Upgrade possibilities to RAZBAM's Mirage 2000C

[statrekmike]

I guess I should be asking Razbam why the C version then :music_whistling:

 

To be clear, I would like the E version the most. I would like twin Magic pylons if either such a thing could have or did exist just to make the M2000C more viable.

 

They chose to make the C version because that is what they wanted to do, there is no real need for any further explanation to be honest. Perhaps the C version was the only one that they could get solid information on. Perhaps it was simple personal preference on the part of the developers. Either way, it was their choice to make just as it is your choice to buy it. You don't have to like the variant they chose but you should at least respect their choice.

 

We would all like a lot of things in DCS, I would like to see Leatherneck make a F-104G, I would like Belsimtek to make a MiG-19 or a F-100 Super Sabre. I would like to see a fully clickable A-10A but in the end, I know and understand that I am not the person making those decisions and while my wishes are important to me, they have no real impact on how ED and it's 3rd parties do business. I could make thread after thread and ask over and over for the things I want but I understand that it would not mean anything and nor should it.

 

The M-2000C is what we have, that is what the developers made and I respect that. I know you want more missiles, I know you want it to be competitive but if we start fudging realism in order to give you more ammo (without any real, actual data to back it up), DCS starts losing its identity.

 

Think of it this way. RAZBAM literally JUST released the M-2000C into open beta, it still needs a ton of work and team working on it is pretty darn small indeed, they need to get this plane from its current incomplete state to something resembling a final build as quick as they can manage in order to avoid consumer dissatisfaction. Now you come along and start telling them that you don't really like the M-2000C but instead what a M-2000E, in addition, you want extra missiles because you want it to be "more viable" in some way or another. Imagine how that looks to others, imagine how that looks to the developers who are trying to stay focused on the task at hand.

[myHelljumper]

I think he really want those damn twin magic....

[RoflSeal]

Is there even such a thing as a pylon that can mount twin Magic?

[jojo]

I never saw any twin Magic rail on any Dassault's fighter...export or not.

[DrDetroit]

Interesting thread. I'd like more missiles as well, but I'll have to take a F-15 or SU27 in that case, not the M2000C. As stated many times, it's not a air superiority fighter, but a interceptor...and some ground work.

 

Imho if it's not implemented in real world M2000C then it simply shouldn't be in this sim. Period.

 

Good day and Happy New Years!

 

DrDetroit

[Hook47]

They chose to make the C version because that is what they wanted to do, there is no real need for any further explanation to be honest. Perhaps the C version was the only one that they could get solid information on. Perhaps it was simple personal preference on the part of the developers. Either way, it was their choice to make just as it is your choice to buy it. You don't have to like the variant they chose but you should at least respect their choice.

 

We would all like a lot of things in DCS, I would like to see Leatherneck make a F-104G, I would like Belsimtek to make a MiG-19 or a F-100 Super Sabre. I would like to see a fully clickable A-10A but in the end, I know and understand that I am not the person making those decisions and while my wishes are important to me, they have no real impact on how ED and it's 3rd parties do business. I could make thread after thread and ask over and over for the things I want but I understand that it would not mean anything and nor should it.

 

The M-2000C is what we have, that is what the developers made and I respect that. I know you want more missiles, I know you want it to be competitive but if we start fudging realism in order to give you more ammo (without any real, actual data to back it up), DCS starts losing its identity.

 

Think of it this way. RAZBAM literally JUST released the M-2000C into open beta, it still needs a ton of work and team working on it is pretty darn small indeed, they need to get this plane from its current incomplete state to something resembling a final build as quick as they can manage in order to avoid consumer dissatisfaction. Now you come along and start telling them that you don't really like the M-2000C but instead what a M-2000E, in addition, you want extra missiles because you want it to be "more viable" in some way or another. Imagine how that looks to others, imagine how that looks to the developers who are trying to stay focused on the task at hand.

 

Like I have said multiple times, I would prefer the E variant, or a realistic addition. If it is totally unrealistic for more than two Magic IIs to ever have been on a C version, as in the aircraft or missile simply were not capable or some other blocking feature existed, so be it.

 

Also no one is failing to respect Razbams choice here, I have said many times I am very happy with my purchase. . . That doesn't mean I can't find myself wishing it had better teeth in air to air encounters.

 

As far as how it looks? It looks like some people saying they would like an E variant :D No one is asking Razbam to drop everything and do that, and we certainly don't want them to leave the 2000C in it's current very unfinished state. Heck there were people asking what the next aircraft would be months before release! I for one would love Razbam to be the first third party to expand upon a released aircraft with new variants. I think there is massive potential for such a thing and the development time in some cases would be less than a new aircraft like the Harrier.

 

I would kill for the 2000N too!

Edited January 2, 2016 by Hook47

[Corsair]

There are also many discrepancies between the different RDM export variants.

[gonzman]

I purchased the Mirage but I find in the current state it's a little underwhelming, I hope to look at it again once the features start to come online.

 

In regards to the discussion I don't really want upgrades to this Mirage, a complete feature set would be cool before talking about more variants.

 

In the bigger picture for DCS I'm a little tired of the ground pounding stuff, I do like the KA50 and the A10C though, but I'd like to see how the F14 from Leatherneck turns out, if it ever does, the scope of that project I personlly think is beyond the simulators technical level. (DCS World needs better sea/carrier stuff).

 

If the Mig29 and Su27 were at A10C level of detail and complexity I'd be a very happy man, Not so much interested in F15/16/18 though.

[Hook47]

I purchased the Mirage but I find in the current state it's a little underwhelming, I hope to look at it again once the features start to come online.

 

In regards to the discussion I don't really want upgrades to this Mirage, a complete feature set would be cool before talking about more variants.

 

In the bigger picture for DCS I'm a little tired of the ground pounding stuff, I do like the KA50 and the A10C though, but I'd like to see how the F14 from Leatherneck turns out, if it ever does, the scope of that project I personlly think is beyond the simulators technical level. (DCS World needs better sea/carrier stuff).

 

If the Mig29 and Su27 were at A10C level of detail and complexity I'd be a very happy man, Not so much interested in F15/16/18 though.

 

Honestly we are approaching having too many interceptors and light trainers. I think a couple new attack aircraft and a helo would be refreshing. We currently have three trainers and three aircraft primarily made to chase down and blow up bombers (Not so fun after the 4th or 5th time). Out of the total aircraft in the sim that is a pretty large chunk. I'm happy we are getting a true air to air beast (F-14) and and even a anti ship/ground attack (AJS 37)

 

DCS is more than up to handling Carrier ops. I've seen so much done by mods that it will be easily achievable once actual devs work at it. Check out the carrier mods. I have more faith in LNS delivering the F-14 than any other third party or even ED delivering on anything else.

 

I agree that a DCS MiG 29 and SU 27 would be a dream come true, but I would be equally interested in the 15/16/18

Edited January 2, 2016 by Hook47

[statrekmike]

As of right now, we have two interceptors for all intents and purposes, the MiG-21 and the M-2000C. Out of the box, the M-2000C is a capable light fighter that while limited in terms of engagement range, can still fit easily into a role where it takes out other light fighters or even fighters like the Su-27 and the like if tactics are applied and proper coordination with the AWACS/GCI is maintained.

 

The MiG-21Bis that we have is simply a pure interceptor that was modified in order to accomplish other tasks. It can be effective against aircraft like the AI controlled F-4E or other even other MiG's (other 21's or 23's) but like the Mirage, your effectiveness will be based on how well you can work with GCI or a AWACS.

 

When it all comes down to it, I think it is important to understand that at its core, DCS is not a PvP multiplayer centric title, you may treat it as such personally and others may do the same but in the end, the realistic combat simulator format lends itself better to co-op or single player far better and this is where the individual aircraft modules we have right now really come into their own and make sense.

 

To put it another way, if you only ever hop on a public server where dogfighting and racking up kills is the only real goal (even if their are other goals listed), you will find that players are going to gravitate towards the best possible dogfight aircraft, it turns into something not unlike using the "dominant build" in MMO. In this kind of situation, it does not matter if the MiG-21Bis is good against the F-4E or the F-5E-3. It does not matter if the Mi-8MTV2 makes a great air artillery platform, nor does it matter if the Ka-50 can work fantastically when paired with another Ka-50 driver acting as a "commander" to spot ground targets and patch into the datalink with them.

 

When it is all about dogfighting, it is easy to miss the real value some of these DCS modules actually have because their is no place for them in a competitive PvP environment. This is why the FC3 aircraft are still so popular, they have the best weapons and the easiest controls. Even if we were to get a real DCS F-15 or a real DCS Su-27 module, people on dogfight servers would still favor the advantages that the simple FC3 aircraft provide.

 

When it all comes down to it, the players that move away from competitive dogfighting on public servers will start to see the value of the aircraft we have in a new way. I don't like at the MiG-21Bis and say "time to do another boring bomber intercept", I make missions where the aircraft is given roles it actually has in real life and I place the player in a realistic context where they are supported by ground, anti-air, and even other air assets. The same goes for all the other aircraft.

 

Finally, as a side note, be careful about your expectations of the Tomcat, it is a amazing plane that will probably be my new favorite when it comes out but it is not going to be the dogfighting monster that you may think. It is fairly limited in terms of armament since the Phoenix missile is really not designed to take out maneuvering targets and it does not mount a AIM-120 and instead has Sparrows. It is going to be a good dogfighter but it will not be overwhelmingly good in the competitive dogfight scene alongside those that only fly the F-15 and the Su-27.

 

The reason I defend the developers decision to stick to reality (as in no extra missiles or weapons it did not carry) is because I think those limitations are part of what makes a aircraft interesting and unique. If you fly the Mirage and find that you can't be effective with only four missiles, you need to re-evaluate your tactics and playstyle. If you find that you are getting bored of flying bomber intercept in the MiG-21, try using it for other mission types that it is used for in real life, some of them may take you out of your comfort zone but that is kinda the point.

[Asek]

Payload and armaments

 

Armament of A M-2000C

The M-2000 is equipped with built-in twin DEFA cannon DEFA 554 (now GIAT 30–550 F4) 30 mm revolver-type cannons with 125 rounds each. The cannons have selectable fire rates of 1,200 or 1,800 rate of fire rounds per minute. Each round weighs 275 grams (9.7 oz) and has a muzzle velocity of around 800 metres per second (2,600 ft/s).

 

The Mirage 2000 can carry up to 6.3 tonnes (14,000 lb) (or 7 tonnes for −9 version) of stores on nine pylons, with two pylons on each wing and five under the fuselage. External stores can include Matra Super 530 medium-range semi-active radar-guided air-to-air missile on the inboard wing pylons and underbelly, and Matra Magic short-range infrared-seeking AAM on the outboard wing pylons. Other short-range missiles such as the AIM-9J/L/P are compatible and are often used on Mirages which have been exported, because Magic itself was meant as 'Sidewinder compatible'. The M-2000C and later versions can carry the lighter, more advanced MBDA MICA instead of the Super 530D.

 

This say the M-2000C AND LATER, no M-2000-5 OR M-2000-D this is real

just search a little on internet

 

Its just a little tweak for this great module by razbam.. at this time its almost imposible fight against f15, su27, mig29, etc..

 

 

MORE INFO " WIKIPEDIA"

 

M-2000C

 

M-2000C

The first M-2000 to go into service was the single-seat M- 2000C interceptor, C stands for Chasseur (Fighter) variant. There were four single-seat prototypes, including the initial Mirage 2000 prototype. The first production M-2000C flew in November 1982. Deliveries began in 1983. The first operational squadron was formed in 1984, the 50th anniversary of the French Air Force. A total of 124 M-2000Cs were obtained by the AdA.

 

The first 37 Mirage 2000Cs delivered were fitted with the Thomson-CSF RDM (Radar Doppler Multifunction) and were powered by the SNECMA M53-5 turbofan engine. The 38th Mirage 2000C had an upgraded SNECMA M53-5 P2 turbofan engine. The Radar Doppler Impulse (RDI) built by Thales for the Mirage 2000C entered service in 1987. It has a much improved range of about 150 km, and is linked to Matra Super 530D missiles, which are much improved compared to the older Super 530F. Look-down/shoot-down capabilities are much improved as well, but this radar is not usually used for air-to-surface roles. (Note that "look-down/shoot-down" often refers to being able to track and target another flying object at a lower altitude, rather than targeting an object on the surface itself.)

Upgrades includes the addition of the Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) mode to the RDI Radar to allow identification of airborne targets not responding on identification friend or foe (IFF), integration for the Matra MICA IR heat-seeking missile, and the ability to carry air-to-ground stores such as Matra 68 mm rocket pods (18 each), Mk 80 series or French 250, 400, and 1000 kg iron bombs, and cluster bombs such as the Belouga or non-French models. Some variants, especially those equipped with the RDM radar (mainly used in export models) have the capability to use the Exocet anti-ship missile. Also, Indian Mirage 2000s have been integrated to carry the Russian R-73AE Archer missile and the indigenous Indian built Astra missile.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Asek

[VincentLaw]

The M-2000C and later versions can carry the lighter, more advanced MBDA MICA instead of the Super 530D.

Your Wikipedia quote is unfortunately wrong. 2000-5 and later can carry MICA, not 2000C.

 

Some 2000C's were upgraded into 2000-5's, which may be where the confusion comes from.

[myHelljumper]

Your Wikipedia quote is unfortunately wrong. 2000-5 and later can carry MICA, not 2000C.

 

Some 2000C's were upgraded into 2000-5's, which may be where the confusion comes from.

 

+1

 

As of right now, we have two interceptors for all intents and purposes, the MiG-21 and the M-2000C. [...]

 

+100

[Slipp]

Speaking for a lot of people who deal with more organized stuff. Get your mods, fly with them - we do, we arm Mirages with MICA IR/EM in order to make them higher threats in our aggressor scenarios, but we don't ask for the devs to add them in as standard.

 

Can players actually employ MICA IR and EM on Mirage 2000 if you mod it?

I had no luck with making it work.

[129 B-3]

Regarding 4x Magic

It is possible, technically.

Just as with so many other things, not always used by every operator or if, then very rarely.

The Super 530 launchers are replaced by another set of single Magic launchers

which are specific for the inboard wing stations. Their shape (upper part which connects to the wing) is different from the launchers used on the outer wing stations.

[129 B-3]

Magical... EG

[Corsair]

Are these pictures from DTU, Roman's and Crosnier's book ?

[openfalcon68]

I know its not a E but a C but take a look here on an Indian H, which is based on the E.

These two birds from 2012 are sporting an R-73 training round and an R-73 launch rail.

 

 

 

So who knows, may be some time down the line ? just may be....

 

Manish

 

Images Copyright Zone5 Aviation

[mattebubben]

With an E then sure all those options would be viable.

 

But for a C none of these things would be realistic.

 

First because none of these modifications (to either have 4 Magic pylons or the abillity to use a R-73) where made on the M2000 in french use.

 

And Second because those modifications would not make any sense for the french M-2000 and their doctrine around it.

 

In french service the M2000C was an interceptor.

 

And for that they wanted / needed a mix of IR and Radar guided missiles.

 

and the Super 530D and Magic II used different pylons / launch rails.

 

So unless a pylon was developed that was able to carry both a 530D or a Magic II there would never be a M2000C that could use 4x Magics.

 

And also by the time the M2000C enterd service the Mica was already in development so if any upgrade would have been made to carry a different mix of

missiles they would probably just have gone with the Mica (like they did with the M2000-5 upgrades)

Edited January 2, 2016 by mattebubben

[openfalcon68]

Just asking, so please don't mind it.

 

Did the C have a secondary ground attack capability with dumb A2G munitions ?

 

Also as developed for DCS-W, The C can carry GBU-12, that is a departure from realism as are the Greek and UAE skins.

 

Just saying that there is a strong case for developing the E variant. That's all.

 

Manish

 

With an E then sure all those options would be viable.

 

But for a C none of these things would be realistic.

 

First because none of these modifications (to either have 4 Magic pylons or the abillity to use a R-73) where made on the M2000 in french use.

 

And Second because those modifications would not make any sense for the french M-2000 and their doctrine around it.

 

In french service the M2000C was an interceptor.

 

And for that they wanted / needed a mix of IR and Radar guided missiles.

 

and the Super 530D and Magic II used different pylons / launch rails.

 

So unless a pylon was developed that was able to carry both a 530D or a Magic II there would never be a M2000C that could use 4x Magics.

 

And also by the time the M2000C enterd service the Mica was already in development so if any upgrade would have been made to carry a different mix of

missiles they would probably just have gone with the Mica (like they did with the M2000-5 upgrades)

[Corsair]

Just asking, so please don't mind it.

 

Did the C have a secondary ground attack capability with dumb A2G munitions ?

 

Also as developed for DCS-W, The C can carry GBU-12, that is a departure from realism as are the Greek and UAE skins.

 

Just saying that there is a strong case for developing the E variant. That's all.

 

Manish

 

RDIs have indeed secondary AG capabilities. It demonstrated so in the Balkans.

And no, GBU-12 is not a departure from realism. Check what is done with RDIs in Africa, opération Barkhane : they carry GBUs for buddy lasing.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Corsair

[jojo]

Just asking, so please don't mind it.

 

Did the C have a secondary ground attack capability with dumb A2G munitions ?

 

Also as developed for DCS-W, The C can carry GBU-12, that is a departure from realism as are the Greek and UAE skins.

 

Just saying that there is a strong case for developing the E variant. That's all.

 

Manish

 

Yes the Mirage 2000C can carry dumb AG munitions. The list is stated in the manual.

 

No GBU-12 on Mirage 2000C is not a departure of realism. Currently Mirage 2000C are deployed in operation with these bombs alongside Mirage 2000D who lase targets.

[openfalcon68]

OK did not know that. Thanks for the corrections. A quick search on google and found pics of the C with twin GBU-12 and 2000ltr tanks. Cool.

 

Manish

Edited January 2, 2016 by openfalcon68

[jcbak]

Any major upgrades, if they WERE to happen, would be years away. By then, we will have the F18, F14 and who know what else. The M2000C will be long forgotten.

[jojo]

Anyway, this thread is mostly about other variants of Mirage 2000, not about Mirage 2000 C RDI we are getting.

 

So it should be moved to Razbam thread.