mattebubben
-
Posts
2269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by mattebubben
-
-
The Hud was updated (and changed ) due to new info.
So there are several Hud related changes.
-
No harriers to be knowledge has ever carried the AGM-84 or AGM-88 operationally. The radar is the same as the F/A-18C on the AV-8B+ and supports AGM-84's but i never seen a single picture or manual etc that supports the claim that they are used on the AV-8B+ platform.
The AV-8B Night Attack carries no radar, but a FLIR sensor with laser guidance to support laser guided AGM-65's, LGB's & i also think the AGM-122 Sidearm ARM missile was carried on the earlier AV-8B variants, but not 100 % sure on that one. You also of course will have an assortment of unguided munitions available to you.
In terms of Air to Air ordnance you're stuck with AIM-9's only for the AV-8B NA while the AV-8B+ is AIM-120 capable.
Minor correction about the radar sorry but i just have to.
:smartass:
the AV-8B+ uses the APG-65 so its the same radar as the F/A-18A
(most radars were taken from F/A-18A aircraft when they were upgraded to the F/A-18A+ Variant by giving them the new APG-73 radar of the F/A-18C ).
So its not the "same" radar as on the F/A-18C but its the same family of radar
(with the APG-73 of the F/A-18C being an improved variant).
And on subject of the AGM-82 i agree.
While there is plenty of claims of the AV-8B+ being Harpoon capable ive not seen definite evidence either way.
So it could either be that it does not have the ability or it does have it but its just not used (due to other aircraft being used for the role instead).
Since if it was a capability that was commonly used there would probably be more proof for it.
Edit:Darn =( spent to long time editing etc so i got sniped ^^.
-
I think they have said that this has been fixed and will be implemented in the next update.
-
Never use Wiki as a primary reference. It is good for starting researching about something, but not as a final say and not for reliable citations. Look what books they cite and see if you can get hold of those.
I based my information on technical orders (there's none in english).
Try finding Yefim Gordon's MiG-23/27 book from the Aerofax series. It is out of print and available for outrageous prices -- but the internet is a big place, with a lot to find. But take Yefim Gordon with a grain of salt. In the past, some information he provided turned out to be false or inaccurate. There's discussion about this in other threads (especially in his MiG-21 book and why it is not good to use it as only reference). Also, Yefim Gordon is probably not a real person, but a pen name for various russian writers writing/translated into english.
The best sources are technical orders/offical manuals of course... but you have to be proficent in (technical) russian/etc. to understand them, as most of them are not translated into english (or at least not shared -- see MiG-21bis manual, which was I think the translation (by an american intelligence service) of a captured arab (?) manual and was available first on the old pre-LNS MiG-21bis website)
Thanks mate.
I generally dont rely on Wikipedia but in this instance i was unable to find anything else that had detailed information on the subject.
But again thanks for the correction and info =).
-
I somehow doubt the F/A-18 will be the first A-G radar we will see in DCS ;)
#Viggen
It will be the first Modern A-G radar though that has all the abilities alot of ppl (fans of the F-16 etc) expect from a air-ground radar.
Since the Viggen A-G Radar is of an older type.
-
a F-5F would be possible perhaps but a T-38 would demand alot more work.
It would almost be a new aircraft (when it comes to development time)
since there are so many differences in Visual Models, Cockpit,Flight performance and flight model etc.
Where as a F-5F would require less work (as its just the Two seater variant of the F-5E) since its performance is pretty much the same the front cockpit should be more or less identical,
the systems etc should be the same and the change in visual model would be smaller then for a T-38.
And the F-5F is also fully combat capable giving it more of a use then a T-38.
-
Are you sure it was engine related and not Hydraulics related.
(Having the Hydraulics systems damaged when you got hit)
Or it could be due to the aircraft Loosing electrical power.
(Electrical power relies on the engine so when you loose the engine you will loose all electrical power after a certain period of time)
-
Could be that it was only AP/frag. Since when I compared it to the S13ot, the warhead weight was bigger while the HE load was smaller.
But we all know fragmentation damage in DCS. x)
Yeah now that you said it, I think you are right, there were high and low drag versions of the m71.
Here is an example of a source in english mentioning the Rockets of the Viggen.
