RocketmanAL

Thanks for the insight! What data is passed to the launchers? Heading and range? 3D coords? What is the data rate? Maybe it's better to characterize it has there is no ability for the player controlled launchers to see an active feed from the search radar? The fact that Deka had to give the HQ-7 its own dedicated imaginary search radar indicates that they were not able to tap into the battery search radar feed directly to show the player. If the data is available, but not the live feed, that would be useful at least for verbal cueing. Putting multiple batteries in the same group is a solution, but to me that's not the ideal solution. Most batteries are going to operate autonomously in the field. If they have access to a radar feed they will make use of it, but they aren't going to be under the same command necessarily. In real life there are also physical datalink considerations. Is it RF or hard lined? What's the max distance between units? LOS requirements? Currently I don't know what of that is modeled, if anything. It also ignores the fact that there are standalone EW radars that contribute to a networked air picture, but aren't a part of a air defense system. For a DCS specific standpoint, that also causes mission planning and trigger issues. What if I want a single battery to spawn in late? While from the scenario standpoint it would be part of a group equipped with the search radar, functionality it wouldn't be able to tap into it. Scripting can also cause problems. Scripting based on alarm state, which skynet does, kind of breaks down when you have multiple batteries spread out. You don't want a battery activating 50 kms away from the target when you only want to activate the one 10 km away. So the problem changes from "I have to give every battery a search radar" to "My air defenses are not going to operate as I'd like and I am not able to build the scenario as I'd like."

Thanks for passing it forward! I honestly didn't expect anyone of note to see it, really just wanted to get some discussion going and some ideas out there. So I'm glad it will hopefully be useful. If I can help with testing or anything I'm happy to help make the game better.

