ARMAT?

[Angelthunder]

And with MARTELs as well.

 

Would love such a plane in DCS. :D

 

Well,Razbam does make multi-crew aircraft for FSX & Pr3D.So i would love to see this in the future.:smilewink:

[QuiGon]

We do indeed need another SEAD aircraft, but the M2000 just really isn't one, so pls don't make it one just because you want to! The F/A-18 is on it's way.

[Hook47]

We do indeed need another SEAD aircraft, but the M2000 just really isn't one, so pls don't make it one just because you want to! The F/A-18 is on it's way.

 

It's not like we are asking for a GBU on a P-51 here, guys.... The ARMAT isn't out of no where, it could have been on the plane at some point and was on exports

[QuiGon]

It's not like we are asking for a GBU on a P-51 here, guys.... The ARMAT isn't out of no where, it could have been on the plane at some point and was on exports

 

Yes, it could have been, but it didn't, at least not on the Mirage 2000C which is the variant we have in DCS. A lot could have been, but that shouldn't be the standard for DCS modules. Pls stick to things that actually have been used.

[Sporg]

Yes, it could have been, but it didn't, at least not on the Mirage 2000C which is the variant we have in DCS. A lot could have been, but that shouldn't be the standard for DCS modules. Pls stick to things that actually have been used.

 

+1 to this.

[Hook47]

Yes, it could have been, but it didn't, at least not on the Mirage 2000C which is the variant we have in DCS. A lot could have been, but that shouldn't be the standard for DCS modules. Pls stick to things that actually have been used.

 

But see there is a logical break down there, and allow me to point out my thinking behind this. . . There a liveries planned for countries besides France, correct? Yet to my knowledge the M-2000C model was only used by France. This is setting a precedent for believable departure from reality in certain cases, and I believe inclusion of the ARMAT to be one of those cases. I keep coming back to if you don't like it, don't use it, but don't pressure the devs who are considering its implementation for those of us who would use it extensively. It's clear ARMAT is no more unrealistic than a non France skin for the M-2000C

[Custard]

Frankly, I'd be fine if a realistic implementation of ARMAT could be implemented even if the exact version we have may or may not have been able to support it, ala Kh-66.

 

However I would not think it a good idea if a realistic aproximation were not possible, if RAZBAM don't have much of an idea as to the target selection procedure / HUD symbology of the ARMAT in Mirage 2000 type fighters they shouldn't bother.

[Hook47]

Frankly, I'd be fine if a realistic implementation of ARMAT could be implemented even if the exact version we have may or may not have been able to support it, ala Kh-66.

 

However I would not think it a good idea if a realistic aproximation were not possible, if RAZBAM don't have much of an idea as to the target selection procedure / HUD symbology of the ARMAT in Mirage 2000 type fighters they shouldn't bother.

 

Now I do agree with that, if that cannot make the ARMAT operate realistically like the Kh 66 does (in targeting and theory of operation) then I would agree, don't do it, however if, like other things in the aircraft (RWR symbology) enough data exists to approximate, go for it!

[OxideMako]

Yes, it could have been, but it didn't, at least not on the Mirage 2000C which is the variant we have in DCS. A lot could have been, but that shouldn't be the standard for DCS modules. Pls stick to things that actually have been used.

 

You mean like not having Iglas on the KA-50? Which did carry them in reality and even in game has the A-A mode switch on the collective.

 

Just saying that we should often be given options that were possible even if they were not used. IE MiG-21 carrying Groms, MiG-29 carrying R-77. It IS possible for the variant we have to carry the ARMAT. Just because that option was not used shouldn't really come into it. French Air Force Mirages never came up against SU-27s in actual combat, yet here we are. We are also geting an English cockpit because the UAE, not the French use it. Who does it hurt having the ARMAT available? No one. Unlike the Exocet. Which needed the RDM radar, which we do NOT have, and should NOT have.

Edited January 9, 2016 by OxideMako

[Hook47]

You mean like not having Iglas on the KA-50? Which did carry them in reality and even in game has the A-A mode switch on the collective.

