Northstar98

There seems to be a DCS-wide bug with the Mk 20/CBU-99, absolutely nothing drops them accurately, including the AI (and this goes for AI Phantoms as well as AI everything else).

Glad to hear it and yes, I constantly get a breakaway call when joining the KC-130, I usually just ignore it unless the tanker takes evasive action that it doesn't need to take. Hopefully though you will develop an expected sight picture without needing to look at the basket and find references that work for you (of course references, particularly those used for vertical positioning are more likely to vary, as they'll change with your AoA (which will depend on speed, your weight, altitude etc). But over time, with enough practice you should be able to find something that gets you where you need to be, even if only roughly.

It isn't complete just yet (there's a few things like NAVAIDS and airspace to do, as well as more completed electrical grid - I apologise for the long wait), but here's the full thing as it currently stands. When it's properly finished, I'll likely put it in a separate post. Kola Map Locations.kmz

Nope - you shouldn't be looking at either when connecting - you need to pick a reference in your cockpit and pick a reference on the tanker and make the 2 meet. For the KC-130, when connecting to the left: For lateral positioning I fly to place the heading caret somewhere between touching the left side of the propeller disc of the #1 engine to halfway between the #1 engine's nacelle and the refuelling pod (ideally it would be somewhere between, but the tolerance is such that aligning it either or should result in contact). For vertical positioning try and align the top of the HUD glass with the propeller disc of the #2 engine. This one is a bit difficult because it depends on your exact head positioning and how far forward/aft you are. For this image, I've recentered the view, having your head slightly higher may change the sight picture somewhat, but the basket does give some room for imprecision, but this should give a general gist of the sight picture. See the spoiler below for the same image, minus the annotations. I've also included the default head position and coordinates I have on my end. AV-8B_KC-130_AAR1.trk

L by a large margin: It is the perfect contemporary of the Hip we currently have (both are similar in role, size-ish and configuration and are from around the same timeframe (late 80s/early 90s). An L can stand-in for a Cold War A far better than an M can. It makes far more sense to offer an upgraded variant at a later date (as has already been done with the A-10C and with a hypothetical Ka-50) than to offer an older one (and ED have been fairly allergic to variants in the first place - better to offer one that offers more flexibility). The L offers more flexibility when it comes to missions, given that it can fit into much more historical scenarios. The M only fits GWOT and imagined scenarios, the L fits Gulf War, Iraq War, GWOT and imagined scenarios.

Hi everyone, Super minor one - the smoke produced by the boosters of RGM-84D and RGM-109C missiles should be increased. At the moment they produce a fairly thin amount of white smoke. IRL, both boosters produce significant amounts of smoke (which should have a yellow tinge to it for the RGM-84). RGM-84: RGM-109: There's a few very minor issues with the Tomahawk launches, which, while not the subject of this thread, I will list below: RGM-109_booster_smoke.trk RGM-84_booster_smoke.trk

All I can say with certainty is that this is reflected in real-life manuals. I'm unsure what the reason for that is. Speculating though, the RB 74 requires an Argon cooling system for its seeker head, the 24 is uncooled and the 24J uses a peltier-effect cooler, which only requires power. Maybe it's got something to do with that. Because the AJS 37 never carried it, nor is it a weapon the Swedish air force ever operated.

That isn't the case for me - Mk 20 on the Tomcat (and every other aircraft I've tested) only has the Mk 339 Mod 1 for the Mk 20, whereas the CBU-99 has both. Yes, it's a radar proximity fuse - it should function (dispense submunitions) at the height specified. Yes. How it works is that if nose is selected, the bomb should function after whatever time the PRI setting is set to (defaults to 1.2 seconds). If nose and tail is selected, the bomb should function after whatever time the OPT setting is set to (defaults to 4 seconds). If tail is selected, the bomb will dud. Note that in either the case, the actual time from release to the bomb dispensing countermeasures will be the arming delay + whatever function delay (PRI/OPT) is selected. As for the OP, I've noticed the AI drops the Mk 20/CBU-99 way long, with higher ingress speeds increasing the miss-distance.

