A new love

[nick10]

Just dropped in to say I recently bought the mirage on sale.

it’s now my favourite. I love it. 

please make newer and upgraded versions! The D or export variants.

 

 

[=36=Witcher]

22 ore fa, nick10 ha scritto:

please make newer and upgraded versions! The D or export variants.

RAZBAM is very clear on this: no other variants are planned.

[nick10]

So sad! 

sort it out razbam folks

[Rudel_chw]

48 minutes ago, nick10 said:

So sad! 

 

Why? You have just purchased the Mirage 2000C and already want something else?  spend time and get to know your aircraft in-depth, it will give you many months of enjoyment, no need for a variant just yet.

[=36=Witcher]

14 ore fa, nick10 ha scritto:

sort it out razbam folks

At your command, my king!

[Glide]

I swapped these guys into my favourite dogfight mission as Redfor AI, and they are super fun to fly against!  Nice work!

[Temetre]

If were just making wishes, how about this:

RAZBAM, can we get a Rafale pretty please

[Mike_CK]

Too modern! That’s no fun. Computers do everything for ya!

Fun is dropping the tank and supercruising safe/sound and untouchable at 48k feet in your Mirage 2000 burning about 20kg of fuel a minute on a fox one PvP MP server with your radar scanning low… and then swooping down on an F-16 (sneaking around at 1000ft AGL)  at a 30 degree dive, firing your Matra 530d at mach 1.4 from 10 miles away and watching that F-16 flail around trying to escape. And then- after the inevitable spearing- pulling back up to the safety of your perch at 45-48k. Feel like a peregrine falcon.

You don’t need a mirage 2000-5 on a fox one server to beat up people. You DO have to run back and reload a lot though(and the magic IIR missiles eat flares) But in a modern fox-3 server, yeah…a 2000-5 would be mighty nice 

[Joch1955]

M2000c is great, also my favourite module. Once you learn it, it is very easy to fly and fight in.

While newer versions would be great, they would not bring much in terms of actual gameplay. 

[Razor68]

On 4/15/2023 at 8:49 AM, Joch1955 said:

M2000c is great, also my favourite module. Once you learn it, it is very easy to fly and fight in.

While newer versions would be great, they would not bring much in terms of actual gameplay. 

Problem is when you don't use it for a while you forget it because of the non logical weapon system.

[Temetre]

Am 15.4.2023 um 08:49 schrieb Joch1955:

While newer versions would be great, they would not bring much in terms of actual gameplay. 

The 2000-5 would absolutely bring a lot, mostly MICA-integration. Those are really interesting french active missiles, with R and IR version.

And probably even more importantly, we'd go from 2+2 missile to 6+2. Only being able to use 2x S530D's is just a big limit in what you can do with the plane, even offline or in 80/90s servers. In more modern battles you get wrecked by active missiles, or at least forced to give up the lock for the S530.

Which is kind of a shame, because this is an amazing little plane, and the module is so well done.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Temetre

[gavagai]

On 4/15/2023 at 2:49 AM, Joch1955 said:

M2000c is great, also my favourite module. Once you learn it, it is very easy to fly and fight in.

While newer versions would be great, they would not bring much in terms of actual gameplay. 

Hard disagree.

A Mirage 2000-5 would be a popular choice for pvp multiplayer. The 2000C is hardly used because of the Fox-1 limitation, while it is considered too modern for cold war servers.

[Joch1955]

On 6/7/2023 at 12:57 PM, gavagai said:

Hard disagree.

A Mirage 2000-5 would be a popular choice for pvp multiplayer. The 2000C is hardly used because of the Fox-1 limitation, while it is considered too modern for cold war servers.

good for you! Well I "harder disagree" then.

1. There is more to a module than just what long range missile it carries or how well it does in MP. What is important is the entire flying experience from takeoff to landing. On that front, the Mirage 2000c is a very sweet airplane. Easy to fly, easy to navigate, easy to maneuver, easy to multitask with its wonderful autopilot, easy to carry out air-to-air or air-to-ground missions, easy to land, just a wonderful plane all around.

2. The Mirage 2000c is more than capable to carry out its intended missions in game during its historical time frame in realistic missions and against opponents it would have realistically gone up against in RL. In SP missions and campaigns, it is more than capable to handle any potential RED air or ground SAM opponent.

