MBot

In the late 1980s, when the MiG-29 was deployed in strenght (250 Soviet MiG-29 based in East Germany), it compared quite favourably with the Sidewinder armed F-16A/C, which was he most numerous fighter fielded by NATO in Europe. I think this provides a good basis for the MiG-29 9.12 in DCS.

I guess with the Supercarrier module, ED came to reconisder a naval Phantom. Even though none of the DCS Supercarriers did carry the Phantom, the USS Nimitz made a tour with F-4J in 1976-77. While the Phantom familiy is large with many interesting variants, it is understandable that not everything can be done. If there is only room for one variant, I still think it should be a post-Vietnam F-4E fighter-bomber. It is the most versitile and widely used variant and stays true to the classic characteristics that most acssociate with the Phantom (i.e. no 3rd party mid-life upgrades). If a scecond variant would be possible, which would be absolutely Phantastic, I think it should be the F-4J. It is carrier capable and served in Vietnam and into the early 1980s (last deployments 1981 on USS Forrestal and USS Independence). If Vietnam is not a requirement, the last and hottest USN Phantom, the F-4S, stayed with USS Midway till 1986.

I noticed that the Hind has western-style ADIs.

To critique the proposal itself, as far as I can see it includes not a single Coalition air base for Desert Shield/Desert Storm. I think it also includes no Iranian air base from the Iran-Iraq war. As such the proposed map would be fairly useless.

Check the caucasus map, it actually includes the coastal outline of the entier Black Sea. The Syria map could easily include the similar sized eastern Med up to Crete. No land detail, just the coastal outline to use the sea space for naval operations. It is playspace almost for free.

In terms of avionics and weapon options, the Su-17M3 and MiG-27D/M are almost the same. The Su-17M4 adds a cockpit TV display to fire Kh-29T. The MiG-27K is on another level with a forward looking optical sight similar to the Su-25T's Shkval, with the addition of a laser that can designate down- and backwards to guide LGBs. The MiG-27 family has an internal SPS-141 jammer which reportetly was very effective against the Hawk SAM. The Su-17 carried SPS-141 as an external pod only.

I flew MiG-21 with a friend and we loved the no-moon mission. First we got some Hueys who made the mistake to fly with their nav lights on. Then we proceeded to drop illumination bombs over the enemy FARP and blast it with rockets. I eventually ate a Stinger. Great fun! The full moon variant I didn't enjoy as much as you could basically see air and ground units glowing like lighthouses from Kish as far out as the FARPS.

This is a general DCS AI problem. If they are unable to meet a set TOT (late for whatever reason), they will revert to fly at stall speed instead.

I think you have to differentiate the weapon systems. The limitation on firing from a hover (should it exist, I don't know) might only apply to rockets. It makes no sense to fire unguided rockets from a hover anyway, as to aim them you would have to pitch/up and down (which doesn't go well with hovering and is terribly inaccurate). Other attack helicopters have tilting weapon pylons for that purpose. The Hind can mount up to 8 ATGM and is perfectly capable of surprise anti-tank hover attacks from behind cover, as has been a practice in the Warsaw Pact. (this is regarding the East German Army)

Looks great. What is interesting at Incirlik is the complex of Hardened Aircraft Shelters that is isolated with double-fences within the base perimeter. I assume that is where the nuclear weapons are stored in vaults inside the HAS.

The sad thing is that a beautifully modeled P-35 Bar Lock (probably the most important Soviet EWR/GCI radar) is already in the game but only as decorative scenery object baked into the Caucasus map. Why this excellent model was never set up as an actually usable unit is beyond me. Such a waste of effort.

Well said. The same also applies to RAZBAM and the Harrier. They could have initially made a simpler Desert Storm-era AV-8B which would have allowed them to concentrate on getting the basic systems done and perhaps get it out of early access after a reasonable time. After achieving this, they could have sold a separate AV-8B N/A at full price for new customers or at a discount for existing Harrier owners, concentrating on all the fancy new year 2000+ avionics features and weapons. Instead this is another aircraft stuck in eternal early access, burning up their company resources without generating new income. The upcoming F-15E is going to be exactly the same...

Is that really through though? If ED made the F/A-18A and F-16A, both aircraft would probably have been out of early access within a few months of their initial release and ED would be free to peruse new (paying) projects. Now these aircraft are in stuck in early access for years with ED mostly working on avionics subsystems.

Fixed, thank you!

So, 4 years later (!) and something as simple as an altimeter is still not working correctly in this "released" module.

Now AI won't even attack armed ships with guided bombs (LGB or Walleye). I seem to vaguely remember that this previously only affected dumb bombs.

AI AGM-84D Harpoon self-destructs shortly after launch. Harpoon_Destruct.trk

This is probably the same thing as here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3919259

Helicopter won't land on Kuznetsov (old) as ordered and divert to other arifield. Helicopter will de-spawn in mid-air upon attempting to land on other ships. Tested with Ka-27 on Moskva, Neustrashimy and Pyotr Velikiy, and SH-60 on Perry and Ticonderoga. Helo_Kuz.trk Helo_Neusstrashimy.trk

How has this not been fixed for half a year? In case this has not been found out yet, the issue is caused by wind. Set zero wind and the Harrier takes off ok. Set 1 m/s wind and the Harrier plunges through the deck and crashes on take off. Harrier_Crash_Tarawa.trk Harrier_Crash_Kuz.trk

This seems to be related to landing weight. If the Su-33 is up to 22677 kg weight (empty, 30% fuel) it will land. If the weight is higher (empty, 31% fuel or more) it will not land, circle until it runs out of fuel and crash. See attached track. Does also apply to single aircraft groups. Su-33_Crash.trk

As a mission designer I use time acceleration a lot. It is a big problem to not being able to fast forward to check things later into the mission. Hornets do not have the problem.

As the latest newsletter talks about new EWRs, might this have a chance to get looked at in the process?

At 1x time, I get 110 fps with 4 uncontrolled Tomcats on the deck versus 120 fps for 4 active Tomcats. Attached is a demo mission which spawns 4 uncontrolled Tomcats on the Stennis. After 60 seconds the group is started. Once the first Tomcat starts to taxi, normal fps is restored. Note that the mission has a trigger at one second to spawn the group. This is unrelated to the issue at hand but required for the demonstration. Aircraft at mission start spawn on the carrier's sixpack, where the first two AI Tomcats collide when they want to taxi. Since they never actually taxi, performance is not restored. Spawning the group later into the mission puts them on deck space where they can taxi from without colliding. Tomcat_Uncontrolled.miz

I have already posted this before, here are actual observations by a Tomcat RIO about the Harpoon's cruise alt: This clearly shows that the sub-launched Harpoon can cruise all the way (around 60 NM) at 200 ft. Since this was in 1981 the specific Harpoon variant must have been a UGM-84A. The anecdote about almost colliding with the chase plane of the air-launched Harpoon suggest that the AGM-84A also cruised at the same (200 ft) altitude.