Northstar98
-
Posts
8311 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Northstar98
-
-
I'd agree but ED needs to support flying boom and drogue based refuelling in a single aircraft first.
-
1
-
-
On 8/24/2025 at 8:23 PM, currenthill said:
I'd say that what you're looking for is the Tu-16 or to some extent the Tu-22M3.
If I may, while the current Tu-22M3 is missing weapons, I'd personally suggest a mid 70s+ Tu-16K-26/K-26P [Badger-G Mod].
- It's a staple Cold War aircraft and probably the aircraft most missing from the Kola map in a Cold War setting (the Tu-22M3 was only introduced there in the late 1980s).
- It has a diverse payload which, in the case of a mid 1970s and beyond K-26P/PM, includes anti-ship missiles (KSR-2 [AS-5 Kelt] and KSR-5M [AS-6 Kingfish-A Mod 3), anti-radiation missiles (KSR-6MP [AS-6 Kingfish-B Mod 3 and KSR-11 [AS-5 Kelt]) and conventional bombs.
- The model would be incredibly similar to an H-6D, as used by the PRC and Iraq. This also has the ability to carry anti-ship missiles in the form of the YJ-6/C-601 [CH-AS-1 Kraken], (which is essentially an air-launched version of the HY-2 [CSSC-3 Seersucker] missile we already have) and conventional bombs.
- Speaking of export customers, Egypt also used the Badger-G (though the K-11-16 version, which didn't have the KSR-5, only the KSR-2 and -11 + conventional bombs).
- The model is also pretty similar to not only the original Tu-16 [Badger-A] conventional bomber, but also the Tu-16P Buket [Badger-J] and other electronic warfare versions (the P also being based on the Kola Peninsula during the Cold War as a strike escort).
This only leaves the Tu-16K-10-26/K-10-26P [Badger-C Mod] and Tu-16RM-1 [Badger-D] as the main variants missing, though these have a substantially different nose, accommodating the large YeN [Puff Ball] radar, which can take full advantage of the KSR-5's missile's range (something Rubin-1K [Short Horn]- equipped Badger-G's can't do, which is the version most similar to Egyptian Tu-16s and Chinese & Iraqi H-6Ds). Again, these 2 were also stationed on the Kola Peninsula during the Cold War.
-
1
-
3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:
Just a few days ago I saw the insurgent rpg fire the artillery shell.
The insurgent one also fires the PG-15V model:
If you change .trk to .miz you'll get the mission file, confirming I used the insurgent one.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:
Negative, All RPG fire artillery shells.
I just posted a set of screenshots and a track that clearly show it doesn't.
1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:Has two Mk-46 into DCS directories, one on the SA assets pack SouthAtlanticAssets directry and another on ED CoreMods > Tech > TechWeaponPack directory. RAZBAM was unable to implement a ASW Weapon (has no a funtionality on the core to make a active/passive guided torpedoe). I talked about the ED TeckWeaponPack, none about 3rd party weapons.
Yes, they are the exact same model,
The one in the ED directory was taken from the SA assets, as that's where this torpedo model originally was.
-
+1 - this should be a setting for the new ATC system when/if it ever comes.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:
The RPG fire artillery rounds. Not actual rocket propelled granade.
It certainly used to fire a generic shell, but it doesn't any more:
-
1
-
-
On 3/21/2025 at 1:23 PM, Silver_Dragon said:
On the DCS World directories has some interesting EDM ammunition:
- PG-9V: ammo to the SPG-9M Recoiless Rifle.
- PG-16V: ammo to the RPG-16 launcher.
- Mk-46: ASW Torpedoe used on S-3/SH-60, some UsN/NATO ships
Has plans to implement that ammunitions on DCS World?
The PG-16V is already implemented and can be seen being fired by "Paratrooper RPG-16".
The Mk 46 appears to be from the South Atlantic assets (the exact same model is present in that directory too, with its inaccuracies - like the nose that's the wrong shape and the rear-most propeller that's a lot smaller than it should be).
