Northstar98

If I'm not mistaken they're from Flanker 2.5 (as are most Soviet/Russian naval assets), which is the same age. And if not Flanker 2.5, then LOMAC - which is 2003, so early a ~couple of years newer.

A box select tool? And we can specify what to include or not? Simply fantastic news!

There was another track posted here which shows what is happening. Part of the problem though is that the La Combattante IIa's launchers are for MM38 Exocet (which should be MM38 Exocet Block 1) - not RGM-84D. EDIT: Linx also mentioned the Condell below this - that's another case of Harpoon being fired from Exocet launchers (though for the Condell, those should be MM40 Exocet Block 1, not MM38).

Yes, last I checked 2005 was within that range and 2002 was not. Ergo, mid to early. Then where does 2002 go? Most people go with 3-4-3 year division for early/mid/late. Not 2, miss 1, 4, ?... Not that it matters - they still went from mid 2000s to earlier (early 2000s).

Excellent news!

Tell that to ED... Don't believe me? See this and then see this. It was mid 2000s and then it was changed to early. They initially went for a stop gap pod based on symbology from a different operator, then went for an anachronistic pod with functions missing and others not implemented properly and then the pod most appropriate to what they've said they're modelling gets snubbed.

Then that's the bug here. The AN/FPS-117 is a D band radar - it's within the range the HARM can target - the other two are not. Equation above works out to 0.191 m for the outer diameter of a planar spiral for the lower extremity of the D band, which would fit inside the HARM.

Yeah, you're right - I just checked, the Mk 84 is the exception with it using the green thermally protected Mk 8x livery as opposed to the grey BLU-11x coating. The Mk 82 AIR/Mk 82Y selections also don't do anything - only the unprotected USAF green is available. Neither Mk-82_BSU-33.edm or Mk-82air.edm have any coating options available, but then I couldn't find any evidence online of Mk 82AIRs being in the Navy's inventory (I couldn't find any images of Navy aircraft with them at least). EDIT: I'm guessing the Mk 82 BSU-33 is intended for air force only, given the grey tail section. The BSU-33 is the regular Mk 82/BLU-111 fin assembly and the coating options are already there for Mk-82.edm.

We already have enough problems delivering the current C. Even some of its older weapons aren't fully implemented, despite being marked as completed (and the missing functionality was once planned). Then there's stores that are missing, such as the AN/AAS-38B Nite Hawk - easily the most applicable targeting pod for the era our Hornet is supposed to represent (which was the mid 2000s, now its early 2000s), but isn't planned. We don't even have a consistent AIM-120C version, though it certainly isn't a C-5 (which is old enough for our Hornet). I don't see how a newer aircraft would be feasible, as it will no doubt result in even more of its functionality being missed. Maybe a block I or very early F/A-18E/F Block II, but it would have much capability over our current aircraft.

Yep:

Not really sure the HARM should be able to engage those radars. Both the 1L13 and 55G6 are VHF radars, in DCS the 1L13 is defined as operating between 180 - 220 MHz and the 55G6 between 30 - 300 MHz According to this, the AGM-88 (or at least the AGM-88B) has a conical spiral antenna (spirals are fairly common in ARM designs). The lowest frequency a conical spiral antenna can targhet is related to its base (outer) radius. The same source states that the HARM can target the C to J bands - those radars operate in the A band and A-B band (just) respectively. I'm not entirely sure of the equations that determine the minimum frequency of a conical spiral antenna, but for a planar spiral antenna it's fmin = c/2πr2 where r2 is the outer radius: In order to target 220 MHz, r2 would have to be at least 0.434 m and to target 300 MHz, it would need to be at least 0.318 m (and bear in mind, that's the upper limit of where these radars operate, at least as defined in DCS). Those outer radii correspond to a diameter of 0.868 and 0.636 m respectively - the HARM has a fuselage diameter of only 0.254 m (and the seeker is even smaller still) - it simply isn't big enough to fit a conical spiral antenna big enough such that it can operate at the range these radars do.

Just an addendum to this now that the fusing update is in. Can we get a selection for the green thermally protected Mk 82, Mk 82 Snake Eye, Mk 83, GBU-10, GBU-12, GBU-16 and GBU-31(V)2/B? The textures are already there, we just can’t select them. Right now we can only select between USAF non-thermally protected and USN BLU-11x series, we cannot select USN green thermally protected Mk 8x series bombs/warheads. As for the GBU-32(V)2/B, it seems to have began low-rate initial production circa 2002, the green may have still been in circulation according to the OP (and the green texture does exist for the Mk 83) the GBU-38(V)2/B IOC'd in 2005, so the green is probably inaccurate for it.

