cailean_556

Long and short of it, none of the *flyable* Mirage F1s included in the module Aerges' is developing ever carried ARMAT. Things is, the ARMAT isn't in DCS either. And there's very little info on the ARMAT - I doubt there's enough there to satisfy EDs documentary requirements for development. That and the Mirage F1CE, BE, EE and M never carried ARMAT - the Iraqi EQs did and they ended up being way different to the Spanish aircraft in terms of avionics and capabilities - particularly the more advanced "blocks" like the EQ-4 and up. I agree that 'REDFOR' period/alliance-accurate SEAD platforms are really limited to the FC3-fidelity Su-25T, at least in terms of non-AI controlled aircraft. The only other jet viewed as a 'REDFOR' aircraft with SEAD capabilities is the much more modern JF-17 which, while it's not exactly a BLUFOR, is not exactly a REDFOR either. As much as I might wish it, we're not getting an official Su-30 module any time soon. There are rumours of a Su-17/22 in development - though nothing officially announced. While I am unable to find reliable data that says so specifically, I believe it could have been the Mirage F1EQ-5 variants that were capable of firing the ARMAT - as they were also capable of using the Exocet missile (though this was also due to the addition of the Cyrano IVM radar more so than an avionics/weapons suite/hardware upgrade). That, or the EQ-4 as it was the first variant intended for ground attack duties in Iraqi service. French Air Force Mirage F1s never carried ARMAT, as far as I'm aware - the Jaguar was the AdA's ARMAT carrier. Though if a version of the Mirage F1 in French service did, it would likely have been the Mirage F1CT.

I've been having some *consistently inconsistent* CTDs while working in the Mission Editor. Sometimes it doesn't happen. Sometimes it'll happen once or twice. Sometimes it will be consistently reproducible. My most recent log (this morning) doesn't seem to have logged the crash, however the crashes I was experiencing last night (which cost me a couple hours of work...yes, I should have saved more - I get on a roll and that's it, I'm off and racing...) were. Anyway, the main culprit seems to be either trying to delete, or overwrite, text in a cloned 'Message to Group' (in my particular case) action when setting a trigger (for dialogue once the trigger is set). I have cloned and edited countless 'Message to Group', however I have also sometimes very reliably been able to reproduce a CTD when highlighting, and trying to overwrite or delete text - or when copying text from one to another, or when copying text from an external program (such as Excel - which I use to track the script and voice lines for a campaign). I've sent my logs through via the automated system native to DCS, however when looking through the logs myself, I came across something I've seen in another game and I wanted clarity on what it means (Bold and underlined). 2024-02-05 19:57:19.846 INFO EDCORE (Main): # C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at 00007ff8ba9f3ad8 00:00000000 The data either side I have no idea what it means, but I've seen this "Access Violation" message come up before when ARK: Survival Ascended has CTD'd (RANDOM_ACCESS_VIOLATION). From what has been very unreliably explained to me, the game is trying to do something the GPU either won't let it, or it can't do. What is the case in the context of DCS? I was in the mission editor, trying to delete, overwrite or modify text in a 'Message to Group' text box when these CTDs have occurred. Nothing overly graphical going on. Could you please explain to me what either DCS or my computer are trying to do/not doing when this is occurring and if it is my computer, and not DCS, what I need to do to ensure this doesn't continue? Most recent log is included - does not address (going by time-stamp) my CTDs this morning, but appears to log the CTD that occurred last night. Thank you in advance for any explanation/guidance. dcs.log

