MBot

If there ever is a F-16 in DCS, I would like to see the F-16A. The variant which bombed the Osirak reactor, made 33 Sidewinder- and gun-kills within 3 days and is responsible for the largest part of the Falcon's score. The community would probably erupt in riot though :)

It would be nice if SAM, where appropriate, would get command LOS guidance instead of proportional navigation. This Roland missile for example should be in one line between the launcher and the target. Command LOS guidance should also apply to SA-8 and SA-19.

Once the basic issue with Blue EWR is rectified, it would be nice if the radar unit and the unit in radio contact with aircraft could be separated. E.g. Multiple radars could be linked to a single agency that combines the radar picture and talks with aircraft. This could be further enhanced with relay stations that can linked between radars and control centers. This way, extensive EWR and GCI nets could be set up.

Here are a couple of units which I think would be relevant for air-naval operations in this theater: -CSS-C-3 Seersucker shore launched anti-ship missile (Iran) -Hwasong-5 Scud-B SSM (Iran and UAE) -Rapier short-range SAM (Iran and UAE) -RBS-70 short-range SAM (Iran and UAE) -Bofors L/70 40mm AAA (Iran and UAE)

Well this is fantastic news. And about time I might add. I am particularly pleased that they are shooting for something much more ambitious than I am doing. I will take them by their word though and expect better automatic ATO and flight plan generation than found in my DCE.

I agree. While the name might be more recognizable, this will lead to a lot of false expectations. People associate Iraq with the Persian Gulf.

This is implemented quite simple. From IP to Egress Point, the laser illumination aircraft will point a laser at the first target element. If it gets destroyed, the laser will immediately switch to the next element. That is really all there is to it. As you can see this is not meant for loitering and pickling against a large number of individual targets, but to support a single strike. It should work rather well against a bridge for example, where the laser can switch from one span to the next as they get destroyed. Did you tune your LGB to the laser code that is mentioned in the briefing?

I am not sure what you are trying to say. NATO's northern flank is exactly how this theater was called in the Cold War (and probably still is today).

I think this is way too big. The map in the first post is actually almost perfect. Let's think for a moment the inclusion of which important areas should define the extension of the map. The western edge is easy, this is Bodö (plus always some extra as buffer). Bodö is the foundation of NATO's defense of Northern Norway. The eastern edge is easy too. Most of the important stuff on the Kola is along the the north-south railway to Murmansk, which should be included. I think the eastern most airbase on the Kola is Severomorsk-3. The eastern half of the Kola is mostly empty and can be cut. The submarine base at Gremikha would have been fun, but is not strictly necessary (the majority of submarine bases are around Murmansk and are covered). Now the southern edge is up for discussion. Again, Bodö is the absolute minimum. This already includes Kiruna in Sweden, so a Swedish base is covered. A little bit more south would include Alakurtti in Russia which has an airbase and is the home of a mechanized division. This would include one of the major invasion corridors into Finnish Lapland. Further to the south is Rovaniemi with an important Finnish air base. I think this would make an excellent southern edge. Pushing even further south would include more Swedish bases.

All this could be written with some effort. The question really would be how far to take it for things that the player as a pilot will never see. My philosophy behind this script was to do something that the helicopter crew would directly interact with. Anyhow, I do not plan to do further work on this. It was a fun experiment to see what is possible push the boundaries. I will have to play it again though. I am still rather proud on how the active sonar display maps the coastline :)

I love it, it is my number one theater wish.

Yes, you only input probability of high or low pressure system dominance. There is a simple meteorological model that will generate appropriate weather. High pressure dominance will create clear and calm weather. Low pressure dominance will create random warm or cold fronts and warm/cold sector weather behind the fronts. Due to the way the static weather is handled in DCS, weather will of course be uniform across the map. But it will correspond to in what stage a passing front is on the campaign level. Weather will also affect the ATO. Aircraft that are not adverse weather capable need to have a minimum visibility at their airbase and an attack altitude below sold overcast, otherwise they will not be tasked with missions. Adverse weather capable aircraft are tasked in any weather. If the player aircraft is not adverse weather capable, you will not see any foul weather, as the campaign time will fast forward until the weather improves to allow operations again. I am no meteorologist, so there is probably considerable room for improvement in the weather model.

