WinterH

I mean, yes, but practically speaking, I'd sooner pick a couple of S-24s myself any accuracy gain with Kh-23 is arguable/marginal, S-24s can have a surprising range as well, and unlike the Kh-23, you can fire them and immediately turn back, thus, they are fire and forget, and more advanced! But yeah, as I've said, it can be interesting to play around with as a novelty of course. That was the MLD, the succeeding, and final variant. MLA should be able to employ R-23 and R-24, both R and T versions, R-60 and R-60M, and most likely later Atoll variants like R-13M/M1. Not sure, I think a later 70s or 80s F-4E can most likely employ better, all aspect Sidewinders, at the very least AIM-9P5 should be an option. But yeah, if Atoll variants are actual options it would make it more flexible. And Viggen has RB74, equivalent of AIM-9L, considerably better than R-60M I'd say

**HAPPY WAAAAAGGGHH NOISES**

Videos are from the earlier versions where CMPTR position of the mode dial wasn't animated yet, and the feature was accessed through the LABS position. You need to use CMPTR position in current version. LABS is a different, older bombing system that isn't nearly as accurate, and is mainly meant for delivering nukes. As far as I know it's not implemented in our A-4 right now, but if you have F-86 you can use it there. Essentially, you fly low, when right over the target press weapons release, and go into a vertical climb. LABS indicator will guide you with needles that you try and keep centered, and the system will release the bomb when it thinks it'll hit the general postcode, or at least the neighboring one

Yeah I think this should at least be a mission editor option like "multi crew enabled/disabled" for individual aircraft put into the mission. I love multicrew in Hind, Huey, Tomcat. But I'd also like to be able to use other positions in a multiplayer session if we will not do multicrew. I get that it's hard to support both at the same time for same unit, hence the suggestion of enabling/disabling it for individual aircraft in mission design stage.

Interceptor and recon/bomber MiG-25s are fairly different I think. Maybe not exactly naval vs air force F-4 different, but still considerably so. Not entirely sure, but I think the SEAD one is based on the recon/bomber line, but even then it has quite a few SEAD related different systems AFAIK. I feel like Aerges' upcoming Mirage F1 module, at least as planned, is very much a megapack, and at least F1M is fairly different compared to other versions, so, who knows? Perhaps someone can do such a MiG-25 module, but I would think that 25 would be a relatively low demand module so don't know if devs would be too willing to go to such heights to create a multi variant module. I personally would hope someone eventually will though! That said, even I'd prefer to first see other, more flexible aircraft first, like MiG-23 itself, and it's ground attack sibling, MiG-27K to follow in another module!

Yup... perhaps add in the MiG-25BM too for the added flavor of SEAD :)) They would each be a one trick pony, but with added Mach 2.8 craziness while pulling off their one tricks!

Yes, though technically you can still do the usual "hover and keep sending missiles" thing with Hind too. It requires the helo to be light, altitude low, temp also not too hot, and the operator needs to first fire the missile looking at the boresight, way up above the target, and gently bring the sight down on the target. That's not a "gamism" either, as far as I know it is sometimes practiced by IRL Hind crews. Still though, as said, it is not really what Hind is designed for, and it can only do so under ideal circumstances. Still though, fact remains that Hind's guidance system is limited to 8 missiles regardless. Looks like this hasn't changed even on Mi-35M.

Sooo loooking forward to it here! :))

Again, any naval phantom can in no way, shape, or form represent F-4E, which is the great majority of the Phantom history all over the world, from USAF service in Vietnam and beyond, to far east in South Korea and to some degree in Japanese services, brief stint in Australia, Greece and Turkey both, and in Middle East with Israel, Iran, and Egypt. Especially Israeli, Iranian, and Turkish phantoms has seen plenty of operational action over the decades. Moreover, in a DCS sandbox environment, aside from historical scenarios, it could work both as a decent if not amazing air to air BVR fighter, and a fairly decent dogfighter (up until F-4S naval Phantoms didn't get E's slats), as well as an attacker a plethora of strike capabilities in 70s-80s scenarios, and even as a supporting underdog up to 90s. A mid to late 70s F-4E would still represent a Vietnam era one decently for air to air and air to ground missions with just some loadout restrictions as well. A naval F-4 would, in contrast, only be a better interceptor with its radar, SEAM mode Sidewinders etc, but even then, historically as a second fiddle to F-14 anytime post Vietnam, with only USN/USMC service, arguably also a brief stint with RN, and little operational history to show for after the 'Nam. It can take off from a boat though, I suppose, worth all the sacrifices for that right? /s Getting both, eventually, would be really nice, very cool even. But a naval bird on its own, can only represent a bare minority of what Phantom is, at the expense of majority of it.

For someone who wants an E like I do, J is firmly in the "better off not even being done" bin. Naval Phantoms had better air to air capabilities like a pulse doppler radar that can look and shoot down, an early helmet mounted sight, and better missiles. However, when it comes to being a multirole aircraft, E was much, much better. It already got early targeting pods in 70s, had AGM-65 Mavericks, GBU-8 and later GBU-15 TV guided bombs, latter of which had man-in-the-loop capabilities, AGM-45 Shrike anti radar missiles, an internal gun, a complex iron bombing computer with many modes etc. And yeah, an actual onboard gun too. Neither J, nor even S would remotely be able to simulate an E in any way. Nor can really E simulate a naval one. ED staff said multiple times in various venues that they aren't the ones making the F-4 BTW. I am hoping very stronglt that it'll be a 75-80s F-4E. As far as I'm concerned it is by far the more interesting aircraft to use, and it just has a way wider history and operators: USAF, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, as well as Japan and Germany with close yet somewhat different variants specific to themselves. Australia also temporarily operated it.

MiG-21 has been a favorite for me since its release. Yes there's been downs, quite a few, and sometimes big ones. But LN kept updating/fixing, and MiG is still charming many newcomers despite being a ln ancient module. They've also shown the courage to release a civilian aircraft for pure joy of flight, which I also respect. F4U and F-8 are both among my most anticipated modules, as well as the teased Su-17 or 22. So yeah, being them on guys, I'm waiting to get them

I have nothing against a naval variant in addition, so long as I get an F-4E. Man, this is one special plane where it's going to be VERY hard to make everyone happy and at the same time not make everyone mad

Eh, so long as it gets carrier peeps happy and let us get the variant the matters, the E, I'm ok. It's not like people aren't taking off and landing from carriers with non carrier capable aircraft in DCS. The only thing that REALLY matters is getting a 1975+ F-4E ^_^ if we only get a naval Phantom it would be so incredibly disappointing and pointless as far as I'm concerned.

First off, if your radar is on, you will be seen on RWRs in search mode, but fi0 mode will not result in any lock or launch warning (aside from on aircraft with missile launch detectors, which are A-10C, JF-17 I think, Mirage 2000 if allowed in mission, and upcoming Apache and Blackshark3). In BVR mode, if your radar is OFF and IRST on, you can lock and shoot targets using any IR missile and they will not get any warning (again, unless it's an aircraft with a MAWS). However, your IRST uses a laser rangefinder, so aircraft with a LWR will get a warning, like Ka-50, and I think also the upcoming Apache. Helmet sight, if used with radar off will not result in any RWR warning. Again though, if an aircraft has a MAWS that'll still go off when you launch a missile.

Eventually, I want them both in DCS! But I'm very happy for the Fitter tease, as it's been one of the top aircraft I've wanted in DCS for many years. They would actually complement each other with a MiG-27K. Su-17/22 for more payload and endurance, also depending on version a lot more SEAD options, MiG-27K for Kaira optical targeting/lasing system.

To be fair, a Fitter would... well... fit for Syria, Iraq, Iran, think at some point Egypt used them too but those were older variants I believe. Also, in Soviet service, they were the staple of Afghanistan campaign, which is rumored to be a teased map in latest ED vid :).

Replying here to avoid discussion in SilverDragon's news/unofficial roadmap thread... Shape of the wings, position of pylons, location and number of wing fences, roundness of the fuselage, what seems like small intakes for systems further back the fuselage, what seems like a round main nose intake with a spike like nosecone etc all point to Su-17/22. Which was also kinda what seemed like under the tarp in previous new year tease image too.

My point of view as well. I came to accept and embrace DCS as first and foremost a simulation of cool aircraft, from anytime, anywhere and that's what I enjoy in it. As far as I am concerned, focusing on historical wars/theaters/periods/campaigns at the expense of other things that could be made but doesn't fit, would be huge loss. That said though, it doesn't need to be 100% this or 100% that. I'd still love Battle of Britain aircraft added for example. As aircraft are built, things slowly add up. Also Razbam seems to make lots of fitting AI assets for their South Atlantic map, with the intent of turning many of them into flyable modules later on. For me, very clearly, this doesn't take away from realism as implied in thread's title in any way, nor do I believe it to be a requirement to stick to realism. As long as depicted aircraft is done with utmost realism possible, I'm happy. Similarly, as long as I can make scenarios in mission editor, simple and complex alike, I don't think boring cockpit simulator thing really occurs, at least not that dramatically. All that's really needed to make that even better is arrival of famed dynamic campaign imo.

Among what's shown in the video, the (hopefully) F-4E tease at the end, and eventual A-6E. Besides those, hopefully dynamic campaign finally. As for the modules, I really hope we can get to experience F4U Corsair and Mirage F1 in coming weeks/months :).

Yeah, there isn't even a vague hint for a MiG-27 from anyone yet. A MiG-27K is among my greatest wishes in DCS right now. Hopefully someday

What Morrow said above. This looks like an invalid weapons config. Easy rule of thumb: Missiles + one type of unguided weapon. There are a few configs that flexes this rule a bit and still work, but if you take missiles + only one rocket type, or only gun pods, it'll work fine. If you try to mix S-13s and/or S-24s with other rockets it still won't work. If you mix S-5s and S-8s, or different kinds of S-8s, they will work, but you will lose automatic sight (ccip-like pipper) Or, like said above, stick with premade loadout options.

MiG-21Bis we have is more capable than those served in Vietnam war (though some may argue it's also somewhat less agile, which I'm not sure if I agree). A-6 and A-7 we are getting will almost certainly be post Vietnam too, with much better capabilities than those in Vietnam. I would hope, same goes for the F-4. Later 70s and 80s is a great period for DCS and it is getting filled up. Even MiG-19 and UH-1 aren't quite the right versions but they are close enough to roleplay Vietnam era birds I guess. For the rest, you'll need to wait for Leatherneck's F-8 which seems to be quite a bit in the future from now, and hope Red Star Simulations can really pull it off with their MiG-17 and become a new DCS dev. F-4 really isn't just about Vietnam, and it doesn't need to be either. Like others have said F-4E has a long and rich history worldwide. It still serves in Greek and Turkish air forces, albeit in heavily upgraded forms. But mostly standard F-4Es still served up until some years ago. Iran still operates F-4Es too.

^This, nowadays Combined Task Force Blue and Red both have access to all liveries for all aircraft. So it's a good way to check what liveries are available for anything

Now I wanna run tests too Thx for the post. As far as I know (not sure tho), GSh-30-2K does not use high penetration sub caliber rounds like 2A42 can, but even then Stryker and AAV does strike me off as potential anomalies, even BMP-2 feels too much tho. Bradley may perhaps be able to resist 30mm AP at that range frontally, not entirely sure.

F-4E and A-6E