ricnunes

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)!

I know there was a thread about this wishlist but and since that thread is now locked and I would really like to add my 2 cents about the subject which I believe are sound and somehow backs up this wish (GBU-54 Laser/GPS fitted to DCS F/A-18C), I took the "liberty" of creating this one. The other thread was locked because ED (backed up by a few members) believe this to be unrealistic because the F/C-18C modeled in DCS is from 2005 while the GBU-54 was introduced/integrated on the F/A-18C in 2012 (some sources indicates sooner but lets stick with 2012) but I fully disagree and here's why: The weapon (GBU-54) was introduced in 2012 which is only 7 years from the service date of 2005 of the F/A-18C modeled in DCS. As such it's not far fetched that 2005 F/A-18C's could or did have been fitted with the GBU-54 seven (7) years later, this without the same F/A-18C's having received any meaningful upgrades in the meanwhile. Which is far more realistic having a 2005 F/A-18 carrying GBU-54s OR having the same 2005 F/A-18C flying in a 1989 campaign (Task Force Challenger), the campaign that comes with DCS F/A-18C? This is obviously a rhetorical question because the answer is clear: It's impossible for a 2005 F/A-18C to fly in 1989 (unless someone invents time travel) but again it's not impossible for a 2005 F/A-18C to be fitted with a weapon that entered in service with the US Navy Hornets circa 2012 (or 7 years later). Yet, ED accepts the scenario of a 2005 Hornet flying in 1989 but not the one that the same Hornet uses a weapon (GBU-54) that came a few years after. Puzzling, I must say! Some users have backed up this ED decision because of the reason above (Hornet being from 2005 while GBU-54 from 2012) but the truth is that if the GBU-54 was integrated in DCS F/A-18C then these same users would still have the CHOICE of not using the weapon. The same applies to mission/campaign builders that have this same opinion. However, having the GBU-54 in DCS F/A-18C CATERS to everyone! Who wants to use the weapon will/could use and who don't, won't use it. Simple as that.

@silverdevil, Thanks for the reply! I just tried it and it seems it worked, thanks!

First of all, I'm not sure if this is the right location to place this topic but if it isn't then sorry (and feel free to change it). Anyway, the point is I believe quite straightforward: Recently I installed a new SSD drive in my gamming PC and my DCS is still installed in a mechanical HDD drive and so my question is, is it possible to easily chance DCS location to the new SDD drive without having to uninstalling and reinstalling DCS (or any other hassle)? And if yes, how? Thanks in advance