GBUs, when?

[QuiGon]

As I said, there is no C101 with the use of LGB.

But it can carry it

I guess the USAF F-16 could technically also carry the Mk-83 as it does employ the Mk-82 and Mk-84. But the USAF isn't using the MK-83, so no Mk-83 on our F-16 either. Same with weapons that are actually in use with foreigh F-16s, like Harpoon, Sparrow, etc.

[paco2002]

I guess the USAF F-16 could technically also carry the Mk-83 as it does employ the Mk-82 and Mk-84. But the USAF isn't using the MK-83, so no Mk-83 on our F-16 either. Same with weapons that are actually in use with foreigh F-16s, like Harpoon, Sparrow, etc.

Another thing is that ED is not AvioDev. I would love to see the C101 having LGB capabilities for example

[QuiGon]

Another thing is that ED is not AvioDev. I would love to see the C101 having LGB capabilities for example

But it's still the same sim we're talking about.

[paco2002]

But it's still the same sim we're talking about.

That's, semi-correct. As you say is a "sim" (That's another discussion) so I would love to see the C101 with LGB simulated. Is that better?

[Flagrum]

Uhm, according to ED it does exactly that, hence all the restrictions on the Viper and Hornet on weapons and systems that are not used by the US (e.g. for the Viper: moving map display, Harpoons, Mk-83, Python, AIM-7 ...).

 

Also I have not seen any C-101 of any country using LGBs...

I don't know if that is the official stance of ED in this matter, but you are right, the DCS Viper can not load MK-83. I don't know anything about the missiles, but if the only reason why nothing, of what you mentioned, is available for the DCS Viber "because the USAF never used it", then something is wrong with this sim, imho.

 

If there are technical restrictions/incompatibilities, I fully support to not allow such fantasy loadouts. The moving map requires a different software version, the missiles also need specific software and probably different rails? And even the MK-83 might require a software change to accomodate for slightly different ballistics compared to MK-82 and MK84. If not, then I would find it disappointing to not have it included for the DCS Viper.

 

In general, I am "pro options", as long as this doesn't contradict the physics/technical reality and I can't understand why someone finds it desireable to artificially restrict the capabilities of what could technically be done.

 

And btw, the argument "XY never used it" is really flawed: the Viper was also never used with Flagrum on board - and yet I sit here, 5000 ft. above Georgia ... :smilewink:

 

 

edit: the C-101 does not have any CCIP/CCRO capabilities, no software involved. All there is to it is to hang the weapon under the aircraft. It can carry the weight, it can release the weapon - all technical requirements fullfilled, correct?

 

 

edit2: one could argue, that it is technically possible to strap a pig under the Viper so we want that implmented! Yes, somewhere someone has to draw a line of what will be implemented and what won't. If ED says, we can not implement every weapon that one can think of, even if they would be technically feasible, then that is a valid point. It would have to be discussed, if a certain unconventional loadout should be available or not. But MK-83 and LGBs are not really that uncommon ...

Edited September 4, 2020 by Flagrum
typos

[QuiGon]

If there are technical restrictions/incompatibilities, I fully support to not allow such fantasy loadouts. The moving map requires a different software version, the missiles also need specific software and probably different rails? And even the MK-83 might require a software change to accomodate for slightly different ballistics compared to MK-82 and MK84.

Exactly! And same thing with a GBU-12! A GBU-12 does have a bit different ballistics than a Mk-82! It's a bit bigger, because of the guidance kit and this also causes slight differences in seperation physics. Such differences would have to be evaluated and tested first, before the weapon could be cleared for use on a specific aircraft, because there might be some unique aerodynamic implications that might cause issues. Such tests and evalutations haven't happend for the C-101 and the GBU-12 AFAIK, meaning the weapon is not cleared for use on that airframe!

[paco2002]

edit: the C-101 does not have any CCIP/CCRO capabilities, no software involved. All there is to it is to hang the weapon under the aircraft. It can carry the weight, it can release the weapon - all technical requirements fullfilled, correct?

 

 

edit2: one could argue, that it is technically possible to strap a pig under the Viper so we want that implmented! Yes, somewhere someone has to draw a line of what will be implemented and what won't. If ED says, we can not implement every weapon that one can think of, even if they would be technically feasible, then that is a valid point. It would have to be discussed, if a certain unconventional loadout should be available or not. But MK-83 and LGBs are not really that uncommon ...

 

Answer edit 1: You are completly correct.

 

Answer edit 2: I think the same as you in this topic, maybe never used for example (Like the bombcat), but no reason to not have it in DCS. Same with GBUs in planes like this for example.