I'm making this thread as a result of many months of testing and contemplation of DCS air defense units. I know that this will be long and probably only a handful of people will read the whole thing. However, I hope at least one dev will take notice as I truly believe CA can be made into something so much greater than the sum of its parts. Just to preface this, I have extensive experience with DCS air defense units and CA as a mission maker, operator, and as a guide maker. My guides include SEAD reference guides, CA guide videos, and flare effectiveness studies. F-18C Flare Effectiveness Study SEAD Reference Guide My research for the SEAD Guide and my experience as an engineer gives me a solid perspective on how this system should work, at least for the level of current implementation within DCS and CA. So, in writing this I hope that it's clear that I'm not just writing this as a kneejerk reaction. I'm making a critical assessment of the current system, from my personal perspective as a consumer, and how I think it can be improved. I know that 98% of people who play DCS do it to fly jets, and I totally understand that. However, as a pilot I will say that a large portion of the DCS experience revolves around the ground units as well. Not having air defenses on the same level as the aircraft not only does the air defenses a disservice, but also the experience of the pilots flying against them. I also understand from a dev point of view CA is a low margin product. It will never sell in the numbers of even the most modest plane module. That every dev hour spent on CA could be used to work on a feature of the 18 or 16 that the vocal community is asking for. With that in mind, I'm not asking for anything like a full interior modeling of the SA-11 launcher. In my suggestions I attempt to keep the expectations as grounded as I can, in hopes that spending a few hours programming or modeling can result in significant results. So, buckle up boys and girls. Air Defense Units: Too few, too old, and lacking interoperability One of the biggest problems I see with the air defense units in DCS is that there are just not enough variety of air defense units to keep things interesting. Usually there are only a handful of SAMs you will see being used most scenarios. SA-10, SA-11, SA-15, Patriot, SA-9, MANPADS, ZSU-23, and AAA. Sometimes you'll see a SA-2 or SA-3, but those are more suited for period scenarios as they generally aren't survivable in a world of AGM-88s. Of the main countries (Russia, US, countries within maps), there is significant difference in systems modeled and systems in inventory. Below is a list (from Wikipedia so not 100% right but gets the point across, don't @me) detailing some of missing air defense units in DCS. I'm also including radars, as the variety of EW radars is particularly poor in DCS. Russia SA-17 SA-12 SA-20/21 SA-22 S-350E 9S15 PPRU-1 Tin Shield Georgia SPYDER Mistral 57mm AAA Ground Master 400 Ground Master 200 36D6-M ST-68U Tin Shield Iran Sayyad-1 Sayyad-2 Bavar-373 Raad Ya Zahra Herz-9 Khordad 15 Qaem Saudi Arabia Mistral Crotale THAAD Skyguard AN/FPS-117 AN/TPS-43 Oman Mistral NASAMS Crotale THAAD RBS-23 Syria SA-17 SA-22 Turkey SA-20/21 HISAR PMADS KORKUT Skyguard KALKAN AN/MPQ-44 AN/FPS-71 AN/MPQ-64 AN/FPS-117 Israel Arrow David's Sling Iron Dome Now let me be clear. I don't expect all, or even most, of the above listed systems to be modeled in DCS. Some there is too little information on to model, some probably have security concerns (especially on the Russian side), and some are not worth doing one-off modeling of. However, there are definitely a few in here that would be "easy" to implement and could be used in multiple countries. Mistral and NASAMS, for example, already have in game assets that can be used to cut down on development time. Other systems, like SA-20/21, are extremely high performance and would greatly bring the air defenses units closer to real-world and modern capabilities while using a lot of the work done on the SA-10. Another big issue is that the average age of the defenses in DCS is probably close to 40 years. Most of the Russian stuff is ancient compared to what is currently fielded, especially in Syria. This why I'm not extremely excited about the SA-5. While it'll be nice to get a new long-range SAM, its capabilities are really limited on the modern battlefield. It really is a bit jarring to be flying a 2000's era F-18 or F-16 and flying against SA-10s and SA-8s from the 1970s. In some missions even 1950s era SA-2 or 1960s era SA-3. I do think it's great to have these units for period missions and missions that don't want a high level of difficulty, but for all the "bleeding" edge tech on the aircraft a lot of these systems feel like sitting ducks. Especially with how the default air defense logic works. Starting with PG, and now with Syria, people are wanting to replicate real-world conflicts that are ongoing. This means we need more modern systems that can properly replicate the conflicts. There is also a distinct lack of anti-ballistic missile capability. The SCUD was a fantastic introduction to DCS, especially for period missions. However, the SCUD can be intercepted by a variety of systems nowadays. The Patriot within DCS currently should be able to, but cannot. The Aegis system on ships should also have a capability to do so. I'm sure adding this capability would be a significant drain on resources, but missile defense is a huge part of dynamic with Israel. Leaving it out leaves out a large part of the equation for the region, as well as in PG. A lot has been made of the poor logic of the SAMs, so I will not belabor that point. I have seen the discussion of a