Search the Community

Hi everyone, Would it be possible in the future to add some more Cold War era MANPADS? Namely systems such as: 9K32M Strela-2M [SA-7B Grail] - early 70s FIM-43C/D Redeye Block III/IV - late 60s 9K34 Strela-3 [SA-14 Gremlin] - mid 70s FIM-92A Stinger Basic - early 80s FIM-92B Stinger POST - late 80s Blowpipe - mid 70s RBS 70 Mk. 1 - mid 70s Javelin - mid 80s The 9K32M Strela-2M [SA-7B Grail] in particular was/is incredibly prolific, if not probably the most prolific MANPADS, with absolutely tonnes of operators (both former and current) with a lengthy and rich service life in many conflicts around the world. It's also a staple air defence system for Cold War REDFOR. The FIM-43C/D and FIM-92A are more appropriate BLUFOR contemporaries for a Cold War setting. Blowpipe and FIM-92A/B would also fit the South Atlantic map (former used by both sides, latter used by British SOF). EDIT: Now that an Afghanistan map has been formerly announced, the FIM-92A/B and 9K32/32M would also be perfect for Afghanistan missions (where we already have 2 helicopters that more or less fit). Though the Afghanistan map will likely be a modern day one. At the moment we only have the following MANPADS: 9K38 Igla [SA-18 Grouch] (though unsure of the missile used in DCS, though both the Igla and Igla-S fire the same missile, see here) - early 1980s 9K338 Igla-S [SA-24 Grinch] - mid 2000s FIM-92C Stinger RMP (which is also the missile fired by our M1907 Heavy Avenger and M6(A2?) Linebacker) - early 90s So out of all of them it's only really the Igla that fits the Cold War, only it's just a copied Igla-S with a different name as far as I can tell.

Here is the "first" video, it is the cont. of the series about the Soviet SAM systems. Move video will come about this and many other topics soon.

I Just installed Combined arms. all SAMs can't find anything on the radar. Even on the tutorial missions with the SA8 or Roland, I have to lock visually because the radar screen doesn't show any contacts... Anyone had this issue?

So me and 5 others flew an Elint flight but we didn't pick up the ELINT data even if we flew over the radars at 4000-6000m and they pinged us with search and tracking radars. Is the elint in the Viggen outdated? or what is up with it?

I cant get any activity to show on my ground radar in any of my CA vehicles.. I have removed quall the mods, did both a quick and a full repair. I will attach my log and it has not changed from when this started about a month ago with the update. Any assistance is appreciated. The three lines regarding the mlws, padlock, and the ccArcade template all popped up when it stopped working..thanks again for helping 00000.126.txt

