Search the Community

Could someone who is savvy in mil aviation and armament, tell me the significance in using different types of weapon racks, pods and ejectors? That carry the same type and amount of armament? I've tried searching for what the purpose is, but can't find anything with a good explanation. i.e. The, LAU-68 & LAU-131 rocket pods. I went to Arnold Defense products page and looked at data sheets. And, I can't find a difference between the models.

What is happening in DCS vs what should happen: When the TMD separates two of the three pieces stick together and follow the submunition dispenser down. What should happen is the TMD should blow away and the force from the wind should cause it to go aft of the submunition dispenser. This does not affect anything from what I can tell inside DCS, it is more of a visual inaccuracy right now. The submunitions are then dispersed individually rather than together (FWD section followed by AFT section) on the CBU-105. This is done correctly on the CBU-97 but not correctly for the CBU-105. The way they disperse the submunitions should not change. It should still go all FWD, then all AFT. They should not dispense individually. In DCS if you use a HOF of 1500 two or more submunitions collide with the ground. If you use a HOF setting of 1200 (standard) you will lose up to 5 with the CBU-105 and up to 11 with the CBU-97. From what I can tell this is happening due to a long chute deployment interval time once the submunitions are released from the bays. What should happen with a HOF of 1200 or 1500, is all the submunitions in the FWD bay get released and they should almost instantly start deploying their chutes one after another, then all the AFT bay submunitions should do the same. There should not be any that collide with the ground. Judging by the pattern of how the submunitions disperse under certain wind conditions makes me believe that you guys are modelling the CBU-105B/B which has the P3I munition in it. Even if the CBU-105/B, which uses the Baseline munition, was being modelled it should not have submunitions crash into the ground with a HOF setting of 1200. With a setting of 1200 (which is standard) the dispensers will still open at a predetermined altitude AGL. Depending on which one you are modelling will depend which altitude is correct. Right now, the only way to avoid losing any submunitions to ground collision is to set a HOF of 1800 or more. Here is a video to show a CBU-97 in action. Timestamp 4:33. In the video you can see how the TDM separates and then the FWD submunitions disperse, followed by chute deployment almost instantly (and the video is in slow motion.) In DCS it takes a while for the submunitions to deploy the chutes. Attached are tracks with various drops with 1500, 1200, and 900 HOF used. They are all short and can be watched and slowed down to view the submunitions going into the ground. Along with some pictures. And also, for the CBU-97, visually it has a WCMD tail package when it shouldn't for obvious reasons. Should be all green not silver. That is the biggest way to tell the difference between a WCMD and non-WCMD CBUs. Which you can also see in the video as well. CAT-UXO - Cbu 97 aircraft cluster bomb Another thing I noticed, when dropping a single CBU another dispenser appears for some reason at some point. You can watch the track here to see it.f16c_cbu105_1200_test3_double.trk The only thing that separates the 105 from the 97 is the WCMD tail kit. Everything else is exactly the same as the 97. All relevant documents will be sent to @NineLine (All testing done in a no wind environment with other tests done with wind) f16c_cbu105_1200_test.trk f16c_cbu105_1500_test.trk f16c_cbu97_1200_test1.trk f16c_cbu105_900_test.trk f16c_cbu105_1200_test2.trk All CBU-105 Tracks.zip

that would be great if we can get 120A if it can be carried by Viper and Eagle

hi everyone, after setting up a mission with la combattante to attack a convoy I found out that this ship is killing itself with its own harpoons, track attached. lacombatent_selfdestroy.trk