 

Just saying that we should often be given options that were possible even if they were not used. IE MiG-21 carrying Groms, MiG-29 carrying R-77. It IS possible for the variant we have to carry the ARMAT. Just because that option was not used shouldn't really come into it. French Air Force Mirages never came up against SU-27s in actual combat, yet here we are. We are also geting an English cockpit because the UAE, not the French use it. Who does it hurt having the ARMAT available? No one. Unlike the Exocet. Which needed the RDM radar, which we do NOT have, and should NOT have.

 

Couldn't agree more. One must remember DCS is a simulation, but many concessions are made for various reasons that do not harm the experience in any way. I think the livery and cockpit argument is a very strong one considering we have a version that was not exported.

[OxideMako]

Couldn't agree more. One must remember DCS is a simulation, but many concessions are made for various reasons that do not harm the experience in any way.

 

Just to note only if there is evidence that it could have been mounted and carried. If there is solid evidence it could not carry a certain munition it should not be modeled.

 

(For example Magic II and AIM-9 being interchangeable for NATO standardization purposes, but not AIM-7 on a Mirage)

[ShalashakaDS]

the thing is, we dont even know if the m2000 ever fired the ARMAT in tests . So, the interface we would get to fire it would be based on what? No documentation, no nothing. It would be purely fictional system, which goes pretty much against the whole point of creating a realistic simulator.

Edited January 9, 2016 by ShalashakaDS

[Deezle]

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but it would be nice to have more than one module capable of doing SEAD right now. I also agree that any possible implementation should be modeled realistically system-wise.

[Azrayen]

Hi

 

But see there is a logical break down there, and allow me to point out my thinking behind this. . . There a liveries planned for countries besides France, correct? Yet to my knowledge the M-2000C model was only used by France. This is setting a precedent for believable departure from reality in certain cases, and I believe inclusion of the ARMAT to be one of those cases. I keep coming back to if you don't like it, don't use it, but don't pressure the devs who are considering its implementation for those of us who would use it extensively. It's clear ARMAT is no more unrealistic than a non France skin for the M-2000C

 

I agree that it looks like double standards. So why?

Simply this:

the thing is, we dont even know if the m2000 ever fired the ARMAT in tests . So, the interface we would get to fire it would be based on what? No documentation, no nothing. It would be purely fictional system, which goes pretty much against the whole point of creating a realistic simulator.

 

There is no technical difficulties in painting an aircraft the way one wants (be it realistic or fictionnal).

There is technical difficulties in implementing realistically a weapon in a combat system.

 

++

Az'

 

PS: oh, by the way, Brazil had 2000C RDI too (second hand from FAF); they were called F-2000 but it was mostly just a rebranding.

[mattebubben]

the thing is, we dont even know if the m2000 ever fired the ARMAT in tests . So, the interface we would get to fire it would be based on what? No documentation, no nothing. It would be purely fictional system, which goes pretty much against the whole point of creating a realistic simulator.

 

There are M2000s using the Armat.

 

The M2000E of multiple nations including Egypt and Peru are armed with the Armat. (2000E being the Export variant of the 2000C)

 

So they could probably find info about how those M2000s used the armat and use that hud Symbology.

[IRRE_Biluf]

[myHelljumper]

This photo is for marketing purpose. I don't think the majority of the community want the ARMAT, I think they want a SEAD aircraft which the M-2000C is NOT.

 

There will be no documentation because it haven't been done. Some 2000E have it but this is a very different aircraft.

 

In 5 years when we have the F-18, F-16, Jaguar, Tornado that can do SEAD, what the people would think of that departure from reality.....

[openfalcon68]

Can the Devs seriously please look at if an E can be developed ?

The merits of having a multirole platform of this type are quite obvious.

Hope I am not asking for the impossible.

 

Manish

 

This photo is for marketing purpose. I don't think the majority of the community want the ARMAT, I think they want a SEAD aircraft which the M-2000C is NOT.

