A-6 Intruder variants

[Iron_physik]

Just now, bies said:

 

So you should prefer TRAM then.

 

Classic TRAM fit 1980 to 1997. It's 17 years.

SWIP fit 1991-1997. It's 6 years.

 

And TRAM was always majority of the Intruder fleet.

How many SWIP aircrafts ever served? 40 planes?

 

its crazy that you constantly get these dates and numbers wrong

its like you dont care for accuracy at all

and I even gave you EVERY source you need, you still choose to ignore them.

 

 

A-6E SWIP was first made in 1986

they made a total of about 70-80 SWIP models

so you are off by a factor of 2

 

 

and no, All TRAMS where refit into WCSI airplanes by the 90s

 

so to get it properly:

 

TRAM: 1980-1986 -> 6 years
WCSI: 1986-1997  -> 10 years

SWIP: 1987-1997  -> 9 years

 

the "bad and unhistorical" SLAM slinging variants had a longer service life than your classic TRAM

 

you should prefer WCSI and SWIP then

 

 

[Marsvinet]

2 minutes ago, bies said:

 

So you should prefer TRAM then.

 

Classic TRAM fit 1980 to 1997. It's 17 years.

SWIP fit 1991-1997. It's 6 years.

 

And TRAM was always majority of the Intruder fleet.

How many SWIP aircrafts ever served? 40 planes?

And a SWIP is close enough to a TRAM that we can get a plane that spans 1980 to 1997 with a small bit of imagination! Is my point really that hard to get? I can make a F18C from ~2007 act like a 1990 hornet. I can make a 2017 AV8B act like a 1990 AV8B. I can make a 1995 Viggen act like a 1970s Viggen. All this without all of those era appropriate versions of the modules existing. But I can't do the other way around. So with a small sacrifice on the 1980s missions, I can get an intruder that gives me some extra capabilities and fits into missions further into the future.

[Berserk]

45 minutes ago, Marsvinet said:

Yes, 80s cold war is expanding, but that does not mean that is the only era that DCS modules need to be limited to. Maybe I really like the 1990s era

 

Among people without military background, there is some huge misunderstanding of what the collapse of the USSR was from a military and political point of view.

You wrote i like 1980s and i like 1990s - like it would be something similar. But from military point of view this were two most extremaly different decades of XX centaury rivaled only by 1940s with WW2.

 

1. In 1980s Soviet Union surrounded with it's allies/satellites had one of the most powerfull military might in human history with manpower, allies and industry to support it and able to compete as equals on nearly every plane with US and NATO.
2. In 1990s what's left of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, Russia, was only a tiny remnant of the former glory. Most of Soviet weapon went to junk. For the next 15 years Russia was at it lowest point since before Peter the Great in XVII centaury. To this day in Russia it is remembered as a national trauma.

 

That's why 1990s was the most boring decade in history of every military equipement. Russia was on her knees unable to do anything, modernise, maintain or even pay salary to it's already massively reduced military, feeling threatened on every possible direction, abandoned by almost all allies, with half of Soviet population.

 

That's why 1990s looked like it did, hegemonic USA doing everything as they wish and only absolutely one sided boring conflicts. There is zero atmosphere in 1990s after Desert Storm and not a single opponent to US military.

 

An example of Soviet vs Russian fleet:

https://www.businessinsider.com/size-of-russian-navy-compared-to-soviet-fleet-2016-3?IR=T

Edited February 24, 2021 by Berserk

[Iron_physik]

1 minute ago, Marsvinet said:

And a SWIP is close enough to a TRAM that we can get a plane that spans 1980 to 1997 with a small bit of imagination! Is my point really that hard to get? I can make a F18C from ~2007 act like a 1990 hornet. I can make a 2017 AV8B act like a 1990 AV8B. I can make a 1995 Viggen act like a 1970s Viggen. All this without all of those era appropriate versions of the modules existing. But I can't do the other way around. So with a small sacrifice on the 1980s missions, I can get an intruder that gives me some extra capabilities and fits into missions further into the future.

in germany we have a name for this:

 

Erbsenzähler

Bean counter in english

 

its for people that take things way to seriously and think a little game is real life

 

for a mission making perspective a plane thats backwards capable is better than being stuck with a old variant

because the mission maker can always take certain weapons away, but he cant add weapons that where not used.

