1980s Theater
-
Another data point: North Korea has some of the most poorly trained pilots in the world, primarily because they don’t have the budget to maintain a high level of proficiency. This was also the case back in the early 1990s, and it would be fair to assume without further data that an air force that can’t maintain its own pilots wouldn’t bother to do a force-wide countermeasure upgrade that wasn’t standardized for the airframe.
-
I had tweaked one of molnyfalcon`s campaigns according to some real life order of battle datas and as i remember add a couple of block 15s with Aim-7s.
If molnyman says ok, i can email the necessary files.QT
-
I am sorry, Molni, but I don´t think it is correct to do it. Just to make my point: Why don´t you add some new weapons to the acft of North Korea or make the range of the SA-3s a little bit bigger?
You are the one always looking for realism, so I really cannot understand why you are doing that. If you want “game” balance, put some soviet regiments helping North Korea from the beginning on of the war with real loadout.In TE the range are correct for all SAMs. If you check my suggestion thread you will see that SA-2 launch against an approaching target at ~20-22 nm. Even if you turn back you mostly cannot outrun the missile. This is why I set eng. rage.
The theoretical max. eng. range against closing target is about 57 km with latest SA-2 variant, but in Falcon because of radar modeling values and jamming there is no sense to set such a big range. ECM is on –-> missile is wasted.
Moreover, you cannot set, because regardless how big the range SA-2 does not want to use the value. I’m speaking here only about TE tests. Yes, I have tried tweaking dat file either, did not work. You can set as big value as you wish 20-22 nm is the max, something “overwrite” in the background the values.
Campaign is more serious, the problem the campagin engine itself. SAMs behavior is different from TE. It is not my fault that SAMs do not use the capabilites hich I provided them. In TE eng. range can be 20-22 nm but in campagin the typical is 12-13 form SA-2. –-> It is not my fault the SA-2 eng. range mostly same with SA-3’s. I have seen only some launch form 15-16 nm. Likely you never tested the SAM behavior and never checked the possible issues. I have done it during the developlement and I have mentioned as I can remember.
I can increase the range for SA-3 but it has no sense. The result will be bad. SA-3 will waste missiles because tactical fighters simply make some direction changes and simply fly outside the DLZ after the launch and also jamming resistance and other factors are counts. I set the eng. range by recommendations of guys who made the SAMsim and of course following the RL eng. zone chart.
Are you speaking AC squadron where you mention regiments? Because there are USSR AC in campaign, they will join the campaign as ususal, when the force ration reach a certain level. I can add an extra MiG-29 squadron because in RL also had DPRK therefore it can be “hide” without political issues. But I never will give Su-24/27 or MiG-31 for DPRK… As I can remember I also add only some SA-6 and SA-4 even in RL DPRK never had. The “real” term concerned sometimes for OBB but mostly for loadout and weapon capabilites. In my DB flares are not just ornaments agains even AIM-9M and R-73. They are not holy weapons anymore.
-
@qt:
I had tweaked one of molnyfalcon`s campaigns according to some real life order of battle datas and as i remember add a couple of block 15s with Aim-7s.
If molnyman says ok, i can email the necessary files.QT
Go Ahead. Are we speaking only DB changes or you played also with cam file?
MolnyFalcon is the FF variant, this MOD still does not have a final name.
-
@Home:
Another data point: North Korea has some of the most poorly trained pilots in the world, primarily because they don’t have the budget to maintain a high level of proficiency. This was also the case back in the early 1990s, and it would be fair to assume without further data that an air force that can’t maintain its own pilots wouldn’t bother to do a force-wide countermeasure upgrade that wasn’t standardized for the airframe.
This is why I said, semi fictional. Even this fictionality my campaign is far beyond closer to RL as any released Korean campaign concerning on OOB and battalion rosters but at least more usable and they are composed by following the current radar modeling issues. (“radar slots issue”)
As you see the wished some recommendation - for ex. Block 15 + AIM-7 - also fictional so I cannot see any problem if I put dispensers on MiG-23ML or MF.
Other issue the too few DB entires. Because I wish to model at least the MLD variant - even I cannot provide a different FM for MLD - but MLD had dispensers, better radar and R-73 missile without HOBS capability. These are very important changes and for Cold War Europe scenario, the MLD is an important and usable AC. If I cannot make or do not wish to make in the next release of MLD at least the ML or MF should have dispensers.