You're right that the GBU-32(V)2/B is exclusive to the USN and USMC, but there is a green thermally protective coating, which was in use before being superceded by the grey. AFAIK the olive-green coating was used with Mk 8x series warheads and the grey coating (with 3 yellow stripes) is used for the BLU-111, BLU-110 and BLU-117 (500 lb, 1000 lb and 2000 lb respectively - all essentially identical to the Mk 82/83/84, but are filled with PBXN-109 insensitive explosive as opposed to trinotal). A JDAM with a green coating and a Mk 8x series warhead can be seen in this image.

Hi everyone, In the new (albeit non-functional) payload selection for the Arleigh Burke, the RGM-109C is called BGM_109B: The BGM-109B is the legacy designation (apart from the BGM-109G Gryphon, all BGM designations were designated to RGM (surface ship-launched) and UGM (submarine-launched) after 1986) for the TASM or Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile. What we actually have in DCS is the RGM-109C Tomahawk Block II/III (should be III) TLAM-C, which is the conventional land-attack version. As such, this should be renamed to "RGM-109C Tomahawk Block III TLAM-C" as this is what the missile actually is/should be. See this for further reading.

Hi everyone, The 5N62 RPC [Square Pair] FCR for the S-200M system seems to be defined with incorrect frequencies. It's currently defined as having a frequency range of 1.55 - 3.9 GHz, which is in the D - E band. See line 80 of the .lua. Online sources state that this radar actually operates in the 6.0 GHz band/H band, possibly centred around 6.66 GHz / 4.5 cm. Source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4

Reproduced with multiple radars and multiple guidance sections - the only thing that seems to be working are the Shrikes themselves when launched and the AoA indexer lights when using the Shrike's WRCS mode distance readouts on the HSI. EDIT: At least some radars and guidance sections are unaffected - for instance the Mk 23, Mk 24 Mod 5, Mk 24 Mod 34 and Mk 50 against the SON-9 produce the aural tone and have the flight director function more-or-less as expected. The tracks below however show that the Mk 22, Mk 25 and Mk 50 against the SNR-75V has the flight director only showing waypoint steering and no aural tone (the only thing being the distance readout) and similar for the Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0 and Mk 49 Mod 1 against the SNR-125M. AGM-45A_SNR-75V_Mk22_WRCS.trk AGM-45A_SNR-75V_Mk25_WRCS.trk AGM-45A_SNR-75V_Mk50_WRCS.trk AGM-45A_SNR-125M_Mk36_WRCS.trk AGM-45A_SNR-125M_Mk49-0_WRCS.trk AGM-45A_SNR-125M_Mk49-1_WRCS.trk

As of DCS 2.9.9.2280 new helipads have been implemented. However, at least some of them seem to be fictional. In this case it's somewhat disappointing as the actual helipad at Fox Bay is still unusable:

Yeah, the lack of Iranian airbases is a deal-breaker for me.

Yes to all of the above. It doesn't appear in the mission editor It doesn't appear on AI aircraft It doesn't appear on player aircraft when starting with them already equipped It doesn't appear on player aircraft when rearmed via the ground crew AI_F-4E_AVQ-23FT_rack.trk AI_F-4E_ALQ-131_rack.trk AI_F-4E_AVQ-23_rack.trk F-4E_AVQ-23_ALQ-131_rearm.trk F-4E_AVQ-23_ALQ-131_rack_rearm.trk F-4E_AVQ-23FT_rack.trk F-4E_ALQ-131_rack.trk F-4E_AVQ-23_rack.trk

Hi everyone, Super minor bug - the new models for the RIM-66M SM-2MR Block IIIA and RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV have inverted animations for their control surfaces (e.g. when the missile pitches down, the control surfaces deflect so as to pitch the missile up). Incidentally, the nozzles Mk 72 booster for the RIM-156A doesn't appear to be animated (IRL this booster features thrust vectoring) and unlike the SM-2s, the SM-1's control surfaces don't appear to be animated in-game (the missile doesn't even appear on the launcher before it's fired). RIM-66M_controlsurfaces.trk RIM-156A_controlsurfaces.trk

Doesn't look like it - the missions I used to create the tracks here now consistently produce "marked by laser" callouts with lasers being fired.

I have indeed rechecked recently, all the issues in that particular post have now been resolved and have been for several months. The only issue now present (at least from my testing) is the AGM-45 against the SON-9 and AN/MPQ-64F1 - the AI makes no attempt whatsoever to even engage either radar. Please see this post for tracks, further up this thread. Note that this problem is not that the Shrikes don't track - the problem is the AI refuses to engage in the first place. Heatblur have implemented a workaround which appears to have resolved the issue with the GBU-8 not dropping without Pave Spike, so that can be considered resolved.

Hi everyone, Could we get the newly implemented RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV implemented on the Ticonderoga (preferably alongside the loadout editor)? There's much more historical precedent for adding the SM-2ER to the Ticonderoga than there was for the Arleigh Burke.

That would be nice, but unless there's plans to give the Arleigh Burke RIM-162D ESSM Block 1 (which, they should be - the liveries they have depict ships that are definitely new enough to receive it) the single missile per cell is accurate.

Reproduced