Northstar98

Probably wouldn't go that far... The acquisition radars we have for it are completely wrong (Flat Face B (SA-3) and Tin Shield B (SA-10), instead of Tall King C + Odd Pair/Group). The guidance profiles it uses appear to either not be present or at least modelled incorrectly: For close targets (< 70-80 km), it should use proportional navigation as soon as the missile's flight control enable (0.45-0.85 s after launch), using a low-thrust profile for the sustainer* For distant targets (> 70-80 km), it should fly at a constant elevation angle (35°) and constant lead angle (0-15° in the horizontal plane) for 30 seconds using a maximum-thrust profile of the sustainer. The missile should then switch over to proportional navigation (this would cause the missile to loft higher than it does in DCS), though presumably the pitch and the onset of proportional navigation is gradually changed to preserve energy. Ausairpower also refers to a shallow profile and a steep profile, presumably these alter the thrust profile used, in order to keep kinetic heating below some threshold and minimise drag losses. In DCS, it seems to do a mix of both - it always seems to assume more of a lofted trajectory pretty much regardless of target parameters but the elevation angle isn't constant, it flies in more of an arc and seems to adjust for target range and altitude. For thrust profiles, the burn time seems to always be around ~63 s, regardless of which profile is appropriate for the target. The missile seems to do a hard (12 G) pitch down immediately after booster burn-out. *I'm not entirely confident on the specifics, the only thing I've found so far is that the sustainer can be throttled between 32 - 100 kN. Vestnik-PVO gives 3 profiles: Sustainer operates at maximum thrust until propellant is expended. Sustainer operates at maximum thrust, then decreases linearly to minimum. Sustainer operates at 82% maximum thrust, then decreases linearly to minimum. However, it then goes onto state that a combination of profiles can be used, but unfortunately it doesn't give specific examples. As it should - it's SARH. So far all sources I've found online state that proportional navigation is used (either in totality or after the mid-course phase). I'm not sure exactly what the maximum G of the missile is (in DCS, 12 is what the missile is capable of pulling, so far haven't found a figure for it) and I'm also not sure what you mean by a "9 G orthogonal roll defence".

Because it can be used to conceal the location of the firing platform (especially in the case of ships and submarines), allows the target to be hit from multiple directions or in a direction that's advantageous, allows the missile to avoid known threats and provides better opportunity to terrain mask or otherwise use terrain to its advantage. Of course, missile randomly breaking into orbits and never leaving them is definitely a bug. But ideally we'd have the ability to set up a route for cruise missiles (like in C:MO), for missiles that can be programmed with multiple waypoints IRL (such as the Tomahawk), I'm not sure if orbiting is something cruise missiles can do (though it's not out of the realm of possibility, it can be useful for ensuring missiles hit their targets at the right time).

I'd take the in-game encyclopaedia with a few helpings of salt, because it sometimes contradicts itself or gets information flat-out incorrect for what's actually depicted or what the unit is called. A particularly bad example is the Chieftain Mk 3 (which is wrong for a number of reasons). Though sometimes the encylopaedia is correct, but the model depicted in DCS, is not. For the Tor it states that vehicle is 9A331, but in the same breath that it fires 9M330 (though there doesn't seem to be much difference between them apart from accuracy, at least according to this). If it is supposed to be 9K331 Tor-M1, then it should fire 9M331 and if it's just supposed to be the baseline 9K330 Tor, the TLAR should be 9A330. Perhaps, it would be an idea to copy and paste the unit, but change one to be capable of engaging 2 targets simultaneously - that'll give us 9K330 and 9K331. Given the fact it can only engage one target simultaneously, I'd put it more on the side of being a 9K330 (9M330, only capable of engaging a single target simultaneously).

So long as it can detect and track it, it can theoretically engage it. It doesn't really answer your question, but until there's more data about it we probably won't know. Of course, it may have systems that filter out bombs even if it can otherwise detect and track them - we just don't know. Right now, I'd probably lean on the side of yes, but that isn't based upon anything other than speculation at this point.

Thanks! Though, interesting - training/test shot with a live warhead and propulsion (I assume that's what the yellow band and brown bands are respectively on the missile)?