The radar and weapons of the F1 are something that has been keeping me busy for the past six months. This post isn’t necessarily to prove any capabilities of the plane, I mostly want to get some other people's opinion and maybe a response from the devs themselves on this. I will post links to the sources where I got my information from and add translations to English if needed at the end of the post. Part 1 - The Radar I love the Mirage F1 and I think that Aerges has done an amazing job so far. I very much enjoy the way the Mirage planes have been designed internally; thus, I also enjoy flying the Mirage 2000. Both Mirages we have in DCS have been concepted as interceptors/fighters and both excel when used accordingly. Still, they are not limited to only carrying air to air weaponry. For Example: Low drag bombs, high drag bombs, rockets, runway bombs and laser guided bombs with no self lasing capabilities. Whilst it is more of an art dropping bombs in the F1, the Mirage 2000 is quite a modern plane with the ability of dropping bombs via the radar in CCIP and CCRP modes. From what I could gather the F1M with the upgraded HUD and radar should also be able to drop bombs in CCIP and CCRP mode as well. Now, this pretty much brings me to my first point of discussion. I have been reading into all the different versions of the Cyrano IV radar to get an idea about what to expect from the F1M once we get our hands on it and tried to compile it into an infographic describing the different versions. The functions we currently have with the F1EE are pretty much equal to the Cyrano IV-3 with limited look down ability and ground mapping. It probably comes down to the radar not being finished yet. The manual by Aerges shows all the settings on the function indicator (Page 104) with an inoperable blind penetration mode and air-ground telemetry mode. This makes it seems more like the Cyrano IVM. The description on the Steam page says the module comes with the Cyrano IVM as well. On a Spanish forum I found this description of the different versions of the Cyrano IV and it says this about the Cyrano IVM (translated): This would correlate to the description of the manual except for the air to sea mode. Air to ground telemetry seems to be a different name for air to ground ranging, which should be what is used for CCIP and CCRP (Taken from Chucks guide for the Mirage 2000, chapter 4.1 explaining “Télémétrie Air-Sol” translated as “Air-to-Ground Ranging Mode”). I don’t know weather an air to ground ranging mode automatically enables CCIP/CCRP capabilities though or if some sort of designation ability is needed. Also the F1CE seems to have the same radar in-game. Maybe someone can clear this up for me, also which version exactly we have or are getting. I sadly couldn’t find any information specifically on the Spanish versions of the F1. I could imagine that the F1M would either include all the abilities of all previous versions since it pretty much was the last time the Cyrano IV was used in an upgrade, or a combination of the Cyrano IVM and IVMR which also was used by France in the Mirage F1CT upgrades. Part 2 - The Weapons Now before I get into all the information I’ve gathered about armament the Mirage F1 could carry, I want to say the following: I know that some of the weapons I will talk about have not been used by the versions of the F1 we are getting for DCS. Now, except Aerges decides to do more playable versions of the F1 in the future, this definitely will be the only time we get a thoroughly simulated Mirage F1 in an environment that also simulates usable weaponry in the next years, maybe even for the next decade. There simply will not be a second developer developing a Mirage F1 for DCS. This probably is a whole other discussion about how far you can go into adding weapons not carried by the real plane. Whilst I fully agree that one should not add a targeting pod if there wasn’t one in real life, because you would have to make up a whole page for the MFD, I think that if the capability of a weapon is based on hardpoint wiring (not talking about being a smart hardpoint or not) it simply is so far under the hood that it should not matter for DCS. Obviously, one should not argue about adding weapons that weren’t used by any version of the airplane. But if it isn’t too farfetched technically, I don’t see why one should not add a weapon. I personally would be somewhat disappointed in not being able to enjoy some of the weapons that were used by other F1 versions because of absolute “realism”. For the people interested in absolute realism the DCS mission editor allows to disable certain weapons from use. At the end of the day this is also about me being interested in having a capable, non-American, true multirole aircraft (besides the JF-17) in DCS. I already love the F1 though, this is not about having it as capable as possible. Now I would like to state some information I’ve found online about a few weapons. Again, I don’t necessarily try to prove certain capability for those weapons. I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source for these kind of things, but I used it anyway to underline a claim if there is another source claiming similar/the same facts. Martel / ARMAT I want to start off with the MARTEL and ARMAT anti-radiation missiles. It is somewhat complicated to find something about which air forces used these weapons on which plane. The Iraqis have definitely used them on their F1EQs. A small Danish website about plane facts claims that the Kuwaiti have used the ARMAT on their F1CKs. A stat page about the Mirage F1CK-2 on CMANO-DB also lists the ARMAT as a used weapon. Wikipedia also suggests that the ARMAT was in use with the Kuwaiti air force. The German Wikipedia article of the MARTEL claims that 25 ARMAT were delivered to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti F1CK-1 are equal to the general F1C model, and the later F1CK-2 are equal to the F1E. This would suggest that the version the F1 we already have in game probably are capable to launch the MARTEL/ARMAT ARM. If I find more information on this, I will add it here later. AS-30 Next, I want to talk about the AS-30 and AS-30L missile. F1EQs of the Iraqi air force used AS-30L during the Iran-Iraq war. The Wikipedia page of the AS-30 links to an external image of a French F1 firing an AS-30L. The F1 in the picture is one of the later F1CR or F1CT as it has a laser spot tracker below the cockpit. I would think that the AS-30L does not have any special launch constraints and will simply track a laser after launch with a pre-set code as most laser guided weapons. From what I could gather, only the South African F1AZ/CZ used the regular AS-30 with MCLOS guidance. I don’t know how farfetched (probably a lot) this one would be, as especially the F1AZ were specifically made for ground attack with heavy modifications to the ground attack suite compared to all other F1 versions. The laser guided version seems to be technically possible though. AM39 Exocet This last one has been discussed a lot. The AM39 Exocet. I found this to be a rather complex one. Only the Iraqi F1EQ have fired Exocets and these have a version of the Cyrano IV with a special designation, namely the Cyrano IVM3. On a Spanish forum there was a post made by someone about the Cyrano radar in the Venezuelan Mirage 5 and he said the following about the Iraqi F1EQs and the Cyrano IVM3 (translated): Interestingly the late upgrade of the Mirage 5 of Venezuela, the Mirage 50EV, was upgraded with the Cyrano IVM3 radar as well and was fully capable of launching Exocets as stated on Wikipedia. Though, not only did the radar get replaced, but the inertial navigation system (INS) as well. It was replaced by one made by SAGEM. Coincidentally SAGEM is the company producing the Uliss INS. This makes it likely that in the case of the Mirage 50EV there also was a link between the INS and radar. Coming to the F1M upgrade made for Spain. The Wikipedia page mentions that part of the upgrade was “…added anti shipping capability with a modernised Cyrano IVM radar…” suggesting again that this last version of the Cyrano IV does incorporate all functions of previous versions (Cyrano IVM, IVMR, IVM3). Besides, right afterwards Exocet compatibility gets mentioned. Here the full paragraph: To double down on this, I found an article from 2011 in the “Archivo Mirage” about the Cyrano IV radars history and it states the radar of the F1M being “…digitised, as its readings can be displayed on a colour multifunction display … replacing the old monochrome display”. Further the following is said: This should basically be it. The “digitised” Cyrano IVM can communicate with other systems and thus probably also with the INS. This possibly brings it down to being a wiring issue first and foremost. Because of all this I don’t think it would be that farfetched to add the Exocet to the F1M. Again, this could be disabled in the mission editor by the people that don’t like it. Also, this probably is out of the scope for the DCS Mirage F1, but another article on “Archivo Mirage” about the Mirage F1 MF2000 by ASTRAC mentions Exocet capability. Yes, it has a different radar and a "GPS-upgraded SIGMA 95 laser gyro intertial navigator" but also uses the 1553 data bus for the systems. This also somewhat reinforces the claim that Exocet capability is dependent on a link between radar and INS. Again, I am first and foremost interested in opinions on all this and maybe a response from the devs. I may or may not have missed something as I am finishing this with a headache. Source as links and translations as PDF files: Archivo Mirage Cyrano Article: https://archivomirage.blogspot.com/2011/01/radar-thomson-csf-cyrano-iv.html Archivo Mirage on MF2000: https://archivomirage.blogspot.com/2009/07/le-bourget-2009-astrac-presenta-el.html Zona Militare about Cyrano IV: https://www.zona-militar.com/foros/threads/caracteristicas-tecnicas-del-cyrano-iv.3313/ ARMAT Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARMAT MARTEL German Wikipedia page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS.37_Martel Mirage F1 Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_F1 Mirage 5 Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_5 Kampfly.dk on Kuwait F1: http://www.kampfly.dk/Flysiden/Fly/Dassault/MirageF1KW.htm GermanMARTELWikipage.pdf ArchivoMirageCyranoArticle.pdf ArchivoMirageMirageF1ASTRACArticle.pdf ZonaMilitareCyranoPost.pdf Kampflydk.pdf

i bought this plane 'cos i like it a lot in IL2. But in DCS it seems f.i. the whole weapons addressing IS ONE BIG MESS. Sometimes they work, but more often not, after a game restart with the same mission and controller settings. Of course in RL you got only one chance to fire rockets, but its frustration with target practicing they wont just reload. For an expensive plane module it's a shame that all seem rather unfinished business. I am now really reluctant about buying any new plane module for DCS. Got a few planes on my wish-list, but this selling policy IMO sucks. Also the reason i tested the i-16 trial version, but decided not to buy it having other issues.

Hi everyone, after the latest patch the guys fixed the SA5 second stage being smokeless, but some liquid motors still remains smokeless. The picture attached shows SCUD missile flying through 30k FT while still smokeless. The correct behaviour should be like SA5 second stage, the air temp should impact the contrail of the missile motor.

Anti ship missiles used to launch ok. Now they launch and fall into the sea 5 meters from the launch, or sometimes explode on launch.

It looks like how ED chose to add the GBU-8 caused it to become unusable by players. This is really odd how ED went about this, as the F-4 is the only plane that can use them. I'm a fan of the HOBOS and am disappointed that I can't use them anymore. Why not coordinate the release with Heat Blur? Why not add it as an additional item in the stores list, and then merge them later on in a way that doesn't impact the players? Please see attached tracks. Air starts with hobos inboard, outboard, showing they never become armed; track file with walleye showing how the walleye starts warmed up and becomes active. gbu8hobos-airstart-innerpylons.trk gbu8hobos-airstart-outerpylons.trk walleye-airstart-outerpylons.trk

This would make a life much easier I suppose as many players do take symmetrical loadouts, exception would be some pods like in F16 but that can be turned off and set in full range of weapon hardpoints in second iteration turning the checkbox off.

Hello there, Here is the idea, could it be possible to have an option to manage airports as a kind of FARP. Let me explain. How do a FARP work ? You can have unlimited supply on it, it will not Rearm, Refuel or Repair yourself as long as you don't have a truck to bring you supplies. If you have close to the FARP a fuel truck, the FARP will provide you FUEL. If you have close to the FARP an ammo truck, the FARP will provide you AMMO. Improvement Idea So could it be possible to have an option to activate something similar to this mechanics on airports. For example : You have an airport with unlimited supply on it but it doesn't rearm or refuel you unless you have an Ammo truck and/or a Fuel truck inside of the capture zone of the airport. What's the purpose of doing this ? - It will let the ability to the mission maker whenever he wants to allow or not rearming or refueling on an defined airport. (using late activation truck) - It can improve realism because Fuel or Ammo need to be carried to the aircraft. ("using a truck for example (joke ;D)") - It can become high value target to find and destroy the enemy Ammo/Fuel truck in order to limit the rearming/refueling opponent's capabilities. - This idea is not interfering with the warehouse system already present in game. Finally I recommand to have an option to be able to activate this features to avoid Mission makers to be lost with a new system that they don't understand. Thank you all for taking the time to read this topic. Best Regards Wolf4Pm.

Unable to attach track. Unfortunately the 5mb limit of upload means even a compressed track comes out to 11.5 mb, and is too large for upload. Verified fuzing set as required on all modules. The fuze-failures seemed to occur in bombs dropped after a few. (First few drops were successful and worked as desired). Resetting fuze switches, arm on and off, did not resolve issue. Bombs were dropped from different platforms at various altitudes (High, medium, and low).

Hey all, Are there any mods / plans to bring any Mine launcher cannisters to DCS? With the Tornado module in the works, I thought about its time in the Gulf littering runways with anti-runway and anti-personnel munitions. Will we see such weapons brought to other airframes I wonder? JP233 as fitted to the Tornado was divided into a rear section with 30 SG-357 runway cratering submunitions, while the front section carried 215 HB-876 anti-personnel mines

Hi Everyone, One of the changes that was made in the outstanding 2.7.0 update is now the F6 camera copies the F2 camera setting (found under settings -> misc), before the F6 camera would be fixed and would not shake or float. Would it be possible for this to be a separate setting in a future update?

I am not sure if HB can/willing to answer to this question now, but I like to ask if we will get the below weapons: AGM-62 Walleye AGM-45 Shrike AGM-78 Standard CBU-87 and CBU-89 Napalm Thanks

A few updates ago(after some version in 2.8.x) , AGM-65 lost its ability of tracking fast-moving targets such as helicopters, while functioning as intended when tracking the slow ones. The Mavs can definately see the target, completely able to track it(target is within the seeker FoV and G limit) , having enough energy to hit, but it just 'refuses' to track it. That disabled the ability of fixed-wing aircraft to attack helicopters using any Mavericks. I have tested out all variant, including TV, IR, and laser guided. It seemed that the problem is at the weapon scheme: I've checked "DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods\aircraft\AircraftWeaponPack\agm65_family.lua", found that max G of the missile is 16, the seeker Fi shows he can track targets 180° in the front hemisphere, and the 'Omviz' value is 99.9, which indicates a very big LOS velocity, in conclusion, it seemed that Mav's lua file won't stop it to track a fast-moving target. So I doubt it's the scheme, all Mavs share 2 schemes, agm65 or agm65e, now both of them are 'brocken' in some ways. If anyone wants to test it out, try shooting at a heli moving at ~100knots. It would be more obvious if you can ask a friend flying a heli and start accelerating from hover as you fired a maverick at him. At first I thought only the IR and TV seekers are broken. Recently I checked the Laser seeker, it turns out to be no joy either. The Maverick is flying like it lost any purpose, when the heli increase it's speed above threshold, the Mav won't control its rudders and allowing itself to fall.

After update to 2.9 , I found that my H-6's YJ12 is in a wrong place and has a wrong model,but other missiles are all regular.The edm of YJ12 is also regular.Who can tell me how to solve this problem

I set some ATGM hum-Vs to hold their fire against a nearby enemy vehicle, and it ignores it and fires anyways AI ignore ROE.trk

In this single-player mission, I try to use GBU-28 at the center pylon to engage the bunker. With TPOD autolasing the target and using either DIRECT or AUTO mode, the GBU seems to ignore the laser spot completely and flies in a straight line (instead of going ballistic) towards some open space nearby. I then go to the mission editor and check if its laser code is not matching, it is 1688, matching the TPOD's. Finally I try to change the GBU-28 to GBU-24, and GBU-24 works. So probably there is something wrong with GBU-28? (btw, GBU-28 doesn't seem to be an available weapon for F-15E, I cannot find it in the payload editor so if I change it to GBU-24 I can no longer switch it back)

Im not sure if im doing something wrong but i flied f18 quite a lot and when i use agm65f its rng of locking or not sometimes it does sometimes not. I realized that it very easily locked some tiny boats (without ship mode turned on) with just uncage and then slewing cursor to them and then stopping slewing then it instantly locked them i could kill two in single run and then i wanted to destroy some ground targets and there problem begins i tried slewing them many times i couldnt kill a single vehicle when i tried slewing them and stopped maverick kept moving for like 2 seconds and couldnt at all achieve lock whst wss the closest way to actually destoying vehicle was via looking just at hud and arrow and trying get good shoot with just uncaging basically without locking. I tried really many times but it cant lock target it looks like cursor is in somethint similiar for boresight mode for 2 seconds cuz it keeps moving and then ur not even avaible to shoot whats weird it can mostly lock everything around even grass (while slewing i mean it instantly locks when i stop holding tdc depress) when slewing it but not the vehicle i had the right contrast selected for it to lock also definiteky in range it was mostly between 2 and 5 miles i wasnt using targeting pod. After some time researchint some other guy had kinda similiar problem but he was using targeting pod

As titled. This is from a simple mission I made without scripts nor any mods. Have this been observed before, or had it happened to you where the AI JF-17 that even when equipped with WMD7 pod will not employ the BRM 90mm laser guided rockets? I had it set to attack an Avenger (IR SAM) vehicle, but the AI Jeff will not shoot the BRM 90mm no matter what weapon of choice option I selected for the AI to use within the Mission Editor (Guided vs just Rockets). Weird. Anyone can chime in will be great. Lastly, I suppose it was working fine before the 2.8/2.9 updates, but it is also more true that I haven't checked their proper behavior since the major 2.8/2.9 patch update. It was back in patch 2.56 when I created this mission, but I have long since loaded, edited, and saved under 2.9 MT patch version. So I can't exact the patch when it started to behave as stated. I truly missed having the laser BRM rockets as they are accurate, and allow a standoff distance from target. Thanks in advance!

As many of you know the GBU-15 is a very cool and unique weapon coming to the F-15e in DCS. Currently, ED seem to be planning to add one version the GBU-15(V)31/b, to me this is like only adding the AGM-65K to the game. That would not give DCS a good representation of the maverick. I am proposing that ED adds 3 more GBU-15 variants that will not change the way the weapon operates but will give a far better representation of it in game. They are as follows. GBU-15(V)21/b, EO Seeker, MK-84 warhead GBU-15(V)22/b IR Seeker, MK-84 warhead GBU-15(V)31/b (version we are getting), EO Seeker, BLU-109 warhead GBU-15(V)32/b, IR Seeker, BLU-109 warhead These models do not have any difference in their avionics or flight model (besides a small change going from the MK-84 to BLU-109) but I think will add a lot of capability and depth to this weapon. I really hope ED will add all of them. I do not know how these changes carry over to the AGM-130, but if they do it would awesome if ED modeled them as well. - Gundamator

I'm writing a script to track whether a bomb has landed in a zone to trigger events and I've noticed that when testing with Mk-82 bombs on the F-16, when my script checks what ammo I have loaded it returns MK-82s as being in category 3 (bombs). This is as expected. When I initiate a shot event and check the weapon returned by the shot event for category, it's a category 2 (rocket). I'm guessing this is a bug within DCS but I'm not sure. Any ideas? To be clear my idea in checking category is to make the script hopefully work with any bomb so players can modify their loadouts if they desire and not break the script. I guess the other way to do it would be to check for all valid typeNames returned by the bombs that are valid ordnance to be dropped from player aircraft but this seems ridiculously time consuming when I should just be able to validate a category enum.

PFA Track file Set up a basic firing test of the Invincible Carrier vs. a Tu-22M with 3x KH-22. Sea Dart consistently flies close by without initiating proxy fuze and will do this no matter how many times I reload the scenario. Image from 2nd track file Vince2.trk Vince.trk

Hi everyone, The Castle-class OPV has an incorrect primary armament (I don't mean to be harsh, but it's kind of a mess). The current ship is depicted in its initial fit, accurate for the early to late 1980s. Within that timeframe the primary armament was the Bofors 40 mm L/60 (OQF 40 mm Mark III) in a Mark IX mount, which can be seen in this image: And here's what an example looks like close up (this might be a Mark VII or a Mark IX but as I understand it, they're more-or-less identical externally (the main difference being that the Mk VII is hydraulic and the Mk IX is electric): In 1989/1990, this was replaced by a DS30B Mark I, mounting a 30 mm/75 Oerlikon KCB autocannon, which can be clearly seen in this image: Note in the above images, the Type 994 radar antenna has been removed (this radar was added in the 1989/1990 refits, alongside the new gun). And here's some up-close examples (these might actually be Mark IIs, but again, they're essentially identical externally, the difference being that the DS30B Mark II can also be fired remotely as opposed to just locally on the Mark I): In DCS though, the current primary armament is depicted as a BMARC GAM-BO1, which IRL mounts a 20 mm/85 Oerlikon KAA (or possibly KAB) autocannon: I can find nothing online supporting this gun being present on either of the 2 Castle-class OPVs and in any case, the gun was introduced in the mid 1980s, after both Castle-classes had been commissioned. However, it unfortunately gets even worse; the depicted GAM-BO1 is actually modelled as a 25 mm M242 Bushmaster, firing M792 HEI-T. So not only have we got the wrong gun, the modelling of that gun is also wrong. As a comparison, the 20 mm Oerlikon Mk 7 on the Leanders is modelled as a Mk 20 Rh-202.