Vampyre

This is correct.

Aircraft designs are compromises built on specific performances desired. The wings are the primary aerodynamic determining factor relating to the speed of the aircraft. The CRJ and E-jets are designed for long range fast cruise performance and have relatively thin wings compared to the S-3 and A-10. The S-3 Viking was designed for long range, long loiter times at low to medium altitudes to engage enemy surface and subsurface threats. It has a large, high lift wing with a mild leading edge sweep. The A-10 was designed for Close Air Support (CAS) where low speed and high maneuverability was desirable in order to maintain visual contact with targets on the ground. Having a large, straight, high lift (draggy) wing is perfect for the CAS mission.

Of course it's not entirely clear. That's the point. The Hype train is boarding now.:thumbup:

Exactly what I was going to post. :thumbup:

That is what we called the Nav Pole. It had a ladder to the top, an anemometer, wind vane and other aerials on it. Every carrier I have been on, Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, and most of the Nimitz class have all had them.

Yes it will, it will spit hot shards of metal at extremely high speeds at him.:thumbup:

While it is nice to have this information, I'm disappointed the Phantom got pushed to the back of the line. I've never really liked the F-16... and frankly, there are no aircraft currently in DCS that are on my personal favorites list. At least I should have the F-14 within the next year or so. It is nice to see the helicopters on there though. Looking forward to the Hind and the AH-1S (whatever version of it is chosen) will be a good match for the Army Huey currently in game. Is that a rough order of expected release (subject to change of course) or did you just toss the aircraft in there haphazardly?

Well, they will have to update the game engine for persistent cow pies and have various equipment fits for Bulls, Steers, Heifers and Cows... I mean, nobody wants to be caught in a situation where they need a Bull but only have a Steer. I wonder if cow chip tossing will be a thing?

Gouge is a slang term we use in military aviation speak (possibly others as well) for information, both written and verbal, that has been gathered from multiple sources and unofficially condensed into more easily digestible form for operational usage. Think of it as the Cliff Notes Version.

It would be nice to get a full fidelity version of the F-105G Wild Weasel III that they teases a model of a few years ago. I'd also like to see the F-105D Thunderchief. They did hire a new terrain builder recently as well.

Interesting, thanks for the clarification. It makes sense from a get the new players into DCS perspective. So we are talking F-5E, F-86F, MiG-15Bis, MiG-21Bis, Mirage 2000C and maybe a AJS-37 being of the four selected. Being that all of the platforms on my list are from Belsemtek, Magnitude 3 and Heatblur I wonder how something like that will impact those developers? I don't see this as something the current customers who own any of the full fidelity versions of the selected planes will purchase. I'm glad I didn't have the little bunnies in my head telling me things that turned out to be untrue.

Yeah, make it player controllable too where they have to actually know how to load it. :)

The S-75M2 Volkhov was from about 1972. These are post Vietnam missile systems.

They are both Volkhov's. The S-75M2 Volkhov introduced the V-759 5Ya23 missile which had better maneuverability than previous versions and also could still use the 20D missiles of previous versions. The S-75M3 Volkhov introduced a Angle Deception Jamming Canceller and the V-760V 5Y29 nuclear tipped missile based on the V-759 5Ya23 missile. They are either the SA-2d or SA-2e Guidelines depending on their missiles. They are very similar to each other.

Nice, I love me some big boom. Thanks for the conformation.

I think the RSN designation might be western in nature. As for citations, I don't see any listed in the book but the author does mention several sources in his authors notes which include Fakel and Almaz. Towards the end of the book he includes a list of books and articles for further reading(mostly in Russian) but includes an article by him in the Journal of Slavic Military studies and a book by him written for Janes. Odds are that he probably knows what he is writing about.

Here is my source: https://www.amazon.com/Red-SAM-Guideline-Anti-Aircraft-Vanguard/dp/1846030625

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ru/downloads/screenshots/572/

The RSN-75V2 (Fan Song F) introduced the optical tracking. It can be distinguished by the boxy structure atop where the twin parabolic dishes are on the RSN-75V (Fan Song E). That system was known as the S-75M2 Volkhov designated by NATO as the SA-2f Guideline Mod 5. The S-75M2 fired the V-759 missile which is visually distinctive from the V-755 and V-760 missiles of the S-75M Volkhov system that is shown in the screenshots on the ED website. EDIT: I think the missile is a V-755 in the screenshot because I think the V-760 had a larger nosecone.

Well, the newsletter says it is a S-75 Dvina but the screenshots actually show the RSN-75V (Fan Song E) and either a V-755 or V-760 missile on a SM-90 launcher. The components shown indicate that it is a S-75M Volkhov. That would make it an SA-2d Guideline Mod 3 or SA-2e Guideline Mod 4 in the NATO designation system, not a S-75 Dvina (SA-2a Guideline or SA-2b Guideline Mod 1).

Combat losses during the Vietnam war caused the premature removal from service of the F-105D... half of the fleet of D's were lost in combat and other forms of attrition. To be fair though the Thud was never really meant to perform the role it was forced into in Vietnam. The original mission was to deliver a single nuclear weapon on a single combat mission and coming back from that mission was not required. Conventional bombing in the F-105D, sortie after sortie in hostile airspace, took its toll and eventually killed off the type early. The F-111A performed well in Vietnam and operated in conditions that had other types grounded. It didn't require near the amount of supporting assets to accomplish its mission either. The losses suffered in Vietnam were mainly suspected to be from wing fold pivot failures that reared it's head during training in the US. An F-111A crashed while pulling up off a rocket run at Nellis losing an entire wing at the pivot. The jet had less than 100 hours and grounded the entire fleet until it was fixed. All in all the F-111's combat record was exemplary. I'd be happy with both. The Thuds I want are the F-105D, F-105D T-stick II and F-105G Wild Weasel III. The F-111's I want are the F-111E and F-111F. I'd like comparison aircraft similar to how HB are making with the Tomcat, similar but different.

