It's that time again... Mirage 2000-5F please!?

[Hodo]

I know many of us would pay good money for the -5F option for our Mirage 2000s.   

 

What is the real reason we won't get it? 

[Shmegegge 1-1 Aero]

The real reason is because they already have enough on their plate already.  Let's at least wait until the next couple big updates for the Mirage or released.

[jojo]

Yes, they are pushing hard to finish the M-2000C already.

For any other variant they would need the support of French Air Force to get access to the necessary data. It isn't about the module we want, it is about what they can have access to 

And you won't find the necessary data just by searching on Google...

[TLTeo]

I also doubt that the module most DCS player want is an upgraded version of an airframe that is already in the game. I suspect the return on investment on, say, the Strike Eagle, will be way way higher than a new Mirage 2000, even factoring in re-using the external model and FM.

[=36=Witcher]

I'm genuinely sick of all these -5F requests honestly. Just as RAZBAM is too lazy or simply cruel to not to give it to us.

 

They said plenty of times that the last stance (I know it has been talked before) is that it's not planned at the moment. It's not that asking them a thousand times will change something. 

 

And for what? Just to be able to shoot Fox 3s and compete with other airquakes. I mean, if and when they pull this out I will be happy to purchase it on day one, but: a. there's so much that can be done with the 2000C and b. releasing a full fidelty module (and a such a complex one in this case) takes A LOT of effort. They are doing an amazing job with the 2000C and have other modules in the plate already. It has been asked a thousand times already, they know. 

[Steph21]

1 hour ago, =36=Witcher said:

Just to be able to shoot Fox 3s and compete with other airquakes. 

No, for the same reasons AdA upgraded their M2000C to -5F 

But yeah, no point of asking again and again.

[Kercheiz]

12 minutes ago, Steph21 said:

No, for the same reasons AdA upgraded their M2000C to -5F 

But yeah, no point of asking again and again.

 

I'm not sure that a country need for air defense and the enthusiast wish for a game expansion can be called the "same reason". That's somewhat a stretch.

 

And yes, a 2000-5 module could not go beyond FC3 level modelling. Just remember that some developers went to jail for doing this with US aircraft. And all russian aircraft stay FC3 for this reason. Doing a high fidelity module would require a contract with both AdA and Dassault, which is also in the professional simulator market by licensing to Thales.

 

So good luck...

 

2000-C systems are somewhat abandonware, that's why it's feasible (but even then some elements such as the radar are not disclosed and thus can't be realistic)

 

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Kercheiz

[WobblyFlops]

20 minutes ago, Kercheiz said:

Just remember that some developers went to jail for doing this with US aircraft

That never happened.

[=36=Witcher]

36 minuti fa, Steph21 ha scritto:

No, for the same reasons AdA upgraded their M2000C to -5F 

But yeah, no point of asking again and again.

 

Well, I thought that the -5F upgrade (not Mk2) was to support MICAs, RDY with multiple targeting and more fuel. Is there something else?

[jojo]

9 hours ago, =36=Witcher said:

 

Well, I thought that the -5F upgrade (not Mk2) was to support MICAs, RDY with multiple targeting and more fuel. Is there something else?

Yesn but that implies a totally new weapon system, it isn't just Mica being hanged under Mirage 2000C.

New radar, new cockpit, new weapon system.

 

The module would sell like hot cake (pre-order day one for me), but the problem is agreement and access to data...

[=36=Witcher]

2 ore fa, jojo ha scritto:

Yesn but that implies a totally new weapon system, it isn't just Mica being hanged under Mirage 2000C.

New radar, new cockpit, new weapon system.

Yeah, of course. But what I meant is that, in the end, the new "role" would be another Fox 3 launch platform. Something we already have in DCS. It would sell for sure, and again I would buy at day one without a doubt, but it feels just "more of the same". 

 

[jojo]

13 minutes ago, =36=Witcher said:

Yeah, of course. But what I meant is that, in the end, the new "role" would be another Fox 3 launch platform. Something we already have in DCS. It would sell for sure, and again I would buy at day one without a doubt, but it feels just "more of the same". 

