Northstar98

Well, it depends on what part of the Cold War you go for. For me, I'm more into 1983 (i.e. Able Archer '83 what-if) - 1987 (i.e. Red Storm Rising) scenarios and there, you do have LGBs, ASMs/AShMs, earlier stuff though, with much more rudimentary targeting options (such as Pave Spike and Pave Tack). Ahh, my mistake - I had mistakenly confused the 2 as being different designations for the same missile, but no, ARMAT is different (albeit a development), though the Buccaneer would still have both versions of the Martel, so it would have SEAD capability, albeit at shorter ranges.

It's perfectly fine if you prefer a French Jaguar, no quarrel at all there. However, do you see the somewhat irony of saying you don't get the fixation and then recommending an aircraft in part due to it having guided munitions? For the record I'm not fixated on guided munitions, or capabilities in general - I'd happily fly the fairly hopeless Yak-38 if given the chance. But having guided munitions would probably broaden wider appeal over a Jaguar of similar vintage. For what it's worth, the Buccaneer also has the same ARMAT (AS 37 Martel radar), just it also gets the TV/DL AJ 168 Martel video as well, potentially the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile and the Paveway II (UK) (which is essentially a GBU-10 only with a 1000 lb Mk 13 GPB as a warhead, instead of the Mk 84 or BLU-109), with self-designation capability from Pave Spike. Yeah - I mean, that's perfectly valid. The only thing I would say is that we don't have an African map, but we do have Syria, potentially Germany in the future too for the Buccaneer.

Yep, I mean that's all completely reasonable, I'm with you there. Even if it was a post on the forums. Right now, the knowledge is fairly thin and all we really have is this.

AFAIK ED is responsible for AI behaviour, not the 3rd party developers.

The higher the altitude, the faster the spin rate and the shorter the function delay (when dropped at the same altitude for the latter) the more widely the submunitions will be dispersed. The lower the burst altitude, the slower the spin rate and the longer the function delay, the more tightly the submunitions will be dispersed. These may also affect accuracy as with the higher altitude/shorter function delay, the longer the bomblets are falling, which potentially can make them less accurate (due to things like wind).

The Mk 339 fuse on the Rockeye is time-driven (functioning after a specific time after being dropped) and the CBU-87/97/103/105 are radar proximity.

The SA-5 does have a missile downlink (i.e. from the missile to the radar), but I'm not sure what, if anything changes when the Square Pair goes from tracking a target to supporting a missile.

Don't get me wrong, I am definitely interested in RN FAA from that period, it's just that it seems like the RAF Buccaneers (and Phantoms for that matter) saw more action (and more potential action if talking about a Cold War gone hot scenario and as it stands, we appear to have/are getting more stuff that would be relevant for the RAF, but less so for the Navy. Of course, I'm looking at this from a more historical perspective, though the RAF Buccaneer also has a bit more capability and a bit more in the way of mission flexibility.

+1, the task in its current form is somewhat of a misnomer, it's the de facto task when you want to destroy ground units as placed in the mission editor (regardless of the close proximity, or even presence of friendly forces, which is what makes CAS, CAS in the first place) as opposed to a fixed point on the ground with the ground attack task. Ideally, ground attack and CAS would be combined into a single strike task with options to attack groups or to bomb points on the ground. CAS would instead be dedicated to actual CAS. Pinpoint strike can also go as it's redundant, there's nothing you can do with pinpoint task that you can't do with ground attack, just that the former excludes unguided munitions, whereas the latter supports both unguided and guided weapons.

Well, personally I'm much more interested in the RAF Buccaneer as it was almost infinitely more historically relevant (Gulf War). It's also capable of employing LGBs with self-designation capability, as well as a dedicated AShM (though both have the Martel, in their ARM and ground-attack/ASuW versions). Plus it would fit on a German map, there are hardly any core assets to support mid Cold War RN, apart from the Leanders. It also fits on the Syria map

It requires some fragmentation model to really be useful, so it's probably not implemented fully yet.