-
In TE the range are correct for all SAMs…… Likely you never tested the SAM behavior and never checked the possible issues… The “real” term concerned sometimes for OBB but mostly for loadout and weapon capabilites. In my DB flares are not just ornaments agains even AIM-9M and R-73. They are not holy weapons anymore.
Molni, I was being sarcastic to make my point! I did not suggest for you to indeed change the range of the SA-3! I meant (and the other guys understood this way), if we start adding loadouts to acft, which did not exist for real, we will loose the Flagship of Falcon 4: REALISM.
FYI, I did tons of tests regarding ALL SAM systems in BMS (and AF, and OF), and have implemented all main sub-versions of each system. However, I just figured out recently that it does not make any sense for us, users, to work on that, because the devs don´t want, cannot afford it……the old history, you know…code will change etc. So, I am not criticizing your attempts to get a more realistics SA-2e for North Korea, I actually found it great(!!!), because it helped me to figure out other stuff for other systems I was working on. I just don´t agree with your way of adding stuff (e.g. FLARES) to address issues with the the DB (e.g.AIM-9M/R-73). That is not real and final point. There is nothing to discuss here, in my opinion. I personally want a real Falcon 4 BMS in future. My opinion and will stick to it.
-
Roger.
About MiG-23 and flares. Some soruces suggests that some users applied dispenser on non MLD '23s but maybe these were only unique attampts or just test. The collapse of WP and the whole Eastern Block prvented any HW upgrade for more than a decade…
I mostly stick to realism, except this point because of mentioned issues. I tested without flares the campaigns but was not as good as with flares.
-
As you see the wished some recommendation - for ex. Block 15 + AIM-7 - also fictional so I cannot see any problem if I put dispensers on MiG-23ML or MF.
Sorry, absolutely NOT the way to go.
-
Go Ahead. Are we speaking only DB changes or you played also with cam file?
MolnyFalcon is the FF variant, this MOD still does not have a final name.
both stores data and .cam file.
old habits Molnyman;)
maybe you can call it Molnyfalcon BMS.:munch:
so here is B block 15, loaded with Aim-7s.
QT
-
Sorry, absolutely NOT the way to go.
Great. One of partially unreal request is go, but other is no go…? I love this kind of logic…
-
Sorry, Molni, but my logic is really clear. I though I had stated it clearly above: Don´t add stuff that is not real! No exceptions, be AIM-7s be flares, be range of weapons, etc.
-
Small clip from the event this weekend.
-
Was fun fly? As I see the MiG defeated with flares an AIM-9M. Did you use data link during the flight?
-
i saw new feature for left MFD … cool!!!
-
Just note to “realism” and end user upgrades.
Some Czechoslovak people army Mig-21 (MF,MA had original possibility to carry it) were able to carry SM pod - Jammer SPS-141E + ASO-21-E7P launcher (chaffs and flares). Usually only one AC in 4-ship flight carried pod on centerline HP. Alert planes were almost allways equiped with its nattive 80ths weapon - R13M. Some of Czech Mig-21s were able to carry R-60 for selfdefence (CSSR AF had no BIS variant).During 90ths the R-60 missile was most usual beside Aim-9M on CZAF Mig-21MF. But it is another story…
I write it just because first line countries will allways adapt for possible threats. Serbs did mount their R-60s on trucks etc.
Czechs tested Aphids on L-39 trainers during cold war as well…It is not so big problem to put something on Mig-23.
Just for curiosity - this link shows chaff/flare additional adaptation for helis:
http://forum.valka.cz/viewtopic.php/t/11352
With such a solution you can put it on anything slow (but there is some optional aerodynamic stuff as well). Of course jet application need more clever approach…
Luk
Edit: i wrote Czech people army …of course it was Czechoslovak peoples army - oops -
-
i saw new feature for left MFD … cool!!!
My mistake i thought was butty DL target lock line…
-
Was fun fly? As I see the MiG defeated with flares an AIM-9M. Did you use data link during the flight?
Yes we did use datalink, is it supposed to be disabled?
It’s been quite fun, we have been playing at least 1 flight, up to 3, every weekend. You can see some aars here:
http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/forum/151-united-operations-air-forces/
-
I think yes, in 1991 Link 16 was not available for most of or any jet as I know. Biggest problem that BMS4 code - as I know - make possible to set up a FDL connect with any AC regardless in RL other AC never had this link. For ex. you can create link between F-16C Blk. 52 and an F-4DSK or F-5E or F-15A/C. Until ODS only about two dozen F-15C got FDL terminals.
(Or not? I have never read any manul which meantion any restriction concerning on BMS4.)
-
From a little dogfight yesterday: