Southernbear

Just wanted to add these screenshots for extra context behind the F-14A Early. At no point if I recall correctly did they state until now that they were completely re engineering the F-14s to work with Anvil...so I suppose that now explains why it took so long for so little apparent changes. Probably would've been better if they stated this as soon as they decided to do this.

Basically, how is it? Did it get any new armaments like the AIM-7E4 or AIM-9H they said they might look into? Or did we literally wait 2 years for just a new RWR and slightly different performing TF-30s?

You know, at this rate if they take any longer with the A Early and Iranian model the DOD will just declassify either the Sparrow Hawk SMS pages or the IRST For the F-14D and we can just get those instead lmao.

well the new 2023 and beyond video was all recorded in DLSS and Multithreading so once that comes online considering the tree levels already on some maps I can't see that being too much of an issue anymore. Sinai is the first map we've really gotten where decent amount of conflicts have happened in the focus area of the detailed part of the map (Sinai and the Golan Heights). Particularly now we have the Chinook announced we really need more then ever SOME sort of SEA map with a large landmass, be it either Vietnam or Korea. I see Vietnam being more likely as its more sparseness and higher levels of jungle would lend itself better to Historical missions as well as Modern day ones, where as with Korea the small nature of the country and huge industrial development since the 1950s could make choose a particular era for said map to be harder.

The answer to the OP's question is yes, it will have it. Gero has stated at least twice in interviews and this picture was given in a progress report back in 2020

Kinda helps when the CEO of Truegrit actually flew the thing. I'll say it once again for the new comers to DCS, it is not the responsibility of a Development team to ensure whether or not a module or weapon system is "balanced", rather, it is their responsibility to ensure such a aircraft or system is behaving as close to real life as possible with all available knowledge and data. It is up to the server owners and mission designers to make the call whether something is "balanced" or not and it is up to them to take the actions they deem necessary, be it locking a weapon or even a whole aircraft.

99% sure you mean AIM-7Es and not AIM-9Es, the USN used AIM-7E-4s for a few months during 1975s before moving to the AIM-7F, its the AIM-7E/E-2 that they had from their F-4s that they had to retroactively add to the aircraft.

You have to understand the F-4 was being worked on for the better part of a decade under the subsidiary company of ED, BilSimTek. The reason HB would have the right to feel confident on a 12 month release from announcement would be due to his fact.

So just asking for a temp check on the F-14A Early and Iranian F-14? a date would be nice but unrealistic, can we at least assume we are going to hear something about them before the F-4 goes into EA for example?....maybe hear something in the next 6 months or so?

Once again, Iran has NO influence on the release of NAVAIR 01−F14AAD−1A, the primary manual HB needs for the SMS pages and IRST/Radar data they need. What DOES have influence is the fact the AN/AAS−42 Infrared search and track system on the F-14D formed the basis for the F-35's new Legion targeting pod. If you release data on the F-14D's IRST then it could quite possibly give out the information to infer the performance of the Legion pod. This is why you can get info of the F-4/F-14A's IRST but not the F-14D.

Because quite frankly, to be blunt, Heatblur holds itself to a standard higher then most other DCS developers, with the IRST being a basic but important feature of the F-14D, Heatblur is not willing (for their own in house modules anyway) to compromise what so ever, thus if we miss the information, then we won't get the plane. The aircraft is equipped with the base components and software that would go on to form the basis for the F-35's Legion TGP as well as the AGP-71 radar which despite how much Razzlebazzle might try to say otherwise, there has been compromises on the F-15E's radar performance just like with the F-16, 15 and 18 so its not like HB could just "use the F-15E's radar code"

Number 1: Heatblur is trying to have Early Access for the F-4 start by the end of this year so it won't take as long as most are saying here for Marianas to be more complete. Secondly, the area of land shown in the pictures posted here is huge, a good 2-3 times the size of anything previously done for DCS. This means in reality Iraq would be 2 separate possible maps since it would be almost impossible to make a map large enough to fully show both theatres. The maps featured bellow are the current Syria and Persian Gulf maps as a size example Next here is the land area of 450,000 square kilometres as that is the largest map (Syria) we currently have. We run into a few issues, the first being that most of the fighting happened in the south where NATO flanked the Iraqi forces in Kuwait with the help of GPS where as in the Iran-Iraq war the bulk of the fighting was along the Iran-Iraq boarder and the opposite side of the Country to Desert storm. The best placement then for the map for a desert storm focused version would be something like this: But then you have the issue of 1, most of NATO's navy is stationed much deeper in the Persian Gulf and you are cutting out half the possible front for anyone interested in replicating the Iran-Iraq war. It could be done but I feel they've deliberately left Iraq alone for more complete theatres of warfare as they do, sometime in the future have the idea to possibly make a global map which would fix much of these issues. And before you ask, the reason the Falklands map is going to be so huge is 1, its mostly water making it less taxing to render and 2, its just completely needed due to the nature of positioning between the Falklands Islands and Argentina.

The missile contains a short range datalink component. The pilot uses the helmet mounted sight as you would with say, to aim an AIM-9X's IR seeker but when a lock is achieved that information is preprogramed into the guidance computer in the missile and then it is fired. Once the missile completes enough of the 360 degree turn in flight using it's vectoring thrusters the regular IR seeker acquires the target and makes the kill shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ1t3WqVbLY

Well currently the EF has the advantage in BVR due to it receiving the Meteor and in the merge as not only does it have better raw performance than the Hornet but also LOAL capability for the AIM-9X hasn't been fully implemented IRL let alone in game as the DoD/USAF doesn't seem the advantages outweigh the cost. This means while the AIM-9X can only go to a 90 degree off bore sight the IRIS-T can do the full 360, meaning even if you get onto its tail it should still be able to shoot you down. The only place the Hornet could be considered at least contemporary would be the 10-30nmi range where you mostly within the NEZ of the AMRAAM as well as the Meteor at which point its whoever locks and fires on each other first will win. But this tactic is true for many aircraft such as the F-14 for example ect. so over all the Hornet is quite outmatched by the EF2000