exhausted

I thought you were not serious, but null

Hi, it's been a few months and I wanted to see if this was still in the pipeline. Thanks!

Q-5 would be very welcome, any version really

Holy necro thread. yes, post it

By your definition, maybe. But I'm thinking that an aircraft which was designed to operate from carriers, but is put out specifically to not operate on carriers, is losing its function and flexibility. Exactly. It is but a tease that the famous phantom gets its carrier ops clipped at first release. They may not ever do a proper carrier version, as these "promised follow ups" turn to vaporware far more often than not. There's plenty of reason to say they missed the mark with this choice, and a whole lot of people are just going to look the other way until something like a -J comes their way.

I will never understand the ambitious niche versions before the common easy versions, which are likely never to come

To your opinion, are entitled. If you view flexibility as a purely groundbased bomb truck, then sure I get it. But if you view flexibility as a carrier aircraft that can actually operate from a carrier, then this variant is one of the most inflexible.

Last week you said you apologized for the update being light. Last week was good, but this week is light even with the F-15E release. Edited to add my congrats to all who eagerly awaiting the F-15E. It's a great event to have this module added. I'm sure it will dominate the buzz.

Yes, I would expect to hear from all 'teams' in any case

Well, in all fairness what you see in ego-feeding upvotes and the reasons you are seeing those might not match up. By and large, people take special care not to complain around here; it's part of the culture of this postboard even if not everybody wants to live by that vision. They don't all care that you worked on the variant being released at all, they only care that a flyable Phantom II will be offered. I complain because many of us are not sold on the choice to release a land-based version of a carrier fighter first and likely solely. The likelihood of fulfilling a vision to create and release a proper carrier fighter is sketchy at best, which almost every case in DCS will show. So don't confuse popularity for agreement. Like you, those all important upvotes are just people who don't want to hear complaints. Yeah, I'm sure you have a special attachment to the F-4E but at the end of the day your bird has a tailhook and gained its fame in the service of the Navy and Marine Corps. That's what I/we want to see.

Whatever gets us closer to an AV-8B Harrier II Plus.

Like this?

Perfect. That's just what is needed to fly the successful NVAF attack on the USS Higbee and Oklahoma City. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-first-us-navy-ships-damaged-by-air-attack-since-the-end-of-world-war-ii-were-bombed-by-two-north-vietnamese-mig-17-pilots-trained-by-a-cuban-air-force-military-advisor/

This is one of the best updates in a while! MiG-17 is a day 1 buy for me, because I can see that so much has gone into this module by the Red Star team. While I personally have zero value for an Air Force F-4E without any carrier capabilities, I sure don't mind blowing them out of the sky! The Huey campaign looks interesting and I hope it takes advantage of the Caucaus map. Looking forward to it all.

Another reason why I'll be skipping the module until a proper tailhook model.

You can initiate your dive from a lower speed, use airbrake and even nozzles to control speed before you stabilize and fire.

How about we do the Harrier II+?

Thanks for your care and attention

Good questions. -B would be cool, even if it's a Navy-only version. The -E should be divided between early -Es and and late -Es. The late -Es added the flir ball.

Will this considered to fall under Modern or Cold War?

I'm not sure of your angle on this, but I can assure you there is ample footage of Su-25s interacting with matter. They don't go thru it.

ICE would be really awesome, since it was so specialized for service in the current environment.

Mantis, I've read everything I had patience for. I'm seriously not interested in going tit-for-tat over something completely unrelated to this thread. Maybe another place, maybe another time, but not here.

This framing doesn't really seem like you're setting up for much of a debate. I am not sure why we are using this thread to talk about things said or not said in other threads. Sorry you disagree with me, but I have not used myth as fact. Best wishes.

Exactly and I think the radome is unpainted in this one. Also, note the chin sensor does not seem to have the extra bump found in many jets around 1968-1969.