WinterH

I would say that is quite reasonable unless you hit them almost perfectly perpendicularly from the top. Even their side armor is more than what a 20mm semi armor piercing round can deal with reliably. A-10 on the other hand, should do a number on them.

Both would be amazing, naval only would make me turn to Khorne

A boat F-4 is entirely pointless, useless, and a horrible missed opportunity for me.

I remember F-14, Viggen, Mosquito, Mi-24 all being offered as gifts for events long before their release or preorder before. Until we hear from Aerges/ED, it means just what it say on the tin: it'll be offered as a gift to person who watches the stream, to be redeemed whenever it actually releases. That said, I would love it to be sooner than later...

I would expect APHE shells in DCS to not really act like HE, but do more overall damage to a vehicle after a successful penetration than pure AP. Upcoming HEDP shell in Apache should have both anti armor and HE capabilities to some degree, and most HEAT rockets etc are also like that. But since APHE is usually meant to go off after going through some armor, I think in the context of DCS those will mostly be modeled as "AP shells that do more damage if they can pen". I don't really know it for sure, but I'd be surprised if APHE shells work well at all as HE substitutes IRL in most of the cases. In softish earth they'll probably bury themselves before going off, and against hard surfaces they may shatter before fuse doing its thing. Looking at the files listed there however, there seems only to be AP and AP tracer, and taking a cursory look into their data, looks like they are almost exactly the same apart from one having a tracer. Their damage factor is listed the same too, so it doesn't seem like one is AP and other APHE from the current data. Regardless, I'm very happy that now we get both AP and HE shells available at last Edit: took a look at MiG-19's AP vs APHE, and (I know, not an ED module), it looks like it's not modeled in that case as I thought, instead they seem to have same damage factor but APHE has some HE content.

They mean next-gen Heatblur module, it doesn't mean a modern fighter. They've confirmed this a few times as far as I can recall.

I was sure I've replied to this but I guess I didn't click submit reply. A Block 53 F-4E would be pretty damn well representative actually. USAF, Israel, Turkey all got the Pave Spike TGP, perhaps others too not sure. With some loadout restrictions it would also represent others like Egypt, Japan, Germany, Iran as well. As far as I know, the radar and RWR etc are overall the same among most E variants. Block 58 would be a little less representative due to pave tack TGP being very different and as far as I know USAF specific. There were nation specific upgrades eventually, but these were pretty complex stuff which simply weren't F-4E anymore, and they were mostly latter parts of 90s to 2000s era stuff. Yeah it is quite one size fits all as far as it's a mid to late 70s variant, but even 80s variant would be quasi passable for other nations' F-4Es. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to learn more though. Naval F-4 on the other hand, would only represent USN/USMC, or perhaps RN/RAF if you squint hard enough. Not to mention it flat out misses decades long service history all over the world, as well as very cool old school multirole precision attack capabilities, and its gun. All for the sake of landing on a boat or something :). If we only get a naval one, it would be the greatest shame in DCS after ED's killing of F-4E for Meh-16 F-4E is by FAR the better fit for DCS. Ideally, we really should get at least one naval + F-4E, but if we only get one, E really should be the way to go... which is why I'm worried that it looks like Heatblur may be doing the Phantom, as I'm almost sure they'll just do the naval one.

Mi-28's mounting is not nearly as rigid as KA-50, and 2A42 should have plenty more recoil than M230, so I wouldn't be surprised with Mi-28 not being as accurate as AH-64 if that's indeed the case.

And I sure hope it's the E, it would be waste not to have the one with a huge worldwide history, incredibly better ground attack options, and fitting to just about every DCS map/scenario. If we only get a naval one, honestly I'd be happier with no phantom than that...

Some opinions (which is bad idea but, oh well...): - Operationally, M230 uses only one type of ammo: HEDP, 30mm dual purpose round with both HEAT and fragmentation characteristics. It will most likely not be as effective as 30mm pure HE in dealing with soft targets, it will penetrate as much armor under ideal conditions either. - It will penetrate 25mms of armor at any distance, unlike a kinetic round. 25mms is quite enough to deal with great majority of IFV type targets it will engage. - It can very easily point/target/rangefind/gunlay etc with multiple methods, including just looking at the target. It also has enough ammo to saturate the area even if it isn't mechanically as accurate as 2A42 or GSh-30-2. It can do that a lot easier than Ka-50, and it's not even a comparison between AH-64D and Mi-24P for gunlaying. - That said, from most of the IRL footage I've seen, as well as implementation in other sims/games (I know, not necessarily the best source), it does seem to have considerable dispersion, and is even called "area weapon system" apparently. The round almost certainly has less ballistic range than either Ka-50 or Mi-24P's guns, but as long as it can hit something, it'll still go through 25mms of armor (depending on the impact angle of course). Probably it will not really be accurate at extreme range at all, but even with robbie tanks it has enough ammo to "throw enough of it until it sticks" as far as I know. Also worth noting that in Mi-24 we don't even have HE rounds at all for now, for some reason, making the gun borderline useless against blobs of infantry sadly. M230 won't have that problem because literally the only round it uses is a "do it all" round.