-
9 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:
Based on the accounts of Wild Weasels who employed the Shrike, the weapon was essentially a psychological deterrent first and a site marking system second. They hoped but didn’t expect it to kill a radar.
“Shrike was dumb. You could do better with a peashooter. It was only fifty percent reliable, fifty percent accurate, and when you do the probabilities on that you realize it takes a lot of them to hit the target. …We really had to line it up with the target in an almost perfect trajectory…You used Shrike as a marker most of the time.”-Kim Pepperell, from the book “Iron Hand” by Anthony Thornbourough & Frank Mormillo.
Further, USAF Wild Weasels typically escorted a strike package of other aircraft , so they’d fly interference by operating between IADS sites and the strike force. If one of the IADS locked on with a SAM, the Weasels would fire a Shrike to mark the general location and the hunter-killer flight would do the rest with CBU / bombs.
What does that mean for DCS? Well, employing the Shrike as a one-shot single ship kill weapon against an IADS radar sadly isn’t realistic no matter how well the player flies, especially in MP. Using it that way is , as many of us have discovered the hard way, a recipe for enduring frustration. It’s a supporting weapon used to find camouflaged sites so Someone Else could bomb them. Worse, the psychological “kill” of a SAM site battalion commander turning off his radar to avoid a Shrike visit isn’t part of DCS as a default yet, so the suppression benefit is lost also.
Bottom line- if you’re flying with a team or as a flight , the Shrike makes sense as a SEAD target locating tool. Otherwise , skip it.
Okay...
All of this I agree with, but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I've said here.
-
45 minutes ago, Steel Jaw said:
Update please.
Here is an archived version.
-
1
-
-
It also clips through the main gear doors.
-
2
-
-
On 8/12/2025 at 3:30 PM, Kalasnkova74 said:
That may be true of the later ARMs like the HARM, but in real life the initial AGM-45 was unable to reliably track sidelobes.
Source: https://ia801900.us.archive.org/26/items/history-of-the-electro-optical-guided-missiles/S-75 family.pdfThe exact same waveform exists in sidelobes and the missile has no way of telling whether it's in the main or sidelobes.
How well it can detect and track sidelobes should pretty much be entirely dependent on the transmitted power of the radar and its radiation pattern.
Don't forget the Shrike has guidance sections for (even examples exclusively for such as the Mk 37), can and has been used against (albeit less than completely successfully) radars that rotate IRL - or in other words, radars that present a mainlobe a minority of the time and a sidelobe the majority of the time.
-
2
-
-
This was noted in the changelog (though FWIW the radar used is a TRML-4D, though the radar is fairly similar to the Giraffe 4a).
-
1
-
-
You need to make sure the fuel door is cycled in and out before the aircraft is able to receive fuel (you should note that if the ready light isn't illuminated, the aircraft can't receive fuel).
https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/systems/engines_and_fuel_systems/fuel_system.html#air-refuel-switch
-
2
-
-
That's a very impressive list for PTO! The most comprehensive set of assets we've ever seen.
Apart from the odd ship, we can make the majority of the various task group 58 formations with the all aircraft carriers, all aircraft, the dominant destroyer, light cruiser and heavy cruiser types.
The main thing missing for the USN is the Atlanta CL which features in the screen of most task groups and for the IJN, perhaps more crucially - a 10-gunned IJN heavy cruiser like the Takao, Myōkō (or even the other Mogamis) as I fear the current Mogami is at somewhat of a disadvantage. The IJN though is more annoying to flesh out compared to the USN due to the increased number of classes.
What's currently there is IMO workable*.
The only thing I'm a little sorry to see the Iowa being dropped (though without the a suitable IJN battleship counterpart that's similarly armed, like a Nagato or even better the Yamato-class).
The other things I'd like to ask:
- Will we see improvements to ship AI? Primarily when it comes to manoeuvring defensively (something pretty relevant in WWII naval battles) and opening up arcs of fire for defensive weapons.