 

 

I mean for vietnam servers we also have no Mig-21PFM, but nobody really seems to complain about the 21-BIS, because mission makers took R-60M from its loadout to balance it down.

or nobody complaints about a VIGGEN, or AV-8B in 80-90s cold war servers

because mission makers dont allow specific weapons to break immersion

 

thats a better approach than being a bean counter and having to have every variant of every plane perfectly fitting for a specific mission

not only is that more workload for devs, but also more expensive

 

 

 

[Marsvinet]

11 minutes ago, Berserk said:

 

Among people without military background, there is some huge misunderstanding of what the collapse of the USSR was from a military and political point of view.

You wrote i like 1980s and i like 1990s - like it would be something similar. But from military point of view this were two most extremaly different decades of XX centaury rivaled only by 1940s with WW2.

 

1. In 1980s Soviet Union surrounded with it's allies/satellites had one of the most powerfull military might in human history with manpower, allies and industry to support it and able to compete as equals on nearly every plane with US and NATO.
2. In 1990s what's left of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, Russia, was only a tiny remnant of the former glory. Most of Soviet weapon went to junk. For the next 15 years Russia was at it lowest point since before Peter the Great in XVII centaury. To this day in Russia it is remembered as a national trauma.

 

That's why 1990s was the most boring decade in history of every military equipement. Russia was on her knees unable to do anything, modernise, maintain or even pay salary to it's already massively reduced military, feeling threatened on every possible direction, abandoned by almost all allies, with half of Soviet population.

 

That's why 1990s looked like it did, hegemonic USA doing everything as they wish and only absolutely one sided boring conflicts. There is zero atmosphere in 1990s after Desert Storm and not a single opponent to US military.

 

An example of Soviet vs Russian fleet:

https://www.businessinsider.com/size-of-russian-navy-compared-to-soviet-fleet-2016-3?IR=T

 

I don't even know what you're trying to get at with this.  You're just  putting words in my mouth. I said I like the 1990s era and I am well aware of how things changed with the fall of the USSR. How do I know that? Well I am also a big fan of aviation of the 1980s, same with the 70s down to 1940.  The only time I have compared the 1980s and 1990s is in Intruder capabilities. So please, criticize that and not your perceived idea of me not knowing the difference between the 1980s and 1990s.

[bies]

38 minutes ago, Marsvinet said:

can make a F18C from ~2007 act like a 1990 hornet. I can make a 2017 AV8B act like a 1990 AV8B.

 

That's what I'm talking about the whole time: some people care about realism or historical accuracy and some not. And all have right to do so, we are all different.

 

2017 AV-8B in 1990 scenario is absolutely ridiculous.

Just a small hint: in 1990 and earlier AV-8 didn't have nose FLIR sensor, didn't have FLIR integrated HUD, didn't have NVG provision, didn't have digital moving map, didn't have new more powerful engine etc. Pre 1991 it was an aircraft with totally different capabilities.

 

MiG-15 in WW2 scenario would be more realistic than our digital AV-8B in Cold War scenario.

Edited February 24, 2021 by bies

[Marsvinet]

Just now, bies said:

 

That's what I'm talking about the whole time: some people care about realism or historical accuracy ando some not.

 

If for you 2017 AV-8B fits 1990 scenario, what can I say?

Just a small hint: in 1990 and earlier AV-8 didn't have nose FLIR sensor, didn't have FLIR integrated HUD, didn't have NVG provision, didn't have digital moving map, didn't have new more powerful engine etc. Pre 1991 it was an aircraft with totally different capabilities.

 

MiG-15 in WW2 scenario would be more realistic than our digital AV-8B in Cold War scenario.

