Dassault Rafale Full Module

I didn't bring Typhoon into this topics, it should have been irrelevant IF it haven't been suggested that France would have been better off with Eurofighter, I responded to that, that's why.

Eurofighter is very nice, but Rafale is even better and cheaper to maintain so its a no brainer really.

Rafale female pilot

Yeah, but this is a workaround, it wouldn't be as much a problem if there were more contemporary assets to defend against the JSOW (again, we have mid-to-late -80s air defences at best, the JSOW is a weapon in use from 1998)

 

Sorry, but I don't see the point in pouring effort into getting advanced things to work, if they're just going to get ban-hammered in multiplayer.

But DCS isn't just about multiplayer. Or public MP servers.

Anyway I wouldn't get my hopes too high for a Rafale module (even though I'd insta-buy it). Just getting the Mirage 2000-5 would be great already (datalink yay!)

Rafale female pilot

 

Nice.

Anyway I wouldn't get my hopes too high for a Rafale module (even though I'd insta-buy it). Just getting the Mirage 2000-5 would be great already (datalink yay!)

Guess you are correct, Rafale is a little bit more advanced than anything we have here.

Yep the Mirage 2000-5 would interesting indeed!

Eh, even with the Typhoon being developed I'm still kinda against Gen IV+ aircraft in DCS - literally no other asset is of the same era apart from BLUFOR. I mean I thought even the F-16C Block 50 and F/A-18C Lot 20 (both mid-2000s) were pushing it...

 

(...)

 

These IMO would be much better fits.

 

• Lockheed F-104G Starfighter
  
• General Dynamics F-111F Aardvark
  
• SEPECAT Jaguar GR.1A/GR.3/GR.3A
  
• Panavia Tornado IDS
  
• McDonnell Douglas F-4S / K / J / E / M Phantom II
  
• Grumman A-6E TRAM/SWIP Intruder
  
• Fiat G.91R/3 / R/4
  
• Dassault Mirage F1CT / CT-200
  
• McDonell Douglas F-15A
  
• General Dynamics F-16C Block 40
  
• Dassault Mirage 50 (w. RADAR)
  

This list is awesome :thumbup:

I totaly agree to your opinion, partly for other reasons, but with the same result.

One small thing though. The situation we have in DCS could replicate a conflict of modern US with a country that still uses that old tech.

What we can not do is replicate the potential conflicts that we have the maps for...

So no offense, I'm with you here. Would rather like to see 70s-90s tech

But DCS isn't just about multiplayer. Or public MP servers.

Even so, in SP the problem of no contemporary assets still factors, it's just the players don't complain. I'm still taking aircraft that are up against stuff that are, on average, 20 years or so out of date.

Can I still be killed? Absolutely.

Is it super hard to avoid getting killed? Not really, not unless I purposefully outnumber myself (i.e taking 2 Hornets all by themselves up against a reasonably substantial, layered air defence system, on terrain where I can't really mask myself).

I totaly agree to your opinion, partly for other reasons, but with the same result.

One small thing though. The situation we have in DCS could replicate a conflict of modern US with a country that still uses that old tech.

What we can not do is replicate the potential conflicts that we have the maps for...

So no offense, I'm with you here. Would rather like to see 70s-90s tech

Oh yeah, and none-taken - everybody is more than welcome to disagree with me, I'm just giving my perspective on it.

And yes, you can simulate advanced stuff taking on non-peer opponents, that's fine. The problem though, is that at the moment it's basically the only thing you can do when using these more modern aircraft, and especially so with Gen IV+

I mean the F/A-18C Lot 20 and F-16C Block 50 represent mid-ish 2000s variants of aircraft from the late 70s (F-16) to mid-ish 80s (F/A-18). Now these already eclipse damn near everything else, with only 1 notable exception (and it's not even really REDFOR). Now enter Gen 4+/Gen 4.5 well they eclipse the Hornet and the F-16 in pretty much every aspect, which already eclipsed everything else, so all we've done is made the problem worse.

