request AGM-87 Focus for the F-5E - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2018, 08:42 PM   #21
Marsvinet
Junior Member
 
Marsvinet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msalama View Post
Yah. And then there's this workmate of mine, a Vietnamese guy, who told me that his uncle, a Viet Cong veteran, allegedly said that _everything_ was tried by necessity by both them _and_ the Yanks in the war.

Which kind of makes me not think but listen, provided there's anyone IN THE REAL KNOW to listen to
I'm not really understanding what you're trying to say... But if you're doubting that they flew them more than as testing during Vietnam, they did. They flew them until very recently. But this is not the topic of this thread.

Last edited by Marsvinet; 02-23-2018 at 08:54 PM.
Marsvinet is offline  
Old 02-23-2018, 08:55 PM   #22
msalama
Veteran
 
msalama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,207
Default

No, what I meant is that field mods abound - and said uncle, allegedly, noticed that too. But I'll probably never meet the geezer himself anyway, so never mind...
__________________
...aaaand yes, the Huey is still getting some luuurve http://www.belsimtek.com/upload/docs/development-tasks.pdf
msalama is offline  
Old 03-06-2018, 08:40 AM   #23
Bananabrai
Junior Member
 
Bananabrai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Ingolstadt, GER
Posts: 39
Default

I can completely understand this debate.

Look at it that way. The mission builder can build what he wants anyway.
If we put it down to total realism, then DCS should have a function to prohibit unrealisitc scenarios... and that would almost mean 99% of the online missions.

Example: MiG-15 and A-10C flying a combat sortie together over 1945 Normandy. How realistic is that? But it is possible in DCS.

Then why should they not integrate possible weapons?
We are playing fictional scenarios or crisis and if they would have happend IRL, there would have been a high chance of more weapon integration...

A possible solution would be an additional checkbox for 'fictional weapons' in the ME, that is off by default.

Offtopic: That's also why I'm hoping so much, that Belsimtek is going to bring the AGM-78 for the F-4E. Please I fear that otherwise everybody will fly the F-18 only...
__________________
Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/user?u=9400790 YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/user/Jethrosdetlef


Wish list: DCS: PA-200 Tornado, Improved Combined Arms, Improved Logistics
Bananabrai is offline  
Old 03-06-2018, 11:01 AM   #24
dimitrischal
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 215
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bananabrai View Post

Offtopic: That's also why I'm hoping so much, that Belsimtek is going to bring the AGM-78 for the F-4E. Please I fear that otherwise everybody will fly the F-18 only...
Then they SHOULD fly the f18....
dimitrischal is offline  
Old 03-06-2018, 03:50 PM   #25
Robert31178
Senior Member
 
Robert31178's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 1,116
Default

Ha!!!As much as I love the Rhino the Hornet is a better platform anyway for just about everything except payload.
Robert31178 is offline  
Old 03-06-2018, 06:26 PM   #26
Hyena
Member
 
Hyena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sterling, Va
Posts: 255
Send a message via AIM to Hyena
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert31178 View Post
Ha!!!As much as I love the Rhino the Hornet is a better platform anyway for just about everything except payload.
Bug may be 'better', but I have no interest in it. The Rhino, on the other hand, I am waiting for quite impatiently.
Hyena is offline  
Old 03-07-2018, 06:45 AM   #27
Bananabrai
Junior Member
 
Bananabrai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Ingolstadt, GER
Posts: 39
Default

@dimitrischal and Robert31178

I guess you did't get my point. I'm for example working on a 1993 scenario. We get a 2003 Hornet.
And my personal opinion is that I think it's quite boring to have one aircraft capable of nearly anything.
Such things are for lone wolfs. They join a server and do everything themselves.
Multi-role is nice but I like playing in a team and achieving something together. And in a good scenario everybody has only one task anyway...

