Rafale as possible next project/module from HEATBLUR?!

[Spurts]

@wormeaten you did not read/understand my post.  Dassault has already issued C&D orders against developers trying to make full fidelity Rafale.  So the answer to your very first question above "Is it possible to develop Rafale?" is "No".  Dassault will issue a C&D and then sue if the C&D is not obeyed.  No Rafale.  Not happening.  

[Rick50]

So lemme get this straight:  Heatblur has two modules that will show up before the EF2000, and you want to book them for a project after all that?!?  When will this "BH Rafale" project begin development, in 2033, and be ready for Early Access in 2036 ? Declared "full featured" by 2040?

 

Yea, ok.

[Dunx]

3 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

So lemme get this straight:  Heatblur has two modules that will show up before the EF2000, and you want to book them for a project after all that?!?  When will this "BH Rafale" project begin development, in 2033, and be ready for Early Access in 2036 ? Declared "full featured" by 2040?

 

Yea, ok.

 

I believe that is how businesses grow

[Northstar98]

On 8/6/2021 at 8:49 PM, wormeaten said:

All of it you mention is apply to Euro Fighter as well. It is the same age, same generation, and same time frame jet. Almost all weapons are the same or very similar. Lots of shared technology.

 

Except Truegrit are working with the manufacturer (and are licensed by them), and the management agency as per their FAQ, as well as having Eurofighter pilots, and are developing a trainer for the Luftwaffe AFAIK.

 

None of this is true for the Rafale, at all.

 

And to top it off the Rafale has a phased array RADAR, nothing of the sort exists in DCS, and we're lucky to get mechanical RADARs that are accurate, though there's plenty still missing for EW.

 

On 8/6/2021 at 8:49 PM, wormeaten said:

My point all this time is how HEATBLUR doing Euro Fighter already has 2/3 work done for Rafale so why not use the opportunity to earn some more money.

Guys have in mind if we want a professional job to be done we have to pay for it. Most of the time new modules financing maintenance and update of the old modules and keep positive motivation for further development. Devs have to live from their work not volunteering or live from charity donations. Same as all of us who work something else.

So why not combining some modules if could be combined? The next logical step will be Gripen for the same reasons. This is a simple economy not military or else decisions. That is how is business done so you keep steady cash flow to keep the company stable and alive. And as I see the interest is here, it is 50/50 so that is a very good ratio to start. With minimum marketing, this could be much more in favor of Rafale.

 

They're going to earn plenty of money, regardless of what module they pick.

 

And their line-up so far is mid-late 90s, though they're reaching into the 80s with their Forrestal and early Tomcat. They're only doing the Eurofighter because TrueGrit partnered with them.

 

On 8/6/2021 at 8:49 PM, wormeaten said:

I made my point. Interest is here, business logic as well no matter on few bitching comments. In reality, HB could in the next 3 years easily release 3 modern jet modules, Euro Fighter, Rafale, and Gripen. They will go well with existing maps and future who is in developing.

 

 

Eurofighter and Rafale fits on the Syria map and that's just about it, mind you the Eurofighter is mostly RAF Eurofighters out of Akrotiri, and we're getting a German one), as for the Rafale? Only the Rafale M and we have no French naval assets at all.

 

They wanted to do a Gripen (most likely JAS 39A) but IIRC, it used components from the JA 37 Viggen Mod. D, and that was classified. HB won't do an F-14D as parts of it are classified.

 

Then you add onto the fact that Dassault is notoriously difficult about their stuff, and the M-2000C by RAZBAM (called that due to licensing issues AFAIK), is only in the state it's in thanks to direct involvement with the AdA.

 

On 8/6/2021 at 8:49 PM, wormeaten said:

With future F15 and existing F16

 

Who said anything about a future F-15? I would love an FF F-15A/C circa 80s, our FC3 one is kinda a mix between 80s and early/mid 2000s

 

On 8/6/2021 at 8:49 PM, wormeaten said:

MIG 29, SU 27, SU33, and SU35, BTW all are already released as DCS module and are still in RL servic

 

What?

 

The Su-35 doesn't exist at all in DCS, there might be a user mod for it, though using the Su-27S as a baseline.

 

The MiG-29 is the only one where a FF module is under consideration, however it'll be a 9-12 MiG-29 [NATO: "Fulcrum A"] or in other words the first production variant from the early 80s.

 

There is the 9-13S MiG-29S [NATO: "Fulcrum C"] which is from the late-ish 80s, the only thing newer about it is the R-77 which is from the end of the 90s.

 

The Su-27 is an Su-27S [NATO: "Flanker B"] or in other words the first production variant for the VVS circa mid 80s. The Su-33 while officially introduced in the mid 90s, has identical capabilities to the Su-27, with identical weapons, RADAR, IRST and RWR, just navalised with a different wing, canards, possibly engines and 2 more hardpoints.