new third party IADS module, which I'm excited to hear more about. In the meantime, the sub-par default logic can be improved by scripting like Skynet. I think that Skynet sets a great ground work for additional improvement on integrated SAM systems. What I want to bring up is the base issue I see with air defense units in DCS, the inability to pass target information between groups and potentially between units. This is an area that I would really love a devs insight into, to make sure I understand what's going on correctly. It is my understanding, based on discussions with Deka folks and my own mod work trying to make a controllable SA-11, that there is no way to pass target data between individual units within a group nor between groups. So, for example, in DCS each SA-10 battery requires its own Big Bird EW radar to have access to its radar feed. In real-life, one Big Bird can support multiple batteries through a central command post. In DCS there is no way to pass the radar feed from one battery to the next. This is a major limitation as the whole point of having an EW radar is to provide cueing to SAM systems of targets nearing their engagement WEZ. Currently, having EW radars not associated with a SAM battery are pretty useless outside of a script like Skynet. I believe this limitation also passes to launchers not being able to receive target data from a battery command post in the same group. In the lua files for the SA-11 launcher it makes mention of a "unit's own searching radar (for 2 targets)", implying that there is a simulated search radar attached to the SA-11 launcher that allows it to cue to targets. For the SA-10 launchers there is a maxtargetdetection range listed, as well as a ECM variable. These are indicative of a radar being attached to this unit in some capacity as well. I'll be the first to admit I am not good with lua, and in the SA-11 launcher file there is mention of "external target designation from CC". So, I am seeking confirmation that this understanding is correct. However, talking with a Deka dev who was working on the HQ-7 he indicated that passing target data from a search radar to a launcher was not possible. Down the road this will need to change to enable true IADS capability and, until it is fixed, limits what can be done with the units to make them controllable by players. Combined Arms: Expanded Controllable Launchers Of the systems deployed within DCS, ED has done a very good job of making a lot of them controllable. It's not a high-fidelity interface by any means but it's something. This mostly comes down to most of the SAMs being tactical with their own integrated search radar attached to the launcher. However, what's really lacking is medium-range SAMs that are controllable by players. Sticking to single unit SAMs for now, the primary candidate would be the SA-11. A while back I attempted to mod the SA-11 to make it controllable. I actually was able to create a Frankenstein’s monster that was controllable and could successfully track and engage targets beyond visual range. The only hang-up I ran into was getting the turret to slew in azimuth, it got hung up when trying to position the camera in the lua file for some reason. While the actual file has been lost to time, I am by no means a decent programmer. I mostly accomplished the mod by copying and pasting code from the SA-8 lua. Doing so I was able to make an almost fully controllable and functional SA-11, with an attached search radar to make up for the lack of connection to the command vehicle. A trained programmer could probably make short work of it in an official capacity. In fact, Deka has already implemented a controllable medium-range SAM with the Type 52B Destroyer. The 9M317 missile can reach around 40 km. Granted, it's not perfect. There is no search radar integration so you have to manually acquire the target, but it's the longest-range controllable SAM by far. However, it's a great starting point to make controllable medium-range SAMs like the SA-11. As I mentioned the one part missing from the Type52B is the lack of a search radar display for the 9M317 operator. This leaves the operator having to scan visually for the target. Far less than realistic for a weapon system incorporating search radars. Similarly, as mentioned earlier, in making the SA-11 mod I was unable to tap into the radar feed from the SNOW DRIFT radar associated with the SA-11 via the battery command vehicle. To get around this I created a simulated search radar on the SA-11 launcher with the same parameters as the SNOW DRIFT. I've noted that Deka has done something similar with the HQ-7, adding a simulated search radar to every launcher. While it gets around the communication problem, it is obviously less than ideal. Until the intra group communications are resolved this problem will persist. Combined Arms: Multi-unit Air Defense Systems As mentioned before, none of the multi-unit air defense units are currently controllable in DCS. These are things like SA-2 or SA-10, where the radar and launcher are two separate vehicles. I believe the main reason for this is the above-mentioned lack of passing of radar information. For something like the SA-11 you can't send target data to the launchers. For the SA-10, I think it has to do with the launchers acting semi-autonomously and not relying on the target track radar itself to launch. Again, I would appreciate a devs insights into this element. This leaves a player unable to control a command vehicle and issue commands. So, assuming that issue, if it exists, can be resolved what is the best way for a player to control, say a SA-10? There is a main tracking radar, a couple of search radars, a command vehicle, and multiple launchers. The way that seems the easiest is to use the already implemented F10 map attack method. For those that don't know, you select a friendly unit on the map, select "Add Target", select an enemy you want it to engage, then select "Start Fire" to have it begin engaging. This is meant mainly for artillery or tanks, however as far as I can tell doesn't work for air defense units. You can select a target and tell it to fire, but it just seems to ignore the command and target whatever it wants. Conceivably, this method should be pretty straight forward to implement. It also provides a view more akin to a regional air defense commander, rather than a battery level commander. The above method however does not replicate a tactical unit experience. While I have no misconceptions that we will ever get a fully modeled interior for an air defense unit, a proper PPI would get us most of the way there. The PPI can currently be accessed in the controllable SAMs, and provides functionality to acquire and engage targets via the radar rather than an optical site. Since this screen replicates the output from a search radar, it wouldn't be available to a SA-11 launcher operator. It would be available in the battery command vehicle. This set-up is currently implemented by the Deka HQ-7. The command vehicle can be controlled, with only the PPI accessible. They can be used to detect targets and cue human operator of the launchers to a target. I've yet to ever find a situation where more than me wants to run air defense. Therefore, it is necessary to be able to cue AI launchers to targets from a controlled command vehicle. Again, communication issue notwithstanding, there are a few ways to handle this that leverage systems already in place. The HQ-7 battery command vehicle will be the base for both. The first would use the PPI as it usually works in the controllable units. The targets would show up and be clickable. Once clicked, the targets would be selected and the system will automatically determine which launcher will engage the target. For something like the SA-11 you'll be able to select as many targets as you have launchers, otherwise you'll have to de-select a target and select a new one. For something like the SA-2 you'll just select one target for engagement. There could be automatic mode where a launcher will engage automatically once the target is in range, or a command mode where the player presses the button to launch the missile. This one I would imagine will leave most of the behind the scenes functions intact, but provide at least some basic control over the battery from the command vehicle. The next idea is to have a more sophisticated PPI that would display targets and assign them more realistically. All the current targets would be displayed on the screen and given a target number. Targets detected by other radars can even be displayed if the command vehicle is integrated into an IADS. The assigned number can either be in reference to the radar, or the IADS network. A specific target can then be assigned to a launcher if it's a system like the SA-11. Or can be an assigned target for a system like the SA-10. Again, there can be an automatic engagement mode where the system engages automatically, or manual where the player launches the missile. This method is more flexible because it can be used across any air defense unit with a command vehicle with minimal modification. I feel it also more realistically reflects how a commander would operate his battery. From the launcher point of view, again referencing the SA-11, the launcher itself would benefit from an ability to receive target cueing from the command vehicle. The command vehicle would hopefully be player controlled, but more than likely will be AI controlled. Sticking a fake search radar on the launcher is not a good enough solution, in my opinion. At the very least, I could use a vocal call out from the battery commander to get me onto a target. Similar to an AWACS BRA call. A better solution would be to have the battery command vehicle send a cue signal to the launcher. The player would then accept this cue which would see that turret automatically slew towards the target and allow the player to lock it up. Many systems do this in real life, and is similar to how the system works when locking-up targets via the PPI. This system could also be used with current systems, such as the SA-8, when attached to a battery command vehicle with access to an early warning radar. This would allow improvement of current systems and use with future multi-vehicle air defense units. Finally, the wrap-up If you've stuck around this long, congrats you get a cookie. As I said I don't expect this post to garner much attention, and even if it does I don't expect any monumental changes to CA at this point. What I hope this can do is bring to light some of the fundamental issues with DCS air defense units and CA. The lack of unit variety, lack of fundamental command and control communication, and need to expand controlled units. I also hope I've proposed solutions that wouldn't require an unresonable amount of work to implement. Because lets face it, anything that pulls work away from modules that make money is hard to justify. In my mind DCS is just as much about the AI units in the sandbox as the planes flying above it. So while any CA development is much appreciated, at this point it's not really expected. Improvements in air defense units would benefit everyone, however. With some behind the scenes work there can be a significant improvement in the AI performance. Hopefully, with the addition of some new systems the quality of scenarios can be improved.

