Northstar98

Hi everyone, Would ED consider adding appropriate marshal callsigns for Heatblur's Forrestal? The appropriate callsigns for them are as follows: CV 59, USS Forrestal: "HANDBOOK" [source] CV 60, USS Saratoga: "FAIR FIELD" [source] CV 61, USS Ranger: "GRAY EAGLE" [source] CV 62, USS Independence: "GUN TRAIN" [source]

And if you play AGM-45A_S-125M_Mk37.trk you'll see the same mission working (if you watch the track then change .trk to .miz you can confirm it's the same mission). So long as the AI can get to a position where they can fire, it works - the track proves it.

The track I posted accompanying it (which is the same mission) shows a Shrike being fired at the P-19 and successfully destroying it, after 1 aircraft crashed and another shot down. The mission and track posted with just the P-19 has it engaged 100% of the time. There's nothing wrong here so long as the AI can get close enough to engage it, though their "tactics" sometimes hinders that.

Yeah, couldn't get the AI to launch the BK90s in that mission - I did try changing the reaction to threat setting, override AI attack avoidance and deleting then re-adding the bombing tasks - all to no avail, the AI simply overfly the target and then they're never in a position to launch. Very strange - I'm able to get the AI to drop BK90s no problem in my own missions (I've got an identical set-up in each, just changing the target and setting the AI to no reaction and immortal when against the SA-3). AI_BK90_Infantry.trk AI_BK90_S-125M.trk

Yes - I agree. That's a mistake on my part - my apologies, I appreciate the correction

Here I've got one where there's just a P-19 with no accompanying S-125. Make sure that: Make sure the P-19 is actually radiating (this is the default behaviour) The Shrike's guidance section needs to be set to Mark 37 - it is the only one that targets the same band as the P-19. Check the AI's reaction to threat and override attack avoidance decisions. Make sure the former isn't set to "allow abort mission" and turn the latter on. Try using perform task -> attack unit/group and search then engage as opposed to just SEAD. The other thing to bear in mind that the AI will only fire the AGM-45A in direct and in a dive, which results in firings only at very close ranges (and the Shrike isn't that long-ranged to begin with) - just about every SAM will outrange the Shrike when fired by the AI. The AI also isn't the best when it comes to attacking SAMs and miss opportunities to turn in and fire when one presents itself - so keep that in mind. But provided the AI can get to a firing position, they will definitely engage the P-19 and the Mark 37 guidance section is definitely capable of tracking it. EDIT: Made the AI actually fight an S-125M site, I used a 4-ship of aircraft and while they took losses (including controlled flight into the water) an aircraft did make a successful engagement against the site's P-19, using an AGM-45. AGM-45A_P-19_test.miz AGM-45A_P-19_Mk37.trk AGM-45A_S-125M_test.miz AGM-45A_S-125M_Mk37.trk

Reproduced. Dear me what a mess. Looking at the tracks, I've got some speculation as to what is happening: The RGM-84D's activation point is far too close - it's enabling before passing friendly vessels, which is why it's hitting the Arleigh Burke. There are a few ways this can be solved, but one of them involves changing the geometry of the formation and the targets: Implement waypoints for the AI Harpoon, allowing us to steer it to avoid friendly/neutral vessels (IIRC the RGM-84D with the AN/SWG-1 can be programmed with up to 3 waypoints, as well as a selectable pop-up or skim attack profile). Change the activation point of the Harpoon, ideally it should depend on the estimated target distance. Change the location of friendly/hostile units such that friendlies aren't in the line of fire/aren't within the RGM-84D's search sector (which for the AGM-84D is defined as ±30° × 40 (or possibly 65) km, the RGM-84D unfortunately appears undefined and generic). As for the La Combattante IIas, they appear to be firing missiles in turns, where the ship is heeling over. Slowing the tracks right down, you can see the missile moving independently to the launcher, sometimes teleporting to a different orientation and/or position. This leads to it clipping or crashing into its own launcher and exploding or flying at too shallow an angle to climb effectively and crashing into the sea. It's almost like the missile knows that it's the wrong missile for the launchers the La Combattante IIa is equipped with and is rebelling in its own ways. LaCombattanteIIa__LaunchFail_SlowMo.trk