3. Yes, the Mirage will be at a disadvantage going up in a Quake dogfight server against AIM-120 equipped F15/16/18s, but those are totally artificial matchups which have very little to do with RL modern air warfare. And honestly, if the only thing a player cares about is how many virtual ACs they can knock down in one session, they will always be better off choosing a F15/16/18 and clubbing baby seals all day with their AMRAAMS...

so no, my personal opinion still stands, a Mirage 2000-5 would be nice to have, but would not bring much in terms of actual gameplay.

[gavagai]

My bad.  I didn't know it is only the gameplay that you like that counts.

[Temetre]

Am 9.6.2023 um 12:05 schrieb Joch1955:

The Mirage 2000c is more than capable to carry out its intended missions in game during its historical time frame in realistic missions

Even in reality, the M-2000 will have suffered from lack of missiles. Its funny oure blaming that idea on "Quake Air Servers", when in reality SARH missiles had extremely low PK rates, mainly due to the difficulty of use. And mind that in the 80s, theres a growing number of longer range IR and active radar missiles out there, which compromise usability of semi active missiles.

In fact, the trend since vietnam has been to stick very large amount of missiles onto aircraft, but even in the 80s only two SARH missiles for a dedicated air superiority aircraft/interceptor would be very low. Isnt it telling that the Mirage 2000-5 went from 2 SARH to up to 6 ARH missiles, depending on loadout? With 4x it can also take three fuel pods, another important improvement for smaller planes like the Mirage 2k.

Thats not to say there is anything wrong wiht the module itself, or that it cant be fun. In contrary, its actually a great plane+module, and its a bit of a shame that the use is so limited by missile loadout.

Zitat

would not bring much in terms of actual gameplay

If massively increased versatility doesnt bring much in term of gameplay, then you must be doing something wrong. It was a big upgrade for the plane.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Temetre

[Joch1955]

23 hours ago, Temetre said:

If massively increased versatility doesnt bring much in term of gameplay, then you must be doing something wrong. It was a big upgrade for the plane.

well, if you need six missiles to shoot down one aircraft, then maybe you are the one who is doing something wrong. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Joch1955

[gavagai]

5 hours ago, Joch1955 said:

well, if you need six missiles to shoot down one aircraft, then maybe you are the one who is doing something wrong. 

 

Inaccurate.  If you know how the USAF trains to set up a grind the whole point is not to be inside the Minimum Abort Range (MAR).  If the enemy follows the same plan then you can do everything right but not expect a kill.

[Temetre]

Also im pretty sure if I win a fight spending 6 missiles against an even opponent, then thats a net positive. Its a lot easier to replace missiles than to replace aircraft and pilots.

And missiles are there to shoot down enemies. Aircraft arent made to crash. Usually, the jury on the F-104 is still out there (somewhere deep in the ground).

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Joch1955:

well, if you need six missiles to shoot down one aircraft, then maybe you are the one who is doing something wrong. 

*sad USAF vietnam noises*

Edited June 15, 2023 by Temetre

[Bremspropeller]

11 hours ago, Temetre said:

And missiles are there to shoot down enemies. Aircraft arent made to crash. Usually, the jury on the F-104 is still out there (somewhere deep in the ground).

The RAF lost more Meteors in 1952 alone than the RCAF lost CF-104s in 25'ish years of service. But it's the 104 that sucks. Yeah, right.

 

I'd also love me some additional variants of the 2000. Either a 2000-5Mk2 or a 2000-9 with both MICA-slinging and substatantial multirole-capability. Or a 2000D because it's cool lasing your own bombs and bringing a friend. Even an export RDM+ aircraft would be nice (like the indian 2000H birds), as they'd had external ECM, laserpods and AS.30L missiles.

The 2000RDI is still a cool jet and offers more than just the interceptor role. Focus on other things than slinging missiles at each other.

[WinterH]

Personally I'd only care about a 2000D.

[Temetre]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Bremspropeller:

The RAF lost more Meteors in 1952 alone than the RCAF lost CF-104s in 25'ish years of service. But it's the 104 that sucks. Yeah, right.

Its true, the F-104s really werent the only aircraft with a bad safety/reliability record.  Tho the Meteor is literally a first gen fighter, when Starfighter is Gen3.

Compared it to a F-105; that thing had ~62 losses due to aicraft failues in the vietnam war, of 800 created. That was a plane considered unreliable. European F-104s were mostly lost in peacetime, not even in a conflict. Starfighter 100% is a terrible aircraft. Those losses should be unacceptable.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Temetre

[Bremspropeller]

That peacetime flying constisted of a lot of low level flying. In the weather and at night. There's not a lot of options if you're taking a wrong turn at 500kts at 500ft. Or take a bird.

