AIM-120A

[Raviar]

that would be great if we can get 120A if it can be carried by Viper and Eagle 

[Tank50us]

18 hours ago, Raviar said:

that would be great if we can get 120A if it can be carried by Viper and Eagle 

Hornet as well.

And teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeechnically the F-14.... since the a Tomcat was used to test the AMRAAM. As for how to implement it... I'd just make it an option in the ME. The equipment was made, but never installed on operational Tomcats since it was decided that A: the Phoenix was still viable at the time, and B: the Hornet was better suited anyway. As for why it should be an option... well... it's simple: While historically there was never a situation where the upgrades were needed, that's not to say that things could go differently for various reasons than they did historically. The scenarios are numerous, and I'm sure some mission creators could come up with some viable scenarios.

[draconus]

3 hours ago, Tank50us said:

F-14

no

[TOMCATZ]

Hm...

 

Why not? 

 

 

For me, the JF-17 is one big wonder. The stand-off weapons and even the air-to-air missiles are quite theoretical to me. Nevertheless, it can do everything and the weapons are accepted in the community.

There is clear evidence that the Tomcat can carry at least 2 AMRAAMs and could use them.  Over 200 missiles were fired during the development phase over white sands. 

 

However, I have to say that the radar software had to be changed and I don't know if Heatblur would take that much work. 
I think they have more interesting projects that would certainly bring in more. (Phantom, Eurofighter, Carrier) 

 

Cheers

TOM

Edited June 22, 2022 by TOMCATZ

[Northstar98]

On 6/22/2022 at 9:20 AM, TOMCATZ said:

Hm...

 

Why not? 

Because it was never operational on any Tomcat and is a test and evaluation thing only.

On 6/22/2022 at 9:20 AM, TOMCATZ said:

For me, the JF-17 is one big wonder. The stand-off weapons and even the air-to-air missiles are quite theoretical to me. Nevertheless, it can do everything and the weapons are accepted in the community.

People always like to use these examples, but what they never seem to do is answer the question: "how is x being unrealistic an argument for making y unrealistic too?".

On 6/22/2022 at 9:20 AM, TOMCATZ said:

There is clear evidence that the Tomcat can carry at least 2 AMRAAMs and could use them. 

No there isn't, there's clear evidence that specifically modified NF-14A Tomcats used for test and evaluation can carry and fire test and evaluation AMRAAMs.

Quote

But todays F-14A/B/D do not have the capability to carry and fire the AIM-120 because - even though missile tests were conducted...

[source]

Edited June 23, 2022 by Northstar98

[Tank50us]

59 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Because it was never operational on any Tomcat and is a test and evaluation thing only.

I mentioned that in my bit, making the option available to mission editors. Most servers will likely keep it off for the reason you stated, but other MDs might come up with a scenario where the added capability was somehow needed, and deployed aircraft are given the equipment necessary.

[Exorcet]

6 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Hornet as well.

And teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeechnically the F-14.... since the a Tomcat was used to test the AMRAAM. As for how to implement it... I'd just make it an option in the ME.

That would be the way to go. Given DCS's nature as a sim, I don't know why this is so often opposed. To me it goes hand in hand with non historical scenarios. Of course there is the developer work load to consider. There are an infinite possible number of "field modifications" that could have been so we can't have them all, but the inclusion of a prototype weapon or something similar should be easy enough. As stated though it needs to be clearly separated from the historical weapons via ME checkbox or something like that.

[Raviar]

i need to mention, during desert storm some of the Vipers and Eagles equipped with 120A and some vipers AIM-7(if i am not mistaken, and i dont know which variants of AIM-7, and i think block 30) i am not sure if hornet ever equipped with 120A! anyhow , would be nice to have in DCS

[bies]

Is there a single photo from Desert Storm with any aircraft carrying AIM-120?

AIM-120 became operational only after Desert Storm ended, why would anyone even take off with AIM-120 in combat area?

[Raviar]

11 minutes ago, bies said:

Is there a single photo from Desert Storm with any aircraft carrying AIM-120?

