F-2

Oh good I didn’t think their was a F402 NATOPs. Sorry folks!

Idk if anyone has this or if it is of interest but I have this sales doc on the F404 family and it has a short section comparing the F404 with the EPE engine including a chart comparing two hornets with the different engines. I’m not knowledgeable enough on the hornet but I hope it’s at least of interest if it’s new. v002t02a006-90-gt-149.pdf

The first tigershark prototype used a more or less stock F404 with installation changes. The next two had a 17000lbf class engine (higher mass flow). An 18000lbf engine was planned for the fourth aircraft and later production aircraft. I’m unclear if this engine is related at all to the Gripen or F404-402 (which differ from each other) aircraft but since the fourth plane was never finished it’s immaterial. There are fact sheets in existence on the second engine which make simulation possible, but perhaps the manual has information that it’s performance can be derived. The stock 404 would be easiest but probably underpowered.

I’ve heard good things about Northrop’s willingness to cooperate and provide info on this sorta thing.

I know a tigershark SME you could ask.

DA2

I will say batch 1 aircraft seem very similar to the Lavi’s avionics while later aircraft are very similar to old Jeffry

I only meant it if it was feasible due to their contacts with the manufacturer. It seemed unlikely but they wouldn’t rule it out. Obviously whatever can be done better.

What’s more many aspects of DCS are simplified. We know ECM regardless of Era is basically estimated in-spite of its importance to tactics. To date only the Mirage 2000 RDI has some fundamental aspects of Radar behavior in-spite of its importance to tactics, while I expect others to follies that will be sometime. If we wanted to call purity on everything we would be lucky to have WWI aircraft. I don’t disagree realism shouldn’t always be the goal or that I wouldn’t rather an earlier aircraft without said feature if possible, but rejecting something because it has to be simplified when the experience can otherwise be done very realistically isn’t a hill any DCS fan can die on without being a hypocrite.

I can’t really speak to how accurate this is. Most military craft in FSX are not to DCS standards. I can only think of a few.

Block I Early II it is https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-09-28/html/2017-20743.htm

Paul Metz wrote a book on the YF-23 and Northrop apparently provided him with everything. They even gave him performance data though didn’t clear him to use it in the book. Lockheed apparently didn’t allow him to do a YF-22 book at all. So it’s possible that one could get in data to do an accurate YF-23 in a few years, you just need to ask the right people. YF-23 even without armament would make an outstanding fifth gen aggressor.

You guys ever consider doing a official module, even if it was just F1 standard?

Sometimes it’s just the nature of bureaucracy

I don’t think I disagree with you, I’d like a J-10a and think it’s the most plausible, I just don’t want to speak for Deka. J-10a also has fox one and three which is cool. PESA has some benefits but also draw backs like additional phase shifter loss. They really only differ from MSA in the antenna system and date back to WWII. RBE2 has some info on how the antenna works in the public domain as an example. MSI is interesting. VRS Superbug has an MSI implementation, which is limited but the Devs have talked about how it differs from the real thing and expressed the desire to do a more thought version implying they know how to do so. Maybe ED has old information?

I’m not all that interested in the F-105 but did any of you guys ever consider sending a FOIA to DTIC for what your looking for. They run your keywords through their database and send you an excel sheet with the matches and what agency has it. I did it for the For the F-2 and I got a large number of results. It might be worth your time.

PESA really isn’t so different then MSA you just have to know what your modeling. AESA is different, there are many commercial systems and the theory of how it works is know, the issue is besides most military AESA systems being very classified to the point some have no unaltered publicly available photos, most have very complex scanning algorithms that you would either need extensive flight test data or the algorithms themselves which are certainly very secretive. it’s possible Deka could have been given this but I think it’s fairly unlikely (but who know, it’s really a matter of somebody in a position of authority clearing it). the Jeff and J-10a upgraded are getting an air cooled AESA update. If we don’t see that I really doubt we’ll get a B/C aesa. My guess if we get a J-10 it would be a 2000s J-10a which is very similar to our Jeff and no longer the PLAAF standard.

That’s disputed though. China claims it always had an AESA but changed models for the C.

I kinda realized AESA has never been declined. I wonder if it’s possible. Mk 0 and 1 use the captor d back end. I was surprised by the amount of info that exists in the public domain. I am curious what someone with industry contacts can get. I don’t think it’s likely, but I wonder if it’s really all that unlikely either.

I don’t even know if they exist, but I figured ask if anyone had them.

I actually meant AESA sorry!

Here is how you create a EFM dcs. My advice play around a bit, use official Aerodynamic and engine data to see if you can make something and then use that to show people your serious. It seems Mod to 3rd party is becoming increasingly popular as a path to development.

It’s possible, but it would be astonishing if they got the data to actually do it so I consider it very unlikely.