The point is that what's being developed (and what's currently in-game with FC3) is not a MiG-29A. It's a misnomer - the MiG-29A is a different, hypothetical concept aircraft that was never built. What we have in-game (and what's being developed) is simply a MiG-29 (be it a 9.12/12A/12B, though the 9.13 is also referred to as just MiG-29). It's like calling an apple an orange and it seems to be a problem DCS uniquely suffers from - like calling the HY-2 a Styx, Silkworm or an SS-N-2 (of which the HY-2 is neither), the Type VIIC U-boat a U-flak, when it absolutely isn't a U-flak or the Chieftain we have a Mk 3, when it isn't a Mk 3. The fix for all of these is a change to a couple of lines in a .lua file each - it should be trivial. Before the .lua lock of 2.7 I would've just done it myself.

Hi everyone, Minor bug, the newly implemented Lie Ying Falcon ("Falcon Assault Gyrocopter") has an incorrect NATO APP-6 symbol. It currently has the symbol for a fixed wing UAV: It should have the icon for rotary wing, attack - as seen with attack helicopters.

Just to demonstrate that the problem isn't the Shrikes tracking the SON-9, here are 4 tracks tested from a player aircraft. In all 4 cases the Shrikes do acquire and track the SON-9 (albeit they have fairly dreadful accuracy, usually landing short). In these tests the SON-9 starts tracking the aircraft at around 12.5-13 nmi, the Shrike is fired around ~9 nmi. In all 4 I've used the WRCS Shrike mode, with the guidance sections set to loft attack, using a lofted profile. The problem I'm encountering is with the AI, where the AI seemingly makes no attempt to engage the SON-9, as they do with other radars, regardless of whether or not the SON-9 is in search or track. They simply overfly the SON-9, as if it isn't there and proceed to follow their waypoints. The same mission as above works with nearly every other radar that falls within the frequence range the Shrike's guidance sections can target. AGM-45A_SON-9_Mk50_WRCS_loft.trk AGM-45A_SON-9_Mk24-34_WRCS_loft.trk AGM-45A_SON-9_Mk24-5_WRCS_loft.trk AGM-45A_SON-9_Mk23_WRCS_loft.trk

This is the case in the tracks above - the SON-9 can be seen to be tracking the target. Typically, I observe the SON-9 begin tracking at around 12-13 nmi. Attacks with the Shrike by the AI, from a starting altitude of 18000 ft, typically fire at a range of 4-5 nmi. To be clear - this is not a Shrike failing to track problem - this is an AI refusing to engage problem. The AI simply overflies the target and lands, not even attempting to fire. There are some cases where an AI-fired Shrike doesn't track the targeted radar, but here the problem is that the AI doesn't make an attempt to engage at all. And, for what it's worth, the Shrike is indeed capable of tracking radars that are rotating:

Then the real problem here is that AI groups don't communicate and coordinate with each other (i.e. the cornerstone of any IADS functionality). Right SAM groups in DCS should only be battery-level units - it doesn't support having multiple batteries within the same group. It doesn't know which units should be part of one battery or another and treats the whole thing as if it's one - leading to a multitude of issues, some of which you've described. The actual thing we should be advocating for is the ability to set up communications and/or data links between AI groups and have them coordinate with each other.

Why should it be able to fire at more targets with another C2 (FDC) unit? Why would a NASAMS battery have 2 FDC units to begin with?

Hi everyone, Could we have an option to have the AI fire anti-ship missiles bearing only? Allowing us to define a bearing and range to an activation point. A way of accomplishing this could be something similar to the fire at point task, only the point would define where the missile should activate. There should also be the usual string of quantity settings (though those currently don't work as is for ship/submarine-fired anti-ship missiles). This would however probably require a rework to most anti-ship missiles in DCS, as quite a few are either only defined with either simple seekers (such as most of the Chinese asset pack weapons, as well as the AI RB 04E and RB 15F) or don't have seekers defined at all (such as the AGM-84A, Kh-22N, Kh-31A, Kh-35, Kormoran, P-270, P-500, P-700 and the RGM-84D (despite the AGM-84D having a seeker defined - the 2 missiles share the exact same seeker)). EDIT: It seems that even missiles with no seeker definition in the files will search for and choose another target if the first one is lost (for instance, via group deactivate), so, hypothetically, they should work as-is. This could also work for torpedoes, provided we get guided torpedoes implemented (the Yu-6 and Mark 46 should already have active/passive acoustic homing, as well as wire-guidance for the former). All this would also be useful to have in the combined arms interface.

