Southernbear

It has now come to my attention that the F-14A we are getting will be a later version than what I expected so my question is simple: Aside from Bombs and LANTIRN for the US version and probably Drop tanks What are the differences between the F-14A from say 1975-77 and the updated F-14A post 1989? I thought the A is getting an older RWR then the B and the current F-14B EIG panel is apparently from the F-14A in the first place (B is meant to be digital) so what upgrades does the one we are getting have over the very first F-14As to be put into production?

I mean...I have heard a few months ago HB being very interested in adding Iranian only weapons to the F-14A as an option....stuff like the Hawk III MiM-23 missile, the Hawk Missile with a 750Ib bomb on the end as an indirect A2G thing and possible R-27? (The first 2 being the most likely as they actually were used) but of course things change and they might not want to persue that area anymore...but thats what Cobra said a while ago, that they found it an interesting prospect and "possible" in the future.

F-14A and Forestall are still on track for a (What is left of) July to August release...Infact tomorrow we may end up seeing one of them Thursday being patch day and this particular patch day being the second Thursday which is meant to be bigger then last week across the board (so perhaps F-16 Mavs as well ect)

I mean its the silence before the storm and all that good stuff. We are pretty much right on the edge for the release of the F-14A and whatever other goodies that come with it (be it campaigns ect) and as the F-14A has less weapon options ect then the B its going to be more or less complete right out the gate aside from bug fixing and tweaking. As far as play ability is concerned the module is basically done with the drop of the F-14A. At least thats my stance on it as I have yet to get word on how the Forestall or A-6 will work within DCS...will you need you need the F-14 to be in a mission with either like the WW2 asset pack? or maps, will it be the middle ground like Supercarrier where you can play on the mission but can't interact/land on the Forestall if you don't have the F-14 or will it be like the Chinese Asset pack and you can use them regardless of if you have the JF-17 (or in this case F-14) Due to these unknowns you can kinda exclude the Forestall and A-6 from the "F-14 DLC" for now and as such yeah, the thing is almost done

OMG yes this is needed, +1. And while your at it number the Aircraft carrier cold and hot start parking spaces in the ME and allow me to spawn almost any plane on any aircraft carrying ship. I want to spawn an F-16 on the Nimitz dammit...or an F-14 on the kuznetsov!

Well the difficult part was always multicrew, after that everything else is kinda easy as its just changing where people sit, I wouldn't say side-by-side is a milestone but if it is it makes me worried as it could mean ED takes the A-6 out from under HB. Because while not confirmed its very likely going to be their next project so an F-111 wouldn't be the only/first side by side seating plane. Its why I personally prefer the idea of it being the first tactical bomber in DCS but this is why we have these discussions

The F-14 module won't be finished at the very earliest till March 2021 they said and thats assuming they want to stick to that scheme. Much of the F-14B is already done and the F-14A is going to drop at latest before the end of August and aside from bug fixing and tweaking as it can't carry bombs and the A2A stuff for the F-14B is basically finished (at least as well as they can with ED doing things like new missile APIs ect ect) the F-14A will be almost done right out the gate. Now of course there is going to be other features like Forestall and the A-6, KA-6 AI between now and March 2021 they'll work on but for the most part the next ~6 months for the F-14 will probably be tweaking and improving the DM and FM as HB plans to try and add working, progressive fire damage (which would put it head an shoulders above the rest if they pull it off) and better Damage in general.