Not in DCS at least - FMU-140 is only available for the CBU-99. The Mk 20 only has the Mk 339, which is a time-based fuse, with 2 settings.

Note that this table is incomplete and some of the guidance sections that currently work might not do so in the future (like all of the ones currently able to target the SA-13 - no guidance section should be able to target it) and conversely some of the guidance sections which don't currently work properly may do so in the future (for instance, the Mk 49s against the SA-6's fire-control radar (1S31 SNR), where the 1S91 (which mounts 1S11 and 1S31 radars) is listed as the radar these guidance sections should be able to target). I've posted a complete table listing applicable seekers and whether they work or not here, unless ED changes what frequency the respective radars operate at (which they may do for the SA-13 and the SA-6's acquisition radar), this should remain true long-term: Also note that the Mk 37 will only target the acquisition radar, not the fire-control radar (not that it matters in DCS - currently it's not possible to have the fire-control radar transmit and the acquisition radar remain silent, - IRL it's perfectly possible to have the acquisition radar off the air, acquire targets visually via the TV camera and only have the fire-control radar on the air immediately before missile launch).

Absolutely agreed. It would also include the North German Plain which was identified as a significant probable axis of advance in the event of the Cold War going hot (and includes ports as relevant targets), not to mention airbases in the North (such as Damgarten (773 IAP - we already have a MiG-21bis and a 9.12 MiG-29) and Wittmundhafen (JG 71 - we've got JG 71 liveries for the F-4E, we're getting an F-104G of some description)). EDIT: The current La Combattante IIa is depicted as a late FRG Type 148 Tiger, so depending on how much water we get, that vessel would be right at home (if only it could get MM38 Exocet Block 1). It may also enable carrier-based aviation and anti-shipping missions in general and we are getting a Luftwaffe Tornado with Kormoran (so right at home), not sure about Aerges F-104G, though it would be nice to depict Marineflieger units.

I mean, the Ka-50 has an option to move its HMD up and down. I assume this is to move it to your eye level which makes it easier to use with Track IR.

Well, I wouldn't say excuse, more defining the scope of their modules. While very narrow, I don't think going beyond it holds much water for ED, given that they have enough trouble as it is completing aircraft wholly within it, let alone going outside it. But sticking to that defined scope does fit the wider published goals of the game though. And yes, the game is necessarily going to be inaccurate and will make compromises - that's why that wider goal is realism where it's possible. Suffice to say, I don't see how the existence of inaccuracies or compromises mean it should be done away with (especially when the same logic applies the other way around to the converse). Getting back to the F-35 though, I hope they at least make an attempt to represent an IOC or post IOC aircraft. If that means the aircraft is somewhat of a frankenjet, because that's all they can do, so be it.

Hi everyone, A subsequent update has resulted in ships not firing their anti-ship missiles until their targets are detected by their own surface-search radars (which, ignoring atmospheric ducting (which isn't modelled in DCS), are limited to radar horizon, for most ships this is typically on the order of 20 nmi/~37 km, some ships are). Previously, attack unit/group would result in firings, so long as the target was within the weapon's maximum range. This means that ships with longer-ranged anti-ship weapons cannot take advantage of that longer range and put themselves within range of shorter weapons (which can include some gun systems). Sometimes ships will fire 1-2 missiles, but won't follow up until within detection range of their own surface-search radars, this is inconsistent however (possibly related to heavy timewarp usage). While the current set up is somewhat more realistic, ships don't have ESM systems modelled in DCS, the AI won't share targets they detect with each other (in the tracks below their are aircraft that can provide offboard targeting, both via ESM and/or surface-directed radar - targeting should be able to be provided via data link or voice), nor are satellite based targeting systems modelled (outside Given that ships do not feature ESM systems in DCS, the AI won't share targets they detect with each other (and in the tracks below there are aircraft capable of detecting ships at long-range, both via ESM and via surface-directed radars), nor are there any satellite-based targeting systems (such as Legenda), attack group was the only option available to take advantage of the long range of anti-ship missiles. Now there's no option whatsoever. 3M80_Range.trk P-500_Range.trk P-700_Range1.trk P-700_Range2.trk RGM-84D_Range.trk YJ-62_Range.trk YJ-83_Range.trk

