lmp

I don't believe the 9.12 supports R-27T/ET/ERs. Only R-27Rs.

The Western jets also have a huge SA advantage thanks to their RWRs, TWS radars, datalinks, superior human machine interface... It's not that visible in a straight up 1v1 or 2v2, but with multiple flights on both sides coming in at different angles, altitudes and ranges things will get very tricky for the Fulcrum. It will really benefit from a good human intercept controller.

What I'm trying to say is we have a good base for 80/90s scenarios. There's already a bit of single player content set around the fall of USSR (the free Hornet campaign, the latest Tomcat campaign just to name two) that works well. In addition to the Mirage, Tomcat and restricted Hornet we have a few second rate aircraft like the F-5E and MiG-21bis, which are 70/80s versions, still very much in use in the early 90s. Hopefully ED return to the late F-4E Phantom after they do the MiG-29. That thing will sell great and hopefully get more people interested in the period. The Fulcrum will not be out of place at all.

We actually do have peer contemporaries already in the excellent F-14 and solid Mirage 2000C. Also the Hornet, with some house rules (no 120s/9Xs, HMCS, maybe no datalink?) can represent a 80/90s bug pretty well. All these aircraft will have an advantage in the BVR arena, primarily due to better SA, but the MiG will eat them up close - as it should. It's less a matter of having modules and more a question of whether people want to play such Cold War scenarios.

Not everyone. I'm glad that we're getting a variant which saw widespread adoption and fits a lot of historical scenarios.

A very complex, very obscure aircraft, not fitting any of the maps and assets, in the most saturated class in DCS besides WWII fighters... Just what we all need.

There's a lot more to advanced systems modelling than just a clickable cockpit. The FC3 MiG has a lot of simplifications, inaccuracies and omissions that will hopefully be fixed by the full fidelity version.

I guess it's one of those things were you have to figure out what works for you. I look at the basket when I'm connecting, then at the tanker once I'm plugged in. I don't find the S-3 any more or less difficult than the other tankers. I also prefer a fairly slow approach (~1kts difference). I think a lot of the posters put too much emphasis on fairly unimportant details. It all comes down to knowing where you have to be (figuring out the proper sight picture) and then not overcorrecting. The rest is just a bunch of mind tricks to help you along the way. Go ahead and try them, but don't treat any of them as gospel.

The Mirage 2000C is also a pretty good fit both in terms of capabilities and age.

Another day I dropped an LGB at a target and only then realised the laser was off. I managed to flip the switch, enable trigger lasing and manually lased the target until the bomb hit. I don't know if automatic lasing would have started in this scenario, but if not - here's a reason to use the feature.

The Apache that was hinted at before was the A, not the D variant we're getting. I suppose that's the "brain melting" part of the reveal. As for the MiG-29, I believe it was confirmed on the Russian discord today as well.

Maybe it's a good thing they put off the Phantom for now... Hear me out! I want the Phantom as much as the next guy, but it's another very complex aircraft. Doing it alongside the also complex Apache Longbow and not as much but still pretty complex Fulcrum when the goal is to not have another Viper release... Might just not be feasible. And if the third party is Heatblur, we shouldn't have much to worry about.

Yeah, the MiG-29 9.12 is certainly eagerly awaited by me. Especially if other Cold War jets follow. The 2000+ roster is pretty saturated now, considering all the aircraft that ED can't do.

Depending on how you count the Gazelle, it could be the second one. It is going to be in a class of it's own in terms of capabilities. I still want the Hind more, but hey, at least it's not another JDAM truck.

And that's why having the content split into many modules is a bad idea. Campaign creators have to choose between including a lot of the cool payware content in their campaigns (and lose customers who won't buy a bunch of expensive modules just to play 10 or 20 missions) or using it sparingly (and lose customers who are tired of the same 10 year old content). Same goes for MP hosts. Adding a low poly variant to the base game for free would solve this. Another alternative (less optimal for the player but still) would be to bundle units with maps where it makes sense. Having an Argentinian Navy unit pack bundled with the Falklands map would make sense. Few people would want to use the units and map separately.

Congrats! I'm glad you're seeing progress. Keep at it! The best way to tell your distance to the BRC is to read it off your HSI - it's in the bottom right corner of the screen, over the CSEL text (page 101 of the quick start manual). I found different values in different sources, I aim for about 1.2C. No guessing needed, just make sure you put the HSI on the RIGHT DDI, not the left one - advisories on the left one will cover this information. If you're at the right speed and pulling the right amount of Gs in your first turn and you end up too close to the carrier anyway, maybe you're too far to the right on your upwind leg? I tend to fly at 0.2C and it works for me.

