Matrix Games Forums

Before the R-73 became operational, MiG-29s used the R-60 as their SRAAM. All the documentation I could find indicated that to be the case and while the R-73 mostly replaced the R-60 in that role, the aircraft still retain the capability to load and fire the missile. Now I don't know about the Czech, or Slovakian MiG-29's (which is why I didn't include them in my post on the topic), but I'd assume that those aircraft would probably be the ones to retain the R-60 in operational use the longest as they were probably among the last to receive the top of the line R-73.

On the contrary Czechoslovakia was one of the earlier user of R-73E missile but because only limited number was bought the R-60MK was still used with MiG-29. For show and deception these both missiles were mounted on MiG-29 but because of system limitation this combination cannot be used in combat. So Czechoslovak/Czech/Slovak could go to combat with all R-60MK or all R-73E (plus R-27R1) but not combination.

@Tookatee
I think there is a misunderstanding. MiG-29 (even 9.12A) can use R-27, R-60 and R-73, but I guess PN79 meant
that it cannot use combination of those 3 missiles at once. Possible Combinations are 2 x R-27s with 4 x R-60s or 4 x R-73s

@Dysta
Thanks for appreciation! I hope also to gather some info and write about systems using RIM-66 based Sayyad missiles, like Talash or 15th Khordad.

Oh, I thought you were saying they couldn't hold the R-60 at all. As they are in the latest database the MiGs I've identified do not have the ability to load the R-60 at all, combination loads or not. In fact in my original message I don't even state that they could load a combined R-60/R-73 loadout, it's only in the picture that that's demonstrated (which I chose because it showed the full AA arsenal of the MiG-29.)

In fact, both the Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia seem to be missing the MiG-29 in it's entirety.

Yeah, x2oop - that is what I wanted to say. CS/CZ/S air forces had tendency to mount impossible loadouts to aircrafts in display creating confusion what can be actually used.

Tookatee - I agree that it is unfortunate that in database MiG-29 with R-73 loadout somehow lost R-60 loadout. Ideally there would be both possibilities to equip the MiG.

As long as I can get same variant from different country I don't really care that some specific country lacks some specific aircraft. It is pain only when the proper supplement is missing completely.

Providing some more information and perspective on a four of the Mexican Navy platforms I requested...

ARM Quetzalcoatl (D 101) [Ex-USS Vogelgesang, Mexico, 1982-2002]
ARM Netzalhualcóyotl (D 102) [Ex-USS Steinaker, Mexico, 1982-2014]

Their stats would be akin to the Turkish Gearing-class Destroyers, but the 35mm are swapped out for 40mm Bofors AA Guns. And it's unknown if they do possess chaff/flare dispensers. (Information on the Mexican Navy ships is somewhat iffy)

ARM Cuauhtémoc (E01) [Ex-USS Harrison, Mexico, 1970-1982]
ARM Cuitláhuac (E02) [Ex-USS John Rodgers, Mexico, 1970-2001]

Their stats would be similar to the Fletcher-class Destroyers fielded by the Brazilians and Turkish Navy.

Information Links:
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/ships ... etcher.htm
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Netza ... tl_(D-102)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Netza ... tl_(D-102)
https://web.archive.org/web/20080617140 ... guerra.htm
http://www.semar.gob.mx/galeria/buques/ ... lcoatl.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gearing-class_destroyer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Steinaker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_Rodgers_(DD-574)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harrison_(DD-573)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vogelgesang_(DD-862)
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/863.htm
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/862.htm
https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publi ... tudy_4.pdf

It seems several variants of the A-4 are missing the probe refueling property.
#1843 A-4G
#1691 A-4K
#191 A-4K Kahu
#3613 TA-4G
#3614 TA-4K
#3615 TA-4K Kahu

Also I was hoping in the interest of having a modernized carrier capable skyhawk with more than just dumb bombs like the Brazilian AF-1 we could get either the kiwi Kahu made carrier capable or perhaps a new hypothetical version of it to leave the original as it should be. Maybe some hypothetical loadouts for the AF-1 might be better but not speaking Portuguese makes it hard to find much data on what they can carry besides vague "modern day munitions".

Thank you for your time.

ORIGINAL: Skyhawk88

It seems several variants of the A-4 are missing the probe refueling property.
#1843 A-4G
#1691 A-4K
#191 A-4K Kahu
#3613 TA-4G
#3614 TA-4K
#3615 TA-4K Kahu

Also I was hoping in the interest of having a modernized carrier capable skyhawk with more than just dumb bombs like the Brazilian AF-1 we could get either the kiwi Kahu made carrier capable or perhaps a new hypothetical version of it to leave the original as it should be. Maybe some hypothetical loadouts for the AF-1 might be better but not speaking Portuguese makes it hard to find much data on what they can carry besides vague "modern day munitions".