"135 mm Bofors M70 rockets (either 21 kg GP warhead with 3.7kg explosive or 20 kg AP fragmentation warhead with 5 kg explosive) in pods of six each"
Source
http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/37viggen.htm
that was the only source i could find in a quick search gonna try to remember where i first read about the Different warhead types.
But speaking of the Viggens rockets i sure hope they get the Smoke trails right.
Since they are quite different from the current rockets and they look amazing.
[ame]
[/ame]That Diry Dark smoke looks very cool.
And i hope they manage to get custom smoke for those rockets instead of the standard white smoke trails.
-
Ok thanks for Clarification Prowler =).
And keep up the amazing work.
-
Afaik the gunpods get CCIP by radar ranging.
The 135mm rockets are limited to HE and training warheads in the swedish inventory afaik.
The bombs are limited to 16x 120kg HE bombs or ilumination bombs.
If you consider the BK90 a bomb is up to you. :D
If my memory is correct the there should be AP-Frag warheads for the Rockets as well and not just HE(GP).
And while the 120kg bomb is the only bomb carried by the Viggen it should be available in both Low drag (normal) and high drag configs
(if i remember correctly).
-
Q1
=A
I will most likely get it maby not on day one (Depends on the money i have at the time and if there are any other modules i want more at the time) but i will get it for sure.
Q2
The base harrier we are getting will not be equipped with a Radar (though they have said we might get a radar equipped AV-8B+ Later onces the radar functionality comes)
but the first/primary AV-8B we are getting will not have a radar.
Q3
= B.
Far more interested in the AV-8B since it will bring some new capabilities and will be a interesting little attack aircraft where as im personally not that interested in trainers.
Q4
=A.
It will be a interested and unique aircraft and will probably be very usefull sure it wont be as fast as a F/A-18 or as rugged as the A-10 and it will have a far smaller weaponsload then either but i think it will be a very interested and effective aircraft none the less.
Q5
They are working on both aircraft at the same time (as well as a number of others)
Since not all Razbam members are working on a single aircraft and many (if not most) devs have areas they are specialized on within the development of an aircraft/module and once they are done with what they are specialized at they move on to another aircraft since they might not be able to contribute any more to the current aircraft (at that stage) and no point in having them sit idle when they can work on something else.
So there are many projects worked on at the same time without really slowing them down all that much.
-
I thought you guys were doing the AV-8B NA (as the first with the + to possibly follow when the Ground radar arrives)
and not the Base AV-8B.
-
Thank you for the correction.
And this also shows the Dangers of going by Wikipedia (could not find that many other sources on the Mig-23)
This is the Quote from Wiki that got me so sidetracked.
"MiG-23bis("Flogger-G") Similar to the MiG-23P except the IRST was restored and the cumbersome radar scope was eliminated because all of the information it provided could be displayed on the new head-up display (HUD)."
And the Mig-23Bis is shown as one of the first Second Gen Mig-23s (after the Mig-23P and to my knowledge there was a Mig-23Bis it just never entered large scale production / use)
so my guess from that was that earlier aircraft used the Cumbersome radar display mentioned.
But thank you for getting me straightened out.
I knew Mig-23s used a HUD that displayed radar data i was just mistaken in what variants had it.
-
It's going to be the A4 Skyhawk without a doubt
Okay, that's just a dream but the Mig28, the F-14 and the A4 - Jesters Dead Aha
A Simple A-4 is on the way from Hoggit already.
-
Probably depends on what is ment with early.
In my mind the Basic Su-24 or the Su-24M would be the most likely (since post 2000 upgrades like the Su-24M2 would be less likely as they are more classified)
And either could be called an early version by todays standard
(with the Base Su-24 entering service in 1974 and the Su-24M in 1983)
So an early (as in not the latest) version i think would be the most likely then its just a matter if they go with the Earliest (Su-24) or the slightly later but far more capable variant (Su-24M)
Personally i would hope for a Su-24M since its FAR more capable in all areas and most of the capabilities we thinking of when we think of the Su-24 are from the Su-24M and not the base version
(Laser/Optical system allowing to self laze,The ability to use TV guided weapons, and most of the weapons it uses like the KH-25 and KH-29 etc).