 

Going that way, once you have the F/A-18C Hornet, everything else feels just "more of the same". 

[TLTeo]

I kind of agree that they are more of the same, but also, the other 4th gen jets have a2g capability so they are arguably less "same-y", the French -5F does not

Edited June 15, 2021 by TLTeo

[Fairey Gannet]

If I could buy 2000-5, of course I would, because I love Mirage planes. F1 is on my list as well. But I think I know why C can be sometimes a bit frustrating at the first glance. DCS, as a simulation, fails in some aspects to recreate the bigger picture. Yes, 2000C lacks in A2G, but in reality SEPECAT Jaguar would do the heavy lifting in ground pounding, 2000C would be cover and support to a degree. But we don't have Jags... Radar is not that flashy, but the GCI would do vectoring to intercept, putting 2000's in best position to attack. Same as MiG-19's and 21's in that respect. We don't have complex vectoring... And main enemy 2000C would tangle with at that time was MiG-27 and early variants of 29 like 9.12. So there is some pairity, but not many birds from 1977-1990 right now. I mean - not many variants, using F-16 Bloc 50 without some weapons is not equivalent of F-16 Bloc 5.

 

I think F-16's, 18's and other modules people consider to be more capable are actually less context-sensitive. You can do more with the airframe yourself, and you don't need to rely on external features. And some of those features are lacking at the moment. I know there will be overhaul of those implemented, but as it is now, M2k can't be utilised to its full potential, as well as other dedicated interceptors. Not to mention, that actual work they should do is clipping bombers, and servers are rarely including such scenarios. Not to mention, only thing that matters in most servers is kill count, not objective completion. You don't get points for stopping bombers or forcing them to drop and bug out - and that would be an operational success. I know that also can change with dynamic campaign. And I hope for that!

[=36=Witcher]

7 ore fa, jojo ha scritto:

Going that way, once you have the F/A-18C Hornet, everything else feels just "more of the same". 

You have a point as well

 

Come on, I'm just doing my best to tell that I'd rather kill for a 2000D without telling I'd rather kill for a 2000D

[Hodo]

22 hours ago, =36=Witcher said:

I'm genuinely sick of all these -5F requests honestly. Just as RAZBAM is too lazy or simply cruel to not to give it to us.

 

They said plenty of times that the last stance (I know it has been talked before) is that it's not planned at the moment. It's not that asking them a thousand times will change something. 

 

And for what? Just to be able to shoot Fox 3s and compete with other airquakes. I mean, if and when they pull this out I will be happy to purchase it on day one, but: a. there's so much that can be done with the 2000C and b. releasing a full fidelty module (and a such a complex one in this case) takes A LOT of effort. They are doing an amazing job with the 2000C and have other modules in the plate already. It has been asked a thousand times already, they know. 

The 5F can do much more than fire fox-3s.  Self lase, use tpod, more hardpoints, glass cockpit, improved engine response, improved radar.

 

And you don't need the support of the french Airforce.  The Greek, UAE, Indian and several other nations use the -5F model.  

 

Which is more of a Desault F-16C Blk50 than the current 2kC.  Which is more like a F-16A.  

 

 

[=36=Witcher]

4 ore fa, Fairey Gannet ha scritto:

If I could buy 2000-5, of course I would, because I love Mirage planes. F1 is on my list as well. But I think I know why C can be sometimes a bit frustrating at the first glance. DCS, as a simulation, fails in some aspects to recreate the bigger picture. Yes, 2000C lacks in A2G, but in reality SEPECAT Jaguar would do the heavy lifting in ground pounding, 2000C would be cover and support to a degree. But we don't have Jags... Radar is not that flashy, but the GCI would do vectoring to intercept, putting 2000's in best position to attack. Same as MiG-19's and 21's in that respect. We don't have complex vectoring... And main enemy 2000C would tangle with at that time was MiG-27 and early variants of 29 like 9.12. So there is some pairity, but not many birds from 1977-1990 right now. I mean - not many variants, using F-16 Bloc 50 without some weapons is not equivalent of F-16 Bloc 5.