Still an issue as of DCS 2.9.13.6818. This feature was mentioned in the newsletter following the patch that introduced this feature, but it has never worked. In the track below, I've removed all weapons from the Arleigh Burke's VLS, yet it still performs the land strike with RGM-109C and intercepts inbound AS-20s with RIM-156A. AI_DDG51_WeaponsQtyNotRespected.trk

I highly doubt it. Even a scope as narrow as "X variant at Y date, for Z operator" is still too large for ED to finish properly. We've already seen items that are perfectly accurate, even to that narrow scope, be either removed, forgotten about, or not planned for in the first place. Though I don't see any of the people complaining about narrow scopes complaining about that... The Hornet is easily the worst offender here - MSI, TAMMAC maps, CAS page, Nite Hawk, CEC functionality for the MITL weapons etc. But this is even the case where classification, research or technical viability is absolutely not a problem in any way shape or form. In fact, some not-planned for features are present on other modules by the same developer (the Apache gets reduced-load ATGMs, the Hind doesn't; the Hip gets PKT door gunners, the Hind doesn't). Then there's the whole stated goals of the game in the first place, this is supposed to be depicting aircraft accurately - I fail to see the issue when it gets closer to doing exactly that. With that said, I'm kind of of the opinion of Block 3F (at least) or go home. Personally, I'm not interested in pre-IOC aircraft, especially given the overall environment in DCS (which is poorly suited to the F-35 in the first place and having a pre-IOC aircraft would only solidify that sentiment for me).

Hi everyone, Minor issue - modules given the ability to produce tone and acquire and track decoy flares prior to launch cannot do so for illumination flares. Everything else in the game (including IR SAMs) can. I have a selection of tracks below, you can see that aircraft that In the Chaparral track, you can even see that illumination flares are able to decoy and seduce the missile away (in this case, the missile was initially tracking the flare on the left, but gets decoyed by the flare on the right). Also seen in these tracks: The F-15C seems to think illumination flares have IFF transponders and identifies them as friendly. The seekers of IR missiles launched by the F/A-18C aren't actually aligned with the reticle on the HUD. It seems somewhat ironic (and I must admit, a little perplexing), that illumination flares being able to be acquired and tracked prior to launch being more of a global change, whereas decoy flares are not. I assume this is due to the fact that illumination flares are treated like a weapon and decoys are not. IF they were instead a short-lived entity, that would result in this change being global. If this was also applied to chaff, that would facilitate chaff for distraction and chaff corridors in DCS, not just to higher-fidelity, bespoke 3rd party radar implementations. Chaparral_PreLaunchIllumFlareTracking.trk F-15C_PreLaunchIllumFlareTracking.trk F-16CM_NoPreLaunchIllumFlareTracking.trk F-18C_NoPreLaunchIllumFlareTracking1.trk F-18C_NoPreLaunchIllumFlareTracking2.trk Strela-10_PreLaunchIllumFlareTracking.trk Su-25_PreLaunchIllumFlareTracking.trk