Quite simply, if you want air to ground, E is where it's at, but for air to air naval F-4s had a better radar. E already started to get some early precision guided weapon options during Vietnam war, and from mid 70s on it had access to a pretty decent and diverse range of ground attack options as well as early targeting pods. Also, it served more or less all over the world in this capacity, with a few countries still operating upgraded variants to this day. Naval Phantoms had both bigger space avaiable in the nose for a larger radar, and an actually more advanced radar set. They had look down shoot down capability, unlike the E. But they had much less in the way of strike capabilities, and by the time they got most of the advanced air to air capability, they were already second fiddle to F-14. But then, we can say that to some degree for USAF too with F-111, though F-4E has been the premier striker for many other air forces around the world. Naval F-4s didn't stay in service as long, and they mainly served for USN & USMC, apart from a short tenure in UK before getting replaced by British variants (but they were also based on the naval Phantom line). I really, really, reeeeaaaallly very strongly hope which ever 3rd party is doing it decided to do both a 75-80s F-4E AND a naval variant, either J or S. There really is no way to do even halfway justice to Phantom without at least these two variants.

I think Mosquito will probably be able to do so, I also vaguely remember them being one of the aircraft used in intercepting V-1, but don't know if it was our particular version.

Counting the multiple variant DCS aircraft is fun and all. But we must admit the level of differences between a Navy and Air Force F-4 go well beyond them, perhaps upcoming Mirage F1 versions will be somewhat closer, but even those probably won't be as fundamentally different. I'd love if we could get at least 5 F-4 variants across services and time periods, but practically I really don't expect it to happen. Yet... I think getting at least 2 of them is pretty much necessary: a post Vietnam F-4E, preferrably later parts of 70s or maybe 80s, and a naval F-4J or S, either somewhat earlier, or also of the same vintage. Personally, F-4 without said E model doesn't mean anything for me, and I'm sure the opposite is true for many others. Even if they are two separate full price modules, or 2in1 deal, or separate modules but with heavy discount on the other for the owner of either one, these two types are the bare minimum. I don't know if we'll even get that to be honest though... I'm afraid they'll pick one and stick with it much to the chagrin of those that want the other.

All that matters is we hopefully get a 75 to 80s F-4E, anything else is an amazing bonus for me. That E tho... that one is just pretty much necessary for DCS... I am afraid if it is a Heatblur project, they may end up only doing a naval one, in that case it is better off not being made as far as I'm concerned... -_-

Basically this is all that needs to be said. I like DCS for experiencing individual aircraft with their quirks and subjective "feel" as well as objective numbers. I don't give a single damn about potential online competitiveness in team deathmatch. It would be a shame if online competitiveness would be a deciding factor in all module development, as that would preclude some amazing aircraft from being developed, like the very cool to fly I-16 we got. I'm not saying it shouldn't be given any weight at all everytime. But arguing not to get something as iconic and crazy to fly like Mitsubishi Zero just because it wouldn't be most competitive goes against everything I and many others like about DCS.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd much, much prefer 75-89 versions of them first. After that's a done deal, and DCS' environment is more suitable to simulate Vietnam war, I think devs can strip systems/tweak flight models etc for making a Vietnam version for a discounted fee to owners of other versions. And I'd get it myself too. But later 70s/80s F-4E, A-6E, A-7E would all fit into and add to DCS a lot better for now, thus as far as I am concerned these are the correct versions TBH.

And you're almost completely wrong. This isn't about slightly different aircraft, or a few more weapons that can be restricted out. Almost everything even immediately post Vietnam War is vastly more capable then their Vietnam versions in ways that change how they operate. Because that's how tech develops, you fix the deficiencies occured in the last war. But those deficiencies defined the realities of air war over Vietnam: complete lack or very crappy RWRs, often unreliable radars, very unreliable missiles, little to no guided ground attack weapons until fairly late, few aircraft with the ability to be accurate with unguided ground attack weapons, little to no emphasis on agility for the most part etc. MiG-21Bis is a relatively less of far cry, but even it is not appropriate as it just has a lot better thrust, range, and radar than closest variant actually served in Vietnam, the MF. Besides, MF was late and few in numbers, most MiG-21s served in that war were PF, PFM, and even F-13s. Bis is an incredibly far cry from any of those. I've already listed in my post what is correct, what is good enough as a fill-in, and what isn't. Though, I was too generous on the F-5E-3, as it really is superior to any F-5 served in war by some margin. Take that away, we have 1 blue helicopter that mostly fit with very little weapon restrictions, 1 blue attack plane (but it is a mod, making its inclusion on official campaigns for example, rather unlikely), and 1 red fighter in existing modules. So that's like 2 and a half existing modules, and 1 blue and 1 red fighter in upcoming ones. Razbam wanted to make a Bronco at some point, but it doesn't look like in active consideration anymore (I'd love it TBH). A-6 is almost certain to be vastly more capable than Vietnam versions, A-7 is very likely to be so too.