I agree there should be some documentation, maybe it can be something for the encylopedia as this is that's intended use case. Please no. The way it's done causes quite a lot of clutter. Worse, is that it's inconsistent with regard to what information it contains and how it's presented and in a couple of cases it isn't even correct. That's without going into the fact that in some cases they made the names much more vague while doubling or tripling their length, which should be the exact opposite of what display names should be. Much better would be a mouseover tool-tip (like we already have for fuses, but they could expand on some of the information). And unless you're going to start listing all the settings in the name (which will make it incredibly cluttered), you should be able to tell what happens with what fuse based on the options you have available when it's selected (mainly just airburst or delay). A proximity fuse. See this. While I agree with the overall request, you can find the important information out with regard to what fuse does what simply by selecting it and seeing what options you are presented with. If you only get airburst altitude, you know it's a proximity/airburst fuse. If you get function delays, you know it's a delay fuse which causes the bomb to function (which may be the bomb exploding or dispensing submunitions) after a delay. For cluster bombs the delay will be after release, for the current fuses available to GP bombs, it's after impact. A mechanical time fuses that will function after a certain time has elapsed after being dropped. Again, if you click on the fuse, you can see that the only options you can select are function delays, which should lead you on to the fact that it's a delay fuse. Well, they're the 2 function delays, i.e. how long after the bomb has been dropped will the fuse function (which in this case will split the casing and dispense the submunitions). You've got the option to select one of the 2 settings, a primary setting and an optional setting. Which gets chosen should be selectable in the cockpit (it works based on what wire(s) are pulled when the bomb releases). Right now it doesn't really change much. Setting longer function delays on CBUs like the Rockeye will cause it to release at a lower altitude for the same release altitude, which will cause the bomblets to be distributed in a more confined area and potentially more accurately. Similar thing for proximity fuses on them like the FMU-140 (higher altitudes and higher spin-rates will cause bomblets to be more widely dispersed, lower burst altitudes and lower spin rates causes them to be more tightly dispersed). For GP bombs like the Mk 80 series, the DSU-33 proximity fuse is currently awaiting work on the fragmentation modelling to really make it effective. It's useful for soft-targets, particularly if they're entrenched or behind cover. For other fuses (namely the tail fuses), setting the function delay to 0 gives you detonation on impact, useful for general purpose bombing but not for penetration, which is what the delays are for. So the delays should primarily be used for penetrating hard targets (particularly bunkers). For the FMU-152, that also has very long delays, those are probably to be utilised more for an area denial role, for instance to destroy repair crews repairing a damaged runway. It could also be used to destroy convoys if you know where they'll be in the future.

I mean, it's not at the top of my list, but sure I guess I would like to see a Jaguar. A Jaguar GR.1/1A would work on a Cold War Germany map for the mid 70s-mid 80s (if it included the North German Plain that is - based at RAF Brüggen and RAF Laarbruch) and would fit into Operation Desert Storm scenarios as well. It would however be a fairly limited aircraft, which might make it more of a difficult sell, particularly with a late 80s Tornado IDS in the works. Personally though, I think as far as RAF aircraft go from the era, I'd much rather have an RAF Buccaneer S.2B of similar vintage, you get a radar, you get Pave Spike, you get Cold War guided munitions and hey, maybe the potential is there for an RN version (though personally, I'm far more interested in the RAF version, which was far more historically relevant). I mean, what explains the Ka-50 BS3 then? At best it's hypothetical and speculative, it never existed as the 2022 version depicts. Supposed to be coming by Magnitude 3, though haven't seen an update in ages. A-7E is hardly vapourware, FlyingIron posts annual updates which are always chock full of detail and progress. Here was the latest one.

It might be version dependent and that's what it looks like for the AN/ALQ-101(V)10, which is a bit bigger than some other, earlier versions and a slant-load is what's in the stores limitation diagram (with Sidewinders to the right of the pod being present, but not the ones on the left). https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1108849721566576671/1176344245880242277/1543933467_esm-ew_w0003269_.png?ex=665a8373&is=665931f3&hm=a362afe8278e9eb843fba36314b2fa756cd2ed3a927236882cef80a64057845f&

That was the main thing that stuck out to me, in comparison to the other ECM systems which are mentioned in the mixed w/ sidewinder charts. I'm not sure which are in the plans (though I think the 119 and possibly the 101 are confirmed, though only the latter is listed with the mixed and only as a slant load).

Well, as often as this is said, the objective of this game (and it is a game) is to depict this stuff accurately. Surely the more rewarding thing here would be to land on carriers (in suitable aircraft) at a rate of descent and speed that doesn't lead to damaging landing gear?

The problem there might be that it impose ground clearance problems if placed on an adapter. Again, it's not a configuration listed in either of the -1s I have (unlike the AN/ALQ-71/72/87/101, which is explicitly mentioned as being able to be mixed, the 119, 131 and 184 are only listed by themselves). That doesn't necessarily mean it's not a possible configuration, it just means that it's a configuration that isn't explicitly mentioned.

Doesn't look like the combination is listed in the stores limitation chart, I'm not sure on the dimensions but it looks like their could be a potential clearance issue (ALQ-87/101 are both thinner and not as tall).

