WinterH

TERNAV navigation database, Mjölnir standoff submunition dispensers, Rb 74s (AIM-9L equivalents), RB15F antiship missiles are what I can remember but this thread has the more exact answer: With some restriction of loadout, and disabling TERNAV it is very close to an 80s AJ 37.

Depends on what are expecting to see in the mission. I have tested SAPHEI against infantry and light-ish APCs, and it seemed to perform appreciably worse than HE or AP against their respective intended target, but at the same time you are not shooting 4 useless and 1 useful round depending on target type. Personally, while I haven't heavily tested it yet, if I would be facing mostly infantry and trucks, I would take 4 HE + 1 AP mix. SAPHEI shell's blast radius seems really smaller than HE as far as I can see. Still though, if expected threats/targets are varied between soft skinned and light armor, SAPHEI is the only option even if it takes more careful aiming then HE against soft targets and AP agaist harder ones. If however, you know that you are going against mostly soft stuff, pure HE definitely beats other options.

Yeah the difference is, you don't actually need to resort to gunpods this time around... As much as I love Russian aircraft, at that poit it' would not DCS for me anymore. Besides, like Northstar said above, even with FC3 you need to have some information about the way sensors/systems work, as well as, with the current level the bar is set even for FC modules, proper flight characteristics data.

MiG-21Bis: engaging with all its quirks and flight characteristics, can do surprisingly ok as a ground attacker too. F-5E: Also very nice, and a good blue counterpart to MiG-21, though I personally find the MiG more engaging Viggen: Very unique and cool, but takes some getting used to what we have is a 1996 upgrade, but it isn't too far from an 80s bird either F-14: Flight characteristics are just very engaging, difficult to get the most out of, but can be a great performer if you can the best out of it. Module comes with different variants. If you are into helicopters, both UH-1H and Mi-8MTV2 are excellent modules Mirage 2000C, this is a late 80s update as far as I know. It has a lot of fans, but I prefer others listed above myself. It is the most agile and easiest to fly though, and in many ways will be the most familiar one compared to what you may be used to from FC3 birds. The period you are interested in offers some of the best DCS modules in my opinion, so it is hard to go wrong with any option.

I think GSh-30K is slightly different than original GSh-30-2 in that it features a selectable fire rate between 300 rpm and 3000ish. Since a Mi-24 is not a Su-25, high fire rate setting will probably be a rarity to use, perhaps in short bursts from high speed attacks, on area targets. There is a video of a Mi-24P firing the gun at high fire rate in a very short burst, and it is visibly jarred around. In 300 rpm setting though, it should be fairly accurate, but even then still with short bursts probably... we'll see

30 should be just fine against IFVs and APCs, and in very marginal cases may even at least hurt tanks. I wouldn't rely too much on the latter though, unless we go the full propa' orky waaaaghh route with appropriate life expectancy after the attack 30 should do fine against great majority of light armor. At least as fine as such things can do in DCS. Superhinds do actually serve with a few customers actually I think, one being Azerbaijan. But in very small numbers, and frankly it really is a very much fringe part of Hind history/family. All those stuff bolted on it has apparently rather upset its flight characteristics too, but it got some nice systems/weapons. (ok looked it up a bit, various marks of superhind is apparently in service with a few militaries in decent numbers apparently, but still very much a fringe thing, like a MiG-21Bison, F-5S, F-4E 2020 Terminator etc).

