ShadowFrost

I dont believe so, in everything I've read there hasn't been any indication of such a weapon. I think we all need to realize is that this aircraft is quite modern, the 6th prototype being created in 2006. With initial small batch production (of 2?) in early 2007 sent to Pakistan. The first squadron of 14 (in Pakistan) reached initial operational capability in early 2010 to give an idea of how few there were just under 10 years ago. So referencing the above, I dont think any SARH weapon was requested (or developed) as more advanced full active missiles are currently the standard. It being so new, it just wasn't developed as technology moves forward. Obviously, nothing official, but I've done a lot of reading and haven't seen any hints towards such a weapon. I'm sure a Deka Dev will respond at some point, they are just very busy, so hopefully my answer is sufficient until then.

Im not entirely sure what you've been going on about, but the SD-10 (PL-12) is the weapon the JF-17 has been planned to be equipped with since it reached operational service with block I. I think you may be confused with the PL-15 which has been trialed on block II (planned for III) and may see active service with block II due to PAK concerns about adversaries out-ranging the SD-10 (PL-12). SD-10s were considered against the MBDA MICA in 2007 https://web.archive.org/web/20080225164219/http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw071129_1_n.shtml And then pictures from 2013/2012 of PAK aircraft carrying SD-10 and presumably since even earlier during testing. http://pakmr.blogspot.com/2013/07/jf-17-armed-with-2-x-sd-10-bvraams.html http://pakmr.blogspot.com/2012/10/jf-17-spotted-with-pl-12sd-10-beyond.html First operational squadron was established in 2010 with 14 aircraft and have been steadily increasing sense. And a source that confirms it was the weapon to be used on JF-17 from 2009 https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pakistan-begins-domestic-final-assembly-of-jf-17-329056/ Which also confirms talks of the MBDA MICA from the first source. Edit- Additional source http://pakmr.blogspot.com/2012/11/jf-17-thunder-fighter-gets-airborne.html

I was the one that did the first tests on the PL-12 when it was released to the game files. (On my own, not affiliated with Deka) Lets call this version 1. I had first assumed that the initial performance of version 1 was making up for DCS limitations (IE lofting). But even then the missile, version 1, over performed by a good margin in straight line comparisons. The two comparisons I made to data were, to a interview from a SD-10 designer and AIM-120C-5 CFD thats been floating around for a while. The SD-10 performance stated by the engineer had a range of 70km when launch and target aircraft where moving at mach 1.2 at 10,000 meters. This put it between the aim-120C and the 120B by their standards. It over performed against both data sets by a good margin. 20% or more at 10,000 meters. The PL-12 version 1, traveled 80km under those conditions, which AFAIK, should not be the case. As the 70km referenced above is off the rail range, not the missile traveled distance (I believe, correct me if I am wrong). A comparison of DCS performance is shown below. Looking at Deka's A2A video, it appears the missile now fits in between the 120C and 120B as it supposedly should IRL. Edit- the referenced data below is not the most accurate, I got the climb/descent much closer to a straight line in tests after that, it did not change the results by much at all. I would safely say, margin of error is +/- .3NM. The chart should say Nautical miles, not miles. It was corrected in later charts :) Second Edit- the referenced interview is the same as the one reported early in this forum/thread. Post #14 for those curious.

Iran also considered getting the JF17 (and may still be) I don't know how far negotiations got. But just on that premise its no issue to imagine Iran could have them.

I think the above is a good way to do it, it allows for the servers to choose their desired level of complexity. (Force simple on/off) I think thats the best solution as certain servers will want it one way or the other and that allows the most options for mission creators and servers to avoid potential problems. Knowing that M4/M2 can't be hacked is good, I imagine people will really only pay attention to mode 4 due to it being coalition based and the least likely to give players problems. 10 minutes should be fine, I dont see any issues with that.

I think its fine to have it the way it is setup, provided the codes are well receivable (not difficult to find what code is needed where). I dont agree with the enemy team being able to mimic IFF friendly returns though, as its a game, someone would share them to an opposite team eventually and that would create problems. The only other option I would say is, have it where if your codes are correct, all the aircraft you IFF will return the correct designation that way you are at fault for team killing vs both parties needing to be correct. IE - the first option is as it is now Second option- all aircraft IFF the same way as option 1, except enemy aircraft never provide a friendly return even if their code is correct. Third option- If your inputted code is correct, all aircraft will return the correct indication including improperly setup JF-17s. Enemy team will never show as friendly. Third option enables less team killing but still requires you to setup the aircraft in order for it to work. Fourth option (if possible) allow it to be server set it in the mission editor, give the server an option to force correct IFF vs using the system as it is currently.

