NytHawk

Yeah, sidewinders dropped with 3F (2018) if you exclude test aircraft.

Block 3Fs entered OT&E in 2018 and can carry external A2G loads on stations 2/3/9/10 and SRAAMs on stations 1/11. If you're referring to the 14 AMRAAM + 2 SRAAM "beast mode", It's planned for Block 4.

Usually its advisable to fly a bit slower, you will save quite a lot of fuel. You can use the RNG mode in the CRUS DED page to show the most efficient cruising speed for the given altitude on the HUD.

Of course. Internal loadouts carrying 6 AMRAAMs require the Block 4s sidekick upgrade (including substantial modification to existing aircraft with a brand new bulkhead) GBU-53s and AARGM-ERs have yet to enter service; another Block 4 upgrade. Don't think AARGMs have started release testing yet if i remember correctly. I prefer to just ignore the release date so I don't get impatient lol.

1. “We”? or you? 2. Except most of these incremental differences like FLCS restrictions, external weapons and SDB integration are all decently documented and integration is relatively self-explanatory (as is much of the F35s PVI) We don’t know what information ED has access to. Deka made a whole module largely based on official simulators on information only they had access to and it turned out fine. All systems and other parameters implemented are accurate, just that the airframe isn’t any particular block.

3F isn’t much more infeasible than the 2B. Most of its upgrades are just increments of 2B features. I have yet to find many resources for AIM-9X employment for F-35s… However ED continues to claim it is planned. I can imagine that ED has put considerable thought behind the development of the F35 before announcement. I would be borderline shocked if ED is unable to get dedicated access to public F35 simulator demonstrators and unable to obtain such seemingly basic functionality. What does hybrid mean?

There is no incentives for ED to restrict themselves purely to a pre-IOC (Block 2B?) F-35A when the 3F isn't much more effort, and is much more capable overall. At the very least I see a Hybrid (Block 2B with 3F FLCS parameters, SDBs and possibility for 4 AMRAAM loadouts)

SDBs among other weapons (including ones which were planned for the real thing) were initially on the FAQ before it was stealth edited shortly after. Personally I wouldn't consider the current state of the weapons in the FAQ likely to be the final decision.

You can exit snowplow mode by point/are tracking something (if possible). If you can't do that on the ground, you will need to manually slave the TGP from a markpoint to the object you want to point track. However i highly recommend aligning mavs when airborne to reduce parallax error.

Easily. Most of our references for F35 operations are block 3F utilising the full SDD weapons suite. A 3F from an R&D POV is a minor step up from the 2B/3I. Vocal minority. The amount of new players the F35 will attract will definitely benefit the DCS ecosystem as a whole. The F35s have done a lot more than just "bombing peasants" in the real world.

The procedure for boresighting mavericks on the ATP is identical to the procedure on the LITENING

Hopefully a 3F since its barely any more work than a 2B and has significant upgrades in capabilities

Regardless, the Block 1s you want are subsonic, can only pull 18 degrees of alpha and 5G. They carry no weapons and lack MADL or L16. The Jet you want is an initial training variant of the F35.

We already have plenty of subsonic trainers in DCS, an F35 Block 1A/B would objectively be the worst.

We just want an F35 with its full warfighting capabilities. Its barely any more effort to make a 3F because its just a 2B/3I with less FLCS restrictions and mostly more of the same weapons. Eg. SDBs are operated the same way as JDAMs and we get more AMRAAMs and external stores. We get it, you just really want ED to make a Block 1# F35.