I wouldn't consider it bad, but honestly, I wouldn't consider it good either. Depends on purpose. Every bit of info I could find online tells me that 23x115 is relatively bad when it comes to armor penetration, and it seems like there never was a specialized round with high velocity high density penetrator to rectify that. On the other hand, rounds have pretty decent amount of HE content in them, GSh-23 is a fairly high fire rate, decently accurate, and very lightweight gun, but with quite low muzzle velocity. It is just obvious this was designed as a lightweight air to air fighter gun, and is quite alright in that kind of use. It is also quite good for strafing soft targets thanks to high fire rate and good HE payload in rounds. But low veloicty = relatively short range, parabolic trajectory, longer shell flight time, and finally comparatively bad armor penetration. So depending on what you want to with it, it is either a fairly decent, or pretty bad gun. I just wouldn't put any faith in it against any of the thougher IFV armor out there, and certainly not in a more than minimal threat environment. On the flipside, it can be really good for strafing an area full of infantry/artillery pieces/trucks etc, as long as there isn't a MANPADS or even AAA defending it. As a helicopter turret gun, my opinion on it remains that... it just isn't particularly great for the task, but then, neither is YakB. You also need to remember that a classic Mi-24 has no fancy aiming for the gun turret: it just looks at whereever the periscope is pointed by the gunner, but without any ranging... No helmet tracking either. It is not like Ka-50 or AH-64's gun at all. It is probably a lot different in Mi-35M, but a Mi-24V or VP won't have any kind of target tracking, rangefinding, or helmet coupling available for the gun turret, and the gun itself is a lot more limited in its capabilities compared to most other turret guns on other attack helicopters. Moreover, the range of YakB or GSh-23L may be further limited in a Mi-24 due to lack of any rangefinding/auto gun laying, coupled with sight field of view if you try to shoot at a distant target in high magnification, elevating the sight enough may perhaps put the target out of its field of view etc. As for the DCS armor penetration, it is iffy especially in some units like Stryker for example, but honestly, it seems to have improved a lot more in last year or so compared to what I remember from it. What I'm trying to say is, in the very specific case of Mi-24, having a fixed gun instead of available turret options is not that great a loss as one may think at first glance. Don't get me wrong, I still think it would be cool if we get a V or 35M down the line, I'd love it in fact! But P makes more sense than many people are willing to give it credit for.

It is not more dakka though. It is A LOT LESS dakka in fact 23x115 out of a GSh-23L is not remotely comparable to 30x165 out of GSh-30K. I mean yes, turreted vs fixed, yes, that is a factor, and I would love seeing a turreted Hind eventually, but really, the movable guns put on Mi-24 were never impressive weapons, especially in the context of DCS where ground units can be deadly and though. Also if we get a turreted Mi-24, I don't think it would be a VP, as that was very much a rare, fringe sort of variant. V would be more historically relevant, iconic, and cool in my opinion. I remember reading pilotmi8 (project leader for Mi-24 development as far as I know) saying that if they consider an additional Mi-24 variant it wouldn't be VP, but something later like Mi-35M but with recent news on Blackshark 3 going the dodo's way I am not sure if that will be too likely. Though, if it does happen it too shall have the 23mm like the VP. Also, right now in DCS YakB is a bit better in armor penetration than GSh-23, which may well be realistic actually. They are both bad against even light armor, but 12.7 works a little better, while the 23 is better against soft targets due to HE shells. I've tested 23mm guns on some relatively light APCs/IFVs recently: It takes some effort... later on I've tested both NATO .50 can and Russian YakB 12.7x108 in the scenario and they penetrate and deal damage a lot more consistently.

I think almost all Spanish F1s Had Cyrano IVM, so in theory should be mostly similar, though it appears there were still updates throughout the service life of Mirage. There's some cool info here, but since I don't speak Spanish, had to read it with Google Translate: http://fdra-aereo.blogspot.com/2013/04/cazabombarderos-los-mirage-f1-espanoles.html As for the variants and diminishing returns, in case of F-4, as I've said many times, experience and features offered by different years/variants are so different, doing only one will inevitably end up with fans of the other kind of experience stomping their feet and not getting the module I for one, *need* F-4E Block 53 or 58, but would probably also get a naval one after that one too, but if we only get a naval Phantom, I'll get it on a 50%+ sale at some point, perhaps. For others, it is the other way around. Phantom is one of the rare cases where multiple variants seem very desirable for community. However, given the differences, I don't know if amount of shared development be enough to make it feasible for developers, I certainly hope they are. Quite honestly though, while I would love for as many variants as possible to be a thing, I don't see more than 2, or 2.5 (3rd one being a similar/slightly older/newer version of one) being likely, if that.

Same exact preferrance for me as well, and by far. And hence my reservations for making one that lands on carrier instead. Because if we get a carrier bird only, it will not be interesting in the least for me, it will not have anything of F-4E experience.

