GBUs, possible? Why not?

Hello!!

I've been thinking for a while why the C101 doesn't have GBUs in the bomb lists, I mean, I know that the C101 doesn't have any TGP, but the M2000 also doesn't have a TGP, and can use GBUs.

IMO if the plane can carry Mk82/84 bombs it should be able to carry GBUs aswell, because they're the same bombs, with a kit to allow the searching of Lasers, and the Laser Code Setup could be done while on parking for example. (As in real life)

I think this could be a massive change for the plane and capabilities.

Don't know if it's possible, but I really ask to AvioDev to think about that.

Thanks for the module!!!

Because in real life it's never been tested nor implemented. Fitting a weapon to an aircraft is not as simple as "well it can carry stuff that weights the same". For example, you need to make sure that the weapon always separates properly rather than cause this:

Because in real life it's never been tested nor implemented. Fitting a weapon to an aircraft is not as simple as "well it can carry stuff that weights the same". For example, you need to make sure that the weapon always separates properly rather than cause this:

 

 

Maybe, but aswell maybe not, if you look at the images, and the place where the bomb joins with the plane and pod, it has the same longitude and possitions.

And I asked that because the GBU is prepared to be mounted and used with everything that can carry the Mk bombs

:book: :thumbup:

We will most likely add it. But will have to remove some weapons that exceed pylons load limits, like the Mk-84.

We will most likely add it. But will have to remove some weapons that exceed pylons load limits, like the Mk-84.

That´s fantastic. :thumbup:

Maybe, but aswell maybe not, if you look at the images, and the place where the bomb joins with the plane and pod, it has the same longitude and possitions.

 

And I asked that because the GBU is prepared to be mounted and used with everything that can carry the Mk bombs

 

:book: :thumbup:

For the same reason planes that DO carry gbus don't necessarily carry them on all available pylons. There's a lot more to it than ''does it physically fit''. Each weapon is cleared for each station one by one, because it IS more complicated than ''oh well it's just a bolt on kit''. Even that itself changes aerodynamic airflow in the area it's mounted and has to be checked for safety. Further, without appropriate connections in the pylons, you don't have a way to arm or activate those systems.

Tldr; if the C-101 is not authorised to carry them, and has never operationally carried them, it should NOT be available.

We will most likely add it. But will have to remove some weapons that exceed pylons load limits, like the Mk-84.

Awesome. It will make a good hunter killer team with GBU-12s and the Kiowa when it comes out.

The C-101CC manual is very clear specifying that only certified weapons should be loaded, and provides the list of configurations allowed. Also specifies the maximum weight that can be loaded in each pylon and total weight that may be carried by all pylons. But first of all, it's not possible to restrict the configurations in DCS to specific ones, the user can always make particular selections that perhaps are not in the real manual list. And if we follow that strictly we couldn't carry the Sea Eagle. So, for playability reasons, we should add some flexibility to the simulation.

[...] that perhaps are not in the real manual list. And if we follow that strictly we couldn't carry the Sea Eagle.

Because it didn't (apart from chilean trials)!

I never understood why this got implemented in DCS. Playability is nice, for games like War Thunder, but with DCS we should stick to simulating stuff that is true to the world. If not we could do all kind of unrealistic weirdness, like AMRAAM equipped Tomcats because they carried them during trials...

The C-101CC manual is very clear specifying that only certified weapons should be loaded, and provides the list of configurations allowed. Also specifies the maximum weight that can be loaded in each pylon and total weight that may be carried by all pylons. But first of all, it's not possible to restrict the configurations in DCS to specific ones, the user can always make particular selections that perhaps are not in the real manual list. And if we follow that strictly we couldn't carry the Sea Eagle. So, for playability reasons, we should add some flexibility to the simulation.

That's logical, many things in DCS are not "1:1 Ratio" with real life, and they're tweaked a bit for have a better experience. Thanks for telling that you're going to add GBUs!

Because it didn't (apart from chilean trials)!

I never understood why this got implemented in DCS. Playability is nice, for games like War Thunder, but with DCS we should stick to simulating stuff that is true to the world. If not we could do all kind of unrealistic weirdness, like AMRAAM equipped Tomcats because they carried them during trials...

Following that rule we should remove all missiles because they're not realisticly simulated xD.

Be honest, DCS is a Simulator, but it doesn't mean that it Will stick to reality.

Following that rule we should remove all missiles because they're not realisticly simulated xD.

Be honest, DCS is a Simulator, but it doesn't mean that it Will stick to reality.

Uuh what? DCS tries to simulate missiles as realistic as possible. Due to their classified nature it is obvious that it is not possible to simulate them 1 to 1. I suggest you use some of your 'its essentially the same bomb so it can fit on the pylon logic' in this case aswell.

And here is a definition of 'simulator' for you

''a device that enables the operator to reproduce or represent under test conditions phenomena likely to occur in actual performance''

While DCS is not really for testing and the above definition applies more to a hardware simulator, you can tell that a simulator usually means that it tries to simulate the actual conditions, in other words reality.

GBUs 12 are literally Mk82 with a laser tracking kit, nothing more nothing less. F.E. in the hornet, you can change the code for the GBUs, and that IRL you cannot do it, since it has to be done by the ground crew, so I don't see why it should not carry GBU12s.

GBUs 12 are literally Mk82 with a laser tracking kit, nothing more nothing less. F.E. in the hornet, you can change the code for the GBUs, and that IRL you cannot do it, since it has to be done by the ground crew, so I don't see why it should not carry GBU12s.

Because it didn't do so IRL?!

Unlike with the Sea Eagle there haven't even been tests/trials for GBUs on the C-101, because the added fins on the bombs might cause fitting issues if there is not enough space on the pylons or cause seperation issues. That's why every single weapon needs to undergo such trials.