Quent

Was the bug reported already? Edit: Seems like it was.

I do agree with you, however the risks you are putting on your airframe and on your own life makes it clear you would rather resort to precision guided ammunition first. It is not really a question of weapon effectiveness but rather the risks it takes to employ it. It has always been crystal clear that the GAU-8 with DU rounds is a tank killer. And I always said it loud and clear.

I've always had this desire somewhere in my head of having big, bulky aircrafts made into DCS modules. Would be amazing to have ten players in the same B-17 using the multicrew sharing technology. ;)

Unlike the M2M it's not a fire and forget missle but you can still do what mister said, within the gimbal limits. :smilewink:

I think everything was said in the last two posts. Current war requirements tend to give the A-10 a COIN role, which is not what it was built for in the first place. It is in fact just because today that is the kind of war we are facing and the GAU-8, thanks to its versatility, can fulfill COIN missions. The GAU-8 was however made to be effective against well armored targets (or the ammunition it can fire rather), thus allowing a pilot to fire a volley of DU rounds for instance on tanks after he fired an AGM and is getting too close to use a precision guided ammunition. See it this way : Like fltsimbuff said, during the Cold War, there was a need for assets that could stop entire columns of tanks. Imagine a column, or successive rows of tanks headed for a country's border : A-10s would be sent by dozens if not hundreds to take down those tanks. Now, whilst heading for those successive ranks of tanks, they would take down the first rows with precision guided ammunition from far away. However, as they are getting closer, ammunitions are running low and it becomes difficult for the pilots to find the time to lock or release a precision guided ammunition, yet they are stuck with these tanks that they have to stop NOW, eventually, they resort to the GAU-8, which is effective still and allows a continuous support on the ground. One fact that we should never forget about is that the A-10 relies on its versatility and its ability to always have something handy against armors. Now the aircraft itself is one of the only aircrafts built around its GAU-8 rather than its engines - Designed during the Cold War and for a WW3 scenario-, Weird to be building an aircraft around a cannon which isn't effective at all against armored units, especially if its purpose is to fight a WW3 right? That alone proves the effectiveness of the GAU-8.

Darkwolf, You must be referring to cases in which precision ammunitions were delivered, however a gun run would not take place at a set deck of 12 000 feet. And truth is that there were alot of gun runs during the Gulf War. Like fltsimbuff already highlighted, the A-10 was built to be able to withstand a rather high amount of damage whilst executing its dangerous and low altitude strike missions. We often refer to the A-10 as a 'Flying Tank'.

The Mirage 2000 series of aircrafts is superior in every way to a MiG-21. Now if we're speaking of pure aerobatics and flight capabilities => -The Mirage 2000-C has a really long flight autonomy thanks to the really bulky fuel tanks it can carry, unlike the MiG-21. -The Mirage 2000-C has a lot wider wing surface than the MiG-21, making it alot more stable at low speed and allowing it to achieve steep manoeuvers with reduced chances of stalling unlike the MiG-21. -The FBW system allows the structure of the aircraft to be naturally unstable whilst still controllable, in other words the aircraft was made to be really agile and versatile. -The Mirage 2000-C has a really more powerful engine, radar and much more advanced avionics and weapon systems, (normally) ensuring it a win against a MiG-21, should the latter have the upper hand in a fight in any way. Having two delta wings aircraft in the same simulation platform does not automatically make them an even match and something to compare. Now, like stated in the previous posts, in DCS it will mainly come down to who has got the best piloting skills. We have surely all seen a MiG-21 taking down an F-15C.

Thank you for clearing this up for me, P*Funk, DCS cannot possibly incorporate the effects of a DU round on a vehicle. Technically the vehicle would still be in shape on the outside but not inside => Hence we can neither base the ineffectiveness of the rounds (because the GAU-8 is only the firing platform) on game results nor on that 70s report (which never referred to DU rounds fired from the GAU-8 being ineffective on T-62s in any way, suggesting Tungsten rounds were used at best). I keep repeating myself but a GAU-8, even though it would not be the weapon of choice for a tank kill (because it would draw unnecessary risks upon both the airplane and the pilot), remains effective against such targets IF firing the proper ammunition.

