Martin2487

Some time ago I found out that the AA radar F / A-18 is capable of tracking the AGM-88C HARM. He is even able to track it very well, which I tried to record on the attached track. I really don't want to believe that the APG-73 in AA mode is able to track HARM. So it's not a bug that I'm 100 percent convinced of, but I have doubts that it's so easy to track an anti-radar missile with radar from a fighter plane. https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ScT-fY9y3maL1oCrmkQGGHSNIENlkYA/view?usp=sharing

I think you're probably right that this version didn't have Harpoins. But as far as I know they are able to use SM-2 and SM-6 against surface vessels. I think you're probably right that this version didn't have Harpoins. But if I know they are able to use the SM-2 and SM-6 against surface vessels. We are currently unable to fire any weapon against the ships (except for the cannon probably) and that is the problem I want to point out. Version IIa probably does not have special anti-ship missiles of the Harpoon type, but it is definitely able to fire missiles at ships. We are now defenseless.

I tested Arleigh Burke and found that he did not fire SM-2 missiles against Chinese YJ-83 anti-ship missiles. I enclose a track in which the Arleigh Burke who fired the Chinese anti-ship missile YJ-83 frigate from the Type 054A. Arleigh Burke responds to these anti-ship missiles only with the Phalanx system (unsuccessfully). It would be good to fix it otherwise it is in missions and scenarios where these Chinese ships are defenseless. He has no Harpoons or is unable to shoot down Chinese anti-ship missiles YJ-83.

I found out that Arleigh Burke in DCS does not have anti-ship missiles. No 3D model of launchers can be seen on the ship and the ship will not fire any anti-ship missiles.

I must say that this distance is insufficient. In essence, this loses the advantage of AWACS. As the performance of AA missiles improves, we fly operations in a larger area. The design of the SA page is also adapted to display contacts at a greater distance.It is this distance of about 100 NM is calculated from AWACS and it can not operate in the immediate distance from the fighters, especially if it is present as an enemy of the F-14. If against the F/A-18 is in the air the F-14 needs to cover more space, AWACS must fly in greater depth of territory as the distances increase and the F/A-18 cannot take advantage of information superiority. I would like you to increase this distance to published values if possible. Alternatively, gradually after testing and optimization for game performance. I'm sure it will be very useful. I believe that I have sufficiently clarified why we need them to increase this distance. It's a really important ability for us. I will be waiting for your reply. Thanks :)

You even confirmed as a bug / error. I insert a link below. For the ALE-39 which was used on the F/A-18 it would be real. But here the ALE-47 is used which does not require Master Arm On. Along with the fact that it is not possible to program countermeasures on the ground, the requirement for a master arm is a rather annoying problem that lasts quite a long time. I'm very please to you to fix it :) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=224557

Link-16 integration is a real game changer. I would appreciate if ED published a roadmap. Here is a list of what from my point of view is missing in the game, I tried to sort it by priorities: 1. More contributors to the Link-16 network such as ships (Nimitz class, Arleigh Burke, etc.), SAM Patriot, etc. 2. A/G capabilities - Land Point/Track (J 3.5) The J3.5 messages will be generated when an ground object is detected by any Link-16 capable resources (First, implement at least the coordinates and height. Then other data elements (land platform, land activity, land specific type). 3. Remaining A/A capabilities (target sorting, etc.), status of own aircraft in the group (ammunition, fuel, etc.) 4. Multinetting, network selection (and not automatically as it is now) and assignment of individual sensors to the network (AI ships, aircraft). 5. Change the SAM circle display option on the SA page. Now if SAM is set to be visible in the game, it can be seen on the SA page as well. If we have an MP mission where we want the SAMs to be controlled by a player, the position of the enemy air defense is revealed thanks to this function. I think in a real plane, the pilot records these circles via a datacard. So it was good to change the SAM cirle function on the SA page. 6. Surface capabilities - Surface PPLI, Surface Track. 7. Link-4, VMF.

The version I was talking about and which the F-14 has is the ADM-141 TALD. It's basically a glider with a big RCS. This version is also capable of carrying the F / A-18. They did not tell us what other versions of TALD they want to implement. But the ADM-141A, which has an F-14 in the DCS, would suffice for now. Therefore, I do not understand why we have to wait until next year for such a simple thing that also works in the game (ADM-141A TALD).

I do not fully understand why TALD is included until 2021. What's so difficult about that? It is implemented in DCS on F-14. If I look into NATOPS, the avionics of the TALD aircraft evaluates as a bomb (AUTO, CCIP). TALD is very useful in advanced scenarios. If they decided to finish Harpoon this year, TALD would be a great addition. Very useful for ship saturation. The hornet can carry 6 TALDs. I tried to load TALD on the plane by editing the lua file. But avionics does not register him and does not allow him to be discarded. I saw funny videos of some people hanging various weapons (Russian cannon containers, SCUD) on the Hornet and being able to launch / drop them. Does anyone have any advice on how to do this?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JNejEUnVr7lH5HUbaMV9CYV9Xn4xFoNa/view?usp=sharing A track from the test is available for download here.