As for the original topic I'll throw in my 2 cents. 1. The new aircraft is something that is meant to be a "Milestone" for DCS. Now I'm going to assume that means its something they we thought we couldn't get in DCS before or don't have a thing like it before but I will also run through the other interpretations people have made. 2. Its an aircraft that they have not announced before. This was confirmed by Nineline meaning stuff like the F-4 and possibly Cobra are out the window for now. (I'm hesitant on the Apache because they've talked about it but never said "We are currently working on it" while Wagner said its a "When not if" project I'm still putting it to the side for now. Oh and to rub the salt in the wound Nineline explicitly said its not the F-4 Phantom. (RIP me and my fellow F-4 fans). So that leaves the question, what could it be? Well we have a few options. Tornado - Its a module people have wanted for a while and it's licence has been fought over by RAZBAM and Polychop since like 2014. ED has to clear aspects of modules and it is in their ability to just take the licence from my understanding out from under people and make it their own plane. They could do this with the Tornado but I don't reaaallly see it a "milestone" aircraft. Its not the first European aircraft, we already have multicrew on the F-14 and soon to be Hind and F-15E and we have swing wings on the F-14 as well...so I'm doubtful this is it. A-6 Intruder - Its well known that HB is doing the AI A-6 and that RAZBAM said they couldn't make a flyable module because "Someone already has the licence" but like above, ED could pull the blanket out from under Heatblur and make it themselves, frankly I'd be a little pissed as I feel HB would do a better job if that was the case but its probably unlikely. Russian plane? Well it would be a milestone if somehow they were able to get around the laws preventing full fidelity Russian planes, I've heard the Russian air force was thinking of retiring their Su-27(MS???) one earlier models and if they did it would be up for grabs as a full module...but this is uncertain and you wouldn't devote resources on a hunch it goes out of service. AH-64A or D Apache - They are going to make one. This is known. question is given the vocabulary used in the 2020 Beyond video and other posts after does it count as "Milestone"?. Problem is I'm not sure it does. We already have multicrew on the Hind, its not the first NATO chopper as we have the Gazelle and soon Kiowa. The only 2 things I've found on the forums that relates to this would be perhaps it being a "Milestone" in the grander gaming/sim community in retrospect to DCS rather then it being something new within DCS itself. Something like it would be the first game to represent all branches of the US military to such a high detail? USAF, USN, and Army?. The other thing would be perhaps the first game to model the Apache to such a detail before. But in the terms of DCS it doesn't really add anything new but rather just expands on ideas related to the Kiowa and Gazelle. F/A-18E/F - Theres a very small option that its a Super Hornet of some description as whatever was pulled from the 2020 Beyond video would have been announced before knowledge of the Eurofighter Typhoon even swept over our smooth brains and thus you could pull the "MOST MODERN BLUEFOR PLANE" argument as a "Milestone". Boeing really likes DCS and actually sponsors the F-15E project openly (its how we are getting it even in the first place) so I think the idea of carefully crafted (so no classified info is leaked or if Boeing just modifies the information like they do with the normal F/A-18 in DCS) I think its more possible then people think but still unlikely I feel. And here we get to my curve ball answer. I reckon there is a lot of merit to be given to the F-111. DCS has lacked any kind of Tactical bomber for years. Its pretty much A-10C ---> B-1 Lancer in terms of scale for BLUEFOR. Its not MASSIVE like a flyable B-47 or B-52 or B-1 would be and would make a perfect fit along side the Su-24. "The First flyable Tactical bomber" in DCS fits the "Milestone" pretty well and its a plane many have wanted but has never been really announced in any capacity fitting along with NineLine's posts. It shares a lot of the weapons and systems from other BLUEFOR aircraft and would make sense as being so large why they might have struck it from 2020 video. TL : DR, I feel it will either be the Apache or the F-111

I mean it would be the best option for a proper REDFOR BVR plane. Missile ranges in DCS are dubious at best and you put that on top of already lower range missiles but better performing missiles means you get a bunch of REDFOR planes that struggle to get into the position they prefer. While I'd like to see the Mig 31 as it would open up that type of combat to REDFOR I wouldn't suggest the R-37 as its meant as an AWACS killer and even poorer than the AIM-54 against fighters. What you'd be looking for is either the R-33, R-33E or R-33S as the Russian equivalents to the AIM-54. However as it has been stated above, it would be very hard due to how the Mig 31 operates to make it FC3 and if you did it would out range any other FC3 and (if given the R-33E or S) out range any other plane expt the F-14. This coupled with the fact that I can respect some people's wishes to keep REDFOR planes as a more challenging set of aircraft to fight with even though they are FC3 because they have such short range radars and missiles leading to more interesting gameplay like needing to use the terrain a lot more means that while I would kill to see F-14 style BVR gameplay on the Russian side doesn't mean it has to come to fruition

the new Syria map is 610 * 440 km or 379 * 273 miles. The 2016 'Strait of Hormuz' map was about 650 nm wide (748 miles) which was shortened down to 350 nm across ((or 402 miles, East to West) just for the high detail parts when it changed to "Persian Gulf". This was because 2 islands were added. PG is still much larger but the rest of the map is the un detailed parts. Vietnam could defiantly be doable using these kinda sizes

I mean, it would be if it was something like this.