[paco2002]

Exactly! And same thing with a GBU-12! A GBU-12 does have a bit different ballistics than a Mk-82! It's a bit bigger, because of the guidance kit and this also causes slight differences in seperation physics. Such differences would have to be evaluated and tested first, before the weapon could be cleared for use on a specific aircraft, because there might be some unique aerodynamic implications that might cause issues. Such tests and evalutations haven't happend for the C-101 and the GBU-12 AFAIK, meaning the weapon is not cleared for use on that airframe!

As Flagrum said, C101 doesn't have any CCIP or CCRP capabilities, so no balistics are needed. The separation metod is exactly the same, literally, the bomb weight is almost the same, if not the same, and the Pylon is not going to brake for a difference of 5 kg or something like that (Will look for weight differences and will edit this message)

 

Edit: MK82 = 241kg GBU-12=275

 

That equals a difference of 34 kg. C101 can carry heavier bombs that a GBU-12, the BR-500 weights 500kg, so that would be still inside the limitations.

Edited September 4, 2020 by paco2002

[QuiGon]

As Flagrum said, C101 doesn't have any CCIP or CCRP capabilities, so no balistics are needed. The separation metod is exactly the same, literally, the bomb weight is almost the same, if not the same, and the Pylon is not going to brake for a difference of 5 kg or something like that (Will look for weight differences and will edit this message)

 

Edit: MK82 = 241kg GBU-12=275

 

That equals a difference of 34 kg. C101 can carry heavier bombs that a GBU-12, the BR-500 weights 500kg, so that would be still inside the limitations.

Yeah, the weight isn't the issue here, but the aerodynamics when the bomb and its guidance fins get released into the airstream. Odd things can happen there, which is why such things get tested and evaluated first.

 

[Rudel_chw]

SEA Eagles was tested by chilen Air force on C101CCs, has not a fantasy weapon.

 

The FACH made tests with an aerodynamic mock-up of the Sea Eagle. Not a single firing test was made and the weapon never entered service.

 

Anyway, that was enough for Aviodev to include it, but do we want a small developer to invest man-hours on developing this type of never-used weapons?

 

I sincerely prefer that they invest those hours onto finishing the F-1, but that is my Opinion and it seems that I’m in the minority here :(

[QuiGon]

The FACH made tests with an aerodynamic mock-up of the Sea Eagle. Not a single firing test was made and the weapon never entered service.

And the test results didn't seem to have been very promising, as Chile decided not to adopt the Sea Eagle on the C-101, which makes me wonder even more why it was implemented in DCS...

[ngreenaway]

The FACH made tests with an aerodynamic mock-up of the Sea Eagle. Not a single firing test was made and the weapon never entered service.

 

Anyway, that was enough for Aviodev to include it, but do we want a small developer to invest man-hours on developing this type of never-used weapons?

 

I sincerely prefer that they invest those hours onto finishing the F-1, but that is my Opinion and it seems that I’m in the minority here :(

 

I'm right there with you

 

I don't see a justification in adding weapons were never used because the operators never owned them ("but I want them!" Isn't a justification)

 

In any case, it would be nice to see aviodev's position on the matter

 

I'd like them to tie up the remaining loose ends to this fantastic module & then focus they attention to detail like the eye of sauron on some other module, tho I think I'd prefer the mirage 3 to the f1

[paco2002]

But, can someone answer me a question? Why it has to be operational to be in a DCS Module?

Did the C101 had a Sea Eagle in testings? Yes. Then, put it in

[QuiGon]

But, can someone answer me a question? Why it has to be operational to be in a DCS Module?

Because DCS should simulate real aircraft and weapons and not some fantasy setups.

 

Did the C101 had a Sea Eagle in testings? Yes. Then, put it in

The Sea Eagle was tested and as a results of this tests it was not integrated into the aircraft!

[paco2002]

Because DCS should simulate real aircraft and weapons and not some fantasy setups.

 

For me, it should have everything it was tested in the aircraft, give me variety, give me weapons, If you want to simulate a certain period of a war, use the weapons it has been used there, but, if you want to simulate an alternative history, you need to be able to use whatever it has been used in testing, as simple as that. If you want balance, then this is not a Sim anymore, then, it would be a game, were everything is almost as equal as other planes an almost as equal as other missiles... Oh wait... It already happened...

 

 

Back on topic, other planes like the M2000C doesn't have the ability to have a TGP, but, as it supports the Mk82, it uses GBU-12 (Plus other GBUs), it even uses the same dual rack.

