Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'variant'.
Found 6 results
-
Hi everyone, Something that's bugged me is that the variant of the I-HAWK seems to be quite inconsistent: We have a missile designated MIM-23K (i.e. the Enhanced Lethality Missile), from the mid 1990s and belonging to I-HAWK PIP Phase 3 systems. We have a HIPIR that's designated AN/MPQ-46 (IHIPIR) - this is from the I-HAWK PIP Phase I from the late 1970s (which fires the MIM-23B missile). However, the 3D model actually depicts a HEOS-equipped AN/MPQ-57, which is from the I-HAWK PIP Phase 2 from the early-to-mid 1980s (which fires the MIM-23C/D missile), as operated by Norway, the Netherlands and Germany. We have a CWAR designated AN/MPQ-55 (ICWAR), which is from the I-HAWK PIP Phase I and II. The remaining radar, the AN/MPQ-50 IPAR is accurate to Phase 1, 2 and 3 systems, so it's accurate regardless. So, from that, we either have: An I-HAWK PIP Phase I, with the correct designation for all the radars, but the HIPIR has the wrong model and the missile has the wrong designation (but otherwise, aside from issues with its flight model, appears to be aligned with Phase I capabilities). An I-HAWK PIP Phase II, with the correct designation for 2 of the radars and the right model for the 3rd (but which has the wrong designation) as well as a missile that's also designated incorrectly. An I-HAWK PIP Phase III, with the correct missile designation and the right PAR, but the HIPIR has the wrong model and lacks the low-altitude multi-target engagement capability, while also lacking anti-TBM capability and lacking the radar used for said anti-TBM capability (AN/TPS-59(V)3). For the PIP Phase I, all that would need correcting is to rename the missile to MIM-23B and to remove HEOS from the AN/MPQ-46 and we'd have an accurate PIP Phase I (see here for what an AN/MPQ-46 should look like, compared to a HEOS-equipped AN/MPQ-57 (what we have in-game). a TAS-equipped AN/MPQ-57 is externally identical to the AN/MPQ-61 (see below) but withouth the boxy LASHE antenna seen on the left of the image (adjacent on the right of the transmitting antenna)). For the PIP Phase II, we would need the missile renamed to MIM-23C (or D) and the HIPIR renamed to AN/MPQ-57 IHIPIR or AN/MPQ-57 IHIPIR [HEOS] or something. The only thing here is that the main upgrades of the system were in ECCM capability - not only does the missile have improved resistance to jamming, but the HEOS (or alternatively the OD-179/TVY TAS, which is day-only) allows for passive angle tracking, defeating angle deception jamming (both the Phase I and II feature range-only radars to provide ranging when the HPIR cannot measure it). Right now, HEOS isn't defined as a sensor and ECCM capabilities (especially relating to angle deception jamming) isn't really relevant to DCS as it currently stands, without a substantial EW overhaul. For the PIP Phase 3, the HIPIR and CWAR would need to be redesignated. The HIPIR should also have the LASHE antenna added and HEOS replaced with I-TAS (see here for an image of the AN/MPQ-61) and given the ability to engage multiple targets (up to 12) at low altitude wthin a certain area. Though I'm not sure what the parameters of that "certain area" is. If ED were to give the MIM-23K the anti-TBM capability it should have, then the AN/TPS-59(V)3 radar should also be implemented. This though was only a thing for the USMC (at least as far as US operators are concerned).
-
I'm not sure exactly when it changed, but I noticed that the AIM-120C no longer is listed as "AIM-120C-5" (which it definitely once was - see this screenshot, taken from this post from September 2022) but just "AIM-120C". So, a couple of questions: What AIM-120C variant do we actually have in DCS? Or at least, what is it supposed to be? AIM-120C-5 is from the early-ish 2000s and so is appropriate for the F-15C, F-15E, F-16CM and F/A-18C. Was the C-5 designation a mistake and that we actually had the base AIM-120C variant from the mid 1990s? If it is still supposed to be an AIM-120C-5, why the name change?
- 9 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- weapon list
- variant
- (and 3 more)
-
Hi everyone, Very pleased with the new models that came with 2.7.1, it's great to see some new stuff (as well as a fairly comprehensive Leo 2 set). However, I've noticed some things that seem odd with the Mk.3; it actually seems to be a Chieftain Mk.7/L (which is a Mk.3 upgraded to Mk.5 standards, and then further upgraded as part of 'Totem Pole'): The tank in DCS has a laser rangefinder (which should be LF2 TLS (or 'Tank Laser Sight')), which AFAIK is the small optic to the left of the gunners sight (EDIT: nope, this is for MRS). Looking inside Cheiftain_mk3.lua inside CoreMods-> tech -> TechWeaponPack -> Database -> vehicles -> Tanks states on line 89: "GT.WS[ws].laser = true;" so the laser rangefinder is present. Provisions for the laser rangefinder weren't added until the Mk. 3/3 - the Mk.3 wouldn't have had it. This also coincides with the L21A1 ranging gun being deleted, and the installation of L11A5 with MRS (muzzle reference system, which I'm pretty sure coincides with the addition of TLS and the IFCS). L21A1 isn't present on the model, but the MRS system is - which makes sense if the tank is fitted with IFCS and LF2 TLS. The Chieftain Mk.3 would've had the L21A1 ranging machine gun (which isn't present on our tank) and would not've had L11A5 with MRS (which is present on our tank) and instead would've had the L11A3. The NBC pack is in line with the upgraded pack as fitted to the Mk.5 and subsequent tanks. The Mk.3's NBC pack is a lot different (I'm pretty sure a Mk. 3 without TLS or MRS, and with its initial NBC pack can be here (though from 41 seconds on, it switches to a later variant, with TLS, MRS and the upgraded NBC pack of the Mk.5 and onwards). In the encyclopaedia it gives an engine power of 760 hp; the Mk.3's L60 Mk 6A had 650 hp and the Mk. 7's L60 Mk 8A/9A/11A/12A all have 750 hp. The power is closer to the latter. In the Chieftain_mk3.lua it lists the AP ammunition as L23A1 APFSDS-T - the Mk.3 only had L15 APDS-T and various variants thereof. AFAIK, APFSDS projectiles came with the Chieftain Mk.5/4, starting in the mid 80s, by then the Mk. 3 had been upgraded to Mk. 7 and then once TLS was fitted (which ours has) to Mk. 7/L, which would've been compatible with L23A1 APFSDS-T. In conclusion, we have either a Mk.7/L, Mk.8/L or Mk.9/L. If the current tank is intended to be based on the Mk. 3, then that would make it a Mk.7/L
-
I’ve been thinking I would rather start flying an early variant and get the upgrades in the same order RL pilots did. Also, I suspect since early variants are less complex, HB might be able to release them faster than otherwise. Also, it is likely HB will make a flyable J-35 after the AI version (this is what they intend to do with the A-6). It’d be more enjoyable to fly a 60s version of the Draken in its proper setting as this was the plane’s heyday. The -J version dates back to 1985 and it was already surpassed by any modern fighter plane of that time. What are your thoughts about the variants release order (and/or the Draken)?- 15 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- hb roadmap
- next gen fighter
- (and 5 more)
-
Have we heard anything about if it's the Block 2 version of it or Block 1..? Do we know if there are any countermeasures on the variant we are getting..? And i guess we won't get any FLIR or terrain following Radar... Hoping there soon will be released more news and a roadmap with features for this magnificent beast
- 7 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- variant
- countermeasures
- (and 1 more)
-
Is this still getting worked on? If not why? It'd be really nice to have (increased ATA), but more than that it'd be REALISTIC.