I think the main thing you're doing wrong is trying to learn the whole procedure all at once. This way your errors compound - you mess up your first turn and then when it's time to get on speed, you're correcting for whatever errors you've made in the previous step. Then, before you're properly trimmed, at the right altitude and on top of things, you already have to start your next turn and so on. Instead of focusing what you should be doing now, you're fixing what you've already messed up and running out of time before you have to do the next step of the procedure. I'd do this instead: First, instead of going for the tactical landings (CASE I/II/IIIs, overhead breaks etc.), practice a classic rectangular traffic pattern and make it a biiig pattern at first. That'll let you learn to get on speed and get a feel for the low speed performance of the jet. You'll find the Hornet is actually quite easy and forgiving to land (easier than the Viper for sure!) :). Then break up your CASE I into individual steps and practice them separately until they feel right and you're happy with them. This way you won't always be behind what the aircraft is doing and correcting errors from the previous steps. So do your first turn, focusing on the entry and exit parameters only. Then, once that is comfortable, practice getting on speed quickly without losing altitude. Then put the two together...

An EW plane would be a lot of work for not enough market appeal. Nothing exciting is happening in the pilot's seat, you can't really conduct any mission by yourself, and on a successful mission you don't even see any weapons being fired, let alone pull the trigger. It's still better than an ASW platform, but nope, not happening. Regrettably, I don't think ED is willing to move too far out of their money printing comfort zone of the Western multirole fighter.

Selling a new module and marketing it around side by side multicrew would be in bad taste when there are two modules released years ago that already advertise that as a future feature. As for ASW, I don't see a point. It would require a whole new layer of simulation (or several), there's no fun in it for the pilot and there's next to no spectacle. Your prey cannot shoot back and there's very little interaction with anything already in the game. An AEW platform would be better. An E-2 perhaps for the added challenge of carrier ops. It would at least interact with the existing units (and since there may be an IADS module on the way...). But it's still a long shot.

Precisely. It doesn't fit in with ED's profit first approach. It's too obscure and too much of a one trick pony for them. Look at it this way. They already started working on the Phantom. Now they want to do this thing (instead? along side?). It has to be something of at least comparable notoriety or capabilities. The F-111 isn't. As for the other criteria... You really have to squint hard in some cases. Brain melter? Why, what does it have or do that some other aircraft doesn't already? I mean a qualitative, not quantitative difference that really matters. A few more LGBs doesn't cut it. Neither does a WSO sitting side by side rather than in the back/front. That's a programming challenge, not a new brain melting feature. Also, is it really difficult to fly? Maybe I don't know about some particular characteristic of the thing, but swing wings and non 9G rated airframe alone doesn't sound particularly challenging. Is it 100% certain that this thing has to be American? I know it's not "red" but maybe European or Israeli or something else? Maybe something that they once said they wouldn't do somehow became possible?

What's the selling point of the F-111 though (as a DCS aircraft)? Do you believe the sales would justify the considerable expenses?

Here's another idea: F-117. Not old, not new? Check. Complex? Check. Challenging to fly? Check. Brain melter? Check. Recognizable, guaranteed seller? Oh yeah... Likely? Probably not. But it would tick all the boxes :).

The Super Hornet reached IOC in 2001 unless Wikipedia is lying to me. That's 20 years ago, our current Hornet and Viper variants are about as old. The F-111F was being produced in the first half of the 70s. That's half a century ago. I think the Superbug fits "not the latest thing but not old either" better. Is it another boring JDAM truck? Absolutely, but I don't see people getting tired of them. One thing that doesn't fit is the challenging to fly bit. Unless you consider all carrier aircraft hard to fly. I hope I'm wrong about this, I think it would be a waste of time, but I can't discount the possibility. The F-111F on the other hand doesn't seem to fit ED's profit first approach. It's not sexy. It's not very multirole. It's not ideal for single player. I'm not saying it's 100% not happening but I don't understand the confidence that it's the only possibility.

Super Hornet? I don't know if it counts as "not new new". I think it's a boring choice but JDAM trucks sell and there could possibly be a military contract for it? Plus it would go well with the supercarrier and all.

And this is the reason why I doubt we'll get the F-111 from ED. All of their latest modules (at least the complex ones, that got more than a single trailer worth of promotion) were obvious sellers. The F-16 and F-18 are the first things that come to mind when thinking of modern multirole fighters, the Hind and Apache are the best known helicopter gunships, the hinted MiG-29 is going to sell like hot cakes as well. The F-111? Definitely much more niche. ED have said that when choosing the next module they focus on profitability first so unless they have some big government contract, I don't think we'll be seeing many niche aircraft from them. I think it's a shame, but such is the nature of business.