 

About the video of the aerodynamics of the missiles and bombs, that would be cool to see in DCS, but, is not simulated, so, I don't see the point on that.

 

Edit: Why not to try to mod the GBU12 into the C101, and see what happens? Use DCS as a test bench

[QuiGon]

For me, it should have everything it was tested in the aircraft

You don't seem to understand that tests sometimes yield negative results, showing that a weapon doesn't work well with the aircraft. Chile tested the Sea Ealge on the C-101 and as a result they canceled their plans to integrate the Sea Eagle in the C-101.

[Fri13]

 

In general, I am "pro options", as long as this doesn't contradict the physics/technical reality and I can't understand why someone finds it desireable to artificially restrict the capabilities of what could technically be done.

 

And btw, the argument "XY never used it" is really flawed: the Viper was also never used with Flagrum on board - and yet I sit here, 5000 ft. above Georgia ... :smilewink:

 

 

edit: the C-101 does not have any CCIP/CCRO capabilities, no software involved. All there is to it is to hang the weapon under the aircraft. It can carry the weight, it can release the weapon - all technical requirements fullfilled, correct?

 

 

edit2: one could argue, that it is technically possible to strap a pig under the Viper so we want that implmented! Yes, somewhere someone has to draw a line of what will be implemented and what won't. If ED says, we can not implement every weapon that one can think of, even if they would be technically feasible, then that is a valid point. It would have to be discussed, if a certain unconventional loadout should be available or not. But MK-83 and LGBs are not really that uncommon ...

 

I sign all that....

 

We are talking DCS World as a "sandbox" with simulation accuracy to reality at technical level.

Not about "I want MiG-15Bis to carry and launch AIM-120C-7" kinda stuff.

 

For a Mk.82 and GBU-12 I can see the difference be the flight modeling or release parameters to be proper. But are those even modeled in ANY module? I don't think so.... Lots of stuff are politically or historically limited, not by technical means or possibilities. So why do we apply real world politics to simulator?

[Flagrum]

Chile tested the Sea Ealge on the C-101 and as a result they canceled their plans to integrate the Sea Eagle in the C-101.

That is not necessarily a direct consequence of the tests - we don't really know the actual outcome of the tests, do we? Maybe the decision was not made as a direct result of some negative technical tests. Maybe they decided to not use it as, i.e. the whole system of airframe and missile was not suitable for the needs (range? costs? doctrine?).

 

 

 

I mean, if we want to be precise with what we have in our sim, we should also be precise with our argumentation! :smilewink:

[QuiGon]

That is not necessarily a direct consequence of the tests - we don't really know the actual outcome of the tests, do we? Maybe the decision was not made as a direct result of some negative technical tests. Maybe they decided to not use it as, i.e. the whole system of airframe and missile was not suitable for the needs (range? costs? doctrine?).

 

I mean, if we want to be precise with what we have in our sim, we should also be precise with our argumentation! :smilewink:

True, but as people here seem to argue, that a weapon that has been tested must work, I wanted to do the exact opposite.

 

The truth is, that it could be either one as you said. What I wanted to make clear is, that the mere fact that a weapon has been tested on a certain airframe doesn't mean anything if you don't know about the results of the tests.

 

So in regards to the C-101 and the Sea Eagle, we just know it was tested, but we don't know if the tests were successful. That IMHO is waaaaaaay to few of a basis to justify the integration of this weapon on this platform in DCS.

[Silver_Dragon]

The FACH made tests with an aerodynamic mock-up of the Sea Eagle. Not a single firing test was made and the weapon never entered service.

 

Anyway, that was enough for Aviodev to include it, but do we want a small developer to invest man-hours on developing this type of never-used weapons?

 

I sincerely prefer that they invest those hours onto finishing the F-1, but that is my Opinion and it seems that I’m in the minority here :(

 

A missile maked by ED with only need a little code of some lines on the main C-101 LUA to work them? Aviodev has not build the Sea Eagle from scratch or making navigation or sensors,avionics or others features on that weapon, was put as the same situation as other 3rd parties weapons. If you dont like, dont use them, but dont attack develop team. The comparation about sea eagle integration has making delays on the develop of a "future" F-1 module has very nonsense.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Silver_Dragon

[Flagrum]

True, but as people here seem to argue, that a weapon that has been tested must work, I wanted to do the exact opposite.

 

The truth is, that it could be either one as you said. What I wanted to make clear is, that the mere fact that a weapon has been tested on a certain airframe doesn't mean anything if you don't know about the results of the tests.

