Northstar98

Yep, just checked, both missiles now appear to be fixed - thank you very much!

Yep, seeing the same thing, I assume it's a false positive:

True, I was going to mention the S-300FM system, though my main source on all this (which is this) is a bit contradictory, I know that apart from the Pyotr Velikiy the others have 2 3R41 radars for the S-300F w/ 5V55RM, with Velikiy have a 30N6 radar forward for the S-300FM w/ 48N6(M? - though the above says 48N6E2, but I thought that was for the S-300PMU-2 which is export only and not marinised). The reason why I'm paying more attention to the short-range air defence systems is that the SA-N-4 is much more easily saturated than the SA-N-9 (though I guess CADS-N-1 kinda makes up for it). Seems to align with what's here.

Hi everyone, Possibly the most minor bug report I've ever made, barely worth reporting probably, but hey saving a track and writing these takes very little time so what's there to lose? Anyway, the animations for the control surfaces of the RGM-84D Harpoon appear to be inverted, deflecting to pitch down when the missile should be pitching up and vice versa. I'm not sure if this also applies to yaw (the AI will only fire missiles directly at targets so heading corrections are usually minimised) and checking the model viewer, the animations aren't set up for roll. RGM-84D_animations.trk

Definitely agree on an SH-3H - one of those is already important for the Forrestal - it's one of the aircraft missing from its air wing for the early 80s to early 90s (and our Forrestal is mid 80s at the earliest). While I would definitely like the Sea Sprite, we currently lack appropriate ships for them to be based on (e.g. FF 1052, DD 963, CG 16/26, FFG 7 short, CG 47 Baseline 0 etc). Both aircraft are essentially dedicated to ASW, so they'd lack a role directly involved in combat, but as with the Ka-27PL that isn't necessarily prohibitive.

Well, I didn't receive any official reply to this one either - it also isn't marked as reported and none of the tracks appear to have been looked at:

Theoretically Sea Cat can intercept guided munitions, particularly GWS 22 which has radar guided ACLOS. Guiding 2 Sea Cats simultaneously however should be impossible as the director can only track one missile at a time. The reloading time was brought up here. Right now missiles are reloaded every 10 seconds and a missile begins reloading every time one is fired. IRL common practice would be to only reload once the launcher was empty or the engagement completed, with it taking ~10 minutes to reload the entire launcher.

Kalinin still has the SA-N-4 system and not the SA-N-9, it's the same project number but I'd argue that alone is a significant difference from what we have IMO, owing to how much more capable the latter system is, even if both are the Pr. 1142.2 design. Well, I was commenting on the list posted. You are correct of course, the Moskva is essentially identical to Marshal Ustinov of the same period. Pr. 1155 would also be pretty good, I think they had started to receive SA-N-9 by 1988 (I know they didn't have it initially), though would probably be better if its 85RU missiles were modelled specifically in their secondary ASuW role, seeing as ASW is as good as absent in DCS.

+1 Would go a long way to fleshing out Cold War scenarios, it would fit on many of our maps and its closest peer counterpart already exists.

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?