Yeah, to me the nozzle geometry looks the same, as do surrounding elements. Probably the most likely issue. It seems to be present on all new models in the new format - the B-52H, S-3Bs, LPWS and the new S-300PS units are all similarly affected, whereby in promotional material (mostly teasers such as the Sinai map, 2023 and Beyond as well as the 2.9 cinematic short) the models are shown off in higher quality than what's seen in-game. New models in the previous .edm format are unaffected and appear just as high quality as they did in promotional material. We've already seen some examples with the B-1B - the B-52H also has elements that are low resolution textures in-game, but are fully 3D in teasers (such as the NACA ducts on the lower sides of the forward fuselage), the S-3B (ESM antennas are just a texture in-game, they were shown off in full 3D in the 2023 and beyond video), you can see 3D antenna elements on the new Big Bird radar (at least, I think so) and rungs and a higher-quality EOSS model on LPWS in the 2.9 cinematic short. It would be nice though if we could get an acknowledgement or update on this issue though, or whether or not it's intentional or whether it's being looked into.

Not sure, AFAIK the only difference between the RGM-84D and AGM-84D is that the RGM-84D has a booster and folding control surfaces & fins. In any case, here's an AGM-84D without a red nose: And here's an RGM-84D without a red nose:

Not sure about this one. Ideally the symbols should change to reflect the current role (in which case, the K would be accurate, as the S-3B tanker unit can only be configured as a tanker and can only perform the tanker role, even if there was no tanker variant IRL). Although B is probably wrong for the S-3B unit - it should probably be either A (Attack/Strike), P (Patrol), N (ASuW patrol) or (if it was actually capable of ASW), S (ASW, carrier-based). A link to NATO APP-6A symbology can be found here (and there's a fair amount that DCS gets wrong).

Oh yeah, I mean being honest, this whole report is very minor, though I imagine the buddy store might become more of a pressing issue when the A-6E and A-7E modules finally get released. It would be a royal pain if we had to have dedicated tanker versions of the same aircraft, effectively locking out mixed-loudouts (and you can find images of A-6Es carrying a mixed ground attack and buddy store loadout) and making mission editing more annoying. And don’t get me wrong, your perspective is perfectly valid as well - I absolutely see where you’re coming from. When I first saw it I initially felt the same, but I changed my mind when I realised that were it not for the current state of buddy stores - the problem can be mitigated entirely while giving us appropriate variants for the different eras.

I’m afraid I’m still not seeing the difference (though the different angles aren’t helping), in any case the hoggit post was taken before the recent update and I can’t see any difference there. What part specifically do you think looks better?

Personally, no. I'd much rather get the 2 variants than just the one (even if the differences are minor and inconsequential practically speaking and are only cosmetic). Having the 2 distinct variants is more comprehensive and better supports all our current US carriers. The problem you're describing is only the case because DCS doesn't support buddy stores as a loadout option. That should be the thing to focus on here, not the fact that we have 2 different S-3B configurations. Not only does it apply for the S-3B, it also applies to the A-6E (even if we're getting a KA-6D that is dedicated to tanking, the A-6E was also capable of it) and the A-7E at least. Once buddy stores are properly supported the issue you're describing would cease to be the case and wouldn't apply any more - you'd only need the variant appropriate for the timeframe of your mission, regardless of whether you wanted a tanker or something capable of strike/surface attack or both. IRL, there is no dedicated tanker variant of the S-3B and regardless of whether pre or post ASW deconfiguration, both are capable of equiping an A/A42R-1 buddy store and can therefore act as tankers. If DCS supported buddy stores as a loadout option, For the time being, unless your mission is set up for S-3Bs performing strike missions, I'd recommend just using the tanker version as that's what it was mostly used for, especially for missions using the SC carriers and the Hornet.

Hi everyone, As of 2.9.0.47168 the S-3B Tanker unit has been implemented in DCS. What's interesting about it (and something I'm quite pleased about) is that it actually depicts a different configuration compared to the regular S-3B. The regular S-3B is depicted in its earlier configuration, accurate from 1988 - 1998. This appropriate for our post SLEP Forrestal in the early 90s, both our current Tomcats as well as the early F-14A-135-GR and the Gulf War. The S-3B Tanker however, appears to be depicted post 1998 after the ASW deconfiguration program (which involved the AN/ASQ-81 MAD boom being deleted and blanked over, as well as 44 of the 60 sonobuoy chutes). This is perfect for CVNs 71-75 as part of the supercarrier module, the F/A-18C, both our current Tomcats and the Iraq War. However, as part of the ASW deconfiguration program, the antennas for the sonobuoy reference system were also deleted. These are 8 7 small, blade antennas - there are 4 3 under the fuselage near and on the main landing gear doors and 2 under each wing. However, despite the AN/ASQ-81 MAD boom being deleted and the sonobuoy chutes correctly blanked off, the antennas are still present: EDIT: The forward most blade antenna is actually still present on aircraft that have undergone the ASW deconfiguration program - thank you Flappie and developers for checking The non-tanker S-3B is pre-ASW deconfiguration, so these antennas are accurate for it and should be left as is. It's only the S-3B tanker, depicted post-ASW deconfiguration, where them being present is inaccurate. Obviously a very minor issue, but one that's hopefully easily fixed (after all the MAD boom has been removed).

