Jump to content

GBUs, when?


paco2002
 Share

Recommended Posts

Your guys really don't get what "optional" means.

 

Is that not what I meant? Granted, it was a bit long winded, but that was what it boils down to. :book:

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you manage the fact that DCS does not offer any realistic scenario ? Isn't it silly to offer a simulation with absolute non sense in regards of geopolitics ? When was the last time we saw Soviet/Russian planes engaged in a conflict against western air forces over Georgia ?

I guess you haven't tried out Syria and the anti ISIS missions ;)

I'm happy for every historic mission/campaign we get in DCS. There are indeed to few. Unfortunately (or actually fortunately) there hasn't been much air combat action in recent decades, especially not air-to-air to solely base DCS on historical engagements. Also, DCS is not a geopolitics simulator last time I checked, but a flight/combat simulator.

 

 

Please, this is a game first and foremost, let's not forget it. The point of this game is to explore the realm of possibilities within the constraints of the hardware available. I firmly believe that a weapon should be available on a platform if it is possible to mount it IRL. If the weapon requires a specific system/hardware update, then sure, it shouldn't be available ; but if a plane could carry an ordinance without software update or hardware modifications, then why not offering it ? Let explore different doctrines if we can do it.

I explained numerous times in this thread that it isn't as easy to just hang a new weapon on a jet and that's it...

 

It would also lead to stuff like P-51s with laser guided bombs (technically possible!) which is dumb.


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you haven't tried out Syria and the anti ISIS missions ;)

I'm happy for every historic mission/campaign we get in DCS. There are indeed to few. Unfortunately (or actually fortunately) there hasn't been much air combat action in recent decades, especially not air-to-air to solely base DCS on historical engagements. Also, DCS is not a geopolitics simulator last time I checked, but a flight/combat simulator.

 

 

 

I explained numerous times in this thread that it isn't as easy to just hang a new weapon on a jet and that's it...

 

It would also lead to stuff like P-51s with laser guided bombs (technically possible!) which is dumb.

I don't see an Mk82 in a P51, so I cannot say it is possible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you haven't tried out Syria and the anti ISIS missions ;)

I'm happy for every historic mission/campaign we get in DCS. There are indeed to few. Unfortunately (or actually fortunately) there hasn't been much air combat action in recent decades, especially not air-to-air to solely base DCS on historical engagements. Also, DCS is not a geopolitics simulator last time I checked, but a flight/combat simulator.

 

 

 

I explained numerous times in this thread that it isn't as easy to just hang a new weapon on a jet and that's it...

 

It would also lead to stuff like P-51s with laser guided bombs (technically possible!) which is dumb.

 

I did not, indeed, tried the new Syria theater, I fly only stable branch. Let's note that Syria is not even deployed for regular users and that the main TO is still Georgia. As for ISIS, we don't even have proper support for an insurgent faction - no pickups, no VBIEDs, no "support teams". Again, screaming for realism about airplanes but not their environment seems a bit artificial to me.

 

As for the hanging part, I probably did not made myself clear, I'm sorry. I'm not asking for an impossible loadout, just one that could actually be real. Let's take the example of the Mk83 not being fielded by a branch but being used by another branch of the same country air force. I'll not even talk about your attempt to make fun with absurd anachonism.

 

I shared my point of view anyway, no need to comment further on this topic.

3rd Wing | 55th Black Alligators * BA-45

Εις ανηρ ουδεις ανηρ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not, indeed, tried the new Syria theater, I fly only stable branch. Let's note that Syria is not even deployed for regular users and that the main TO is still Georgia. As for ISIS, we don't even have proper support for an insurgent faction - no pickups, no VBIEDs, no "support teams". Again, screaming for realism about airplanes but not their environment seems a bit artificial to me.

You seem to missunderstand me. I do want more realistic scenarios!

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to missunderstand me. I do want more realistic scenarios!

 

I know the feeling. Finally with Syria map we have at least one Jordanian air field and the ability to make "less contrived" scenarios

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] DCS: The most expensive free game you'll ever play

 

 

 

Modules: All of them

System:

 

I9-9900k, ROG Maximus , 32gb ram, RTX2070 Founder's Edition, t16000,hotas, pedals & cougar MFD, HP Reverb 1.2, HTC VIVE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not, indeed, tried the new Syria theater, I fly only stable branch. Let's note that Syria is not even deployed for regular users and that the main TO is still Georgia. As for ISIS, we don't even have proper support for an insurgent faction - no pickups, no VBIEDs, no "support teams". Again, screaming for realism about airplanes but not their environment seems a bit artificial to me.

 

 

 

As for the hanging part, I probably did not made myself clear, I'm sorry. I'm not asking for an impossible loadout, just one that could actually be real. Let's take the example of the Mk83 not being fielded by a branch but being used by another branch of the same country air force. I'll not even talk about your attempt to make fun with absurd anachonism.

 

 

 

I shared my point of view anyway, no need to comment further on this topic.

