Northstar98

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.

The manual is out of date (but I've got an updated table for player and AI aircraft which I will post shortly). Only the Mk 37 works against the SA-8 (targeting the C-band acquisition radar). The fire-control radar operates in the J band, above what any Shrike guidance section can target.

Reproduced in single player - Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0 and Mk 49 Mod 1 produce tone + steering but the Shrike doesn't track. This leaves the Mk 37, which can only be used against the acquisition radar (1S11 - the 1S31 is the fire-control radar), it doesn't provide a tone or steering, but it does track. AGM-45A_1S11_Mk37_WRCS_loft.trk AGM-45A_1S31_Mk36_WRCS_loft.trk AGM-45A_1S31_Mk49-0_WRCS_loft.trk AGM-45A_1S31_Mk49-1_WRCS_loft.trk

Reproduced. Speculative, but it looks like the missiles' seeker heads are enabling from the moment they're launched (and 10-12 km would be within the range of the seeker), before reaching a turn point. In this case, this could be an AI issue, which should set missiles to enable in the vicinity of their intended target. Using "Attack Group" under perform task, doesn't seem to have any effect either. EDIT: Swapping the Type 054As with Ticonderogas, the RGM-84D doesn't exhibit this behaviour. Secondly, IRL close-in weapon systems would engage anything meeting valid engagement criteria (including friendlies - they don't feature IFF systems) and so should be engaging incoming missiles, even if they're friendly.

Just note, that the La Combattante IIa is different because, as depicted, Harpoon is the wrong missile - it should be firing MM38 Exocet Block I and has been given MM38 Exocet launchers (which are angled differently to Mk 140/141 used in Harpoon). The Condell-class has a similar issue (only it has MM40 Exocet launchers and should be firing the MM40 Exocet Block I).

This image is of the Forrestal which doesn't have the supercarrier's deck crew system. The only ships that have that deck crew are CVNs 71-73 and CVN 75 of the supercarrier module. The only deck crew available on other ships are static (and have to be populated manually).

Hi everyone, While there's a couple of threads already about Harpoon launch issues, these pertain to ships that shouldn't be firing Harpoon in the first place and don't have launchers for Harpoon. However, the same doesn't apply to FFG 7s and their Mk 13 Mod 4 GMLS, which should be perfectly capable of launching Harpoon. Unfortunately, it seems that sometimes Harpoon will explode almost immediately upon launch, doing significant damage to the ship and destroying the launcher. Unfortunately, I can't quite see what's going on - there's a miniature SM-1 floating on the launcher, that remains present after the launcher is destroyed, perhaps the missile is colliding into that? The only clipping I can see is of the folding wings and fins. OHP_RGM-84_LaunchBug_SlowMo_Ahead.trk OHP_RGM-84_LaunchBug_SlowMo_Rear.trk OHP_RGM-84_LaunchBug.trk

Yep - definite +1

Well, by FF modules, just the F-16 and F/A-18 (and no idea what they do under the hood, not sure if they affect radars of other modules or just the AI). Absolutely everything else uses what you describe as FC-level jamming. But this requires evidence.

This up to ED to sort out. HOJ works best against noise jammers and shouldn't really work at all against DECM (the kind designed to break tracks, which is the most common type found in our fighters). These systems should generally automatically stop transmitting when a threat isn't detected (like you see in say, the F/A-18) meaning that it's only transmitting when a missile is capable of being guided via radar anyway and when the track is broken, the DECM system stops transmitting, giving a HOJ system nothing to home in on (though of course, this allows radars to reacquire and for the process to begin again). Until EW in DCS isn't just basic noise jammers, that only seem to magically affect the mainlobe of radars, missile vs ECM performance may as well be a moot point.

Cheers Flappie! It's a small thing, but hopefully also a small thing to correct.

Hi everyone, In the most recent newsletter, all of the Mogami's turrets appear to feature rangefinders - IRL, these were only present on the No. 3 and 4 turrets (though the No. 4 and 5 turrets were deleted upon conversion to an aviation cruiser, which I believe is the fit DCS is depicting - it is accurate for 1944). These blueprints are of Suyuza, but depicts pre-1943 AA conversion. The configuration forward of the stern (and the 3 forward turrets) should be identical to Mogami. Source

Yeah - looks really good (though those forward 2 turrets shouldn't have rangefinders):

Cheers Flappie, could I make a similar request for the S-3B? It's a bit odd given that we have 2 versions and some weapons should technically only apply to the tanker version (IRL both should be capable of tanking, but we don't have buddy stores - it's a bit awkward), however nearly all of the stores that DCS supports are already present. See this post for details:

Yep +1 This, alongside the older-style green ablative coating is all that's needed to complete the colour schemes for USAF/USN bombs, and apart from a few cases (such as the Mk 81) those already exist: It's only the Mk 81 and GBU-24B/B that doesn't have the old-style olive ablative coating available (the Mk 81 only has AF-appropriate textures).