Then it wasn't tracking the flares before it was fired. What happened is that the missile was launched with no lock, there was a flare in its field of view immediately upon launch and went for it. The flare still only exists to the missile after launch. Which means, for aircraft without this new functionality: You've got the same chance of having your missile be decoyed by a pre-emptively released flare (if it's within the seeker's FoV upon launch) as you have for one released post-launch (though of course, the closer to the target the missile is, the faster a flare will leave its field of view, so there's still some advantage to pre-emptively flaring, but it's obviously dependent on geometry). Negating some of the advantages to pre-emptively flaring. It's not possible for flares to steal away a seeker's track prior to launch. Negating an advantage to pre-emptively flaring. For aircraft that don't provide seeker look angle (F-4E, F-5E, Mi-24P, MiG-29P, MiG-21bis, MiG-29/29G/29S (in boresight, though AFAIK, the only LOS they show for other modes is for radar or IRST, not missiles), Mirage F1, Su-25/25T and Su-27S/33 (ditto with the MiG-29) etc) if you have a tone, it's always on the target. It's not possible for you to accidentally be actually tracking a flare prior to launch (which could easily be the case in the F-4E or F-5E with an uncaged seeker), though the latter has received this update). Some of these aircraft (mainly the ones of Soviet origin), normally also inhibit launch unless the missile is tracking a target. And this update applies to aircraft like the F-5E and Mi-24P (according to BIGNEWY) - these aircraft don't provide the pilot with seeker look angle and so don't tell the pilot what they're actually tracking, which should be further evidence that this isn't just a display behaviour change (not to mention Chizh's comments on the matter, he agrees that missiles do not track flares). That isn't what the update is - the update is missiles tracking flares prior to launch, which is only the case for the listed aircraft. The F-5E and Mi-24P (which were also given this update) don't provide seeker look-angle in the first place. Before, if you had a tone it was always on the target, it wasn't possible for you to be tracking a flare without maybe realising it. If you launched and there was a flare in the missile's FoV, it falls to probability whether or not the missile will be decoyed. Now it's possible for your missile to be tracking a flare prior to launch. In cases where seeker LOS isn't shown, you may not even realise the missile is tracking a flare (especially with uncaged seekers). There, this is absolutely not an advantage and makes pre-emptive flaring more of a valid tactic. No, this was always the case, if you had a lock it was always on the target. Again, the flare doesn't exist to the missile before it's actually launched. The only thing that existed were valid targets (aircraft or cruise missiles, though I'm unsure if they would also track other missiles EDIT: they do, EDIT: somewhat ironically, parachute illumination flares are also valid) and the sun. The missile can only be decoyed or otherwise track decoy flares post-launch. Of course, if upon launch there's already a flare in its FoV there's a chance for the missile to be decoyed by it (and if there's only a flare in it's FoV, it will obviously go for it, which is the case in your test as the F-15 allows you to fire missiles without a lock). I actually stand corrected on this one, it didn't used to be the case. But they do so - what's funny however is that only modules that haven't received this new update will provide tone and tracking on illumination flares prior to launch. Every IR missile I've tested tracks flares post-launch, but only modules/systems that haven't received this new update will do so prior to launch. Chaparral, Avenger, Strela-10, F-15C and Su-25 all produce tone and tracking on illumination flares prior to launch. The F-16C and F/A-18C however, only have missiles track illumination flares post-launch. Not only is this evidence that prior-to-launch flare tracking could've been made global and not dependent on module (as it is for illumination flares, excluding aircraft that have received this update).But it also shows that the way DCS is set up is rather messy: Aircraft that have missiles produce tones of and track illumination flares prior to launch won't do so for decoy flares. Aircraft that have missiles produce tones of and track decoy flares prior to launch won't do so for illumination flares. Of course, illumination flares are treated as weapons in DCS and decoy flares are not (in that sense they're more of actual entity). The same is true for chaff, which is why chaff doesn't exist for radars (even pulse radars) that use ED's radar model (which currently makes chaff for distraction and chaff corridors impossible, even against radars where this is applicable, such as the F-5E). So if this change had instead made flares actual entities, we would've had our global, consistent change. Also note, that in first F/A-18 track, despite the flare being centred in the missile's LOS on the HUD, it doesn't track (because the missile isn’t actually aligned with it) - proving that it isn't secretly tracking the illumination flare without telling you - it's only after launch that it's tracked (if it's in the missile seeker's FoV (which it is for my follow-up missile)). In the 2nd track, I establish a radar lock on the illumination flare, the seeker is apparently slaved to it and the missile still doesn't track it. Another thing is in the newly uploaded Chaparral track you can see that the first missile actually gets seduced by the other illumination flare, potentially meaning they can be used as decoys. EDIT: It wasn't in the changelog, but the F-4E produces a tone and tracks decoy flares prior to launch, it doesn't track parachute illumination flares, so it has also received this update (assuming it didn't do that before). Chaparral_PreLaunchIllumFlareTracking.trk F-15C_PreLaunchIllumFlareTracking.trk F-16CM_NoPreLaunchIllumFlareTracking.trk F-18C_NoPreLaunchIllumFlareTracking1.trk F-18C_NoPreLaunchIllumFlareTracking2.trk Stinger_PreLaunchIllumFlareTracking.trk Strela-10_PreLaunchIllumFlareTracking.trk Su-25_PreLaunchIllumFlareTracking.trk