I'm not seeing any difference with any of the new models in the new format, including the engine nozzles. It still looks to be what I'd expect the LOD1 model to look like. The pilot in the right seat appears identical to how it looks here. You can find the image of the nozzles posted to hoggit here, the geometry still looks to be the same. The countermeasure dispensers behind the crew compartments also still aren't there, there are still elements that are lower resolution textures that were showed off in full 3D in teasers. The AN/ALE-50 dispensers are also still quite angular compared to those seen in promotional material.

The S-3B tanker unit just got released, but unlike the regular S-3B, it is instead depicted as a post 1998 S-3B (AN/ASQ-81 MAD removed and blanked over, 44 of the 60 sonobuoy chutes blanked over, though the sonobuoy reference system (4 small blade antennas on and near the main gear doors and under the wings are still present)). If it was possible for the D-704 Sargent-Fletcher A/A42R-1 air refuelling store to be a loadout option (as it is IRL) and if it was present on both versions (as it should IRL) that would give us 2 variants of the S-3B: A pre 1998 version potentially covering the late 80s to late 90s (so appropriate for the Gulf War, our current Tomcats without LANTIRN, the F-14A-135-GR early and the last cruise of the Forrestal). A post 1998 version, potentially covering up to when the S-3B was fully retired from fleet service in 2007 (appropriate for the F/A-18C, our current Tomcats, and CVNs 71-75 of the SC module). That means that the AGM-65F/E/E2, AGM-84H/K and AN/AAQ-25 LANTIRN ER are potentially on the table for the newer variant, providing of course buddy stores can be properly supported. I'll mark stores unsupported in DCS in red. The pre-ASW deconfiguration S-3B Viking ("S-3B") should be equipped with: 300 US gal Drop Tank (Aero-1D?) A/A42R-1 Air Refuelling Store ADM-141A TALD AGM-84D Harpoon Block IC (it probably retains compatibility with the current AGM-84A Harpoon Block IP, but the D is much more appropriate for the timeframe and has a far better model). *AN/ALQ-190 AIRBOC AN/SSQ-53B/C DIFAR (Passive-only Directional Frequency Analysis and Recording) AN/SSQ-62B/C/D DICASS (Active-only range & Directional Command Active Sonobouy System) AN/SSQ-77A/B VLAD (Passive-only Vertical Line Array DIFAR) CBU-59/B APAM CBU-99/B Rockeye II Hydra 70(?) Mk 46 NEARTIP Mod 5/5A/5A(S) Mk 50 Barracuda Mod 0 ALWT Mk 62 Quickstrike (Mk 82) Mk 63 Quickstrike (Mk 83) Mk 65 Quickstrike (2000-lb) Mk 82 500-lb LDGP Mk 82 Snake Eye Mk 83 1000-lb LDGP Mk 84 2000-lb LDGP Zuni The post-ASW deconfiguration S-3B Viking ("S-3B Tanker") should be equipped with: 300 US gal Drop Tank (Aero-1D?) A/A42R-1 Air Refuelling Store ADM-141A TALD AGM-65E/E2 Maverick AGM-65F Maverick AGM-84D Harpoon Block IC AGM-84E SLAM(?) AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER AN/AAQ-25 LANTIRN *AN/ALQ-190 AIRBOC AN/AWW-13 data link pod CBU-59/B APAM CBU-99/B Rockeye II Hydra 70(?) Mk 82 500-lb LDGP Mk 82 Snake Eye Mk 83 1000-lb LDGP Mk 84 2000-lb LDGP Zuni *For the AIRBOC, while external chaff dispensers are implemented and supported for player aircraft, they aren't for AI (which can only use internal countermeasure systems integrated into the aircraft, aircraft that only have countermeasure pods in DCS will either have them treated as internal and always present (even when they might not be)) and chaff currently has no effect on AI radars or anti-ship missiles, which, AFAIK would be the intended use case for the AN/ALQ-190.

Only issue with the KC-10A (though the problem also applies to the MPRS equipped KC-135RT), is that DCS currently only supports an exclusive refueling type per aircraft (so a tanker can either be configured for flying boom or probe-and-drogue, but not both).

