ARMAT?

[TomCatMucDe]

The point is: it "allows" to mount the third Maverick! But(!) If you fire it, it will damage the landing gear/burn the tire, thus you cannot land the plane undamaged! So realistically you should never load the inner Maverick, ever!

 

Luckily the damage isn't modeled. ;)

 

The point is, if the Mirage can realistically load and fire the ARMAT, I'm all for it.

If it can't, because the necessary systems are not part if this model, then leave it out, rather than make up something stupid...

 

The GBU laser code in the A-10C is acceptable, as you need to change the code somehow and a fixed code in Mission design, was not possible as far as I understood.

 

 

I have no reason not to believe you about the third maverick. I only said if it is not carried in the real plane then it shouldn't be carried in DCS and the fellow forumer deduced that following my "logic" the Tomcat shou do carry 6 Phoenix! :)

[shagrat]

 

About your examples:

- The triple maverick launcher is a real thing. A Q&A-session with a real A-10 pilot just showed that again (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157896)

- Switching A-10C laser codes in the DSMS is not realistic? It's the first time I hear someone saying that. If that's true then yeah, I would say that feature should be removed.

- The C-Version of the M2000 is different to the export versions. But even if you don't care about that difference, I haven't seen a proof that the exports can use the ARMAT, not to mention the documentation on how it works.

- Participation of georgian Su-25s in NATO operations is not that unrealistic. Georgia is a member of NATOs Parthnership for Pace programme and participates in NATO excersises. Of course, it also depends on the specific operation, but since we're using a Black Sea map in DCS which covers entire Georgia it should really not be difficult to create a reasonable scenario with Georgia in it ;)

1) the third Maverick (inner rail) burnt and cooked the landing gear/tire and thus it isn't used for safety reasons (according to some subject matter experts that worked on the A-10C at least). Maybe they would have taken the risk in an all out WW III scenario, though.

 

2) the LGBs PRF code is set on the ground by the ordnance team, the DSMS just shows it. It cannot be changed in flight.

[ame]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/mcwp/3-16/appk.pdf[/ame]

 

3) In the Caucasus maybe, but what about Nevada/NTTR? Hopefully with Street of Hormuz we already have the F/A-18C

Edited January 11, 2016 by shagrat

[shagrat]

I have no reason not to believe you about the third maverick. I only said if it is not carried in the real plane then it shouldn't be carried in DCS and the fellow forumer deduced that following my "logic" the Tomcat shou do carry 6 Phoenix! :)

There are always a lot of discussions about "real life" load outs. Often a "possible" load out was not practical, intentionally not used for good reasons, or simply never applied in real life.

 

Personally, I would like the possibility to do what is possible, and let the mission designers, pilots stick to realism.

[gospadin]

There are always a lot of discussions about "real life" load outs. Often a "possible" load out was not practical, intentionally not used for good reasons, or simply never applied in real life.

 

Personally, I would like the possibility to do what is possible, and let the mission designers, pilots stick to realism.

 

I agree. Possibilities should be enabled, and mission designers and pilots decide what they're actually modeling and how much realism to employ.

 

I'll just leave this here for the 6-phoenix haters...

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/AIM-54_6_Pack.jpg

 

RE: Setting LGB codes... IMO, sometimes you have to make changes because this is ultimately a computer simulation. For every pilot, there's a crew of 5-15 servicing the plane, updating data, whatever. Could you imagine how awful the ME would become if every plane needed that stuff set individually?

Edited January 11, 2016 by gospadin

[Hook47]

I didn't know about this, but if it is the case then yes, a 3rd Maverick should be removed.

 

 

This is a different story. Now you are talking about a limitation of DCS not allowing to simulate a ground crew setup in the armament interface. It is not only about the laser code but also all the weapon configuration.

In the end of the day, this particular thing doesnt harm the sim as it doesnt give you combat advantages you don't have in real. In fact, it would have been more comfortable to let the ground crew do it for you and you don't bother about it.

 

Oops... Too late, looks like thanks to the A-10 you've been playing "digital combat fantasy" all this time. Better get to work on the uninstall then.

[TomCatMucDe]

Oops... Too late, looks like thanks to the A-10 you've been playing "digital combat fantasy" all this time. Better get to work on the uninstall then.

 

you probably dont know how to read a post till its end. I can summarized for you in easy words:

 

I am happy with the A10 implementation. instead of letting the crew setting the laser code, something that DCS doesnt allow, I can set it in the cockpit once for all. It doesnt harm the experience in any way possible. That's very different from your fantasies with the ARMAT on the M2000C, it has never carried it.