Building on flare testing of the A-10C and AV-8B, I've conducted a study of the flare effectiveness of the F/A-18C. TL;DR: FLAR: 8 RPT: 1 INT: N/A provides the best protection, of the tested profiles, with the minimum required flares. For this study, I did a bit more testing to determine the effects of the three variables that can be programmed in the F/A-18C: Flares per cycle, cycle repeats, and cycle intervals. There were some interesting results, but overall they are consistent with the previous testing. You can find the results of the F/A-18C study here: F/A-18C Flare Effectiveness Study You can find the results of the A-10C study here: A-10C Flare Effectiveness Study You can find the results of the AV-8B study here: AV-8B Flare Effectiveness Study [16AGR]Rocketman

Mercenary Huey Missions I put together several Huey missions for my squad as part of a mercenary campaign. Since we don't play them anymore, I figured I'd post them here for others to enjoy. Slingload Mission

SEAD Practice Mission Featuring Skynet Mission File Page I created this for my squad, but thought others would find it useful. This training mission is for groups to develop and practice SEAD procedures and doctrine against a large scale networked SAM system. I hope to continue to improve it over time with additional features. This mission is designed as a large scale sandbox to test and practice SEAD doctrine. It is meant to be difficult and requires significant effort to roll back the SAM network. The enemy IADS consists of four separate zones; East, Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island, and West. See the reference picture for zone coverages. Each zone consists of a mix of early warning radars, medium- and short-range IADS integrated SAMs, along with unnetworked tactical SAMs and ADA. The network is laid out in a realistic, state of war configuration. Defenses are concentrated around areas of military importance, but defenses are also deployed to defend potential avenues of ingress to those areas. SAMs are connected via the Skynet IADS network. Early warning radars will provide pictures to the network, and allow SAMs to activate their radars only when targets are within range. Each area is commanded by a separate command center. See the reference picture for the area of command center location. Destruction of the command center will remove the SAMs in that zone from the network, forcing the SAMs to autonomously scan and acquire targets. SAMs can also detect HARMs and may turn off their radars to prevent destruction. If able, SAMs will also attempt to intercept incoming missiles.

Operation Opera- Now with F-16 Operation Opera MP Mission This mission replicates the infamous 1981 strike on the Osirak Facility by the Israeli Air Force, dubbed Operation Opera. I did significant research on the raid to replicate it as closely as I can within DCS. This mission replicates the real-life aircraft, weapons load-outs, route, distance, and defenses around the Osirak Facility.

I couldn't find a better spot for this, so feel free to move this if it has a better home. I have a collection of missions I did for my group as part of a defunct mercenary scenario. I put a lot of work into them and hate to see them go to waste. I'm happy to post them here and to the user files, but thought I'd ask if ED is interested in taking user made missions for inclusion in the core DCS game for all to enjoy. These missions center around modules that don't have as many instant action or single missions available; Huey, L-39, Gazelle. So I thought it might be nice to fill out some options for those modules. If this is an option I'm happy to provide the missions for QA. I have a few missions ready with voiceovers, but if they are just going to end up on the user file page I probably won't bother with further voiceovers for the remaining 10+ missions I have.

I put together a SEAD Reference guide for my group and thought others might find it useful. SEAD Reference Guide V1.2 Includes a basic overview, order of battle, deployment template, and system engagement procedures for the RF equipped air defense units within DCS. Open to comments or suggestions.

Well, unfortunately, most of what I talked about isn't currently implemented in DCS. You can fire the 9M317 SAM from the Type 52, which has an in-game range of 50 km. It's very interesting engaging targets that you can't visually see and having to rely on the PPI scope. I would love to see a scope for the TER incorporated eventually. One that requires you to maintain track instead of the system handling it automatically.

