Jump to content

mattebubben

Members
  • Posts

    2269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by mattebubben

  1. I would much rather have the Island to 1982 spec. With no Mount Pleasant airbase and with Port Stanley as the only paved runway. Preferably with the Port Stanley runway the length it was during the war, Though i would be Ok with the port stanley runway being given the extended post war length (it was extended using aluminium planking soon after the war ended to allow F4 Phantoms to be based there) if the alternative is adding Mount Pleasant as that would still make it so there is a runway able to accept most aircraft without changing the map in a more significant way.
  2. The the answer is that it is a VERY VERY big bomb. So the area effected by the explosion is large to try and give a similar area of destruction. (I think that in regards to making large craters only the mig-21s nuke has it beat) Its far from perfect though and it has a large problem in that its guidance system works differently. The way it is modeled it will impact the ground on the coordinates to set of the bomb, But this has the result that it is less capable at avoiding the ground during its flight then the normal BK 90 and if it does hit the ground during its flight to the target it will explode. So it is not uncommon to be killed by your own bomb when it hits the ground if you drop from low altitude.
  3. Ok i just did some more testing against a wider group of targets. And it seems some of the light armor such as BMP-1 are completly immune to the 30mm fire. But i am able to kill BTR-80s as well as the armored trucks if i get repeated direct hits. So it seems that the Ammo is not the issue (not 100% atleast though i think they should probably be able to kill the BMP-1 also) So it seems its more a problem of getting repeated hits on target.
  4. I think there might be a bug with the ammo. They used to work fine against light armor but now they seem to do no dmg against light armor and only work against unarmored targets. (The trucks you guys are attacking are the armored ones thus you do no dmg). I think this is a new bug since i remember killing apcs just a few days ago with the gunpods but when i tried it again today i did no dmg. Was only able to kill unarmored targets.
  5. What rudel said is correct. I would just like to add that there is no need to set the QFE when using the gunpod in ANF as it uses radar ranging (Gun Pods,Rockets and Divebombing when set to ANF uses Radar ranging so does not need QFE to be set) And also there is no need to turn of autotracking as its off by default. But most importantly Crash is that the gunsight is only accurate when the fire cue appears (the wings appear) at that point press the trigger (within 0.5 sec for the best accuracy) and fire a 1 second burst (after 1 sec the firing solution will start to become incorrect). What you can also do with the guns if you want the rounds to hit a larger area is to pitch up and down slightly as you fire doing this you can also fire a longer burst (2-3 sec if you want to spray a larger area) and it should cover the target area in rounds. This is especially usefull when attacking packed targets etc. Overall the Guns are accurate enough as long as you fire on the fire cue. (Sometimes they can be too accurate as the locations of the guns can be a problem since even if you aim perfectly at smaller targets the rounds can sometimes hit either side of the targets just due to the seperation between the gunpods) But all in all the gunpods are very usefull against unarmored targets.
