Dragon1-1

Because in DCS, the values are largely arbitrary and don't appear to be based on anything in particular. In any case, radar detection range seldom causes a problem in DCS, in that it seems to universally exceed effective weapon range.

MS has killed it some time ago, I killed the updates in response (I use an external AV which updates independently). That's the only way of being sure WMR won't suddenly quit. There might exist a hack to bring it back, I think someone figured that out.

In fact, we already do have some WWII and post-war Soviet flak in core. They're still relevant, and lethal, if you stray into their WEZ. Nothing like a 5th generation stealth fighter being brought down by unguided, largely unaimed WWII-style flak shootbox (I don't think we can actually set one up yet, but we should. IRL, most flak isn't fired at anything in particular).

I'd rather not. Those assets should be in the core, because 1). We don't have a WWII Eastern Front map. 2). They're perfectly accurate for our modern maps. A large chunk of OP's list is still in service in various 3rd world countries and irregular forces. The WWII Assets Pack should only cover stuff that didn't survive into modern day (Six Day War could be a cutoff point).

We always need temporal and geographical accuracy. Of course, right now, rationale for both I-16 and La-7 is thin, with Korea being the closest thing that would make the La-7 anywhere near relevant. Remember that the I-16, as fun as it might be, is not very popular.

Just a heads up, in Reforger M7, Jester still can't do IFF properly. And only in that mission. He declares everything as friendlies, which is problematic, since there's a lot of actual friendlies flying around. Also, it makes it impossible to do a multi target pass with Phoenixes, though with AWACS DL it's possible to IFF contacts that way, then you can lock and fire manually.

Also, those brevity codes are for USAF and USN (yeah, right, "multiservice", right up until you need to report an aspect in degrees...). The Apache is an Army helo, and they use a different terminology in some places.

A nice thing is that Jester V2 will likely come with the crew chief menu, too, like on the Phantom. Perhaps then they'll finally implement the OBC and EMER GEN check, in addition to both Jester and crew chief coordinating with various other checks like lights or control surfaces. One thing I'd like it to be able to do is coordinate an intercept using a canned procedure. IRL, it's the RIO who's responsible for talking the pilot through the BVR fight.

Being able to provide recon data on demand is useful, but SAMs had gotten too good for a plane to be able to do that. There was an idea to make it a drone instead, but nothing came of it.

Yeah, longwave radio bends around mountains, UHF and VHF (so pretty much all aircraft comms) does not. If you ever tried to listen to the car radio while driving through mountains, you might have noticed terrible reception in some spots (unless you were listening to an oldtimey AM station, which doesn't have this problem).

TBH, you'd most likely be jumping between HB and ED or RAZBAM, the latter of which is notable for having... issues. I heard Aerges is pretty good with their Mirage F-1, though, I don't have it so I don't know if it's quite HB quality, but it's quite pretty. There's Magnitude 3, but they only have the MiG-21, which is old and which they didn't do a great job at updating, being completely preoccupied with (something of a vaporware) Corsair. While ED modules can be quite mixed bag, many of them are old Belsimtek releases. Modern ED modules, while lacking some of HB's more innovative features, would not be that hard to bring up to that standard. As for Deka, the Jeff is an ED-level module.

Perhaps more relevant would be the Cessna 170, aka. O-1 Birddog: What with Vietnam era aircraft starting to trickle in. The O-1 was actually modified from the 170 somewhat, particularly the cabin shape, but they were otherwise similar, and the Birddog was a key FAC aircraft back in the day.

Yeah, I think they had the touchscreen UFC, but that was it. 90% avionics commonality. While structurally and aerodynamically, it is a new aircraft, the cockpit and avionics changes were relatively minor, at least at first. That's not a bad thing. IMO, a Block I Superbug would have a lot of appeal, especially since it'd not require a lot of retraining from the Legacy, at least when it comes to avionics.

Yeah, most of them Bradleys, the shortcomings of which had been well documented by then. Friendly fire also factored in, US lost as many soldiers to accidents as it did to enemy action. Those problems had all been fixed, more or less, by the time of OIF. The point is, it's all about who's driving the vehicle. Be it Abrams or Eurofighter, it's essential to use both realistic exercises and theoretical instruction, to have it consistently applied across the entire force and to appoint officers who are concerned with delivering results on the battlefield, not playing office politics. One of Ukraine's fundamental problems is inconsistent quality of their forces. You've got some good units, you've got some crap ones, all mixed together and usually, the enemy figures out which is which before their commanders do. \ The point was, while the F-35 may approach the "I win button" level, the Eurofighter won't. The pilot is more important than the aircraft itself.

Our Legacy Hornet's avionics are almost identical to those that went into early block Superbugs. In fact, they're probably more fitting the Super Hornet than with the Legacy, which, if we were to have a "representative" version, would have the Nite Hawk TGP and monochromatic MFDs. I don't know about AdA (in fact, they seemed happy to help with the Mirage), but Dassault has a reputation for being notoriously difficult to work with. They took down, amidst much drama, a Rafale mod for one of the older civilian sims.