I know I'm late to the party on variants. Aerges haven't said (to my knowledge) that they'll do multiple variants in the one module, it seems like people are just expecting it (not that it's an unfounded expectation, given their past modules). I'm inclined to agree that the most likely variant will be the F-104G, because Aerges has contacts/ties with the Spanish Air Force and the Spanish Air Force flew F-104Gs. I'll be happy with that. Just like I'm happy with the Mirage F1. As I understand it, the F-104G lacks BVR capability (as it cannot carry/use AIM-7 Sparrows) but comes with an INS navigation system and an AG-capable radar. As I also understand it, they could also only ever carry 2x AIM-9s at a time. Whether that was an operational practicality or a physical limitation, I'm unsure as I have seen IRL pictures of a JASDF F-104 fitted with 4 Sidewinders (or maybe they're Smokewinders/just for show) on the wing tips/under the intakes - however most pictures I've seen of armed Starfighters from European nations (bar Italy) show either intake-pylon mounted or under-wing mounted Sidewinders and tip tanks (or some variation thereof). The Gs were also used (not by the Spanish) for anti-ship strike and in a fighter-bomber role, so a (somewhat limited) AA and AG (just not multi-role) capable aircraft is the best compromise in terms of aircraft variant. It's not like F-104s would have been expected to dogfight MiG-29s (or at least they wouldn't be the *first choice* to go up against them), or F/A-18s or F-16s (especially not late 2000s variants). People will try, some might even be successful. I'm sure we'll see GS do an F-104 v MiG-29 or Su-27 video at some point... If we were to get a second version, a BVR-capable (or as BVR as the AIM-7 can be, I guess) version would be nice. It doesn't need to be the latest and greatest version, something Cold War-era is just fine (which actually seems to be a trend with modules recently announced or in the works, with only a couple exceptions - with no complaints from me), so the original F-104S works (the upgraded 'S' Starfighters rely on having the Italian Aspide from what I've read, which is not currently in DCS - not outside the realms of possibility it would be added, however everything the original F-104S uses is already in DCS vs needing to be developed for a later upgrade). I've also noticed a lot of discussion surrounding whether the F-104 was an interceptor or an air-superiority fighter and that interceptors needed range, while air-superiority fighters relied on GCI. I would have to disagree with that assessment. Soviet interceptors lacked significant range (MiG-21, in particular but also MiG-23 and early MiG-29s) and relied on GCI. Likewise, the EE Lightning was similarly notorious for not having enough range (and relying on GCI). While I can't say I have read or heard the F-104 lacking range in the same way as the MiG-21 or Lightning, it's not a very big jet and there are drop tanks in more pictures of the F-104 than not, regardless of version (except the F-104S, as it tends to carry Sparrows and AIM-9s, but no tanks - at least in the pics of it I've seen). Interceptor range only became more of an issue when cruise missiles (carried by strategic bombers) became more commonplace - as the bombers would need to be intercepted 100s of kilometres further out than they would have with normal/nuclear bombs - at least on the 'Western' side. The Soviets just made the Su-27 for long-range intercept duties (it still amazes me that the Su-27 *DOES NOT HAVE* external tanks...or at least very rarely, if ever, uses them), whereas the 'Western' militaries either designed planes with AAR in mind, or retrofitted their interceptors for AAR (however I don't believe the F-104s had AAR capability?). In terms of interceptor v air superiority, from where I sit (with my lack of inside-knowledge as to what constitutes what) to me an interceptor has a high top speed, and a high rate of climb. It will likely only carry 2-4 missiles, generally has a short range (mostly due to being in afterburner almost the entire time) and rely on GCI for vectoring toward targets. An air superiority aircraft, while it may also have high top speeds and high rates of climb, carries more missiles (4-8+) and has a longer endurance (to provide duties such as CAP and/or escort missions). The lines are blurred these days, but back when the F-104 was the bleeding edge of military aircraft technology, that assessment holds relatively true. Aircraft like the F-4, F-15 and F-14 (and Su-27) are anomalies in that they were really the first jets to blend the two roles into one (in my assessment). Just my 2 cents. Looking forward to hearing more about the F-104 project once the Mirage F1M has been released and the Mirage F1 module is considered 'complete'.