[myHelljumper]

So if we got the ARMAT, I want the mica IR. It was never done but it could have been..... no ?

[TomCatMucDe]

So if we got the ARMAT, I want the mica IR. It was never done but it could have been..... no ?

 

+1

 

I want HARM missiles for A10, it could have been done as well. After all Su25 can also do SEAD so why not.

[Sarge55]

[quote name=Snip

 

We have two other weapons systems to develop:

The BLG-66 BELOUGA and the BAP-100, which IMO are more interesting. Specially the BAP-100.[/quote]

 

Sweet, looking forward to those two. :thumbup:

 

Just thought I'd throw that in there to break up the monotony of this "discussion"...

Edited January 11, 2016 by Sarge55

[myHelljumper]

BAP-100 :cheer3nc:

[Hook47]

you probably dont know how to read a post till its end. I can summarized for you in easy words:

 

I am happy with the A10 implementation. instead of letting the crew setting the laser code, something that DCS doesnt allow, I can set it in the cockpit once for all. It doesnt harm the experience in any way possible. That's very different from your fantasies with the ARMAT on the M2000C, it has never carried it.

 

You of all people have an issue with someone cherry picking your post? LOL :megalol:

 

Using your own words to demonstrate how rediculous that reasoning is....

 

So if we got the ARMAT, I want the mica IR. It was never done but it could have been..... no ?

 

No. Because the MICA was not hung on a M2000C/E to my knowledge, yet the ARMAT was.

 

I'm done with this topic, as some of those opposed to this just don't want to be rational. Razbam has stated they are still considering it, so that is good enough for me.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Hook47

[shagrat]

RE: Setting LGB codes... IMO, sometimes you have to make changes because this is ultimately a computer simulation. For every pilot, there's a crew of 5-15 servicing the plane, updating data, whatever. Could you imagine how awful the ME would become if every plane needed that stuff set individually?

Absolutely agree, that's why I think these workarounds are OK, if not totally against the model. :)

[Sarge55]

You guys should get your own thread. I'd have a lot less reading to do filtering out the dross.

[TomCatMucDe]

You of all people have an issue with someone cherry picking your post? LOL :megalol:

 

Using your own words to demonstrate how rediculous that reasoning is....

 

 

 

No. Because the MICA was not hung on a M2000C/E to my knowledge, yet the ARMAT was.

 

 

You said it, cherry picking, take words out of their context, you love trolling don't you?

[shagrat]

So if it is possible - as in the M-2000C loading an ARMAT and the Weapons Control system can activate and manage it in the real plane - we should get it, even if no M-2000C ever did a SEAD mission. If it requires a different set of avionics, no, than it should not be faked!

[GGTharos]

ARMs typically require some form of specialized aircraft interface if you want to use them to full potential ... The Su-25T implementation for example shows something very limited - you 58's range would be wasted against a realistically modeled SAM without the ability to perform a pre planned launch.

 

Likewise the way SAMs are modeled gives you a poor idea of how SEAD works, and why such additional systems are necessary.

 

 

DCS is a great simulator, but there's always some room for improvement :-)

Edited January 11, 2016 by GGTharos

[jojo]

Sure you can load the Armat on Mirage 2000 airframe, you can even fly with it, it has been done for Paris Airshow back then.

 

Yet, the Mirage 2000C RDI has no other guided AG missile. There is no reason to believe the weapon system has special mode to handle it.

 

Moreover, why France would have fitted the Armat/ Martel to Mirage 2000C RDI dedicated AA fighters when Mirage 2000N with TFR, moving map, 2 INS system and dedicated AG crews would have been more up to the task ?

Or Mirage 2000D ?

 

It isn't about the weapon being secret. We have pictures of Jaguar and Mirage III E carrying it.

There are pictures of Mirage 2000N flying with dummy ASMP nuclear missile, and there is no French fighter weapon more secret than ASMP.

[QuiGon]

No. Because the MICA was not hung on a M2000C/E to my knowledge, yet the ARMAT was.

 

I'm done with this topic, as some of those opposed to this just don't want to be rational. Razbam has stated they are still considering it, so that is good enough for me.

 

There is much more needed to actually use a weapon than to just hang it under the airframe. So pictures (that I still haven't seen btw) from ARMAT missiles beeing carried by a M2000C/E/? at an air show doesn't proof anything about actual functionality...

I really don't know why you still refuse to understand that.