Thank you for your time.

Hey Skyhawk88,

Can you please post some references or photographs. Making changes to the database is work enough without re-researching every request to confirm it.

If you're unable to do this due to being a new user you can drop me a PM.

Here are images supporting the refueling capabilities of the A-4's he specified, in each one you can see the refueling probe.

#1843


#1691 and #191 (#191 is just #1691 with updated avionics)


#3613


#3614


#3615

All variants of the American A-10, B-2, B-52, F-15E, F-16, F-35, and all other variants of the F/A-18 are missing the ability to load the Mk82 Snakeeye.
Also, the Mk 83 AIR and the Mk 84 AIR should also have all the aircraft included on their LDGB versions.

Image displaying the full armament of the F-35 as stated by Lockheed Martin (this also highlights the fact that it can't equip the LDGB Mk82/3/4 and their ballute versions as well.)



Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_82_bomb, https://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/ ... nt-weapons, and CMANO (as all aircraft that can hold the Mk 82/3/4 can equip the Ballute or Snakeeye versions of those weapons as they are purely mechanical bolt-on modifications to the bomb itself.)

Thank you very much Tookatee!

Request to change target set and add new single ground mount:
#3157 Martlet [FASGW(L) / LMM] -- 2016

https://youtu.be/B8bX89VFLg8?t=42

LMM has an anti air capability. Footage on the link.

It currently is limited to surface targets in the Martlet LMM.

Plus there is a single missile mount / shoulder launched for ground operations being tested by the Royal Marines.
Royal Marines fire the new Lightweight Multirole Missile from a shoulder launcher (Image: MoD)

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/l ... ee-3055375

For consideration for future updates please?
K

ORIGINAL: Tookatee

All variants of the American A-10, B-2, B-52, F-15E, F-16, F-35, and all other variants of the F/A-18 are missing the ability to load the Mk82 Snakeeye.
Also, the Mk 83 AIR and the Mk 84 AIR should also have all the aircraft included on their LDGB versions.

Image displaying the full armament of the F-35 as stated by Lockheed Martin (this also highlights the fact that it can't equip the LDGB Mk82/3/4 and their ballute versions as well.)



Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_82_bomb, https://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/ ... nt-weapons, and CMANO (as all aircraft that can hold the Mk 82/3/4 can equip the Ballute or Snakeeye versions of those weapons as they are purely mechanical bolt-on modifications to the bomb itself.)

Just FYI, that slide wasn't describing what weapons were actually planned for integration (except the weapons with orange text; they correspond to the "Store Fully Certified During SDD").

The reason those other weapons are listed is because their weight, access and volume requirements were used to design the F-35's internal bays and hardpoints / pylons; they'd align the mounting points for those weapons, overlay them and then make sure that they could all fit / have safe separation clearance, etc:




Also just in general, you have to remember that just because a weapon can be fitted, it doesn't mean that pylons are correctly calibrated to safely eject them (that requires flight separation testing to be conducted), or that pilots that fly those particular aircraft are trained to use them - F-35 pilots wouldn't be getting trained to use high drag (ballute, etc) bombs for example.

If the F-35 can load and equip the JDAM variants of the Mk series of weapons then it can equip the less advanced, purely mechanical AIR and Snakeeye versions of those weapons. Just like the JDAM kits they are just bolt-on modifications to the Mk series of bombs that allow for different delivery methods, except unlike the JDAM kits (that have on-board electronics) they don't require any sort of special connection or avionics on the aircraft.

Just to emphasize loadouts would just be clones of the current JDAM loadouts for the F-35 variants with them (minus any internal loadouts), except the JDAMs replaced by the LDGB/AIR/Snakeeye version of those weapons.

And pilot training is irrelevant for the database, that's a factor for scenario authors to consider. Like I said before the database should have complete and accurate records of the capabilities for all the vehicles included in it so that they can be used in the most scenarios possible.

Finally here's yet another source I found that describes the F-35's ability to load the Mk82 and its associated versions http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

If the F-35 can load and equip the JDAM variants of the Mk series of weapons then it can equip the less advanced, purely mechanical AIR and Snakeeye versions of those weapons. Just like the JDAM kits they are just bolt-on modifications to the Mk series of bombs that allow for different delivery methods, except unlike the JDAM kits (that have on-board electronics) they don't require any sort of special connection or avionics on the aircraft.

The JDAM kits affect the range of the weapons and have impacts on the separation dynamics (more so for the high drag variants); that impacts the ability for pilots to employ the weapon (although for Snake Eyes, HUD guidance cues aren't really an issue).

And pilot training is irrelevant for the database, that's a factor for scenario authors to consider. Like I said before the database should have complete and accurate records of the capabilities for all the vehicles included in it so that they can be used in the most scenarios possible.

