Please include empty air defence sites

[Northstar98]

Hi everyone,

A long standing request of mine and one I hope you'll all agree with - please include empty air defence sites, suitable for placing units in.

Ideally, we'd get a close to 1:1 recreation of the real sites, in their real locations. The closest example I can name in DCS is this example of an Egyptian S-75 site, which is an almost 1:1 recreation of the real thing and is the exact thing I'm talking about.

 

However, even if Ugra were to pick a generic HAWK layout, an S-75/SA-2 site layout, an S-125/SA-3 site layout and an S-200/SA-5 site layout, then copy and paste them in the right locations across the map, that would definitely be better than nothing and would absolutely suffice.

There's plenty of resources out there for finding where each one goes and most are still clearly extant in modern satellite imagery (many of the sites have however been converted, but historical imagery is still readily available).

Just for some examples:

• Here's a HAWK site near Fulda, circa 2009. Everything about the site is clearly visible, including launcher and radar positions, revetments etc. In present day imagery it seems to be some chemical/POL facility.
• Here's a NIKE Hercules launch site near Arnshöfen. In present day imagery all but the western launch position has been dug up, but in historical imagery (such as this from 2008), everything is clearly visible (though note only the western launch position has its storage shelter visible, they're removed from the other positions, though where they would've been is clearly visible). The IFC site is located on top of a hill, in a forest to the north-west (and is empty save for a tower) - there's even a shot of the IFC site from a drone.
• Here's an S-75/SA-2 site just south of the large Wittstock Bombing Range. Unlike most imagery, these site shows everything (the central revetments for the FCR and associated equipment, the 6 launcher revetments arranged in a circle centred on the FCR, as well as other reveted positions for the acquisition radar and other equipment). If this was copied and pasted at every SA-2 site, this is would be perfect.
• Here's an S-125/SA-3 site adjacent to Storkow, close to Templin airbase, here's another historical image, again clearly showing the layout. Everything is clearly visible. Here's another near Möckern, again everything visible. This site appears to be defending an S-200 site in the forest to the east.
• Here's an S-200/SA-5 site just south-east of Gransee, to the north of Berlin. Everything about the site is clearly visible - the 2 launch battalions (with central launch control centre (which would have generators and power distribution), with 6 launch positions each. The technical batallion to the east, and to the north, the guidance area (with positions for fire-control and acquisition radars).
• Here is where an S-300PMU/SA-10B sie would've been, immediately to the west is an S-75/SA-2 site.
• Here's a 2K12/SA-6 site to the south of Erfut. This site is mostly just roads, but there are a couple of reveted positions (you can see the 4 positions for launchers in a rectangular shape, with a 5th inside the rectangle for the Straight Flush.

In the development screenshots, there's this image:

I'm almost certain that this is Damgarten (an airbase the MiG-29S has a livery for).

This airbase has an S-125 site immediately adjacent to it. It's most visible in this image (the grey object is where the FCR and associated equipment would've been located and there are 4 circular revetments for the launchers to the west, though the southern one is only just visible, but nonetheless there are 4), EDIT: here's an image showing the site (3). There's also another site near Saal to the north-east, which this site has historical imagery of.

Unfortunately however, the former site seems to be absent in this screenshot.

Previously, on the Syria map, Ugra did take a crack at doing some air defence sites, though only really so with the SA-2/S-75 and while the revetment models were perfectly accurate, the site however wasn't (only 5 launcher revetments - should be 6, no revetments for radars or other equipment).

I've attached SAMSiteOverview.kmz by Sean O'Connor of IMINT & Analysis below, which can be used to find just about all sites (though is missing British Bloodhound and Rapier sites).
 

SAM Site Overview.kmz

Edited April 2 by Northstar98
Found a more historical image of the Damgarten SA-3 site

[Whiskey11]

I would also concur with this request... the large sites MUST be on this map as they did so much "damage" to the earth they are still visible today... SA-5 sites, due to their size (and there only being five of them in East Germany) should absolutely be modeled individually.  Generic SA-2/SA-3 sites, HAWK sites and Patriot sites would probably be fine.  The biggest issue Ugra had on Syria was the terrain elevation mesh interfering with accurate placement of sites... things such as the SA-2 sites having huge changes in elevation so that the Fan Song was at the lowest point in the site and obstructed by the revetments for the missiles.

Ugra, there are enough of us SAM Site Rivet Counters here we'd be willing to help out with explaining how these sites work and their common layouts if you want us to, we can do the break downs like I did for the Homs SA-5 site in Syria.  There is enough historical imagery floating around for a number of these bases that if you REALLY want us to get into the nitpicky details, we can, but I'd really like to encourage you to at least consider the "basics".  I know you have access to the IADS Project KMZ as Recoil is a tester and he helped me build my KMZ file, but if you need it, here is a link: 

https://github.com/Whiskey-11/The-IADS-Project

Plenty of examples of various site layouts to chose a generic one to help speed along things, and us SAM Site Rivet counters are here to help along the way!

[Northstar98]

As an addendum to this - for EWR sites with radomes, it would be better to model these without the radome (leaving a flat base/tower with a flat top), which would then be a static object.

This way, we would be able to place functional radars on top and then place the radome static object (and yes, this is something DCS already supports as is - see the spoiler for a very crude example). We also already have the ability to make templates allowing this to be made once and reused an arbitrary amount of times.

Spoiler

Here I've found a tall building with a flat top, stuck a P-19 on top of it and then placing "M92 shelter 2" over the top:

There's no default radome static object and the closest I had, though to cover the radar completely I can take another shelter and rotate it:

As a bonus this can still be destroyed by single ARMs, including the Shrike (though with 2 shelters, it's less effective). I'm not so sure about other weapons, but it may be an idea to really reduce the life of any radome static object or even make it such that it doesn't have a collision zone.

In the past, maps with decorative radomes usually results in rendering the sites unusable as working EWR sites (especially sites which have radar mounted on a tower or elevated platform). There is the scenery delete action in the mission editor, but it usually causes unintended collateral damage (and in this case would delete the tower the radar is mounted on).

Doing it the suggested way, a functional radar unit could be placed and the sites be usuable in the way that they should be, instead of only being decorative.

Edited March 18 by Northstar98

[birkenmoped]

FlaRak-Stellung(en?) - Hawk - 1991

 

 

Edited April 25 by birkenmoped