Hi everyone, At the moment, when a ship comes under attack the AI makes no attempt to manoeuvre defensively and accelerate, be it to try jinking to avoid fire from naval guns or trying to make a bombing run just that little bit harder, or to unmask defensive weapons. This not only makes ships easier to hit, but it also is something that's very easy to exploit and game to increase your chances of successfully engaging a ship, sometimes significantly so, simply by attacking from a direction where the ship's more effective defensive weapons are masked. It would be better if ships would accelerate and jink to avoid weapons fire and to manoeuvre so to unmask defensive weapons systems. The same could also apply when engaging surface targets with guns (and some AI ships already manoeuvre to engage targets with anti-ship missiles or torpedoes). Ideally, there would be some decision making logic for the AI, so that it can deal with multiple threats, taking into account the speed at which the ship can turn, the direction of the threat, the arcs of weapons and the threat's ETA. Perhaps how fast the AI reacts and how effectively they open up firing arcs could be determined by the skill level. Like aircraft, there should also be a setting in the advanced waypoint options/triggered actions to control whether the AI should react or not. As an example, I've got 2 tracks below where I have an OHP firing an RGM-84 at a single Tarantul III. In the first track, the incoming missiles[note 1] approach from its port quarter and the AK-630s successfully manage to defend the ship (despite the FCR for said AK-630s being masked). In the second track, I have the missiles approach from directly ahead - despite the ship definitely detecting the threat (when the Tarantul III switches from alarm state green to red, shutters close on 4 of the bridge windows) it makes no attempt to unmask its defenses. Seeing as the AK-176 in DCS, like almost every other naval gun, is only capable of engaging surface targets[note 2], this renders the ship as good as defenseless from attacks from this direction. Numerous ships also have blind zones where certain defensive weapons cannot engage, or would improve their chances of successfully defending themselves: The Grisha V has a close-in weapons system and a naval gun on the stern, which cannot engage directly forward. The ship would be able to better defend itself if it would turn to unmask these weapons (especially when the SA-N-4 only has a single target channel and only 2 missiles ready to fire before needing to reload, making it relatively easy to saturate). Conversely, the SA-N-4 system cannot engage targets approaching from astern. The Oliver Hazard Perry and Invincible have SAM systems that also cannot engage approaching from astern. The OHP also has a CIWS (and a naval gun) that cannot engage targets directly ahead. Incidentally the STIR is masked when firing SM-1MRs (the SAM the OHP should be firing) directly forward (though the Mk 92 FCS can also provide an illumination channel forward and the STIR doesn't even exist in DCS, when it absolutely should if the OHP has Mk 13 GMLS). The Krivak II could perform double the number of intercepts with its SA-N-4 systems, if it places the target on the ship's beam. It would also unmask the 2 AK-100 guns (if they would engage airborne targets). The Slava's close-in weapons systems have an aft blind zone and the SA-N-6's FCR is masked directly forward at low altitude, the SA-N-4 is also masked directly forward. Placing the threat on the ship's beam allows all 3 weapon systems to engage, maximising the chances of interception. Notes: While the behaviour has changed somewhat, AI ships still don't respect weapon release settings in terms of quantity, attack quantity or group attack. See this thread. Nearly every naval gun currently in DCS should have dual purpose capability, often firing dedicated rounds. The AK-176 can fire the ZS-62 projectile, which contains 400 g of AI-X-2 explosive, with an AR-51L radar proximity fuse that functions up to 8 m away from the target. The AK-100, AK-130, Mark 75 and Mark 45 guns all have proximity-fused rounds available. Unfortunately, with a single exception, they all are only capable of engaging surface targets, with a high-explosive, impact-fused round. See this thread. Tarantul_III_RGM-84_attack1.trk Tarantul_III_RGM-84_attack2.trk

Likely on ED - the CBU-52/B having blue stripes has been a problem for ages:

https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/aircraft-bombs/samp-type-25-aircraft-bomb

Yep, spot on. Absolutely agreed on every single point.

