Vampyre

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

Like an extendable nose landing gear, catapult bridle assembly and holdback hookups, automatic folding wings... you know, the small details that allows it to operate from a carrier. The Air Force version has none of those features. https://forums.eagle.ru/images/attach/jpg.gif

The French don't own C-2A Greyhounds. The title of the video says the plane is from VRC-30, the US Navy west coast C-2A squadron. As for the painted area, all of the carriers I have been on don't have them so I can only hazard a guess as to what they are for. My guess is they are the hazard areas for the drawn out cross deck pennants. They are really hard to see from some angles at night and I don't know how good the deck lighting on this particular ship is but it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

Your #2 engine probably didn't start. It happens sometimes when you use autostart. Just start up the engine and you will be good to go.

Strange indeed and whatever causing it might explain some of the sudden blackout events the guys I fly with and I have experienced with the F-5.

Military but non-combat types. Due to a lack of a suitable definition for "non-combat", I guess that means aircraft operated by military forces that lack the ability to, either offensively or defensively, react to threats beyond visually spotting and maneuvering. A C-2A, C-20, C-21A, C-23A, KC-135 or KC-10 might fit. Now if they mean military types without a significant offensive punch that have the ability to recognize threats through various systems and defend themselves through countermeasures then that changes the request considerably. A C-130 Hercules would be a top choice from talking to guys online and, even though it is kind of large for DCS maps, it would be very useful in many of the more popular mission oriented MP servers. The A-400M, KC-390 and An-12 would be in the same category and might be well received. I think smaller twin engine types would be more suitable for the current state of DCS. Planes like the An-26, An-32, An-72, CN-295, C-23C, C-27J and C-160 would fit well. For these planes there would have to be improvements with regards to proper cargo weight and balance and logistics within the DCS engine... of course, if it were to be implemented, part of the fun could be watching people taking off without verifying their weight and balance after loading the plane. :joystick: Similarly, AWACS/Reconnaissance types would be useful if they are implemented. Strategic high performance platforms are pretty much a no go due to map size but tactical types like the SF-37, RF-101C, RF-4C, EKA-3B, RA-5C and RF-8G would be perfect. Another that would be interesting would be the U-2 because of the very limited operating speed one has to fly at altitude what with never exceed speed and stall speed being so close together. On the Soviet side the MiG-25R and MiG-21R would be good choices. Any AWACS would work as a DCS module. Helicopters- all helicopters are good for DCS world... including the MV-22 Osprey So, my top five list of wants for fixed wing non-offensive types in DCS looks like this- MC-130H C-130H An-26 C-23C KC-10A Rotary top five- CH-53E HH-60H MV-22B UH-60L SH-3G

That was video from testing.

Depends on what year of the mid-90's F-14B they are modeling. LANTIRN TPS was available to the fleet in 1996 but the PTID wasn't available to the fleet until mid-1997.