Southernbear

Looking at it due to the placement of Cold War era airfields it will be tough to make a map...at least it would have to be very large for a DCS map standard...like in the range of 700x700 to even 1000x1000km so as much as I want it, it probably would be quite taxing to make

My only problem would be Carrier Ops...I suppose you could forget them and move the map down to encompass more US airfields in the south but I kind of wanna keep that element in

I would say we desperately need Vietnam due to having many of the craft that took part, Huey, Mi-8, F-5, Mig 21, (And I suppose Mig 15s can be stand ins for 17s) and you can throw in the F-14A if you wanna do an Operation Frequent Wind... But with ED pushing back the complimentary main star of the show to the Mig 21, the F-4 back even possibly to a 2022 release...I'm gonna have to go with the Fulda Gap circa 1984. I'd love to have most of West and East Germany modeled...at least cut off around the Frankfurt/Prague area. Here is what I propose working with a 600x500km map size provided by Syria And for reference here is the rough size of Iran compared to Europe when comparing Persian Gulf's detailed and Full size

To my knowledge that switch is also semi redundant considering you can just flip the ACM cover up and accomplish the same task as going to Bore sight

I personally need it for a Vietnam mission I'm setting up...its not the really early 1975-80 plane I thought it was but apparently they still plan to add the AIM-7E and early AIM-9s too it so there is that.

Tis a shame. Well there is always room for another update separate to ED during August perhaps so we can only hope.

Ayyyyy! Glad to see the superior video has actually been posted. I'm really looking forward to that Dynamic Campaign.

Well as some of you may know unless something as happened thats quite significant, Heatblur has been working tirelessly to bring us the F-14A. It has been said a few times during this season that HB is on track for a August release and given that ED's update cycle is now Monthly, the 19th with the drop of Syria, F-18 and 16 radar modes and TGP changes as well as possible AGM-65s for the F-16 (they've been delayed once, till I see a Wagner video or the update log saying it so I'm not holding my breath just in case) seems like a good time as any for a possible F-14A too? :music_whistling: Of course it is always possible that HB does their own update later into August OR comes out with a statement saying its being delayed...but boi the brakes are starting to fail on this Hype Train!

Allow me to reiterate as well, I am not questioning the AIM-54's ability to shoot down fighters or do what it was designed for and how well and how far it can do that. I am simply asking PARTICULARLY since the AIM-54A Mk 60 has much more range then, if the AIM-54C guides about as well as the AIM-54A Mk 60 then with DCS the Mk 60 would just be simply better.

Ah I found it "AIM-54C. When the Shah's regime fell into the hands of the Ayatollah, the DOD claimed the missile was "Iranian Compromised" because many missiles were examined in KGB labs and determined the missiles transmitter frequencies and first and second intermediate frequencies used for processing. Thus, there was a rush to implement a "digital version" which was named the AIM-54C. 54C employed modern high speed bit slice microprocessor with reprogrammable memory and digital filters and digital signal processing. This design allowed the missile to operate over a wider range of frequencies, sniff the RF environment, and pick frequencies not jammed and well as implementing more advance electronic countermeasures algorithms. The missile used linear frequency modulation which would allow the missile to know its range and range rate to target. Later version AIM-54C (ECCM/Sealed) missiles did not required the aircraft thermal coolant and could operate over a wider temp range. Because the 54C was more complex and new it did not achieve quite the success that the 54A did in term of probability of kill but was still an effective weapon. I'll look up my notes on the propulsion sections to see what the ifference in the Rocketdyne solid propellant rocket motors were and their thrust ratings. Hope this helps a little from an AIM-54C Test And Evaluation Engineer" This statement above was found on the ED forum of all things but I very much remember finding this same thing almost word for word somewhere else so my guess is it was copy pasted from here. I don't necessarily believe it but its what I found when looking for how effective the AIM-54 was going to be in WVR combat https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4203421 here is the thread, its pretty old and mostly full of people that complained about the F-14 being "too good" when it was first release, the paragraph in question was posted by Beyond_the_Infinite, apparently

Yeah I came across it when trying to look for, or rather challenge, a friend's statement that was that the AIM-54A missiles could not maneuver or could not maneuver very well while the rocket motor was firing and that the AIM-54C could and thus would make a MUCH better WVR weapon if you messed up and only had a target at <20nmi and didn't have any Sparrows or AIM-9s. Ofc after even the smallest testing within DCS I found both to be able to guide while burning but I took my search to google as DCS sometimes isn't correct and with HB waiting on ED so they can put in their new Missile API you never know so I went looking and found the other info above...neither are probably true but thats how I got there