If you let it sit like that you will eventually get in. Yesterday, I fired up DCS, drove out to get a couple of pizzas for the family, came back home and ate a couple of slices, took the trash out, made a head call and sat down in front of my computer for about the last five minutes of loading with my tablet which I spent looking on Amazon for a new book. All in all it took about 40 minutes to load in.

Alright bro, with common sense being so uncommon these days let me explain it to you. Flaming Cliffs is a brand name for a simpler product based around older tech. ED have said nothing about revamping the title or the way the software works. You assume it will be totally different from what is currently available without any available evidence. That is not common sense, that is wishful thinking at best. Until ED comes out and actually states that things in FC4 are going to be different from FC3 one has to fall back on what is known for certain. What is known for certain is that they will be based on the Flaming Cliffs series of simpler releases. If you haven't figured it out yet, my logic is fact based. With this thread I wanted to put together a reasonable list of possible candidate aircraft for FC4 using what is known from solid information... not wishful thinking and supposition. I was hoping for someone to maybe come forward with some fact based insight and knowledge to help tighten the list of possible candidates down. My thoughts were that this is a way around certain unfortunate laws in Russia to bring in additional opfor aircraft that would not be possible otherwise. The older Russian planes I mentioned are great candidates in that the tech is already there and will not have to be substantially modified. Another good theory is that it could be used to bring in highly classified new planes. The hang up with that is the lack of available capability with the systems of the current FC3 release. Could I be wrong about what is possible? Certainly. But at this point in time all of the evidence I have seen does not indicate any leaps in technology will be applied to any additional simplified releases.

The experiment on AFM was with the Su-25T in the original Flaming Cliffs prior to DCS. The upgrading of the FC3 planes to the FM standard of the Su-25T was necessary as they were not good examples to showcase DCS:World with. The flight models of the Flaming Cliffs planes are not relevant to the discussion. The systems are where the Flaming Cliffs aircraft falter. You misread what I wrote as I said there is no evidence that the systems modeling from the modular designed DCS modules, Radar ray tracing as you point out, can be easily ported to a Flaming Cliffs module. Flaming Cliffs aircraft have a certain architecture, constants if you will, that they are tethered to. Ask yourself this, If FC3 was capable of accepting modular design features of the DCS modules then why doesn't the F-15C have a datalink yet? Why is it missing radar modes? Why do you think the F-15C doesn't have a Helmet mounted sight like the FC3 MiG-29's and Su-27/33's? The answer is that it couldn't be done realistically. DCS is touted as the most realistic combat flight simulator available to the public. If significant features are missing, it will be noticed. ED have also not said anything about updating the existing Flaming Cliffs aircraft systems which leads me to believe that it would be difficult if not impossible to do. Until evidence exists that they can and will be changing the core of how the systems of FC3 works you have to assume the status quo will be maintained. That means they will have to pick aircraft for FC4 that will fit within the architecture of the Flaming Cliffs planes. Anything else is wishful thinking. The known limitations are: Single seat. Two or less engines. An onboard or podded fixed forward looking TV, IR and/or Laser. Air to Air Radar (without A/G modes) that can automatically declutter itself. Extremely simplified datalink. Simplified flight controls logic. Can you please direct me to where ED have published this. I'd very much like to read it because it would be evidence I need to form a more accurate assessment. I think it is much more likely they are using Flaming Cliffs fidelity aircraft to skirt around Russian laws preventing Russian planes from being full fledged DCS modules rather than to bring ultra modern Su-57's and F-22's to DCS. I do think it would be humorous if they decided to do four different types of F-16 in FC4 to try to give everyone the version they wanted.

Do you even understand the limitations of the FC3 types? I do and I understand also that there is no indication that any of the new technology ED has developed recently for its DCS modules can be easily ported into a Flaming Cliffs aircraft with a simplified systems model that was never designed for it in the first place. I'm basing my aircraft type speculation in this thread off of publically known limitations of FC3 planes. There is a real reason that ED has backtracked on their statement that there would be no more FC3 types developed and I don't think it is because they want to do a group of four "bleeding edge" jets without a significant revamp of the Flaming Cliffs modeling. The DCS modules are developed in a modular nature which gives the ability to port significant portions of one aircraft to another. The Flaming Cliffs planes are built from the ground up within a set architecture that is much older technology and makes it much harder to port technology without revamping the structure and how they are built. I know you personally want the latest and greatest planes you can get but unless ED develops a way to incorporate the new technology, or a downgraded version of the new tech itself for their Flaming Cliffs aircraft, they will not be realistic in any way. As for the F-117, it has never been an Flaming Cliffs aircraft, only AI. It's what would be referred to as window dressing... for looks only. The modeling of RCS in DCS is so very simple that it is useless to use as a viable defense within the game engine. You will have the same RCS no matter what you do with it. It doesn't take into account for things like the radio antennas and navigation lights that pop out from the airframe for use or an opened or closed bomb bay. You need to understand the limitations of these modules to really get a clue as to what they are making. There is no indication yet that there will be significant changes to how the simple planes are modeled and I suspect ED will remain silent on the subject for quite some time.