The purpose of the database is to provide realistic loadouts and systems as used by respective operators - USMC F-35Bs could employ ASRAAMs for example, but they're not included in the USMC F-35B loadouts because they're not a weapon that's used by the USMC, even when they're co-located with RAF / RN units. If you want to add Snake Eyes to an F-35 for a specific scenario, you can do that right now using the aircraft weapons edit window.

Finally here's yet another source I found that describes the F-35's ability to load the Mk82 and its associated versions http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

That page was written in 2004 and is out of date; here's an official Lockheed chart from 2018 on what loadouts that can be used on the F-35 today:

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

The purpose of the database is to provide realistic loadouts and systems as used by respective operators - USMC F-35Bs could employ ASRAAMs for example, but they're not included in the USMC F-35B loadouts because they're not a weapon that's used by the USMC, even when they're co-located with RAF / RN units. If you want to add Snake Eyes to an F-35 for a specific scenario, you can do that right now using the aircraft weapons edit window.

That's a completely different case, unlike weapons like the ASRAAM the Mk series of weapons are employed all across the different branches of the armed forces as the general purpose bomb. The F-35 has provisions to equip these weapons externally, as proven by its ability to equip the JDAM variants of the Mk series of bombs. I understand that the unguided MK series of weapons aren't the primary loadout for a stealth aircraft, however at times when such weapons aren't available (such as after all the other ordinance have been expended) the database lacking the ability to let you equip these unguided variants can be frustrating. As it is now (in addition to all those other missing aircraft I stated) the database currently has an inaccurate portrayal of the MK series of bomb's weapons carriers.

The JDAM kits affect the range of the weapons and have impacts on the separation dynamics (more so for the high drag variants); that impacts the ability for pilots to employ the weapon (although for Snake Eyes, HUD guidance cues aren't really an issue).

I don't see how this is even relevant to what I said, JDAM weapons are simply bolt on guidance kits for the Mk series of bombs. The ability to equip JDAMs does not magically prohibit said aircraft from equipping the Mk series of bombs without a JDAM kit. The F-35 has a ballistic computer and can employ these weapons just like any other aircraft can.

ORIGINAL: Tookatee
That's a completely different case, unlike weapons like the ASRAAM the Mk series of weapons are employed all across the different branches of the armed forces as the general purpose bomb. The F-35 has provisions to equip these weapons externally, as proven by its ability to equip the JDAM variants of the Mk series of bombs. I understand that the unguided MK series of weapons aren't the primary loadout for a stealth aircraft, however at times when such weapons aren't available (such as after all the other ordinance have been expended) the database lacking the ability to let you equip these unguided variants can be frustrating. As it is now (in addition to all those other missing aircraft I stated) the database currently has an inaccurate portrayal of the MK series of bomb's weapons carriers.

Hundreds of thousands of JDAM guidance kits have been delivered and similar amount of Paveway kits have also been delivered. Hell, I haven't even heard of the US employing any unguided Mk-82/83/84s in actual combat this century.

I don't see how this is even relevant to what I said, JDAM weapons are simply bolt on guidance kits for the Mk series of bombs. The ability to equip JDAMs does not magically prohibit said aircraft from equipping the Mk series of bombs without a JDAM kit. The F-35 has a ballistic computer and can employ these weapons just like any other aircraft can.

The F-35 does have a ballistic computer, but it's entirely possible that it's designed to factor in the drag qualities of weapons - a GBU-12 won't fall the same way as a GBU-31, which won't fall the same way as a Mk-84 unguided, which won't fall the same way as a Mk-84 Snake Eye.

Also as previously mentioned, the weapon ejector configurations are also going to be important; aircraft wakes require weapons to be ejected slightly different from different stations and aircraft, and so if an F-35 kicks out a Mk-82 the same way it does a GBU-12, it might get launched with (eg) serious negative alpha and lose a bunch of energy / range that the ballistic computer doesn't factor in.

Here's some examples of what happens when weapon separations aren't properly tuned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTnmZ_HPAs

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

Hell, I haven't even heard of the US employing any unguided Mk-82/83/84s in actual combat this century.

This should not be a factor for the DB if you ask me. It only serves to limit scenario designers. Look at the Kepler Syndrome thread for instance, there are legitimate reasons for players and designers to have access to these things.

ORIGINAL: Dragon0291
Hundreds of thousands of JDAM guidance kits have been delivered and similar amount of Paveway kits have also been delivered. Hell, I haven't even heard of the US employing any unguided Mk-82/83/84s in actual combat this century.