At the same time its aircraft that are definitely going to be more of a challenge to develop and finish (from every way you look at it) when compared to earlier Gen IV and Gen III. I mean, look at all the effort that went into the Heatblur tomcat (currently, probably the best and most immersive module, and one that probably best fits DCS as it is currently), an earlier Gen IV aircraft variant from the early 90s. So far it has taken Heatblur ~5 years to get to where it is now, and for the most part it's feature complete (all weapons and sensors, we're not missing a heck of a lot).

Now if it takes 5 years to get an aircraft from the early 90s (though a variant of one from mid 70s) What's it going to be like for aircraft way more advanced? Sure there have been periods where the F-16 and F/A-18 have had some nice development, they're still not finished yet, and probably won't be until at least 2021, and this is still a legacy Hornet and an F-16, it's still a far stretch away from more modern Gen IV+ / 4.5 with their advanced and often electronically steered phased array RADARs - we've got nothing like them in any hi-fi aircraft as of yet, and especially in the case of AESA they're radically different to what we're used to. In fact there's only 2 aircraft that I can think of (the AJS-37 and F-14B), that actually have their respective RADARs finished (or basically finished) whilst being accurate to real thing, and these are RADARs from the 70s...

I wonder if its possible to do the earliest version of Rafale M? It would be around the same year as Viper or Hornet.

28 minutes ago, Furiz said:

I wonder if its possible to do the earliest version of Rafale M? It would be around the same year as Viper or Hornet.

No idea, but AFAIK Dassault can be a pain in the backside about these things (kinda like anything Cold War and above that's British but for different reasons).

But if you can get an operator to come in, then it might be more possible (the AdA is the reason why the Mirage 2000C got heavily improved AFAIK). 

I was wondering cause the systems on those early versions, like on the Viper or Hornet or Jeff, were mainly replaced by new stuff, I doubt the first version of Rafale had AESA radar and SPECTRA system etc... it was probably capable of something like our DCS Hornet.

2 hours ago, Furiz said:

I was wondering cause the systems on those early versions, like on the Viper or Hornet or Jeff, were mainly replaced by new stuff, I doubt the first version of Rafale had AESA radar and SPECTRA system etc... it was probably capable of something like our DCS Hornet.

True it wasn't AESA, but it was still a phased array PESA RADAR, which is something completely new in DCS - we don't have any full-fidelity phased array RADAR simulated. Is it possible? Probably. I'm just saying it's something completely new.

By contrast the F-16CM, F/A-18C and JF-17 are all mechanical slotted planar arrays, and in the case of the first 2, they're essentially successive upgrades of older RADARs.

Then there's the whole EW environment, which is just about edging its way there for the Hornet, but otherwise is basically non-existent.

The early Rafale with a PESA might be a good first phased array for DCS. Lots of modern Russian aircraft use it so the tech has other applications and documentation might be a bit easier to come by. 

14 hours ago, F-2 said:

The early Rafale with a PESA might be a good first phased array for DCS. Lots of modern Russian aircraft use it so the tech has other applications and documentation might be a bit easier to come by. 

That crossed my mind as well, might be a good starting point for the future of DCS, and it would definitely be an addition that would sell its brains out

51 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

That crossed my mind as well, might be a good starting point for the future of DCS, and it would definitely be an addition that would sell its brains out

Yea my thinking is the vast majority of red aircraft with better radar then the J-11 we have now would have to be PESA so might as well do it now.

23 hours ago, F-2 said:

The early Rafale with a PESA might be a good first phased array for DCS. Lots of modern Russian aircraft use it so the tech has other applications and documentation might be a bit easier to come by. 

Our current crop of mechanical RADARs that trace their origins to the Cold War still have a fair amount of issues as it is. Even simple stuff like the F-5E-3s RADAR has a significantly simplified representation compared to the real thing, especially in terms of clutter.

As for PESA, while the principles are well known, there's absolutely nothing in DCS like them.

Then there's the whole EW environment, that we're barely scratching surface on.

