Military Assets for DCS by Currenthill

[xboxshark21]

14 hours ago, gabriel said:

MIG-29, SU-24 and others not linked to currenthill such as the Dassault Rafael, Gripen does not only work on bombers 

Set the unit’s role to ground attack

Add a waypoint

Advanced waypoint options -> add an option

Make the option “perform task”

make the task “fire at point” or “bombing”

Set the weapon you want it to fire (cruise missiles) 

Select “one” under how many you want to fire

[currenthill]

More assets for the updated China pack...

[flag02004]

HI @currenthill

I have a question regarding the SM6 missile and the whole air defense system from the naval assets in the USA Pack.

Yesterday I performed a flight (Su27) in a dense mission involving numerous naval US ships in 1 group (3 DDG, 2 CG, 2 FFG, 1 LHA and 1 LCC) attacking ground target with Tomahawks at around 180 km. Defenders are 4 groups of BASTION P launchers and multiple SAM sites.

first of all, 2 DDG are firing all the tomahawks they are tasked to fire and 1 DDG is firing a 1 SM6 at me at around 160 km, no RWR alert...ok modern missile in TWS... benefit from allied EWR i aware of a missile in my direction. I dive to very low level (aroud 50 ft) and change direction but the missile is still heading towards me. no missile lock (on RWR) so the missile is directed by the ship. I'm below the radar horizon of the ship but he is still able to track me...i'm finally diving to below 10 meter and now it seems that the ship/missile is blind or maybe just out of energy....I think the ship capacity are a little overpowered...
Secondly a lot of anti ship missiles are coming towards the US fleet, but they are unable to defeat the incoming attack and a lot of ships are sunk, a another anti ship strike arrived, but this time it remain only three fighting ships (1 DDG and 2 FFG)  and this time the DDG is defeating almost all the incoming strike....strange... maybe a DCS logic bug...

I think the same would applied to the Bastion P asset regarding the engaging distance in my mission, being able to engage ships at about 180km at sea level seems to me impossible

Tacview-20240130-010237-DCS-Test_HDS_2.zip.acmi

 

calc-radar-horizon-f11.svg

Edited January 30, 2024 by flag02004
update

[currenthill]

1 hour ago, flag02004 said:

HI @currenthill

I have a question regarding the SM6 missile and the whole air defense system from the naval assets in the USA Pack.

Yesterday I performed a flight (Su27) in a dense mission involving numerous naval US ships in 1 group (3 DDG, 2 CG, 2 FFG, 1 LHA and 1 LCC) attacking ground target with Tomahawks at around 180 km. Defenders are 4 groups of BASTION P launchers and multiple SAM sites.

first of all, 2 DDG are firing all the tomahawks they are tasked to fire and 1 DDG is firing a 1 SM6 at me at around 160 km, no RWR alert...ok modern missile in TWS... benefit from allied EWR i aware of a missile in my direction. I dive to very low level (aroud 50 ft) and change direction but the missile is still heading towards me. no missile lock (on RWR) so the missile is directed by the ship. I'm below the radar horizon of the ship but he is still able to track me...i'm finally diving to below 10 meter and now it seems that the ship/missile is blind or maybe just out of energy....I think the ship capacity are a little overpowered...
Secondly a lot of anti ship missiles are coming towards the US fleet, but they are unable to defeat the incoming attack and a lot of ships are sunk, a another anti ship strike arrived, but this time it remain only three fighting ships (1 DDG and 2 FFG)  and this time the DDG is defeating almost all the incoming strike....strange... maybe a DCS logic bug...

I think the same would applied to the Bastion P asset regarding the engaging distance in my mission, being able to engage ships at about 180km at sea level seems to me impossible

Tacview-20240130-010237-DCS-Test_HDS_2.zip.acmi 25.32 MB · 0 downloads

 

calc-radar-horizon-f11.svg 14.32 kB · 0 downloads

 

Missiles can always be tweaked, just look at the work ED is constantly to the core game assets. But I'm going through all the asset packs, one by one, and updating all weapons. To make them even more realistic.

In regards to the Bastion-P and its supporting Monolit-B radar. There are several techniques applied to overcome the curvature issue, some of them invented in the late 40s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

https://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/stationary-electronic-systems/monolit-b/
 

Edited January 30, 2024 by currenthill

[HighMaintenanceB]

1 hour ago, currenthill said:

Missiles can always be tweaked, just look at the work ED is constantly to the core game assets. But I'm going through all the asset packs, one by one, and updating all weapons. To make them even more realistic.

In regards to the Bastion-P and its supporting Monolit-B radar. There are several techniques applied to overcome the curvature issue, some of them invented in the late 40s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

https://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/stationary-electronic-systems/monolit-b/
 

 

Speaking of missiles, would you consider giving the SM-6 aboard Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke iii a range increase to around 250 nautical miles?  I understand you want to avoid falling into the trap of creating wunderwaffe but I thought you might be interested in making these changes.  Also, do you think it'd make sense to do a ballistic missile defense payload on the Arleigh Burke, with, for example, 48x SM-3, 16x SM-6, 24x SM-2, and 32x ESSM (with the Tomahawk excluded altogether) or is that not really a thing that the US Navy does? 

[gabriel]

6 hours ago, currenthill said:

Mais recursos para o pacote atualizado da China...

Excellent can't wait for more mods

[currenthill]

More Chinese assets...

[CarbonFox]

19 hours ago, currenthill said:

Missiles can always be tweaked, just look at the work ED is constantly to the core game assets. But I'm going through all the asset packs, one by one, and updating all weapons. To make them even more realistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

https://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/stationary-electronic-systems/monolit-b/
 

 

Do you have plans to update some of the models themselves like the Patriot missiles being remodeled from their all black scheme?

[tripod3]

2 hours ago, currenthill said:

More Chinese assets...

Ha! Really dangerous unit! Can anyone guess if this is applicable against ships?

[currenthill]

2 hours ago, tripod3 said:

Ha! Really dangerous unit! Can anyone guess if this is applicable against ships?

Haha, I have a feeling its performance is going to be controversial, no matter how I configure it.

[gabriel]

2 hours ago, currenthill said:

Haha, tenho a sensação de que seu desempenho será polêmico, não importa como eu o configure.

Hit accuracy 0%

[chen]

8小时前，currenthill说：

更多中国资产...

Oh, my God ,expect it attack to the ship !!!! 

[LtGuava]

12 hours ago, currenthill said:

More Chinese assets...

Is this DF-26D?

[aztec01]

Soooooo, nuclear proliferation finally comes to DCS.  I guess I can hope we'll see some other assets for strategic balance (I think that's what they are calling MAD nowadays?)

[currenthill]

6 hours ago, LtGuava said:

Is this DF-26D?

 

22 minutes ago, aztec01 said:

Soooooo, nuclear proliferation finally comes to DCS.  I guess I can hope we'll see some other assets for strategic balance (I think that's what they are calling MAD nowadays?)

It's the DF-21D sometimes dubbed the "carrier killer". It's a conventional warhead medium range antiship ballistic missile. It uses satellites to detect and target moving ships. Its high speed of Mach 10 makes precision strikes at moving targets a challenge. I've accounted for that with a larger CEP.  

[Pede]

3 hours ago, currenthill said:

 I've accounted for that with a larger CEP.  

So not the anti-ship version then?

[currenthill]

3 minutes ago, Pede said:

So not the anti-ship version then?

Well, targeting land targets wouldn't make it a very effective carrier killer (not counting the mockup USS Ford in the Chinese desert).

[Pede]

30 minutes ago, currenthill said:

Well, targeting land targets wouldn't make it a very effective carrier killer (not counting the mockup USS Ford in the Chinese desert).

I meant because you used the term CEP which is for ballistic trajectories and not for weapons with active terminal guidance because precision guided weapons don't have a normal distribution. 

[currenthill]

17 minutes ago, Pede said:

I meant because you used the term CEP which is for ballistic trajectories and not for weapons with active terminal guidance because precision guided weapons don't have a normal distribution. 

I'm by no means an expert. Correct or not, I used the term CEP as its often used even when talking about the precision of guided munitions, including those with active seekers like cruise missiles. Nevertheless, I was talking about the weapon's accuracy and precision in hitting its intended target.

[currenthill]

Even more assets for the China pack update...

[Joey_Destroyah]

25 minutes ago, currenthill said:

Even more assets for the China pack update...

chinese mlrs?

[currenthill]

6 minutes ago, Joey_Destroyah said:

chinese mlrs?

Correct, it's the PHL-16 firing the FD280 370 mm guided rocket.

[Kormorant]

В 31.01.2024 в 01:15, HighMaintenanceB сказал:

Speaking of missiles, would you consider giving the SM-6 aboard Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke iii a range increase to around 250 nautical miles?  I understand you want to avoid falling into the trap of creating wunderwaffe but I thought you might be interested in making these changes.  Also, do you think it'd make sense to do a ballistic missile defense payload on the Arleigh Burke, with, for example, 48x SM-3, 16x SM-6, 24x SM-2, and 32x ESSM (with the Tomahawk excluded altogether) or is that not really a thing that the US Navy does? 

Judging by the little information we have, that 250nm test (against a ground target) was more of a missile RAero rather than Rmax, so it is almost impossible that an air target could be engaged on such a distance (still can increase range for ASh SM-6s). Besides, they used guidance from other vessels, a thing that is notoriously absent from DCS (to be honest, the whole way sensor and weapon guidance logic works here makes any Aegis simulation... extremely arcade. No AESA multi-tracking, no problem with terminal AN/SPG-62 guidance bottleneck, etc,etc). In-game Tico radar gives 200nm detection range against aircraft (Burke has 240) which is waaay better than RL ranges (at least from open sources). And ground targets are capped at 100km (~50nm). So, expanding range to AA SM-6 will turn them into wunderwaffe (and also will be much less realistic that the numbers we have now due to the whole sensor thing). And making AShM SM-6 250nm would require expanding SS radar range to 250nm which in turn can break a lot of other things in unit logic. So... not really worthy.

Sadly, in DCS we always have to compromise between realism and game engine limitations, and I think CH got it right in case of SM-6s.

Anyway, SM-3s still break realism and engage lofting ASMs (like Tu-22M X-15s) at 25k+ while in reality they are purely exoatmospheric. But since DCS engine has problems with exoatmospherics and missiles have to "flatline" themselves, you again have to compromise.

I tampered with the config file just a little (hope Currenthill will forgive me for this ahahah) testing SM-3s with their H_min set progressively to 30k, 40k, 50k - and I still have no coherent answer as to which one is better (personally just for me, I think 30k will do a bit better but still).

[Kormorant]

В 30.01.2024 в 23:48, currenthill сказал:

But I'm going through all the asset packs, one by one, and updating all weapons. To make them even more realistic.

Any plans, by chance, to tweak Swedish IRIS-T (RBS-98) into using proper heat-seeking guidance? Right now, it is active radar seeking (Head_Type = 2) which is a bit odd, to say the least. Thought at first it is again caused by sensor limitations, but you did a perfect job with NASAMS AIM-9X with correct heat-seeking head (Head_Type = 1).

[currenthill]

8 hours ago, Kormorant said:

Any plans, by chance, to tweak Swedish IRIS-T (RBS-98) into using proper heat-seeking guidance? Right now, it is active radar seeking (Head_Type = 2) which is a bit odd, to say the least. Thought at first it is again caused by sensor limitations, but you did a perfect job with NASAMS AIM-9X with correct heat-seeking head (Head_Type = 1).

I spend a lot of time configuring and tweaking my assets, so anomalies like these are most likely deliberate. I try my best to emulate the characteristics and performance of the real thing. But sometimes it's not possible without too many drawbacks. Like in this case, DCS doesn't handle non-trainable IR missile launchers very well since I can't use LOAL. The NASAMS launcher is trainable and can therefore point the seeker towards the target. Pretend it's an IRIS-T SL which uses an active radar seeker.