 

I think F-16's, 18's and other modules people consider to be more capable are actually less context-sensitive. You can do more with the airframe yourself, and you don't need to rely on external features. And some of those features are lacking at the moment. I know there will be overhaul of those implemented, but as it is now, M2k can't be utilised to its full potential, as well as other dedicated interceptors. Not to mention, that actual work they should do is clipping bombers, and servers are rarely including such scenarios. Not to mention, only thing that matters in most servers is kill count, not objective completion. You don't get points for stopping bombers or forcing them to drop and bug out - and that would be an operational success. I know that also can change with dynamic campaign. And I hope for that!

You're absolutely right in all your points. People want -5 so desperately to increase their kill counts in a Mirage. Nothing wrong with that, but I find the attitude of keeping on asking for it just like it was the only smart thing in the world RAZBAM can do really disrespectful to them. People really think RAZBAM don't want to do more money if they could? They think they're just lazy, incapable, or plain cruel? No, it's either that the time effort could be too much because it's not like changinc a couple of textures, or because they simply don't have enough data available. I am a simple RAZBAM fan of course, but this attitude really drives me crazy, and also hurts the quality of the conversation in the Discord channel.

 

[=36=Witcher]

6 minuti fa, Hodo ha scritto:

The 5F can do much more than fire fox-3s.  Self lase, use tpod, more hardpoints, glass cockpit, improved engine response, improved radar.

 

And you don't need the support of the french Airforce.  The Greek, UAE, Indian and several other nations use the -5F model.  

 

Which is more of a Desault F-16C Blk50 than the current 2kC.  Which is more like a F-16A.  

 

 

Isn't the TPOD (so the self lase) in the Mk2? Because this is a crucial point for my point if view: I don't know what the glass cockpit brings in terms of airframe versatility, but the other two only speaks "improved air to air" to me, that was exactly my point. But at the cost of sacrifying almost every air to ground (AFAIK only guns are availabe).

 

This, again, if we're talking of a -5F. If we're talking of a -5F Mk2 it's a different story of course, but it's also a different module with even more complex avionics to model and more data to gather.

 

Of course AdA is not the only air force air force using the -5, but AFAIK it's the only one that is actively collaborating on a DCS module. I have a feeling that getting in touch with Greeks, UAE, Indians or other air forces could be... a little difficult, you know. Not to speak you would still need to get in touch with Dassault as well.

[Steph21]

21 hours ago, =36=Witcher said:

 

Well, I thought that the -5F upgrade (not Mk2) was to support MICAs, RDY with multiple targeting and more fuel. Is there something else?

Like it's not enough lol. You forgot L16 and several enhancements with the IHM, and RDY brings more than multitargeting.

We are not all quake players.  I don't play on PvP servers,  I play in virtual squadron, and all you describe above will greatly enhance our operability compared to the Mirage 2000C for air to air missions.

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Steph21

[Worg]

Le 2000-5 est pour air/air seulement. Il n'a pas de désignation Pod, n'a pas de moteur M53-P2 plus puissant (le même que 2000C 2000D et 2000-5). Oui du fox 3, L16, radar plus puissant et... Certains ont besoin à tout prix du fox3 pour se sentir plus puissant.

 

Je vole en escadrille, on n'envoie pas des 2000C contre des F14 ou des Mig29, les F16 s'en chargent, chacun a sa mission selon ses possibilités. En multi si je suis seul et que deux F14 arrivent sur moi.... Alors je me retourne, ou je demande du soutien aux autres joueurs du secteur F18 ou F16... rien de dramatique là dedans, je n'ai pas de fox3, je m'en occupe.

 

La race fox 3 devient parfois ridicule. Je pilote le 2000C parce que je l'aime, et aussi parce qu'il a une capacité air/sol. Je vais bien sûr acheter un 2000-5, même si ma préférence va pour un 2000D.

 

Ce que je vois jusqu'à présent, c'est le travail impressionnant qui a été fait sur le 2000C. Bientôt radar AG des ajouts de fonctionnalités et correction de bug juste gargantuesque et BAP100, combien d'avion dans DCS ont cette capacité à détruire les traces ? Encore de nombreuses mises à jour en cours, le son sera également mis à jour, quelque chose que j'attends également avec impatience et peut-être d'autres choses derrière.

