Kalasnkova74

“MiG-28” does at least make sense. In 1986 the only people flying Migs in the US were the Tonopah folks, and they weren’t leasing em for film shoots. You weren’t buying a MiG-21 on eBay back then either, so they had to use a substitute for a “MiG”. Using the F-5 as a stand in not only made sense but using “MiG-28” clearly established a fictional name, as NATO always assigned odd numbers to Soviet aircraft. Whereas calling an F-4E a “MiG-29” when the MiG-29 is an actual aircraft, an F-4 looks nothing like a MiG PLUS the Kfir F-21 used in the film would make a great fictional “MiG-32”…yeah. Forty lashes for the Iron Eagle II writer(s).

Whoever made that screenwriting decision should be whipped in the public square.

Not the quoted poster, but that contest will come down to pilot skill.

Your sad devotion to that ancient belief hasn’t conjured up the carrier bridle you’d need to fly an F-4E off a carrier deck.

Makes sense if it’s an upgraded Turkish/Greek/South Korean Phantom II. IIRC only the Iranians are using the original APG-120 radars.

I’m sure it’ll launch just fine. The problem is it’ll stall and fall into Davy Jones’ Locker right afterward. Note that on carrier launched F-4s -American or UK- the landing gear is raised (similar to the F-5) before launch to increase the AoA. This system for obvious reasons was deleted from the land based models. Without that extended nose gear , a naval Phantom will stall and fall into the drink. As would a land based F-4E bereft of catapult assistance.

The F-4E can land on an aircraft carrier. Once. Land based Phantoms retained the stout tailhook for emergency runway barrier arrestments, a procedure sadly employed all too frequently in Southeast Asia. Not only can a land based F-4E not takeoff from a carrier , but the naval F-4s can’t use our current carriers either due to the catapult setup.

In the F-15 Eagle’s early years, it did carry bombs (and conformal tanks) in USAF service. In the 1980s Langley assigned F-15s were part of the USAF’s rapid deployment team, and incorporated air to ground capability as they’d be first in the theatre. The “not a pound for air to ground” F-15 featured the same CCIP modes as the F-16. Once the F-15E entered service in the late 1980s the air to ground systems and training requirements were removed from the “Light Grey” Eagle squadrons. While the F-15C fleet may be a single mission outfit now, it was not always so. The “not a pound for air to ground” ad copy doesn’t stack up with the F-15s development or military procurement reality. One does not spend $40-$100 million on a twin engine long range fighter plane without building in at least rudimentary bombing capability. Even the Soviets built it into the Su-27/MiG-29 despite having no intention of using them for air to ground missions in the PFI/LFI requirements.

Here’s a flight of Ukranian Flankers bombing Russian positions on Snake Island

Apologies for the “mode” reference. I’m very new to DCS and ask your collective pardon for any FNG flubs. While off the beaten path, I think interceptor missions/servers would be a fun challenge for DCS players. Let’s start with the backstory; for those unaware we used to hold William Tell competitions in the US. Back in the 1970 the US Air Defense Command invited North American interceptor squadrons to compete for who’d be the best at air to air interception and gunnery. These challenges were stuff that’d make even Hangman feel the pressure. Intercepting a B-52 under a time clock, shooting down drones, engaging bombers using ECM, intercepting and shooting down high speed BOMARC rocket targets, etc. Frequently the Canadian F-101s took home the prize. Point : I think jumping into a MiG-23, F-101B, Su-15, MiG-25 and catching up a Tu-95/ SR-71 /B-52/ ELINT aircraft etc would be a fun experience, and would be a good home for a generation of amazing Cold War aircraft which wouldn’t really fit in other engagement scenarios.

Modeling the ejection capsule would be interesting

Capt ‘H’ said: “We’ve had to change from flying hard and fast – when sometimes showing our presence did what troops on the ground needed from us – to a more cautious approach. To avoid detection and being engaged by air defence, we’re flying low and using the contours and features, like woods, to get close enough to attack our targets.” Now paging “Starbaby” Pietruscha….

The F-2 started life as a General Dynamics proposal to the USAF for a “super F-16”. The US wasn’t interested in the proposal, but Tokyo was and took it forward. Retired Colonel John Boyd even consulted for Mitsubishi Heavy industries on what became the F-2 project. Incidentally, the wing area increase Colonel Boyd tried to push on the missionized USAF F-16 (but was overruled by Gen. Slays committee) was applied on the Japanese F-2, so spec for spec it’ll easily outperform a clean F-16 Viper. Don’t let the looks fool anyone: an F-2 module is a ground up aircraft project. Not only is the airframe physically different and performs differently from the F-16, the Japanese spec avionics and weapons would need to be modeled. The JASDF uses indigenous AAMs (short range and BVR) and locally developed air to ground/anti ship weapons. I seriously doubt Tokyo would sign off on anyone developing accurate models of those weapons or avionics.