Fortunately this list is rather small: For showing what's being detected, all whatever this missile function would have to provide is: Relative seeker look-angle (i.e. the azimuth and elevation of the detected target from the perspective of the missile) - these missiles all use proportional navigation, which takes the relative bearing and elevation, differentiates it with respect to time to find the rate and then the control scheme acts to drive that rate down to 0. So, this variable should already be present. Seeker signal (which can be broken down to seeker sees nothing, seeker sees something but it isn't being tracked/isn't perfecly centred on seeker boresight, seeker tracking target/target perfectly centred on seeker boresight). For control: Set seeker look angle (for instance, slaved to another sensor, or scanning a pattern) the module should provide whatever function that returns desired seeker look-angle. Cage/uncage seeker. Turn on/off seeker cooling. Enable/disable seeker. Unless you can think of something I've missed, everything else is aircraft specific and not dependent on the missile itself (like which station is the missile located on, how much cooling time remains etc). Even in cases like the AIM-9X which provides a different tone when high off-boresight, you only need seeker look angle and a comparison to do this. It means that: You may have to delay firing until there's enough separation between the target and the countermeasure. If for instance, you only briefly hold a good firing position, this could end up spoiling the opportunity. Some aircraft don't provide seeker look-angle to the pilot so in some cases they won't know if it's tracking a flare, leading to cases where missiles are potentially wasted because they weren't tracking the target to begin with. This is especially relevant to Cold War aircraft (like the F-4E, F-5E, MiG-21bis, Su-25/25T). Even in cases where aircraft do provide seeker look-angle to the pilot, there's the possibility that a flare steals the seeker's attention just before launch (potentially before a pilot can react to it), also wasting a missile. Minor one, but flares (including parachute flares) can be used as training tools. I should also mention that this may apply to missiles with counter-countermeasure capability (the AIM-9M for instance suspends tracking if it detects a fast rise in energy, indicative of a pyrotechnic decoy Chizh certainly agrees. So far I've tested with IR SAMs (they are the easiest to test) and this seems to be the case, in these tracks I can't get a tone on flares (let alone get the missile to track them) - only the aircraft launching them. These systems in DCS also inhibit firing until the missile is tracking a target. You can see that the only time I receive tone/tracking is when the aircraft is being detected/tracked. If you are going to test, note that the Mi-24P also received this update according to BIGNEWY (and that one doesn't provide seeker look-angle to the pilot). The only thing you gain by dropping flare preemptively, is that there's a chance that, as soon as the missile is launched, it has a flare in its FoV and can be decoyed slightly earlier. Chaparral_NoPreLaunchFlareTracking.trk Stinger_NoPreLaunchFlareTracking.trk Strela-10_NoPreLaunchFlareTracking.trk