As for documentation, how does Russian aircraft using it make documentation any easier? Modern Russian aircraft are an almost complete non-starter, with the best we're going to get (out of ED at least) in the near future being the 9.12 MiG-29, i.e the initial production variant from the early 80s...

Then there's other assets, and the majority of them are Cold War. Especially when you factor in that REDFOR aircraft are ~20 years out of date, and are already basically superseded against our current BLUFOR offerings. The Rafale makes that problem worse.

If we keep going for more and more modern and capable BLUFOR, it's only going to become more and more incoherent with what we can realistic achieve, and it will almost certainly be very difficult to do in the first place.

Again, from what I gather, RAZBAMs Mirage 2000C got heavily improved thanks to direct input from the AdA, and IIRC Dassault are fairly notorious with their stuff (which is why it had to be called M2000C or M2K in the first place).

The much more feasible solution IMO is to develop older BLUFOR aircraft, that will better fit the current assets better, as well as be appropriate to REDFOR aircraft we can actually do. 

Their are currently more full fidelity bluefor aircraft from the 70s-80s (f-14a/b, mirage 2000c, f-5e) Then full fidelity red aircraft (just the mig-21 really the same as modern redfor with the jf-17) Nor does that solution seem to explain why people are going to stop using some of the most popular dcs modules in mass simply because the other side feels left out. Modern blue is where most devs think their gunna put food on the table, this trend is unlikely to change. I expect eventually like the JF-17 someone will do some export aircraft, PESA, AESA will be no different then ground radar, wanted for a long time and then eventually in game.

On 5/30/2021 at 2:21 AM, F-2 said:

Their are currently more full fidelity bluefor aircraft from the 70s-80s (f-14a/b, mirage 2000c, f-5e).

The current F-14A/B is mid/late 90s (same with the Viggen), the Mirage 2000C is technically late/end of the 80s (at least) and the F-5E-3 is early 70s.

So that's precisely 1 full fidelity BLUFOR aircraft for the 70s and another that's barely in the 80s (without counting the C-101, which is early 80s). The upcoming F-14A early by Heatblur will be the first true BLUFOR 80s aircraft.

The MiG-21 is early 70s, just like the F-5E-3. The 9.12 MiG-29 were supposedly getting (hasn't been fully confirmed AFAIK) is early 80s.

Compare that against other BLUFOR aircraft:

• A-10A is, at minimum, mid-ish 80s.
• A-10C is mid 2000s
• A-10C II is mid-ish 2010s
• AV-8B (N/A) is mid 2010s
• F-15C is mid-to-late 90s
• F-16CM is 2007/2008
• F/A-18C lot 20 is 2005

The latest full-fidelity REDFOR fixed-wing aircraft we currently have is the MiG-21bis from 1972. And the latest non-BLUFOR (but GREENFOR, not REDFOR) fixed-wing aircraft is the JF-17, which is somewhere in the 2010s (combines features of aircraft between 2011 and 2015). The latest flyable REDFOR aircraft is the Su-27/33 which are both from the mid 80s.

Of course you can weapons restrict to approximate early aircraft (especially the F-15C), though that only gets you so far.

Quote

Then full fidelity red aircraft (just the mig-21 really the same as modern redfor with the jf-17).

The JF-17 is hardly REDFOR - it's GREENFOR. But you're more than free to treat it as REDFOR in your missions.

Quote

Nor does that solution seem to explain why people are going to stop using some of the most popular dcs modules in mass simply because the other side feels left out.

I never said they were, it's just doing older aircraft is way more realistic than much more modern aircraft, especially Russian aircraft. I can only speak for myself, but the more modern BLUFOR gets, the less coherent DCS is going to be, given the only aircraft we can feasibly do (or at least so it seems) is Soviet-era aircraft.

Quote

Modern blue is where most devs think their gunna put food on the table, this trend is unlikely to change.

Do explain the Hind to me then, or the 9.12 MiG-29...

And what happens when they run out of modern BLUFOR aircraft that they can feasibly do? And they've still got 2 aircraft (soon to be a third) that aren't complete (one of them nowhere near being complete). 