So this has been a thing since June? I had to go back through the change logs that far to find it "officially"... No wonder I couldn't find anything in the more recent change logs... It's been present since June and is either reoccurring or *still* occurring. Awesome... Oh well, ED's F-15E will do the job for now. Thanks.

Yeah, that didn't work either. I've set them to 'Guided Bombs' and it did nothing. The ED F-15E (the AI one with the Sniper pod) works fine, so I've resorted to using that one for now.

Situation: AI F-15E Suite 4+, with task 'Pinpoint Strike', tasked with destroying a powerplant (Workshop A) using 2x GBU-24s. AI is set to 'Bombing', attack decisions override is 'on'. 3rd waypoint is the 'attack' - alt is set to 20,000 ft. There are ZU-23s guarding the target - however at 20,000 ft that should be a non-issue. AI disregards 'bombing' (but also disregards 'attack map object') and proceed to WP4 and beyond, landing back at the airbase without dropping ordnance. This was tested (exact same parameters) with GBU-24, GBU-10 and Mk-84 2000lb bombs - on each occasion, the AI S4+ did not engage its intended target and RTB'd. When that aircraft was changed to the ED F-15E (which required that I create a loadout that utilised GBU-27s, as the ED F-15E does not have GBU-24s) and the mission was run, the ED F-15E engaged the target as expected, within the parameters set for it. Note: Attached is the mission I am using - it's a WIP mission that I can use to flight-test and do basic combat missions in for any aircraft I own. 00_BASIC MISSION PROFILE v2023.miz

Aerges have been pretty upfront on which variants of the Mirage F1 they're simulating: The *Spanish* export Mirage F1CE, F1EE, and F1M single-seat fighters and the two-seat Mirage F1BE. Liveries will be provided to *simulate* the Mirage F1s of other nations but nothing like the F1AZ or F1EQ, as a variant of this module, will be produced. Definitely nothing French and, as far as I'm aware, no other F1 variants are being produced outside the BE and M (in addition to the CE and EE)

I feel that the PC-9/A should *launch* with RAAF liveries, but they could add some of the more unique liveries from other nations later. There's a number of instances in DCS already where "fictional" liveries have been added for aircraft in DCS (such as a JASDF F-2 livery for the F-16, German and Greek (F-4F/F-4E AUP - though they were probably earlier-model Es first, don't know much about the HAF AUPs) liveries being demonstrated for the F-4, IDF liveries for the F-15E and a TNI (Indonesian) livery for the AH-64D - when the TNI has ordered AH-64Es, not Ds). Personally, I don't see the harm in finctional liveries, seeing as ED itself has set a precedent. The PC-9/A is a pure training aircraft, I think they may have carried smoke rockets for AFAC duties but they would never have been flown in a "modern" battlefield (or even a mildly contested earlier battlefield) as, as far as I know, they lack RWR and any counter-measures. That being said, unlike the Christen Eagle II (I know there are a lot of people that enjoy it, and DCS at its core is a flight sim, however it was never utilised by any nation's military air arm for flight training let alone combat - but if you need to make a test bed module to use as a basis for future prop-driven modules, may as well see if it'll make some money to help recoup the costs...I get it...), the PC-9/A has been used to train *combat* pilots from a nation's *military* much like the Yak-52 (which is also unarmed) so it does have a place in DCS.

The ability to make JTACs and other designation-capable units designate/target static buildings and map objects for other aircraft to attack would also be most useful (and not require a work around such as placing a vehicle or fortification in close proximity to the intended target and using triggers). And the ability to place an IR solid/flashing marker on a unit, so that unit (or group of units) is visible/identifiable under NVGs in low/no light conditions.

I can confirm this. Using TACAN channel 42Y, in my situation, with TACAN set to T/R. I have another beacon set to 26X - which works and provides bearing and range. 42Y does nothing. I actually just came in here, after experiencing this, looking to see if this was a known issue or not. EDIT: This is with the Mirage F1CE. Have not tested it with the Mirage F1EE yet.