I found out and then tested that the contacts via the Link-16 datalink are only transmitted to distance about 125 NM. But the PPLI of its own units is transmitted over a correct maximum distance 325 NM. The SA page in F/A-18 is designed to display contacts at distances greater than 125 NM. Next, if the participant transmits PPLI is able to send other data, ie. contacts. Tested with AWACS E-3 Sentry. I note that the distance that AWACS is able to send via the Link-16 has been tested and not its detection capability. The monitored aircraft flew about 2-3 NM from AWACS and in the mission I set the fog of war, AWACS all the time saw the target but sent its position about the distance of 125 NM from the Link-16 terminal. I noticed this phenomenon in missions and therefore I decided to test it.

I'd like to report a bug on the anti-missile YJ-83. The missile is capable of sinking a Perry-class destroyer for the first hit. With all due respect, it is unrealistic. A single antiship missile is not able to cause such serious damage to the sinking of this class of ship. If we look at the real Harpoon tests on decommissioned ships and even this missile (even though it has a larger warhead) was unable to sink the ship on the first hit. I would like you to look at it and give a serious answer. One thing is that ED has Harpoon degraded and causes very minimal damage (confirmed by ED), but the situation with the YJ-83 is the second extreme.

PP mode in JDAM cancel the TGP waypoint slave. If the TGP is a slave on waypoint and JDAM is selected, it will cancel the TGP slave because the default mode JDAM is PP. When switched to TOO mode, the TGP is slave again. I think it's a bug. Doesn't make sense to me that the pilot then selects JDAM to lose the lock targets and situation awareness. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y8fVHZPgXBeXPvjbuMtWQzxxupYdsZhg/view?usp=sharing

Good initiative, thanks. I have a few parameters available to help you. Maximum flight altitude(top of the ballistic curve): 86 km Ballistic curve ascending arc angle: 45 ° Rocket speed: 1430 m / s Rocket engine operating time: 62-64 seconds Distance deviation: 160-610 meters Lateral deviation: 100-350 meters. Another note on the missile flight itself. At altitudes where the vacuum is not working stabilizer rocket and rocket rotates around its center of gravity. The stabilizers begin to function at a altitide of about 20,000 meters when descending.

If you lock the radar target which is in the red coalition, the aircraft evaluates the target as hostile even if the criteria are not met. The aircraft on the SA page shows that the target is unknown. According to current information, NCTR is not performed in LTWS. The aircraft has no reason in LTWS to think that the aircraft is hostile (the SA page shows that the type is unknown). Unless you have changed the ROE. Current criteria for Hostile status assignment are: negative IFF response; or F/F (fighter-fighter). The attached track captures the problem described. The mission includes only one F/A-18 piloted by the player and one aircraft IL-76. No AWACS or other sensors. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x8cIQkFLTTWM0rv3vyhAV4YnswhvphoL/view?usp=sharing

After the update, NCTR stopped working in ACM radar modes. Previously, this function worked. In RWS NCTR still works. But if I want to do NCTR (Sensor switch depress) in ACM radar, NCTR doesn't work. If I do this in RWS I will get the identification. The attached track captures this situation. https://drive.google.com/file/d/18teiQSb0-FbHzeSMg9lU44D5vYOlVF3X/view?usp=sharing

That's not entirely accurate.There is, of course, no switch on the probe lighting in the cab. But on HOTAS there is an external lights switch that can turn all external lights on/off. Use this switch to turn on or off probe light.

When the launch bar is in the EXTEND position, the front landing gear is lifted. The bug is shown on the attached track. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vE_nxSm0jU0ZX68ji0fUQzbOKqQWS5Ss/view?usp=sharing

After I once TDC depress can TGT waypoint to move. Maybe it will be my bug / user bug. Of course I looked in the manual before reporting. On page 145 it is written I understand it may be logical to press TDC. Originally, I also wondered if it was necessary to hold the TDC when moving the TGT waypoint. But I have this feature turned off in the settings so I thought it wouldn't affect it. Thanks to BIGNEWY for your reply, but please check t this function or adjust the aircraft manual. Thanks for your work guys.

This is very strange. I've heard about this problem from multiple users who don't work either. Nineline is it possible that you have some internal version of the game where it already works? I suggest leaving the thread open. After the update I would try again.

The piloted F-16 (F-16CM bl.50) passes through Link-16 to SA page F/A-18 all attributes (voice call sign, position, friendly IFF, etc.) but the platform type (F-16) is missing. It would be good to fix it.

The target waypoint cannot be moved by TDC if the HUD is selected by sensor select. It worked in previous versions but it doesn't work now. I made a short track where the error is displayed. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zkzo37a1xTbz8SYfvDPitnehiyB0rO5y/view?usp=sharing

Yes.

I found that FPAS doesn't calculate the optimum range correctly if I load the AGM-154 (both versions). Precisely said, the optimum range is the same as when this weapon was not loaded. The attached track shows this bug. On the track is loaded with AGM-154C. With the AGM-154A, the result is also the same. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AGsakh5VvHe8B7waoZnUOSStEGxhIcwQ/view?usp=sharing

I agree with what you wrote. When I first saw the SAM circle labeled S6 it surprised me. It seemed strange to me. As for the confusion so we have 6 (SA-6) and S6 and it seems confusing. I doubt that if there were 19, it would be mistaken for air to air contact Mig-19. The SAM circle is clearly distinguished, the output from the RWR is displayed differently on the SA page. It is not a question of whether developers know something or what they are based on. Anyone can make a mistake. We have seen such minor errors during the development of the module :shifty: The effort is to provide developers with feedback. It is interesting that it identified as it's not a bug but it would be good if we wrote why we let a little smarter. :)