Unpopular opinion

So I love the 101 and do some mission building for it. If it could carry GBU-12s it would really increase it's utility. Now I know it never has in real life, but the way I see it bomb lugs are bomb lugs so it should be able to eyeball it close enough if there's a Jtac or buddy lase and when I'm in the fictional USAF skin you know they would have figured it out... Obviously it's the Devs module and if they don't want to corrupt it with a fictional loadout that's their decision. I thought I might see what the rest of you think though?

They've never been implemented on that bird and so it should be the same in DCS, regardless of hypothetical technical possibilities.

It already has a fictional weapon with the Sea Eagle, no need to add another fictional one.

Just real weapons, if the Sea Eagle is fictional too, please remove it.

Just real weapons, if the Sea Eagle is fictional too, please remove it.

There have been some Sea Eagle tests with chilean air force C-101s, but it has never been integrated for actual service afaik.

Just real weapons, if the Sea Eagle is fictional too, please remove it.

There have been some Sea Eagle tests with chilean air force C-101s, but it has never been integrated for actual service afaik.

There are some photographs of the Sea Eagle on the C-101CC on page 13 of the flight manual that comes with the module.

Personally, I really like how the devs have implemented it in the sim. You can do neat weapons-test flights or set-up very specific scenarios, but it is not a general purpose "kill-anything-that-floats" mission breaker that will lay waste to the multiplayer scene.

Sadly, bomb lugs are not bomb lugs. Every weapon, every variant of the weapon, needs be cleared for every variant of every aircraft to carry the munition, on every station that the munition would be carried. On YT there are many videos of separation tests, with more then few having bad results. Like bomb that , when released, flies upward and collides with launch platform. Zuni would fire, with safety on, when pylon is powered on, and so on. A-4, F-111, and F-15E had notorious reputations with certain weapons. The release mechanism also has to be compatible aircraft electric system and emergency jettison.

Sadly, bomb lugs are not bomb lugs. Every weapon, every variant of the weapon, needs be cleared for every variant of every aircraft to carry the munition, on every station that the munition would be carried. On YT there are many videos of separation tests, with more then few having bad results. Like bomb that , when released, flies upward and collides with launch platform. Zuni would fire, with safety on, when pylon is powered on, and so on. A-4, F-111, and F-15E had notorious reputations with certain weapons. The release mechanism also has to be compatible aircraft electric system and emergency jettison.

True enough....

I Just do not understand people that say No to a new possibility. OK, so its not realistic, so DO NOT USE IT, or BAN it in your server.

But why the need to limit everybody to some sort of primordial value only a few share...

Specially when the whole DCS thing is pure fiction, you have been flying an A-10 in GEORGIA! for the last 10 years and no A-10 ever flew over the skys of Georgia! (as in the Caucasus, not the State)...

I Just do not understand people that say No to a new possibility. OK, so its not realistic, so DO NOT USE IT, or BAN it in your server.

 

But why the need to limit everybody to some sort of primordial value only a few share...

 

Specially when the whole DCS thing is pure fiction, you have been flying an A-10 in GEORGIA! for the last 10 years and no A-10 ever flew over the skys of Georgia! (as in the Caucasus, not the State)...

Yet an A-10 is perfectly capable of flying over Georgia, or any country for that matter. You're not going to see it carrying AMRAAM's though. Your lumping something that is possible with something that isn't.

In DCS if it is possible, chances are you will see it. If it's not then you wont. Strapping whatever munition you want to any aircraft is not possible.

DCS is where it is today because of it's attention to realism. The "few" that you claim care about it are in fact the many.

The word "Posible" is key here. If ever needed maybe it could.

I will not debate further I also believe that no trainer would ever get LGBS, since it would seam a waste of resources. Then again, Countries with lesser airforces tend to try new things there was a program in argentina )that didi not propsper) to give the A-4AR an indigenouse targeting POD and laser guided weapons... Posible. but it did not happen. Then again the AR is the msot modern aircraft we have still fliying...)hell its teeh Only one :´( besides our indigenouse trainer IA 68 Pampa witch we are trying to convert into a light attack plane)...