Corsair vs Zero was a thing, and Zero pilots did get kills, yeah, Corsair is superior, but it's not like matchups in DCS aren't lopsided in other periods either. There is enough info to do some of the Japanese birds, Zero being one of them. It's not like P-47 has been easy for ED for example, as many of its docs were apparently shredded when Republic went bankrupt, but using info from whatever's available, still flyable airframes, and CFD analysis, ED pulled through. Also it is always being hinted that ED's CEO loved Hellcat and wants one in DCS at some point. Also shared by ED is a plan to make a WW2 version of Marianas Islands map in future. Leatherneck will also create WW2 pacific AI assets for their module. So yeah, there is a drive for Pacific already. I'm much more interested in Pacific aircraft than Eastern Front, because we have seen a whole lot of Eastern Front since 2001 in various flavors of IL-2 sim series. The last time Pacific birds, especially the Japanese ones done justice was... ? La-9 would be a super weird choice BTW... Only fits Korea. La-5FN or La-7 would make much, much more sense. There are many WW2 Soviet aicraft I like, Pe-2, IL-2, amd a whole bunch of Yak fighters. But I'd rather like seeing less often done periods/theaters at this point: Pacific, Battle of Britain, and in general aircraft from early to mid war.

I am against this idea. Which will prove unpopular I know... but let me list the reasons: - Vietnam when? The conflict lasted over a decade, and aircraft early, mid, and late war are far removed in capability between one another. - Map of the conflict is incredibly HUGE and very densely packed with jungles and cities, more so than any map thus far. - There is a huge cost of opportunity in getting Vietnam versions of aircraft instead of post war variants, later 70s and 80s is one of the best fits for DCS, considering available and upcoming assets, playable and AI alike, as well as the maps. - We don't have appropriate aircraft, let me detail below: My notes next to the type in above quote. We don't have proper AI aircraft, we don't have nearly enough of proper flyable aircraft, relatively little fitting ground assets, and map is mostly unfeasible from what we see in DCS maps thus far. Vietnam War is very interesting, and would be cool yeah. It is not like I dislike it or don't care or anything like that. However, it is far from being feasible when you look at it, and getting Vietnam appropriate versions of the aircraft would be in expense of getting versions that would fit many decades following, with many existing fitting assets that can oppose or ally them. DCS: Vietnam is kind of a pipedream, and we'd better have 75-90ish period better fleshed out instead. After that, and if/when map tech allows for doing the theater justice, yeah, why not. But I'd say Vietnam anytime soon is not as good of an idea as it may seem at first.

If it's a website, and it's the website I'm thinking of, I wouldn't put much faith on what's listed there. Seen it some years ago, and was full of inaccuracies.

Having a naval variant is great, but if it is the only variant, and F-4E isn't there, I personally wouldn't buy it. A naval F-4 can in no way shape or form represent an F-4E. E is just a lot better in strike missions with its oldie targeting pods, self lased LGBs, TV guided bombs, Mavericks, Shrikes etc. And it has a huge worldwide service history, with many conflicts/operations etc. Some countries still fly it. As far as I'm concerned, no F-4 is a lot better than naval only F-4, because then at least there'll be hope someone might still do the E soon.

And why would that be? I'd rather have Pacific planes from both sides than Eastern Front myself.

The two (31 and 25) share little between them beyond a passing resemblance. We can say same family, yes, but they are very much two different aircraft. As for the MiG-25PD in DCS, so far I don't recall anyone showing an interest in that. And an air to air radar with working radar guided missiles would require SDK access as far as I know, barring community mod idea. However, there is one effort at a community MiG-25RBT. Maybe if they can become a 3rd party, they can entertain the idea of a payware PD after it. That is, assuming even the mod become an actual thing of enough quality.

Wow... just please NO. Deka is almost the only dev we can look forward to for getting something different. We already have an ocean of existing and upcoming western aircraft from everyone. Are there western aircraft I'm looking forward to? Yes, many. But I'd still be disappointed if the next deka aircraft isn't something different like JF-17 was.

I'd be happy with more Chinese aircraft though...