The SA-11 in DCS World is unique for one reason above all else, in my opinion: it is essentially a Medium-Range SAM that incorporates TELARs. All other Medium-Range SAMs are static (eg HAWK, SA-2) and the SA-6 leans closer to being a Tactical SAM and still uses TELs guided by the STRAIGHT FLUSH anyway. As a mission creator, I would also appreciate having a SAM available that is higher capability than an SA-11, but can still redeploy. Many DCS players are familiar with the SA-10, the S-300PS. However, many may not have heard of a project which arose in tandem for the Soviet Army: the S-300V. I myself had not heard of it until I downloaded the High Digit SAMs mod some time ago. Background Whereas the S-300P met the requirements of the Soviet air defense forces, which only specified faster deployment than the SA-2 in contrast to other requirements with respect to missile tracking and performance, the Soviet army wanted a system that was CBRN-resistant, mounted on treads, and capable of engaging ballistic missiles as well as maneuvering aircraft. They also wanted the S-300 to achieve similar deployment times to the SA-6, being ready for action minutes after coming to a halt. As the Army's requirements differed most significantly from those of the Air Defense Forces and Navy, the S-300V was born: though arising from the same concept and being of the same generation as the SA-10, I think it's accurate to consider the S-300V/SA-12 to be a different beast entirely. The S-300V, and its Chinese counterpart HQ-18, are in service with a handful of countries today including Russia, China, Pakistan, Ukraine, and Iran, with Russian S-300Vs seeing service in Syria. Russia, Egypt and Venezuela use the S-300VM (SA-23), an upgraded version. Left to Right: GLADIATOR TELAR, GIANT TELAR, GRILL SCREEN Radar Implementation into DCS I wish to see all elements of a standard SA-12 battery incorporated: the command vehicle, both GLADIATOR and GIANT TELARS, and all three radar types: GRILL PAN for target tracking and designation, BILL BOARD for general search, and HIGH SCREEN to improve capability against ballistic missiles. The multiple radars is for similar reasons as to why we have BIG BIRD, CLAM SHELL, and TIN SHIELD all available for the DCS SA-10; each have their own specialization and mission creators can set the battery's capabilities in part by incorporating various radars into the system. As these missiles likely have long reload times, I would also like to see the Loader-Launcher vehicles present and perhaps their presence would boost the rearm speed of adjacent TELARs either in or out of their group. The Loader-Launchers could also act as TELs, firing with the assistance of nearby TELARs. There are many SAMs in DCS which would have them but don't - it is unprecedented, and could be perceived as less important for the sake of DCS, so I recognize that as a stretch. The GLADIATOR and GIANT TELARs guide their own missiles to the target semi-actively via the illuminators atop the masts. They receive support from another radar to receive target designations, so a command vehicle and a single radar such as GRILL PAN can orchestrate an engagement against several targets by designating different targets to different TELARs. In turn, the BILL BOARD acts similarly to a BIG BIRD giving large scan volume at the regiment level; and the HIGH SCREEN will focus on ballistic missiles. Some sources say the TELARS cannot engage targets without the GRILL PAN, others say they can; I imagine a DCS incarnation would allow them to but with difficulty, and this behavior is already present on other SAMs in DCS. The range of GLADIATOR is about 35nmi and GIANT about 50nmi. The reality is probably more blurry than that, but nevertheless in DCS it could boast a range greater than older systems such as SA-2 or smaller contemporaries such as SA-11. Its range is said to be roughly on par with the SA-10, although its usage of semi-active missile guidance instead of PESA (as found on FLAP LID) might still manifest some important differences in DCS. Although it was developed with a higher focus on the anti-ballistic missile role than the S-300P was initially, the SA-12 is certainly still very capable against aircraft. Left to Right: HIGH SCREEN ATBM Radar, BILL BOARD Search Radar, GLADIATOR TELAR, GIANT loader-launcher, GRILL PAN Engagement Radar Benefits of Adding the SA-12 to DCS I enjoy the SA-12 featured in the High Digit SAMs mod, but that is a mod. I think there is still significant benefit for the SA-12 being added to the base game, particularly for environments which do not use mods. Having a fourth option for a "long range SAM", with different typical deployments and setups than SA-10, SA-5 and Patriot, would make this SAM unique among the others currently in DCS. In particular, mission editors could tune the system's ability to engage objects at various ranges by adjusting how many GIANT TELARs are in a group. It is also of similar era to the SA-10 and SA-11 so would fit in well for the setting. I could see the SA-12 being of interest due to the new "ARM Evasion" behavior, as this battery could relocate when threatened. In the future Dynamic Campaign, SA-12s would be of interest as they could easily relocate based on the movement of the front lines, and I have no doubt that mission creators could use a relatively mobile strategic SAM system today. While SA-10s could be set up to do this (I believe Eagle Dynamics has said that is the intent for S-300P?) the SA-12 is certainly more oriented to this sort of action, capable of relocating more quickly than an SA-10, and would cover a larger area than the SA-11. Being a tracked system rather than a wheeled system, it can also appear in more austere locations. Lastly, it has been some time since a new SAM was added to the DCS core game - about two years since the SA-5 was added. We've only seen the FIRE CAN + KS-19, technicals with ZU-23-2s, and LPWS C-RAM added since then, and a facelift for the SA-10. All are lovely additions but not as impactful as a new SAM system to fly against. So I think the community would enjoy having a new type of SAM. A GLADIATOR TELAR in the field, in the process of deploying its canisters and radar. Shout-out to Militavia who recently made an excellent video about the origins of the S-300P family and mentioned the S-300V branching from the main S-300 project. So, please consider adding the SA-12 GLADIATOR and GIANT to the DCS Core! Video of the S-300VM during a live-fire exercise:

When a player in a JTAC slot is controlling a Tunguska in the driver or gunner slots the radar display does not show airborne targets.

Hi everyone, As currently depicted, CVNs 71-75 of the supercarrier module represent ships ranging from the mid-to-late 2000s to the early-to-mid 2010s at the earliest, due to the presence of Mk 15 Phalanx Block 1B (i.e. w/ Phalanx Thermal Imager, optimised gun barrels, redesigned barrel clamp). See the spoiler below for a breakdown of the 5 ships, with links to sources. This means that instead of RIM-7M, they should have the RIM-162D ESSM Block 1 (which according to this, was first delivered to the US Navy circa 2002 and has been in full operational capability since 2004). The earliest image I can find of a RIM-162D being launched from a Mk 29 aboard a CVN 68-class is mid 2010. Alternatively, the RIM-7P would also be accurate for the timeframe (which might be suitable for the USS George Washington, as it's the earliest vessel depicted - see above). Incidentally, these ships should also be firing the RIM-116B RAM Block 1, not the RIM-116A RAM Block 0. In DCS though the RIM-116A behaves like a RIM-116B (i.e. IRH from launch mode available) so a rename would suffice.

