Toggle Between DoD and Manufacturers' Designators For SAMs etc

[drspankle]

Can we have the ability to use/display the DoD reporting name rather than the manufacturer's designator please - so AA-12 rather than R77, SA15 rather than Tor etc?  There seems to be a bit of a mix between gameplay, the F10 map, the JTAC status etc. It would be nice to have consistency across the platform. I spent a career learning what I needed to know about the SA11 etc and don't think I ever heard it referred to as a Buk!

While we're at it, some basic implementation of Rivet Joint would be nice too ...

Cheers,

Dr Spankle

Edited January 2, 2024 by drspankle

[upyr1]

I'd also include the option of listing both

[Northstar98]

I mean, personally I'd just list both, though I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it optional.

For me, here's how I'd go about it (at least for English localisation):

Spoiler

• For Soviet/Russian/Chinese systems (be they SAMs, ground-based radars, missiles etc): *native designation* *native name (if applicable)* [*NATO designation* *NATO reporting name*]

For example: 9K37M1 Buk-M1 [SA-11 Gadfly].

• For units where there isn't a NATO designation or reporting name, just use the native designation and name where applicable.

To name some examples: AZP S-60, KS-19, ZIL-131V etc.

• For Soviet/Russian ship/submarine classes: *native classification* Pr. *project number* *romanised native name (if applicable)* [*NATO reporting name* *NATO classification*] -- *year(s) (if applicable)*, *configuration (if applicable)*

For example: MPK Pr. 1124M Albatros [Grisha V FFL].

• For Chinese ship/submarine classes, I'd use *native designation/name* *native classification* [*NATO reporting name* *NATO classification*] -- *year(s) (if applicable)*, *configuration (if applicable)*

For example: Type 052C Destroyer [Luyang II DDG].

• For US ship/submarine classes: *USN designation* *(alternate class name)* *variant/flight (if applicable)* -- *year(s) (if applicable)*, *configuration (if applicable)*.

For example: CG 47 (Ticonderoga) Baseline 4 -- 2006-2009.

Similarly, for UK ship classes I'd use Type *number* (*alternate name*) *classification* *variant (if applicable)* -- *year(s) (if applicable)*, *configuration (if applicable)*.

For example: Type 12I (Leander) Frigate Batch 3B

• For individual members of a class *pennant number/USN hull classification code & number/equivalent (if applicable)* *name* - *year(s) (if applicable)*, *configuration (if applicable)*.

To name some examples: R05 Invincible -- 1980-1982, CVN 71 Theodore Roosevelt -- 2013-, S-21 Santa Fe, Pyotr Velikey etc.

• For short names, use either the NATO designation or the native designation (perhaps it would be useful for which to be localised to a particular country and/or something to be set in the gameplay options (for instance, if I'm flying for a NATO member, I'd see the NATO designation used (e.g. SA-11) and if I'm flying for the USSR or Russia I'd see the native designation/name (9K37M1/Buk-M1).

Before 2.7 I would go through the files and correct/rename them as I saw fit, resulting in a cleaner, more consistent set up that managed to be accurate and precise while also remaining fairly concise. Unfortunately, from 2.7 and onwards all the relevant files were locked down and hidden so now that's impossible and I'm stuck with how ED and others do things. Unfortunately, however, IMO how they do it leaves a lot to be desired:

• When the naming convention came to DCS (which may have also been 2.7), names were made more ambiguous despite being made longer.
• It's inconsistent:
  • V PVO SAM systems have their native designations, but not their native names. PVO-SV systems on the other hand have their native names but not their native designations.
  • Most of the time NATO designations and reporting names are used, but sometimes they're not (such as the HQ-7, which has the NATO designation CSA-7. I'm not sure on reporting name but I have seen Sino-Crotale used for it). The Krivak II is another example.
  • Sometimes project numbers are used for ships (such as for the Krivak II and Grisha V) and sometimes they aren't (such as the Ropucha I).
• Sometimes the wrong NATO designation and reporting name is used:
  • The 9K338 Igla-S should have the NATO designation and reporting name SA-24 Grinch. In DCS it uses the same ones as the 9K38 Igla - SA-18 Grouse.
  • The HY-2 missile is given the NATO designation & reporting name SS-N-2 Silkworm; not only is neither accurate for the HY-2 (which should be CSSC-3 Seersucker), but Silkworm isn't even accurate for the SS-N-2. Silkworm is the NATO reporting name for the HY-1 missile (NATO designation CSSC-2) and SS-N-2 is the NATO designation for the ship-launched P-15 Termit missile (NATO reporting name Styx).
• Sometimes a name is given for a specific variant or member of a class, when it's actually inaccurate to what's actually present/depicted:
  • The Chieftain Mk 3 isn't a Mk 3.
  • The U-boat VIIC U-flak isn't a U-flak.
  • Everything with Ural-375 are actually all Ural-4320s, not Ural-375s. EDIT: This has now been fixed.
  • The Kh-41 is actually a 3M80* (the Kh-41 is the air-launched version, only the ship-launched version exists in DCS).
  • The Mk 5 Walleye II is actually a Mk 23 Walleye II ERDL.
  • Corvette 1241.1 Molniya is actually a Pr. 1241.1M, the 1241.1 is a different version and the difference isn't trivial.
  • "LS Samuel Chase", despite having lifebuoys with "Samuel Chase" written on them, has the hull number of the Arthur Middleton, not the Samuel Chase (why is this not instead called something like "Arthur Middleton Attack Transport" or APA 25 (Arthur Middleton) with the individual members present as liveries?).
• AGM-62 is a designation that was dropped and replaced before the Walleye went into production (and it should instead just be called Mk 23 Walleye II ERDL), similarly BGM-109 is a legacy designation that was replaced by the time the C variant was introduced (especially so for the Block applicable to our ships) - so it should instead be renamed to RGM-109C TLAM-C Block III.
• The formatting is rather odd, it flip-flops between using native designations/names and NATO designations and reporting names, instead of grouping them together. For example: "SA-10 S-300 Grumble" instead of "S-300 [SA-10 Grumble]".

I could go on.

*

Spoiler

Note that there's quite a bit of confusion as to what the native designation and name for the 3M80, I've seen examples of P-80 Zubr, P-100 Moskit and P-270 Moskit. Though I've also seen the P-100 referred to as Oniks.

Wikipedia however is contradictory as it describes the P-80 Zubr/P-100 Oniks as being of a completely unrelated missile and as simply a smaller, shorter ranged missile that the 3M82/P-270 Moskit was a follow-on to.

Unfortunately wikipedia cites nothing in either case so no idea where it's getting its information from. Any other internet sources on them are practically non-existent. Personally here I'd leave it open as a sort-of Schrödinger's designation that's both correct and not correct simultanously.

I've also seen the improved 3M82 missile referred to as P-270 Moskit, P-270 Moskit-M and P-105 Moskit-M

Whatever the native names and designations are, the missile with the 3M80 GRAU index is what's in DCS (3M82 has a longer range) and the NATO designation and reporting name is SS-N-22 Sunburn, regardless of whether you're talking about the 3M80, 3M82 or any version thereof.

Edited October 19, 2024 by Northstar98
Krivak I -> Krivak II, Ural 375 actually being Ural 4320 has now been fixed

[Tippis]

For the in-game, it would make a whole lot more sense if it followed the nomenclature of the coalition the player was part of. With the way internationalisation and localisation already works, and with how there are already multiple options to change things like cockpit and voiceover languages, this could be a surprisingly simple thing to deal with.

The mission editor is a different matter because there are a couple of different logics that could be applied. Having them be named consistently and correctly is a good start, but then what? Do you want them to be grouped by system/component? Purely alphabetical? What about components that are used in multiple systems? If we were to dream big, having an underlying tagging and searching system would get rid of most of that issue. That and/or just a sort toggle in the unit list.

[Northstar98]

On 1/4/2024 at 6:47 PM, Tippis said:

For the in-game, it would make a whole lot more sense if it followed the nomenclature of the coalition the player was part of. With the way internationalisation and localisation already works, and with how there are already multiple options to change things like cockpit and voiceover languages, this could be a surprisingly simple thing to deal with.

