Past or future?

[Manuel_108]

Good point, but it's not like there has never bee an AMRAAM or BVR-kill in general in history. IFF and BVR's are here for a reason and nowadays, the guy with the longer range wins. (potentially)

 

Edit: Funfact: Only 6 AMRAAMs have been officially launched BVR so far and 11 at visual range with a strike rate of 60%.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Manuel_108

[kanami314]

the main point of bvr is to win the breakfight. (aka when you have broken your air oposition and they are fleeing) usually air 2 air never lasts that long. thats why the r27's are not as bad as people think. also, I find it odd that most missions in these sims lack civilan air trafic or third party military targets. even at war, there will still be flights. and not all radar and transpoders can respond at the ranges that people would expect. (also with the number of transponder failures in nations with developing air trafic) in part, the biggest part that is much harder to simulate in dcs world is just how much your hands are tied behind your back in the real world.

[King_Hrothgar]

Didn't the US navy shoot down an Iranian passenger 747 back in the day? That had to of been a BVR kill and there wasn't even a war going at the time (not involving the US anyways). I bring it up because in the advent of a proper 2 sided war, I'd assume it would pretty much instantly go to kill on sight for anything flying in the conflict zone that wasn't clearly friendly. We shouldn't confuse peace time RoE with war time RoE. The last significant symmetric air war anywhere in the world was the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980's. And BVR missiles back then were not what they are today.

[emg]

That was a clear breach of ROE though, same for the Soviet shoot-down of the Korean air liner. The ship captain and Su-15 pilot (and ground controller) should all have been court martialed and sent to prison.

But yes, in a desperate total war, passenger airliners would be grounded and friendly fire would be more acceptable.

 

And BVR missiles back then were not what they are today.

This is why I think F-104G can still be a rewarding and effective plane in a DCS scenario. I mean, there are MiG-21 pilots on the 104th server who bring short-range IR missiles only, and still get victories vs F-15s and Flankers.

Edited February 7, 2015 by emg

[Aginor]

Didn't the US navy shoot down an Iranian passenger 747 back in the day? That had to of been a BVR kill and there wasn't even a war going at the time (not involving the US anyways). I bring it up because in the advent of a proper 2 sided war, I'd assume it would pretty much instantly go to kill on sight for anything flying in the conflict zone that wasn't clearly friendly. We shouldn't confuse peace time RoE with war time RoE. The last significant symmetric air war anywhere in the world was the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980's. And BVR missiles back then were not what they are today.

 

 

The 655 shootdown was a very complex situation. Here's the wiki article to get a very rough idea what was presumably going on.

They said they tried to contact it, and they used their equipment to determine the type of the threat, but say they had false indications on their instruments. They also thought they were in a situation in which they were forced to react as quickly as possible. There might also have been misunderstandings between crew members, and they had been in a combat situation that day, so they shot it down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

 

 

As for the rest: Even in a war situation you have to be more careful nowadays. The book "Wings of Fury" describes several such situations during Desert Storm.

With French, British, U.S. and other coalition forces around at the same time, transponders not working as fail-proof as in our simulated world, secret operations not visible on the ATO, and equipment not always working properly (such as active radar missiles that can lock on to friendly flights) they didn't even shoot their BVR missiles if they were pretty sure it was an enemy.

So if we are not talking about a WW3 situation where you don't give a sh** about some friendly fire or civilian casualties because people are dying right and left every few seconds anyway, they will be careful.

[dartuil]

Look ttheir facebook they put F1 screen!!

https://www.facebook.com/Aviodev?fref=ts

[MBot]

Fantastic, I love the Mirage F1!

[Agg]

Very interesting project indeed :)

[dartuil]

Cant wait to beat mig-21 and F-15.

[King_Hrothgar]

Well this is turning out nicely. LNS MiG-21 + Aviodev Mirage F.1 + BST Mi-24 vs LNS F-14 + BST AH-1 (and hopefully LNS MiG-23). So, who's going to do an F-5E and F-4E so we can get this little Iran/Iraq war under way? :)

[emg]

Look ttheir facebook they put F1 screen!!

https://www.facebook.com/Aviodev?fref=ts

:thumbup: Ohh nice!

Get hyped!

Edited February 12, 2015 by emg

[dartuil]

They are doing F-4B :

https://www.facebook.com/flyingquixote?fref=ts

[ESAc_matador]

Who is Flying Quixote? I think you are mistaken.... Aviodev seems to be quite different people.

[Ce_Zeta]

Good news! The grandmother! (nickname of the spanish F1). The most beautiful fighter of all times.:thumbup:

 

Now the question is...C or E version?

 

P.S. The lack of fixed refueling probe is...interesting.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Ce_Zeta

[dartuil]

I don't know, they seem to do work primarily for FSX and there is nothing stating that the F-4B is coming to DCS from what I understand.

 

I have talk to the admin of the page,he told me they work first on FSX as its easier,and if they succeed to get 3rd party licence they will devlop it fir DCS.

[emg]

P.S. The lack of fixed refueling probe is...interesting.

 

Hard to make a conclusion. In addition to the probe-less versions, some had a fixed but removable refueling probes. I don't remember which versions.

Edited February 12, 2015 by emg

[ESAc_matador]

There is Nothing confirmed yet about the F11and I guess they have a lot of work to do with the Chicken Butt (C101). But in any case the F1 is one of the best choices for all oF us. She can be included in war theatres with most of DCS jets. With or against. she also has seen combat in Iran Irak, Ecuador Peru, Surafrica Angola, desert storm, Chad...

Edited February 12, 2015 by ESAc_matador

[MBot]

Now the question is...C or E version?

 

How exactly do the C and the E differ? I have seen the general categorization as fighter and multirole, but any details on this seem hard to find. I understand that the export Mirages have a lot of country specific customizations, so I assume the respective Spanish CE and EE variants are in question here.

[Manuel_108]

No way they do the F1! Awesome choice!

[JuanOscar]

There is Nothing confirmed yet about the F11and I guess they have a lot of work to do with the Chicken Butt (C101). But in any case the F1 is one of the best choices for all oF us. She can be included in war theatres with most of DCS jets. With or against. she also has seen combat in Iran Irak, Ecuador Peru, Surafrica Angola, desert storm, Chad...

 

And also against an UFO. :pilotfly:

 

Could be the Manises UFO incident recreated in a mission in the future?:D

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manises_UFO_incident

[Ce_Zeta]

How exactly do the C and the E differ? I have seen the general categorization as fighter and multirole, but any details on this seem hard to find. I understand that the export Mirages have a lot of country specific customizations, so I assume the respective Spanish CE and EE variants are in question here.

The C is a pure interceptor, E is the multirole version. A is ground-Attack version.

 

The customization in the F1 is not deeper than other Dassault fighters (M-III and M-5). But with the years, some C versions were updated and obtain multirole capacity (French C versions updated to CT and spanish CE updated to M version, for example) .

 

And also against an UFO.

 

Could be the Manises UFO incident recreated in a mission in the future?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manises_UFO_incident

Hahaha we want as a eye-candy an AI UFO and Caravelle!!! And of course the lizard cammo of Los Llanos!

Edited February 12, 2015 by Ce_Zeta

[MBot]

The C is a pure interceptor, E is the multirole version.

 

What are the ground attack improvements of the E that make it multirole compared to the C? Are ARMAT and ATLIS exclusive to the E? Does the E have a different nav-attack suite? It seems both share the same radar.

 

I am asking because of this passage from airvectors.net:

 

Since the F1 had originally been designed as a multirole fighter and was "shoehorned" into AA (armée de l'air) service as an interceptor, there wasn't much difference between the F1C and the F1E series, except for the enhanced Cyrano IVMR radar fitted to the F1CR reconnaissance variant. In fact, some export users obtained F1Es that were designated F1Cs, and to be even more confusing some export machines with an F1A designation were F1Es as well.

[JuanOscar]

Here you can find info in spanish regarding CE and EE versions operated on Spanish Air Force.

 

http://fdra-aereo.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/cazabombarderos-los-mirage-f1-espanoles.html

 

On EE basically, a radar upgrade, new INS, refueling probe, capabilities to use the barax (ECM) on all EE fleet, whilst only some CE could do it, and the Syrel pod (ELINT). Also the EE could carry a bit less fuel due the space used for the new INS.

 

But take in count the Mirage F1 on Spanish Air Force, has been receiving small upgrades multiples times, until arrive to the deep modernization phase, resulting the Mirage F1M.

Edited February 12, 2015 by JuanOscar

[MBot]

Here you can find info in spanish regarding CE and EE versions operated on Spanish Air Force.

 

http://fdra-aereo.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/cazabombarderos-los-mirage-f1-espanoles.html

 

On EE basically, a radar upgrade, new INS, refueling probe, capabilities to use the barax (ECM) on all EE fleet, whilst only some CE could do it, and the Syrel pod (ELINT). Also the EE could carry a bit less fuel due the space used for the new INS.

 

But take in count the Mirage F1 on Spanish Air Force, has been receiving small upgrades multiples times, until arrive to the deep modernization phase, resulting the Mirage F1M.

 

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately I don't speak Spanish, but the pictures are great :) Love the camo.

[Ce_Zeta]

What are the ground attack improvements of the E that make it multirole compared to the C? Are ARMAT and ATLIS exclusive to the E? Does the E have a different nav-attack suite? It seems both share the same radar.

 

I am asking because of this passage from airvectors.net:

Since the F1 had originally been designed as a multirole fighter and was "shoehorned" into AA [i](armée de l'air)[/i]  service as an interceptor, there wasn't much difference between the F1C  and the F1E series, except for the enhanced Cyrano IVMR radar fitted to  the F1CR reconnaissance variant. In fact, some export users obtained  F1Es that were designated F1Cs, and to be even more confusing some  export machines with an F1A designation were F1Es as well.

As in the link provided by JO said. There are some diferent versions (upgrades) of the Cyrano IV.

 

The main role of the F1C is interception, with a secondary role of ground attack. They can attack ground targets but is a very marginal capacity (I am talking about the original C version). THe Cyrano IV have a very limited A/G capacity. They were able to use bombs and rockets but the precision was not good. A multirole aircraft is able to perform A/A and A/G task as his primary role when you want.

 

CR, CT and M versions have the latest Cyrano IV version and a high precision navigation suite (INS-GPS).

 

It's not a confusion, we need just follow the timeline.

 

Only 2 countries bought the A version. South Africa (AZ) and Libya (AD). Both had the ranging radar Aida 2.

 

The C version: South Africa (CZ), Greece (CG), Jordan (CJ), Spain (CE), Morocco (CH), Kuwait (CK) are all C versions. Later Kuwait upgraded his C to E version. This conversion was called CK-2, and they can launch the Armat Missile for example.

 

Some buyers found the C version very limited in A/G. For this reason some of them bought also the E version. Spain (EE), Morocco (EH) and Jordan (EJ). This is a fact for say C is not the same than E version.

 

As I know, the Atlis pod and Armat missile were exclusively used by E versions (Kuwait's CK-2 are E versions).

 

Also others countries bought the E version. Ecuador bought this version and it was called JA. But JA is not an A! I dont understand the confusion because the A is in the second place. Other interesting buyer was Iraq (EQ) in the web you can read that his EQ had the Agave radar instead of the Cyrano. Others said that the Agave was a Myth. And a third group said that at least one of the six different standards delivered to Iraq was equipped with the Agave (EQ-5).

 

Later, the state-of-art F1s were the french CT, CR and Spanish M versions.

All upgrades were focused in the same devices. Updated radar (Cyrano IVM-R for french and Cyrano IVM for all spanish (we upgraded a mixed fleet of CE and EE). INS-GPS navigation suite, modern IFF, radios and HUD as a example. You can check the web for a more precise details about these modernizations.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Ce_Zeta