They use the restrictions set on by manufacturers and physics. That’s the rules.
& within the ammo options, chooses the ammo from the pool for balance.
Nothing is bent, no rules, no assets.
Which means they are bending those assets.
Like i said can you show me a single Mirage2000F5 that has used Super530F models with pictures and solid proofs but not just with assumptions?
2 Likes
Is the radar incompatible?
There is no evidence pylons 2 & 8 were re-wired at all. It’s why they can take Magic 2, fuel pods, and according to documents Gaijin has 530s, and not MICAs.
Like i said you can “technically” use Super530 models on 5F model but is there any solid proof such as photos and documents about combat loadout that shows 5F did use Super530F in its service life?
1 Like
Here’s the thing with photos. They can help you with fuel tanks and maximum loadouts on pylons that don’t service fuel when it comes to France.
Because France LOVES, is absolutely addicted to, putting fuel pods on all their demonstration aircraft.
And their airforce isn’t going to equip reserve missiles for demonstration when they can equip 2x MICA IRs and 4x MICA RFs along side a ton of fuel.
The thing is by the time Mirage2000-5F model entered the service Super530F was already decommisioned. So even in inventory there was no 530F model was left.
But somehow in this game developers forces us to research that missile Just because it “technically” can be use on Mirage2000-5F, thats why im saying they are bending however they see fit.
5 Likes
Yeah, but you have to prove it can’t use it. And the only reason it couldn’t is if it couldn’t use the 530D as well, and thus the pylon was rewired to use IR missiles only for AAM.
I mean, Magic 2s is what we’re going to use those pylons for when MICA RFs come, but until then we use the 530s.
My friend i think you misunderstood me.
İm not saying it cant use those missiles, what im saying is Mirage never did use those missiles especially 530F cause there was no 530F model left in France inventory by the time they commisioned 5F.
So what they are doing is they found some couple of documents that tells RDY radar is “technically” compatible with Super530 models so they used this documents to their benefits in order to add Mirage2000-5F so early.
They exactly knew Mirage2000-5F will be too advanced with its real life combat loadout so they decided to use those documents in order to use for their advantage.
İm not against Super530D but at least they could remove those useless Super530F’s before putting Mirage into tech tree.
4 Likes
Btw i forgot to tell, source you shared is about Super Cobra not for Viper.
Also Viper entered service in 2010 not 2000.
It was an example photo, actual evidence that this was done for the A-4E can be found here
Also the USN AH-1’s should be be able to take Sidewinders on its other stations as well, not just the wingtips.
I see no images on that page after searching the entire distance.
And if you find unclassified documents relating to AH-1Z’s ordnance, go to the bug report website and put one in.
AIM-54A is overmodeled. It shouldn’t have IOG, it should be effectively command-guided until the supporting radar triggers it to go active. Practically that means it should go stupid if the supporting radar loses the TWS track or is killed. Launched with STT it should be a semi-active missile. The problem with AIM-54C is that AIM-54A has all the capabilities it should add already.
Isn’t the Etendard IV M missing high drag bombs?
The AIM-54A has inertial guidance I thought? It’s just used the same way the R-27R/ER is… sort of, no? I.e, requires active command for terminal guidance so requires host babysitting all the way to the 10nm active range before host can stop providing support to the radar. (Where R-27R/ER would require STT lock the entire way).
Also, I think this suggests that because it operates on a specific frequency it’s possible to break off or stop providing tracks, and later continue to provide tracks to the missile on the same frequency similarly to R-27. Is this also your assessment?
Pretty much every AIM-54C source indicates the addition of an inertial guidance unit. My understanding is it receives commands from the launching radar and sees the TWS returns from the target. And yes, it should be able to receive commands even after a pause, the radar has to be able to address an individual missile or multiple missiles in flight would be impossible.
The AIM-54A requires the go-active command, the AIM-54C may not.
The AIM-54A requires active TWS updates to keep guidance towards target, whether it sees a return from this or is just receiving coded signals to the flight control to put missile and seeker closer to target is what I think is the debate?
Both can receive mid-course updates but the AIM-54C is more precise, has it’s own inertial measurement unit to allow for pseudo-self TWS in HPRF mode before switching to a MPRF similar to AMRAAM?
(Sorry seems we are getting off topic here now, perhaps we can switch to AIM-54 thread)
Super 530D has had its pre-launch gimbal limits and after-gimbal launch reported. Should go to 55± degrees or a total of 110 degrees. So a nice big hefty change, you should be able to manually loft it higher if the changes goes through. It also should mean that if you lose radar lock and re-lock the target, the chances of the missile seeing the target increases.
1 Like
I got a book from the manufacturer of Super 530D’s motor. States Super 530D should have a fuel mass of 83kg (it has 90kg as of right now). It also states it should have a burn time of between 10 to 12 seconds. I would guess the 10 seconds is at sea level, and 12 seconds at high altitude.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/969422655084183612/1132523663019753532/20230722_230346.jpg
7 Likes
I think it would be the other way around due to the atmospheric pressure working against the motor
1 Like
do we have absolite evidence of that then? bar DCS’s implementation and the few docs we’ve seen