VincentLaw

So, I decided to go to the library today to see what I could find, and there are a large number of publications stating that the ARMAT can be used with the Mirage 2000. Two of these publications specifically mention the 2000C, while at least one other can be assumed by the context and date. There is absolutely no published contradiction to the possible compatibility of the RDI versions with the ARMAT. Being able to fire an ARMAT has nothing to do with the radar. Maybe a little out of context, but this is exactly the problem. We can't find specific details about the 2000C RDI and the ARMAT because France doesn't want us to know. There is more reason to believe it is capable than not, even if the AdA usually gives the SEAD mission to Jaguars and F1s. Here is my list of sources and contained quotes relating the Mirage 2000 to the ARMAT: Dassault Mirage: The Combat Log, Schiffer Military/Aviation History, 1996, p. 20. -- "Specification-Mirage 2000C [...] ARMAT anti-radiation missiles" "Variant Briefing: Dassault Mirage 2000", World Air Power Journal, vol. 37, Summer 1999 -- "An early weapon to be cleared was the MATRA ARMAT antiradiation missile, seen here carried by a 2000C-S1." Jane's Air-Launced Weapons, Issue 8, Jane's Information Group, 1989. -- "[ARMAT] has been cleared for carriage by Jaguar, Mirage F1, and Mirage 2000 aircraft." The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament, Salamander Books Limited, 1987, p. 97. -- "Armat has been in action from Mirage F1EQ Aircraft of the Iraqi air force, and is also in service with French Mirage 2000s." The European Missile Success Story, TTU-Certes, 2005, p. 126. -- "[ARMAT] weapons for Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000" International Electronic Countermeasures Handbook, Horizon House Publications, Inc., 2004, p. 149. -- "Usual load is two [ARMAT] missiles for a Mirage 2000" Les Missile Tactiques de 1945 à 1995, Paris: Centre des hautes études de l'armement, Département d'histoire de l'armement, 2004, p. 152. -- "160 missiles [ARMAT] furent produits pour équiper le Mirage F1 et le Mirage 2000" The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, Naval Institute Press, 1997. -- "ARMAT antiradar missiles carried by a French air force Mirage 2000" Here is another photo of an ARMAT loaded on a Mirage 2000C I found:

There are photos of the Mirage 2000C RDM carrying ARMATs. I don't have proof for or against the RDI versions, but if it can't carry the ARMAT then it is probably the only French version of the Mirage 2000 that can't. The ARMAT doesn't require a radar to use it, so the RDI itself is not a technical limitation in this regard. This document by RAND includes the ARMAT for the D, N, and -5 http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1235/MR1235.chap10.pdf

I think if a certain piece of equipment was qualified for use and simply never used, then it is realistic to include that equipment as an option. After all, if the entire Armée de l'Air except the Mirage 2000C S5 was grounded (which is basically the situation we will be in), then they might explore the limits of how the plane can be armed. If the aircraft is technically incapable of employing certain equipment, then it is better left out. Unfortunately it is very difficult to find information on certain capabilities of the Mirage 2000C. Even after hours of searching I have only seen two photos of rocket pods on the plane, I have not seen a single photo of the tail hook being tested or used, and not a single picture of GBU-12s on the plane despite the fact that they are definitely being used in operation.

This Mirage uses Matra rockets, not Hydra rockets. I don't know if RAZBAM plans to allow multiple stores per station or not, but I have seen photos of dual ejector racks on all of the wet hardpoints.

There is so much confusion about this that I would encourage ED to revise their product terms.

From the official announcement:

The developer stated that it will be an EFM, not an AFM. Many people are misunderstanding this.

Thanks, that does help, but what would I do if I had a serial bound to my account that I did not order?

I am a little bit confused by the new site layout. I thought there used to be a way for me to see a list of all the serial numbers currently bound to my account, but I can't find that anymore. Is there still a way for me to see what serials are bound to my account without knowing the serial numbers?

This seems to be a recurring problem. At the risk of confusing everyone even more, I'm going to provide an alternate way of thinking about stuff: SFM = SFM AFM = EDFM1 AFM+ = EDFM2 PFM = EDFM3 EFM = XFM Now with terms like that you only have to worry about three things: SFM I would call the simple flight model, because it is mainly used for AI planes. EDFM would be a flight model made by Eagle Dynamics, and a higher number means it is better. XFM is a flight model made by eXternal parties (third parties). It is not a standard of quality; it just means ED didn't make it. Now, let me know if that helps or if I just confused you more. (I used XFM instead of EFM so that it isn't too close to EDFM since that would also be confusing.)