The A-10C is a CLOSE Air Support aicraft (CAS) it has no reason not to fire under a deck of 12 000 meters. (If you were trying to say something else then please elaborate) But AGAIN we're drifting off-topic here : It has never been question of debating on how and when to use the GAU-8 but RATHER about its effectiveness against armored targets so what exactly are you trying to pinpoint here? DU rounds shot from a GAU-8 WILL incapacitate a main battle tank (or rather the crew that is inside) if in sufficient number. For those eager to know more about the capacity of DU shells to completely mess up a tank, please find attached this little document, I suggest you take a look at the second page. http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/KYagasakiOnDU.pdf

I think it's not the modeling of the GAU-8 but rather, again, the modeling of the ammunitions. I do not think the A-G mix includes DU rounds but instead just tungsten rounds.

Not if you have altitude and your aircraft can withstand the Gs. Anyway we're drifting off topic again, we're not talking about whether it is reasonable or not for one's safety to dive at 10-20 degree angle but rather the damage a round fired from such an angle could do to a main battle tank. And it has been proven it can perform quite well even from a shallow angle, it just depends on the type of round you use.

Anyway, the performance in game is altered by the type of ammunition you are using and many other factors. In real life diving at a T-80U tank at a "shallow 10-20 degree angle" with DU rounds would totally incapacitate the tank. The initial debate took place around the 'poor' real life performance of the GAU-8 against main battle tanks according to reports from the 70s.

I think we're drifting off topic here. But let me share my input : Dear Mayh3M, You are referring to statements and reports emitted in the 70s. To my mind, it is irrelevant as of now and here is why : The GAU-8 fires 30 mm rounds (shells). In real life it can shoot four types of rounds (Some suit more for AA targets and others for AG) : Expanding rounds (soft point, semi-armored) for infantry and lightly protected targets; Full Metal Jacket (FMJ, can be Tungsten ore) rounds with a higher piercing capability; Incendiary rounds; And for larger and well protected targets, Uranium Depleted Rounds. Do you have any idea on what an Uranium Depleted Round does to a main battle tank? It is twice as dense as lead yet really sharp and it goes supersonic (five times the speed of sound), ensuring top notch penetration, whatever the angle (almost, and we will see why). Once it makes contact with metal or armored plates, it shaters them like glass because the denser a projectile is, the harder the impact will be. It goes through easily (especially on flanks and from behind) and the difference of pression (psi) it creates between the outside of a tank and the inside whilst going off kills instantly every living being operating the vehicle. Should they survive that, they will eventually die in terrible ways, such as burning alive in the slightly radioactive oven that the tank has become. Most of the time, anti-tank rounds are Tungsten rounds : Those rounds are really dense and hard however they shatter and mushroom once upon impacting with heavy armored surfaces, so how does a DU Round work and succeed exactly? : Well, you have an armored round containing a Depleted Uranium Core. Depleted Uranium is known to be pyrophoric - which means it starts igniting once it becomes exposed to air, melting and burning away the surface it impacts with. Once it penetrates inside, the pressure and the temperature are reaching such a high level that everything located inside the targeted vehicle dies. Know that Depleted Uranium Rounds were specifically created to deal with the ever evolving armoring technology seen on tanks nowadays. Hence the fact that the A-10 is a favored tank buster, precisely thanks to its GAU-8 and then its ability to carry a humongous load of weapon systems, all this versatility for a mere price of 11.8 million USD, which is ridiculously low for such a long lasting and effective air asset. (If you want a comparison, the price of an F-16 varies between some 14 million USD and 19 million USD depending on its version and block. Add to that less longevity and all the maintenance that goes with it compared to an A-10, cf. engine overhaul more regularly). In the end, it has never really been question of the GAU-8 itself being ineffective against heavily armored targets (or medium like the soviet T-62 tank) but rather the ineffectiveness of a certain type of ammunition. I hope this helped.