 

Soyons heureux de ce que nous avons, un avion qui représente notre pays, nous avons la chance de pouvoir voler avec dans DCS.

 

Le reste, viendra naturellement quand ce sera possible.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Worg

[jojo]

37 minutes ago, Hodo said:

The 5F can do much more than fire fox-3s.  Self lase, use tpod, more hardpoints, glass cockpit, improved engine response, improved radar.

 

And you don't need the support of the french Airforce.  The Greek, UAE, Indian and several other nations use the -5F model.  

 

Which is more of a Desault F-16C Blk50 than the current 2kC.  Which is more like a F-16A.  

 

 

 

You are confusing variants.

Mirage 2000-5F is specifically the French variant. These are upgraded Mirage 2000C, with the same engine.

C

ECM is also kept but adapted to work with RDY.

Not a pound for air to ground on these birds.

Likewise Mirage 2000-5 EI for Taiwan and Mirage 2000-5 EDA don't do air to ground.

 

It seems to me that the only air to ground role for Greek Mirage 2000-5Mk2 is SCALP mission.

I didn't any picture of targeting pod in Greek service. They have loads of F-16 variants for that.

 

U.A.E. Mirage 2000-9 and Indian Mirage 2000 I do have targeting pod.

 

Export customers of Mirage 2000-5 are even more shy than French Air Force to share data about their jets.

 

Just for fun, try to find good stuffs about U.A.E. F-16 Block 60...

 

Apart from quite scarce F-16A Block 15 ADF for US ANG in 1989 with IFF interrogator and AIM-7M Sparrow, the Mirage 2000C is superior in AA.

Mostly, F-16A didn't have Fox 1.

[=36=Witcher]

1 ora fa, Steph21 ha scritto:

Like it's not enough lol. You forgot L16 and several enhancements with the IHM, and RDY brings more than multitargeting.

I thought L16 was for Mk2 as well.

[Fairey Gannet]

8 hours ago, =36=Witcher said:

You're absolutely right in all your points. People want -5 so desperately to increase their kill counts in a Mirage. Nothing wrong with that, but I find the attitude of keeping on asking for it just like it was the only smart thing in the world RAZBAM can do really disrespectful to them. People really think RAZBAM don't want to do more money if they could? They think they're just lazy, incapable, or plain cruel? No, it's either that the time effort could be too much because it's not like changinc a couple of textures, or because they simply don't have enough data available. I am a simple RAZBAM fan of course, but this attitude really drives me crazy, and also hurts the quality of the conversation in the Discord channel.

 

 

DCS is a great sim, and you are getting good, solid airframe simulation out of it. However, and this is where it fails, planes by capability and design are fulfilling the role in doctrine. That doctrine is not modelled right now, so many planes are used outside of their original purpouse. I have to stress it though, it is MP we are talking about, SP missions can be tailored to airframe capabilities.

But I keep my hopes up for dynamic campaign in the servers. Right now we have kill-counting score fest. That is fun and we all know there are good servers, with nice missions and setting. In dynamic servers, I presume, it will be more important to fill the objectives, and that doesn't have to mean kills. Posturing shots from an escort can keep interceptors away from ground pounders, and you don't have to actually score a hit. Ground attack delivering payload unharassed is the goal, and keeping enemy at range is more than enough. There is ton of actions without lethal outcome, that can be a success or failure, and I hope that there would be a formula to count and award rather operational success, than personal score. After all the latter is usually a byproduct of the former.

 

[jojo]

As a summary, there is nothing wrong with wanting a Fox 3 shooter Mirage 2000-5F. It would be a different way to do air defense but still with a Mirage 2000 airframe.

But the problem for Razbam is access to data.

Jet fighters aren't designed for our personal entertainment in the first place. These are sensitive matters, and Mirage 2000-5F is still a first line air defense asset for France.

 

Mirage 2000C is a fine Fox 1 shooter in his own right.

Yes a Fox 1 shooter is more dependent on team work and this is up to you. Playing lone wolf is more difficult.

 

On the other hand, the Mirage 2000C has never been intended or put in front of NATO Fox 3 shooters.