Now I am convinced you're missing my point on purpose. I can make them ACT like earlier planes by not using the systems you thankfully have listed.  I am not saying they are the exact same. How is that so hard to get?! I like many eras and therefore make my planes fit that way, instead of limiting myself. I'm done with this discussion now. I see no way to get my point across if the other end won't even listen to it.

[Iron_physik]

2 minutes ago, Marsvinet said:

Now I am convinced you're missing my point on purpose. I can make them ACT like earlier planes by not using the systems you thankfully have listed.  I am not saying they are the exact same. How is that so hard to get?! I like many eras and therefore make my planes fit that way, instead of limiting myself. I'm done with this discussion now. I see no way to get my point across if the other end won't even listen to it.

yup

 

Kinda annoying to deal with that, specially when Primary sources are ignored to fit their own narrative

or cheap tries of strawmen arguments and whataboutisms.

 

 

[bies]

What means not using the systems in case of AV-8B?

 

"Pinky promise" i won't use nose FLIR sensor, i won't turn on FLIR on HUD, i won't use NVG - even if I got confused in the dark, i won't use digital moving map - even if I got lost, won't use full engine power, just restrict myself to let's say 95% RPM. "Pinky promise" i won't.

 

It would be ridiculous. Even A-6E SWIP differed a lot less from 1980s A-6E TRAM than digital post 1991 AV-8B than Cold War AV-8.

Edited February 24, 2021 by bies

[Iron_physik]

1 minute ago, bies said:

i won't use NVG - even if I got confused in the dark

you can disable them in the mission settings, however NVGs where normal equiptment of harriers in the timeframe you are talking about

same with the moving map display

 

 

[Northstar98]

17 hours ago, Iron_physik said:

what everyone likes to forget:

 

DCS is a darn video game, so you gotta live with less realism

gameplay often comes before realism

 

And the design goal of the darn video game is explicitly stated to be as realistic as feasibly possible, something everyone forgets too... Despite it being right there on the main website...

 

You can go on about how you think people are silly because it's a video game, but at the end of the day, it's a video game at least trying to be realistic.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[Iron_physik]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

And the design goal of the darn video game is explicitly stated to be as realistic as feasibly possible, something everyone forgets too... Despite it being right there on the main website...

 

You can go on about how you think people are silly because it's a video game, but at the end of the day, it's a video game at least trying to be realistic.

 

then why are mission makers not using older variants of airplanes for period correct missions.... oh wait

because of game limitations

and nobody is complaining about flying slightly to modern variants in the missions, because the differences are so miniscule.

 

 

also lets not forget about damage models of ground vehicles vs large explosives, or the incorrect performance of many Air to Air missiles

even war thunder does a better job there

they manage to get bomb damage correct, and the kinematic and damage performance of WTs air to air missiles is modeled better.

[Northstar98]

13 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

then why are mission makers not using older variants of airplanes for period correct missions.... oh wait

because of game limitations

 

And? What's your point? How does this go against anything I've said?

 

There's nothing stopping these aircraft from being developed, there's nothing intrinsic about being a darn video game that prevents this.

 

Quote

and nobody is complaining about flying slightly to modern variants in the missions, because the differences are so miniscule.

 

The irony that you're in an argument with exactly these people...

 

And the differences are minuscule only in certain cases, and as for older aircraft what choice do you have? It's done as a workaround because if you couldn't do some time travelling, the scenarios you make would be very limited.

 

Quote

also lets not forget about damage models of ground vehicles vs large explosives, or the incorrect performance of many Air to Air missiles

even war thunder does a better job there

they manage to get bomb damage correct, and the kinematic and damage performance of WTs air to air missiles is modeled better.

 

War Thunder is better at modelling AAMs? Are you serious?

 

And let's not forget, that the point was the goal is realism, to be as "realistic as possible", just because some things aren't doesn't mean they won't ever be corrected, and just because the current state isn't the goal doesn't mean that it's invalid, nice to see that was completely missed...

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[Iron_physik]

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

War Thunder is better at modelling AAMs? Are you serious?