I'm developing a mission. Player follows an AI Mirage F1BE from Akrotiri to Rene Mouawad, via Beirut. The AI is set to climb in two stages to F250 and, at that altitude, maintain Mach 0.8 from just outside of Akrotiri to the Lebanese coast. The BE's loadout is two wing tanks and two 9JULIs on the wing tips. The AI doesn't make F250, staying around F230 or lower and is going around 170 kts - so slow that to remain in a stable formation I (as the player) have to drop flaps. I'm constantly having to throttle forward and back to maintain speed and stay in formation. Prior to Beirut, the AI is ordered to drop to 6,000 feet and accelerate to Mach 0.85 (it does this and is certainly going faster at lower altitude, which is to be expected in IAS). I initially thought it was a fuel-conservation procedure by the AI however I attempted to match my directed flight profile (pretty sure I exceeded it at basically all times) and still had well over 3000L of fuel by the time I was wheel's down - which included an afterburner high speed pass over the Beiruit international airport 'just because'. Increasing speeds between waypoints doesn't seem to do a whole lot... Is the BE's fuel load *that* much less than the CEs so my flight profile is too risky, or is the AI being over-cautious or...? I'm still playing with it, to see if I can find a happy medium in there somewhere but interested to hear theories about why this behaviour is happening.

I cringe whenever I see someone decry any changes to any aircraft system in DCS as a "nerf", or that a plane, missile, or other system, is "overpowered". DCS is not about "balance". There's no "BR", there's no skill-based match-making. You either are, or are not, good enough. It's a bitter pill to swallow for some people - even me. I suck against a non-AI opponent. DCS attempts to replicate real-world data of aircraft, weapons, and systems, based on actual real-world data provided by the manufacturer, and/or user(s) - THROUGH THE CORRECT CHANNELS. There's no "balance" in reality. A nuclear-capable nation doesn't use nukes because their opponent doesn't have them - they don't use them because it will harm relations with the rest of the world if they did, so such uses must be weighed up vs the fallout of using them. It's not DCS that determines the AIM-120C-7's range, it's real world scientific research. Likewise, the detection range and parameters of EO for Russian jets (early model Russian jets, at that) is dictated by data that is both accessible by ED and comes from verified, or multiple trusted, sources. If changes were made (and I've not read anything about EO changes in the last few patches), they were made based on data provided to them. Much like the AIM-54 Phoenix missile updates, which have arguably made the missile "worse" (or as I like to see it, more in line with what the missile was designed for - engaging high-altitude, long-range bombers at extreme range) - this was based on data and SME feedback regarding missile performance, from what I understand. All I can say is, learn the new system's limitations and adapt - develop new tactics which better support your chosen strategy and apply them. And if your strategy doesn't work: time for a new one.

Keep in mind that DCS is, at present first and foremost, a FLIGHT simulator. The ability to interact with ground (and I think sea, never actually tried that one yet - and I have Supercarrier) vehicles is more of a novel addition (though it can be quite interesting) and is basically an "FC3 equivalent" level of simulation (i.e. it's more 'gamified'). They more often than not add or tweak CA content (case and point, the new "not Landcruiser" and "not Hilux" technicals added just after the AH-64 was added), and we have some other vehicles (such as a CRAM and - I think I recall seeing - a Pantsir) incoming. These things, like improving the legacy aircraft models, takes time. However, your initial post is quite vague. What do you want them to do? Why do you want them to do it?

With the loadouts I find myself using (for example - 2 drop tanks on the inboards, 38rd rocket pods on the outboards, AIM-9JULI on the tips), I find that rotating at 150-200, full flaps, works for me. There was one occasion where I apparently blew my tyres during the take off run but I wasn't even at 120 knots yet, let alone 150. Haven't managed to be able to replicate that oddity.