This statement is incorrect. See below for F-15Cs conducting air to ground strafing. While the USAF marketed “not a pound for air to ground”, the financial reality is the United States Air Force always builds air to ground capability in its tactical fighters, even the “air superiority” ones. When one aircraft cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire and $30k+ in hourly operating costs to use, Congress rightfully expects that aircraft to be relevant on the battlefield. “Not a pound for air to ground” doesn’t fly at a Senate budget hearing. Both the F-15 single seat and F-14 Tomcat were built with air to ground capability from the start. For political and force structure reasons neither service emphasized this mission, but both were very capable of it. The Tomcat would later be modified to dedicated strike roles, and F-15Cs were rotated to USCENTCOM for air to ground operations. Rudimentary? Yes, but strafing ISIS still counts. No modern US tactical aircraft can be considered a truly dedicated air to air platform, and rightly so.

I’m floating this idea after some careful thought. After seeing an F-101B at a museum, my mental gears started turning. There’s an entire generation of Cold War era interceptors -such as the Voodoo, Su-15, MiG-25, early MiG-23, F-102, F-104A, F-106 ,etc - whose major mission was to intercept enemy bomber formations. These jets are good aircraft but don’t fit the tactical model DCS currently employs. Perhaps it’s time to consider a new game mode involving bombers, interceptors and even jammers. This is a chance for strike bombers like the Su-24, F-111 , Buccaneers, Tupolev Badgers and Tornado IDS to do their stuff and for interceptors like F-106s (just one example) to do theirs. One side defends, the other bombs/strikes. No A2A free for alls here. Bigger bombers like the B-52 and Tu-95 might even work, although probably limited to earlier variants for security reasons. Incidentally that is another benefit of this game mode: most of the aircraft involved are retired (admittedly the Chemodan/Fencer is not) and thus can be modeled realistically without running afoul of classification . what say the DCS cadre?

Based on what Elward wrote about the Super Hornet, there’s no point pursuing an official module for DCS. At first the Super Hornet used software and systems from the Legacy models to save cost, but over time the US Navy’s incrementally increased its capability into the jet they wanted back in the 90s but couldn’t realistically afford. Don’t let looks deceive: a modern Super Hornet is a 5th generation aircraft in a 4th generation suit. Rather than buy and develop the high tech toys upfront concurrently (as we see with the F-35 and risks it experienced), Boeing & the USN’s approach integrated the technology over time after maturity. I’ll let the reader decide which approach delivers fewer headline and budget headaches. Anyways, a Super Hornet module COULD be built but it would be an early version identical to the legacy in capabilities which defeats the point of making it -and doesn’t represent a good financial prospect for the developer studio. Why would someone wait and pay for a new module that’s going to perform the same as one you can buy right now? For a Super Hornet module to make business or development sense it would need to be a later block. Unfortunately for DCS those capabilities are and will remain classified for the foreseeable future. The Super Hornet will remain in USN service until the FA-XXX is fielded , and that’s at least a decade out . Even longer if Bryan Clark’s (of the Hudson Institute think tank) hypothesis of the FA-XX using the Super Hornet bears fruit.

For DCS multiplayer, Cold War is going to be the main show for the foreseeable future. Not only is there asymmetry between the capabilities of “Blue” and “Red”, but the same reason we won’t see modern “Red” aircraft will shortly affect the “Blue” side too. Rafales, Super Hornets and F-35s are unlikely to appear in DCS anytime soon except as mods.

Time to copy it again and post it back to Reddit !

It’s rational for many peoples’ interest in the Phantom II to come from its service in their air arm.

I think the F-4E is going to be the big seller between all the versions HB is working on. With 11 nations flying them historically and four still using them in frontline service today it’ll be the moneymaker. The “bullet nosed” Phantoms won’t be as strong sellers, as only a limited number of countries operated them. Besides the US/UK Navies, you have Spain , South Korea and Iran.

Well, yeah. A modern unrestricted Fox 2 visual fight is basically suicide-by-IR-missile regardless of aircraft type.

On a serious note, I just bought the module and am looking forward to exploring this jet further. The AV-8B Harrier’s contributed much to Western warfighting in the 21st century and with little fanfare.

There’s forums where clickbait posts routinely feed trolls. this ain’t one of ‘em.

The F-117s been compromised since Operation Allied Force nearly 20+ years ago. Still classified, and will likely stay that way. You make a good point about the asymmetry between East and West in-game. Unfortunately for fans of Soviet era aircraft (of which I am too), Russia still operates many of those older jets today. Yes there’s upgrades and new versions of the MiG-29 and Su-27, but the VVS also still has (based on publicly available data) dozens of older Su-27s and MiG-29s not much different in specs to the FC3 version. The Russian Navy still flies the Su-33 , which is even less distinct from the FC3 variant. The grim fact is until Russia replaces these legacy aircraft with Su-57s & advanced Flankers/Fulcrums , they will not be inclined to publicly license & distribute information. That sets up DCS for an asymmetrical gaming experience, but I doubt Moscow cares enough to correct the situation (unless someone here convinces Putin Russian planes dying in DCS merits a policy change).

Again, classification rules are not necessarily bound by common sense. Just because an aircraft’s technology is obsolete doesn’t mean it’s fair game. Look at the F-117. It’s literally a museum piece now and multiple generations behind modern LO weapons systems. Still classified, and still (probably) not coming to DCS or any other simulation level game.