Quote

I expect eventually like the JF-17 someone will do some export aircraft, PESA, AESA will be no different then ground radar, wanted for a long time and then eventually in game.

PESA and AESA will be a lot more different to ground RADAR...

ED's current ground RADAR API is pretty simplified, being able to see through trees, not recognising certain objects, not taking the curvature of the Earth into account (though that can also be blamed on the flat maps we're all using).

Do we even know the capabilities of the Rafale's RADAR aside from wikipedia figures? Do we even know what modes it has? Then there's Dassault who again, are kinda notorious over their aircraft, so we better hope that an operator such as the Aéronavale or the AdA gets actively involved with the project.

And then there's the other assets which are sorely lacking for modern stuff.

Then there's the whole EW aspect, which is fairly important for modern aircraft, only it's something that we're only really scratching the surface on. Meaning the Rafales SPECTRA suite (especially the ECM stuff) will have to be either absent or made up.

I completely agree there should be more Redfor full fidelity modules, but the lack of those doesn't mean, and it is not the reason, we shouldn't have more Bluefor full fidelity modern planes,

If Eurofighter can be done I'm guessing they can do Rafale too, they entered service almost the same year with Typhoon entering in 2003 and Rafale in 2004 for the french navy. Viper is from 2007 and hornet around there too, dunno about Jeff and A10C2 or Harrier.

And for radars and ECM systems, sensors etc... as I'm reading through the forums almost no plane has all their their systems modeled precisely, some are modeled close enough and some are precise depending on the data they can get, why is that a factor then, they can do the same with Rafale.

I know it all comes down to how much data is available about a certain plane, but I'm guessing if 2003 Typhoon, and other planes from around that year, can be done then probably Rafale can be done too, I guess if they get lots of interest in the plane and if they think it will pay off, they will get to work.

I don't want them to make stuff up ofc, don't want an ace game

On 5/30/2021 at 5:27 PM, Furiz said:

I completely agree there should be more Redfor full fidelity modules, but the lack of those doesn't mean, and it is not the reason, we shouldn't have more Bluefor full fidelity modern planes.

It's not just modules it's also assets as well.

And correct it isn't the reason; I'm throwing it out there because I don't like the mile-wide, inch deep thing DCS currently has going on. And adding more and more modern BLUFOR aircraft does nothing to solve that. I'd rather we concentrate on a decade or era, I don't care which, get it fleshed out (at least to the level of WWII is currently, with equal numbers full fidelity modules on both sides that fit each other, a dedicated map and reasonably comprehensive assets). That said, it's extremely unlikely that we'll get peer REDFOR for the post 2000s (especially as full fidelity modules) any time soon, so I think sticking to the mid-to-late Cold War is much more feasible and makes more sense as far as coherency is concerned.

Because right now, it's as if we've got a WWII game, but the allies have F-4 Phantoms, while the axis are stuck with late-war warbirds (and the age gap is approximately accurate).

Quote

If Eurofighter can be done I'm guessing they can do Rafale too, they entered service almost the same year with Typhoon entering in 2003 and Rafale in 2004 for the french navy. Viper is from 2007 and hornet around there too, dunno about Jeff and A10C2 or Harrier.

There's more to it than service dates.

• The A-10C II is 2017 IIRC, but it was done as part of a USAF contract (which is probably the only reason why it exists in the first place).
• The F-16CM is from 2007/2008 but the documentation exists in an accessible form for the Block 50.
• JF-17 is a mixture of Block 1 and Block 2 (though only from AAR capability AFAIK),  somewhere between 2011 - 2015 AFAIK.
• Harrier - no idea. Though it does have APKWS and GBU-54 which I think came ~2016 (?).  

Quote

And for radars and ECM systems, sensors etc... as I'm reading through the forums almost no plane has all their their systems modeled precisely, some are modeled close enough and some are precise depending on the data they can get, why is that a factor then, they can do the same with Rafale.

Because it inevitably becomes less and less accurate the more modern we go, and in this case it's completely different RADAR technology - nothing like it exists whatsoever in DCS.

