exhausted

If install this but disable it using the internal settings menu in DCS, will it still continue to fail integrity check?

The bis is the most bloated version that was obsolescent before it went into production. The F-13 was on par or exceeded its competition, and as was said before became the basis for many similar variants and copies. We would get a LOT more mileage out of the F-13 than we are getting with the bis.

The F-13 wouldn't at all be out of place, since it was in continuous use all over the world. Especially in any Asian map, it has a home. At least as much as our WWII stuff. I may have misremembered the exact type of MiG-21s used, but those Pakistani F-104s were not able to beat the MiG-21's low level acceleration, similar to how American Phantoms were surprised to be outdistanced by MFs in 1972 at low level.

I disagree about the PFM being less desirable because the bis has taken some of its features. First, the PFM is lighter and more nimble than the bis. Second, the PFM has an interesting cockpit and systems setup. Third, the PFM was of a time where it made sense to have a dedicated point interceptor rather than a multirole fighter. I also don't agree the MiG-19P developers stole the F-13's thunder in anyway. First, the MiG-19P is so rare and nuanced that not even MiG-19 fans want to fly it. Second, the F-13 is a much better fighter than both the MiG-19P and the bis. Third, historically speaking, the MiG-21F-13 is the aircraft that famously defeated the F-104s in low level energy fights; gave the Israelis a black eye; challenged US air supremacy over North Vietnam, and kept US fights at bay over Cuba. Further, it was also the basis for the nearly exact J-7I and was the true basis for the MiG-21 Red Eagles program. The MiG-21F-13 is a huge appeal, and the bis is sort of a crutch variant that really doesn't do a great job of representing the MiG-21 in DCS alone, at all.

USAF exchange pilots said the MiG-29Gs were wired for R-27Ts but they were not deployed.

We have a bunch of pretty milktoast trainers. Wouldn't is be great if we also got a MiG-29UB to spice it up? Besides they look cool, in a really ugly way, and have a nice punch.

Hoping for the Belarussian Talisman jammer used in Syria on their antique MiGs

Looks like a C. We are getting the A and I'm cool with that too. How about a MiG-25!?

Excellent work

Perhaps unintentionally, but the Iranian air force is perhaps the best represented in DCS World..... F-14, F-5, MiG-29, Mirage F1, Su-25. You were never going to be without. But yeah, the other poster had a great point about Marine F-4s performing air defense and other rules in the Persian Gulf during Iron Claw.

That's fine, there's even demand for DCS: I-16 and Yak-52. I would never suggest there is no audience for those choices. I'll be skipping the F-4E, but if we ever see a proper naval variant then I'll jump on it. Well, the Air Force flew the F-4Gs after the Cold War, but that's not the version we are getting. I am not sure the F-4Es survived in service after 1991, except as target drones. Marine F-4Ss made it to 1992, and surely would have had a role in any Cold War scenario involving Europe. I would even say there is no exact science since even retired birds continue flying, such as the F-117s. Now, I can't really be sure of Heatblur's motives, but I would think that lack of anticipation that there would be such a preference for carrier capable F-4s would likely be the biggest reason. Who really knows?

I want to be sensitive here, but I still want to acknowledge that the US operated F-4s from the carriers literally all over the world. They performed deterrence the Med, operated off Cuba, Korea, Taiwan, USSR, China, Africa and of course Vietnam. They operated in more places than the Air Force took the F-4E. Then, there were the land based squadrons of F-4Bs, Js, Ns and Ss. I think it's time to put the idea that naval operations in the Phantom were a tiny footnote of its history. Quite the contrary, if it wasn't for the Navy then the Phantom never would have been and the Air Force would have been flying upgraded F-100s and F-104s over Vietnam until 1973. Literally every post-1945 map in DCS has a place for some type of Phantom naval ops.

You could add a carrier group to any map with 90 miles of water from the coast, and you missed Syria, Marianas and upcoming Kola.

Our map sizes are fine for the task -- the Marines and Navy operate both from land and sea. Yankee Station was 90 miles off the coast. The Marine base at Da Nang was 90 miles from the border and housed half a dozen F-4 squadrons (Bs and Js). I'm not sure where you are going with that track, especially since Heatblur is most known for bringing the F-14 to DCS.

You don't have to go in circles at all. There are F-14 versions promised but not released. This is very much a justification to believe that a distantly planned derivative of an unfinished module is even less likely. If you judge that to be 'more likely' then whatever metric you're using to determine that is fine. You can have your opinion and I'm not going to disregard it just because I disagree with it.

That's cool that you're individually enthusiastic and all, but you mention objective reality, well I have news because Heatblur is still trying (?) to fully deliver the F-14 after a few years. It is an older module and there's no end in sight. Argue with that all you want, but as long as you are grasping at objective reality, don't forget that vaporware is a significant portion of DCS and these modules all take several years. Either way, enjoy the F-4E all you want -- I'll enjoy it when the more iconic naval models get on scene.

I agree with his post. The Marine and Navy jets are by far the most recognizable Phantoms, being carrierborn masters of the air and the ground. I think that those who also share that concern have shown valid reasoning here. We are not at all saying Heatblur won't do eventually do a naval Phantom in the next 5-10 years, but I would be very surprised. For all the expected fanfare of the F-4, just don't be surprised if you see a lot of people holding off for a proper 'tailhook' version.

I hope for their safety and prosperity.

I don't want to say anything beyond the pale, so I'll tread carefully. I'm not sure if employment of russians in a "military simulator" during a time of untold war and bloodshed is a policy that is helping the arc of the game into areas with very high demand. How can that be safe?

What is the purpose of continuing to follow russian laws? I'm not saying they shouldn't follow laws just because russian doesn't. I'm simply asking what the hang up is and how to overcome it? Nothing is insurmountable.

This would have made plenty of sense, then they could have gone off and done the special variants people are asking for: J, S, E, G, K. I would tend to agree... promises or not, the devs are not bound to deliver anything that is not being sold or binding them contractually. All the info about doing a proper naval variant is purely speculative at this point.

Do you guys still fly Beta exclusively? I'm looking at groups on Stable.

Sure, thanks for wanting to understand. Imagine firing up a dogfight server and using those precious initial seconds to set your switches and trim your plane. But instead, you are blocked by the random appearance of your pilot's 'body'. Since my keybinds are usually custom and I never actually desire to use this, er, 'feature', I don't always have a keybind available to switch off the pilot body. The game seems to have a bug where pilot bodies can show up randomly during spawn, blocking switches and other important information. I use Stable exclusively. The 'feature' is an annoyance and I can't believe it's still a focus of such involved development when it is neither wanted, appreciate or reliably implemented. See the DCS L-39 for the worst possible implementation, so far.

If the body feature can be done flawlessly, then I have no problem with it. This feature has never been flawless and I'm perfectly happy not needing Shift+P, or any other keybind.

Choose F-5 instead?