Northstar98

The 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.

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).

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

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.

+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).

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.

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. LCVPEmbarkFromStart.trk

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.

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°): 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.

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.

Yeah, but 3-point guidance only requires angular information.

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. 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. 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. RapierGuidanceWhenOTDestroyed.trk RapierGuidanceWhenBlindfireAIOff.trk RapierGuidanceWhenBlindfireDestroyed.trk RapierGuidanceWhenBlindfireNotTransmitting.trk RapierGuidanceWhenOTAIOff.trk

This is likely correct as-is. Rapier FSA w/ Blindfire provides for 2 guidance modes: Optical Guidance Mode - uses the optical tracker to track the target manually and to track the missile via a TV system (SACLOS). Blindfire Guidance Mode - uses Blindfire to automatically track the target and missile (ACLOS). The whole idea behind Blindfire is that it enables the system to fire when the optical tracker is blind and can't see the target (hence the name). You can also see that Blindfire includes a TV system, which is mounted coaxially to the antenna. A BAe Dynamics brochure on Rapier FSA describes it as a "gathering unit", which implies it's for missile tracking. EDIT: Also, having the optical tracker's TV system track the missile and Blindfire track the target introduces further complexity (though not insurmountable as after all, Nike Hercules does a similar thing (at least in principle). The launcher also contains the computer for generating steering commands based on data from either the optical tracker or Blindfire and includes the J-band command antenna which transmits steering commands to the missile. Based on that - I'm not sure where the optical tracker is involved when the system is using Blindfire, if anywhere. Blindfire is not an acquisition radar - it's a fire-control radar. The acquisition radar, which I've only ever seen referred to as "Rapier Surveillance Radar" (not to be confused with the later Dagger system used in Rapier FSC) is under the cylindrical radome on the launcher (and also includes an IFF interrogator).

I don't know - not a developer. But somehow I doubt that all of the development time went into adding a blur filter and a resolution-limited picture... Why couldn't it be reused? So if something takes a year (just going by your numbers) it's impossible? What? Which still wouldn't result in AN/AAQ-33 being better than the magical AAQ-28... Again - 9x magical lossless digital zoom.

It's also cited here as the resolution for LITENING II FLIR (and LITENING II is what's stated in the manual for the F-16CM and F/A-18C - the A-10Cs however mention LITENING AT). Why is it impossible? And why should the inferior pod have magical digital zoom? We've already got people saying that LITENING is superior in image quality, when the exact opposite should be true, at least in part because AAQ-28s limitations aren't being modelled. Absolutely agreed - this game should be about simulating aircraft and their systems as accurately as possible - that means depicting capabilities and limitations. Yes but more to the point about small screens - in DCS we're more than capable of zooming in beyond what you'd be able to see with the naked eye. Depending on the size of your display you can make the MFDs appear larger than their true size. As for me, I'll probably be using Sniper from now on - higher fidelity and completeness is what I gravitate to and at the moment Sniper is superior when it comes to both.

Yes would absolutely love to assign a trigger zone to be the zone the AI searches in, instead of being limited to a circle.

Yep and even if you're not a texture artist - when using "X: COCKPIT PERFORM CLICKABLE ACTION" action on certain rotary switches, the modelviewer is useful for determining what the value should be for the selection you want without having to resort to trial and error.

Reproduced. I don't have an issue the first time going into the loadout editor and running a mission. However, if I subsequently exit the mission, return to the mission editor and open up the loadout editor, I'm sometimes left with this: I am unable to interact with just about everything, though closing via the taskbar does cause "do you want to save" and "are you sure" pop-ups to immediately open, but clicking on them achieves nothing. The only way to close the game from this state appears to be via the task manager.

Hi everyone, Ever since the Samuel Chase released (though this also applies to 5-inch/38 guns on the recently released Essex), the 3-inch/50 and 5-inch/38 guns only fire time-fused projectiles. This is appropriate to aircraft, but not to surface/land-targets, especially hard ones - where frequent airbursts are observed, which have little-to-no effect. As such these guns should also have a point-detonating shell (common shell type with AA, but with a different fuse) or an armour-piercing/semi-armour piercing round available. The AI, at least for some ground vehicles, already seems to select ammunition more-or-less appropriately for whatever target they're engaging. In the track below, while the target was eventually sunk, many of the rounds airburst short of the target. It's only when the round impacts before the time-fuse goes off when significant damage is done. Another issue seen in the track below is that the 3-inch/50 guns do not track or engage the target at all, despite it being well within their range. I would also recommend visiting this thread for dual-purpose naval guns more generally - IMO it's plenty relevant now (with nearly every naval gun with a calibre ≥76 mm/3 inch only engaging surface targets with only a point detonating/impact-fused shell available - lacking a proximity or time-fused shell). SamuelChase_AirburstAgainstST.trk

Hi everyone, Despite the following being in the changelog: I am still experiencing issues with 5-inch/38 calibre guns, as fitted to the USS Samuel Chase and Essex-class. In the below tracks I have a single aircraft approaching the USS Samuel Chase from the starboard rear-quarter. Wind is calm, the ship is not in motion and I've set the weather to clear skies. In both cases the aircraft approaches from the same direction and remains in level flight, the only difference between the 2 tracks is the altitude the aircraft flies at. While the 3-inch/50 guns engage more-or-less as expected (when the aircraft briefly exits their engagement zone, they cease tracking and reset to their default positions instead of attempting to continue tracking the target - so far only the KS-19 appears to do this) in the 6kft track the 5-inch gun never engages, despite doing so in the 2kft track. 6000 ft should be more than within the capability of 5-inch gun (in-fact it outranges and has a higher ceiling than the 3-inch guns - compare this table (5"/38) with this table (3"/50)). With the Essex (which I've separately reported here) the guns track the target in both cases (the directors though do not), but only in the 2kft track do they actually engage. However, even so, they take a long time to commence firing (the Bofors 40 mm actually opening fire first) and they only get a single salvo off before resetting(-ish) and no 5-inch gun further attempts to engage the aircraft. In the 6kft track, they track the target, but never engage and simply reset, pretty much exactly mirroring this bug report for ground-based AAA - where so far only the KS-19 behaves as expected. SamuelChase_5-inch38_Engage_2kft.trk SamuelChase_5-inch38_NoEngage_6kft.trk Essex_5-inch38_Engage-ish_2kft.trk Essex_5-inch38_NoEngage_6kft.trk

Now that the B-1B and B-52H have got most of their loadouts fleshed out (still some things missing however) I wanted to bump this one - in the above post I've got a mostly complete set, with some combinations missing. @NineLine @BIGNEWY

Very nice to see this has now been implemented, ditto for the B-1B (though I believe AGM-154Cs are inaccurate). However, we still cannot carry AGM-86C externally, only the D. We are still however missing the AGM-158A JASSM and the AGM-142 w/ AN/MSW-55.

Well, in terms of what it's been defined as having maybe - the radar ranges are quite severely under-represented, even for a mid 80s Group 0 E-2C which would've had the older-style, 4-bladed propellers and almost certainly wouldn't have Link 16 capability. The current radar has the same instrumented range as the AN/APS-82 from the E-1B Tracer - even the AN/APS-96 from the E-2A/E-2B has a slightly longer range. The model (with its propellers) most fits a Hawkeye 2000 (though the non-functional CEC antenna is still present and quite noticeable IMO), this should have an AN/APS-145 should have at least a 350 nmi instrumented range (at the moment DCS, the -138 is defined as having a ~180 nmi range).