Please be careful with this table though - I’ve largely only matched seeker and radar bands generally, I cannot vouch for what seekers are actually compatible with what radar. Seekers may only cover certain parts of bands which might differ from certain radars. Unfortunately the specific range of frequencies a particular radar operates at isn’t always available and sometimes even what band a radar operates at isn’t all that precise. Sometimes information is contradictory (and I’ve just realised I haven’t updated the forum post in accordance to a similar one I made on hoggit, so that needs fixing). There’s also the possibility that some radars aren’t fully or properly configured (especially for systems that are composed of multiple radars combined into one vehicle). Though if anyone finds that a particular seeker doesn’t work despite being indicated in the above list, I’m more than happy to make corrections.

No you aren't and no I haven't. Nowhere have I said that this is a problem that isn't really a problem. Once again, dishonestly misrepresenting what I've said for only God knows how many times. Well right back at you! You don't even care about this, yet here you are. Again, which wouldn't have happened: I'm only left to conclude that all I've actually been doing for days is feeding a gish galloping troll. I'm absolutely beyond tired of having everything I say dishonestly twisted by you seemingly just so you can keep baiting a response from me over and over again and that's even when you acknowledge anything that was said at all. I haven't added anyone to my ignore list up to now, but I'm not going to engage with trolls any more.

Why shouldn't it be up to me to determine what liveries I have installed?

Perhaps if you'd stop dishonestly misrepresenting what they say, maybe you'd find it less fascinating? Posts that wouldn't exist, if people would stop misrepresenting what was said, so they can argue against something that they, by their own admission, don't care about, for seemingly no reason whatsoever. See also: Brandolini's law. There you go again...

So how exactly is it a non-analogy then? That was the key part of the analogy. Your responses either appear to demonstrate either a miscomprehension of the analogy or appear to be at odds with each other. But as I've said several times now, it's time that unnecesarily adds up with subsequent updates. You would have a point here if I only had to do this the once, but I don't, so you don't. It takes me very little time to bind my HOTAS and set my settings up, but if I had to do it over and over again, when I should only need to do it the once, then that would be a problem and that's exactly what the problem is here. That's rather ironic - you're spending quite an amount of time pointlessly arguing against it seemingly purely for the sake of it, despite the fact that you don't actually care about it. What gives? If it presented no problem to anyone, then why do we have multiple threads asking for such a thing? Just because it isn't a problem for you doesn't mean it's not a problem (even if it's only a small one) to anyone else. And don't need to store and come at little to no consequence to me if I don't store them. Only it demonstrably isn't the nature of software, as again, similar managers exist in DCS for items that also represent a small part of the total install size, that fundamentally have the exact functionality requested. So that's just false. As for "life isn't fair" - it's a fundamentally useless point which could apply to everything. You could stand in the way of any kind of progress or improvement with that attitude.

You see, you say that, but several times now (and indeed even now), you're still arguing against points I've already addressed or are misrepresenting what I said, so I don't believe you. It's completely fine to not agree with it - there's no problem there whatsoever. What is a problem though is making irrelevant points that have already been addressed and arguing against a misrepresention. If you were reading what I said, I doubt you would've typed this: See, if you actually read what I said, it means you would've got the fact that it's not having to do it the once that's the problem - it's having to do it over and over again, meaning the time adds up and adds up. I'll quote myself again: So let me get this straight: You think having to do something that doesn't take a massive amount of time to do once, but is something you have to do repeatedly, when you should only have to do it the once, bears no resemblance whatsoever and is completely incomparable to having to do something that doesn't take a massive amount of time to do once, but is something you have to do repeatedly, when you should only need to do it the once? Have I got that right? I'm not surprised that you can't imagine that. You don't even seem to understand what the argument for it even is, you're either not reading it or you're misrepresenting it. Also, what argument against it? You've so far told me something completely and demonstrably irrelevant and a non-sequitur, you've now just told me that you think this is minor? None of those are arguments against it. Hell, I even agree that this is minor, certainly in comparison to things like working on the AI, or the damage modelling, or clouds blocking LOS, data cartridge functionality and dozens and dozens of other major, gameplay-impacting updates. But I'm capable of advocating (even strongly advocating) for things that are both major and minor.

Yeah, but that can be generalised and abstracted, especially because we only really need to track critical compartments for damage modelling and hull compartments for sinking. And usually things like engine spaces are directly below funnels. But this applies regardless of whether we have a hyrid of multiple variants combined into one, or a specific variant. The hybrid still has the Aegis system and the Mk 99 fire-control system. So all you're doing by making a hybrid is making them less coherent than they should be (the hybrid certainly isn't broadening capabilities - if anything it's doing the opposite, because it's armed like ships at least around a decade older).