Technically possible payloads

[Kazansky222]

Well,

Since it seems like DCS is changing into a "technically possible" loadout simulator. Refencing Wags post here about 4 harms and not to mention the damage your own elevators triple rack mavs (on the F-16).

 

Dear all,

 

Thank you all for your feedback and passion. We reviewed other documents at our disposal (not cited here), and it does appear that a 4x HARM load is "possible" for our 2007 jet. Sometime in the early 2000s, it appears this change was made.

 

While certainly not a valid operational payload, we will make it available given that it is apparently possible.

 

Kind regards,

Matt

 

Since this seems to be the direction of DCS for better or worse. Lets talk about whats technically possible for other aircraft. I will reference this image.

It would appear to be technically possible to mount 4 R27Rs on the Mig-29A.

Will this happen in DCS now as well?

[Ironhand]

:) Perhaps if there’s documentation for it...

[FoxAlfa]

I would prefer we get R-27P instead, there are manuals stating it range, there are pictures of planes caring them, there was a picture of a squadron aircraft with loadout chart with it in it... and both Russian Vympel NPO and Ukrainian Artem advertise it on their sites meaning that they have finished product before Rus-UKR split.

[AeriaGloria]

I would prefer we get R-27P instead, there are manuals stating it range, there are pictures of planes caring them, there was a picture of a squadron aircraft with loadout chart with it in it... and both Russian Vympel NPO and Ukrainian Artem advertise it on their sites meaning that they have finished product before Rus-UKR split.

 

Would be very welcome

[Breakshot]

4 ETs FTW :)

[Max1mus]

Agreed. The standard has been lowered, if ED does not add these weapons and avionics to all aircraft, theres a severe double standard. I could think of a lot of things, R-77-1 on J-11A/MiG-29S and a more accurate version of SPO-15 that is used on Su-24, R-27P/EP.

 

Will this happen or do we have to create a massive shitstorm on hoggit and this section of the forums first? I wouldnt mind, but its a lot of work.

[Mars Exulte]

if ED does not add these weapons and avionics to all aircraft, theres a severe double standard

 

IF they can use and fire them, sure. Otherwise, no. A impractical, restricted, or improbable loadouts are fine as long as technically possible AS LONG AS IT'S POSSIBLE.

 

If a MiG-29 can carry and fire quad R-27s, sure. If it can only fire two, then no, unless you just want to carry the other two for looks. Also amusing how butthurt people get over this video game @@

[BlackPixxel]

It can definetly carry R-27P/EP.

[TotenDead]

It would appear to be technically possible to mount 4 R27Rs on the Mig-29A.

Will this happen in DCS now as well?

 

That's a MiG-29K (9.31)

[BBCRF]

That's a MiG-29K (9.31)

No

[lmp]

To the best of my knowledge, this wouldn't be technically possible on the 9.12. The weapons computer doesn't support different missile types on the middle and outer stations. Which means the 2*R-60, 2*R-73, 2*R-27R default air to air layout in the game is also impossible.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I do believe seeing images of SFRY MiG-29Bs flying with said load out

I can't imagine it being a ferrying load out

[lmp]

What I said is based on several MiG-29 flight manuals as well as statements from a MiG-29 pilot. You can of course physically carry such a load out, but you won't be able to use it. Besides, what's the point besides "looking cool" for a photo shoot?

[TotenDead]

No

 

Чего нет, везде пишут что да

[BBCRF]

Чего нет, везде пишут что да

Стойка не от МиГ-29К,колесо тоже смотри внимательнее.Нв старом МиГ-29К киль вроде не красили в триколор

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

What I said is based on several MiG-29 flight manuals as well as statements from a MiG-29 pilot. You can of course physically carry such a load out, but you won't be able to use it. Besides, what's the point besides "looking cool" for a photo shoot?

Then please substantiate these claims with evidence.

[lmp]

Then please substantiate these claims with evidence.

 

These two posts by Toyo, a former MiG-29 pilot, made specifically in response to the idea of loading 2*R-27R, 2*R-73, 2*R60:

http://il2forum.pl/index.php?topic=5534.msg296081#msg296081

http://il2forum.pl/index.php?topic=5534.msg296102#msg296102

First one explains how ballistic data is entered to the weapons computer and how weapons are selected. Second one lists possible store configurations.

 

MiG-29 Flight Manual by Alan R. Wise, ISBN 0764313894, pages 40 through 42, and 128 through 132. It lists possible store configurations as well as various other limitations not enforced by DCS (such as not mixing different types of bombs or different types of rockets). It also confirms what's written in the posts above regarding weapon selection with the "inner"-"outer" switch (no means to select middle stations without first firing missiles from either the inner or outer ones).

 

GAF T.O. 1F-MIG29-1, figure 5-19 shows possible store configurations.

[captain_dalan]

Well, if the Vipers got triple racks, then maybe we can sign a petition for AMRAAM A/B and HARM on the F-14's! :music_whistling::megalol: :doh:

[SharkWizard]

Very interesting.

Could be useful to have R-27s on the middle racks when the inner ones are occupied by drop tanks for longer flights.

[Fri13]

Simulation: "something that is made to look, feel, or behave like something else especially so that it can be studied or used to train people"

 

Is the DCS a study level simulator, or a history book?

 

If something is technologically possible, then it shouldn't matter at all what politics, economy or religion dictates.

 

We are all here for a high-end simulator, to build a combat scenarios that didn't, doesn't or will not happen in reality. As well have a possibility to build scenarios that did or could happen in reality.

 

The line should be in technologies.

 

If it is technically possible, so be it. No matter of country, era or anything else.

But, implement a new filter feature in DCS like with time Era filter, but make it to be a historical/political restrictions, be it a loadout, weapon availability or a country sales, so that people who want to live in history can do so. It as well means that F/A-18C can't fly with a F-16C as they are modeled from different years. They can't fly with F-15C neither. Nor against migs-, Suhois- or Mil etc aircrafts if not from the exact same year.

 

As well politically and historically unrealistic missions should be disallowed, so only fly a specific built missions with a confirmed scenarios and situations.

Then people who demand politically correct simulator can do so by themselves, while others are free to simulate study level scenarios they make themselves.

[Pikey]

DCS needs per rack enforcement options, that's it.

 

I tend to agree that it's a sandbox sim and no one complains about the other unrealistic stuff, like what airframes are flying together in what year.

 

But, to get away from this argument, it needs enforceability on the server admin side and you can't do that per pylon yet.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I guess that the tactical view on the HUD repeater wouldn't be out of the question then either

[cro_mig_21]

Here's one for the disscussin :music_whistling:

[lmp]

What's to discuss?

[paco2002]

I only see there a Serbian MiG29 (I think, by the mask) and a MiG29 shooting a R60 missile... Nothing new there