The MiG-21 has such a high landing speed that you could use full afterburner on the "touch" component too.

This is wrong. EFM stands for "External Flight Model" which is the term for third party developed flight models (with Belsimtek as an exception). AFM and PFM are both terms for Eagle Dynamics developed flight models. The core of the SFM is also made by Eagle Dynamics, but it is highly configurable through lua files. Look here for more info: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

In the Caucasus map the edge of the world is infinite grass plains. I've done the equivalent of a circumnavigation without hitting any black "end of the world" area. Grass just keeps going and going. Obviously this is immersion breaking so having a low detail terrain buffer around the outskirts of the NTTR map is important. I would actually guess it's pretty likely. Judging by the editor view from the videos we have seen, the edge of the NTTR map is infinite ocean (instead of infinite grass), so as long as the editor allows us to place a unit in the ocean area, it should be doable. The current mission editor allows us to place units outside of the detailed map area in the infinite grass plains of the Caucasus.

Probe and drogue refueling is already in DCS. Both the Il-76 tanker and S-3 tanker work for this. There is also a bug that allows you to refuel a probe with the KC-135.

Since you are interested, here is a higher resolution (albeit highly artifacted from jpg compression) version of that screenshot from the RAZBAM facebook page.

In the attached picture the deflection is negative. Sign convention for elevons is negative for upward deflection and positive for downward deflection. It makes no sense to want more downward deflection anyway since both the pilot and airframe cannot withstand as many negative Gs.

Beta airplanes do not usually require the separate beta launcher to play them. The F-86, Bf 109, MiG-21, Hawk, MiG-15, C-101, Mi-8, Su-27, and F-15C are all still labeled BETA by the ED store, but you can fly them with the standard launcher. However, sometimes modules like the MiG-21 are available on the beta launcher prior to the standard launcher for a short period of time.

Removed my original post because it was added to MemphisBelle's post. Using the synthetic runway in zero visibility conditions will be fun.

I think RNeves is mostly shooting in the dark with that guess. There could already be a significant amount of work done for the RWR without the display elements in place yet, or it might simply not take that long to finish. I am more interested in hearing about the progress of the EFM since we don't have much info about that. I know it's harder to take an informative screenshot of a flight model than bombs dropping, so it's easy to understand why.

Based on how long ED normally keeps modern aircraft in the oven before releasing them, you would need to wait a few years from now if they decided to work on a Harrier. You may have also noticed that ED doesn't have a forum section on their WIP F/A-18C. I guess according to you they must not be serious about the Hornet. You can expect the first Harrier in DCS to come from RAZBAM or VEAO unless Leatherneck has one hidden up their sleeve.

Guys, put down the pitch forks. I think people don't realize how aggressive they sound even when they don't feel hostile. RAZBAM set out a list of modules they are interested in adding to DCS in the future. Yes it was premature to create forum subsections for those, but that mistake was resolved. RAZBAM has actually provided a lot of WIP material on their T-2 and Mirage projects which have been the focus of their DCS development (T-2 was put on hold in favor of the Mirage which delayed their first release). This is the kind of behavior that made other devs like VEAO and Belsimtek reluctant to show anything to the community. Please don't add another third party developer to that list.

Any airplane that can land on grass without instantly exploding in DCS does not use an SFM. According to the product terms page, the Su-25T has an AFM, and the Su-25 has an AFM+. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801 In any case, AI always uses an SFM, so it was essential for RAZBAM to develop the SFM for their Mirage 2000C even though they are developing an EFM for player controlled aircraft. I believe when he said the SFM was aerodynamically the same he meant that the SFM version very closely matches the performance charts for the real airplane. Of course there will be a noticeable difference between the SFM and an EFM/AFM/PFM in flight from the player perspective, but it is important for AI flight performance to be as close to the player flight performance as possible, and that is what RAZBAM has done.

Wags has a new Mirage 2000C avatar.

The location of NAS Fallon is actually within the boundaries of the map, but it will be in a low detail area and almost certainly completely unmodeled. It might be interesting to scout out the area in DCS, but I doubt there will be anywhere to land.

Fallon is about 50 miles east of Reno, which could provide some additional interesting city terrain and a route for people interested in civil aviation. (future airliner module anyone?) They might not have Hoover Dam or the Grand Canyon, but looking at Google maps I don't see a shortage of interesting things up there.