Boogieman

Yes I hear you. FWIW the LACM threat is certainly modelled (eg. Kh55/65) alongside some MLRS threats (Smerch off the top of my head) but you are correct to point out that the systems PAC3 is chiefly geared around (correct me if I'm wrong) like SCUD/Tochka/Iskander are currently absent. With that said, the inclusion of PAC3 would increase the missile count of in-game Patriot batteries and present defending aircraft with a different kinematic threat compared to PAC2. Now that IS interesting :-)

Thanks for the insights, that is very interesting. On PAC2 & 3: that does make sense, although seeing the latter modelled in DCS at some point (to complement PAC2) still strikes me as appropriate. It falls comfortably within the intended timeframe and would be a fascinating addition in that its unique combination of an AESA seeker and ACMs for terminal maneuvers would make it easily one of the most technologically sophisticated missiles in game. As for GBAD integration, I can see how this could become a rabbit hole that is very deep indeed. For clarity, my comment on multiple missiles being used on the same target was referring to the way DCS SAMs simply fire on anything that enters their WEZ, so if you have multiple SAM systems located near one another they will all fire at the same target simultaneously with no regard for conservation of munitions or optimal launcher selection or salvo size. Moreover, they will generally start firing at or near the max range of their missiles, making it fairly straightforward to bleed them out of munitions by repeatedly flying in and out of the SAM WEZ. I think a system akin to what is shown in the video I posted above would be a great step forward, alongside AI behaviour that would see them hold fire until a higher missile pK is achieved. That said, I do appreciate that this is a complex topic that would be challenging to implement in a way that is representative of real life systems.

That really is excellent news. The existing system results in GBAD assets wasting scores of munitions on low pK missile shots and needlessly firing multiple missiles at the same target. The video I posted earlier shows what a difference integration can make. Solving the riddle of a true IADS would open up a plethora of gameplay possibilities.

I agree. IADS behaviour akin to this would be great: A man can dream though can't he? :smilewink:

Hi everyone, I want to preface this post by saying that I realise there are probably a lot of more important projects in DCS at the moment, but while so many of us are stuck in various states of lockdown I thought the following would be a bit of fun regardless. That is to say that the sim now depicts aircraft in a state representative of the ~2008-2009 timeframe (Hog, Hornet, possibly Typhoon) and I would love to (one day) see them matched up against air defence systems that represent the state of the art in that same period. I can think of a few that would make things that much more interesting for both east and west: - Buk M1-2/M2 (SA17) - S300 PM/PMU-2 (SA20B) - NASAMS - PAC 3 for Patriot batteries - ESSM (RIM162) - Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM aka RIM116) Assuming that information on these systems is not prohibitively scarce, I think they could really shake things up from a SEAD/DEAD perspective. For example, the SA20B can fire the 9M96 missile as an anti-PGM/ARM/BM weapon, while the PAC3 and ESSM can be used by NATO for much the same purpose (on land and at sea respectively). ESSM and RIM116 ought to enhance the inner layer of NATO naval air defences dramatically, making it more difficult to pull off the kind of low level kamikaze runs I have seen a lot of players use against Tico et al. NASAMS would also provide NATO forces with a useful GBAD layer between Patriot and MANPAD teams, providing a new challenge for Ka50 and Su25 pilots. Thoughts?

Granted, but there are still certain requirements that a larger number of more expendable UCAVs won't meet. There comes a point where you still need a platform that can carry a certain minimum payload (eg. multiple 2000lb class weapons) to a certain range, sensors powerful enough to detect/track other VLO aircraft and cue AAMs at useful ranges, ESM gear capable of pinpointing modern air defences, a quality targeting pod to cue air to ground weapons, secure datalinks that can contribute meaningful information to the wider network etc etc. I strongly suspect these things add up to a platform that is neither cheap nor expendable. I think this is why we are seeing the loyal wingman concept play out - the high value combat aircraft with all the expensive gear is manned and acts as a mothership to the cheaper more expendable UAS.

Yeah... that's the problem with using jets that need to serve a ~30 year service life - you can't just abuse them with insane amounts of G because there's no pilot onboard - you actually have to take care of the airframe too. Even if you could develop an AI controlled aircraft capable of pulling sustained double digit G loads at will, I'm not sure how much of an advantage that would actually be in the grand scheme of things...

I'm not 100% confident that Mr Musk really knows what he's talking about on this one. The reality is that a modern day fighter is an inherently expensive weapons system. By the time you put together a high performance airframe with modern propulsion, signature reduction measures, sensors, countermeasures and data sharing capability you have an aircraft that is worth tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars before a pilot ever gets near it. There seems to be this myth that dispensing with the pilot will somehow make combat aircraft cheap and expendable... The real question to me is whether we trust AI to control such an expensive asset en masse, and how much more effective an AI in the "driver's seat" would be (if at all). Personally I'm not sure the technology has matured to the point that we would trust it with such valuable hardware (and the destructive capability it provides) or that there would be a significant benefit in doing so.

I don't know, personally I think a full fidelity Flanker or Fulcrum variant is most sorely needed. Even a Foxbat would be cool - anything from red that can keep the blue 4th gens on their toes.

Agreed. A full fidelity, modern Flanker or Fulcrum variant would be a very welcome addition to the sim.

Ah well we will just have to wait and see. I don't mind them showing female pilots given that they're a real thing and AFAIK are highly regarded in the USN. If the movie is about a USN squadron launching an airstrike against the patriarchy then I'll be similarly upset :lol: Fair enough :thumbup: Now this guy has it all figured out

There are three things that reliably make me happy - fighter jets, hot women and beer. This movie has the first two covered and I can sort out the third myself :D Besides, female fighter pilots have been in the USN for decades so I really don't know what you're worried about :smilewink:

It seems an Su57 has crashed in Russia, reportedly the first attempt at a production model. Pilot is ok thankfully. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31620/su-57-felon-advanced-fighter-crashes-in-russia

HARMs are not well suited to sinking a large warship. Small warhead designed to shred radar equipment, not blast a hull open.

Yep, the SD10 also shows up as a U rather than an M. Presumably something to be coded in due course.

Yeah... Harpoon probably isn't the weapon of choice against a vessel like that. You probably need LRASM or - better yet - several Mk48 torpedoes(!).

Speaking as an Eagle-turned-Hornet driver, I would say the R77 poses the biggest threat in the last ~10km before the merge. Against an ER equipped opponent, AMRAAM gives me the advantage of being able to immediately turn cold or duck behind terrain after I shoot (unlike the ER shooter who has to support their missile to impact). Shoot an ET or R73 at me in that scenario and I can beat it with flares but use an active missile and things get more difficult. In an ideal world you'd take 2 x R73, 2 x ET, 2 x 77 and 4 x ER but the J11's rails don't allow it. Tough deciding what other missile(s) to sacrifice to make room for the Adder (especially in the Fulcrum)...

AFAIK the Malaysians are no slouches. Their MiG29 + R77 + R73 + HMD combo gave our (RAAF) A Model Hornets serious problems back in the 90's. From what I've heard it was this experience that provided momentum for the RAAF HUG program and saw our bugs upgraded to the latest C/D standard (with ASRAAM instead of 9X). This tended to tilt things back the other way. The feedback has generally been that the Fulcrum is a rocket ship when it comes to acceleration, and potent in a two circle rate fight. The Hornet tends to have the upper hand in the low speed regime, where it can impose a one circle radius fight. They are both extremely potent BFM machines when played to their strengths. EDIT: Some relevant testimony (1:00:40): l1X4IYYYDVk

True. JF17 will hopefully change that, plus J11 allows use of R77 which kind of makes it similar to an early Su27SM... kind of.

I was under the impression that the R77 is actually draggier than the R27ER due in large part to its lattice fins...

^True. All the playable aircraft are MSA though :smilewink:

I'm pretty sure you'd need a PESA or AESA radar with SWT mode to do this (eg. Irbis-E). DCS only models MSA radars though, so it's not possible.

R77 is the better weapon in the pre-merge. Fire it in someone's face inside of ~7km and they will have a hard time dodging it. You will be able to turn away immediately unlike the R27ER. It should turn better than the ER at this range as well.

Fair enough :thumbup: