noted Newer Air Defenses

[CarbonFox]

Noticed the dichotomy in the kind of air defense in-game. We have the Igla-S (SA-24) but no newer radar systems like the S-300PMU (SA-20) or the S-300V (SA-12) and Buk-M1-2 (SA-17). The same with some NATO systems. Not sure which version of the Patriot is represented in DCS but assuming it's the PAC-1.

From a challenge standpoint, just think these would be nice additions.

[Silver_Dragon]

S-300V (SA-12) was present on LOMAC / FC times, on fact, that has maintain into the DCS World directories, but has Lomac 3D models and never has been updated.

[Tank50us]

I too would also like to have some of the more recent Air Defense systems in existence. The main issue is the fact that the systems are incredibly difficult to get information on, especially the Russian systems. There's also plenty of European systems that aren't in DCS at all that I think should be added.

And much more

 

[LetMePickThat]

29 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

I too would also like to have some of the more recent Air Defense systems in existence. The main issue is the fact that the systems are incredibly difficult to get information on, especially the Russian systems. There's also plenty of European systems that aren't in DCS at all that I think should be added

If you're interested in the SAMP/T, I have something for you to test...

As for the availability of info, the depth (or lack thereof) of modelling for surface-to-air systems in DCS make that a non-issue, since approximations are already used all over the place (which is fine given the scope of the game). On top of the SAMP/T, we've been working on some other systems like the S-300PMU1/2, the S-300V/VM, the Pantsir-SM, Tor-M2, PAC-2 GEM, PAC-3 MSE, etc.

In general, I agree that DCS is quite lacking in the air defense department. The best SAM we have (not taking into account the S-300F on the Kirov) is the 1980s-vintage S-300PS, whereas the planes most flown are the updated Viper and Hornet. An official implementation of a PMU1/2/VM would bring a lot, not to mention more advanced SAM options for CA users. There were talks of an IADS module a few months ago, I wonder where that will go as well.

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by LetMePickThat

[Tank50us]

8 minutes ago, LetMePickThat said:

If you're interested in the SAMP/T, I have something for you to test...

As for the availability of info, the depth (or lack thereof) of modelling for surface-to-air systems in DCS make that a non-issue, since approximations are already used all over the place (which is fine given the scope of the game). On top of the SAMP/T, we've been working on some other systems like the S-300PMU1/2, the S-300V/VM, the Pantsir-SM, Tor-M2, PAC-2 GEM, PAC-3 MSE, etc.

In general, I agree that DCS is quite lacking in the air defense department. The best SAM we have (not taking into account the S-300F on the Kirov) is the 1980s-vintage S-300PS, whereas the planes most flown are the updated Viper and Hornet. An official implementation of a PMU1/2/VM would bring a lot, not to mention more advanced SAM options for CA users. There were talks of an IADS module a few months ago, I wonder where that will go as well.

Well, I'd certainly like to test out some of these systems, however I think for a more accurate test, you'd need more than just me.... if you look up my unit, the 145th, and hop in our Discord, some of the guys there might be willing to help test the systems, and help make sure the systems work with or without the mod installed (I recently learned how to do that, so testing it under more live conditions would be beneficial)

[Silver_Dragon]

16 minutes ago, LetMePickThat said:

If you're interested in the SAMP/T, I have something for you to test...

As for the availability of info, the depth (or lack thereof) of modelling for surface-to-air systems in DCS make that a non-issue, since approximations are already used all over the place (which is fine given the scope of the game). On top of the SAMP/T, we've been working on some other systems like the S-300PMU1/2, the S-300V/VM, the Pantsir-SM, Tor-M2, PAC-2 GEM, PAC-3 MSE, etc.

In general, I agree that DCS is quite lacking in the air defense department. The best SAM we have (not taking into account the S-300F on the Kirov) is the 1980s-vintage S-300PS, whereas the planes most flown are the updated Viper and Hornet. An official implementation of a PMU1/2/VM would bring a lot, not to mention more advanced SAM options for CA users. There were talks of an IADS module a few months ago, I wonder where that will go as well.

 

 

 

 

You are contact with ED to talk about to add them as "official" on DCS?

[LetMePickThat]

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

S-300V (SA-12) was present on LOMAC / FC times, on fact, that has maintain into the DCS World directories, but has Lomac 3D models and never has been updated.

Fun fact, we rely on some old LOMAC code for some bits of our own implementation of the SA-12/S-300V.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Well, I'd certainly like to test out some of these systems, however I think for a more accurate test, you'd need more than just me.... if you look up my unit, the 145th, and hop in our Discord, some of the guys there might be willing to help test the systems, and help make sure the systems work with or without the mod installed (I recently learned how to do that, so testing it under more live conditions would be beneficial)

We've ran tests for more than a year now with quite a few players on both the S-300V/SA-12 and the S-300PMU2. I'm fairly confident in those. I have less faith for the S-400/VM because they're more complex, and I have (obviously) less info about them. Most short-range systems should also be in the right ballpark performance-wise. The SAMP/T is a weird case, the system works as intended save for the PIF-PAF system, which I haven't been able to implement (I still need to experiment with a few ideas).

At any rate, everyone need to have the mod installed to see the systems, this is a prerequisite. If using a dedicated server, the server must also have the mod. It was designed not to break IC though, so you can perfectly run the mod yet still be able to join IC-enabled public servers.

 

7 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

You are contact with ED to talk about to add them as "official" on DCS?

Absolutely not. This is something we've done on the side for our own use, as well as for the people interested in making SAM/IADS hunting more interesting. We're lucky enough to have Waldair maintaining  Skynet support for our SAMs, so there's that.

Edited February 7, 2022 by LetMePickThat

[bies]

There is no data to model "modern" systems, like S-300PMU, Patriot PAC3 etc. They would be totally fictional working completely different than real life counterparts. All important parameters, way of operating, procedures, sensor capabilitoes, ECCM, guidance logic and algorithms, interception envelopes are strictly classified and extremally complicated.

1980s systems like the first Partiot intercepting SCUDs during Desert Storm or 1980s basic S-300 could be modeled with resonable approximation and i expect with IADS module they will be reworked to include more in depth modeling of systems, missiles, sensors, but more modern systems would be total fiction.

[LetMePickThat]

1 hour ago, bies said:

There is no data to model "modern" systems, like S-300PMU, Patriot PAC3 etc. They would be totally fictional working completely different than real life counterparts. All important parameters, way of operating, procedures, sensor capabilitoes, ECCM, guidance logic and algorithms, interception envelopes are strictly classified and extremally complicated.

1980s systems like the first Partiot intercepting SCUDs during Desert Storm or 1980s basic S-300 could be modeled with resonable approximation and i expect with IADS module they will be reworked to include more in depth modeling of systems, missiles, sensors, but more modern systems would be total fiction.

Have you ever took a look at how air defenses are modelled in DCS? All it takes is a basic radar, missile and vehicles setup in .lua. Even the old systems we have now are working completely different than real life counterparts, not because of the lack of data but because their implementation in DCS is approximate at best. For instance, the climb angle of all SAMs is fixed at 20° and cannot be changed. Guidance laws are the same for all missiles and systems except if you specify custom PNav parameters for your system (but don't think of any other guidance algorithm, they aren't any, so any kind of advanced guidance logics is a no-go). Just another example: the SA-19 operates in SACLOS mode via its optical sight, the real deal uses ACLOS via either the radar or the optical sight. This is a significant limitation in DCS. The ways of operating aren't here either, the S-300PS is for instance incapable of shoot-and-scoot techniques, the very reason they moved to wheeled chassis from the trailer-based S-300PT. ECCM isn't modelled at all (ccmk being a single value), there is no HOJ modes for SAM systems (something that has been available on the Patriot since, well, forever), etc.

As for modern systems, it is perfectly possible to get a reasonably good idea of the performance of, say, an S-300PMU (an early-1990s-vintage system) since it is basically a technology upgrade of the S-300PS. All the relevant sensors are nothing more than incremental upgrades of their equivalent on the PS. The PMU was intented as an export variant of said PS, and most of the components were kept as it (hence the choice to keep the SA-10 designation, the PMU being the SA-10C while the PS was the SA-10B). The PM/PMU1 introduced the 48N6, a missile for which a ton of documentation is available, as well as more incremental upgrades to the radars that translate in nothing more than more range and more engagement channels (there is no fundamental difference between, say, a 30N6 and a 30N6E1). As a sidenote, the 5N64E/64N6(E) Big Bird was introduced with the PM/PMU1 to replace the 36D6/ST-68. Having the 64N6 as the base search radar for the S-300PS as we do in DCS is incorrect, though the BB can be retrofitted to the system if the customer wants it. Based on this, I think that it is definitely possible to add to DCS an SA-12, an SA-10C/D or even an SA-20A with at the very least the same level of fidelity as other current LR SAM systems. There are numerous books and documents describing these systems online, some written in the 1990s/2000s by people from Almaz-Antey. The field manuals for the SA-12 have also been made available.

If one day ED decides to model all the MR/LR SAMs in depth, with correct guidance laws, EW implementation and the like, then yeah, anything more recent than the SA-10 family will be a big no. As long as the SA-5 and the SA-10 rely on the same (tweaked) pieces of code, there's no reason not to fiddle with more modern systems. As it stands now, it's hypocritical to call out on the SA-10D or SA-20 as being "too modern and classified" while our sim features both a 2008 Viper and Hornet, and has a Typhoon in development. I would be much more concerned about the fidelity of the Typhoon module than that of an AI-only SAM system that would be already severely limited by both the AI itself and the way SAMs are modelled in DCS.

Edited February 8, 2022 by LetMePickThat

[G.J.S]

12 hours ago, LetMePickThat said:

If you're interested in the SAMP/T, I have something for you to test...

As for the availability of info, the depth (or lack thereof) of modelling for surface-to-air systems in DCS make that a non-issue, since approximations are already used all over the place (which is fine given the scope of the game). On top of the SAMP/T, we've been working on some other systems like the S-300PMU1/2, the S-300V/VM, the Pantsir-SM, Tor-M2, PAC-2 GEM, PAC-3 MSE, etc.

In general, I agree that DCS is quite lacking in the air defense department. The best SAM we have (not taking into account the S-300F on the Kirov) is the 1980s-vintage S-300PS, whereas the planes most flown are the updated Viper and Hornet. An official implementation of a PMU1/2/VM would bring a lot, not to mention more advanced SAM options for CA users. There were talks of an IADS module a few months ago, I wonder where that will go as well.

 

 

 

 

That Pantsir looks stunning, excellent work Sir.

[LetMePickThat]

3 hours ago, G.J.S said:

That Pantsir looks stunning, excellent work Sir.

Thanks !

All 3D work was done by @Strigoi_dk.

[G.J.S]

13 minutes ago, LetMePickThat said:

Thanks !

All 3D work was done by @Strigoi_dk.

Top drawer work. As a whole - a credit to you all.

[Tank50us]

4 hours ago, LetMePickThat said:

Have you ever took a look at how air defenses are modelled in DCS? All it takes is a basic radar, missile and vehicles setup in .lua. Even the old systems we have now are working completely different than real life counterparts, not because of the lack of data but because their implementation in DCS is approximate at best. For instance, the climb angle of all SAMs is fixed at 20° and cannot be changed. Guidance laws are the same for all missiles and systems except if you specify custom PNav parameters for your system (but don't think of any other guidance algorithm, they aren't any, so any kind of advanced guidance logics is a no-go). Just another example: the SA-19 operates in SACLOS mode via its optical sight, the real deal uses ACLOS via either the radar or the optical sight. This is a significant limitation in DCS. The ways of operating aren't here either, the S-300PS is for instance incapable of shoot-and-scoot techniques, the very reason they moved to wheeled chassis from the trailer-based S-300PT. ECCM isn't modelled at all (ccmk being a single value), there is no HOJ modes for SAM systems (something that has been available on the Patriot since, well, forever), etc.

As for modern systems, it is perfectly possible to get a reasonably good idea of the performance of, say, an S-300PMU (an early-1990s-vintage system) since it is basically a technology upgrade of the S-300PS. All the relevant sensors are nothing more than incremental upgrades of their equivalent on the PS. The PMU was intented as an export variant of said PS, and most of the components were kept as it (hence the choice to keep the SA-10 designation, the PMU being the SA-10C while the PS was the SA-10B). The PM/PMU1 introduced the 48N6, a missile for which a ton of documentation is available, as well as more incremental upgrades to the radars that translate in nothing more than more range and more engagement channels (there is no fundamental difference between, say, a 30N6 and a 30N6E1). As a sidenote, the 5N64E/64N6(E) Big Bird was introduced with the PM/PMU1 to replace the 36D6/ST-68. Having the 64N6 as the base search radar for the S-300PS as we do in DCS is incorrect, though the BB can be retrofitted to the system if the customer wants it. Based on this, I think that it is definitely possible to add to DCS an SA-12, an SA-10C/D or even an SA-20A with at the very least the same level of fidelity as other current LR SAM systems. There are numerous books and documents describing these systems online, some written in the 1990s/2000s by people from Almaz-Antey. The field manuals for the SA-12 have also been made available.

If one day ED decides to model all the MR/LR SAMs in depth, with correct guidance laws, EW implementation and the like, then yeah, anything more recent than the SA-10 family will be a big no. As long as the SA-5 and the SA-10 rely on the same (tweaked) pieces of code, there's no reason not to fiddle with more modern systems. As it stands now, it's hypocritical to call out on the SA-10D or SA-20 as being "too modern and classified" while our sim features both a 2008 Viper and Hornet, and has a Typhoon in development. I would be much more concerned about the fidelity of the Typhoon module than that of an AI-only SAM system that would be already severely limited by both the AI itself and the way SAMs are modelled in DCS.

 

Adding to this, even aircraft and Fox3 radar implementation is pretty basic compared to the real world. Sure, they've attempted to different styles of radar, but the minute details of how these things actually work is still highly classified. Sure, someone with a lot of time on their hands could, in theory, work this out and properly program all the ingame radars, but as things stand, the more simplistic radar system is needed to keep the game running smoothly since DCS can't use multiple cores.

That said, I personally prefer the more simplistic system we have. I imagine many an F-16 or F-35 pilot having many a sleepless night thinking about all the horrific ways some of these SAMs could kill them without batting an eye, and I can imagine it's probably not very pleasant. Compare that to DCS where the only factors we have to consider are: Radar Range and floor, Missile Range, Missile Speed, Missile turning capability, whether or not the launcher can act independently of a radar, and whether or not the system can protect itself from incoming ARMs. Meanwhile in the real world, you have to consider far more than that if you won't want a telephone pole sized missile attempting to fit itself in your cockpit.

[LetMePickThat]

43 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Adding to this, even aircraft and Fox3 radar implementation is pretty basic compared to the real world. Sure, they've attempted to different styles of radar, but the minute details of how these things actually work is still highly classified. Sure, someone with a lot of time on their hands could, in theory, work this out and properly program all the ingame radars, but as things stand, the more simplistic radar system is needed to keep the game running smoothly since DCS can't use multiple cores

I disagree with that. Look at the Mirage 2000C for instance, it has by far the best radar of DCS modelling-wise, and using it has no impact on performance thanks to clever code implementation and tricks. Furthermore, it is a bad excuse to rely on basic radar simplification just because your core sim has some technological debt. 

43 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

That said, I personally prefer the more simplistic system we have. I imagine many an F-16 or F-35 pilot having many a sleepless night thinking about all the horrific ways some of these SAMs could kill them without batting an eye, and I can imagine it's probably not very pleasant.

DCS is meant to be a simulator, you don't get to pick what should be modelled and to what extent.

If we have air defenses, they have to be modelled to match as best as possible their real-life counterpart. Real life pilots loose sleep over the capabilities of the S-300PS? Well, so should you in DCS. The fact that a two-ship Hornet flight can at the moment take down a full S-300PS battery isn't realistic, and should not be a possibility in the sim in the first place. The limits under which the air defenses are forced to operate in DCS are a huge problem for realistic mission makers and serious flyers. Case in point: the the FCRs on modern air defense systems are perfectly able to guide a missile right to the endgame without a hard lock on the target, and unless your RWR happens to detect the radar-missile uplink there is no reason for you to get a launch warning. The fact that DCS gives you such a warning as soon as a 5V55R leaves its canister isn't realistic. The opposite is also true, an S-300PS should be able to lock you and trigger an RWR alert without having to launch a missile, just to make you feel threatened and force you to go to the deck. At the moment, I can mount a successful DEAD mission on a 300PS with my Harrier and two Sidearms. 

 

43 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Meanwhile in the real world, you have to consider far more than that if you won't want a telephone pole sized missile attempting to fit itself in your cockpit.

Again, DCS is meant to be a simulator, aiming at replicating the real world. If it is hard to defend against an S-300 or a Patriot in real life, and it is, then DCS should strive to do the same instead of going the gamification way to avoid hurting player's feelings. Dumbing down the sim so that players can enjoy a threat-less environement isn't what air combat sim are about. ^^

 

 

EDIT:  It's worth noting that adding the ability to fire with only a lock warning, and no launch warning, was one of the major hassles associated with the HDSM. Auranis, the original developer, found a clever way to do that and it clearly enhanced the realism of SEAD/DEAD missions in complex environnements. Coupled with Skynet to create a more credible IADS means that players can now undertake serious anti-air defenses business in a more realistic setting.

Edited February 8, 2022 by LetMePickThat

[rkk01]

People want a MORE challenging air defence environment

 

[FlankerKiller]

3 hours ago, rkk01 said:

People want a MORE challenging air defence environment

 

Yes. Something has changed since about five years ago. There was no way to approach an S300 on the deck an not die. Yeah you could get closer but not within five to ten miles. And it took at least a full four ship of SU-25Ts to even think about putting down an S300. I took one down yesterday with a Harrier. 

[LetMePickThat]

11 hours ago, rkk01 said:

People want a MORE challenging air defence environment

 

I can down (and do so regularly) an S-300PS with a single A-10C or Harrier. This isn't realistic. So yeah, people who want to DCS to be a simulator should indeed be concerned about the current lack of capabilities of air defense systems.

[bies]

1 hour ago, LetMePickThat said:

I can down (and do so regularly) an S-300PS with a single A-10C or Harrier. This isn't realistic. So yeah, people who want to DCS to be a simulator should indeed be concerned about the current lack of capabilities of air defense systems.

Exactly this, even the most modern heavy SAM in DCS, like 1980s Patriot or S-300, work in a simpler way than 1960s Vietnam-era systems but with longer range missiles. It's simple to overpower the whole S-300 with a single aircraft. Waiting for IADS.

[WinterH]

14 hours ago, rkk01 said:

People want a MORE challenging air defence environment

 

I can't reliably trash advanced SAMs like some posters here, because frankly I'm often lazy and lack patience, and get myself killed sometimes because of that  but... even still I can also say that SAMs in DCS are indeed really simplistic, and can be defeated in a fairly pedestrian fashion if you pay attention to what you are doing. Some reasons I can think of:

- By default, they always keep blasting their radars off into the blue, so RWRs and anti radars missiles always know nicely where they are.

- By extension, they won't turn radars off once they are launched upon by said anti radar missiles, leading them to be a lot more reliable, actually DEAD weapons rather than just SEAD

- They won't move even if the radar is mounted on a mobile platform. So even if they'd turn off, more advanced anti radar missiles like later block HARMs will be able to just fly to last emission point and likely score a hit.

- Unless scripted through lua and/or triggers, they won't do ambushes where they'll keep silent on a known contact until it is in/close to no escape zone.

- They almost always launch at max range, making it easy to just turn around and make them trash their missiles until they run out of them.

- Even if the site has multiple tracking radars, it seems they fire 1-2 missiles max at a time, unless we are talking about mobile shorad at least.

- Even ancient SAMs like some SA-2 and SA-3 versions had a plethora of modes for different situations/advantages/disadvantages. Some of which, while having degraded accuracy and PK, wouldn't alert the target that they are launched upon for example. Right now great majority of radar SAMs act very similarly in a typical SARH method all the time. Though, I think some like Rapier does have both radio and optical guidance units available.

- MANPADS, especially Igla, are often comically bad.

Things like these make them a lot less of a challenge than they would be. Often, I am more afraid of AAA, or even that one BMP-2 with a Jedi gunner than SAMs. Now they are more of a nuisance, with at least half of the above points being implemented, they would be obstacles to carefully plan and execute missions around.

[LetMePickThat]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

I can't reliably trash advanced SAMs like some posters here, because frankly I'm often lazy and lack patience, and get myself killed sometimes because of that  but... even still I can also say that SAMs in DCS are indeed really simplistic, and can be defeated in a fairly pedestrian fashion if you pay attention to what you are doing. Some reasons I can think of:

- By default, they always keep blasting their radars off into the blue, so RWRs and anti radars missiles always know nicely where they are.

Skynet allows you to work around that by having dedicated EW radars that cue SAM systems to turn on only when a threat is in range.

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

- By extension, they won't turn radars off once they are launched upon by said anti radar missiles, leading them to be a lot more reliable, actually DEAD weapons rather than just SEAD

Skynet, again.

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

- They won't move even if the radar is mounted on a mobile platform. So even if they'd turn off, more advanced anti radar missiles like later block HARMs will be able to just fly to last emission point and likely score a hit.

That's indeed a real bummer. Some units are declared as statics (S-300PS), meaning that they can't move even if they wanted to. Other units are vehicles (SA-11), but won't move unless under fire. That being said, the accuracy of HARM missiles on INS stored target guidance only is pretty bad, which is one of the reasons why so many ARMs were expanded in Iraq and in the Balkans. Even if the INS itself is really precise, the coordinates obtained by the passive radar seeker until the SAM turns off aren't, which results in large miss distances. That's also why the latest HARM variants like the AARGM(-ER) have multi-mode seekers where passive radar homing is supplemented by another technological approach

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

- Unless scripted through lua and/or triggers, they won't do ambushes where they'll keep silent on a known contact until it is in/close to no escape zone.

- They almost always launch at max range, making it easy to just turn around and make them trash their missiles until they run out of them.

Again, Skynet can do that, even if that requires some scripting knowledge and a lot of time to figure things out.

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

- Even if the site has multiple tracking radars, it seems they fire 1-2 missiles max at a time, unless we are talking about mobile shorad at least.

It's actually  worse than that. If you add two 30N6s to an S-300PS site, the system will just launch twice as much missiles per target without using the added FCRs to cover more space. The FCR in DCS is the unit responsible for engagement, but two FCRs in the same site won't be linked together and thus will both engage each target.

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

- Even ancient SAMs like some SA-2 and SA-3 versions had a plethora of modes for different situations/advantages/disadvantages. Some of which, while having degraded accuracy and PK, wouldn't alert the target that they are launched upon for example. Right now great majority of radar SAMs act very similarly in a typical SARH method all the time. Though, I think some like Rapier does have both radio and optical guidance units available.

- MANPADS, especially Igla, are often comically bad.

Things like these make them a lot less of a challenge than they would be. Often, I am more afraid of AAA, or even that one BMP-2 with a Jedi gunner than SAMs. Now they are more of a nuisance, with at least half of the above points being implemented, they would be obstacles to carefully plan and execute missions around.

I concur.

[rkk01]

Blimey - I’m too used to the WW2 AA and AAA…

 

… those guys can knock the head off a pin at 6000m

[CarbonFox]

19 hours ago, rkk01 said:

People want a MORE challenging air defence environment

 

Being in an F-16 equipped with HARMs, HTS and an ECM pod has really neutered the threat from the current S-300 in my experience. Something that couldn't be said 5 years ago.

[rkk01]

Interesting… might try a Viper against some WW2 assets

[Gradjevinac]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:43 PM, LetMePickThat said:

If you're interested in the SAMP/T, I have something for you to test...

As for the availability of info, the depth (or lack thereof) of modelling for surface-to-air systems in DCS make that a non-issue, since approximations are already used all over the place (which is fine given the scope of the game). On top of the SAMP/T, we've been working on some other systems like the S-300PMU1/2, the S-300V/VM, the Pantsir-SM, Tor-M2, PAC-2 GEM, PAC-3 MSE, etc.

In general, I agree that DCS is quite lacking in the air defense department. The best SAM we have (not taking into account the S-300F on the Kirov) is the 1980s-vintage S-300PS, whereas the planes most flown are the updated Viper and Hornet. An official implementation of a PMU1/2/VM would bring a lot, not to mention more advanced SAM options for CA users. There were talks of an IADS module a few months ago, I wonder where that will go as well.

 

 

 

 

How can we test this MOD?  I am a big fan of all Soviet / Russia's air defence systems.

I've been waiting for so long this Pantsir S1 (SM even better). Is it "Player Drivable" like Tunguska? 

Last picture is S-400 Triumph?
You chose TEL version  based on the MZKT-7930 chassis? With 48N6E / 48N6E2 missiles and also with quad formation of 9M96E / 9M96E2 missiles?

@LetMePickThat Thanks a lot :)

[LetMePickThat]

5 hours ago, Gradjevinac said:

How can we test this MOD?  I am a big fan of all Soviet / Russia's air defence systems.

Check here: 

 

5 hours ago, Gradjevinac said:

I've been waiting for so long this Pantsir S1 (SM even better). Is it "Player Drivable" like Tunguska? 

Yes, but it hasn't been released yet. In the meantime:

 

5 hours ago, Gradjevinac said:

Last picture is S-400 Triumph?
You chose TEL version  based on the MZKT-7930 chassis? With 48N6E / 48N6E2 missiles and also with quad formation of 9M96E / 9M96E2 missiles?

Yes, the TEL is from the 51P6 series, with 3x48N6E2 and 4x9M96E2.