ED working on pickups, and other stuff to "math" witch Syria map.

 

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading about the Sea Harrier this week and it prompted me to check out the Harrier Special Interest Group website. (I have a couple unbuilt plastic Harrier kits in the stash.)

 

http://www.harriersig.org.uk/index.htm?LMCL=yWNy8i

 

Under the modelling section, these was an attachment showing Gen 1 Harrier Ordnance. The chart shows that for both the GR3 and the FRS1, the British 1000 lb bomb can be carried by all four wing pylons and also on the centerline pylon. But the Paveway LGB 1000 lb bomb is only carried on the outer wing pylons.

 

Why is that? Is that a matter of aerodynamics at release (like QuiGon mentioned)? Is it a dimensional incompatibility (eg USN A-4s, A-6s, A-7s etc all have different tail fin configurations for the common Douglas 300/400 gallon tanks because one config or the other interferes with the flaps, strikes the ground, or limits access to a particular access panel)? Or was it due to wiring and systems integration, etc?

 

I know the Harrier's a bit off topic, but I think the question posed here relates to the original post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading about the Sea Harrier this week and it prompted me to check out the Harrier Special Interest Group website. (I have a couple unbuilt plastic Harrier kits in the stash.)

 

http://www.harriersig.org.uk/index.htm?LMCL=yWNy8i

 

Under the modelling section, these was an attachment showing Gen 1 Harrier Ordnance. The chart shows that for both the GR3 and the FRS1, the British 1000 lb bomb can be carried by all four wing pylons and also on the centerline pylon. But the Paveway LGB 1000 lb bomb is only carried on the outer wing pylons.

 

Why is that? Is that a matter of aerodynamics at release (like QuiGon mentioned)? Is it a dimensional incompatibility (eg USN A-4s, A-6s, A-7s etc all have different tail fin configurations for the common Douglas 300/400 gallon tanks because one config or the other interferes with the flaps, strikes the ground, or limits access to a particular access panel)? Or was it due to wiring and systems integration, etc?

 

I know the Harrier's a bit off topic, but I think the question posed here relates to the original post?

I don't know what the reasons are in this case, but it's similar with the F-16, which can carry 3 x Mk-82 on a single pylon, but just 2x GBU-12.

 

So yes, those are some cases, that show that you can't just replace a dumb bomb by its LGB variant.

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Hey, I posted this topic about a year ago. So... Wanted to ask if it still possible to get them, it would be great fun to use it! And, I know that the plane didn't had it IRL, but, beign honest, a GBU-12, is the same as the Mk-82, like, literally the hardpoints are the same, they change the nose, and the tail, due to the GBU "tranformation kit" (Not real name, but you know what I mean). So @Vibora, any update on this topic? 

As an add on to those who say "It cannot designate", Mirage also can't, but it has GBUs, and are fun to use it!

Finguers crossed!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paco2002 said:

... Wanted to ask if it still possible to get them, it would be great fun to use it! And, I know that the plane didn't had it IRL ..

 

The C-101 already has a fantasy weapon (the Sea Eagle), why the need to add another? ... I'd rather have the developer invest the man-hours on the Mirage F-1, instead of putting those hours into this.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

The C-101 already has a fantasy weapon (the Sea Eagle), why the need to add another? ... I'd rather have the developer invest the man-hours on the Mirage F-1, instead of putting those hours into this.

Don't mix things, AvioDev can work on both proyects, same as the Mi-24P and the Mi-8.

I will just answer, what's the "issue"? So, a ground crew change the head of the Mk-82 and fit a GBU kit in 10 mins, and it's a "fantasy weapon"?

Rudel, you cannot compare an ASM with a GBU-12 wich is a thing you can mod in 10 mins, so don't be silly with "fantasy weapons" please I beg you.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to go the realism route, the fundamental question is whether the GBU-12 needs its own set of trials to qualify it. If the answer is yes, then it doesn't belong in the module imo (and it's a whole other situation from the Sea Eagle, for which trials were performed at least). If the answer is no, being cleared for the Mk 82 is enough to be cleared for the GBU-12, then imo it might as well be added (and it's not that much work either), exactly like for the F-5E, because It wouldn't be less realistic than a whole lot of other loadouts in DCS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, paco2002 said:

Don't mix things, AvioDev can work on both proyects, same as the Mi-24P and the Mi-8.

I will just answer, what's the "issue"? So, a ground crew change the head of the Mk-82 and fit a GBU kit in 10 mins, and it's a "fantasy weapon"?

Rudel, you cannot compare an ASM with a GBU-12 wich is a thing you can mod in 10 mins, so don't be silly with "fantasy weapons" please I beg you.

AvioDev is a much smaller team than ED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TLTeo said:

If you want to go the realism route, the fundamental question is whether the GBU-12 needs its own set of trials to qualify it. If the answer is yes, then it doesn't belong in the module imo (and it's a whole other situation from the Sea Eagle, for which trials were performed at least). If the answer is no, being cleared for the Mk 82 is enough to be cleared for the GBU-12, then imo it might as well be added (and it's not that much work either), exactly like for the F-5E, because It wouldn't be less realistic than a whole lot of other loadouts in DCS.

