Bacab

Thanks but video don't give you the big picture, I would rather have an ACMI.

Is there any tacview recording publicly available for me to make my own opinion ?

I might not have been clear enough in my original post. My point is that you may want to fly down the Mirage only against fighter that are more advanced and when flying over friendly territory. The only planes that would force you to do that are fox-3 planes, planes the Mirage wasn't originally design to handle. Against opponent firing SARH missile like the R-33/R-40/AIM-7 it should do fine and flying low doesn't seem to be a valid tactic anymore.

See my edit, I was 2s too late. The AIM-54 is an hybrid SARH/AARH designed to take down bombers at long range. I doubt it would have behaved well against fighters (otherwise I don't understand why the AIM-120 would have completely changed the aerodynamic and the system design). The Iran-Iraq war is very difficult to analyze due to the lack of documentation.

The AIM-120 A was delivered for the first time to US forces in 1991. Therefore it wouldn't reach a country considered to be a threat to the French before at least a few year. And indeed 5 years later France began receiving Fox-3 The AIM-54 is an other story. I have no idea what threat it would have been. Iran claims several hit during the Iran-Iraq war but I have never seen an unbiased study of those engagement.

It might also be relevant to keep in mind the fact that the Mirage 2000C was never intended to counter any Fox-3 fighter. When it entered active duty the most advanced missiles available were all Fox-1. Later, when Fox-3 became the norm, the Mirage went through an upgrade process to stay up to date. Flying low has several drawbacks: it diminishes your range and the duration of your flight, it prevents you from flying efficient CAP by your own, it puts you at a disadvantage if the enemy spot you first, it makes you vulnerable to ground fire... I think it's only viable if your opponent has a huge advantage (which in reality may not have been the case since when this version of the plane was the backbone of French Air Force, Fox-3 weren't a threat yet)

Not very useful from the testimony I have red. However its efficiency in the sim remains undetermined because the main issue seems to have been its reliability and this is not simulated.

Glad to see other people suffer from this, I was wondering if my Warthog could be the source of the issue and now I'm reassured.

I don't think the Super 530D was fitted with an INS unit so even if the plane had been able to send data to the missile it would have been useless because neither the missile or the plane know where the missile is. That's why it rely only on its seeker to guide and because of that you need to shoot it in PIC. The reprogramation feature means the embedded software could be updated without changing the whole guidance section.

A Hawker Tempest !

In the context of DCS where missiles can't experience random hardware failure it might be better than it was IRL.

+1

It may also be used to rally a tanker.

Sorry to hear that. Good luck in your search then.

I don't know where you are living so my advice may not be suitable for your case. Where I live there are places dedicated to DIY enthusiasts called Fablab where you can find tools like drills, CNC, 3D printer, etc. Most often it's cheaper and less trouble than buying your own tools. Furthermore there is always someone ready to help you or teach you about technology and fabrication process.

Currently everything related to the Rafale' systems is classified. And that is also true for older French fighters. That's why Razbam had a hard time finding accurate informations for their M2000C.

With IFF or NCTR but they are not implemented yet.

I think it was designed to take down heavy bombers flying high, not fast moving jet fighter.

Those links are the most interesting things I have found on the Magic family: http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/636306/Matra_R550_Magic_LONG_text.html http://pakdef.org/r550-magic/ The first one is a bit difficult to read (seems like google translate was used) but its understandable.

I agree even if I am a bit sceptical about the 50g thing. (I think it might be obtainable only in very specific circumstances).

I hate to say that but this text sounds too much like an ad from the missile's maker to be completely trusted. I don't say the figures are false but there is too little context for them to be relevant and you can't base a flight model on them.

Keep in mind that this plane was not designed for AG missions. The dedicated version for AG, the 2000D, does not use the same avionics. That's why strike missions are not easy to do with the 2000C.

+ 1 Though I don't blame ED for that because data about missile seekers are very difficult to find and even when they can be found they are not to be trusted.

Right I understand the confusion. As you said in the last part I wasn't talking about the in-game simulation but about IRL mechanics. My point was just to say that IRL you can't rely on radar horizon alone to decide to apply the doppler filter or not.

Right :) but it is not related to the "radar looking down" which is what you said (yep I've made a short-cut assuming we were flying straight;)).