As depicted the Lancer is a Block E, circa mid-to-late 2000s (owing to the addition of the hardpoint for Sniper XR), I can't find a definitive source for a date, but you can find images of it in testing, dated 2007, so probably no earlier than that. In that case the B-1B should also have (ignoring weapons that DCS doesn't support, such as Mk 62 and Mk 65 Quickstrike mines, as well as the CBU-89/B GATOR): Up to 30 CBU-103 (10 per bay, on SECBM, as with the CBU-87/97) - planned to be introduced circa 2003. Up to 30 CBU-105 (10 per bay, on SECBM, as with the CBU-87/97) - planned to be introduced circa 2003. Up to 24 AGM-158A JASSM (8 per bay, on a MPRL, as with GBU-31 and Mk 84) - IOC by Feb 2006. Up to 84 Mk 82 AIR (28 per bay, on CBM, as with the Mk 82) Up to 3 2975 US gal additional fuel tanks (1 per bay). Additionally, AGM-154C is incorrect for the B-1B as it's not a USAF weapon, instead it should be replaced with the AGM-154A. The GBU-38 is also not carried on a 28-station CBM (like the Mk 82), instead it should be carried on a 10-station SECBM(?), with 6 bombs per bay for the forward and intermediate bays and 3 in the aft bay for a total of 15.

Fair enough, though ED seem to like making models that are future proofed (at least as far as animations are concerned). I'm not too sure on performance as there should be systems in place to deal with high-poly assets such that they're not hogging resources when its unnecessary. Yeah, that's a point I completely glossed over As for the latter, yes. Fair enough.

Once again a truly incredible post!

If I had to name 1 thing (though really it's multiple, as several things would need to be delivered to support it), is a dynamic, persistent campaign (on par with the one in the other F-16 orientated sim) on a historically relevant theatre, with coherent modules and assets.

The Forrestal is a core unit - you don't have to own the F-14 in order to access it.

Yeah, kinda have to agree - I'd only expect dedicated POL vehicles fuel of fuel to burn in such a way. Perhaps it would be better if instead of using the big smoke and fire the effects would be swapped for just smoke, until a more realistic effect for vehicles can be developed (think GHPC).

Maybe, but I would've thought 95% of the effort in making a new asset is the 3D model, once you've done that it shouldn't be much to make them "active units" beyond animating them and making a .lua definition for them. As far as I'm concerned if you're going to be spending that effort, I think I'd much rather that effort be spent on something that functions in some respect. If I want to attack submarines in port or naval bases hosting submarines, then for the time being I'll make do with the Kilos currently in DCS. Yes, it's far from ideal (being based only at Polyarnny AFAIK, and only 1 during pre-perestroyka, they also should be the original Pr. 877, not 877V or 636), but I'd rather do that than not do those kind of missions at all. Yes, which is why submarines are a poor choice to begin with without ASW (which could be a game's worth of content by itself, especially when naval warfare wholly confined to surface units already has a massive list of things missing, simplified or otherwise wrong with it, without touching ASW) which is why surface units (preferably IMO, those from the late 70s to the early 90s) make far more sense practically, in DCS, by an overwhelming margin. But semi-functional attack and guided missile submarines is at least something rather than nothing, even if yes, you're absolutely correct, that it's not much of step up at all and would be a broken and incomplete implementation (though the Type 093 is already able to launch torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles, albeit said torpedoes only have WWI-style gyroangle guidance modeled, when they should be wire-guided + active/passive acoustic homing, so it wouldn't be totally unprecedented).

Just to clarify, can we also expect to see AIM-9J on aircraft like the F-5E? It is accurate to it, according to its manual.

+1 We've got a non-combative neutral/3rd faction (comprising of all unassigned countries), but the real panacea IMO is to have something like C:MO where you can add sides/coalitions completely at will (including civilians).

But they should only be rendered in full quality at close distances (and exactly when can be determined by a setting now), so performance shouldn't really be a factor with the new models - especially when we have higher quality models (sometimes far higher quality models) with existing assets (even AI assets) than the new stuff. For instance, the AI Su-34 is higher quality than any of the new aircraft - I haven't noticed it to be particularly problematic for performance and that was with a system well below spec. As far as I can tell it is exclusive to the models in new format, which are only found in CoreMods\tech\HeavyMetalCore. Those are: B-1B B-52H S-3B LPWS The new S-300PS, excluding the new 5V55R missile model (5P85S/D launchers, 5N63S Flap Lid FCR, 54K6 BCP, 5N64 Big Bird and 5N59S Tin Shield) Models in the existing .edm format (i.e every other model) are unaffected, including those newly added in 2.9.0, such as the aforementioned 5V55R, Kh-29L/T, Kh-59M/MK, R-60, BLG-66 and its submunitions etc (See SilverDragon's post here for the full list of changed models - some are existing models, some are complete overhauls). All of those models are modelled to perfection (including animated control surfaces and even animated seeker heads in the case of the Kh-29L/T and -59M).