ARMAT?

[Kayos]

Have we officially heard we are not getting the ARMAT for the Mirage 2000C?

Would be nice even if it's not 100% accurate for the plane.

[Azrayen]

LOL

[Kayos]

LOL

 

I take that as a no :(

[Gladman]

I agree, it would be nice. It was in testing, doesn't mean it was any good but the addition would make the Mirage a lot more versatile and perhaps create some longevity.

Ah, who am I kidding, as soon as the Hornet comes out I'll never use the Mirage again.

[Hook47]

I still would love to have it. We will see. Last Zeus said it was a maybe

[Para_Bellum]

I still would love to have it. We will see. Last Zeus said it was a maybe

 

I agree. It's not like an ARMAT on the Mirage 2000C is a thing of total fantasy and it would open up more mission options. I would love to see a mission strike package where all tasks (SEAD, escort, ground strike) are performed with Mirages.

[NeilWillis]

Don't you like to fly modules purely because of their limitations? I would hate DCS World to become somewhere only the latest technology matters.

 

It'll be far far more rewarding to shoot down an F-15C with a P-40 - no matter how unlikely!

 

So my two-penneth is that we should stick to reality. ARMAT is not a thing, so we ought not to have it, no matter how much it adds to the playability. Of course there will be an unending argument about which way is right and which is wrong.

[Hook47]

Don't you like to fly modules purely because of their limitations? I would hate DCS World to become somewhere only the latest technology matters.

 

It'll be far far more rewarding to shoot down an F-15C with a P-40 - no matter how unlikely!

 

So my two-penneth is that we should stick to reality. ARMAT is not a thing, so we ought not to have it, no matter how much it adds to the playability. Of course there will be an unending argument about which way is right and which is wrong.

 

It isn't even remotely about the latest technology mattering. ARMAT isn't that great of a missile, It's about the fact that we have three trainers, three interceptors, several strike aircraft and a bunch of WW2 planes, a highly experimental prototype of a helicopter but only ONE aircraft that can do SEAD, and now that we have another aircraft that could have been/was capable of SEAD, and it is believable and possible to mount said weapon, we would love to have it. Especially since it was originally stated to come with the aircraft and show on early WIP screen shots.

 

If you want to stick to reality then P-40s and 109s shouldn't be in the same sim as a M-2000C anyway, the FC3 aircraft shouldn't exists because they, while realistic, are very far from reality... This is a combat sandbox. . . If you don't want the weapon you don't have to use it or even fly SEAD sorties

Edited January 5, 2016 by Hook47

[LuSi_6]

An official statement regarding ARMAT would be great.

 

DCS Mirage is being sold as a multirole on the product page, yet lacks any multirole capabilities.

ARMAT was tested and used by some countries, which are included as liveries with the module.

 

ARMAT should be added.

 

well it is very much multi role. CAP, Intercept, Strike, CAS, LGB with buddy laser.

 

But yes, a SEAD missle is much needed! :joystick:

[WinterH]

Don't you like to fly modules purely because of their limitations? I would hate DCS World to become somewhere only the latest technology matters.

 

It'll be far far more rewarding to shoot down an F-15C with a P-40 - no matter how unlikely!

 

So my two-penneth is that we should stick to reality. ARMAT is not a thing, so we ought not to have it, no matter how much it adds to the playability. Of course there will be an unending argument about which way is right and which is wrong.

 

+1

[Corsair]

If you want ARMAT create a Mirage IIIE or Jaguar module.

But please keep it away from the 2000.

[jojo]

If you want ARMAT create a Mirage IIIE or Jaguar module.

But please keep it away from the 2000.

 

Breguet Atlantic :lol:

[Redeye26]

Is war that static though ? This is a theoretical question btw but if the French were on the backfoot for whatever reason , needed to do a bit of SEAD but only had some Mirage 2000c and a few ARMAT missiles lying around , would they not improvise ?

[PiedDroit]

Is war that static though ? This is a theoretical question btw but if the French were on the backfoot for whatever reason , needed to do a bit of SEAD but only had some Mirage 2000c and a few ARMAT missiles lying around , would they not improvise ?

This is still a pending question... Without any official procedure on how to launch it using the C's avionics, it's all fantasy at this stage.

Until we find solid evidence, I guess it's a no go.

[myHelljumper]

It isn't even remotely about the latest technology mattering. ARMAT isn't that great of a missile, It's about the fact that we have three trainers, three interceptors, several strike aircraft and a bunch of WW2 planes, a highly experimental prototype of a helicopter but only ONE aircraft that can do SEAD, and now that we have another aircraft that could have been/was capable of SEAD, and it is believable and possible to mount said weapon, we would love to have it. Especially since it was originally stated to come with the aircraft and show on early WIP screen shots.

 

If you want to stick to reality then P-40s and 109s shouldn't be in the same sim as a M-2000C anyway, the FC3 aircraft shouldn't exists because they, while realistic, are very far from reality... This is a combat sandbox. . . If you don't want the weapon you don't have to use it or even fly SEAD sorties

 

Don't make the mirage the plane you want it to be, AFAIK there are no proof that a 2000C ever fired an ARMAT. If there were 10 SEAD aircraft in DCS you wouldn't want it on the mirage...