 

So in regards to the C-101 and the Sea Eagle, we just know it was tested, but we don't know if the tests were successful. That IMHO is waaaaaaay to few of a basis to justify the integration of this weapon on this platform in DCS.

As I said, I like to have options - to explore "what if" scenarios. The nice thing about options is that they are not mandatory. You (and the server, the mission maker) can choose to use or not to use it. A "reasonable" indication that a system or weapon would technically work would be good enough for me to have such an optional feature. The Sea Eagle might be debatable, but as for the LGB, I would have no issues at all.

 

 

But for you, everything that gets implemented, has to be documented in official papers beforehand, right? No options, no educated guesses.

You would probably also not allow to strap thermal coated navy MK-82s under a A-10?

Edited September 7, 2020 by Flagrum

[QuiGon]

But for you, everything that gets implemented, has to be documented in official papers beforehand, right? No options, no educated guesses.

You would probably also not allow to strap thermal coated navy MK-82s under a A-10?

That would be the ideal and perfect situation, yes. I'm aware though that this isn't always possible, but integrating weapons in an aircraft in DCS that doesn't have them IRL is something I really don't have any sympathy for at all.

[tugais]

How do you manage the fact that DCS does not offer any realistic scenario ? Isn't it silly to offer a simulation with absolute non sense in regards of geopolitics ? When was the last time we saw Soviet/Russian planes engaged in a conflict against western air forces over Georgia ?

 

Please, this is a game first and foremost, let's not forget it. The point of this game is to explore the realm of possibilities within the constraints of the hardware available. I firmly believe that a weapon should be available on a platform if it is possible to mount it IRL. If the weapon requires a specific system/hardware update, then sure, it shouldn't be available ; but if a plane could carry an ordinance without software update or hardware modifications, then why not offering it ? Let explore different doctrines if we can do it.

[G.J.S]

How do you manage the fact that DCS does not offer any realistic scenario ? Isn't it silly to offer a simulation with absolute non sense in regards of geopolitics ? When was the last time we saw Soviet/Russian planes engaged in a conflict against western air forces over Georgia ?

 

Please, this is a game first and foremost, let's not forget it. The point of this game is to explore the realm of possibilities within the constraints of the hardware available. I firmly believe that a weapon should be available on a platform if it is possible to mount it IRL. If the weapon requires a specific system/hardware update, then sure, it shouldn't be available ; but if a plane could carry an ordinance without software update or hardware modifications, then why not offering it ? Let explore different doctrines if we can do it.

 

 

Which targets will you be dropping this on then?? :megalol:

 

This WAS mounted AND dropped in real world operations during the Vietnam conflict.

 

Just because you firmly believe that if it can be mounted in RL, it should be so here, actually is wrong.

There have been MANY weapons TRIALED on airframes that clearly shouldn't mount them, just to see if its possible (think absolutely LAST DITCH effort, if you have run out of kitchen sinks to throw).

Take the F-4 (Chico) with several gun pods, plus its own nose mounted gun. The muzzle horsepower from its internal gun only is close to the output of the engines, yet they trialed that plus at least two gun pods also. Firing that lot collectively would be at least 4 times more effective than the airbrakes plus minimum thrust on the engines - the speed loss would have been eye watering.

 

Suicidal in combat.

 

But they tried it.

 

Just because something was hung on an aircraft but not adopted, means there is probably a very good reason why it wasn't adopted.

 

DCS is a sandbox - the locations really don't matter - Syria, the Gulf, heck - could even be centered on Paris itself, doesn't matter.

If Joe Bloggs/Annie Body wants to simulate a realistic scenario of realistically armed opponents and co-combatants, of East versus West over Paris or Georgia, that's THIER sandbox - THIER sim - THIER scenario.

DCS is providing the world, ED and other developers are providing the tools modelled as best they can, so as to provide for a realistic experience.

Even the Military are starting to use/thinking about using DCS as a training tool.

 

They wont want anything less than realism either.

Edited September 8, 2020 by garyscott

[tugais]

DCS is a sandbox - the locations really don't matter - Syria, the Gulf, heck - could even be centered on Paris itself, doesn't matter.

If Joe Bloggs/Annie Body wants to simulate a realistic scenario of realistically armed opponents and co-combatants, of East versus West over Paris or Georgia, that's THIER sandbox - THIER sim - THIER scenario.

DCS is providing the world, ED and other developers are providing the tools modelled as best they can, so as to provide for a realistic experience.

Even the Military are starting to use/thinking about using DCS as a training tool.

 

They wont want anything less than realism either.

 

Oh, I see. Double standards.

 

Crying for realism about believable loadouts being negated but not about actual geopolitics. Make sense.