Edited January 12, 2016 by QuiGon

[TomCatMucDe]

There is much more needed to actually use a weapon than it is to just hang it under the airframe. So pictures (that I still haven't seen btw) from ARMAT missiles beeing carried by a M2000C/E/? at an air show doesn't proof anything about actual functionality...

I really don't know why you still refuse to understand that.

 

Placing the ARMAT under the wings in an airshow could be pure marketing. It could be well, and mostl likely, that they wanted a firm order to integrate them with the avionics. We dont know who ordered it, the French airforce never ordered them. I really doubt Dassault spend a hell a lot of money on something without having a concrete order.

 

Anyways, we are trying to be reasonable to someone who simply doesnt care about arguments or realism. I hope someone will be bring a mod for ARMAT that he can enjoy on his computer.

 

Razbam shouldnt implement this in it its bird and focuses on BAP-100! :)

[QuiGon]

Placing the ARMAT under the wings in an airshow could be pure marketing.

That's what I was trying to say :)

 

It could be well, and mostl likely, that they wanted a firm order to integrate them with the avionics. We dont know who ordered it, the French airforce never ordered them. I really doubt Dassault spend a hell a lot of money on something without having a concrete order

Yes, they sure wanted to show, that it could be done if someone wanted that, but it doesn't mean that someone actually ordered this feature after all.

[TomCatMucDe]

That's what I was trying to say :)

 

 

Yes, they sure wanted to show, that it could be done if someone wanted that, but it doesn't mean that someone actually ordered this feature after all.

 

Military and even industrial features are developped once a customer asks for them. I work in an Automotive semiconductor supplier, every small tiny features costs millions. You count the R&D, testing, the ressources taking from other projects, logistics. It is huge. You dont start it until a negociation with a potential buyer is conducted, requirements captured, costs estimated, and eventually a contract is signed and sometimes some of the costs shared or pre payement are done.

 

It is not like doing iPhones or cars, push a more or less good product, pack some features and push a huge marketing campaign behind it and wait for customers.

 

I can hardly believe that the ARMAT were really working on the Mirage if nobody has aquired them.

[QuiGon]

Military and even industrial features are developped once a customer asks for them. I work in an Automotive semiconductor supplier, every small tiny features costs millions. You count the R&D, testing, the ressources taking from other projects, logistics. It is huge. You dont start it until a negociation with a potential buyer is conducted, requirements captured, costs estimated, and eventually a contract is signed and sometimes some of the costs shared or pre payement are done.

 

It is not like doing iPhones or cars, push a more or less good product, pack some features and push a huge marketing campaign behind it and wait for customers.

 

I can hardly believe that the ARMAT were really working on the Mirage if nobody has aquired them.

 

Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say. :)

And since we don't know if any customer ordered that feature we can't know if it has been developed.

[Hook47]

Placing the ARMAT under the wings in an airshow could be pure marketing. It could be well, and mostl likely, that they wanted a firm order to integrate them with the avionics. We dont know who ordered it, the French airforce never ordered them. I really doubt Dassault spend a hell a lot of money on something without having a concrete order.

 

Anyways, we are trying to be reasonable to someone who simply doesnt care about arguments or realism. I hope someone will be bring a mod for ARMAT that he can enjoy on his computer.

 

Razbam shouldnt implement this in it its bird and focuses on BAP-100! :)

 

You sure you can handle me having a mod? Based on your freak out in the AIM-9 mod thread and all somehow doubt it. . . :megalol: I love the "OMG DCS WILL BE WAR THUNDER!!!" crowd. In addition from my real world flying week in and week out, I spend hours a week on a sim where it takes 10 minutes to start the A-10 just to be told I don't care about realism by some cat who acts like he knows me (despite 90 percent of his "quotes" of me to be either completely self generated or inaccurate) :lol:

 

This thread... It all started so nice and then the nay sayers came along. God help the guy who just started the MICA thread!

Edited January 12, 2016 by Hook47

[myHelljumper]

I'm done :lol:

 

Didn't you wanted to have twin magic and under fuselage 530D ?

[TomCatMucDe]

You sure you can handle me having a mod? Based on your freak out in the AIM-9 mod thread and all somehow doubt it. . . :megalol:

 

It is suprisiding to see DCS is atracting kids.

 

I dont care what you do on your PC son, you can delete DCS, you can reprogram it, you can fly your Mirage with 2 engines, 10 armat, you can uninstall it, you can watch cartoons or -18 rate films, I just dont care.

 

Just dont say you shoot for realism or cry to devs to implement your fantasies.