Nope - only MT fuses. Nor does any naval gun (when nearly all the current ones should). The 5"/38 on the Samuel Chase also only has an MT fused round.

As it's now been announced that we can expect to see a Fletcher DD, Iowa BB and Cleveland CL as PTO assets, I wanted to bump this request. Ordnance Pamplet 1164 (circa 1947) has pretty much all the information required, navweaps.org includes ballistic tables (see here for the 5"/38 Mark 12, see here for the 6"/47 Mark 16). The 5"/38 Mark 12 has a whole load of different A.A. Common rounds with either mechanical time (MT) or proximity (VT) fused rounds, many can be found under 5-inch projectiles, MT fuses can be found beginning here and VT fuses beginning here. Typical characteristics of 5-inch VT fuses are a minimum range of about 600 - 1000 yds and a function distance of ~60-80 ft against aircraft. Over water, fuses without wave-suppression will function between 75 - 130 ft, with wave-suppression 10 - 50 ft. The 6"/47 Mark 16 gun is a bit easier to pin down: H.C. Mark 39: Mk 18 Mod 2/3/4 / Mk 50 / Mk 63 Mod 0 MT Mk 47 Mod 0 VT (min. range 800 yd, max. function distance ~80 ft against aircraft, ~10-30 ft above water)

Really pleased with what I've read in this newsletter. It seems that finally, for the first time ever it seems, we're getting a theatre with a coherent and comprehensive set of modules (though lacking IJN) and assets, on an appropriate map. The assets themselves look incredible and if we actually get everything stated here, then I'd say it would be worth the money, provided we also get functionality that is currently missing. The other thing that currently still seems to be missing are the guns for the Enterprise. The great thing about doing it this way is that it provides maximum flexibility over what we've had previously - before our asset, module and map selection only allowed for completely fictional scenarios and made it impossible to make anything historical (even alternate history with a historical-ish Order Of Battle was pretty much off the table). This allows us to not only do the former, but also the latter.

Some more juicy shots from today's newsletter:

Interesting - I retract my previous statement.

Isn't the L already from the mid-to-late 70s and so is already the proper missile for early 80s stuff? I mean the early F-14A is still a -135 from the mid 80s. The F-14A-95 will be Iranian though, so there the AIM-9J and AIM-7E-2 would be cool. Of course the Tomcat could still use the AIM-9D, G and H, though not sure how applicable they'd be to 80s Tomcat missions (the H is from the early-mid 70s). They'd probably be more appropriate for the F-8 Crusader or Naval F-4 Phantom variant.

It looks like it has been, though a couple of days ago I could've sworn I saw some red + green light funny business going on, but I've since been unable to reproduce. Apart from that (though I may have been seeing things it looks like, or perhaps I've properly lost my marbles), I'd say this is fixed.

Yeah agreed - the SA assets currently has 2 aircraft carriers but the game has exactly 0 aircraft that fit on them. HMS Invincible (of which we have the initial fit, accurate for the 1980-1982 timeframe): Sea Harrier FRS.1 Sea King HAS.5 ARA Veinticinco de Mayo: A-4Q Skyhawk (a derivative of the A-4Q) Super Etendard (there are at least photos of them being operated from the Veinticinco de Mayo) S-2E Tracker S-61D-4 Sea King Though (echoing what bfr said) in that case the Sea Harrier FRS.1 is a far better fit than the FA.2 (which only entered service in the early-to-mid 1990s). I'd say on balance the FRS.1 better fits DCS overall, it's the relevant Cold War variant that saw action on a (albeit anachronistic) map where its most famous for (along with a carrier it fits perfectly on).

I would love to have more variants, but I'm personally thinking more along the lines of: F-16A Block 10/15 - best-fit counterpart for the 9.12A MiG-29 ED are doing F-15A (or at least, a mid 80s to early 1990s F-15C) - fits CW Germany and Gulf War missions. Mi-24V - bit more iconic than the P, but shares quite a lot in common with it, hypothetically less work than a Mi-35P Phoenix (presumably that's what OP is referring to) UH-60A/L - closest contemporary to Mi-8MTV2, would fit Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan and most of our aircraft. We already have an AI A so a module would kill 2 birds with 1 stone (both adding a contemporary module and upgrading the graphics of the current A). CH-47C/D - more historically relevant than the CH-47F, fits more of our aircraft and maps, more operators, fits a wider timeframe (obviously depending on what equipment is present). F-4J/S is probably coming by Heatblur further down the line, the main Phantom version that's missing for me personally (and one we'll have 2 maps for) is the F-4M Phantom FGR.2. Speaking of Heatblur, they've got an AI A-6E coming soon, they did have an AI KA-6D planned (I hope it still is) an AI EA-6B Prowler (preferably ICAP II) would complete the set.