Hi everyone, A smaller one, the 5V55 and 48N6 missiles seem to leave 2 smoke trails. This is most visible just after launch, when performing pitch-over. One smoke trail appears to emit from the rear of the plume as expected, but another appears to emit from the missile itself, leaving 2 distinct smoke trails. The 2nd trail emitted from the missile seems to cut off before motor burn-out (when the plume and its smoke trail disappears). S-300PS_smoke.trk S-300FM_smoke.trk

In the current state of DCS, capable SAM batteries such as the SA-15, SA-11 and S-300 are able to counter air-launched weapons such as the AGM-88, AGM-65, cruise missiles,(which is expected and it was as such since I tried AGM-88 for the 1st time back to 2018 by hornet) and these systems can engage with CBUs(such as 97 and I have no idea if it can/should engage with bombs) and INS/GPS guided. However, it seems the AI knows which weapons it should intercept and which it should not. It recognizes that it shouldn't engage with weapons that can't harm the site, such as the AIM-7, AIM-120, BDU, and practice weapons. This is strange! How can it differentiate between a CBU-97 and a BDU, or an AGM-88 and an AIM-7? Maybe each SAM system should have its own thread! (which is very much possible depends on internal team and implementation)

So the S300 detection/tracking range is still very low...at my example it detects a F16 at ~30k ft, Mach 1,7 only at 22km and engages at 18km an that over bone flat terrain..the patriot SAM for comparison detects and engages the F16 at 52 km regardles of skill level....something seems still wrong here with the S300 Performance. S300 detection attack at 18,4km.acmi S300 low tracking distance.trk patriot SAM.trk

I dont see much a diffrence of Detecting, locking and firing of SA-2 against Tiger, Viper and Hornet Tacview-20220907-170302-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220907-165846-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220907-165406-DCS.zip.acmi

When driving the Roland SAM system, it takes 10 seconds to acquire the target. This seems way too long to be realistic. It leads to surreal moments where a target is slowly turning towards you while you are unable to react even when the perfect shot is lined up. Is reducing it to 4 or 5 seconds possible? (similar to TOR) roland aq time.trk

Does anyone know the approximate percentage of old SA-2 and SA-3 systems failing? I've heard that many of these old Russian SAM missiles can fail to launch or track quite often and I was trying to implement that failure in DCS as a trigger percentage to replicate Syrian bought, Russian made SA-2s and SA-3s. If anyone has any information it would be greatly appreciated.

HI everyone, As of the 2.7.4 update to the OB, the Tin Shield radar has incorrectly been given the name "SAM SA-5 S-200 Gammon SR". IRL however, the Tin Shield is actually associated with S-300/SA-10 system (or used a general purpose EWR). Given that we have the S-300PS [SA-10b Grumble], we should have the 5N59S [Tin Shield B] (though it has a host of other designations which use different rules - I prefer the 5NXXX for radars as it's cleaner to work with). It's especially puzzling because the 5V28 missile of the S-200V "Vega" [SA-5b Gammon] has a maximum range of 240km, but the Tin Shield RADAR only has a maximum instrumented range of 150km, 60% less range.

I'm pretty sure that this must have been asked and answered a zillion times, but I'm totally unable to find a word about it. If so, just please point me to the relevant answers. My question is... that: how far apart can the units of the same SAM group be and still operate coordinately? And, will they operate even if the LOS among them is obstructed? Thank you in advance.

Howdy all, I have been currently working on making my own custom SAM mod for the US (Nike Hercules) to try out my hand at modding. So far I have got the 3d models made and working in game using other similar mods. I have also made a very simple 3d structure mod with code that works in game but now I'm having trouble getting my sam mod to work in game. I could find little to no guidance on the web into making a sam mod and have used lua scripts from other sam mods and game files. Looking to see if anyone here on the forums could take a look at the lua scripts and point out anything that needs to be fixed. Any help is appreciated, thanks! null entry.lua Nike_Launcher.lua MIM14.lua

as per title, isn't that strange ? is it the correct behavior ?

So about the estimated coverage area of the Patriot STR. And, the radar body being static, not sweeping 360 deg. Do I need to add 4 search/track radars to one single Patriot site? Or, do you have to place 4 separate full sites in order to cover all 360 deg? Or, do you use an EWR in conjunction with the Patriot site, to perform the initial detection and pass it to the Patriot STR to take over? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I don't know how it should be, and I want to learn to do it right. Thanks for any help.