Because the missile itself isn't modelled in any way before it is launched - it seems that it's up to the module to model any pre-launch behaviour. This is why you not only see missiles locking flares only in the modules set up for it, but also why the Heatblur Phantom has different Sparrow limitations and functionality compared to other modules (such as the speed-gate tuning delay and being able to set the initial speed-gate for the Sparrow to home in on). Personally, this should absolutely be changed. The only thing that should be up to the module is how they interact with it (for instance, selection, whether the HUD displays seeker look-angle, the state of a cool or preparation switch and how much cooling time remains etc). This way: Developers don't have to duplicate efforts to propagate the same improvement to other modules. A knock-on effect is any future module will already be facilitated. Missiles have standardised behaviour, that depends on the missile (which is how it should be). No more rear-aspect only R-60Ms just because an L-39 fired it for instance. It would apply to AI missiles. All I can say right now, is when I use CA to test IR SAM systems (FIM-92C Stinger, MIM-72G Chaparral, 9M38 Igla), it's not possible to get the missile to track flares prior to launch - it's as if the flare doesn't exist meaning many of the consequences of pre-flaring isn't possible. Why exactly? How IR tracking works, specifically what an IR missile is able to detect (which, fundamentally, is what the problem is here), has absolutely nothing to do with the launch platform. Some launch platforms are able to get the seeker look-angle and display it, some are able to command the seeker to look in a certain direction (i.e. slaving, SEAM etc) and aside from basic functions like enabling the seeker, caging/uncaging it, some are able to tell you whether a seeker has been cooled or not. Even if it did, it would only need to be fixed once. Whereas now, the implementations are different so potentially different bugs affect different aircraft, which is more of a mess and less efficient, not to mention less realistic. Nope, apart from aircraft where this function is implemented, flares don't exist to missiles before they're launched. No - this is incorrect. It's not just a visual indication (this function applies to the Hind that produces no such indication)- because apart from these aircraft, pre-emptive flaring doesn't do anything, apart from potentially decoy a missile earlier after launch. To reiterate, apart from in these aircraft, flares don't exist to missiles before they are launched. See this thread from just over half a year ago - Chizh acknowledges that missiles cannot lock flares before being launched:

Pleased to report that this is now actually fixed.

Sorry for the ping but now that the SC Kuznetsov has had its smoke effect enabled, I just had a thought - for the ships that should be producing thick black smoke (namely the Kuznetsov, but also the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo), could we not reuse effects from "EFFECT - SMOKE" found in the actions menu of the triggers? The smoke supports being displaced by wind (but probably doesn't factor ship motion into that, it doesn't support being moved). It's still a bit too wide, but it's a lot closer to reality than what's there right now for these 2. Just a thought.

The Mk 37 is working because ED defined the acquisition radar (1S11) as operating in the C-band (they've defined it as operating between 0.5 - 1 GHz, which is the complete C-band) - see line 58 here (the frequency is in Hz). Unfortunately, for this radar IRL sources contradict each other and often use different nomenclature to describe bands, just to provide a few: Radartutorial describes the 1S11 as operating in the C-band but doesn't tell us what nomenclature it's using (radartutorial isn't consistent with which one it uses) - though given that the 1S31 is definitely listed using IEEE nomenclature, I'll assume the 1S11 is also listed using IEEE nomenclature. If that is indeed the case, then that would correspond to the NATO G/H-band, or 4 - 8 GHz. Perhaps ED used this, but didn't convert IEEE nomenclature to NATO nomenclature. Most other sources seem to either agree or reference this value. Ausairpower conversely describes the 1S11 as operating in the lower X-band (NATO I-band). The German language de.wikipedia states the 1S11 operates in the G/H-band but doesn't provide a reference for it. Given this, this could change (I might make a bug report for it as I've yet to find a source that states NATO C-band for this radar). The Mk 36 and 49s however produce a tone and ADI steering for the 1S33 (which shows up as a 6 on the radar, the 1S11 shows up as an 'S' requiring your RWR to be in search mode), but don't track - this is almost certainly a bug, especially for the Mk 49s (where the 1S91 is listed as an intended threat radar). No Shrike should be able to track the Shilka - its radar operates in the J-band which is above what any Shrike guidance section should be able to target. If you do find Shrikes tracking it, that's a bug. I've got a table listing every ground-based radar in-game and which guidance section fall within the same frequency band, as defined in DCS. This table can be found here:

This mostly matches my testing, however: SA-13's radar (9S86 [Snap Shot]) is currently inaccurate due to it not being defined (no guidance section should be able to target it). Expect this to change. The Mk 23, Mk 24 Mod 5 or Mk 24 Mod 34 probably shouldn't provide a tone or ADI steering for the SA-15TR - that radar operates in the G - H band in DCS, those guidance sections target the E - F band. Possibly expect this to change. The Mk 36/49 Mod 0/49 Mod 1 (if they worked), only track the fire-control radar of the SA-6 and the Mk 37 will only track the acquisition radar. If you don't see a 6 on your RWR, the Mk 36/49 Mod 0/49 Mod 1 won't guide. SA-5RF - is this the RD-75 Amazonka? If so this belongs to the SA-2 (or at least some versions of it). I'm not sure what guidance sections match the frequency as I'm not sure what frequency(ies) the RD-75 operates at. Possibly expect this to change. The Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0 and Mk 49 Mod 1 all track the AN/MPQ-46 HIPIR (Hawk TR) albeit without a tone or ADI steering. The Mk 49 Mod 0 and Mod 1 probably shouldn't provide a tone & ADI steering for the AN/MPQ-53 RS (Patriot STR) - those target the H - I band in DCS, the AN/MPQ-53 operates in the G band. This is probably a bug, possibly expect this to change. The Mk 23 and Mk 50 probably shouldn't provide a tone & ADI steering for the HQ-7B ACU (STR), that radar operates in the I band, the Mk 23 and Mk 50 operate in the E - F and E - G band respectively in DCS. This is probably a bug, possibly expect this to change. Rapier surveillance radar isn't on this list (Mk 23, Mk 24 Mod 5, Mk 24 Mod 34 and Mk 50 all track it without a tone or ADI steering), nor is the Roland's track radar (Domino 3D), which the Mk 36 tracks without a tone or ADI steering. The Patriot AMG however is, when it isn't a radar.

As ED have changed some of the radar definitions in subsequent updates and the forum seemingly doesn't let you alter the configurations of tables after the fact (only their contents), here's a new set of tests for the AGM-45 Shrike, testing every applicable ground-based radar in-game. For these, I've gone through the various .lua definitions of each unit to see what frequency ranges they're actually defined with. These are available here. For units that contain both an acquisition and a fire-control radar, fire-control radars are typically listed as "FrequencyRange" under "LN =", whereas acquisition radars are typically listed under "searchRadarFrequencies". I've noticed that other guidance sections not in the frequency range track the radar, this is almost certainly a bug. A couple of radars are also undefined (9S86 and RD-75 being the 2 pominent examples). EDIT: Note that this is accurate for DCS 2.9.12.5336.1, the results as shown below may change in subsequent updates. I'll try and keep this post updated as changes occur. I've colour coded the guidance sections based on their in-game behaviour, though I may change this to accomodate those with reduced colour perception. For players: Guidance sections marked in green provide a tone and ADI steering and track the radar. Guidance sections marked in orange don't provide a tone or ADI steering (requiring you to have foreknowledge of the radar's location, as some of these also don't show up on the RWR) but do still track the radar. This is probably a bug. Guidance sections marked in magenta provide a tone and ADI steering, but don't actually track the radar. This is probably a bug one way or the other (either they shouldn't provide a tone or ADI steering, or they should track the radar - the latter especially in cases where it applies to intended threat radars for certain guidance sections, such as the Straight Flush with the Mk 49 Mod 0/1). Guidance section marked in red don't provide a tone or ADI steering and don't track the radar. This may or may not be a bug (IRL there's more to it than just operating frequencies match = compatible) Uncoloured guidance sections are unable to be determined (only applies to the Mk 50 against the SA-15, which cannot be made to track the fire-control radar). I should also mention that this was tested in single player. Multiplayer may yield different results looking at some reports. For the AI: Guidance sections marked in green represent those that track the radar. Guidance sections marked in magenta are those that the AI will engage with, but don't track the radar. This might be the result of a bug. Guidance sections marked in red are those that the AI won't engage with. This may or may not be a bug. These tests were done using "search then engage unit", with the AI set to take no reactions to threat, to override attack avoidance decisions and to immortal. With the AI I'd recommend using "search then engage" or "SEAD" (under "start enroute task") and not attack unit/group (under perform task). With attack unit/group, I've noticed that if the AI evaluates that it cannot attack the radar the instant the task is triggered (for instance, due to the radar not illuminating) the AI sometimes drops the task and doesn't engage, even if the same radar illuminates the AI moments later. For reference, here's a table of Shrike guidance sections, the frequency range and band(s) they operate in. The guidance sections IRL corresponded to different Shrike versions, a table showing these can be found here.