fixed S-3B Tanker is depicted post ASW deconfiguration, but still has sonobuoy reference system antennas

[Northstar98]

Hi everyone,

As of 2.9.0.47168 the S-3B Tanker unit has been implemented in DCS. What's interesting about it (and something I'm quite pleased about) is that it actually depicts a different configuration compared to the regular S-3B.

The regular S-3B is depicted in its earlier configuration, accurate from 1988 - 1998. This appropriate for our post SLEP Forrestal in the early 90s, both our current Tomcats as well as the early F-14A-135-GR and the Gulf War.

The S-3B Tanker however, appears to be depicted post 1998 after the ASW deconfiguration program (which involved the AN/ASQ-81 MAD boom being deleted and blanked over, as well as 44 of the 60 sonobuoy chutes). This is perfect for CVNs 71-75 as part of the supercarrier module, the F/A-18C, both our current Tomcats and the Iraq War.

However, as part of the ASW deconfiguration program, the antennas for the sonobuoy reference system were also deleted. These are 8 7 small, blade antennas - there are 4 3 under the fuselage near and on the main landing gear doors and 2 under each wing. However, despite the AN/ASQ-81 MAD boom being deleted and the sonobuoy chutes correctly blanked off, the antennas are still present:

EDIT: The forward most blade antenna is actually still present on aircraft that have undergone the ASW deconfiguration program - thank you Flappie and developers for checking

 

The non-tanker S-3B is pre-ASW deconfiguration, so these antennas are accurate for it and should be left as is. It's only the S-3B tanker, depicted post-ASW deconfiguration, where them being present is inaccurate.

Obviously a very minor issue, but one that's hopefully easily fixed (after all the MAD boom has been removed).

Spoiler

Just FWIW, I'm fairly sure ED are already aware of this, but IRL the S-3B had no dedicated tanker variant IRL - it was proposed and then cancelled. When configured as a tanker, the S-3B simply equips an A/A42R-1 Air Refueling Store (in a similar manner to the Super Hornet, A-6E, A-7E and a number of others).

Ideally, the buddy store would be present as a loadout option for both variants and then the 2 can be renamed (so something like S-3B (1988 - 1998) and S-3B (1998 - 2007) or S-3B (early) and S-3B (late), something like that.

I also noticed a new advanced waypoint action for the S-3B Tanker - recovery tanker, which is definitely something to be excited about

Edited October 9, 2024 by Northstar98
The forward-most blade antenna is still present post-ASW deconfiguration - thank you developers and Flappie for the correction

[twistking]

wouldn't it been better to have both models represent the same configuration? having a set of matching aircraft in a slightly ahistorical config for a specific missions seems better than having two different models sitting side by side on the deck, each representing a different era...

[Northstar98]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:04 PM, twistking said:

wouldn't it been better to have both models represent the same configuration?

Personally, no. I'd much rather get the 2 variants than just the one (even if the differences are minor and inconsequential practically speaking and are only cosmetic). Having the 2 distinct variants is more comprehensive and better supports all our current US carriers.

The problem you're describing is only the case because DCS doesn't support buddy stores as a loadout option. That should be the thing to focus on here, not the fact that we have 2 different S-3B configurations. Not only does it apply for the S-3B, it also applies to the A-6E (even if we're getting a KA-6D that is dedicated to tanking, the A-6E was also capable of it) and the A-7E at least. Once buddy stores are properly supported the issue you're describing would cease to be the case and wouldn't apply any more - you'd only need the variant appropriate for the timeframe of your mission, regardless of whether you wanted a tanker or something capable of strike/surface attack or both.

IRL, there is no dedicated tanker variant of the S-3B and regardless of whether pre or post ASW deconfiguration, both are capable of equiping an A/A42R-1 buddy store and can therefore act as tankers. If DCS supported buddy stores as a loadout option,

For the time being, unless your mission is set up for S-3Bs performing strike missions, I'd recommend just using the tanker version as that's what it was mostly used for, especially for missions using the SC carriers and the Hornet.

Edited February 15, 2024 by Northstar98
grammar, corrected buddy store

[twistking]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

[...] The problem you're describing is only the case because DCS doesn't support buddy stores as a loadout option. [...]

True, but i don't see buddy stores coming any time soon to be honest. But to be fair... there are more important things to worry about...
Your point about the incoherent setup of the later version is absolutely valid of course and it can hopefully be fixed rather quickly by shaving off the antennas..

Edited October 26, 2023 by twistking

[Northstar98]

On 10/26/2023 at 10:28 PM, twistking said:

True, but i don't see buddy stores coming any time soon to be honest. But to be fair... there are more important things to worry about...
Your point about the incoherent setup of the later version is absolutely valid of course and it can hopefully be fixed rather quickly by shaving off the antennas..

Oh yeah, I mean being honest, this whole report is very minor, though I imagine the buddy store might become more of a pressing issue when the A-6E and A-7E modules finally get released. It would be a royal pain if we had to have dedicated tanker versions of the same aircraft, effectively locking out mixed-loudouts (and you can find images of A-6Es carrying a mixed ground attack and buddy store loadout) and making mission editing more annoying.

And don’t get me wrong, your perspective is perfectly valid as well - I absolutely see where you’re coming from. When I first saw it I initially felt the same, but I changed my mind when I realised that were it not for the current state of buddy stores - the problem can be mitigated entirely while giving us appropriate variants for the different eras.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Northstar98

[Flappie]

Thanks @Northstar98. Inaccuracy reported.

[Flappie]

Hi @Northstar98. Devs think one of the antennas you circled in red should not be removed, and I agree with them. It's the most forward one. It can be seen on many photographs, such as here: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/5852837

(I found the list of planes which went through the ASW deconfiguration: here)

Do you agree?

[Northstar98]

12 minutes ago, Flappie said:

Hi @Northstar98. Devs think one of the antennas you circled in red should not be removed, and I agree with them. It's the most forward one. It can be seen on many photographs, such as here: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/5852837

(I found the list of planes which went through the ASW deconfiguration: here)

Do you agree?

Yes - I agree.

That's a mistake on my part - my apologies, I appreciate the correction

Edited October 9, 2024 by Northstar98

[Flappie]

Thanks for your prompt answer.