And especially in the case of the Rafale, I'm not sure what documentation actually exists for it. But even for the Mirage 2000C it only got significant improvements after direct input from the AdA.

We know that stuff is getting approximated and it's not 100% true to life (though EW is nowhere near that as is, the Hornet is the only aircraft that is just about modelling DECM track breaking properly, though it's using the wrong ECM system AFAIK (should be using AN/ALQ-126, not the AN/ALQ-165).

Quote

I know it all comes down to how much data is available about a certain plane, but I'm guessing if 2003 Typhoon, and other planes from around that year, can be done then probably Rafale can be done too, I guess if they get lots of interest in the plane and if they think it will pay off, they will get to work.

Again, there's more to it than the service date.

TrueGrit can do a Typhoon, probably because it's being developed as part of a trainer for the Luftwaffe, and they are directly working with the management agency (NETMA) and the manufacturer (Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH).

So far RAZBAM are working with the AdA on the Mirage 2000C.

If they can get a contract to do it, great, though I still think it's a poor fit given the above, but even if I forget about, I'm still not holding my hopes particularly high.

On 5/30/2021 at 7:38 PM, Northstar98 said:

So far RAZBAM are working with the AdA on the Mirage 2000C.

 

If they can get a contract to do it, great, though I still think it's a poor fit given the above, but even if I forget about, I'm still not holding my hopes particularly high.

Well I do have my hopes there, you say RAZBAM is working with AdA and that is great, since modern planes like those sell a lot, most people on MP servers fly Hornet and Viper, there is other planes but those 2 are in the majority, next comes Tomcat and A10C2, but I don't really see much cold war era planes flown in MP,

I might be wrong since SP or CO-OP are closed sessions so I have no insight, ED has the statistics ofc. But from what I see modern jets are popular and lots of people are waiting for the Typhoon so I think they would want to see Rafale in DCS as well. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see SU-27SM for example but I guess those docs are extremely hard to get since we don't a have any Russian modern jet available.

Now the question is, can ED, RAZBAM or some other developer get the necessary documents and licenses to develop the module. I really hope they can.

On 5/31/2021 at 9:30 PM, Furiz said:

Well I do have my hopes there, you say RAZBAM is working with AdA and that is great, since modern planes like those sell a lot, most people on MP servers fly Hornet and Viper, there is other planes but those 2 are in the majority, next comes Tomcat and A10C2, but I don't really see much cold war era planes flown in MP.

Well, multiplayer is the minority if ED are to be believed.

And AFAIK the AdA were using it and then RAZBAM got direct input from them.

As I said the A-10C, A-10C II and the Typhoon (which will most likely be a Tranche 1, but they haven't said much about it).

Quote

I might be wrong since SP or CO-OP are closed sessions so I have no insight, ED has the statistics ofc. But from what I see modern jets are popular and lots of people are waiting for the Typhoon so I think they would want to see Rafale in DCS as well. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see SU-27SM for example but I guess those docs are extremely hard to get since we don't a have any Russian modern jet available.

It's fairly equally likely that the Rafale will be just as hard if not more difficult.

Quote

Now the question is, can ED, RAZBAM or some other developer get the necessary documents and licenses to develop the module. I really hope they can.

Welp, I guess we'll have to see.

My two cents on the whole Blue Force vs Red Force in the modern day argument is quite simple: We need more jets that are from the Russians and Chinese, but even the newest of the new aircraft have aren't 1-1 comparable to their western counterparts. This is due in large part because they are iterations on existing designs. They're certainly designs that work obviously, but an American or European pilot in an F-16 is a much clearer picture of what's around them then a guy in a Mig35. But that's just scratching the surface.

The Russians and Chinese are very tight-lipped on just what kinds of capabilities these aircraft actually have, and as a result, much of their capabilities can only be guessed at. Add the fact that so many people who play DCS won't buy a new module unless you can reset the AM/FM Radio fuse or push every button and flick every switch in the pit, and you've got yourself a fairly easy business decision for any team to make.