  6. ?... Why are you combative with me about this? I simply said if i had to pick between a Mirage IIIE and a Mirage 5 it would be on a case to case basis and that some Mirage 5 variants were more capable (i never said i wanted those particular variants only that there were some that were more capable). You then asked me to give an example so i gave an example of different Mirage 5 variants. I have never said i wanted a 5PA2 or a 5PA3 i only gave examples of Mirage 5 variants that are more capable then the mirage IIIE in some ways... So dont try to turn this into me begging for the most capable variant as im not... The most important aspect for me as to what aircraft i want is not how capable it is but rather how well it fits in DCS and with the maps and scenarios that exist (or are planned). That is why i would take a Dagger over a Mirage IIICJ or a Mirage IIIE or EA. And why i might take a Mirage 5 AD or Mirage 5 EAD over a Mirage IIIE or a Mirage 5F. (Mirage 5AD being the radarless Attack variant and the 5EAD being the Radar equipped Fighter-Bomber version) as the 5AD and the 5 EAD were the UAE variants and as such they fit perfectly with the Persian Gulf map. For me the best pick for DCS (Outside the Falklands map) would probably be either the UAE variants or the Egyptian Mirage 5SDE Figher-Bomber. The Egyptian variant works pretty well with map since even though Egypt is not a part of the map they did see some action during the Iran-Iraq war (with a few being sent to Support Iraq and two being lost to Iranian fighters) and as such its pretty plausible to to add them to most scenarios for this map that invloves conflict with iran (Saudi,UAE vs Iran etc). Pakistani or French Mirage III or Mirage 5 variants could also work as they could also fit in Fictional Persian Gulf scenarios (With Pakistan Being a Neighbour to Iran and France is capable of sending Expeditionary forces to take part in conflicts in the area and also being the most plausible for the Caucasus map) With the Egyptian aircraft also being interesting due to the fact that They were actually bought by Saudi Arabia but for Egypt so they have additional tiein with the area as even though they never flew in Saudi Arabia as they were delivered straight to Egypt (though in Saudi markings). http://www.easternorbat.com/html/dassault_mirage_5_eng.html
  7. There are a large number of Mirage 5 variants with different avionics sensors and systems. (Some with no radar some with the Cyrano II radar some with the Cyrano IV radar and some with the Agave radar etc) Pakistan is a great Example. Pakistan ordered 3 distinct Mirage 5 Variants (4 if you include 2 seater) the first was the Mirage 5PA and was a "normal" radarless attack version. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/7/0/2818077.jpg?v=v40 the second was the Mirage 5PA2 which is a fighter variant with the Cyrano IV radar (Same radar as the Mirage F1) https://defence.pk/pdf/media/paf-mirage-5pa2.3912/full?d=1460622296 and the third was the Mirage 5PA3 which was a Anti-shipping variant equipped with the Agave and was exocet capable. https://www.militaryimages.net/media/pakistan-af-mirage-5pa3-with-am-39-exocet.14261/full?d=1521490552 the Mirage 5 tended to differ from customer to customer as to their capabilities and not all of them were the radarless attack aircraft that the first version was. And then we have the Mirage 50 which was the next step after the Mirage 5 and differed even more. With the Mirage IIIE most aircraft of the family are pretty much the same but that is not true of the Mirage 5 family. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_5#Variants Also to note when it comes to Argentina they also operated the Mirage 5 as during the war Peru Donated 10 mirage 5P aircraft to Argentina including weapons such as the AS-30 the Aircraft and weapons were delivered to Argentina before wars end but i dont think they got there in time to see service.
  8. For me it depends on the variant. Mirage III CJ or a Dagger then i go Dagger. Mirage IIIEA or Dagger then i go Dagger. For the Falklands scenario i see the Dagger as being more important then the Mirage IIIEA (Larger numbers saw much more combat and had a direct impact on the conflict where as the IIIEA did not) for a Falklands scenario we NEED a Dagger just as much as we need a Seaharrier or a Gr.3 where as a IIIEA is purely optional. But if we are going outside of the Falklands i would prefer a Mirage IIIE (Would still take a Dagger over a IIICJ though) though in that scenario i would also prefer a Mirage V over a Dagger. And if i had to pick between a Mirage IIIE or a Mirage V it would depend on the exact variant as there are many Mirage V variants that i would say are superior to the Mirage IIIE.
  9. Would it be possible to add some Su-25A slot at some forward airfields (atleast 1-2) i know its not a very popular aircraft in MP compared to the Su-25T but only having them located at the starter airfields more or less completely removes them as an option since you have to fly 20-40min (atleast) to get to the target where as with the Su-25T you can base closer to the targets ontop of the fact that it can kill more per sortie. (For example who is gonna take a Su-25A from Kerman or Shiraz when you can take a Su-25T from Lar,Bandar Abbas or Havadarya) So having some Su-25A slots on the closer airfields would atleast make it a viable option. Especially when the Su-25A is one of only a few "Iranian" aircraft we have available.
  10. Im actually excited whenever this happens. As i gives me an excuse so show off that thrust reverser. And given how much time i have spent trying to master the art of reversing in the Viggen every excuse to show off is a + :smilewink:.
  11. Well most sources i can find give the Saab J35 a Climb rate in the ball park of 10 500m/min. So its by no means a slouch when it comes to climb rate.
  12. Well those two engines makes it heavier, more expensive and reduces its endurance significantly. So i dont see whe the French should be jealous about it. Having more engines does not automatically mean better it just means its a less efficient design as it requires more thrust for comparable performance. For example if we compare the Lightning and the Saab J35 Draken. They both use the Avon engine. They both do Mach 2. they had comparable range (slightly better If carrying Exteral Fuel tanks),comparable climb performance and armaments capacity (and superior armaments load for those upgraded in the 1980s with two extra pylon which gave it 6 weapons pylons with 4 able to carry External fuel tanks or missiles). But the Lightning has two engines instead of 1 and weighs significantly more (Empty the Lightning is almost twice the weight as the Draken). In my eyes this makes it an ineffecient design rather then a better one and its a similar case with the mirage III as its engine is actually less powerful then the Avon but still capable of similar performance. The Lightning was not a bad interceptor but if i had to pick between similar aircraft of that era (J35 Draken,Mirage III,F-104) to serve as the main Fighter for an airforce the Lightning would be my last pick.
  13. Indeed. And it would have been interesting to know if the outcome would have been any different if the two Mig-23s in the Sidra encounter had been had been Second gen Mig-23s (P,ML,MLA,MLD) flown by experienced well trained pilots. As its possible the fight might have been different had that been the case considering how close they got to eachother. Since the First missile launched by the F-14s that hit was launched about 8km (third Aim-7 launched as the first two that were launched at 22km and 19 km had missed) so that was well within the Capability of the R-23 or R-24 in a head on engagement (Especially in the case of a R-24 as it could probably have fired at around the time of the first or second shots taken by the F-14s) so it would have at the very least been an exchange of missiles instead of the one sided affair it was against the Libyans. The F-14s would still have had the advantage but it would certainly have made for a much more even engagement.
  14. Well you have to consider that the Mig-23 flown by the Libyans at the Sidra encounter was the Mig-23MS which was a very much downgraded model. For example it had the RP-22 radar from the Mig-21 and if i remember correctly it was only able to carry the R-3/R-13 series of missiles so not only was it unable to carry the R-23/R-24 BVR missiles it was also unable to carry the R-60 for close range encounters. And it also lacked the IRST. This overall made the Mig-23MS probably inferior to the Mig-21Bis in terms of combat capability as it had the same radar but inferior weapons while also being less agile. The Mig-23MLA is on a whole different level from the Mig-23MS as it weighs less has a more powerfull engine and a Radar / weapon system that is miles ahead of the Mig-23MS (as it had a capable Radar with look down capability + the ability to carry the R-23 and R-24 BVR missiles in both Radar and IR guided forms). So the Mig-23MLA outclasses the Mig-23MS in every way and is much more lethal. While the F-14 still has the advantage over the MLA they might be in for a shock if they come in expecting an easy win.
  15. I dont think the RBS 15G was actually developed though. It was just a variant that was planned / considered but never actually built. (and Sweden did not get the GBU-15 either). And the picture you linked seems to be just Showing a normal RB 15F (With a RB75 on the outboard station) being carried by a JAS 39 Gripen. There were multiple ideas / plans for weapons / airplanes etc considered / written about in the 1970s and 1980s that were not fully developed (Saab A20, Saab A38/B3LA in the case of aircraft and RB 72, RB 73 and RB 82 as examples Missiles just to name a few) So the RB 15G was just one amongst all of those proposals that was never fully developed / adopted but instead canceled early on.
