS are going to be “best estimates”, approximations, a facsimile to provide a convincing in-game experience. I fully agree, anyone and everyone will face the same constraints(*), so why is it more of a block on UK aircraft to make any such “assumptions” (*) notwithstanding Russia with their harsh criminal code on this

I suppose there are two linked questions here… 1). What requirements do ED specify (internally and to 3rd party devs) for data / model integrity… and no, I wouldn’t expect that sort of stuff to be shared publicly. But the level of “leeway” or latitude that is available to each development team may result in some devs being “able to” vs others being “reluctant to”, or some aircraft being modelled and some not. ED must have a hand in specifying where simulation ends and magical thinking begins…. WW2 aircraft with no flight data, flying examples or SMEs are clearly difficult. 2). Where elements of an aircraft’s / systems’ performance is classified, some level of extrapolation to fill in the gaps must surely be acceptable…? Compared to the WW2 examples, modern aircraft must have datasets, or where classified, sufficient real world “insight” to develop a suitably realistic workaround - most modern aircraft have former pilots, crew etc to verify assumptions made (not to share data that may put themselves in legal jeopardy, but to give a yes that feels right / no that feels wrong) Clearly, my own personal motivation is largely focused on the Sea Harrier FRS1, which would be brilliant (necessary) to take the the virtual South Atlantic skies - but same applies to Jaguar, Tornado, Lightning, UK Phantoms etc.

Did the Argentinians use C-130s for air refuelling?

With the Phantom incoming it would be good to see them at Stanley as well

Not at all… … as I posted on p1 of this thread, my favourite (home made) SP missions are using the Mosquito on shipping raids in the Patagonian fjords… BUT, the whole point of this map - for me, and presumably for the developers was the focus around the Falklands conflict. IIRC the chap who put in so much personal effort into the map was ex-Royal Navy (or had a close connection), and Razbam were showcasing a whole fleet’s worth of 1982 naval assets, so they obviously had an expectation of fixing the map around that conflict. My position would be for positive encouragement towards Razbam @Raz_Specter to pick up the Sea Harrier and see what radar data can be pieced together - the same must apply for pretty much all of the other DCS aircraft, and as I have said on other posts, HB / TG seem to be pulling together a simulation of the generations younger Captor radar in the Typhoon. I seem to recall from previous posts, or from interview chat, that Raz had contact with a highly respected ex-FAA SME (Tim Gedge, ex 809 NAS CO ???)

So, if Missions follow the Module… and Missions don’t follow the Map… …. Then the lack of missions really is a result of there not being a DCS: Sea Harrier South Atlantic is a beautiful map. Stunning scenery and refreshingly different to any other DCS Terrain. Razbam should take great credit for jumping in to produce such a unique and stunning area for us to fly in. South Atlantic is a beautiful, but currently pointless map South Atlantic needs the Falklands Conflict assets to make it work

Same applies for Port Stanley… and now more topical than ever with the near release of the Phantom https://forum.dcs.world/topic/336921-phictional-phalklands/#comment-5337326

That must have been quite something for the RAF crews…!

Interesting… .…. just read that the post 1982 lengthening of the Port Stanley runway included the fitting of arrestor wires to allow Phantom operation Does anyone on here (e.g. @G.J.S) know whether the RAF Phantom detachment at Stanley used their hooks for arrested landings??

I’d happily fly a TI marking mission in the Mustang III or the Mossie… … all part of the variety, challenge and “education” of DCS For reference: https://www.key.aero/article/how-dambusters-used-mustangs

The Sea Harrier is also the second most successful jet fighter in history…. (if you use the very narrow definition of Kill : Loss stats It absolutely deserves its place in DCS

I’ve been posting about this all over the forums . Making a proper nuisance of myself BUT, when you read on the HB Typhoon sub that folks are salivating over which version of Captor will be shipped with the TG Typhoon, or the ED Newsletters about F-16/18 radar improvements and non-ED forums about Blue Fox info… … then you start to feel that the “can’t do” an FRS1 / Blue Fox starts to feel a bit lame And Yes, the South Atlantic map is pointless without it…. …. e.g. why is there a HMS Invincible without the Sea Harrier??? F F S, based on Kill : Loss ratios the SHAR is the second most successful jet in history… EVER. It absolutely deserves its place in the DCS digital aviation museum (… and don’t even get me started on the success of the F-15’s non-peer combat stats - just look up the FAA’s training record of “embarrassing” the USAF’s Eagle jocks)