That's not to say that it can't be done though. It very much can be done, but we the community have to understand the limitations a prospective team might be working with, and as such, accept that certain things might not be modeled due to legal reasons, or, accept some guess work on the part of the design team. For example, I'd love to blow apart some J-10s in DCS... but outside of what it looks like, I know next to nothing about it that the PLAAF hasn't released to the public (which has to be taken with a rail-car of salt), but does that mean I would chastise a group that manages to make one that has a degree of fidelity? No. I'd welcome the jet with open arms.... and then attempt to feed it six Phoenix missiles from 100nm away

On 6/1/2021 at 7:38 AM, Tank50us said:

My two cents on the whole Blue Force vs Red Force in the modern day argument is quite simple: We need more jets that are from the Russians and Chinese, but even the newest of the new aircraft have aren't 1-1 comparable to their western counterparts.

It doesn't have to be 1-1 comparable, I'm not really interested in balance per se, but what I am interested in is having peer-to-peer contemporaries. In truth one side will always have an edge over the other in certain aspects.

Mid 2000s BLUFOR should be fighting mid 2000s REDFOR, not early-to-mid 80s REDFOR. Again like my WWII example, it would be like 1 side with 60s jets and the other side against late-war warbirds, and the age gap is approximately accurate.

Quote

The Russians and Chinese are very tight-lipped on just what kinds of capabilities these aircraft actually have, and as a result, much of their capabilities can only be guessed at.

It's far from just capabilities, it's how the systems work, and that's much more of an issue full fidelity wise than just capabilities.

Quote

That's not to say that it can't be done though. It very much can be done, but we the community have to understand the limitations a prospective team might be working with, and as such, accept that certain things might not be modeled due to legal reasons, or, accept some guess work on the part of the design team.

Well I'm going doubt that, if it could very much be done, they probably would've, don't forget the 9.31 MiG-29K (which is a technology demonstrator/prototype that didn't enter service - essentially a 9.15 MiG-29M), was in DCS' grandpa, Flanker 2.0. Truth be told it's probably far away from "it very much can be done".

I don't know, but I think there's a reason why these modern REDFOR aircraft, in a combat setting, only exist in Ace Combat or Strike Fighters 2, where apart from what it looks like, nothing is simulated in any detail at all.

Quote

For example, I'd love to blow apart some J-10s in DCS... but outside of what it looks like, I know next to nothing about it that the PLAAF hasn't released to the public (which has to be taken with a rail-car of salt), but does that mean I would chastise a group that manages to make one that has a degree of fidelity? No. I'd welcome the jet with open arms...

I'd love a J-10 in DCS too, and yes, apart from what you can probably find on wikipedia, and what it looks like, good luck.

And no-one is chastising any developer here. I do think ED shot themselves in the foot by doing much more modern BLUFOR aircraft when contemporary REDFOR is out of the question, but that ship sailed.

16 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

It's far from just capabilities, it's how the systems work, and that's much more of an issue full fidelity wise than just capabilities.

Well, obviously if you're trying to model the cockpit and functionality in the aircraft, yeah, but some items are just self-explanatory by just looking at the label. A switch that reads 'battery', and only has two positions, it shouldn't take much rocket science to figure out the purpose of that switch. The kicker is going to be the MFDs and what they're capable of displaying. Although if photos exist of the different display items, someone could probably make a high fidelity module, even if it's not 100% accurate to the real thing, it's still close enough that people might be willing to overlook it and buy it, especially if the company doing it is honest and outright says "This is our best guess of how this aircraft and its systems operate". As for the EFM, well, lots and lots of trial and error are to be expected to make it

Yes as in other planes, how do we know that some hornet functions are not just made close enough to resemble the real thing, and to show what they need to show on the displays, Mirage that we have as well, the stuff on it is made close enough. Jeff? Viper? They can't know all the stuff cause some of the systems are still classified.

For example these pics are interesting, got them from youtube video.

Situational Awareness

SPECTRA setup I guess

HSD

There is more pics like these, some one could come up with something there. There is is whole bunch of data already online publicly accessible.