 

There will be no documentation because it haven't been done. Some 2000E have it but this is a very different aircraft.

 

In 5 years when we have the F-18, F-16, Jaguar, Tornado that can do SEAD, what the people would think of that departure from reality.....

Edited January 9, 2016 by openfalcon68

[openfalcon68]

India operates the Mirage 2000H/TH and now the I and TI.

 

The Mirage was always a hush hush baby and not much info ever came thru about it.

 

https://www.facebook.com/notes/indian-air-force-fans/the-indian-air-force-flying-into-the-21st-century/303907532979611/

 

My point is, we never heard of it doing SEAD or the ARMAT on it except for one

 

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/aircraft/specs/567-mirage-2000.html

 

There were reports of Jaguars with ARMAT for SEAD though.

 

Manish

Edited January 9, 2016 by openfalcon68

[TomCatMucDe]

Yes, it could have been, but it didn't, at least not on the Mirage 2000C which is the variant we have in DCS. A lot could have been, but that shouldn't be the standard for DCS modules. Pls stick to things that actually have been used.

 

 

The Armat do fit on the 2000C, it was fitted on the export versions so it wouldnt be unrealistic to offer them on DCS. We have to remember that in DCS we fly the mirage with different nations and not only France, we do have different liveries as well.

 

Implementing the Armat wont make the mirage less realistic, unlike putting LAU and double IR missiles numbers

[Corsair]

Mirage 2000C RDI

[myHelljumper]

Mirage 2000C RDI

 

+1

[QuiGon]

The Armat do fit on the 2000C, it was fitted on the export versions so it wouldnt be unrealistic to offer them on DCS. We have to remember that in DCS we fly the mirage with different nations and not only France, we do have different liveries as well.

 

Implementing the Armat wont make the mirage less realistic, unlike putting LAU and double IR missiles numbers

 

Export versions aren't 2000C. I don't know the differences between the french C and the export versions, or if there are any. But it all doesn't matter anyway as long as there is no documentation how the ARMAT works on the M2K. So unless someone finds documentation how it works, the whole discussion is a bit pointless.

[jojo]

Export versions aren't 2000C. I don't know the differences between the french C and the export versions, or if there are any. But it all doesn't matter anyway as long as there is no documentation how the ARMAT works on the M2K. So unless someone finds documentation how it works, the whole discussion is a bit pointless.

 

2000 E have RDM radar, from what I see of Greek Mirage the PCA handle weapons differently.

From some fellow Greek report exocet options are selected on radar screen making it a MFD.

 

They have different ECM, an external store management panel on right side...

 

The system behave differently...

[Hook47]

This photo is for marketing purpose. I don't think the majority of the community want the ARMAT, I think they want a SEAD aircraft which the M-2000C is NOT.

 

There will be no documentation because it haven't been done. Some 2000E have it but this is a very different aircraft.

 

In 5 years when we have the F-18, F-16, Jaguar, Tornado that can do SEAD, what the people would think of that departure from reality.....

 

I don't think you should speak on behalf of the "majority" of the community. It is clear a large amount of people would like the ARMAT. Only a pole could tell for sure.

 

Also saying "In 5 years when we have X" does NOT make me feel better!!! :lol:

 

Here is the end all be all where I am concerned... If sufficient documentation can be found to implement the ARMAT onto the Mirage 2000C in a realistic manner, EVEN IF the plane never carried it, I say go for it. Having non-french liveries for the M2000C is justification enough. If it is simply not possible to realistically implement it even if it was never carried or tested because we cannot find out how the weapon worked, so be it.

 

That being said, I think many of us would love to have this weapon if it could be done. It adds a whole new and much needed mission set to an already great aircraft.

 

Can the Devs seriously please look at if an E can be developed ?

The merits of having a multirole platform of this type are quite obvious.

Hope I am not asking for the impossible.

 

Manish

 

This would be really nice too, as having a variant with the RDM radar would be awesome.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Hook47