Funny idea!

The Mirage series of aircrafts has a mix of english and french terms in their cockpits and that's simply because some of the aeronautics terms in use are way easier to refer to in english than in french. As for Airbus assets, they all have english cockpits.

What's your point? I guess we don't really get it...

If that's not a huge hint I do not know what it is. Could we be getting a module by the end of 2015? :santa:

You guys are also not to forget that Nicholas is swedish, like the GR.1 :detective::detective::detective: Let us begin : ATCHATCHATCHATCHATCHATCHATCHA TCHA!

Hey Nick, There shouldn't be any recurrent compressor stalls coming with the 2000, since it is the C model, which is kind of a very recent aircraft (1984 is considered as recent in the aeronautic world). It is not the first french aircraft equipped with a turbofan type engine. Indeed, the Mirage III (TF 106 turbofan engine, french version of the Pratt&Whitney JTF-10), Mirage F1, the Super-Etandard and even the Alpha Jet are all using turbo-fan type engines. Perhaps the Mirage III had those issues.

Happy birthday Nicholas (Cobra)!!!! :yay::yay::yay::yay: Today is Nicholas' birthday. Thought good to wish a very happy birthday to one of DCS' most devoted developers. He deserves it. If we could manage to gather as many messages as we could on this topic that would be very cool and for once we would be the one making a surprise to LS (after the F-14 and all :music_whistling:). We wish him, his team, friends and family a very successful year.

Please stop with the passive agressiveness. What are you even saying :). I never spoke of "three misses", I just spoke about the missile never being effectively used by the US against bandits ;). Even though the AIM-54 might have tracked perfectly its target, it still missed so in the end it never was used effectively ;). I never said that the missile couldn't meet its advertised capabilites, I said it indeed did not perform well when the US used the missile, because of shit happening. The Iranian F-14s did take down aircrafts with the AIM-54A. So calm your tits cowboy. As for 'reliable sources' I've provided you with data links, so far that makes my message and facts way more reliable than yours. Please stop trying to show off and engage in arguing when your messages refer to and attack facts that are not even featured in other people's messages ;).

Please call it a Messerschmitt BF-109 but not a ME-109 :cry: it's not the ME-262. :cry: :helpsmilie: Super cool vid anyway.

Well, in terms of range, the maximum assumed distance that the AIM-54 can reach is 190 KM from its initial point of release, whereas the R-33's is only 160 (1999 version). But let us be honest, I don't think an AIM-54 would hit that often at such a distance, however it still makes it more probable for the missile to hit at 160km than the R-33, since the distance is 30 km short of the maximum range of the weapon device whilst this very distance is the limit of the R-33. This being said, in terms of distance, the AIM-54 wins. In terms of speed, the R-33 is assumed to reach a maximum speed that would stand between mach 3,5 and 4,5, while the AIM-54 can reach a speed of approximately mach 5, which would make it faster than its russian counterpart. In terms of percentage of chance for the missiles to hit, it's hard to say, atleast for the AIM-54 Phoenix. The few times the weapon was ever released in real conditions (by the US), it missed its targets, because the conditions were, well....real. Trainings are meant for the missiles to hit and thus we cannot base a general percentage of hit for the missile based on both training simulations and real air-combat situations. True, there are accounts that the missile was effectively used in the Iran-Iraq war and Iran claimed that it performed admirably, taking down a few iraqian aircrafts, HOWEVER we'll never be able to confirm those sources. You'll find here a good website with relevant and reliable data about Hughes Aircraft Company's most advanced long range missile (at the time). http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-54.htm I'll let the others look through data for the other aspects of the two missiles :)

Remember guys that he said that the F-14 theater would be 'very oceany and cold'. So no Libya or Miramar. I'd go for the Aleutians map too !!!

As the theater for the module is going to be very 'oceany and cold' I guess we could assume it is the deck of an aircraft carrier :) ( or just a display pedestal).