 

in the case of US IR-AAMs I am

 

I made sure that the performance matches original manuals to near perfection

 

meanwhile DCS copy pastes the performance of the AIM-9J onto the AIM-9M and only makes the 9M all aspect

even though the 9M uses stronger Servos and a better wing design for better agility

the 9X is also not agile enough

[Northstar98]

4 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

in the case of US IR-AAMs I am

 

meanwhile DCS copy pastes the performance of the AIM-9J onto the AIM-9M and only makes the 9M all aspect

even though the 9M uses stronger Servos and a better wing design for better agility

the 9X is also not agile enough

 

DCS doesn't even have the AIM-9J to copy and paste from, what are you talking about? And WT doesn't even have the AIM-9M or X so how can you make a comparison?

 

And if you've got the data, let's see it posted in a request for improvement? Only thing I will say is DCS is slowly giving missiles advanced FMs, though only the AMRAAM thus far.

 

We are drifting off topic here though...

Edited February 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[Berserk]

13 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

incorrect performance of many Air to Air missiles

even war thunder does a better job there

they manage to get bomb damage correct, and the kinematic and damage performance of WTs air to air missiles is modeled better.

 

No. This one is blatant lie. WT A-A missiles are utter fiction.

If you really think WT does a better job or is even comparable to DCS go play WT.

 

With this mindset you will never appreciate what DCS really is, ED takes painstaking work and years to model one plane as realistic as possible while WT is making 20-30 completely fictional generic copy-paste planes at the same time.

[Iron_physik]

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Well, I'd love to see how WT models the AIM-9M or AIM-9X...

 

Oh wait...

WT has the AIM-9L, and they also have the 9M in the files

the performance matches their IRL counterparts

 

thanks to like a ton of bug reports I myself wrote on the topic

same with all the other sidewinder variants in WT.

 

2 minutes ago, Berserk said:

No. This one is blatant lie. WT A-A missiles are utter fiction.

lol

you got any proof of that?

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/468522-the-aim-9-sidewinder-missile-technology-history-and-performance/

War thunder Sidewinders match the performance figures in this thread near perfectly

 

if you want me to datamine some of the WTs .BLK files of the missiles I can do that for you.

 

now its up to you to check if my figures are accurate or not, because appearently im Lying? even though all data is based on original US sources (USAF+USN)

[Iron_physik]

27 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

DCS doesn't even have the AIM-9J to copy and paste from

maybe check the F-5 tiger II for once

 

edit:

just because you may not know it

 

AIM-9J = AIM-9P

P is just the export name of the Juliet, apart from them they are 100% identical

Edited February 25, 2021 by Iron_physik

[bies]

15 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

lol

you got any proof of that?

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/468522-the-aim-9-sidewinder-missile-technology-history-and-performance/

War thunder Sidewinders match the performance figures in this thread near perfectly

 

Do not compare War Thunder to DCS in DCS forum, it's not allowed according to Forum Rules and honestly i see a good reason for that.

Go to Chit-Chat section with that.

 

WT topic in this thread is over.

[Iron_physik]

2 minutes ago, bies said:

 

Do not compare War Thunder to DCS in DCS forum, it's not allowed according to Forum Rules and honestly i see a good reason for that.

Go to Chit-Chat section with that.

 

WT topic in this thread is over.

not quite accurate (again)

 

Quote

1.15 Discussions of other game companies products are not recommended as they can create personal friction with users who enjoy such products and potentially create issues with competitve manufacturers which is not helpful.

its only "not recomended", not forbidden

its not me that is calling other "liars" because I state a fact, instead I get called a liar.

this here is about DCS not getting weapon performance right, and I listed the thread from that forum, because posting a link is easier than to make a copy of the whole thread that I worked several weeks on.

in many cases the drag of bombs is also wrong (the ballistic tables dont match from the F-5 manual for sight depression)

 

now when I challenge you guys about proving that im a "liar" you get all defensive and misqoute forum rules.

shame on you

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

33 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

maybe check the F-5 tiger II for once

 

edit:

just because you may not know it

 

AIM-9J = AIM-9P

P is just the export name of the Juliet, apart from them they are 100% identical

 

No they aren't, even your own linked forum post says so.

