They didn't get this until a few years later. This was a stand-in for
the SA-5 that DCS doesn't have, but the SA-10 is so much more capable
that it's not a good replacement.
It's rare with the current 5NM buffer around the origin, but if we use
the hold distance as the buffer like we maybe should it's possible for
the preferred join locations to fall entirely within the home zone. In
that case, fall back to a location within the max-turn-zone that's
outside the home zone and is nearest the IP.
Removes some of the low capacity airfields from the campaign now that
missions can plan longer ranges if needed.
This removes Khasab, Bandar Lengeh, and Qeshm from the blue side, so
blue no longer has any airfields on the peninsula.
The CVN has moved quite a ways west to make it a good platform for
attacking the area around Dubai, and to prevent it from being the
primary mission source (with a 90 aircraft limit, a *lot* of missions
can get planned there before other airbases will be used).
The LHA moves to near where the CVN was, making it a good platform for
early game missions. Once the LHA's 20 aircraft limit is exhausted, Kish
and Bandar Abbas will be the primary airfields early game. Bandar Abbas
is still close enough to source Hornet and Viper missions to most of the
area around Dubai. It's unable to reach Lar with those aircraft, but
Kish and the CVN can (as can captured airfields).
The doctrine/task limits were capturing a reasonable average for the
era, but it did a bad job for cases like the Harrier vs the Hornet,
which perform similar missions but have drastically different max
ranges. It also forced us into limiting CAS missions (even those flown
by long range aircraft like the A-10) to 50nm since helicopters could
commonly be fragged to them.
This should allow us to design campaigns without needing airfields to be
a max of ~50-100nm apart.
This only takes effect for default loadouts. Custom loadouts set from
the UI will allow LGBs. In the default case there will not be buddy-lase
coordination so we should take iron bombs instead.
Also adds single/double Mk 83 and Mk 82 weapon data to accomodate this.
Hornet should be compatible with 1990 campaigns now. Air-to-ground
weapon restrictions are less interesting for AI aircraft so I haven't
covered *all* the variants here (the >2 variants of each carried by the
B1 and such).
This is a bit of a hack that makes the TGPs fall back to AIM-120s. It
works okay because this only applies to a few cases:
The A-10 gets an empty pylon. That's fine. Maybe later we can add
multiple fallback paths and depth-first-search through them so that that
pylon could carry bombs instead.
The Viper has no replacemnt for that station. The jammer goes on the
other fuselage station, the HTS isn't a replacement, and we don't have
LANTIRN for the Viper. No weapons can be fit to those stations.
What this helps is the Hornet, where any Gulf War scenario ends up with
an empty cheek station because we don't have the NITE HAWK to fall back
to. In this case we can instead fall back through the air-to-air
missiles to fill the station.
Test cases:
1. Target is not threatened.
The IP should be placed on a direct heading from the origin to the
target at the max ingress distance, or very near the origin airfield
if the airfield is closer to the target than the IP distance.
2. Unthreatened home zone, max IP between origin and target, safe
locations available for IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR at the closest point to home.
3. Unthreatened home zone, origin within LAR, safe locations available
for IP.
The IP should be placed near the origin airfield to prevent
backtracking more than needed.
4. Unthreatened home zone, origin entirely nearer the target than LAR,
safe locations available for IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR as close as possible to the origin.
5. Threatened home zone, safe locations available for IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR as close as possible to the origin.
6. No safe IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR at the point nearest the threat
boundary.
Both types use JSOW -> Walleye -> Mk 84. The JSOW A should maybe fall
back to some CBU instead, but I think the standoff capability is more
important to preserve than the warhead type.