I'd also be plenty happy for it to be HB, and plenty bummed&annoyed if it isn't also F-4E but a naval-only F-4. They are quite different birds alright, naval and air force ones. While I definitely want the E, naval ones are interesting in their own rights too, so to do the Phantom justice, you really need at least one of both. If not possible though... E covers a lot more worldwide service, and more importantly for me, it is just plain better as a striker. Naval ones on the other hand, are a bit better as interceptors because their radar has look down capability, unlike E, and well bigger nose=bigger radar=more powerful. E on the other hand has old school targeting pods, mavericks, GBUs, Shrikes (though maybe Shrike is there for naval ones too not sure). Their differences were discussed in this thread a few times actually. Radar, cockpit, flight characteristics, many systems, weapons, etc are quite different between the two. Though, I suppose later naval phantoms also got slatted wings, so their flight characteristics got closer probably. Slats made Phantom lose a bit of speed, but improved its turning ability a bit as well. There is also the matter of what flavor/era of Phantom. Vietnam birds, especially the early on, had a lot less in the way of avionics and weapons, and their engines were very smoky. Old RWRs, no slats until late, no decent air to air missiles, and for a good bit no gun, even externally. Any guided ground attack options also came late in war as far as I know. After Vietnam War, naval F-4s didn't get a lot of involvement in active conflicts as far as I know. F-4E, on the other hand, became the original strike-fighter, multirole fighter etc, as we know it today, and served with many countries, and still does today with a few. And it has been busy after the end of Vietnam War as well. A pre-mid70s Phantom is not the same as a later one, neither for air to air, nor for air to ground. A naval one vs land based one is also very different in their abilities. You want 60s-70s dogfights? Or 70s-80s interceptions? Or point strike, or CAS? Naval vs land, and early vs late (by late I mean about 75ish and up to 80s) Phantoms are mutually exclusive in the taste they offer, and one will not do anything for people looking for what the other provides. This is one aircraft where you just can't get away without at least two very different versions, one E and one naval. But even then, which naval one (J or S? or N if you want more old school?)

Just a slight technicality, Kate is COO (Chief Operations Officer) as far as I know, and Nick is the CEO

Well hate to be that guy, but the latest we have heard about Phantom was a good bit after that video, from Kate Perederko, just after Apache reveal video as far as I recall. If translation wasn't erroneous, it was along the lines of "F-4 will eventually be done, probably by a 3rd party, version not clear" which is profane blasphemy to my ears I am still semi hopeful that at the end of this year or the next, the next big reveal to follow may be resumption of Belsimtek's F-4E Block 58, or maybe just one block earlier. Viper and Hornet should be mostly wrapped up by then, and I don't think MiG-29A will tie down development team for too long as it already has lots of what it needs available as a base in FC3. Assuming Longbow will be worked on by another team, this may free up one team for continuing, or probably more like restarting the F-4E project. Edit: It's number 17 here: I read it as potentially meaning it might be in Heatblur's "broader plans", which would hint at it being a naval F-4 instead of actual F-4, which is F-4E, which, unless comes also with F-4E, would be a horrible shame.

Oh yes, I didn't think of the bridle vs launch bar situation, of course! They probably served with last naval Phantoms on bridle equipped ships. As far as I know, yes, and in my case throttle and yaw axes weren't working for me until I deleted and re-did input assignments.

Not entirely. Navy retired A-4s in mid 70s as Mud has said above. That would make it possible for earliest Tomcat versions being able to serve together with A-4s but we have later Tomcats. Marines operated the Skyhawk up to mid 80s apparently, choosing not to get A-7. But they were mostly more upgraded versions: A-4F which is kind of similar to a degree, and A-4M which is quite different. Don't know if they were operated on same ships with Tomcats though. In the end though, what matters is what you want to see, if you want to make a mission with F-14 escorting A-4, why not? :).