They don't need to do assitional test to know if the bomb can be used, since the base (body of the bombs) is the same, weight is also the same, the only change is the kit they add, but that kit only looks for a laser (laser code has been set by ground crew) and the head of the kit manages to manouver the winglets the kit itsel has. So pretty much would be a "change and load" to be used. You can think the same with the APKWS, it uses the same rack as normal rockets, if you load an APKWS on a UH-1H, it could be used? Yes, they use the same base, APKWS is a normal rocket with a kit that looks for a laser, same as the GBU. Both weapons are designed to be used even without updates on the plane, but that would be on a "worst case scenario". Anyway, coming back to topic, if someone question is "But if you strap a GBU-12 kit to a Mk-82 of the Jordanian Air Force C101s, and drop it, It would work?" Yes, it would work.

Hope it clears off a bit this messy thread 😄

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the bomb can be strapped to the jet is not the problem, or what separation tests would confirm. What matters is whether the bomb separates from the jet in the same was as an unguided Mk-82, or whether the guidance kit causes problems. That is completely different from APKWS, which are designed specifically to be plug-and-play with normal launchers. That is the exception, not the rule.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 5:06 PM, TLTeo said:

Whether the bomb can be strapped to the jet is not the problem, or what separation tests would confirm. What matters is whether the bomb separates from the jet in the same was as an unguided Mk-82, or whether the guidance kit causes problems. That is completely different from APKWS, which are designed specifically to be plug-and-play with normal launchers. That is the exception, not the rule.

So, I decided to mod the GBU-12 onto the C101 (Doesn't have a pylon because I'ts a modded weapon).

Here are the results:
On one picture you can see that the bomb is almost identical in size, as I said, the pylon is invisible, but the X/Y pos is correct. image.png

Major visual diference is the fact that the nose of the GBU is in front of the Mk-82, wich is normal because of the GBU kit.

image.png

Next, I will do the drop test to see if it hits the aircraft while deploying the winglets.

It starts opening the winglets, but It doesn't hit anything on the aircraft

image.png

 

And when it's fully opened, it's too far away from the wing, and has a safe distance for the Mk-82 on the other pylon.

image.png

 

So... I think this is the close as we can get for a real test on a C-101, If someone wants more tests, I will be pleased to do them. Hopefully we will get the GBU-12 (With pylons hopefully lol)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Yeah DCS does not really model the airflow around the jet and the effect it has on stores separation, so these tests don't really mean anything.

I mean, what more do you want me to do? DCS is DCS, we know it doesn't simulate effects on stores, so... Take it or leave it I guess, that's everything I could make for checking that the GBU can be installed in a C101

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, paco2002 said:

I mean, what more do you want me to do?

 

Nothing. It should depend on the real life aircraft if a weapon is integrated and thus should be implemented in the DCS aircraft or not.

Some people here modded AMRAAMs to the Tomcat and it worked. Should that mean Heatblur should officially implement the AMRAAM to the Tomcat? Definitely not!

 

So unless the real C101 gets LGBs integrated I don't see any reason why the DCS C101 should.

  • Like 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

Nothing. It should depend on the real life aircraft if a weapon is integrated and thus should be implemented in the DCS aircraft or not.

Some people here modded AMRAAMs to the Tomcat and it worked. Should that mean Heatblur should officially implement the AMRAAM to the Tomcat? Definitely not!

 

So unless the real C101 gets LGBs integrated I don't see any reason why the DCS C101 should.

Phoenix and AIM-7 are not the same as an AMRAAM, but an Mk-82 and GBU-12, in the other hand, it is. That's the point of it, Maybe Jordania didn't bought GBUs, but thecnically the plane could be loaded with thems. Maybe some help from @Viboraand/or SME could help on this topic.

And to be clear, I know what you are trying to tell me @QuiGon, But it's not the same situation, of course no one would add for Heatblur to add AMRAAMs to the cat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paco2002 said:

Phoenix and AIM-7 are not the same as an AMRAAM, but an Mk-82 and GBU-12, in the other hand, it is. That's the point of it, Maybe Jordania didn't bought GBUs, but thecnically the plane could be loaded with thems. Maybe some help from @Viboraand/or SME could help on this topic.

And to be clear, I know what you are trying to tell me @QuiGon, But it's not the same situation, of course no one would add for Heatblur to add AMRAAMs to the cat.

 

The point is, that DCS should simulate the aircraft as they are IRL and IRL there is no C101 with GBU-12.

  • Like 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

The point is, that DCS should simulate the aircraft as they are IRL and IRL there is no C101 with GBU-12.

Here I differ with you opinion, we are simulating the C101 that has Jordania or some Air Force? Or we are simulating a C101 with all the posibilities? I would say it's the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...