Why are the SA-10 search radars so underperforming compared to the Patriot search radar? According to the DCS encyclopedia, the SA-10 5N66M has a maximum detection range of 120/90 km... but in-game it's more like 60 km and the 64H6E Big Bird has a detection range of 300 km in the encyclopedia, again only 170 km like in-game Patriot AN/MPQ-53

Howdy, I have been working on making my first mod for DCS for the last 2 weeks, decided to go with the Nike Hercules launcher and Missile. So far I have been able to create the Missile and Launcher model within blender with animations on the launcher that works (roughly) and have been able to get those models exported in EDM format and working in game replacing the SA-2 models. I then started to work on creating the custom mod folder for my mod and getting the lua files set up working with other existing sam mods and their lua codes. All the lua code just to get it to run is done and in the mod folder but I am stuck at the game not wanting to launch if the mod is in the mod folder so somewhere the code is broke and I have not been able to get any help from the DCS forms or on modding discords. Because of that, I am releasing my models, blender files and broke mod file for anyone to work on and play around with. It's pretty basic but the missile still looks cool in game. Please let me know if you decide to work on it and get it working or are able to help me with the coding issue. Thanks! Nike Hurcules Mod BROKE.rar

Threat Rings in Mission Editor seems to be way off (too big). I remember days clear as sky where you flew into the Threat Ring depicted on your MFDs in the F-16 and F-18 and it [the SAM site] would start tracking you immediately and you had to kinetically evade. Now it seems the Threat Rings on the HSD (F-16) and the SA Page (F-18) are completely wrong about the Maximum Required Interception Range (it starts way later! SA-10 has smaller range at which it fires, contrary to what the ME says). Bullseye and Seawise Tanker are placed in the mission exactly over the spot in which the ME thinks the MRIR is located at and the SA-10 is set to RED STATE, INTX Range 100% and Weapons Free. Trackfiles, Mission and Tacview are in attachment. Both the F-18 and F-16 are flyable to rule out airplane specific bug regarding inaccurate threat ring display. Thanks in advance. HORNET.acmi HORNET.trk VIPER.acmi VIPER.trk SA-10 Threat Rings Test.miz

Checked all of the Soviet- and Russian-made SAMs and MANPADS, from SA-5 to SA-18. There is a kind of booster noise when missile starts (looking from F7 mode), but there is no sound of rocket motors in F6 Missile view mode. And SA-2 does not have even launch sound, missiles take off in vacuum silence. Firstly, I thought its because of supersonic missile speed, but from the rear there is no sound too

Hi everyone. I've noticed some inaccuracies with the SA-2 site about 1.5nm to the north-west of Bassel Al-Assad Airport/Khmeimim/Latakia Air Base; N35°24.767', E035°55.321'. Here's a picture of what it looks like IRL: And here's the same location in DCS at roughly the same zoom level and positioning: Here I've placed the FCR and launchers at the exact same coordinates as they are in real life. Of particular note: The overall site layout seems fairly squished vertically/misshapen. The south-western launch position is absent. There are revetments where there should be dirt tracks. There are some inconsistencies with the revetments around the launchers, but this is minor. The central guidance area (where the FCR is) features no dirt tracks, revetments or details. There's a medium-sized grey building, where there should just be dirt/concrete pad. There aren't any small dirt tracks connecting the revetments. The elevation data for the site seems off, comparing against Google Earth and DCS. I might give annotating and superimposing the images over each other if I have more time.

There is not one good official description of how exactly SAM sites need to be set up, how they communicate with other groups (if they do at all) what types of groups they can communicate with. What do the skill levels in SAM systems actually do. I've been setting them up for a while now and understand how to make most systems work but there just isn't information on what the game is actually capable of doing with SAM sites. I don't know how much of the real world capabilities DCS actually models and based on my struggles trying to research this for the past years, I'm not so sure that anyone else really knows either. Most videos on explaining how the mission editor works give of the vibe of "Well I do it this way and it seems to work" This is also true with the logistics system, I would love to make use of this, but how the hell does it work? It's not in your manual which looks like it goes back like 10 years when the only aircraft was the Black Shark. There are also not any videos that describe the whole system. If you don't want to update the actual manual then maybe wags needs to do a series on like, actually using the editor, like a big series, that explains every part of what DCS is capable of from a mission editor point of view. I think a lack of good and accessible documentation on the game generally is a contributing factor to the game being hard for new players to get into.