From the top of my head, the things Block 40 could have over what we have are: - Aptly named WAR HUD, wider HUD with a lot of field of vision, and can display FLIR image overlay like Harrier - TFR that comes with LANTIRN pod - LANTIRN TGP, a version of which we have in Tomcat, older, less capable TGP, but still good enough to get the job done for the most part - Not entirely sure, but I think some Block 40s had Harpoon, I don't have F-16 module, so not following closely but as far as I know ours isn't Harpoon capable - Again, not entirely sure, but I seem to recall that Block 40 is lighter than the 50. However, I think engine has less thrust too, so not sure if it will be considerably better in handling. Very anectodal memory: but I recall reading in a few places that Turkish built Block 40s had later higher thrust engines and thus are among the better dogfighting variants of F-16C. But we'd likely get a USAF one even if we get a Block 40. Actually my story about TurAF F-16s might be more about Block 30s/40s rather than 40s/50s. It would obviously lose other things, like having an older version of the radar, no HTS pod for better HARM modes, no access to JHMCS, possibly no AIM-9X but not entirely sure, and advanced TGPs like Sniper XR or Litening II would be replaced by older LANTIRN. It would be cool to get, but I am really not sure if it would really be all that different of an experience compared to modern bird we have. WAR HUD would be interesting though, that's for sure. Older F-16C blocks like 25 or 30 would make dogfighting/maneuvering enthusiasts happier I think, and would also fit into burgeoning late Cold War set up a lot better. They were considerably lighter as far as I know. They would also lose most of the ground attack capabilities, but hey, at least Mavericks would still be possible. I think Block 30s did get AMRAAMs eventually, but that can be limited in mission design for Cold War servers. Sparrow equipped F-16 was really late, and a rarity as far as I know. F-16A would really be a different experience, but that single "MFD" with 8 segment characters will not be to everyone's taste, and I can see many people becoming mad over no BVR capability at all :P. But it would be a great aircraft to have for 80s scenarios. Would be at home with F-14A, Mirage 2000C, and upcoming modules like MiG-23MLA, MiG-29A, Mirage F.1 etc. Interesting enough for ED to put in the effort and make after finishing the current one? I don't know... Do I want F-16 to take yet more effort from birds I would like instead? I also don't know. But I know one thing: Personally don't care much about F-16C Block 50, and I don't have it, don't intent to buy it at any point. When I feel like flying a modern multirole F-16C, I do have that other sim for that anyway, which is rather rare. But, even I would probably buy F-16A or C up to Block 30, as it would be a different experience, and would also fit 80s-early 90s modules in DCS.

Yep, would love both AH-6 and AH-1F.

Well unfortunately, your list is very much post cold war, oldest I think being F-14B we have, and even that is about mid 90s. Originally Razbam was considering a late 80s-early 90s F-15E, but apparently now it is going to be another 2000s version, so be ready to enjoy a bazillion MFD pages or two I guess. So if you want a Cold War American air power, the only thing that is missing is... well... everything Ok, to be fair, the naval side is getting populated with F-8J, A-7E, and A-6E in future, and we are getting 80s F-14A too (the current A is too similar to B I think, it even still has TGP, so probably a late bird?). We also have UH-1H. And we have the lovely free A-4E which recently even got an EFM, so it finally feels proper in all the ways! But the aircraft you listed are all very much post cold war, earliest being mid 90s. As for the Cobra... I am torn between a mid or late 80s, or up to early 90s AH-1W and AH-1F from the same period. I would really hope that it will NOT be a 2000s or 2010s W, or Z. We will have Apache to sctach that itch, which is cool. AH-1W or AH-1F would be a very nice blue counterpart for upcoming Mi-24P, and a very different experience compared to 2000s AH-64D we are getting. W is twin engine, and a Marine attack helo that would look rather nice on Tarawa (even if it may not be period correct). It would have Hellfires too. F on the hand, is also quite iconic with its angular canopy, assuming same team develops as the Huey, it will have more in common perhaps. Lack of Hellfires would make it an interesting counter part to Hind: Cobra F would have sloooow and relatively short ranged TOWs, but much better sighting system and a swivel mount 20mm gun which follows helmet sight. Depending on the year, AH-1F can also have night capability. Really torn between W and F. I really want to say that I want both, but from developer's point of view, they are too similar in what they offer to consumer, but too different to easily do both. Regarding F-15E, I wonder if it will have AGM-130, or will it be too late a version for that. Would be a new and interesting weapon in DCS. Fairly long ranged missile with man in the loop capability, but not to the extent of a lot more advanced such weapons we have in Hornet, Viper, and Jeff so it would still be somewhat more challenging to use.

You know, at first I was thinking that Max1mus had a few points, but then his posts went down the deep end. Sir, I think it would serve you the best to wait for arrival of MiG-29K in War Thunder, or may be wait for MAC, because that is more or less what you ended up asking for. While, I personally remain fairly indifferent to DCS: MiG-29A, but I'm very happy seeing a lot of people are excited for it. Maybe this will give ED the message that such aircraft can do well in sales. And yeah, if people care for believable and interesting PvP period for public air-quake, 70s-80s is the best bet. But those servers are essentially free for all, and they will naturally include everything available in sim including the most modern ones. So if one's interest in DCS is primarily playing on those, they should really just accept the status quo will not chage there. Adding fudged up, low fidelity modern red aircraft just to try to change that is not a solution for anything really...