- Will we see multiple ammunition types for dual-purpose guns? At the moment WWII-era naval guns only have a time-fused shell which is often ineffective against surface and land targets (and will especially be so against armoured ones like battleships and cruisers) - we ideally need a point-detonating shell and/or armour piercing shell and an AA shell with either a time fuse or (preferably) a proximity fuse (proximity fuses were introduced and in circulation among Allied warships by 1943 and proximity fuses are relevant to near enough every ship currently in-game with a naval gun with a calibre of 76 mm/3-inches and above). There's also bugs that currently absolutely cripple the ability of dual-purpose guns to effectively engage aircraft.
- Will we see improvements to ship damage modelling to at least account for armour? Though ideally we'd have internal components modelled and maybe some flooding and fire-propagation model.
-
6
-
+999999999999999
Every point brought up are things I absolutely support and most I'd say are downright essential.
I'd also add completion of symbols from NATO APP-6 (we're currently missing hostile, neutral and unknown shapes entirely).
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, skywalker22 said:
Here it is all explained.
Hardly - they spoke very little of the ATC system itself - they only specifically mentioned "voice generation" and "interface" while omitting any details about what this new system is supposed to achieve and what capabilities and fidelity will it have - they've left an absolute tonne of potential questions unanswered.
Questions like:
-
Will it support multiple approach types? For example:
- Visual straight-in (the only type it supports now).
- Overhead
- Instrument (and there are various types here, it should support at least one kind of instrument approach though I'd also at least include PAR given how many of our aerodromes are depicted with PAR equipment).
- Unrestricted (i.e. only report on final).
- Will it provide taxi instructions? Both to the active runway and to the designated parking spot upon landing? And will the ATC tell us to hold short, line up and wait/position and hold and takeoff?
- Will it attempt to manage traffic around the aerodrome? Currently aircraft are all put into the same orbit, which they fly at the same altitude but at different speeds, leading to the kind of chaos one might expect.
- Will AI aircraft interact with it and obey its instructions? And will the AI be smart enough to not talk over each other?
- Will it support parallel runways?
- Will it provide vectors where applicable? Preferably following real-world approach plates if available. Even if it only vectored you to an initial approach fix, getting you there heading the right direction, at the right speed and altitude? Currently ATC will only provide bearing and range to a point along the extended runway centreline leaving no consideration for your heading, speed and altitude.
- Will we be able to declare an emergency and have the ATC prioritise that aircraft to land?
- Will it support touch and goes?
- Will the ground controller follow a schedule? For instance to try and get aircraft to takeoff at designated times (important not only for spacing, but to aid in getting aircraft to reach their time-on-target at the right time).
- Will we have ATIS where applicable?
- Will we be able to request QFE and QNH?
- Will we be able to say "say again" if we miss a transmission?
- Will the different agencies be separated where applicable, as per IRL? (ground, tower, approach/departure).
- Will there be any departure instructions? Perhaps following a real-life departure procedure (or a made up one) or at minimum “depart heading [bearing to first waypoint], resume own navigation”. Right now all it does is clear you up to FL 300 for seemingly no reason.
- Will we have multiple pilot voices and will there be multiple voices for each agency? currently there’s only a single voice handling all ATC and one pilot voice (though that voice sometimes changes depending on who you’re talking to).
- Will it be intelligent enough to not direct aircraft to taxi, takeoff and land onto runways, runway access points and taxiways that are unserviceable (for instance from debris from aircraft crashes or from damage).
- Will it support heliports and rotary-wing operations in general?
- Will we be able to override what runway is active?
- Will we be able to designate aerodromes as closed? Meaning that ATC isn't present, lighting doesn't come on, associated NAVAIDS become inoperative etc.
- Will we be able to override what NAVAIDS are operational or not and whether the lighting is on or not? The last one we can do with aircraft carriers.
- Will it have realistic detection and identification capability? For example not being able to vector aircraft it cannot detect or identify (when multiple aircraft are present in the vicinity)?