AIM-120 became operational only after Desert Storm ended, why would anyone even take off with AIM-120 in combat area?

i dont have pic but base on the document USAF used it in desert storm
actually the first AMRAAM kill achieved by Viper in 1992/1993

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Raviar

[bies]

3 minutes ago, Raviar said:

i dont have pic but base on the document USAF used it in desert storm

Do you have such document? Not trying to tell you you are wrong, but I've always heard something exactly opposite.

USAF received short serie of 50-80 pre production version of AIM-120 deferent than production AIM-120A in 1988 and evaluated them and requested some changes. It became operational after Desert Storm.

If USAF would secretly cleared AIM-120 to take off in combat area why they didn't use it a single time? Why even taking off with a missile if you are forbidden to launch it? To carry some ballast?

[Raviar]

check the video i attached on previous post, there was not secret, they released the tape one month after

https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/first-u-s-f-16-kill-by-shooting-down-mig-25-with-aim-120-amraam/13095/

even wikipedia has it and got it right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM
 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Raviar

[bies]

18 minutes ago, Raviar said:

check the video i attached on previous post, there was not secret, they released the tape one month after

https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/first-u-s-f-16-kill-by-shooting-down-mig-25-with-aim-120-amraam/13095/

even wikipedia has it and got it right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM
 

 

It was December 1992, after Desert Storm, nothing controversial here. Desert Storm took place 17 January to 28 February 1991.

What you cited is no fly zone more than 1,5 year after Desert Storm ended. AIM-120 was already operational by this time.

Edited June 22, 2022 by bies

[Raviar]

2 hours ago, bies said:

It was December 1992, after Desert Storm, nothing controversial here. Desert Storm took place 17 January to 28 February 1991.

What you cited is no fly zone more than 1,5 year after Desert Storm ended. AIM-120 was already operational by this time.

 

base on "Gulf War Air Power Survey" Volume IV by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen published on 1993, paged 117 they used it

[upyr1]

13 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Hornet as well.

And teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeechnically the F-14.... since the a Tomcat was used to test the AMRAAM. As for how to implement it... I'd just make it an option in the ME. The equipment was made, but never installed on operational Tomcats since it was decided that A: the Phoenix was still viable at the time, and B: the Hornet was better suited anyway. As for why it should be an option... well... it's simple: While historically there was never a situation where the upgrades were needed, that's not to say that things could go differently for various reasons than they did historically. The scenarios are numerous, and I'm sure some mission creators could come up with some viable scenarios.

Someone was suggesting a fictonal loadout tag 

I have mixed feelings on this to be honest. One side I don't want the fictional weapons the other side as long as there are reasonable guidelines weapons that were evaluated might be interesting to have. 

 

[draconus]

Anything fictional is available with mods and imo should stay there.

[F-2]

https://books.google.com/books?id=IeBAovG9tO0C&pg=PA354&dq=f-15+amraam+desert+storm&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaqNeg0Kj5AhV8MlkFHXh6D9cQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=f-15 amraam desert storm&f=false
 

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/f-15-eagles-were-the-deadliest-birds-of-desert-storm/
 

Quote

F-15Cs scored 32 aerial kills of a total of 41 victories in the war. Of these, all but eight were achieved with the Eagle’s beyond-visual-range weapon, the radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missile, a weapon that had been plagued by mechanical problems during the Vietnam war but performed well in the 1990s. The AIM-120A AMRAAM was not fired in anger, although more than a thousand “captive carries” of the missile were racked up during combat missions in the final days of the war. Eagle pilots made seven kills using the AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared air-to-air missile, and one pilot downed an Iraqi MiG-29 by maneuvering his adversary into the ground.

 

 

[F-2]

https://nara.getarchive.net/amp/media/a-33rd-tactical-fighter-wing-f-15c-eagle-aircraft-makes-its-landing-approach-052343
 

A 33rd fighter wing F-15c carrying a AIM-120A October 1989. The 33rd was the Unit that carried AIM-120 in the Gulf War.

[RedTail11]

On 6/22/2022 at 6:07 AM, Northstar98 said:

Because it was never operational on any Tomcat and is a test and evaluation thing only.

People always like to use these examples, but what they never seem to do is answer the question: "how is x being unrealistic an argument for making y unrealistic too?".

No there isn't, there's clear evidence that specifically modified NF-14A Tomcats used for test and evaluation can carry and fire test and evaluation AMRAAMs.