So blame the mission designer if it's the case.

On some PvP server the M-2000C is put as a substitute to full fidelity red fighters. So you know what you're going into.

 

I think that PvE are better for historical context missions, and you would probably find that kind of action inside virtual squadrons.

 

The only way out would be a true dynamic campaign like-the-other-sim-we-are-not-allowed-to-talk-about.

 

The 2 forces are fighting with what they have, no matter what. And you just jump inside to take a slot and maybe customize mission and payload.

[Hodo]

9 hours ago, Worg said:

Le 2000-5 est pour air/air seulement. Il n'a pas de désignation Pod, n'a pas de moteur M53-P2 plus puissant (le même que 2000C 2000D et 2000-5). Oui du fox 3, L16, radar plus puissant et... Certains ont besoin à tout prix du fox3 pour se sentir plus puissant.

 

Je vole en escadrille, on n'envoie pas des 2000C contre des F14 ou des Mig29, les F16 s'en chargent, chacun a sa mission selon ses possibilités. En multi si je suis seul et que deux F14 arrivent sur moi.... Alors je me retourne, ou je demande du soutien aux autres joueurs du secteur F18 ou F16... rien de dramatique là dedans, je n'ai pas de fox3, je m'en occupe.

 

La race fox 3 devient parfois ridicule. Je pilote le 2000C parce que je l'aime, et aussi parce qu'il a une capacité air/sol. Je vais bien sûr acheter un 2000-5, même si ma préférence va pour un 2000D.

 

Ce que je vois jusqu'à présent, c'est le travail impressionnant qui a été fait sur le 2000C. Bientôt radar AG des ajouts de fonctionnalités et correction de bug juste gargantuesque et BAP100, combien d'avion dans DCS ont cette capacité à détruire les traces ? Encore de nombreuses mises à jour en cours, le son sera également mis à jour, quelque chose que j'attends également avec impatience et peut-être d'autres choses derrière.

 

Soyons heureux de ce que nous avons, un avion qui représente notre pays, nous avons la chance de pouvoir voler avec dans DCS.

 

Le reste, viendra naturellement quand ce sera possible.

 

I had to use google translate because my French is non-existent.  But I don't care about fox-3 missiles.  They are nice but my favorite servers are fox-1 mission sets.  I often put AIM-7s on my Hornet.  And if you can't counter a F-14 by now something is wrong.  Yes the AIM-54 is nasty but don't play their game.   Force them low... Where the phoenix is not such am advantage.  

 

As for the air to ground role.  The aircraft is extremely limited.  Hell the MiG-21 is nearly as capable.   And the MiG-29A is as capable.  

 

As for the BAP yeah those are cool but any aircraft can bomb a runway.  

 

1 Su-27 with 24 bombs can deny a whole runway much the same in game.  The F/A-18 can do it also with 500lb mk82s.   

 

 

3 minutes ago, jojo said:

As a summary, there is nothing wrong with wanting a Fox 3 shooter Mirage 2000-5F. It would be a different way to do air defense but still with a Mirage 2000 airframe.

But the problem for Razbam is access to data.

Jet fighters aren't designed for our personal entertainment in the first place. These are sensitive matters, and Mirage 2000-5F is still a first line air defense asset for France.

 

Mirage 2000C is a fine Fox 1 shooter in his own right.

Yes a Fox 1 shooter is more dependent on team work and this is up to you. Playing lone wolf is more difficult.

 

On the other hand, the Mirage 2000C has never been intended or put in front of NATO Fox 3 shooters.

So blame the mission designer if it's the case.

On some PvP server the M-2000C is put as a substitute to full fidelity red fighters. So you know what you're going into.

 

I think that PvE are better for historical context missions, and you would probably find that kind of action inside virtual squadrons.

 

The only way out would be a true dynamic campaign like-the-other-sim-we-are-not-allowed-to-talk-about.

 

The 2 forces are fighting with what they have, no matter what. And you just jump inside to take a slot and maybe customize mission and payload.

To be frank.  

 

There is no match currently in DCS for anything the BlueFor have in high fidelity modules or low fidelity modules.

 

There is one... Modern high fidelity redfor module.