Hi BN, Yes, this is technically a necro... However instead of raise a new post, figured I'd simply add to this one... Has anything actually been done, or in the pipeline, regarding this? I know the ED office(s) are probably all kinds of crazy with 4 new planes and as many new maps being announced but while working on some stuff tonight, I've come across this issue and it reminded me to chase it up. If you look at Bandar Abbas on Google Maps right now, there's a Boeing 777 and a Boeing 737 currently parked in what is essentially B01 and B02 on the DCS: Persian Gulf representation of Bandar Abbas. There is also a P-3 and what looks to be a Fokker F.27 Friendship parked in F09 and F17 respectively. The larger, longer runway (21L/03R) is approximately 12,000ft in length (at least in DCS). The Boeing 777 requires about 6100ft to land, and about 11,600ft to take off at MTW. The P-3, F.27 (neither in DCS, yet) and C-130H (which is in DCS) all require significantly less, even at MTW. The E-3A, or rather the B707-320B, requires 10,000ft for take off and 5900ft to land... A fully-laden KC-135 would require practically the entire runway to take off (although the ones in DCS I believe are the re-engined Rs, so they would perform better in this regard). Considering we're getting a C-130J at some point in the future, has this placed more of an emphasis on ED correcting what can spawn/take off and from where on all the current (and future) maps? Having the C-130s fly out of Kerman or Shiraz isn't practical for what I'm trying to do, and having them fly out of Ras Al Khaimah will see them getting shot down by Patriot SAMs... Thanks in advance.

While it would certainly add some interesting scenarios, the fact of the matter is that the reason people are dismissing this terrain as is, is the same reason your "makes sense" doesn't make sense: nothing of any aerial warfare significance has taken place in that area - at least not since World War 2. Helicopter ops, with the Blackhawk mod, or the UH-1 and Mi-8 - sure. Plus the area in green includes training areas used by the RAAF in modern times, the red box does not include all of it. If they could add that 300km in map "height" it could certainly bring even more potential but Timor-Leste and the UN intervention didn't see any aerial confrontations or use of fast air. I know, I just provided more context than saying "Pitch Black happens here".

I'm confused that NTTR and the Red Flag campaigns that take place on that map receive praise, yet people are seeming to write this terrain off as useless/pointless. While the area (bar Darwin) doesn't have much in the way of historical significance, it has contemporary significance. This area is essentially Australia's NTTR. This whole area sees small and large scale exercises with international allies that is basically the region's Exercise Red Flag: it's called Exercise Pitch Black. This year Australia is hosting (Pitch Black is currently underway): French Rafales, CASA 235s and MRTTs, German Typhoons, MRTTs and A400M Atlas, Indian Su-30MKIs, Indonesian F-16As, Japanese F-2s, South Korean KF-16Us and MRTTs, Singaporean F-15SG, F-16s and MRTTs, UK Typhoons and MRTTs, and US F-15Cs and F-35Bs In addition to Australia's own F-35As, EA-18Gs, E-7A and KC-30A MRTTs (interestingly, the F/A-18Fs did not participate according to the release I was reading). Other countries also send personnel in supporting roles: Canada, New Zealand, Thailand, the UAE, Malaysia and The Netherlands are all listed as participating (but not sending aircraft). That is not an insignificant collection of aircraft or international participation and this could all be replicated within DCS (with placeholders for aircraft we don't yet have in DCS, obviously). While it may not offer the suggestion of a fictional war between Indonesia and Australia (flight time to Indonesian territory is about the same distance as Falklands to Argentina - maybe slightly longer), the map has plenty of potential for other scenarios. It's not what I had expected, given the aircraft coming and/or being developed but I'm still looking forward to it.

I've noticed this as well - not the turning, but the dipping of the aircraft as though I've just gone over a bump...but I'm not moving.