First off, I want to say bravo for your team's efforts in expanding the CA arsenal, in terms of ground and naval assets. Having a controllable ship is amazing, and brand new experience with so much potential. Having said that, I'd love to discuss the implications that the Type 52B Destroyer has on the current and future efforts to expand CAs. This particular unit contains several elements that can lay the groundwork for some long-awaited CA features. 1. Medium range SAMs. So this was probably one of the most immediately exciting things to me. The 9M317 missile immediately outclasses every controllable SAM in DCS by a wide margin and immediately opens the door to having medium-range SAMs like the SA-11 being controllable within DCS. Having successfully modded the SA-11 (well almost) to be controllable, it would not take a lot of effort to make the SA-11 controllable by users. This would add a huge dimension to user-controlled SAMs. Your work on the HQ-7 has already laid the groundwork for having a central command vehicle equipped with a TAR, with individual launchers equipped with TERs. Taking this framework, ED should be able to make a controllable SA-11 with very little work. The next step would be to find a way to assign targets to unmanned launchers through a player-controlled command vehicle, which engage an assigned target. From my understanding, when I was trying to mod a controllable SA-3, is that there is currently no way to transfer target data between vehicles like that. However, overcoming that hurdle would allow for controllable SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, SA-6, SA-10, HQ-16, and Patriot SAMs. 2. Multi-position CA vehicles In the current Type 52B it's a pretty rudimentary implementation of the various weapon systems, though it's still effective. You can control a wide range of weapon systems, but they are all pretty rudimentary. The YJ-83 is so powerful and is a very easy weapon to use. This truly adds a whole new dimension to the DCS experience. Obviously there are some liberties taken with the targeting of ships, I'm assuming due to the fact that DCS was probably never designed to use this type of weapon. The biggest limitation though is that while you are controlling one weapon system none of the others can work. I'm sure this is just an EA type bug, but there is potential to have each weapon system manned by an individual player. Not sure if that's the plan, but having players man each weapon system on a ship would be very potent. This would also have implications by creating a framework to have individuals control individual stations of a SAM system, such as commander, radar operator, and gunner. So a group of players can control a large strategic SAM to a decent level of realism. 3. Multi-target tracking One of the features currently missing in general from DCS controlled SAMs is the ability to track multiple targets at once, from an engagement standpoint. You can obviously track multiple targets in a TWS mode from the systems TAR. For systems with a single TER, this single target engagement isn't a problem. For a ship like the Type 52, or a SAM like the SA-10, the system can track and engage multiple targets at once. For AI controlled systems they can currently do this. So some structure is in place to do that currently, just not with player-controlled units. Incorporating a multi-target engagement capability for the Type 52 could lay down a framework for inclusion in other systems. This would be crucial for replicating strategic systems with advanced radars. I have a great interest in CA and would love to see the module improved. Unfortunately, Deka seems to be the only group interested in making meaningful improvements to the module with your own unique view. I hope that you guys keep up the good work.

Three years ago I did a study on the flares with the A-10C, primarily to determine an optimal flare profile and to see how different factors impacted the decoy rate. You can find the results of that study here: A-10C Flare Effectiveness Study Recently I decided to do another study in the Harrier, as I'm been flying it quite often and find the inconsistency of the flares annoying. The results are available here: Harrier Flare Effectiveness Study TL;DR: Program G QTY: 2 INT: 1 provides the best protection with the minimum required flares. Next, I will be testing the Hornet's flares in a new study. After that, I might re-do the A-10C study since it was before V2.5 released. I do not own the J-17 or F-16, so I won't be able to do those tests until I purchase them. Willing to consider other aircraft that have an automatic countermeasure programming system. [16AGR]Rocketman

After moving the large mast away from the target iI was able to get a clean bomb into the target. It still seems to not quite be hitting the bunker itself, as there is still a bit of off-set. Will test again, but seems you hit the nail on the head. Much thanks!

Sounds like the perfect thing to test next.

That's what I was kind of worried about. Any idea how big the hit box for the wires is? Should I treat it as a big cube that nothing shall pass through? Unfortunately based on the position of everything the best places. for the JTAC has been to the south.if i move the tower I'll have to do it for the 20 missions it is present in for this campaign.

I'll try to play with it some more when I get home. I wasn't getting the LOS error when I was running it. I was also getting a laze from something, and that is the only possible unit. The GBU 12 tracks a laser source from somewhere. I've watched it visually. I'm also dropping from an F-5,so no way I'm hitting next to the same push the 5+ times I've tested.

