ricnunes

Exactly! And with DAS, each F-35 will provide 360 degree vision, namely 360 degree IRST to the network. DAS is another example of something that no other fighter aircraft has, namely with it's 360 degree IRST and all around IR view projected to the pilot's helmet functions.

There's a small error or typo in your post. You said that the F-35A carries 4 x GBU-49 internally but in reality it carries 2 x GBU-49 instead, as the GBU-49 is a GBU-12 with dual seeker (Laser and GPS).

Yes, that's correct! A 2015 F-35A would be a Block 2B which has all the limitations that I mentioned above. Resuming, basically only AMRAAMs and GBU-31s could be employed autonomously by a F-35 Block 2B aircraft and these weapons could only be carried internally which for example means no AIM-9X Sidewinders either as these are carried externally in the F-35. Even the Block 3i which was basically a Block 2B with stability and mission effectiveness enhancements was only completed and started testing in 2016 (and as such, after 2015). Despite being a F-35 fan and as such, DCS F-35A being the module that I'm anticipating the most for DCS, if it isn't a Block 3F then I agree with you that I won't buy it (it will be a hard pass for me either). And not making a Block 3F because of any lack of documentation would be a lame excuse since in reality all the diferences between a Block 2B/3i and Block 3F are all software-wise which allows the usage of the Gun, the ability to carry more types of weapons such as the GBU-49 and GBU-39 SDB, it gives of course the self-lasing capability, adds the ability to carry external weapons (such as AIM-9X, GBU-12, GBU-49, GBU-31, etc...), expands the F-35 flight rules which allows for example the F-35A with Block 3F to be capable to attain 9G's. Resuming, these are all capabilities that a pilot wouldn't notice by simply looking at the cockpit display as otherwise it looks exactly the same as a Block 2B/3i would look.

Then, there will be no gun as well because a 2015 -ish F-35 could NOT fire its gun. And now that we are at it, there wouldn't also be GBU-32's as indicated in the FAQ and also no GBU-12 self laser guidance (yeah, the 2015 -ish F-35's couldn't laser guide their own GBU-12s and had to rely on external laser sources for that!).

Yes, I understand and agree with that. However, I would like to see the GBU-39 confirmed sooner rather than later.

I just checked the FAQ and I was a bit puzzled that I didn't see the GBU-39 SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) listed. I'm aware that the FAQ and the DCS F-35A feature list are still in progress but I think that the GBU-39 SDB should really be added to this module, this for several reasons such as: - The GBU-39 SDB has been integrated in the real F-35A since at least 2020. You can see that here: https://www.twz.com/35931/check-out-this-f-35-dropping-a-full-load-of-small-diameter-bombs-during-test - It gives the F-35A an air-to-ground longer ranged ("stand-off") weapon. - It gives a weapon that the F-35 can carry in large numbers even internally. For example the F-35 can carry up to eight (8) GBU-39 SDB's internally. As such, this is a bit of a request that the GBU-39 SDB be added to the DCS F-35A module.

This just proves how clueless you are regarding these subjects. As such, there's no point continuing this discussion with you. So, whatever rocks your boat...

No, it is not! "Peasants" don't have S-300 SAMs and Integrated Air Defences and Mig-29s and etc, etc... for F***ing Christ Sake! No, it is not! It's preferable not to have a F-35 at all than have a Block 1 or Block 2B or Block 3i.

Far more than Block 1, that's for sure! Absolutely! I guess that @TotenDead has been living under a rock and failed to notice what Israel did to Iran recently with their F-35s (Block 3F's, by the way).

A Block 1 would even be more stupid than a Block 2B or Block 3i. Only a very few Block 1 prototypes ever existed and these would NEVER see combat in any real scenario! F-35 Block 1 was nothing like for example the F-16 Block 1 (for former was simply a prototype while the later an actual in service combat aircraft). Or putting into another perspective, a F-35 Block 1 was like the YF-16. Would you prefer to have in DCS the YF-16 rather than the F-16C Block 50?

Just like any other aircraft in DCS, I want a F-35 that represents an in-service aircraft (which is the case of Block 3F) and not just some prototype produced in considerable numbers (due to concurrency) which is the case of Block 2B and Block 3i. It's not my fault that the F-35 is in itself a "win button" (currently, the best fighter aircraft in world)! Even a Block 2B or Block 3i would still be a "win button" compared to all other fighter aircraft in DCS (due to stealth, sensor fusion and other factors), so I don't get your point as you still wouldn't get the "online balance" that you seem to cater so much (with a Block 2B or 3i) and the rest of us wouldn't get a representation of an in-service F-35 (at least Block 3F). About your last question, that doesn't make any sense because: 1- I do play DCS for simulation purposes in BELIEVABLE SCENARIOS and as such, that includes flying in-service aircraft and not "glorified prototypes". 2- If the problem is on-line balancing then it's very simple: 2.1- Don't add F-35s to online mission, namely those that are team-versus-team. 2.2- Or, only add F-35s to co-op online missions. Simple as that.

Yeap. That too, indeed!

And the gun, and the external carriage of (any type of) weapons, and expanded flight control rules, and 9G capability, and etc... (not to mention the AG weaponry like you mentioned) Anyway, there's lots of improvements and functionalities that weren't implemented or functional in pre-Block 3F F-35 variants. Even more than the ones you can read above. It makes absolutely NO SENSE building a pre-Block 3F F-35, period.

Recently I've been playing with the F-5E (FC version) for the first time and I'm now trying to use the CBU-52 cluster bombs and was going to report an issue with these same bombs when I stumbled across this thread and so, I decided to post here instead of creating a new thread. Basically CBU-52s are unusable since targets hit by their bomblets don't seem to get any damage at all. It's as if the bomblets don't do any damage at all. For instance I attach here the results of a release of two (2) GBU-52 where some of their bomblets hit 3 vehicles (SA-6 TELs) but absolutely no damage was done to the vehicles/TELs. By the way, this bombing was done by releasing the bombs at 6,000 ft (dive bombing pattern) while the vehicles were located themselves at a locating with an elevation of only 33 ft (almost sea level) so the problem shouldn't be not having enough time to fuse and I do see the bomblets explode using external view camera or looking outside the plane's canopy.

First, adding a GBU-54 to the F/A-18C wouldn't be dragging into infinity since and afterall the GBU-54 and its functionalities are already modeled thanks to A-10C2. And regarding your points: 1) Perhaps having modeled a 2012 F-18 would have been better in order to go along with for the example A-10C2 which you mentioned. But on the other hand, there's probably not much diference between a 2005 F/A-18C and a 2012 one, this apart from very small diferences such as carrying GBU-54 which is what's being requested here. 2) I fully and totally disagree with you and I can't see the logic of that reasoning of yours. There's nothing that prevents a 2005 F/A-18 to be fitted in 2012 with a GBU-54. At the same time there's no way on Earth that a 2005 F/A-18 could go back to 1989 (unless someone invents Time Travel!) 3) This argument isn't nearly bad as the ones you gave ("If you want the GBU-54, just get the A-10C2". "If you want the GBU-54 on the F-18, just play a different game"), not even by a long shot! My argument doesn't force you to play like I would like to but your argument forces me to play like you want to. Get the diference? Besides, if I wanted to use the GBU-54 with the A-10C2, I wouldn't be here in this part of the forum (DCS F/A-18)!