First one was posted Sunday at 14:50 GMT-4.

Always a chance my sources are wrong, but the fuels can have different densities but I imagine even with that it wouldn't make for that sort of margin of error. So I don't know, maybe the fuel density on wiki is wrong for the F/A-18? Either way, in regards to JF-17, your not working with as much fuel as you first imagined :) AFAIK

I think the weight per liter for fuel in your calculation needs checking. Total aircraft weight for fuel is approximately 10,300lbs. 3000 liters internally, 3000 liters externally. ~5150lbs of fuel internally, so fuel weight per liter is 1.71 lb per liter. Obviously, my used data could be wrong, should only be taken as approximate. Sources : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fc1xiaolongjf17thund/ https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17s-ferry-and-combat-ranges.462726/ https://quwa.org/2017/08/31/profile-avic-pac-jf-17-thunder/

Agreed, though I thought I had heard about a pre-plan coordinate attack (or similar, not sure what its called) where you didn't have to use the seeker manually. I wonder if that is still possible, as the video made it sound like you were required to find the target manually using MITL in the last stage. Edit- And the fact that it has some degree of TFR will also increase the survive-ability of the missile.

Yeah thats what I meant, no DCS sam will engage a weapon thats a "bomb" so theyre pretty damn effective, especially when you consider the LS-6 will have around 30% more range than the GBU-38. Where as JSOWs/C802s will be engaged because they are missiles. But thats on the assumption that the LS-6 will be classified like any other JDAM and not like a JSOW/Missile. (IE will it be interceptable by SAMs or not due to DCS logic). LS-6 cited range is at 36k 485knots is 60km. Which equates to about 30% more than DCS GBU-38. Source : https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-GBU.html Edit- Grammar

Agreed, JDAMs are likely the most deadly weapon in the game. Not sure how the LS-6 will be classified in the game, but if its "bomb" it won't be intercepted by any missile system. If its coded as a missile, then it will likely not be too much of a concern. Just nothing in DCS actively intercepts bombs. I think the C802/SLAM-ER (provided they cant be manually flown, IE too difficult, just above treetop level) shouldn't be an issue due to the effectiveness of SAMs against most aircraft launched missiles. The GB-6, depending on how stealthy it is, will be pretty deadly I imagine. But if there is even one TOR present, I imagine you will say goodbye to the C802s.

At least 32 flares 36 chaff, look at the picture a few posts above. Edit- Also, I believe the numbers below 32/36 are flare/chaff bingos. I could be wrong, thats just my assumption.

Thats what I like to hear!

That was 14 days ago, I'd expect mid October. Its soon, just october 1st is pushing it, but its soon.

I think where that stipulates from is that the JF-17 was designed with an open architecture to be able to support Aim-9/120/etc. Its weapon systems architecture was designed in a specific way it could pick them up (and others) to allow effective use of other weapons in the future for any variety of reasons. And therefore people assume that it should carry them only because its, design wise, potentially possible. Also, there is no telling if the D/L or radar of the aircraft can communicate with those specific missiles. There is also a variety of reasons why they wouldn't work and not necessarily on the JF-17's end. Aim-120s can't just be put on any plane, their IDs are country bound, amognst various other bounds, to stop them from being exported because they would essentially be useless as they wouldn't work on just any aircraft (of the ones that can use them already). Someone wrote a good write-up on the above ^ previously, if I could find who I will more than provide a link. Also, Deka may prove me wrong on the above, thats just whats stated on public sources so there is always a degree of inaccuracy.

Facebook page for Deka was created March 25, 2017. So I'd say something like three years (maybe more). I'm sure someone from Deka will eventually answer, but they're quite busy currently. Hopefully this helps, but its only an assumption from me.

That is a pretty good idea.

I think the answer to that is 'most people don't know much about" :) , if there is anything Deka could use before release is some good advertising/displays/demos. For those of us that have been following it for a year+ we have a decent idea. But for those that haven't, information may be somewhat difficult to find, obviously it would be nice to get some extra information provided in a straightforward way (trailer).

As the man says. :)

Glad to hear he is back, best wishes to him. Being in the hospital is horrible, hope he is doing better.

RWR and MAWs. So AFAIK, standard RWR plus the MAWs that detects rearward missile launches. And your correct, the F-16 doesn't have MAWs as far as I know, at least the variant we will get. The sensor looking out to the left on the picture, one on both sides.

Thanks for the info! :thumbup:

Yeah LS-6 is this? Correct? What warheads will the GB-6 have? If your able to say at this point in time. Thanks, Shadow

I would assume he means this, as its literally called a GB-6. And the LS-6 was on the EA chart so I imagine that is not the case.