Adana Sakirpasa, Syria, 0630 h - Sun is rising, horizon is orange but it's still very dark. An AI Mirage F1BE is taxiing down the runway unlit. On inspection via F2 view, the police light appears to be lit, however there's no projected light coming from it. The nav lights are not on, neither is the taxi light. Once the aircraft is airborne, nav lights go on. While I could overlook nav lights not being on during taxi, not having any lights on at all is not ideal. Another issue related to the nav lights is the difficulty of picking them up unless you're practically in tight formation, even when the sky is very dark. The distance at which you can see nav lights makes it very difficult to pick up your lead aircraft, even when contrasted against a dark background - however that's probably an ED issue rather than a Mirage F1 issue. I also seem to be having a Comms issue I can't seem to diagnose. I am aware of the Thousandths issue with radios currently. As I understand it, with battery power, the green radio should be active - enabling me to contact the ATC to request start up clearance etc. I press the green button on the SIB (it depresses). Radio is set to PAL (which I understand as the normal operating mode), channel selector set to P (which I understand as being for 'Preset'), channel set to 11 (which is set to 251.000 MHz - Adana Sakirpasa's ATC freq). I hear tone when I do the test - which tells me its powered. Using the comms menu (which I have mapped to a switch on my HOTAS), I attempt to call the ATC (which is lit up, so I'm on the right freq). My pilot does not make the call. As I start up and taxi, I get the ATC telling me I'm clear to taxi - and I also get progress reports from other AI aircraft getting airborne (which are also set to 251.000, confirming I'm on the right freq) - but I am unable to request taxi clearance or abort take off (my pilot still says nothing). This is during a custom mission I am designing. Have I missed a step or pushed/not pushed a particular button? The manual tells me what the buttons are and what they do (which is obviously helpful), but doesn't really explain how they are used in DCS (for example, PTT doesn't trigger the Comms menu - in most other aircraft, however, it does - so the Comms menu NEEDS to be mapped separately and MUST be used to communicate with the AI). EDIT: I have also noticed that the Mirage F1BE, on parking and shutting down, only opens the front cockpit - rear cockpit remains shut.

Literally having this bug at the moment in the F-14A - I thought I was losing my mind. I had just respawned from a "controlled rapid disassembly" - pulled back on the stick as much as I could while supersonic at low level. For science... Seems I'll have to restart the mission. EDIT: Restarting the mission and getting out of and back into the Mission Editor didn't fix the 'right engine won't start' issue. Had to quit out of DCS completely.

I'm not panicking at the apparent "lack" of screenshots, or updates in general. I would find it very "out-of-character" for an experienced DCS 3rd Party developer, such as Heatblur, to declare a project will release in 2022, if it wasn't in a state where such a release was considered very possible. Granted there are "under the hood" things us mere peasants don't get to see that could alter their schedule, however for Heatblur to make the call of "it'll be out in 2022" during the first official post regarding the F-4 module means that they're pretty confident it'll be out this year. 31 December, 2022 is still a 2022 release. Once 1 Jan 2023 rolls around and I'm still not sitting in a Phantom cockpit, and I've not heard or seen anything about a delay, I'll start making noise. Until then just remain low-key excited, don't let expectations get the better of you and don't get demoralised when you don't see or hear any news about a wanted module (this last one is my kryptonite - South Atlantic, Mirage F1 and MB-339 news, when!?). From memory, we (or at least I) saw very little "progress updates" of the F-14 before its release. So I would imagine the F-4 would be handled in much the same way. EDIT: While trawling another forum thread:

I had attempted to utilise JF-17s as AI for a SEAD/DEAD training mission I made - they would come in and (I thought) they would fire their LD-10s in Passive mode toward an SA-11 SR (Snow Drift) - which is set to be permanently active until destroyed, once activated. I figured the AI would use Active or Passive mode to engage the radar, as I had set its task to do so. No matter what I tried (ROE, Override attack, moving the waypoint closer to the target, disable RTB on Bingo Fuel) the JF-17 refused to engage - despite other AI aircraft (with HARMs and Shrikes) being able to work as intended. I surmised it was due to the LD-10 being more of a "Self-Protection" ARM than an offensive ARM, so I switched it out for an F-16C with HTS/HARM, which I knew worked (which it did). I then changed a pair of F/A-18s carrying LGBs (in the same mission) into JF-17s carrying C-701 (CCD version) that were intended to destroy a disabled HAWK site (TR destroyed, site unable to fire). The F/A-18s that did this task prior had no issues. The JF-17s, however, simply overflew the target in a Race-Track (they are not set to orbit, they are set to 'Bombing' the units at the target points) and never released ordnance. I changed the C-701 (CCD) to C-701 (IR). Same thing happened. I changed their loadout to GBU-12s and tested again. This time they released the GBU-12 however it did not appear to track and missed the target by a significant margin (the AI JF-17 was also carrying a TGP, which I assumed it would use). I even changed out the JF-17 AIs for Mirage 2000Cs armed with dumb bombs - they were able to destroy the targets accurately, despite dropping their unguided bombs from 20,000 ft. There is no wind or other threat that would affect the aircraft or its weapon systems - the JF-17 AI does not seem to understand how to employ or use its 'smart' weapons. I don't know how long it has been like this, as I've not really used JF-17s as AI attackers in missions before.

Update on this: Instead of copying the trigger, I simply made new ones from scratch. I was able to copy and overwrite text from other trigger Actions with no issue - I did not try deleting entire paragraphs. I also, quite embarrasingly, realised during a QA session that I had set the launchers of the HAWK sites to Rapier launchers. I don't think that would cause the issue, as the trigger last night was based on an SA-2 site, but it has been rectified. I have not yet had a CTD or other issue. Once I've done a bit of QA, I will attempt to replicate what I was doing last night to see if I can force the CTD again and provide an update. EDIT: After doing about 40 mins of QA, I copied the 'Kish SA-2 Disabled' trigger, moved it to the bottom of the list and then deleted the second paragraph. Unsure whether it's because I elected to manually add, as opposed to copy, the trigger, if DCS was just having a bad day or whether or not it's my computer (which is very new, but not outside the realms of possibility) but I wasn't able to replicate the crash.

Things like this is why I have trust issues when people say things like "Do your own research"... Just who is right, and who is wrong? The one? Or the many? Multiple sources quote a particular number, however one source (a source I consider - and not just because I'm Australian - to be a typically reliable, in fact I'm surprised this site didn't show up during my original search for info) has information that is contrary to that. By the same token, I would also consider the Federation of American Scientists (fas.org) to be also typically reliable - so who's right? When multiple sources say one thing, and another says something completely different? I'm sure ED has the smoking gun on the matter - I just want to know if the system in DCS is accurate. If this is accurate, the only thing remaining (that is triggering my obsessive-compulsive tendencies about this) is the fact that the tracking/fire control radar has a supremely longer range than the search radar it is supposed to be paired with... If that is indeed the case, it's like we need a longer-range search radar to pair with the SA-5: like the P-14 'Tall King' or the P-35 "Bar Lock' search radars (which look very similar to the airfield radar installations on the Caucasus map) for the SA-5 - so it can be cued onto target more reliably.

If you follow the links for the SA-5 system itself within the GlobalSecurity.org link for the radar (S-200 SA-5 GAMMON (globalsecurity.org)) it discusses minimum engagement range, as does S-200 SA-5 GAMMON - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces (fas.org). However it could also be dependent on the variant. That being said, this site (SA-5 Gammon S-200 Angara ground to air missile system data | Russia Russian missile system vehicle UK | Russia Russian army military equipment vehicles UK (armyrecognition.com)) contradicts the other two and quotes a minimum range of 7km but doesn't quote sources for that information. 60km does sound like a stupidly long distance, and it'd be hard to get confused between 7 and 60. Perhaps the min range for the missile is correct after all and globalsecurity.org and fas.org are wrong. However the Square Pair, on the other hand, there's definitely something up with that.