FlankerMan

In the past, I've seen some confusion over the different versions of the Russian S-300 (SA-10 "Grumble") SAM, so I thought I'd try to explain things. Now, in the real world, we have the: S-300PS (SA-10B "Grumble")-Land-based version; uses 5V55KD+5V55R missiles. S-300PMU-1 (SA-20A "Gargoyle")-Improved land-based version; uses 48N6 missiles. S-300F Fort (SA-N-6 "Grumble")-Naval (ship-based) version of S-300PS. S-300FM Fort-M (SA-N-20)-Naval version of S-300PMU-1 for Pyotr Velikiy (Kirov-class); uses 48N6 missiles. The in-game versions are these: S-300PS-Land-based version, also on Moskva (Slava-class) and Pyotr Velikiy; uses 5V55 missiles. S-300F-Only on Pyotr Velikiy; uses 48N6 missiles. Right, then, now I'll pair up the real world versions of these guys with their in-game versions. RL=real life; IG=in game. So: RL S-300PS=IG S-300PS-land based version. RL S-300F=IG S-300PS-on Moskva+Pyotr Velikiy. RL S-300FM=IG S-300F. Next post, I'll explain the missile versions and ranges. However, here are some links to sites that may also have helpful information. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=73757 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=29512 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system

Okay, makes sense, twistking.

The Kh-58U can be taken down by the Patriot and Hawk, and presumably some Russian SAMs like the SA-10, SA-15, and S-300F.

I know that the Kh-25MPU is faster and less likely to be shot down, but it's also shorter range. The F-16 (all versions), as well as the F/A-18C, and in the future the flyable F/A-18C Lot 20 can use the HARM.

Okay, thanks, that helps. But, why a minimum firing distance circle when the other SAMs don't have one?

The Su-25T is the only flyable aircraft with anti-radar missiles (until the F/A-18C gets the AGM-88C HARM; the A/V-8B can use a short-range ARM, but it's not for big SAMs), and it can use the Kh-58U, which in my opinion is the best ARM in DCS, followed by (in this order) the Kh-31P, AGM-88C, ALARM, and the Kh-25MPU (which the Su-25T can also use).

But both circles are related to the launcher, and both have the darker red when in the game and having pressed F10.

Yes, definitely.

I noticed two things in the game: 1-The 48N6 missile of the Pyotr Velikiy isn't nearly as long-ranged as it should be, even though it both meets (and sometimes slightly exceeds) the encyclopedia's stated range, and is the longest-ranged SAM missile in the game. 2-The game calls the Pyotr Velikiy's 48N6 a part of the S-300F (SA-N-6 "Grumble") system, but I think that the S-300F is actually just the ship-based S-300PS, like on the Moskva (the Pyotr Velikiy also has the S-300PS onboard), and the 48N6 missile is part of the S-300FM (SA-N-20). Just sayin'.

A couple of questions regarding the in-game SA-2 "Guideline" (S-75): 1-Why are there two static engagement range circles? What do they describe/mean? 2-Does the P-19 search radar (formerly only with SA-3 "Goa"/S-125 Neva) actually communicate with the SA-2 Fan Song tracking radar, or is the only way to get the SA-2 to engage to have the TR pointed towards the incoming fighters at mission start?

Well, I suppose the ultra-long-range SAMs are mostly not an option, but it still would be nice to have the existing MIM-104, 48N6, and 5V55 missiles updated so that they could at least fire at targets that are at the borders of the static engagement range circles of the Patriot, Pyotr Velikiy, and SA-10. It might also be nice to have the 48N6 available to the land-based SA-10.

I also have a very slow download.

I would like the F-16A MLU and the F-16C Block 50 to be useable by the USA (I would also like this for the F-4E); additionally, I would like the F-16C bl.50 to get preset loads, rather than me always having to make my own.

I would like to see longer-ranged, more capable SAM systems in DCS, like the Patriot PAC-2 and the S-300PMU (SA-20). Even if those are unrealistic, I think updating the missiles for the current Patriot and S-300PS (SA-10B) systems would be good; as in, making it so that the MIM-104 missile can actually go the 90km the encyclopedia says it can. And, we already have the 48N6 missile on the Pyotr Velikiy, so it shouldn't be so hard to upgrade the land-based version, right?

Formation Flying With AWACS Was doing mission 9 of the Ultimate Argument (AWACS Escort), and took some shots. That mission I actually crashed into the A-50 shortly after the last pic, damaging a few of my systems. Neither myself nor the A-50 were destroyed, however, I redid it anyway. Succeeded the second try, and didn't get as close to the AWACS.;)

Heh...Whaddaya know...

I AM GREAT Enjoy!

I second that.

Flaming Cliffs 3.

We need this. The mission editor, for one, has much more than is covered in the old one.

When is MAC getting released?

In many of the later missions in this campaign, what was originally intended to be F-4Es are now A-10Cs with F-4E loads (as in, with Sparrows and stuff).

One more thing: in all of the missions, the SAM Patriot STR is in a different group from the other units, so it will never fire. This is particularly annoying in mission 5.

Mission 2 (Escort SEAD On EWR)-The F-16Cs go for the SA-19s, rather than the EWR, and get shot down. Mission 7 (Escort OCA Strikes On Mozdok)-The F-16Cs going to Mozdok only get the SA-11s, not the SA-19s, so the F-15Es still die. Other than that, though, a great (but very hard) campaign, though I'm not sure of the purpose of mission 11.

Mission 4 (Incursion)-You start on top of your wingman, so you both explode. Mission 5 (Hold The Line)-3 and 4 of the F-15E flight start on top of each other, and are unable to move, though they do not explode. Other than that, though, a great (but very hard) campaign.