My understanding was the AIM-54C was in response to the Iranian issue, with A model guidance being analog they needed to switch to a digital because their analog seekers were assumed to be compromised by Soviet intelligence and they needed a larger frequency bandwidth to make sure the Soviets and or Iranians couldn't spoof the missile. In turn this gave it much better ECCM. However. From reading what I could. As well as a comment posted on a pilot forum from a mechanic/designer/technician for the AIM-54 (yeah I know take it with a pound of salt ofc) that the AIM-54C has essentially the same level of guidance as the A and that due to it being heavier and the logic pathways being more complicated it actually made it *less* accurate then the simplistic AIM-54As. Of course this all could be not true but this is what I've found after digging around

See I used to believe things like that but when talking to someone who does C-130 maintenance and readying for "special operations" which can include training exercises hes come across F-22 pilots and talk to them before. According to them the F-22s are limited to a third of their true performance. Some limits are to be expected but a whole 2 thirds?. Yeah in the realms of classified information and word of mouth and hear say you can never really be too sure. I mean at the same time pilots are the same group I heard from that the AIM-132 ASRAAM's true range is closer to 50km and is actually "much better" then the AIM-9X and is undercut a lot more for it's range number then the AIM-9X for public values (shit you find on Wikipedia ect) and which British exercises were able to down AWACS planes before being shot down by the US defenders (the British goal of the mission) but I'm even dubious on that as people have said the ASRAAM simply doesn't have the fuel or aerodynamics to go that far ballistic wise let alone guide to a target So you never truly know and aside from Typhoon pilots I doubt anyone else who plays DCS would be able to tell if its even close to correct or not. As long as its fun, comes with features on time and is relatively game breaking bug free...thats all I'm hoping for.

As for the EJ 200 TVC prototype, yes I was mistaken as while I will buy the plane the typhoon isn't my forte I do have friends who do who said the next typhoon coming out was going to have them (that being either a tranch 4 or the Typhoon ECR ect) but it seems this is not the case and I will by wacking my over eager Typhoonaboo friend over the head for giving me false infomation. What IS true however is that the CEO wants to put as much systems as he could get his hands on...if a typhoon came out tomorrow with the EJ 200 TVC he would put it in but that is not the case. Now whatever you think of GR, personally they ain't my kind of crowed I've time stamped the interview where they ask him questions similar to this (it was at the begining of the year so some "hopfullys" have been confirmed by now like the MBDA Meteor or IRIS-T missiles) The timestamp is a more direct question to what they've already answer but yes, the typhoon is going to be a "Frankenstein" module with it's systems and not any particular Block/Tranch

Sorry my mistake I get Airbus and Boeing confused all the time. *I meant* Airbus

I mean there is a Grim Reaper video (despite what you or others may think of them) which Cap shoots down SA-10 missiles and SA-6 missiles using (I want to say?) R-73s from a Sukoi or Mig? So the concept is in the game. Plus you can shoot down cruise missiles with the AIM-54s and shoot down SCUD missiles in flight with AIM-120s before they reach max speed. Hell in the F-14 I shot down my own AIM-9M by locking the second on onto it's smoke trail So yes, it probably will have that ability but nothing about it is automatic so you will still need to see, identify and fire before it hits you....hell I'm willing to bet you could do it with an AIM-9X its just because its not known for this ability people don't try it.