[source]

 

Who cares? The F-14 having AMRAAMS has literally no effect on you or your life. So why argue with someone against having something they want in a game that they paid for the aircraft in? Honestly how does an aircraft in the game having the option to use a weapon negatively impact you? Are you going to lose sleep because it exists? We all know what the real answer is. You just want to look smart and put other people down for no reason by spouting off illegitimate reasons against the Tomcat getting a new weapon system. Doesn't matter at all if it never reached the point that Tomcats were all carrying AMRAAM instead of Phoenix. Doesn't matter if it was only done in testing. It means that it was possible and was done, and so can be done in the game. If you don't like it then guess what? Don't use it. It really is that simple. God forbid you find out there is already a Mod that exists that gives the Tomcat Aim-9X and Aim-120C-5 as well as JDAMS, Laser Mavs, and HARMs....

Edited March 4 by RedTail11

[draconus]

4 hours ago, RedTail11 said:

God forbid you find out there is already a Mod that exists that gives the Tomcat Aim-9X and Aim-120C-5 as well as JDAMS, Laser Mavs, and HARMs....

And that's where it belongs - a mods section. Otherwise in DCS (and F-14A/B module we payed for) it'd be unrealistic and no one will take a second to model such a thing.

[Northstar98]

On 3/4/2024 at 2:52 AM, RedTail11 said:

Who cares?

People who care about quite literally, the goal of the game.

People who care about aircraft being depicted as they were advertised.

People who care about getting stuff we haven't gotten yet and is long overdue.

On 3/4/2024 at 2:52 AM, RedTail11 said:

The F-14 having AMRAAMS has literally no effect on you or your life.

Yes it does, you just can't imagine why. I mean HB already have a backlog, the AI A-6E and J 35 were announced over half a decade ago, the former has missed it's last deadline by what will probably be close to yet another year. If HB spends time modelling stuff that's antithetical to the very goal of the game as a whole, instead of working on items that are sought after, will better flesh out their Tomcat and Forrestal, that's going to be really annoying.

Missing deadlines over and over again is one thing, not working on the stuff that's not only wanted, but planned and teased (perhaps contributing somewhat to that delay), is quite another.

On 3/4/2024 at 2:52 AM, RedTail11 said:

So why argue with someone against having something they want in a game that they paid for the aircraft in?

Because, in addition to the above, it also goes against the very goal of the game, which can quite literally be found in the 2nd line of its description.

Quote

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.

If something is going to be advertised to me as trying to offer the most realistic whatever possible, I'm going to expect exactly that. If you're instead going to go out of your way to not do that, especially if it means doing something else instead of doing that, then that's going to annoy me. See the Hornet for my primary case study, though this also applies to stuff like the S-200 and ED's decision to give it a completely unrealistic search/acquisition radar, which for years now cannot be used in the roles it's actually used for, despite how trivial making it so would be.

While this applies less to the Tomcat, there are items that should be present (even if more miscellaneous items such as a lot of the tests, including OBC, the AA1 panel etc) that are documented for (even in HB's own manual) but at the moment aren't present in the module, as well stuff that's incorrect, that could use attention.

I mean, even the pylon for the AIM-120 - the Tomcat has been out for half a decade now and it still doesn't have a LAU-138 model and only very recently got the rest of it's loadout (though none of it functional as of yet).

On 3/4/2024 at 2:52 AM, RedTail11 said:

We all know what the real answer is. You just want to look smart and put other people down for no reason by spouting off illegitimate reasons against the Tomcat getting a new weapon system.

Yeah, baseless nonsense. I mean, [citation very much needed] on these I'm afraid.

None of the reasons I gave are illegitimate in the slightest, especially given the point of the game - indeed they are simply the logical extension of that goal. You just don't like them. While that would've been fine in and of itself (though in that case you might be playing the wrong game), you've taken to trying to poison the well and pretending to know my thoughts and motivations better than I do.

On 3/4/2024 at 2:52 AM, RedTail11 said:

Doesn't matter at all if it never reached the point that Tomcats were all carrying AMRAAM instead of Phoenix. Doesn't matter if it was only done in testing.