I'm sure there are others as well (like I could've thrown in will we get NAVAIDS as units (we’ve got TACAN, but not RSBN, PRMG or ICLS. There's already an RSP-7 (PAR) in the files but it’s non-functional eye-candy on the Caucasus map) and will we get aerodrome beacons and identification beacons for aerodromes that should have them? Even better if we could get these as a placeable ground unit.
But these are the kind of questions that remain unanswered as far as a new ATC system go and IMO most of these are essential and some are downright basic - apart from #8 and the 2nd part of #14, 1-15 (at least) is what the ATC system in the other F-16-orientated sim already does and does pretty damn well in my experience - I would hope a new ATC system for DCS would at least try and match its functionality.
1-7 are what I'd describe as bare minimum for what an ATC system needs to be able to do.
And they spoke about the interface - well the other sim also recently added a new interface, but some (me included) weren't really a fan of it, so the previous interface was also kept as an option - can we expect something similar? Giving us the option keeps both sides happy.
Even the supercarrier ATC (which you technically have to pay for) has plenty of shortcomings (and this also isn't exhaustive):
- It only supports carrier qualifications (CQ) operations and not ziplip, but does not support touch and goes nor bolters (even generally).
- The AI doesn't interact with it at all, meaning it's not only far less immersive and doesn't feel as alive as it could be, but you also don't have the same situational awareness you should have.
- There's communications missing (particular related to departure and CASE III waveoff/bolter procedures).
- It doesn't have the agencies frequency separated (making switch approach/switch tower callouts meaningless).
- It doesn't support callsigns for the Forrestal.
- LSO speed callouts only reference the Hornet's AoA range and not the state of the AoA indexer repeater lights (so you get incorrect speed awareness and spoeed gradings for anything that's not a Hornet).
- There's only a single pilot voice (which sounds drastically different when talking to everybody else) and there's only 1 tower, marshal and LSO voice.
- It doesn't have realistic detection and identification capability.
-
3
-
Will it support multiple approach types? For example:
-
4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:
The thumbnail shows the TE flaps out. Not sure where that footage is taken, though.
Thumbnail is at Marham (where this thing was mostly filmed), which uses a different kind of shelter (very similar to the larger variety of shelters seen at many airbases the USAFE operates at).
It's only at the stated timeframe where a HAS at an RAFG airbase is shown.
-
Reproduced - selecting "On start" leaves infantry where they were spawned in the mission editor and requires the LCVP to pick them up first.
SpoilerWith that said I think this is incredibly cool and is another step towards having true amphibious capability in DCS.
The main thing missing is to be able to embark infantry/cargo and landing craft/vehicles/helicopters onto larger amphibious assault/transport ships and be able to transfer that infantry/cargo between the larger host ship and its embarked landing craft/vehicles/helicopters. This would probably have more utility in larger, dynamic and persistent missions spanning multiple days.
Or at minimum, be able to embark infantry/cargo onto landing craft/vehicles then embark those onto larger amphibious assault/transport ships (which we can currently do with helicopters).
-
7 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:
Gotta be fully swung out, as the TE hi lift devices are out.
Are you sure? Specifically between 13:48 to 14:14.
Past 14:14, they're inside a different shelter at RAF Marham (which uses a shelter very similar in design to USAFE generation 3 HAS) and there the trailing edge flaps can be seen down.
I guess it doesn't matter though as the 2nd video I posted shows Phantoms inside the type of HAS in the OP.
-
On 7/29/2025 at 1:27 PM, Ghostrida9 said:
was thankfull for the fix, still this shelter has some problems, the fire seems to be caused by an overall too big or wrong collision shell, i tryed stuff with the scenery remove object tool and something is very wrong.
Yeah - main thing for me is they seem to have gone with a semi-circular cross section inside - I suspect they've reused the modified gen 1 HAS model that was already there and then modelled the RAFG shelter's externals over the top of it.
Here's a pretty good look inside one of these shelters - showing a Tornado with the wings out (though not sure if it's at 25°):
On 7/29/2025 at 1:27 PM, Ghostrida9 said:Keep in mind this Shelters were only used to house: Tornado GR1/GR4, Harriers and Jaguars, not sure about the F4 Phantom..