That's poor logic to exclude those weapons, said weapons are still retained in large numbers across the country, on all aircraft carriers, and in other nations where they were exported/license to be produced. The aircraft can carry said munitions
so I see no reason why that should be limited, as Skyhawk88 and I have said it simply allows for more options with the aircraft.

The F-35 does have a ballistic computer, but it's entirely possible that it's designed to factor in the drag qualities of weapons - a GBU-12 won't fall the same way as a GBU-31, which won't fall the same way as a Mk-84 unguided, which won't fall the same way as a Mk-84 Snake Eye.

You are literally talking about entirely different weapons than the JDAM series of bombs (also I don't know if you've seen the F-35 in the database or even the sources on your chart, but it can and DOES equip the GBU-31 already which makes that whole statement invalid), those weapons have drastically different flight characteristics than JDAMs (of which are nearly identical to the LDBG variants of the Mk series of bombs.) Also it's the 21st century, ballistic bomb computers can be and are programmed with a wide variety of munitions.

Also as previously mentioned, the weapon ejector configurations are also going to be important; aircraft wakes require weapons to be ejected slightly different from different stations and aircraft, and so if an F-35 kicks out a Mk-82 the same way it does a GBU-12, it might get launched with (eg) serious negative alpha and lose a bunch of energy / range that the ballistic computer doesn't factor in.

The exact same thing applies here, the F-35 is configured to release JDAMs (and therefore the normal Mk series of bombs) from it's external pylons in a safe manner. In fact, that line of reasoning is partly why I specifically stated in my original post to not include creating clones of the JDAM internal loadouts.

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

That page was written in 2004 and is out of date; here's an official Lockheed chart from 2018 on what loadouts that can be used on the F-35 today:

This graphic posted by Dragon029 inspired me to look at the current F-35 database entries and I found several significant errors. Note that I only looked at the USA variants and not the foreign ones.

The USAF F-35A currently has separate entries for 2017 and 2019 (#278 and #3498) and the only difference that I can see is that the 2019 entry has SDB-I while the 2017 entry does not. However, SDB-I was part of the Block 3F upgrade that was introduced in 2017. Thus, a loadout of 2x AIM-120 & 8x GBU-39 should be added to the 2017 entry and the 2019 entry removed.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -f-443824/

It should also be noted that this source states that all F-35's are equipped with the AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM rather than the AIM-120D AMRAAM that is currently listed in the database.

The Block 3F upgrade also increased the F-35A's maneuverability to 9G's, not the 7G's listed in the database. This means the 2017 (and 2021) entry should have the maneuverability rating of "5" that is currently only given to the 2025 entry (#3835).

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... ering.aspx

The USMC F-35B is slightly more complicated. It originally went IOC with Block 2B software in 2015 (entry #534 is currently labeled 2016 and should be changed).

Source: https://news.usni.org/2015/07/31/marine ... ke-fighter

At that time the F-35B only had the following loadouts:
2x AIM-120, 2x GBU-32
2x AIM-120, 2x GBU-12

Therefore, the following loadouts should be removed from entry #534:
4x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 25mm GAU-22 gun pod
4x AIM-120
2x AIM-120, 6x GBU-12

The next F35B entry is labeled 2021 and has the SDB-II (#3496). This means there is no entry representing the current Block 3F configuration that was introduced in 2017. Such an entry should be created and should have the following loadouts (based on the graphic from Dragon029):

2x AIM-120, 2x GBU-32
2x AIM-120, 2x GBU-12
4x AIM-120
4x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9
2x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 6x GBU-12

All of those loadouts should also have the option for the 25mm GAU-22 gun pod.

Note also that the F-35B was designed as a 7G aircraft and should retain its "4.5" maneuverability rating in the Block 3F and subsequent entries - the 2025 entry currently in the database (#4701) has a "5" rating and should be changed to "4.5".

The USN F-35C entry for 2019 (#824) is the most accurate (the date is also correct as the Navy only declared IOC this year). However, it currently only has its 25mm GAU-22 gun pod in a single A2A loadout. Instead, all loadouts should have versions with and without the gun pod (there are numerous pictures with the F-35C armed with the pod and external bombs).

Similar to the F-35B, the F-35C was designed as a 7.5G aircraft and should always have a "4.5" maneuverability rating. Thus, the 2025 entry (#3836) should be changed from its current "5" rating.

I don't know how it effects gameplay, but some of the listed dimensions for the F-35 variants are also off (particularly the wingspans of the B and C, which seem to have been switched). They should be:
F-35A: 15.7m long, 4.38m tall, 8278kg internal fuel
F-35B: 15.6m long, 10.7m wingspan, 4.36m tall, 14700kg empty, 6125kg internal fuel
F-35C: 15.7m long, 13.1m wingspan, 4.48m tall, 15800kg empty, 8960kg internal fuel

Source: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7 ... 25150a3e71