 

And all of the above are low-fidelity, simplified aircraft, with only the MiG-29 being considered as a full-fidelity module.

 

How does a Rafale fit any of these? The closest is the MiG-29S, though the age gap is still nearly a decade for the Rafale B/C, the M is earlier (early 2000s), but there are no other French naval assets to go with it at all.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Northstar98
brainfart

[Silver_Dragon]

18 hours ago, wormeaten said:

Again missing the point and my statements putting out of context.

As you just confirming what I was talking about the whole time. Just mention two Modules without a license and that didn't stop their release and to be some of the most popular in the DCS world.
If DCS will be developed just fully licensed modules DCS World will stop existing at all long time ago.
I like M-2000 and F-14 modules so as do a lot of others as well. Those two modules are playing some of the major roles in the popularization and expansion of the player base in DCS World. So I don't see a problem why not continuing the same way with Rafale and Green?

Even if you got a license this module doesn't have to be 100% accurate as well because part of the license is to keep control of this publicly available information and the secret one.

 

So let's stop this pointless debate about is it or not the possible development of Rafale or Grepen lets just summarizing the facts.

 

Is it possible to develop Rafale or Grepen?
YES.

 

Is the license obstacle to not developing it?
NO - We got other modules developed without the license like for example here mentioned M-2000 and F-14.

 

Is it possible to made FFM without the license?
YES - FFM is not represented 100% accurate plane it is more like a level of realism and depends only on the development level, more details more work to do.

 

As we are going away from the real intention of this article and going into a completely different field furder discussion is pointless and better focus on something else.
The intention and purpose of this thread are to check the possible interest for developing such a module. I put the idea into HB's head, they could see how interest is existing and is good. Almost 50% of people are already willing to buy such a module what is very good. Now everything is on HB and on plans and resources they have and how this could incorporate into it. As we going away from the theme I decide to close this thread.

 

To HEATBLUR I wish all the best and hoping will seriously think about this idea and soon announce it.

 

 

ED go to require a license, and will need a "approval" to get a 3rd party module to build a module (example russian modules). About M2000, under military contract by the French Air force....

 

16 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Who said anything about a future F-15? I would love an FF F-15A/C circa 80s, our FC3 one is kinda a mix between 80s and early/mid 2000s

 

 

RAZBAM F-15E?

Edited August 10, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:

RAZBAM F-15E?

 

Doh! Brainfart moment on my part

[Spurts]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

 About M2000, under military contract by the French Air force....

 

So the M2000 is a French Air Force contract sim the same as the A-10C for the USAF?

 

<hits google real quick>  ooooh, Ada, Armee del l'Air....

[Silver_Dragon]

27 minutes ago, Spurts said:

So the M2000 is a French Air Force contract sim the same as the A-10C for the USAF?

 

<hits google real quick>  ooooh, Ada, Armee del l'Air....

ED previous contracts:
- Kamov Ka-50 Technologic demostrator (pre-Ka-50)

- JTAC trainer by UK Army (pre-CA)

- A-10C desktop trainer (pre-A-10C)
- AC-130 turret trainer (none module).

- Belsimtek contracts to Mi-8 trainers (previous Mi-8)
- Some maps to military / profesional clients.

 

By Simon on 2020 interview:

- A-10C trainer with ANG

- F-16C trainer to USAF

- F/A-18 trainer with RCAF and RAAF

- Ada with M2000 60 trainers

- RNoAF with F-5, UH-1 and other trainers to student

 

Super Tunaco trainer with Ecuatorian Air Force (FAE) by RAZBAM

Some rumors about AV-8B N/A as trainer by USMC.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Spurts]

Oh wow!  I do find the F-16C one odd.  Namely, why a 2007 F-16C for the ANG if the trainer is for 202x USAF... unless that is the "downgraded" version we are allowed to have.

[TLTeo]

1 hour ago, Spurts said:

unless that is the "downgraded" version we are allowed to have.

Yep, the same was true for the old A-10 iirc

[Spurts]

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

Yep, the same was true for the old A-10 iirc

right, which made me wonder if the A-10C II was due to the AF saying "go ahead and release it" or ED taking time to change the modern stuff to declassified settings for release.

[Furiz]

On 8/10/2021 at 12:26 PM, Northstar98 said:

And to top it off the Rafale has a phased array RADAR, nothing of the sort exists in DCS, and we're lucky to get mechanical RADARs that are accurate

 

How do you know mechanical radars in dcs are accurately simulated, all you see is a symbol on the screen, that occasionally dissappears and then reappears and thats it.

So please cut the nonsense with accurate rdr simulations.

 

Everyone knows how PESA and AESA Radars work, what principles they use to detect targets, you can find that info anywhere. Its used and developed by many different countries and companies, its no top secret weapon od doom that only ADA knows about.

 

Altho it would be a complex code, it surely wouldn't be impossible to simulate.