Not strictly non-combat, but has non-combat applications (observation, liaison, cargo, para drop): OV-10A Bronco.

This is a problem with an incorrect scoring of the mission, which determines progression within DCS's own campaign system. Why this happens I don't know. The triggers that are set up to apply the mission score are very simple and always the same. So it should either work for everyone all the time, or not work at all for anybody. I assume this is a bug within DCS, as I have observed the triggering of scores to be buggy on several occasions.

That is indeed the way to do it. It will only start to take effect once you have generated a new First Mission. I set my campaigns to all clear weather because during the last year clouds produced a hard performance hit. Perhaps that is something to reconsider after 2.5.

Since the Viggen only has a ground mapping radar (which also can be used for air targets in a very limited way), I highly doubt that it is equipped with an IFF interrogator (even many fighter aircraft do not have one). It surely has an IFF transponder, which means that it can tell other interrogators that it is friendly. Since IFF in DCS is highly abstracted, there isn't really much to simulate here.

There have already been a couple of good comments about the threat environment the A-10 was expected to operate in in the 1970s and 80s. There have been a couple of comments that SEAD would have neutralize the air defense for the A-10. At least with regards to the Central European scenario, I think that is an idea that should be abandoned. First because of the sheer number of threat systems (*). Second because NATO SEAD capability in Europe during the Cold War were a lot smaller than is generally expected. The only HARM shooting aircraft in Europe were a mix of 72 F-4G and F-16C (without HTS) of the 52nd Tactical Fighter Wing at Spangdahlem. In addition there were two USAF F-4G squadrons in the USA for worldwide reinforcement, some of which might come to Germany. The F-4G were a very scarce and precious resource. I think it is reasonable to assume that they would have been used to support high-priority missions, such as to open breaches to the enemy's rear for F-111 and Tornados, that were to strike nuclear delivery systems, HQs, bridges or airbases. Destroying the Vistula bridges in Poland for example would prevent dozens of Soviet second echelon divisions to reach the front. In this light I can not imagine that the few F-4G would have been wasted to suppress the myriads of battlefield SAMs at the FLOT in order to support A-10s to kill individual tanks. The A-10 were on their own. The SEAD success of Desert Storm cannot be compared to Central Europe by the way. Not only were Iraqi air defenses not comparable to what was found in East Germany, the coalition SEAD capability was also considerably better by the participation of the US Navy. The Navy shot the majority of HARM: 4 carriers supplied about 160 HARM shooting aircraft (F/A-18, A-6E, A-7E, EA-6B). A reinforcement which would not have been available in Central Europe. (*) Number of deployed Firing Batteries/Battalions in East Germany (East German Air Defence, East German Army Air Defence and Group of Soviet Forces in Germany): SA-2: 34 SA-3: 31 SA-4: 36 SA-5: 6 SA-6: 78 SA-8: 75 (4 independent firing units each, so 300) SA-10: 2 SA-11: 20 SA-12: 12 These forces do not include units of the Polish Army, Czechoslovak Army, Hungarian Army and Soviet 2nd strategic echelon committed to operations in Germany.