It's not just about aircraft or equipment failues, but also about CFIT/Spatial D, birdstrikes, bad MX and so on. Here's a former rough breakdown into HF vs technical vs external resons by a former 104 pilot. You'll see that some units were performing better tan others.

http://www.916-starfighter.de/GAF_crashes_assessment.pdf

For more info about the crashes, consult this overview:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/GAF_crashes.htm

You need to understand the attitude of those people, flying single seat fighters on fighter, recce or a nuke mission and all the macho BS involved. There's a really good story in Dave Bashow's Starfighter book (he used to fly CF-104s and CF-18s in the RCAF, so he knows a thing or two), driving home on the machismo killing a lot of people. That's the relation to the Meteor crashes a decade before, when the checklist consisted of having a fag and kicking the tyres before strapping in.

Germany had more 104s than the todal number of Thuds ever built. Flying just shy of 2 million FH.

 

The Thud crashed both before and after the SEA war. This list has 99 crashes before the first loss in Vietnam:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/f105/1

So thats 99 + 62* + 46 (after the last SEA loss) = 207+ out of 833 => roughly 25%

 

At first glance, the numbers I have suggest the 104 in german service was actually safer than the 105 in the post SEA war timeframe.

https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Aircraft Statistics/F-105.pdf

The accident rates of the german 104s were below 3 per 10.000FH at average between '71 and 81'. (German Sarfighetrs - Klaus Kropf, pg. 123)

Old myths die hard.

All contemporary jets have an attrition-rate in the 30% region. Outliers aside (like the RAAN which lost 50% of their A-4 fleet).

 

*looking for a save to get back to topic*

Those two guys were a split second away from becoming a flaming mess of hair, teeth any eyeballs. Frontseater G-LOCs and backseater is desparate in waking him up. Note the initial disorientation associated with waking up, findng yourself in a jet, in the goo, windnoise getting louder and somebody screaming in your ear to RECOVER! Which way is up? Where's the nearest horizon to roll to? The 2000D is going transonic on the way down and bottoms out at 170ft radalt.

And if you flash back 50 years to the high time of 104 crashes (losing one every two weeks in 1965 on average), you'd have not a single clue of what had happened as an investigation board. No HUD-cam, no data or crash-recorder. Not a good start for a safety investigation that's trying to actually improve safety, other than stating "possible pilot error".

Bottom line: Flying jets is dangerous.

___

* and that's not even accounting for ops losses beside technical in Vietnam ==> the actual percentage of ops losses is in the 30+% region, guaranteed

Edited June 16, 2023 by Bremspropeller

[Fynek]

Not that it will add anything to the discussion or that I have any hope for it since the devs said no, but I am also of the opinion that a Mirage 2000-5 would have been a fantastic addition. To me it meant I would actually fly the Mirage again...  Just my feedback/opinion as a buyer since that is the purpose of a forum. 

I own the current module, it is no doubt pleasant to fly but I never use it anymore because once you complete the offline campaign, it is close to being my last choice online since it is too old for all the modern servers due to carrying only 4 missiles/2 fox1, whilst too new for cold war servers where it is usually not flyable and not particularly useful for air-to-ground either compared to alternatives. 

I just fly it if I really want a challenge, usually sneaking in the mountains though I get more satisfaction doing that with even older a/c (ie: mig21 ) but that's just me. 

From my point of view, it would definitely add value since it would suddenly become a lot more popular. Isn't the point of adding value to make it more in demand and more used? Would become more interesting to play offline too due to being more competitive against the existing modules which opens the possibility for more scenarios.

With most modules in DCS, we often get some of the more capable versions instead of the early/worst ones. If ED would have released F/A18A from pre-1987 or F16A, no doubt that many people would request a more sophisticated version with the better radar and fox3s. 

 

 

 

 

[Mike_CK]

On 6/15/2023 at 6:30 AM, Joch1955 said:

well, if you need six missiles to shoot down one aircraft, then maybe you are the one who is doing something wrong. 

 

This is absurd. Maybe I need to shoot down more than 1 aircraft. Who says there is only one bad guy in the area?

you don’t think enemy air travels in groups of 2-4? Original C model was an interceptor…the 2000-5 upgrade allows it to be a “poor man’s” air superiority fighter. Or at least perform sweep/cap work. I’d say that’s an increase in capability 

not to mention that missiles are often fired with lower PK for purposes of throwing off the enemies offensive actions or forcing him to defend. 4 + 2would be ok…but 6+2 is better

Edited July 13, 2023 by Mike_CK

[Kercheiz]

You are not supposed to engage 1v4...