They were used to house the Phantom.
This is at RAF Wildenrath - which from the mid-to-late 70s up until it closed was a Phantom base and it only has this kind of shelter - the rest of the parking is either open tarmac or revetted. Also bear in mind that at 25° sweep, the Tornado has a slightly longer wingspan than the Phantom.
-
1 hour ago, primus_TR said:
I have noticed that the AGM45 has a new setting in the seeker head settings screen: WP Marker Charge, where you can choose Installed or Not Installed. Does anyone know what this setting does?
It installs a white phosphorous marker which will produce white smoke to mark where the missile impacted. This can then be used to provide a visual reference to other DEAD flights.
-
2
-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, okopanja said:
No radar, no distance information.
Yeah, but 3-point guidance only requires angular information.
-
On 7/29/2025 at 2:33 AM, Voy said:
The SA-11 in some situations is able to fire in an optical guidance mode which does not use radar, and hence you wouldn't get an RWR alert.
This typically only occurs at relatively close range where the launcher could see you visually. Not sure if DCS models visual limitations with weather/clouds though.The SA-11 is SARH - it must use the radar to illuminate the target at some stage in its flight, regardless of whether the target is being tracked via TV or via radar.
Most of the time optical systems only provide angle-tracking as a way to defeat jamming.
On 7/29/2025 at 11:58 AM, okopanja said:The TV channel can be used for silent tracking, but the SAM itself requires the radar to lock and track target afterwards.
Not sure this is correct.
Aside from transmitting radio command guidance to the missiles, the SA-3's 3-point guidance method only requires that the target and missile(s) be tracked in angle, this can be done passively with the target being tracked by the TV camera and the missile's radio beacon(s) being tracked by the 2 UV-11 antennas, which are receive-only.
It's only for the SA-3's lead-guidance method where target and missile range needs to measured which requires the radar transmit.
On 7/29/2025 at 11:58 AM, okopanja said:The SAM itself transmits the commands to the seeker
The missiles on the SA-3 (and command-guided systems in general) do not have seekers - they are command guided. The only thing they have is a radio proximity fuse.
-
Yeah looks like it still guides even when there's nothing available to provide said guidance.
If you set up your Rapier unit to only have the optical tracker or to only have Blindfire (less realistic set up but is a viable way of forcing Blindfire guidance mode) if after the missile is fired the optical tracker/Blindfire is disabled/destroyed or is set to stop emitting, the missile should stop being guided.
In the tracks below the missile remains in guided flight despite the optical tracker/Blindfire being disabled, destroyed or Blindfire set to stop transmitting.
As mentioned above, Rapier is a command-guided system, requiring either the optical tracker or Blindfire to track the target and the missile - if neither are operational, the missile should stop being guided.
SpoilerAs an aside:
- The missile seems reliably inaccurate, even against slow moving targets which aren't manoeuvring - it seems that the LOS the missile should be guided along isn't properly aimed - in most of these tracks the missile flew underneath the target.
- The plume of the missile is misaligned
RapierGuidanceWhenOTDestroyed.trk RapierGuidanceWhenBlindfireAIOff.trk RapierGuidanceWhenBlindfireDestroyed.trk RapierGuidanceWhenBlindfireNotTransmitting.trk RapierGuidanceWhenOTAIOff.trk
Incorrect/unrealistic method of guiding anti-aircraft missiles
in Weapon Bugs
Posted · Edited by Northstar98
Both systems have a purely command-guided midcourse phase (which doesn't involve the missile's seeker at all) and a terminal TVM phase (which is otherwise identical to SARH but the missile data links what it sees back to the FCR and the FCR in turn provides steering commands, instead of the missile generating its own steering commands as with SARH).
Mad_Shell's thread on the subject had more detail.
This issue though also applies to the RIM-66M-2 SM-2MR Block IIIA and the RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV, which do use command guidance + terminal SARH (the initial, command-guided phase doesn't appear to be modelled and launch warnings appear from launch - if it were consistent with current ARH missiles, that launch warning should only happen in the terminal phase).