-
I very much doubt two devs will do the same aircraft at the same time (Even if they made slightly different variants).
Since while it might be possible in theory i doubt it.
But if Avio Stops work on their F1 then sure but until then i dont think Razbam will do a F1 (in the nearby future).
-
Please please please please the Mirage F1C !
To complete the entire Mirage family (III , F1, 2000)!
The Mirage F1 is already being worked on by Aviodev.
They have a Thread on the Forum and some pictures for it.
-
ohh?.
I was simply going by the sources ive been able to find (Including Wiki etc)
and they had led me to believe that the first generation Mig-23s (M,MF etc) still used a radar display and that the Bis was the first that ditched the radar display.
If i was incorrect then i acknowledge that, i was simply going by the sources / info i had been able to find.
Do you know of any Sources in ENG with correct information? since i would be very interested in knowing more about the Mig-23
(as its an aircraft that i like).
-
Yea same here.
a Su-17M4/22M4 or a Mig-23 ML/MLA or MLD would be amazing.
Su-17M3/22M3 would also be very nice.
Older variants of the Mig-23 would still be nice and interesting just less amazing.
For example a Mig-23MF would be nice but it would not be as nice/interesting as something like a Mig-23ML would be since the MF did not have a Hud and used a separate radar display where as the later mig-23s like the Bis,ML,MLA and MLD had a Hud with the radar info displayed on the HUD like was done on the Mig-29 and Su-27.
(And the ML,MLA and MLD were just overall superior to the MF on all fronts with better Radars weapons engines and being lighter and more maneuverable etc)
-
Lightly used Mig-21s in mint condition!
Now on sale for just 19.99$
(Transport cost and spare parts not included in price)
-
Ive had a problem at times that the rocket pods stopped working after i had launched both my aim-9s.
-
dont really understand what you mean right here =P.
What do you mean with missiles do not engage in the sun?
Do you mean that the missile seekers dont lock on the sun?
-
mig-31 might seem like an f-14 analogue but they are in no ways historical rivals
foxbat would be of more interest i think, not to mention there would be more info available on it. not sure if its enough to build a module off of.
Well we have the F-14s true rival being made.
The Backfire!!! (Tu-22M)
Since it was pretty much what the F-14 was supposed to counter
(since the primary mission of the F-14 was fleet defense and the Tu-22 was the fastest and most powerful of the soviet anti-ship aircraft).
-
I joined the forum just to ask if they plan to make the MIG-23 :)
I would love to see that, AFAIK the first historically BVR capable aircraft from East side.
Well the ussr had BVR capable aircraft before the Mig-23.
For example the Su-15 predates the Mig-23 by several years
(The Su-15 entered service in 1965)
and it could (maby)be considered BVR capable.
The Su-11 used the same missile as the Su-15 and entered service one year before the Su-15 so its also potentially BVR capable (it depends how you judge whats BVR or not)
And the Mig-25 entered service at around the same time.
with the Mig-25P and Mig-23SM entering service the same year (1971)
(the pre production Mig-23SM being the first Mig-23 variant with the new BVR/R-23 capable radar)
but only 80 or so Mig-23SM aircraft were made so its not untill 1972 with Mig-23M that there was a Mig-23 that was being mass produced and it was BVR/R-23 capable etc.
Im unsure if the Missiles of the Su-11/Su-15 are truly BVR missiles but the missiles of the Mig-25 is without BVR so either way the Mig-23 was not the First BVR capable eastern combat aircraft even if it was just by a narrow margin ^^.
But maby more significantly the Mig-23 was the first eastern fighter with Look Down Shoot down capability (Starting with the Mig-23M).
And yea the Mig-23 (MF,ML/MLA or MLD) is near the top of my wishlist as well =).
(Together with a Su-17/22 and Mig-27).
AV-8B Harrier Thread
in AV-8B N/A
Posted · Edited by mattebubben
Well its "Anti-ship" mission would be against small lightly armed (Or unarmed) ships.
Landing crafts and Patrol Boats as well as Trade ships and transports etc.
Small ships (that can be seriously hurt or outright sunk by a AGM-65) with only lighter Anti-Air weapons
(smaller autocannons and Manpads etc).
Leaving larger ships for Navy aircraft etc.