I have already brought this up before. As a mission designer and player I am desperately waiting for some improvements to ground based Early Warning Radar. Since WWII, ground based radar has been instrumental for command and control of air warfare and even with the introduction of AWACS it remains important for many nations today. Unfortunately in DCS many aircraft do not even have access to this function. 1. The Blue coalition is unable to use EWR in game, even if the coalition is assigned a (Russian) EWR unit. Apparently this is because EWR radio only works with the Russian numerical callsigns. This excludes a large number of western aircraft from external radar information, such as the Spitfire, the Sabre, the Viggen etc. This is probably relatively easy to fix and should be a priority in my opinion. 2. With the advent of naval aircraft in DCS, the inability of ships to provide radar early warning is getting apparent. This currently affects the Harrier (Tarawa) and the Su-33 (Kuznetsov). In the future also the US carriers should be able to provide radar early warning for Hornets and Tomcats (for situations when no Hawkeye is available). In fact every ship equipped with an air search radar and designated to do so should by able to provide radar early warning to aircraft (Radar Picket, Air Warfare Commander). Applying existing technology currently used in DCS, this should be relatively easy to implement as well. 3. Even if it is not as important as the pure EWR functionality itself, it would be nice if some proper western radar units would be implemented instead of having to use Russian units for the blue coalition. 4. Ultimately it would be highly desirable if the current EWR/AWACS functionality itself would be upgraded. Right now it only provides warning and no command and control. It can be used to run an intercept, but only in light situations and against the enemy closest to you. If there are multiple friendly and enemy groups simultaneously, everything quickly falls apart in chaos. Ultimately EWR (GCI) and AWACS should be able to exercise command and control over suitably tasked aircraft (Interceptors, CAP), by commanding available aircraft (both players and AI) against specific targets and tightly controlling the intercept by giving vectors. This would be very useful for many of the aircraft in DCS and for some even constitutes the primary combat application (Sabre, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21).

You can define your own attributes to your heart's content. If you assign a target the attribute "Candy Attack", then any loadout that also has the attribute "Candy Attack" will be eligible. Loadout can also have multiple attributes to be eligible against various targets.

You are right, and this effectively means you ignore your flightplan. If the flightplan calls for mission start at 12:00, take off at 12:30, Join Point at 12:33 etc., you ignore your flightplan by taking off at 12:05 to hit the tanker and meeting your package somewhere on the way.

It's not the F/A-18C, but F/A-18A have shot HARM and Shrike during El Dorado Canyon against Libya 1986.

Yes that would be the basic idea. Of course you would have to ignore your own waypoint timing in the flight plan, as it would expect you to take off 30 minutes after mission start. For the timing for the AI you have to play around a little to find the right balance, as the time required to taxi and take-off is dependent on the airbase size and current traffic. That is the reason it is a variable, so you can nudge it to work best on your own homebase and expected package sizes (of course it won't work equally well for units based at other airfields). Better be on the long side than on the short side. After take-off all planes orbit the airbase to form up and the timer controls when to depart the orbit. If there is too little time allocated, flights start to push without everyone having taken off and formed up. With some more time, flights simply orbit longer.

I really like the dirt/tire-track decal idea. I proposed this in 2006 :)

If I remember correctly, I think there are in fact two variables in camp_init that control how much time AI flights and the player get for start up. You could use this to give you some more headroom to hit a tanker, but of course this would be applied to every mission. To problem with including tankers into mission planning is that it requires very detailed planning for fuel: When is a tanker needed for whom, how much time is needed to refuel. This in turn requires detailed data about available fuel and fuel flow (depending on speed, altitude and weight) for every aircraft type. This would be very difficult to automate. I don't remember even Falcon 4 having tankers as part of a specific mission plans (other than hand-crafted). What I could imagine for the future is an Escort Tanker support task. Adding them to packages would be controlled in the loadout (required support) of the strike asset, so you could set up long-range loadouts and link them to long range targets via the attributes. The whole thing would then be set up that the tanker flies within the package, at let's say 1/3 of the route package members start to refuel while continuing to cruise along the route until the tanker is empty and returns home. All of this would be canned without any specific fuel calculations and would be pretty easy to implement. A problem might be to let AI only take a little fuel each and not have the first aircraft suck the tanker dry (which I am not sure is possible). Let's wait and see. Without maps that really need refueling yet and without any suitable escort tankers (buddy refueling, KA-6), it doesn't make much sense yet.

Did you repeat the MissionScripting.lua modification after the latest DCS update (last Friday)?