ngreenaway

1955-1965 was only 10-20 years after this time period. its not too much of a stretch to use this map as a early cold war gone hot scenario. consider the migs 15,19, & 21, the 86 & f5 & uh-1 were all introduced in the time period of 1949-1962 (we dont really have the luxury of bing sticklers for variants within DCS). expanding that out slightly, the mi-8 came on the scene in 1967 theres certainly a non-ww2 use case for this map

new engines on the huey, thats interesting

i hadnt noticed any difference either. the two primary problems are : - the system launches on targets too far out. when the engagement occurs at about half the current range, accuracy is improved - the system should not launch more than two interceptors per target, and shouldnt re-engage further unless the first two interceptors failed (anything other than this is possible, but wrong)

yea, i suppose thats good news to some. i hope the best for a new dev balancing a map and an aircraft both in development so we have an early stage announcement on a product that may not see the market for another few years, and a notification that the sale announced last week is on still, but closing soon. lightweight, indeed. this is your weekly opportunity to show off, and it looks like there wasnt really anything to highlight i guess. some weeks are like that of course you can never please everyone, cuz everyone wants something different. im just happy its friday

that was perhaps the most "lightweight" newsletter in awhile. guess nothing happened last week worth discussing

no. except for some very recent developments, Stinger uses a rudimentary "iron sights" that hang down from under a protective cover: if you would like to know how to seek & engage aircraft, you may find this informative: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/ad0575/lesson2.htm

its still usable in a "cold war gone hot" scenario, especially if using early-to-mid cold war air frames.

Lighter than usual newsletter this time around. If I had to guess, some of the meat had to get chopped as a result of the patch getting delayed

i dont care about not being able to use them, but i am irritated that a purchase didnt accrue miles

Its literally the same thing. the diagram i showed you is featured on the AIM-9 wiki page . @Exorcetdescribed proportional navigation, and i illustrated it see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation

@Raviar From Wiki: "A missile (blue) intercepts a target (red) by maintaining constant bearing to it (green)" Heres a good resource: https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/how-guided-missiles-work-guidance-control-system-line-of-sight-pursuit-navigation.html

still not right. if you decrease engagement range down by 1/3 - 1/2 , what kind of numbers do you get, because it seems to be engaging targets too far out

Yes, but that's not how patriot works/is used, nor is it the only (or even the best) asset to defend an entire border

ok, i tested it and im not having too much of a problem with range what i would like to see is no launches occur until where the roadblock is located which is about 35-40 ish KM...thats not right, but its not bad the aav-7a1 is located at 42nm/80 km out, so im not seeing the problem @Default774is , but the missile is losing energy sort of where i would expect it to, it just shouldnt engage that far out. where i am seeing a problem is the initial engagement was 3 missiles, none were successful, followed by 3 more one of which got the kill. thats 6 interceptors expended on an su-25t flying at 5000m . it should take no more than two. the missiles that hit were the ones that launched at an appropriate time. im attaching a .miz file, if someone doesnt have combined arms, i suppose they could just throw a pilotable plane in the mix i recently caught up with some old buddies of mine from the army. they had a photo of one our patriot sites in iraq '03. enjoy! pat_test.miz

no, that is not correct. youre basing your assumption on creating an impenetrable wall of air defense. thats not how the system is used the system is employed to protect specific defended assets- think critical infrastructure, APODs/SPODs (airports and port facilities), troop concentrations...stuff like that. theres no point in placing an air defense site where theres nothing of strategic importance to defend, thus you will see gaps in coverage at times

this appears to be a problem of launching way to early rather than a function of drag

42nm = 77km is way too far. theres no way it should be firing at targets 80km away

what distance is it actually launching at?

will we be seeing the patriot guidance fixes this time?

@HobelI just so happen to have a shorad target drone hanging in my garage Info on continental rpv drones: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-143.html

Depends on the system. Against a red-eye, they're probably very effective. Against a blowpipe - probably not needed as the safest place to be is in the targeted aircraft. I don't know about Russian sam's but the more modern ones are probably resistant to flares-i have no reference to that tho I do know stingers are resistant though. They track not only on IR but also negative UV (think of it as tracking the aircraft silhouette in UV) so it's able to discriminate between spurious heat sources & heat sources correlated with an aircraft

This sounds like the unit is engaging properly. I don't know why you think there's a problem, unless you're trying to say manpads engage correctly?

Yea, that's part of the problem: shouldn't shoot more than two missiles per target. It also shouldn't fire until it calculates a sufficient Pk Scuds are it's meat& potatoes, but perhaps with the guidance update we will see improvements on all fronts I don't think it's modeled, but if an intercept will occur outside of a valid engagement zone, the system won't fire. If a scud is within a valid engagement zone but not threatening a defended asset, a system wouldn't fire (this is doctrinal rather than system limitation) . I *know* that aspect isn't modelled

theres been a fix that doesnt seem to have made it into the patch yet, from another thread elsewhere

God-tier accuracy of AAA gunners has been a long running complaint. No need to take a weapon system that *seems* to have a reasonable engagement envelope and break it simply cuz other weapon systems appear to be overly accurate at extreme ranges Perhaps the complaint should be why do gunners seem to over-perform?