WinterH

Basically my exact thoughts for many years, and yet here we are with lots of 2000s+ bluefor with more coming, and the 2010s JF-17 which is... uuuhh, greenfor? greyfor? It is obvious ED is going for the things that wil sell the most, as potential newcomers to sim, as well majority of long time customers buy "the most advanced popular poster-child possible". 70s-80, with some up to mid 90s at most, are the periods that make the most sense for DCS: a form of balanced and historical orders of battle would be possible, reasonable multiplayer servers could be made for people who want that, historical campaigns would be a thing for those who want that etc. And frankly, the aircraft are just interesting! They are still highly capable for their time, but they do a lot less handholding. Anyway, it is not entirely doom and gloom for the idea of DCS: Cold War. We have 4 variants of Mirage F.1 coming, as well as MiG-23MLA, Mi-24P, F-8J, A-7E. Razbam has Mirage III, Sea Harrier, and EE Lightning planned/under works as well. We already have the Viggen, Mirage 2000C, most Russian FC3 aircraft, F-14A, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2 etc. Now if ED would come back to their senses and continue developing that F-4E Block 58 as soon as plausible, that would be most excellent! But seeing how much they have to work on, it feels like it won't be plausible in near term. As for the MiG-29A, the actual subject of this thread... as I have made obvious, I like 80s aircraft a lot. I also like Russian aircraft A LOT. Getting more than a little tired of deluge of post 2000s blufor. Having said all these, MiG-29A does not excite me, not one bit... I don't see it adding all that much over the FC3 MiG-29A we already have. It already has a high quality flight model, and the stores it can use. Don't really see full fidelity adding all that much to it TBH. I'd be a lot more excited for a 70s-80s unique, new Soviet aircraft like a DCS: Su-17M3, MiG-27K, even a Su-15. Or, if possible post 2000s Fulcrum or Flanker versions, just to have some modern red birds too, but we all know that ain't happening anytime soon.

I want MiG-27K for Kaira sight, and generally being the most capable (but still 80s kosher!) red striker possible. But... the idea of watching my plane fall apart around me as I keep GSh-6-30 brrrrt button down is certainly interesting as well!

I am personally more into mid 70s and 80s in DCS, but there are a few century series aircraft I'd enjoy having regardless. F-100 is the foremost. Served in quite a few airforces, outright gorgeous, pretty good payload, and a nice counterpart to MiG-19. F-105 was a great fighter bomber, and then a wild weasel, I would love it, but apparently documents were pretty much shredded when manufacturer went bankrupt, and not many airframes survived either as far as I know. F-104, I am really not particularly interested in, but would be cool, and I'd eventually get it if only for the challenge of handling it. It would probably need to be a F-104G as a relatively representative variant all over the world. F-102 and F-106... well I would actually really like trying these out, despite the fact they are so limited in many ways. An American pure delta pure interceptor is somehow so alien, it makes me want to play around with them. But that said, even I would probably wait for a sale on these, and I am strongly in the "more obscure the better" camp. Don't know if it would be a feasible product with average DCS customer in mind. Now, F-111 isn't exactly century series I guess, but I would all over that one! Of the none US things suggested above, most doesn't really fit as century equivalents though. Draken is a more MiG-21 contemporary, and frankly, I'd personally want a Draken before any I've listed above, but it's something else than a century series equivalent. Same goes for Su-17, in both that I would prefer seeing it over century series, and in it being representative of a later stage of aircraft than century series. If we do get a Su-17, I'd want it to be M3 or M4. Su-7 is the more fitting suggestion as a century counterpart, but honestly I don't see much attraction for it. Su-15 is also a later interceptor, I'd be interested in it, but it is a very niche plane to do, and the only fame it has is more on side of infamy than fame. BTW as far as I know, Su-15 doesn't actually have internal guns, but usually carried gunpods.