 

The P is an evolution of the J not just an export variant, depending on which P subvariant they have different rocket motors, different fuses and different seekers, such an information is trivial to find.

 

The F-5 has both the P (subvariant unspecified) and the P5, which definitely has at least a different seeker compared to the J.

 

Do you think the M is an export name of the L? Because they aren't, the former is an evolution of the latter - the same story when you look at the J and the P.

 

And sidewinders (at least the overwhelming majority of them) don't even use export names, where did you get that from? The only operator that I know of that uses export names for Sidewinders are Sweden, who use their own designation (Rb24/74).

Edited February 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[Iron_physik]

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

The P is an evolution of the J not just an export variant, depending on which P subvariant they have different rocket motors, different fuses and different seekers...

 

Similarly the M is not the export name of the L, it's an evolution of the L.

 

And sidewinders don't even use export names, what are you talking about? The only operator that I know of that uses export names for Sidewinders are Sweden...

 

"While the AIM-9L fulfilled the role of the frontline all aspect dogfight missile, a need still existed for a second tier weapon for use in less demanding situations, and also suitable for export to less than absolutely trusted allies. This requirement was fulfilled by the AIM-9P family, derivatives of the AIM-9J/N."

 

J and P are identical, both use the same G&C section, Rocket motor, warhead and fuze

the difference starts with P-2 which uses solid state electronics instead of the Tube/Solid state mix of the J/P
the P-3 brings a new fuze and a different motor

P-4 adds all aspect capability

P-5 adds IRCCM

 

where did I claim the M is a export of the L???

I didnt, so stop creating strawmen arguments!

if you would have actually read the link I posted you would notice that it even says that the M is a evolution of the L

 

AIM-9M uses the same G&C section as the L, but changes the rocket motor into a reduced smoke motor and adds IRCCM

apart from that they are identical and have the same kinematic performance.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Iron_physik

[IronMike]

It is way too early to talk about variants yet. However, TRAM is of course something that is strongly on our mind - that said: we cannot promise anything yet. Please keep that in mind and thank you for your kind understanding.

[Northstar98]

19 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

J and P are identical, both use the same G&C section, Rocket motor, warhead and fuze

 

the difference starts with P-2 which uses solid state electronics instead of the Tube/Solid state mix of the J/P
the P-3 brings a new fuze and a different motor

P-4 adds all aspect capability

P-5 adds IRCCM

 

So they're not identical then are they? And the P still isn't just an export J! And going by the model of the baseline P compared to images of the J they have a different TDD, something that's backed up here.

 

It's true that the P was intended for export, being a cheaper variant. But it's not the exact same as a J, even if there are negligible differences. 

 

"The AIM-9P1 has a laser proximity fuze for increased reliability"

 

Quote

where did I claim the M is a export of the L???

I didnt, so stop creating strawmen arguments!

 

I didn't say you did that's why I asked "do you think", the irony of accusing me of making straw man arguments.

 

Because the same exact thing applies to the AIM-9J vs AIM-9P, and you're making that pretty clear, maybe someone has to actually read the things they're responding to...

 

5 minutes ago, IronMike said:

It is way too early to talk about variants yet. However, TRAM is of course something that is strongly on our mind - that said: we cannot promise anything yet. Please keep that in mind and thank you for your kind understanding.

 

Awesome, I think if we got the TRAM/WCSI as a baseline variant, it probably wouldn't be too much of a stretch and have the SWIP as a variant later down the line, which is easily the best solution.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[IronMike]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Awesome, I think if we got the TRAM/WCSI as a baseline variant, it probably wouldn't be too much of a stretch and have the SWIP as a variant later down the line, which is easily the best solution.

 

 

Just manage your expectations please - feasibility will dictate what variants we will make in the end, and I do not want you to be disappointed, because of a wish that manifested itself too early. We'll do our best to make it kick ass, that I can promise. Everything else is, as mentioned, too early to be defined.