Vampyre

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.

I think the "bleeding edge" aircraft are probably out of the question with regards to Flaming Cliffs level aircraft due to the limitations of the Flaming Cliffs modeling itself... which is why I did not include them in the original post. Most of them have well known capabilities and sensors that simply can't be modeled in any sort of realistic manner. There has been no indication of a revamp of the systems modeling of Flaming Cliffs modeling that suggests new capabilities will be added with regards to the simplified systems. Things like ground radar modes, advanced datalinks, modern helmet mounted sights, targeting pods and stealth all have not been done. I think that an FC4 release is less about drawing new players and more about adding content that otherwise cannot be done to DCS module standards due to limitations that are external to DCS:World itself. Making popular aircraft that cannot be modeled in a realistic manner due to obvious missing features would be a more significant departure from the DCS:World vision than FC3 is now.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207133 So, with the ED CEO talking of having four more Flaming Cliffs aircraft added to the mix I thought it would be interesting to figure out exactly what types would fit into the simpleton modeling that is the Flaming Cliffs aircraft. The limitations of the FC3 planes are thus (let me know if I missed anything as I'm sure I have): 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. My first thoughts were of the lack of Soviet hardware in game. The lack of Soviet opposition aircraft is a glaring omission that is getting more and more obvious as DCS grows. Several Soviet jets would fit into the above listed limitations. MiG-23ML/MLA/MLD MiG-23BN MiG-27/D/M/K/L MiG-25PD Su-15TM Su-17M/M2/M3/M4 Keeping to the more modern-ish (late 70's and beyond) types and excluding planes most don't even know exist, several other jets would fit into the above listed limitations. Mirage IIIC Mirage F1A Mirage F1C BAC Lightning AMX A-1 F-5A Freedom Fighter F-104A/C/S Starfighter F-15A Eagle Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head at this moment. My personal opinion is that any plane that does make it into the FC4 lineup, as it is being called, is a shame as it will in all likelihood never be made into a full fidelity DCS module.

... and it can fly from the US to France without air refueling and without drop tanks.:thumbup:

JDAM's require a MIL-STD-1760 databus so the BRU-33 will not be able to use them. The BRU-55 is the rack that is MIL-STD-1760 capable. Being that this is a mid-2000 Hornet and the BRU-55 was not purchased for the fleet until last year I doubt it will make it onto the DCS Hornet.

With it being called South Atlantic and with several people wanting the Vulcan to be included has there been any thought about including Ascension Island? I know it is 4000nm from the Falklands but with it being all water between them do you think it would be possible? Will the map be accurate historically for the 1982 war or will it be a modern map that includes the Mount Pleasant airfield and expanded Stanly airport?

I was waiting for someone to shout "Oh My God! He Killed Kenny!".

Everything is usually preplanned before any moves actually take place. For any deviations from the plan, to announce moves, and aircraft status changes, radio headsets are used. Major events, like starts, FOD walk down, hazard warnings and emergencies are usually communicated by hand signals, radio and the 5MC. During EMCON runners are used to convey messages.

Tease :thumbup:

Great news! DCS: Falklands/Malvinas in the works?

Yup, the missile could be a V-755 (20D), most likely, or V-760 (15D), which would be rather overkill and less likely to be in game due to it having a 15kt nuclear warhead. These missiles looks similar to most of the rest of the family with the exception of the 17D, 19D and 22D. The V-750 Dvina missile has the short pitot on the nose. The V-755 has a longer pitot which is the tell as far as the missile is concerned. What really gives it away as a S-75M Volkov is the RSN-75V (Fan Song E) as seen in the ED screenshots. It's actually a much more capable system than the S-75 Dvina... Being that the Dvina was mentioned specifically, maybe we will be getting both to shoot at.:smilewink: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/screenshots/

SEAD/DEAD is also more than just attacking radar guided SAM's. The main problem is that suppression is not modeled therefor all actions against air defenses are DEAD missions in game. The only thing that might pass as SEAD is playing as bait and running the launchers out of missiles. They still won't be suppressed though. They will just be empty. I use Mavericks to pick off the track radars of long ranged SAM's so I can prosecute the target objective that they are covering. Without the track radar, batteries of SA-10's or SA-3's are useless. The HARM will be a game changer for blue side because the F/A-18C will have a considerable self escort capability in addition to a long standoff range against radar guided SAM's. For radar gun systems, IR missiles and optical air defense systems the cannon, bombs, rockets and Mavericks are still going to be required for SEAD/DEAD.

If there is a need then definitely have your people contact their people. Aerial firefighting has always fascinated me and is something I would buy into if it were commercially available at the fidelity available with DCS.

Mavericks are very effective against SAM sites and are an excellent weapon to perform SEAD/DEAD with. Other effective weapons to perform SEAD/DEAD with include bombs, rockets and cannons in addition to longer ranged weapons. SEAD/DEAD is a mission- either the Suppression or Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses. That means using offensive weapons to attack air defenses to disrupt or destroy their capability to effectively counter an air attack. Enemy air defenses consist of more than just SAM's. They utilize IR and optical systems such as the Zu-23 and SA-9's and SA-13's as well. Fri13 is correct to point this out. What blue has been lacking is a truly effective ARM of similar capability to the Kh-58U that the Russian Su-25T carries to enhance the capability of the blue side to effectively counter the longer ranged SAM threat from outside their WEZ.

Yeah, anyone that believes the propaganda that this is a single (or dual with ISR) mission airframe in this day and age is seriously deluding themselves. Of course it has to be a better tanker than the Super Hornet just by virtue of its flying wing design with associated large internal tankage plus the buddy store. Organic carrier based tankers are mostly concerned with recovery operations so it doesn't need to give away more than a few thousand pounds at a time anyway. Mission tanking requirements would need a larger fuel giveaway fraction so the extra tankage looks like it makes the MQ-25 a more ideal solution. Having a drone do it instead of wasting precious airframe hours/cat's and traps of the manned tactical aircraft of which, as far as tanking is concerned, they are poorly suited for to begin with seems like a smart move. I wonder if the Sea Control Squadrons will be unfurling the colors when these things make it to the fleet... I did just over 10 years in S-3B's when I was in the Navy... Would be interesting to see what happens with the squadrons involved.

The only MLWS Navy and Marine Hornets have is their wingman. As for APKWS, it would require an updated OFP as it wasn't even a concept when 13C was originally issued to the fleet. The last OFP I remember was 22X back in 2013 and I'm sure it has been updated since then as well.

Why the Yak-52 of course.:smilewink:

Because Arizona doesn't do daylight savings.:thumbup:

For anyone interested in how the US Navy and Marines tool control and FOD programs work you can find it in COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2C chapter 10. FOD is 10-11 and TCP is 10-12. http://www.navair.navy.mil/logistics/4790/library/Chapter%2010.pdf