Yet an A-10 is perfectly capable of flying over Georgia, or any country for that matter. You're not going to see it carrying AMRAAM's though. Your lumping something that is possible with something that isn't.

 

 

In DCS if it is possible, chances are you will see it. If it's not then you wont. Strapping whatever munition you want to any aircraft is not possible.

 

 

DCS is where it is today because of it's attention to realism. The "few" that you claim care about it are in fact the many.

I am totally standing behind Baco here. I work right in this kind of spot for the industry.

When war comes. Things get a lot faster integrated that anybody would think.

Speaking generally, certain stations are designed to carry certain types of stores. It is then up to the customer (UASF, GAF, CAF, NAVY, etc.) to test the behavior of a release, etc.

I like realistic settings as well, but it still should be up to the mission builder. AMRAAM and A-10, bad example. You are missing radar, BUS, electric, etc. integration here. Take something like A-10/F-5/UH-1 and AGM-87.

I don't know what people loose if you give someone a little "addon" to play. This is not Germany in 1944...

It already has a fictional weapon with the Sea Eagle, no need to add another fictional one.

It's not the same fictional than experimental ...

Just mod them in yourselves if you want them so badly. But don't expect the dev team to add stuff that doesn't exist IRL.

I don't have a strong opinion either way but I'd prefer the devs just work on completing the core stuff.

I am totally standing behind Baco here. I work right in this kind of spot for the industry.

When war comes. Things get a lot faster integrated that anybody would think.

True, but the country involved does need some kind of basic capability. I think that capability could be lacking in several countries.

Of the C-101 operators (Spain, Chile, Jordan, Honduras), I think only Spain has that capability for sure, but they don't need to arm their C-101's to that extent because they have Eurofighters and Hornets. Similarly Chile and Jordan have F-16's. That leaves Honduras, but I'm pretty sure that they can't modify the C-101 sufficiently to integrate LGB's.

AMRAAM and A-10, bad example.

I wasn't suggesting AMRAAM's on A-10's is equivalent to GBU-12's on a C-101. I was making a point that an aircraft flying in a region it hasn't in real life is not the same as an aircraft carrying munitions it can't in real life. One is possible, the other isn't. ie: There is nothing technically stopping the hog from flying in Georgia IRL, yet there is plenty stopping it from carrying incompatible loads.

Yes, aircraft can be refit, and I would assume in wartime this would be done pretty rapidly like you suggest. In this case though it's just hypothetical, as the C-101 was never refit to carry GBU-12's.

At the end of the day guys, DCS doesn't hang their hat on hypothetical's, close enough's, or what if's. The foundation for this game is realism at a level not seen anywhere else. That's why you pay $50-$70 for aircraft.

I would prefer more variety in unguided weapons, like the Mk-81, bombs with high-drag tails, etc. GBUs are not funny to use if you can't find and iluminate yourself the target with the electro-optical pod. I never use them in the F-5E.

My 101 looks like a Gosshawk - now to get a hook :)

My 101 looks like a Gosshawk - now to get a hook :)

What happened to that skin chaser? I haven't seen it on user files.

Sadly, bomb lugs are not bomb lugs. Every weapon, every variant of the weapon, needs be cleared for every variant of every aircraft to carry the munition, on every station that the munition would be carried. On YT there are many videos of separation tests, with more then few having bad results. Like bomb that , when released, flies upward and collides with launch platform. Zuni would fire, with safety on, when pylon is powered on, and so on. A-4, F-111, and F-15E had notorious reputations with certain weapons. The release mechanism also has to be compatible aircraft electric system and emergency jettison.

Long story short, I've been taking a crash course in aerodynamics lately, and this falls into the line of the one of the first things I kearned : little changes make a big difference =)