As for the discussion above I'll throw in my 2 cents first and for most balence is up to the mission makers not the Devs simple as that however as for the plane. TrueGrit's CEO has already said that whatever is on the Typhoon he wants to model. For example he plans to model the AIM-132 ASRAAM once the German stuff is almost complete as well as seeking interest in adding thrust vectoring "as soon as Boeing brings the technology out of it's basement" by which he means it being put on a stock standard aircraft out of the factory. With Boeing's new Tranch 4 set to do that if they can get the info on it, it seems they want to try and add it. Its defiantly going to be a frankin module similar to the JF-17 that is for sure. The F-14 is how it is in part to ED as HB wants to add their new missile API soon which for one means that the AIM-54 will be forced to go active after 15s rather then going active 15s before impact unlike other FOX 3s...meaning those 60-80nmi against players won't really happen anymore. Plus the AIM-54 is a anti bomber weapon meaning aside "magic INS" which is one of those ED issues its over all an easier missile to spoof then the AIM-120. The Typhoon will have a different/more powerful effect from the F-14 for sure. What the Meteor does is it brings together AIM-54 esk (or at least AIM-120 C7) ranges with AIM-120 guidance and ECCM making for truly quite a deadly weapon. The IRIS-T means that assuming you some how get past the Meteor (which I'd take a bet only REDFOR pilots will be able to reliably to begin with given that is what they have to do already) you then have to deal with the IRIS-T which means even if you somehow get that close all he has to do is look over his shoulder and he can blap you with a missile. Its safe to say assuming there isn't huge bugs on release this plane is going to be a challenge for anyone who isn't in a typhoon till they get used to it's abilities and how to counter act them. The plus side? its blown a big hole in ED's "DCS Timeline" which limits many things to the 2005-2007 time frame which hopefully means in the future we could see more modern things for current planes (an example already is the new GBU-54 Laser JDAM for the A-10 can be ported over to the F-18 even tho it got it in 2012 which otherwise would be out of the time frame for that module/DCS. Over all this plane will be interesting and I imagine a point of controversy in the DCS community over the next year or so with TrueGrit taking the stance of whatever they can find info on and was put onto the plane they'll add and with Russian laws for anything in service with the Russian airforce and being comparable to the Typhoon for REDFOR aircraft difficult at best to be made for DCS... it will be interesting.

Just for people who had any doubts about if the Typhoon will get either the Meteor or IRIS-T

the CEO of TrueGrit said that if Boeing add thrust vectoring on a production model and not just limited to test planes then he will add it to DCS and I quote "If Boeing brings it out of their basement and we can get info on it we'll try to add it" ...considering Boeing's new Tranch 4 is going to have it as standard....yeah preeeetty sure its going to be a frankin module

The F-4 that BilSimTek promised us was going to be a Air National Guard F-4E post Block 85 with AGM-45s and AGM-65s as well as the Agile Eagle upgrade. I'd like to see a F-4E USN equivalent...I think that was the N?...maybe the J? UK phantoms would be kinda cool but I feel modelling a whole new engine might not be the best so I'd vote for the RAF F-4J Phantom F.3 rather then the Spey powered versions. Uniquely which I haven't seen in this thread yet but I'd reaaallly like to see a German F-4F ICE with TrueGrit adding the IRIS-T missile I'd like to see a F-4 armed with them and AIM-120s and spooky performance compared to other F-4s.

Its actually a automatic safety measure system...down on the left panel near your left thigh should be a covered emergency switch to turn off the A-symmetric thrust limiter and allow your good engine to go into AB, Use with caution of course.

Personally found anything meant for medium range or anti bomber typically ganks a Tomcat, AIM-7s, AIM-120s, SD-10s, AIM-54s, R-27s, R-77 ect but anything meant as a short range AIM-9 equivalent missile or MANPAD sized missile usually needs 2 if it explodes near the rear of the plane. So AIM-9s, R-3S, R-73s ect. I've found 90% of the time I lose my Radar and avionics and usually an engine with the other engine burping and buffeting all the way back to base. Quite often I lose the secondary hydraulics meaning I lose gear/ tail hook/speed break....I've only once lost elevator control but I wasn't pulling every hard when I ran out of fluid so using the alirons to go inverted every 10s or so I could get her back to friendly air space. The only wonky thing given her size and what Tomcat's IRL have faced and lived through I find odd is the instant death roll she goes into if you lose 1 or both wings...I'm sure HB can correct me but I don't see why the plane would automatically go into this 60-70RPM roll black me out instantly and keep rolling till I hit the ground particularly if you lose both wings and so there isn't any A-symmetric lift generating this spin. TL : DR Tip - If you lose any wings in the tomcat eject ASAP because at most you've got about 3 seconds before you start spinning and black out forever.

The F-14 as a result of the A's poor engine reliability was not allowed under normal operations to use it's afterburner on take off. The less needed fuel flow meant a flame out became less likely and it meant if it did happen as it has happened even on Mil power meant pilots if reacting quick enough had a much better change to counter act the A-symmetric thrust and save the aircraft. Of course with some movies ect particularly in the Final Countdown and TOPGUN cinema era as these films were a good recruiting tool the Navy tended to allow full AB take offs for pictures or movies but it is technically a prohibited action during the the Tomcat's USN service. Once the engines were switched to the F110 this rule became more or less redundant but was kept in the manuals/procedures for the F-14B and F-14D.

Not to say it isn't but rather is it the same RWR as a really early F-14A or did it go through more upgrades before the one we are getting? i.e, its an older RWR then the F-14B but is it still and upgraded version compared to an early production 1975-77 F-14A?