WinterH

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

Quite honestly, the mistake would have been to make AJ37 instead of AJS37. And I say this as someone who is gettig mighty annoyed that we seem to get more 2000s aircraft in DCS these days instead of 60s-90s ones. All you need for turning into an 70s AJ is not using TERNAV (which, I'm not sure but I think can be disabled), and not loading RB 74s, RB 15Fs and Mjölnirs. Otherwise it is very much the same aircraft. As I have said, I do agree with sentiment of all the upcoming 2000s+ aircraft is getting boring. I very much do agree. But in case of these oldies, I prefer later variants either 80s or, depending on the aircraft up to early/mid 90s (as in case of Heatblur's excellent F-14B). For A-6E though, I'd be quite happy with TRAM. I can understand argument for TRAM instead of SWIP. Because in this case SWIP would probably have a different cockpit, and navigation system, thus would somewhat alter the experience. But in Viggen's case, calling AJS instead of AJ to be a mistake is, interesting... as the difference is so negligible, and does not invalidate the possibility of getting AJ37 experience from the module as far as I know. AJS adds, optionally, the ability to make it still somewhat relevant up to 90s-2000s, without completely detracting the possibility of enjoying it a'la 70s-80s. That's why I really hope when we get F-4E it will be the 80s block Belsimtek was making, to make it a great 80s strike fighter that can still kinda work up to early 2000s. Anyway, in case of A-6, I would honestly be very happy with all generaions: A-6A with DIANE for that retro-advanced experience, A-6E TRAM, with or without WCSI, and A-6E SWIP with all the missiles. They each offer something unique. But a TRAM is a pretty happy medium I'd say. Also, with Flying Iron's upcoming A-7E, we are getting a non targeting-pod capable naval striker already, so TRAM turret would add something unique in comparison. Also, I'd like to say that I'm happy that we are still getting things like A-6E, A-7E, 4 variants of Mirage F.1, F-8J, EE Lightning, Mirage III, Pucara, Mi-24P, and MiG-23MLA among all the post 2000s stuff. Especially more so the latter two as they are from the other side of the fence! Now if we could add MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, Jaguar, and perhaps also the Buccaneer to that list...

Thx for the info Blaze! Interesting to find out about AN/AWG-21 + AGM-78 equipped variant too.

What A-6 does or does not carry depend a lot on the version/update program. From what I could find so far: - A-6A: Shrikes, bombs, cluster bombs, bomblet dispensers, 2.75 and 5 inch rockets, Sidewinders up to D I think. AGM-12 bullup missiles are an option. - A-6B: Most ground attack systems removed in favor of SEAD related stuff, Shrike, AGM-78 Standart ARM - A-6C: Same as A-6A, but the aircraft had a dorsal fairing for a FLIR/LLTV system, for using in night raids. Very few A-6As were upgraded to this config. Not entirely sure, but I think the sensor package was a fixed forward looking installment. - A-6E: Still mostly the same as A-6A, AGM-12s are no longer listed in the manual though. But avionics changed, and got some new bombing modes I think. - A-6E TRAM: Proper FLIR/Laser turret under the nose, so the aircraft has its own fixed TGP in a way. Can carry and self lase laser guided bombs now. In the 80s A-6E TRAM was upgraded to enable it using AGM-84 Harpoon and AGM-123 Skipjack, which was also used on the earlier blocks of Hornet. Skipjack is essentially a laser guided bomb with a rocket motor on its back. Also being 80s, AIM-9L and/or M is a thing now. - A-6E SWIP: Final upgrade with 2 phases in early 90s. Added many guided missiles: AGM-62, AGM-65, AGM-88, and AGM-84E SLAM land attack version of Harpoon. Second phase later added GPS navigation and a HUD. That's what I could gather from looking at public sources like manuals on avialogs, and articles on airvectors, ol' reliable wikipedia etc :P. But even between just A-6E, there are many weapon set possibilities depending on the upgrade/year.

I'd prefer late versions of middle period birds by far. 80s is where it's at in my opinion. Stuff like MiG-27K, Su-17M3 maybe M4, Su-24M, MiG-25PD/BM/RBT etc.

I'd LOVE a J35 module in DCS! Such a cool, unique, interesting aircraft with agility to match its novelty. Besides, there are many aircraft already existing in sim with roughly similar vintage like MiG-19, MiG-21Bis, F-5E, upcoming F-8, eventually Mirage III etc. I'd much sooner buy this than another F-something, or other flying computer laboratories like Gripen Anyway, you have that lovely A-6 on the way first, but keep the Draken in mind as well

This was discussed ad nauseum back when they have introduced it too. It isn't representing a helmet sight or anything. It is a gameplay convenience feature, because Mirage 2000C has radar display at an inconvenient spot for some people... I personally don't like things like that, but it is what it is...

Ooopsie, meant bluefor lol, fixed

Turn the fixed net on, there are 3 little crosses on it, the bottom one, which is the smallest, that is where the missile will go. It has always been that way, only difference is, pipper used to be on it too, not for some reason it is somewhere above, which is probably a bug. But I've used it about 3 weeks ago, apart from having to guide it not to pipper but to bottom "x" on the fixed sight, it worked fine. Locking wasn't working, but I didn't mind as I almost never used it with lock.