Vampyre

Funny. "EF-111 With No Weapons" like there was any other kind of EF-111. All it could do is blast out electrons. It never had a kinetic capability.

The F-111E operated out of Incirlik during the first gulf war as well. Don't forget El Dorado Canyon either. An A,E or F version would be optimal as they were all three involved in significant combat operations.

Absolutely! An early Lot 11 F/A-18C or earlier would be great for late cold war/Desert Storm/early 90's scenarios. APG-65, no GPS, -400 engines, no MIDS, no LITENING/ATFLIR, no JHMCS and limited to AIM-9L/M and AIM-7F/M's would be perfect. Not having a F/A-18 or even an F-16 available for cold war scenarios is a shame. Truthfully, I wish ED had the foresight to include something like that from the beginning. When the -18 first entered early access it was almost an A model in capability... and was still fun to employ against the Russian types as they were similar in capability, and I had a lot of good fights with and against the Hornet back then. Since the data link and JHMCS were added the capability disparity has jumped to such an extent that few pilots now want to fly red on our MP servers. Another plus for an earlier Hornet would be that it would be much easier to learn systems wise.

Seeing as the F-105 Thunderchief and F-104 Starfighter are either reserved or in current development respectively, I would be in favor of the development of AMX, F9F-5 Panther, F-84F Thunderstreak and G-222/C-27A. It would be nice to have a cold war transport seeing as another developer is working on an 2010's modern Hercules.

The DCS KC-135R is a KC-135RT even though it is labeled as an R. What we should be asking for is the KC-135A, KC-135E and KC-135R AI assets.

If ED does it we will only get one version, an F-105D-31-RE. No T-Stick II, no Ryans Raiders F-105F, no F-105G Wild Weasel III. The Thud and F-111 are two that I want Heatblur to do specifically for multiple variants. I would not call ED doing it a dream.... well, a nightmare is a dream too.

Here are a sampling of liveries I'd like to see on the Soon™ to be released Starfighter. Most are according to the maps we already have and those that are announced. Some are just what I would like to see.

Still looks like test drops to me as all the bombs seem the same. Need more evidence.

Did they paint all their bombs day glow orange? Looks like a test drop to me. I can't seem to find any other evidence of the Spanish Air Force regularly engaged in ground attack training.

Probably not the Spanish zippers. Most other countries had them though. I'm hoping that they decide to expand the weapons selection a bit more to include air to ground ordnance.

F-104G for sure. Even though Spain only used them as A/A platforms, I hope they include more weapons than just two winders and the gun. Liveries for Spain are a given and I would also like to see Luftwaffe, Marineflieger, USAF, Norwegian, Greek and Turk skins as well.

Most likely a F-104G as it served Spain for about two decades. It would be nice to have liveries for all the countries that used the G and also for weapons such as Kormoran and Bullpup missiles, various other bombs/CBU's (Rockeye, BL-755) and rockets (2.75 in FFAR, CRV-7) from other air forces. A two seat TF-104G would be nice as well if they could pull it off as would a RF-104G. I would not expect a Sparrow or Aspide shooter version such as the F-104S or ASA.

APS-137 is an ISAR radar. The S-3B had it as well. I worked on the Viking for 11 years in the Navy.

Watched the video, It looks like you have too much nose up trim and you never really matched speeds with the tanker. Tomcat, being a non-FBW aircraft requires trimming to maintain level flight. My suggestion is to fly formation and try to maintain a very specific point off the tankers left wing until you have matched speed and adjusted your trim to neutral or very slightly nose up depending on what works best for you. Then maneuver to position trailing the tankers drogue and attempt a hookup. Increases or decreases of speed change the required trim settings because they change the center of lift of the wing either fore or aft. Once you are connected you must still be making minute changes with throttle, stick and trim because as you take on fuel, your aircraft will get heavier necessitating those changes. Being good at formation flying makes tanking so much easier. You should take every opportunity to practice tight formation flying. Good hardware makes precision flying a bit easier as well. Mediocre hardware is not a show stopper though, it just makes things a bit more difficult.

How I think most DCS flyers will react to tanker turn direction announcements.

In a perfect world, the aircraft/LCAC would be full fidelity and ships would all be player controllable. AI almost never does what you want it to do. The AI CH-53 is worse than just low res, it isn't even close to proper scale. We really need a better implementation of combined arms and a way to allow players to man ships and fully control a naval task force. Imagine planning and executing a Marine landing with 20 or 30 of your online friends performing tasking to ensure its success. Getting the forces required to places they are needed, keeping them supplied and supporting them with air support and naval gunfire would be quite interesting and would need good teamwork to be successful. The instant gratification crowd probably won't like it, but those guys aren't really fun to fly with as they don't really have a concept of what teamwork is anyway.

I'd go further than that. I was trying to build an MP base capture/roadblock mission that centers around a Marine landing force. The lack of assets was glaringly obvious. I would go further than the LCAC and Wasp to include San Antonio, Whidbey Island, Austin, Lewis Puller, Montford Point, Newport classes of amphibious ships. I'd also want smaller vessels to support the landing force such as LCM's and PC's as well as a more fleshed out air wing that includes CH-53E, UH-1N, AH-1T/W, CH-46E, MH-60S, and possibly MV-22B. A wider variety of vehicles such as more HMMWV variants, LAV-AT, LAV-M, LAV-C2, LAV-R, M777, FMTV, MTVR, LVS, LVSR, Cougar and JLTV would also be appreciated. The only native DCS USMC assets are the LAV-25 and AAV-7. The Tarawa, KC-130 and AV-8B were added by Razbam and I do appreciate them very much for adding those to DCS world.

TBM-3 Avenger, F4U-4 Corsair, B-26 Marauder, He-219 Uhu, Me-210/Me-410.

The F-4 was referred to as the Rhino before the even the legacy Hornet was a twinkle in its designer's eye. The Super Hornet picked up the moniker because the Navy needed a way to quickly differentiate a Hornet from a Super Hornet around the boat due to the different weights for, mainly, landing.

Thats not just by the road, that is in front of the Threat Training Facility. When on det there and staying in the transient barracks, I would walk past it daily. Lots of cool stuff in there... they even have a Hind.

If you have about two hours its a pretty good watch. There are a few redundancies between the presenters but the cockpit parts were interesting... The B-one can give fuel back to the tanker.

I made a similar argument in a similar thread a few months ago for the F-5F. The systems already exist and the combat capability isn't overpowering. The F-5F would showcase the basic features of DCS very well. It does make the most sense from a capability/feature/financial perspective but the only thing that really kills it, and any other free module, is the two week trial. As for a counterpart to the Toad, another FC3 level aircraft doesn't fit within the DCS mission statement.

Yeah, good luck getting any information on TIALD due to the classification issues you will get from the British MOD. A GR-1A or Jaguar A would probably be the best way forward... am I the only one who thinks the T-2 looks snazzy?