I probably wouldn't still be with DCS if it was a single era fleshed out. For all the criticism I had for it over the years, one thing that made me stick from day one, still doing so today, is that we get to taste aircraft from all over the world and all over the history. While I also am firmly in the "more 80s please" camp, I most certainly wouldn't like it become only 80s for example. I much, much prefer miles wide, inch deep over miles deep but inch wide. As for the DCS: MiG-29A, it is a false savior in my eyes. It adds hardly much over what is already possible with FC3 version. It is the same aircraft, with same capabilities, and same flight characteristics. It IS already in the sim. It helps neither with fleshing out 80s, nor with giving the red side new blood, both things I want to see in DCS the most. If we were talking about a new, unique flyable 80s aircraft in the sim like a MiG-27, Su-17, MiG-25, even Su-15, I'd be jumping for joy. I'd be highly happy, for a more modern Russian plane as well, even if less so than I'd be for an 80s one. Because an actually modern Russian bird would be something different, but we know that ain't happening. DCS: MiG-29A, I honestly see no point in, I will still get it probably, but only to "support full fidelity ED modules of red birds".

Well, one thing seems certain: the AI we are getting is at least a TRAM. But, that doesn't mean eventual DCS: A-6 module will be exactly the same variant as AI object is. We have a list of modules like that: F/A-18C vs F/A-18C Lot 20, F-5E vs F-5E-3, and we have like what 4 F-16s in mission editor? Heatblur folks have already said since this announcement that it is too early to talk about what variant will the upcoming module be. I would personally be very happy with TRAM with WCSI, so a mostly early to mid 80s one I think. It would be TRAM + ability to use Harpoon and AGM-123 SKipper, which is essentially a laser guided bomb with a rocket motor strapped to its back :). That would be a happy medium of old-school and modern without losing all the analogue oldy-timer A-6 vibe. But I'd be happy with before WCSI TRAM too, or a SWIP, or even an A-6A really. TRAM + WCSI is definitely my first choice though

Yeah, no E = might as well be no F-4 for me. Though for a naval variant, I can see arguments for both later ones, and earlier J, as J saw more conflict, and was also used by UK in addition to USA.

Like Northstar said above, differences between AJ and AJS are relatively little: TERNAV, BK 90 capability, RB 15F capability, I think also the RB 74 (AIM-9L equivalent). Not entirely sure, but I think jammer/counter measure pods were added to AJ in 80s, along with RB75 (Maverick) capability. Though might be wrong on the jammer pod. I vaguely recall it is possible to disable TERNAV with an input to computer, but don't quote me on that. Overall, AJ and AJS really are very, very similar. JA37 is whole another beast, later JA37D or Di more so with AMRAAM capability even. But JA cockpit looks very different from AJ one. But JA doesn't have AJ's ground attack capabilities either.

I don't fully know all of them, but the latest two batches of Iraqi EQ were very capable, and in their time period, they were the only truely multirole variants that could do air to air and all sorts of precision strike missions. With their ability to use Super 530, Exocet, ATLIS targeting pod, AS30 laser homing missiles, even Kh-29L, and I think also Armat anti radar missiles, they were really quite different from other Mirage F.1E series. So ours will surely not represent those, but the earlier Mirage F.1EQs didn't have *all* of these features, so maybe we can reasonably represent them. I couldn't find much info myself, but apparently batches before the EQ-5 weren't exocet capable at least.

The variants we are getting indeed are. Although, I think earlier batches of Iraqi EQs weren't as capable and multirole as EQ5 or 6. Maybe EE can be considered an ok approximation of those in Iran-Iraq war kind of scenarios? As for the AIM-9 versions, I have read in a few places that Spanish F.1s were equipped with AIM-9 Juli, which, as far as I know, is an upgraded 9J that has a seeker similar to later L/M sidewinders. Although I also recall reading 9L/M somewhere else, which wouldn't be infeasible after Spain got Hornets and new sidewinders I suppose. Regardless though, even 4x AIM-9P5 or 4x AIM-9 Juli armed Mirage F.1 would outclass MiG-21Bis considerably in my opinion, whose options of decent missiles are all finicky like R-60M, R-13M1, and R-3R. Not saying I'm not looking forward to try to go up against Mirage in my mig and vice versa