This sounds nice, but that experience, and this training, are both being wasted, mostly for political reasons. It doesn't filter through to the West very well (which is why our politicians are so eager to sing Zelensky's praises), but actual Ukrainians know very well what's going on. There are reports on the problems within Ukrainian military in Western press, but they're not particularly common, nobody wants to sound like a pro-Russian defeatist, after all. For instance, look up what they did to that French-trained combined arms battalion they got a while ago. That sort of thing seems to happens to much of the NATO-style training they receive. Also, you're forgetting the tank action that happened in ODS (even if it ultimately was a turkey shoot), and while we're at it, that there wasn't a whole lot of tank warfare in 'Nam. ODS and OIF veterans are still very much around.

Doubtful. Combat experience is not a panacea, and trying to learn combat by trial and error usually ends with one of those errors killing everyone. Yes, those who did survive no doubt ended up with useful experience, but that, in itself, won't fix their outdated doctrine, the holes in their initial training (which could suggest things they'd never even think of trying otherwise), nor will it fix poor tactical decisions by their commanders, or poor management by their high command, which often ends up diluting both the experience and any Western training they might have received. I'd expect Polish and US forces to perform better, even if they had to use the same vehicles, mostly because they operate under a doctrine that was actually designed for the Abrams. Ukrainian tank loses are the price paid for figuring those things out as they go. Yeah, except the APS, extra ERA, airburst rounds, programmable ammo and wide angle displays. SEP v2, true (though it's still got better sensors than the M1A1s they've got), but SEP v3 is quite fancy. Even if the crews had trouble using the new toys effectively, the Trophy APS is by itself a great boon to survivability.

I heard it was about the cost, the F-14 being a rather expensive aircraft. Seeing as even the early Tomcat did have ground attack capability, or at least the fittings for strapping bombs to them, it'd be a strange reason for USMC to pull out. More than that, it was projected as the platform that would carry the AGM-53 Condor. The missile ended up being too expensive and got canceled, but it was tested (from an A-6).

Tomcat was an "F/A" from the start, it was marketed to the USMC, there was an ad with a drawing of an F-14A loaded up with bombs. As far as its contemporaries went (as opposed to much later designs), it was definitely not inferior in that role. In fact, with CCIP it had a big advantage over the Phantom, the bombload was plenty, and being the Tomcat, it could go in fast, even with bombs in the tunnel. The Marines didn't end up buying it, and it took the USN a while to rediscover the idea, but it was already fitted for the job.

I'm not sure this is correct behavior. Does HOT have an internal autopilot that would allow it to fly straight after the wire is cut? I'd expect that with the wire cut, the control surfaces would stop moving, usually meaning the missile would miss.

Stealth and AESA will be reasons enough to pick the F-35, even if the loadout selection is scant.

This is expected. In rear aspect, the missile is looking straight up your tailpipe. There's only so much a flare can do, the engine gives out a lot of heat, and if the missile has a good look at its innards, it won't chase flares. Flares are only good against missiles launched from suboptimal aspects, so beam at most, and only if you're not in burner.

I don't know about the Yak-52 (it's a bit of an oddball, anyway) or the others, but the L-39's training missions, and the Kursant campaign, are based on real courses. Of course, this is oldtimey Soviet military flight school, but it does teach good techniques. A succession of trainer aircraft, even. A typical jet won't teach you about coordinated flying, since it's mostly automated nowadays. Even the F-5 is generally flown with feet off the pedals. Of course, to appreciate how great a feature it is, you need to fly a simpler prop plane. Most trainers in DCS are for preparing you for tactical flying and a transition to fighters, not teaching basic principles of flight. Yak-52 is the sole exception, but it seems to be rather neglected by ED. Given its state, you probably made a mistake buying the Yak-52, period. As a module, it's unfinished and ED doesn't seem to care much about it. With modern quality training missions, it could be a wonderful introduction to aviation for DCS, but as of now, it's old and unloved.

We're saying completely different things. I'm saying that pilot's can't "fly in a way that hides some capability". If that French pilot got in a jet equipped with missiles, his flying would have revealed classified information. So he refused to, he and GS only ever fought with guns. One of the other YouTubers also doesn't do videos flying the jet he actually flew (I think it was the Hornet), lest he accidentally use some trick that he's not supposed to reveal. Holding back is simply not something fighter pilots do, especially not in a dogfight, when one has to think really fast. There's no time to think "can I do that move, or is it classified?". You figure out your gameplan, and then apply your training in order to get there. Consciously limiting performance in any way would be very difficult. No, you didn't. You did not say anything about the crews, just that the tanks are older models. The truth is, since those models, Abrams didn't improve that much. Sure, the top of the line model has plenty of new tech added on, but older versions are still very solid vehicles, competitive against their Russian counterparts. If Ukrainians got the most modern Abramses, it likely wouldn't have improved much, because their operators are the limiting factor.

All those reasons tell us why there wasn't a "Tomcat 2.0" made, but rather they went all in for the Hornet. It doesn't change the fact the Tomcat had to be replaced with something, because the wing boxes couldn't take a whole lot more carrier traps. It already had parts failing that were never expected to break within the airframe's useful life. They'd have to start building new airframes anyway, and they probably would have wanted a newer one, with all the latest advances in aerodynamics. There was a proposal to order additional, newly built F-14Ds with further upgrades, but it was absurdly expensive. We'll see if the F/A-XX survives the chainsaw, but it could provide a modern equivalent to the Tomcat. Doubt it'll look quite as cool, though.