HOPEFULLY it means we might get you know...better NVGs than god damn Gen 1 Monocular... like pretty much every BLUEFOR aircraft should be using Gen 2 or 3 but for some reason ED changed NVGs and gave us only a Gen 1 for ages...its almost unusable in some a lot of lighting conditions.

Something like a Shrike or HARM?...No, the appeal of something like the F-14 is to have something like an F-14. If you want a plane that can do everything and do it well you have the F-18 and the F-16 (once its complete). Besides you can still do SEAD and Anti Ship with the Tomcat, its just a shit load more interesting as you need to use a mix of TALDs and Rockets/bombs rather then Yeeting a missile way outside the SAM/Ship's range and getting a kill. However on that note, I wouldn't mind seeing more modern upgrades and thus the weapons that come with said upgrades. It wouldn't happen for probably a year or more as chances are HB wants to finish up with the F-14 for now come March 2021 and (most likely assuming ED lets them) move onto the A-6 and make that an actual module. The end result I'd like to see is the F-14D eventually but even a F-14B/U with the Sparrowhawk HUD, PTID and other upgrades which would allow for the use of JDAMs would be cool to see. I know though that HB has said before they just don't have the information at this time for either. and some very small part of me would like to see an F-14D using AIM-120A/Bs instead of AIM-7s just for the meme since it was only 1 software integration away from doing so irl but its still a pipe dream

Please for the love of god HB do not remove and change this, this is hilarious

I think by default you can refuel on her but as for rearming I believe if I remember correctly you need to go into it's Inventory in the mission editor and give the carrier the missiles the plane loads.

Yeah but at the end of the day its a Mig 23 and thats kinda the root of what everyone is talking about. I don't see a Mig 23 having an easy time when in a 1v1 with say...a F-18. People want more options for modern aircraft and frankly the best way to go about it is FC3/MAC

Biggest problem I see with a subscription model is that ED has already burnt up a lot of the trust from the player base. I know countless people who would be told the same idea and retort with "Yeah but this is ED were talking about, how do you know they'll actually improve DCS with the extra money?" If they want to do it they that had to do it right off the bat or prove that they can fix/improve the game in the recent light of the P-47 update and then maybe people will be more willing to do that once they've proven themselves, of course to do that you need the money and dev time to fix it in the first place but they'd just need to push through it I'm afraid.

Yeah I mean...only reason Forestall got delayed from a April release was because HB wants to give you MORE features then they set out to do, that being, Super carrier compatibility....that and they didn't want their things to be over shadowed by the Super carrier as they said in their 50th Anniversary F-14 Q&A video, they want it to be special

You make a good point, but many people already complain about the price unfortunately...I mean quality wise something like Steel Beasts is amazing...a "Ground based DCS" if you will...but due to it's cost its no where near as popular Unfortunately in already a niche genre the more the price is cranked up the less people will be willing to buy so its not really a net gain.

This stemmed (as you may or may not know as I haven't seen the video you posted) from a video done by Magz TV, as an Australian his mannerisms came off the wrong way which is why he organically mentioned such things as "Caustic language" and "Personal Attacks" on Reddit ect (sorry lmao thats just called being Australian) Annnnnyway a close friend and might I say more technically savy friend of his managed to get in a call directly with Nick and over the next 2 hours or say exchanged a direct dialogue straightening things out and explaining to Nick the disconnects between the community and the Devs I'll run down the most important things he said in this time to the best of my ability from what I could remember (it has been a few weeks) First and for most, DCS barely turns a profit, Nick said this is the reason they have EA periods like they do and why they constantly needed to push Content rather then focusing on Bug fixing (and he admits they've ****ed up there) to the point where sometimes he's had to funnel his own money into DCS to keep it afloat This is also why they can't afford to employ say...a Bug tester team He also admits that there is a large disconnect between Him, some parts of his team and the wider community...He runs another job and he said the comparatively to that the response to the P-47 update caught him off guard entirely and has been the largest customer response hes ever seen...it was then explained to him that some people have spent almost as much money on this "Hobby" as some do on a car (the person talking to him had spent alone $1,700 AUD on DCS at that time) and this kinda started to explain to him WHY people were so pissed off Apparently there were large figures for development thrown around I was only told one of these due to NDA and whatever other business stuff on the side. One of them is for example, maps? like Normandy and the coming Syria map ED only gets a cut of 30% of the profit when its made by a 3rd party. another one is in order to completely re-write the code for the game from the ground up (something Nick wants to do and the Game kinda needs and has been suggested before) would be around $50 Million USD, money the Company doesn't have. TL DR it seems that there has been some change (and hopefully continues to be so) for example now the store says weather or not a Module is only available on the OB or Stable and as you've seen ED as basically dropped everything and gone to bug fixing.

TL : DR it doesn't matter how much we know about an aircraft (I mean there are several privatly owned SU-27s in the US bought to the US after the fall of the Soviet Union through 3rd party companies)...we know the whats/hows/wheres its just the case because the base game is owned by Eagle Dynamics and thus even if a 3rd party was to make it, if it was put into a Sim made by a Russian company at the fidelity of main modules (which is why they are in FC3 quality) then this would be considered against the law no matter how much we already know about said plane ASSUMING its still in service. HOWEVER, like wise, as SOON as it comes out of service with Russia (like the Mig 25) it should be fair game because, (and as russia kinda already knows) Western intelligence was able to sum up a lot of the Soviet Union era aircraft (first Mig 29s, Su 27s, Mig 25, Mig 31 ect). So if its still in service until laws change, its FC3/MAC or nothing (At least this is the information I've been able to gather over the years on the subject)

The Black Shark was released in 2008. I don't know how closely you follow Russian politics, but in 2012 there were massive pro democracy demonstrations against the re-election of Vladdy Putin. Western European governments and the US made statements saying basically "hey, that's cool. democracy is pretty rad". These nettled Czar Putin a bit, who saw the protests as a betrayal and the west as meddling in domestic affairs. Later that year he pushed a metric shit ton of anti espionage laws and anti agitation laws through the Duma (also other things). Around that time all references to the DCS:Su-27SM from ED magically disappear and it suddenly becomes an Su-27S

Do you think people are able to port over the warhead of the RN-24 and RN-28 to other things? or are those bombs themselves just say...1,000Ib bombs with their explosive radius and damage set to 10,000%? I ask because ever since it's introduction I'd like to see a Nuclear version of the SCUD missile...as it was it's intended deployment in the Cold war. Having it fired from a missile also means you don't need to worry about killing yourself trying to use it on the Mig 21 and would give a nice "Race against the clock" or even a Just Cause 2 esk "Shoot them down before they get too high and too fast".

I mean, tech wise the Mig 31 is about the same as the Tomcat...if not worse. For example when a russian pilot defected to Japan in a Mig 25P in 1976 the US was able to examine it. Airframe wise the Mig 25 and Mig 31 don't differ much and the 25 was found to be G-limited to only 2.2gs fully fueled and 4.5gs Max... The Russians themselves say the Mig 31 is limited to 3Gs supersonic, fully loaded and 4.5gs+ subsonic, unlike the tomcat she can not dogfight. the R-33 missile in the 80s only had a range of around 60nmi but thats still a hell of a lot better then the R-27ERs and R-77s we currently have (which your lucky to get a kill with outside of 30 nmi against AI just due to their range). even the R-33S only went to 86nmi The plane would give REDFOR an interesting answer to the F-14 without just putting another F-14 on that side which really only makes any sense if your on Persian Gulf. I suppose the biggest issue of why the Mig 31 couldn't come as a FC3/MAC plane would be its a 2 seater with the guy in the back controlling the radar like the F-14...this I feel might be a little too complex to dedicate to a FC3 module even if there was a basic AI in the back but we can always hope.

ED's work...in breaking the entire lighting engine with the update of the P-47, its fixed now but HB went and essentially made their own lighting system anyway so theoretically if it happens again, it won't impact the Viggen or Tomcat