Sure - it would definitely be useful for the F10 map, debrief etc.

On 1/4/2024 at 6:47 PM, Tippis said:

Do you want them to be grouped by system/component?

Yes. Preferably as collapsible menus. This way we have a practically foolproof system, that uses names that are precise, without needing to have massive long display names that include (albeit inconsistently) the system designation/name for every individual component, like it does now.

So for instance, we'd have something like [+] S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble], which when expanded would then show:

[-] S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble]

5K56S PBU

5N59S [Tin Shield-B]

5N63S RPN [Flap Lid-B]

5N63S RPN [Flap Lid-B] (40V6M) FCR (ideally this would be merged with the truck mounted version and just have a drop down to select which (like with tented roofs etc), so we wouldn't need 2 entries).

5N64S RLO [Big Bird-B]

5N66M NVO [Clam Shell] (40V6MD)

5P85D PU

5P85S PU

[+] ...

Of course, there should be buttons for collapse and expand all.

 

This could also be used for ships, which could further be broken down into variants and then individual members:

Spoiler

[-] CG 47 (Ticonderoga)

[-] Baseline 3

CG 60 Normandy - 2009-

[-] Baseline 4

CG 65 Chosin - 2007-

CG 66 Hué City - 2007-

CG 67 Shiloh - 2009/2010-

CG 68 Anzio - 2006-

CG 69 Vicksburg - 2010/2011-

CG 70 Lake Erie - 2012/2013-

CG 71 Cape St. George - 2007-

CG 72 Vella Gulf - 2010-

CG 73 Port Royal - 2009-

 

Of course, for units that are self-contained (SA-8, SA-9 etc) they can be listed individually (though if we were to get say, a P-40 and a PU-12, then they could be grouped together, as above).

On 1/4/2024 at 6:47 PM, Tippis said:

Purely alphabetical?

I mean, for the rest of it and for items within a group, sure thing.

EDIT: Actually, on revisiting this, while I don't think it matters too much, there might be some utility in having them organised in a particular order. For instance:

1. Guns/Launchers
2. Fire-control systems
3. Acquisition systems
4. Command and Control Systems
5. Any additional components

Within each subcategory it should probably be named alphanumerically, though I would probably make exceptions where there's a hierarchy within a group, where one unit is subordinate to another. An example of where this is the case is the S-300PS where the 5P85D TEL is subordinate to the 5P85S TEL, so in my mind the 5P85S should be listed before the 5P85D.

So for the S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble] it would be ordered as follows:

• 5P85S TEL
• 5P85D TEL
• 5N63S RPN [Flap Lid-B]
• 5N59S [Tin Shield-B]
• 5N64S RLO [Big Bird-B]
• 5N66M NVO [Clam Shell]
• 5K56S PBU
• 5I57A 200 kW Generator

I think if members of a class are to be included they should be in order (so as to make finding a particular vessel easier), but the naming convention I've used already achieves that.

On 1/4/2024 at 6:47 PM, Tippis said:

What about components that are used in multiple systems?

If it's to be categorised as I've laid out, then they should be listed everywhere they're appropriate.

For instance (and this is an example I used in the linked thread), we have the components (apart from missing ones) to make both the initial version of Rapier and Rapier FSA, the latter group would list all the items of the first, adding DN 181 Blindfire:

Spoiler

[-] Rapier (Initial)

Rapier Mk 1 Fire Unit

Optical Tracker

Land Rover 101 FC

Land Rover 109 S3

[-] Rapier FSA

Rapier Mk 1 Fire Unit

Optical Tracker

DN 181 Blindfire FCR

Land Rover 101 FC

Land Rover 109 S3

 

On 1/4/2024 at 6:47 PM, Tippis said:

If we were to dream big, having an underlying tagging and searching system would get rid of most of that issue.

Absolutely. Same for having say, a hotkey to take you straight to the encyclopedia entry (similar to C:MO and its database). That way weapon entries could be made more concise (as in some cases, the new system did away with naming what variant we have, despite making the name longer).

Edited October 19, 2024 by Northstar98
Actually following my own rules, added native designations to S-300PS example, corrected Rapier Mk 1 launcher name