So I'm building a mission around doing some toss bombing in the F-5 with GBU-12. I've set-up a infantry JTAC in an enemy base to lase targets. Since the targets are static command post objects, as far as I know, he won't lase those. So I have him attempting to lase a TACAN on the roof of the building. When TACAN is killed, the building explodes. No issues in ME for LOS or distance to target. Going through the menu he will lase the target. I release the weapon, but it always tracks a point in a field about 100 m from the target. Every time. I've tested with the loft toss and with higher energy dive drops. Both hit the same spot in the field. Troubleshooting so far includes: Changing AFAC from infantry to truck. Changing AFAC position. Changing target from TACAN to infantry. Haven't tried a Predator as it doesn't really fit the scenario. Would rather not have to worry about scripts if at all possible, but this seems like a resilient bug. Attached mission file as last tested. Mission14_V5.miz

I made this tutorial as part of the 16AGR Ground Commanders Course a couple of years ago. It is a basic overview of the controls and operation of the air defense unit types in DCS. Eventually I'll get around to doing more detailed tutorials on the various systems.

Well there are my hopes dashed! I was hoping that this would be the kick in the ass for CA SAM development. If I was a coder I would certainly be up for helping. So you are going to require the STR for AI battery operation, even though the launchers have an autonomous capability?

So with the HQ-7 STR coming, I'm curious how the developers are going to implement the HQ-7 battery into the game. AFIAK this will be the first controllable SAM in DCS that has an off-board target acquisition radar. So I'm interested in how they will incorporate that radar feed (and C2?) with the individual launchers. Will the launchers be able to monitor the STR target data while it's active? Will there be a way to control the STR activity outside of the F10 menu? Will the STR be able to provide any cueing information to the launchers to assist in target acquisition? Slew-to-cue? Looking further out whatever is done with the HQ-7 could serve as a blueprint for other systems with an engagement radar and off-board acquisition radar, namely the current SA-11. So very interested in what the plan for this system is.

Understood, just want to make it known now rather than later. Very interested to see how they handle the off-board search and acq radar. AFAIK this will be the first controllable SAM with the acq radar on a separate vehicle. Hoping that some form of datalink and cueing is incorporated.

Bug: HQ-7 Launcher getting target acquisition radar data and PPI sticking Currently, the HQ-7 displays a radar scope in the top left of the screen being fed with target acquisition radar information. The launcher by itself doesn't have a target acquisition radar, so it shouldn't have this radar scope. Not sure if this is meant to replicate the separate acquisition radar that is coming later. I tested with just one launcher though, so shouldn't have this radar feed currently. Screenshot for reference. Also, going to the PPI scope gets you stuck on that screen and you are unable to get back to the regular view. You have to back out of the vehicle in F-10 and re-enter to get back to the regular view.

Hate to revive this problem, but just had the same issue when attempting this mission today. It actually worked correctly the first time I attempted it, but I failed the crash landing portion. So on my retry the helo refused to take off again. Reloaded a third time and the helo again would not take off. Very strange.

Ahhh, so you don't actually have to go after the copters. I thought this was like the original FARP mission where you are trying to get the copters. I'll be sure to ignore that nasty bugger then! I hate to use that cheater option as well, but at this point I've run this mission at least a dozen times so I'm just ready to move on. I'll give it another couple of go's then, I might have to cheat. Still love the campaign and I fully appreciate the limitations of DCS. So keep up the good work!

So I actually have been stuck on this mission for quite a while now. I got so frustrated with it that I had to step away from the campaign for a few months. Coming back, I've found it has gotten even worse! So the main issue I have continues to be the aggressiveness of the helos. I made a post about how they will fire their cannon at you if you attack from to low. Now they fire TOWs at you as you fly away from an attack run, even in a climb! I think you might be better off just removing their armament at this point, because I am legitimately very scared of the Cobra. Another thing making it very difficult for me to complete this mission is that the SU-25T isn't very helpful after taking out the Stinger and AAA. He appears to keep trying to plink the APC. However, the APC is now in the trees after 2.5 and he can't be destroyed. I also can't seem to finish off Apaches. If they get hit on the pad. I nailed the center of the FARP and seemed to damage them to the point that they can't fly, but they won't go destroyed. Not sure if they are required for mission completion, but I've never been able to kill them. I'm legitimately enjoying this campaign and want to keep going!