  16. +1 for A-6 = A-7 :smartass:
  17. Nice =) i like the deep strike missions. Now about moving some Viggens to one of the closer airbases :smartass:. So they too can do deep strike instead of being back at Al Dhafra. Since the Viggens could use that closer base even more as they can only carry 1 bag and are unable to refuel mid-air unlike the A-10,AV-8B and F/A-18. You dont have to move all just maybe 4-6 of them to Al Min or Al Mak. #ViggenLivesMatter
  18. Well if we want a aircraft based on the Mirage III they could go with the Kfir. Maybe a C.7? as that would be a interesting aircraft that has seen combat and is in service with multiple users. Since that is also a Mirage variant but its more used / produced then the Mirage 50 with larger operators. (Even the US operated the Kfir as an agressor aircraft for a while) A Nesher could also be cool though it would be a more minor change compared to the Mirage III and not add much when it comes to capability unless they made it a Dagger which is more capable and would mesh well with the Falklands map (though again that would make it a less numerous / used aircraft). But if we wanted an Upgraded Mirage III then the Rose series could be an option or perhaps the Atlas Cheetah. But overall there are sooo many aircraft that could or should be made before any of those if we look at capability,numbers made and overall importance. And im not sure how well a Mirage 50 would do sale wise (It would be interesting for sure but would not have as much hype as many other possible aircraft) since if people wanted a modern dela fighter why not just jump the entire step and buy the Mirage 2000 instead of a upgraded mirage III/V. And also you are missing one big point about the Mirage III. The reason people are interested in it is because it is one of the most Iconic fighters of the 1960s/70s were it served with a large number of nations and saw combat on multiple occasions. The Mirage IIICJ variant that Razbam are making is the variant that saw the most action as it was used by the Israelis in multiple conflics and in those conflicts it created the legend of both the Israeli airforce and the Mirage III. So most people who would be interested in either the Mirage 50 or the Mirage III want that iconic cold war fighter and to simulate how it worked and flew, And not how an obscure 1980/1990s variant with no combat record and little impact on aviation works/flies. Since those who only want performance/capability will go for the Mirage 2000 or F/A-18C instead (or one of the other more modern aircraft currently in production such as the F-14 or F-16C etc)
  19. Are you planning to add additional Targets for the F/A-18C? (Such targets would also be very suited to the AJS 37) Targets such as Supply depots,Cargo ships in Port or infrastructure etc (Maybe some Iranian Oil Fields or offshore oil rigs?) defended by AAA and Older Radar sams like the hawk,SA-3 and SA-6 etc. Since i know im not alone in wanting to do more air-ground in the Hornet but with the current armaments options the current CAS type missions are not perfect as its not as enjoyable or suitable to hunt tanks / vechiles defended by IR sams with unguided bombs / rockets as that is a task more suited for the A-10 and AV-8B at the moment. So placing some Appropriate targets in Northern Oman or on some of the Islands (perhaps even on Qeshm) defended by AAA and Radar sams would give the F/A-18C pilots more opportunities to use the F/A-18C in its true multi-role capacity. Also this would not be a post of mine if i did not include something about the Viggen... Now with the Addition of even the F/A-18C to the forward airfields could we please have some of the AJS 37s moved to one of the more forward airfields since now it makes even less sense to have the AJS 37 back at Al Dhafra.
  20. One more suggestion. Would you consider moving the AJS 37s closer to the front (Al Minhad with the other A2G aircraft or another airfield in the area) if not all of them then just a few, Since while the AJS 37 can fly the distance from Al Dhafra with no problem but placing it that far back penalizes it compared to the AV-8B and the A-10. Since Flying from Al Dhafra makes it impossible to compete with the AV-8B for the Cas type missions since the AV-8B has a greater weapons carry capacity and the cruise speeds for the AV-8B and the AJS 37 are comparable (with heavier loads the AV-8B actually has the advantage and especially on the Gulf map). So it does not really make sense to me why the AJS 37 would be placed back with the Fighters as it removes the only advantage the AJS 37 can have compared to the other air-ground aircraft for the CAS type mission which is the ability to get to and from the target very quickly using afterburner but starting from Al Dhafra removes this for the first sortie as even if you burn to Alpha a AV-8B will still get there faster then you and at that point you will be very low on fuel (even if you alternate AB stages to be more fuel efficient). So Rack this up to 1 more "complaint" from the Viggen Fanboi :thumbup:
  21. Im so happy you guys went to Gulf map =) I was worried if there would be enough MP servers to make it worthwhile but with you guys moving there that removes that worry. A Few questions and suggestions about the plane set. First why is there no F-5E for the Iranian side? =P i mean its the only Fully modeled aircraft in DCS that is currently operated by Iran (and there are even Iranian Skins for it). Second. Would it be possible to switch the SU-25A from Russian to Iran (As then it will have Iranian skins) and also would you consider adding the Mig-29A to Iran (as there are also Iranian Mig-29 Skins) That way we will give us more Iranian Airforce aircraft to pick from instead of primarily Russian / Chinese for the Red side. And Lastly. Would you considers having 2 versions on the map on rotation (If not now then down the line) One with sequential target areas (as it is now) and one with multiple targets of different types spread over the map from mission start (as it was initially) Personally i prefer the second (as it was initially) as that gives you more variety and also lets you pick a suitable target depending on the aircraft you are currently flying which is especially helpful for people like me who like to fly the AJS 37 (and thus dont like the CAS type targets that are the standard with Sequential target areas)
  22. mattebubben

    Mirage F1

    Argentina did not operate the Mirage F1. They had the Mirage IIIEA and the Nesher (Israeli built Mirage 5). The Mirage F1 have seen plenty of combat though with a large number of operators and seen combat in multiple parts of the world (Middle east,Africa and South America) And during the Gulf war it was not only operate by France and Iraq but also by Kuwait and Qatar.
  23. 2 Questions. 1st. Are you guys going to update to Openb eta 2.5.1 both for the memory manager but also for other new additions such as the J-11A. 2nd With the addition of the J-11A for the red side would you consider bringing the Mirage 2000 back to the blue side?. Since otherwise we will be stuck with just the F-15 as the blue fighters while the Reds would have Su-27,Su-33,J-11A,Mig-29 and Mirage 2000. the J-11A will also very much balance things out as with its R-77 + the ability to still carry the R-27ET and the R-73 it packs a very potent weapons mix. As the Red side no longer really need the figher capabilities of the Mirage 2000 (as they have more potent fighters) and for tossing laser guided bombs they have the F-5E (if you would change Laser code the Red Jtac uses atleast).
  24. RB 75 is the Swedish Designation of the AGM-65A and was the standard version in Swedish version. RB 75T is based on the RB 75 but has a heavier warhead. And the RB 75B is a fictional designation for the AGM-65B. The B has an improved seeker that has a greater level of zoom which makes it easier to see / lock targets at greater range (though it has a narrower FOV instead) Sweden never acquired the B though the AGM-65B would have been compatible with the AJ/AJS 37 as the it could carry the A. (Sweden never acquired the B since at the time Sweden bought the maverick the AGM-65A was the only option and they were all delivered before the AGM-65B enterd service) So in terms of ingame the RB 75 is standard. 75T if you want a bigger bang though at the expense of greater weight (so either if you are attacking a larger target like a ship or bunker etc or if the targets are tightly grouped and you hope to hit several at once). And the 75B if you want that level of zoom to spot targets at greater range. One tip is also that you can mix the variants and the outer stations (underwing) will launch before the Chin stations so for example you could take the 75B on the outer stations to engage at range and then 75 or 75T on the inner stations when you get closer and have expended the 75Bs. Edit:Rudel_chw beat me to it.
  25. Did you remember to cycle the safety to switch to the next missile? (Sefety off then on again). And if that did not work for some reason then try going Safe then nav and back to ANF or even changing the wep selector back and forth. But cycling the safety should do the trick. Question are you new to the AJS 37? or old user that has taken a break from it?.
×
×
  • Create New...