[Sweep]

While we're at it, why not add R-27ERs, there's no proof it's ever fired one nor is there documentation on the employment of it...but hey, its a fighter, it should have AA-10Cs.

 

They might better represent an S530D's flight performance, too! :megalol:

 

I'm kidding of course, but the point stands...the ARMAT is something for a different aircraft. Honestly, there are other ARMs and ARM platforms (I think) most of us would rather see before that...but thankfully, those are being done.

 

So...DCS: M2000D? :P :joystick:

[myHelljumper]

While we're at it, why not add R-27ERs, there's no proof it's ever fired one nor is there documentation on the employment of it...but hey, its a fighter, it should have AA-10Cs.

 

They might better represent an S530D's flight performance, too! :megalol:

 

I'm kidding of course, but the point stands...the ARMAT is something for a different aircraft. Honestly, there are other ARMs and ARM platforms (I think) most of us would rather see before that...but thankfully, those are being done.

 

So...DCS: M2000D? :P :joystick:

 

+1

 

The R-27ER is unrealistic, french pilot can't think in Russian if they didn't drink enough radar vodka. :music_whistling:

[PiedDroit]

While we're at it, why not add R-27ERs [...]

I know you're joking, but the ARMAT is no coming from thin air, at least Mirage-2000's were seen carrying it.

But no one can tell if the missile was actually integrated into the weapon systems (and if it was ever the case, how to shoot it) or if it was here only for aerodynamic tests (or as sales pitch, whatever).

This has been discussed a lot already...

[Corsair]

Breguet Atlantic :lol:

 

With GBUs and Exocets ? I sign with both hands :D

[jojo]

With GBUs and Exocets ? I sign with both hands :D

 

We need multicrew, would be awesome 13 men in the same plane in multiplayer :lol:

[Azrayen]

[philosophy]

It looks to me as we're currently for fast jets enthousiasts where we were some years ago for ground pounders (at large) when the Ka-50 then the A-10C were released, i.e.:

1/ oooohhhh it's magic, so many buttons & features

2/ hhhaaaaa it's complicated, I just want to be (as or more) efficient as I was before (and have the feeling that it's "more realistic" <= whatever each of us means by that).

So. Frustration. Learning curve. Yeah, it's though sometimes.

[/philosophy]

 

On a more terre-à-terre point of view:

Let's be honnest, guys, the ARMAT on the M-2000 really isn't backed by hard, verifiable facts.

First, even the (scarce) pictures we got were of different variants (2000C/RDM test/early aircraft or 2000E/RDM+) than the one Razbam is making (2000C/RDI S5).

Second, I do feel too the need for more choice regarding flyable SEAD-capable aircraft in DCS. Really. I'm not a SEAD hater or whatever, and mean no harm to you.

But third, if you think of the ARMAT (+M2000) as an equivalent to currently-modelized Kh-25MPU/58 (+Su-25T), you're mistaken. The Martel (and the ARMAT) were much more limited:

- slower missiles (due to original anti-ship design) = easier for current SAMs in DCS to splash your missiles down before they make it to their target.

- need to mount/set the correct seeker depending on the intended target, i.e. by no mean capability to engage at will any kind of middle/big SAM you may encounter on a mission.

 

Finally, IIRC Razbam said they will consider the matter once they have a less-than-full plate ahead of them. We're not there yet, kids. There are more important issues to address right now, don't you think?

 

Have a nice evening :)

++

Az'

[mattebubben]

im still hoping for a potential addon 2000E later on =)

 

Since that will bring the multirole capabillity (including sead) for a minimum of work (compared to making a 2000-5 or another aircraft)

 

But for a C it would not be accurate.

 

If the french airforce had ever seen the need for equipping the C with the Armat the needed modifications could probably have done on a pretty short timeframe but since they never had the need it was never done

(other then for tests)

[Sporg]

Breguet Atlantic :lol:

With GBUs and Exocets ? I sign with both hands :D

And with MARTELs as well.

 

Would love such a plane in DCS. :D

 

[rrohde]

Don't you like to fly modules purely because of their limitations?

 

Well, considering that DCS is a simulation: to me a simulated world is not a snapshot, frozen in time, as DCS modules currently tend to be. A simulation should thus also include the different variants as they were developed in the real world once the various limitations became obvious and needed to be overcome.

 

As an example, our Su-27 is frozen in time, as if the tech never progressed. This is a shame, since the real world counterpart has since been updated and upgraded (27SM, 30, 35, etc). Some of this real-world changes should be reflected in DCS as well. To what extent? Well, considering that DCS loves a modular approach, why not offer "upgrade packs" to existing DCS modules that gradually upgrade these to different variants. This "is frozen in time" applies to pretty much every DCS module, except for the WW2 ones; I am happy with their state.

 

That said, I would gladly pay $$$ for upgraded variants of the our existing DCS modules that are based on the current operational realities that each existing module outlines.

 

So, if the ARMAT was used for the M-2000C (operational reality), RAZBAM should upgrade our module to allow it, but still stay within the framework that the 200C provided.

[jojo]

So, if the ARMAT was used for the M-2000C (operational reality),

 

No, never...