+1 I'd certainly like a KC-10. One thing I will say though, at the moment tankers in DCS only support a single refuelling type exclusively (which is why the KC-135RT w/ MPRS only supports probe and drogue, but not the boom). It's not the only limitation but this one in particular is relevant to the KC-10 as the KC-10 supports both flying boom and probe and drogue without modification. If this limitation isn't resolved, this will take away some of the utility of the KC-10 (unless you have 2 duplicate aircraft in the unit list and make missions with 2 tankers to support both refuelling methods).

As of DCS 2.9.8.1107 the AI will now use Mavericks, though the issues in the previous post still apply (though the bug with the Paveway III applies to all AI aircraft, not just the F-4E).

Hi everyone, With the recent weapon editions to the F-4E, the list of available bombs on stations 2 and 8 has completed filled the usable space to the point where some options are inaccessible without first weapons restricting. On my end, everything past the GBU-10 Paveway II is unaccessible, which includes the GBU-12 Paveway II, GBU-24A/B Paveway III the GBU-8/B HOBOS and the Mk 84 AIR - these weapons cannot be selected without first restricting weapons. Before weapons restricting, note how I cannot access any weapons below the GBU-10: After weapons restricting (in this case I restricted out the BL775 entries and the SAMP Type 25 entries): If there was a scrollbar I wouldn't need to restrict weapons in order to access these weapons.

Unfortunately not I'm afraid - I did attempt to find something online but was completely unsuccessful.

Thank you - though just for clarity, many of the issues brought up in this thread have now been fixed, it's only really the GBU-8 HOBOS without Pave Spike and a couple of radars that the AI refuse to engage using the AGM-45A. EDIT: I also forgot to link the general AI bug mentioned, which refers to AI employment of the Paveway III (they seemingly calculate for a purely ballistic trajectory, as would be expected with say, an unguided bomb - the Paveway III series in DCS performs a bump-up which means, when dropped at low altitude, the bomb lands long), please see this thread.

Hi everyone, The F-4E, when flown by AI, is able to provide guidance to multiple AGM-12s independently - this is something that shouldn't be possible. There is only one control (available only to the pilot) that provides a means to send steering commands to an AGM-12 - if multiple AGM-12s are in-flight simultaneously, they should all receive the same commands, it shouldn't be possible to provide separate commands to each missile. This behaviour can be seen with player aircraft - if a player has multiple AGM-12s in-flight simultaneously, they all receive the same commands and perform the same manoeuvres - controlling each missile independently isn't possible. This is most obvious with the AGM-12A and B as there's a significant delay between subsequent firings compared to the C. There you can clearly see that missiles are being guided independently (usually when a subsequent missile is fired, you can see the AI steering that missile onto target while the previous missiles receive no/much smaller steering corrections, which can be seen in the 2 tracks below). AI_AGM-12A_multiple_independent_guidance.trk AI_AGM-12B_multiple_independent_guidance.trk

As of 2.9.8.1107, it looks like the AI now uses AGM-65s (all versions) without issue - great to see! It looks like this bug is now mostly resolved - the AI will now employ near enough every AG guided weapon as expected, though there are still some outstanding issues (one of them however is a general AI bug) though they should probably be their own thread (as the AI will fire them). However: The AI still seemingly requires Pave Spike to be equipped in order to employ the GBU-8/B HOBOS (see above). This isn't a problem that affects either of the Walleyes. The AI won't employ the AGM-45A Shrike against the SON-9 or AN/MPQ-64F1, regardless of guidance section set. I'm not sure whether or not the AN/MPQ-64F1 is correct as-is, but the SON-9 definitely isn't - it is explicitly mentioned as an intended target for the Mk 23, Mk 24 Mod 5 and 34 guidance sections. AI_F-4E_AGM-45A_Mk23_SON-9_NoFire.trk AI_F-4E_AGM-45A_Mk24-5_SON-9_NoFire.trk AI_F-4E_AGM-45A_Mk24-34_SON-9_NoFire.trk AI_F-4E_AGM-45A_Mk50_SON-9_NoFire.trk