That's why I would really appreciate a Rhino with AGM-78. At least we should get the AGM-45 I guess.
__________________
Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/user?u=9400790 YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/user/Jethrosdetlef


Wish list: DCS: PA-200 Tornado, Improved Combined Arms, Improved Logistics
Bananabrai is offline  
Old 03-07-2018, 07:01 AM   #28
Bananabrai
Junior Member
 
Bananabrai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Ingolstadt, GER
Posts: 39
Default



http://www.military-today.com/missiles/agm_87_focus.htm

I guess we could get the -87 for the Huey as well

Me might have to speak with Belsimtek, Bad_Karma-701. It gets seriouse...
__________________
Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/user?u=9400790 YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/user/Jethrosdetlef


Wish list: DCS: PA-200 Tornado, Improved Combined Arms, Improved Logistics
Bananabrai is offline  
Old 03-07-2018, 10:10 AM   #29
WinterH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bananabrai View Post
That's also why I'm hoping so much, that Belsimtek is going to bring the AGM-78 for the F-4E. Please I fear that otherwise everybody will fly the F-18 only...
For the actual topic of the thread, I see AGM-87 to be highly irrelevant to the sim. It wasn't in the version we have, and the weapon itself is hardly impressive at all as an air to ground missile.

As for the quote above, we are getting a late F-4E, which will have access to Mavericks, GBUs of both laser and TV types, and AGM-45 Shrike. So it will have lots of guided air to ground capabilities, as well as some anti-radar capacity, the one it had IRL.

In free for all servers, the majority will fly what is newest and most capable regardless. In the servers with more defined scenarios limiting aircraft up to 80s, F-4E will be one of the most capable strike aircraft when payload, weapon types and sensors are considered.

Forcing the said teamwork is, in my opinion, on the scenario designer's shoulders, by limiting the amount of weaponry and aircraft available, and designing the tasks accordingly. But this takes organized events, the reality of public servers will be how it is today: few people who want novelty will fly novel aircraft, while most others will fly the best available.
__________________
Modules:
MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen
WinterH is offline  
Old 03-07-2018, 12:07 PM   #30
Bananabrai
Junior Member
 
Bananabrai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Ingolstadt, GER
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterH View Post
For the actual topic of the thread, I see AGM-87 to be highly irrelevant to the sim. It wasn't in the version we have, and the weapon itself is hardly impressive at all as an air to ground missile.
Stating from the web side I posted earlier:
"It was short-lived in service, though considered a success in combat" [...]
"Focus was reportedly a success (although the USAF's determination to protect the AGM-65 Maverick program may have been a factor)"[...]

Same info on Wiki, though this information might be from the same source.

We all know it was not operationally used with the F-5E-3, nor the UH-1H.
However it was used during a short period, most probably on the UH-1 of a different but mostly similar type and some fixed wing. If you let it up to the mission designer, a potential implementation would't be a problem.
Everybody who doesn't want to use it should just not use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterH View Post
As for the quote above, we are getting a late F-4E, which will have access to Mavericks, GBUs of both laser and TV types, and AGM-45 Shrike. So it will have lots of guided air to ground capabilities, as well as some anti-radar capacity, the one it had IRL.
I have not stated, that the F-4E is not capable. I like what we most probably get with it. However the AGM-45 Shrike is not well know for its reliability nor for its effectiveness.
And I would even really like that caracteristics to be modeled, because it means more homework. A pre 2000 scenario would lack a western long range DEAD/SEAD capability without the AGM-78, so same situation as now.

Well, that was just an example for the AGM-87 request anyway. Other F-4E's were capable of carrying the -78, so might other F-5's have been capable of carrying the -87.
That was my reason for comparison. DCS is not all about realism. It mostly is, and that is what we all like about it. But it has fictional conflicts, and thats also what we like about it.
The difference we talk about here in this thread is, that they would have been possible... (Cold War Warrior Campaign, Mirage 2000 Campaign, UH1-H UN Pilot Campaign... all good examples)
If the -87 would have stayed in service for 5-10 more years, which is not very much in military means, a F-5E-3 integration would have been at least possible, if not likely.

-> fictional but realistic scenario => fictional but realistic weapon load outs. At least we are not taltking about Tomahawk, AGM-88, AGM-154 integration on the F-86...
__________________
Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/user?u=9400790 YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/user/Jethrosdetlef


Wish list: DCS: PA-200 Tornado, Improved Combined Arms, Improved Logistics

Last edited by Bananabrai; 03-07-2018 at 12:20 PM.
Bananabrai is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:10 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.