It does in a game and a product that's trying to be realistic. It only doesn't if you don't care about it in the slightest.

On 3/4/2024 at 2:52 AM, RedTail11 said:

It means that it was possible and was done, and so can be done in the game.

It wasn't possible and it wasn't done - operational F-14As, Bs and Ds do not have the capability to fire and launch AIM-120. So, given the goals of the product and given the goals of the module, why should developers spend any time implementing it?

On 3/4/2024 at 2:52 AM, RedTail11 said:

If you don't like it then guess what? Don't use it. It really is that simple.

Ahh, this again, a true timeless classic.

Just one small problem though... Where does it end? Where's the goal line of it now? Because this exact same logic can be used to justify literally anything, so long as it can be ignored by those damned puritanical elitist rivet counters.

I mean, let's make the Tomcat accelerate to Mach 4. Because if you don't like it, then guess what? Just don't fly so fast. It really is that simple. Are you going to lose sleep over it? Why would anybody argue against having something that paying customers want to see in game for the aircraft they bought?

There's absolutely no reason not to - realism doesn't matter and if anybody has any misgivings about this at all, then they're all illegitimate and the only real reason anybody would be against this is obviously them just wanting to sound smart with their fancy elitist aerodynamics knowledge (or just ability to do simple internet searches, as with the case above).

On 3/4/2024 at 2:52 AM, RedTail11 said:

God forbid you find out there is already a Mod that exists that gives the Tomcat Aim-9X and Aim-120C-5 as well as JDAMS, Laser Mavs, and HARMs...

Guess what RedTail, I am in fact aware of the mod. It's almost like the thoughts and motivations you imagine I have, have no grounding whatsoever!

Because I maintain that people should be able to mod the game however they damn well like, just like what scenarios people decide to make out of what we have should be totally up to up to them, as realistic (well good luck) or as fictional as you like. None of things I brought up here apply to user mods and it's my choice whether or not they're even installed in the first place, so they doubly don't apply here.

And with a mod for it, then we have a Tomcat that realistically doesn't have AIM-120 and modded Tomcat that does, so wherever you stand here both are catered for. So what's the problem?

Edited March 5 by Northstar98
minor corrections/additions

[buceador]

All the "options" that you seek RedTail11 are available, I imagine, in "the well known arcade battle game", which you cite on your profile page. Adherence  to realism is a laudable goal that DCS promotes above all else and which is appreciated by many of us, if not the majority.

Edited March 4 by buceador
Possibly infringing DCS rules

[Fighterinterceptor]

22 minutes ago, buceador said:

All the "options" that you seek RedTail11 are available, I imagine, in War Thunder, which you cite on your profile page. Adherence  to realism is a laudable goal that DCS promotes above all else and which is appreciated by many of us, if not the majority.

 

It is interesting because apart from the AIM-54A and AIM-54C missiles, there are no other active radar missiles on the entertainment game software that you mentioned!

Edited March 4 by Fighterinterceptor

[buceador]

28 minutes ago, Fighterinterceptor said:

It is interesting because apart from the AIM-54A and AIM-54C missiles, there are no other Active radar missiles on the entertainment game software that you mentioned!

It was just a guess!  I haven't played the "more arcade like game" but I am aware that is an arcade game that doesn't purport to hold realism or authenticity in high regard.  My point was that if someone is looking for something more "flexible" in terms of realism then"other products" are available and perhaps meet those needs.

Edited March 4 by buceador
Possibly infringing DCS rules

[Silver_Dragon]

28 minutes ago, buceador said:

All the "options" that you seek RedTail11 are available, I imagine, in War Thunder, which you cite on your profile page. Adherence  to realism is a laudable goal that DCS promotes above all else and which is appreciated by many of us, if not the majority.

 

Remember the rules...
 

Quote

1.15 Discussions of other game companies products are not recommended as they can create personal friction with users who enjoy such products and potentially create issues with competitve manufacturers which is not helpful. We do not allow the reviewing of, or direct comparison of other competitive software here. Posting news updates or advertising other products or games is also forbidden (unless approved by an admin). Abuse of other companies and/or anyone related to those companies will not be tolerated. ED also reserves the right to remove any thread or post about another game or company it deems doesn't comply with this rule.