 

You can find Rafale systems, Avionics, flight characteristics etc... if you are into this buisness of making military aircraft sim like ED or HB are and I believe ED or HB know were to look for this kind of info.

 

All they need is liscence, or, all they need is a good price for the liscence.

 

So it all comes down to the green ol dollar bill.

[Northstar98]

On 8/13/2021 at 10:36 PM, Furiz said:

How do you know mechanical radars in dcs are accurately simulated, all you see is a symbol on the screen, that occasionally dissappears and then reappears and thats it.

So please cut the nonsense with accurate rdr simulations.

 

You completely miss the point.

 

The point is that it is difficult enough with our current set of RADARs, let alone more modern ones and especially ones using completely new technology.

 

Also, there's more to it that just what a hit on a scope looks like, a LOT more to it.

 

On 8/13/2021 at 10:36 PM, Furiz said:

Everyone knows how PESA and AESA Radars work, what principles they use to detect targets, you can find that info anywhere. Its used and developed by many different countries and companies, its no top secret weapon od doom that only ADA knows about.

 

General principles of operation does not make a simulation of a specific RADAR set, and the particulars of this RADAR are things Dassault and operators of the Rafale only know about.

 

And again, the point I'm making is that it's entirely new technology in DCS and the current sensors lack fidelity as is, and in the case of ground units and especially ships, lack a LOT of fidelity, even when all the principles are basically known. And this is before I start talking about EW, where different aircraft seem to treat the same jammer differently.

 

On 8/13/2021 at 10:36 PM, Furiz said:

 Altho it would be a complex code, it surely wouldn't be impossible to simulate.

 

I'm sure that nothing is impossible to simulate, the problem is when it comes to what is actually viable.

 

As I've said before, the only reason why RAZBAM's M-2000C got the more recent marked improvements, is due to direct involvement with the AdA, the only reason HB + TrueGrit can do a Eurofighter is because Truegrit have former pilots, they're licensed by the manufacturer, are in communications with the management agency, and are making a trainer for the Luftwaffe, none of which applies to the Rafale.

 

And as for these modern aircraft, in a true BLUFOR vs REDFOR scenario, they're fighting 1987 MiG-29S' with a 2003 missile at best. If we had a Kashmir map, it would make more sense.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Northstar98

[draconus]

On 8/10/2021 at 12:26 PM, Northstar98 said:

the M is earlier (early 2000s), but there are no other French naval assets to go with it at all.

No worry, they're compatible with US carriers

[Furiz]

M stand for Marine, the early 2000 is F2 version I believe. Be it marine or land version.

[F-2]

Yea F1,F2,F3,F4 are capabilities standards separate from the B,C,M designation. F1 was air to air only and only on the Rafale M because the French navy needed a new fighter ASAP. F2 is the first multi role standard.

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Furiz said:

M stand for Marine, the early 2000 is F2 version I believe. Be it marine or land version.

 

According to what I have Rafale F2 (for B, C and M) is circa 2007.

[Furiz]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

According to what I have Rafale F2 (for B, C and M) is circa 2007.

 

Perfect, just the same year as our hornet and viper;P

[F-2]

Are you guys totally sure F2 is 2007? Because I’m pretty sure F1 was M only and the B and C entered service before 2007. I could be wrong though.

[Furiz]

I didn't research that much so I might be wrong but F1 was M only cause their navy needed a fighter as far as I know, they didn't need multi role aircraft.

 

Then F2 was upgraded F1 and it was made into a multi role fighter, gen 4 I believe, and in M = Navy, B = 2 seater and C single seat version,

 

F3 is omnirole standard, gen 4++ with SPECTRA, AESA and all the goodies we wont see anytime soon

 

The upcoming F4, no idea, but probably with abilities to network drones etc... that's the future:P

[TLTeo]

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

their navy needed a fighter as far as I know, they didn't need multi role aircraft

Yeah this makes sense. At the time (2000, when the first squadron formed) the Super Etendard was likely perfectly adequate, but the Crusader had been retired the year before and that aircraft was obviously waaaay outdated by the 90s.

[Northstar98]

14 hours ago, F-2 said:

Are you guys totally sure F2 is 2007? Because I’m pretty sure F1 was M only and the B and C entered service before 2007. I could be wrong though.

 

From what I can find the only AdA squadron with the Rafale before 2006/2007 was the Escadron de chasse et d'expérimentation 1/30 Côte d'Argent, whose role is aircraft experimentation (so likely not a baseline production variant).

 

AFAIK all of them have SPECTRA (with LWR, RWR/ELINT and DECM), though upgarded to a more modern standard as aircraft get upgraded.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Northstar98

[Furiz]

On 8/19/2021 at 10:20 PM, F-2 said:

Are you guys totally sure F2 is 2007? Because I’m pretty sure F1 was M only and the B and C entered service before 2007. I could be wrong though.

 

Rafale M and C F2 standard entered service in 2006. Later those were upgraded to F3 standard adding nuclear capability.