WAAAAAGH!!! (sorry, couldn't hold myself lol)

While that is true for many versions, most eventually got upgraded to include internal countermeasure dispensers as far as I know. According to comment from aviodev facebook page, Spanish versions had them: https://www.facebook.com/Aviodev/photos/a.339029962892146/3369787473149698/?comment_id=3375785142549931&reply_comment_id=3376080415853737&__tn__=R*F As for it being a good opponent for MiG-21Bis, well yes and no. It should be considerably more agile, and can use up to 4 AIM-9L or Ms, which can lock from any angle, and outrange MiG's missiles. But at least it will be a closer opponent than most current fast jets other than F-5E. Don't exactly know if Cyrano IVM radar can do look down. Mirage will have R530 missiles in both IR and SARH types, but as far as I know they are really not that good against maneuvering fighters. Normally Spanish Mirage F1s weren't Super 530 capable, but some they have bought second hand from Qatar were (F1EDA version). If we get Super 530s, that would be a pretty considerable advantage over MiG. Only advantage I can think of for the MiG is in thrust to weight ratio, especially more so with emergency afterburner mode in low level. Finally redfor Mirage F1 thing is interesting, because most Mirage F1 operators that could be considered redfor actually used either air to ground optimized or truly multirole versions. Latest Iraqi F1EQ5 and EQ6 had a targeting pod, laser guided missiles and bombs, Exocet, and I think even anti radar missiles, along with all aspect IR and medium range radar guided missiles. Iran sort of inherited some of those fron Iraq when they escaped there. The other operator I can think of, Libya, used F1A series, which were very much air to groun optimized. They had a smaller radar that was optimized for ranging and I think also ground mapping, but not sure of the latter. They also had a built in laser range finder / designator under the nose, similar to Klen on Su-25. The ones we are getting will be more dogfighters than strikers.

They are limited yes.

Well if you get fixated on these you really can't enjoy anything else. Radar on HUD is almost exclusively Russian. Displays being up high is somewhat more common, but it tends to be a feature on older designs. MiG-29 should feel familiar, same features as Su-27 but a smaller airframe. Has a considerably worse radar though. J-11A is basically Su-27 but with R-77s. Upcoming MiG-23MLA will also have the radar displayed on the HUD, but will otherwise be more old-school. F-15C also has radar display mounted up high. Hornet and JF-17 also feature displays that are relatively easy to see without going too much head down, and their HUDs are informative. Hornet also features a good helmet mounted display.

I think locking feature was discussed in the beginning if it is realistic or not, and as far as I recall discussion was left inconclusive. Probably it wasn't, especially if it works without realistic ASP checked and stops working with it checked, feels like this may have been intentional. I have always preferred using it without lock myself though.

As far as I know, these shouldn't perform a search pattern either, but only directly home in on a sound source if they find one, and just run straight if they can't. However, both G7a and G7e torpedoes could be fitted with a Fat or Lut pattern running kits as you mention in your last post. I don't know if pattern running torpedoes were used on Schnellboot, or just uboats.

As long as we're talking about mid to late 70s earliest, yeah, why not , but 80s is better :P! I want the strike capabilities, and upgrades that gave those capabilities will not detract from being a roughly similar match with 70s MiGs. Radar is the same as far as I know, slats are there from 70s already, missiles are mostly the same, later AIM-9s can be left off in mission, same goes for R-60Ms for MiG-21Bis etc. Also keep in mind that there is a MiG-23MLA is coming, and a Phantom with the ability to also use later AIM-9s will be a better match for that one. As far as I know, mid 70s F-4E could use Pave Spike targeting pod, which went onto one of Sparrow hardpoints under the fuselage, and was roughly Sparrow sized as well. It was a daytime only pod, but I'd be ok with that. Pave Tack is the later option, though it may have been operational before 80s on F-4s too, not sure. It is a more capable pod, including night capabilities as far as I know. But it is also kind of gigantic, being originally designed for and used by F-111. It goes under the centreline pylon as far as I know. Is big, heavy, draggy, but also more capable. Don't know if Pave Spike has automatic target tracking, probably not, but that can be seen as a positive too, it would give WSO more interesting things to do. From what I can find though, a pre-80s Phantom wouldn't have GBU-15, which would be a bit sad... Though it would at least still have GBU-8. If a 1975+ F-4E also still had the option of AGM-45s even for some rudimentary SEAD, I'd be ok with it. Both a pre ARN-101 F-4E as well as one having that update would be my personal dream though, and there would be relatively little to code, so might be a good additional 20 bucks per owner for future developer of F-4E. Maybe after they add a naval variant first.

Yeah turns out I was wrong about the S-5s, pilotmi8 did say that they will be in. As for the Lipa, I honest don't care much for its inclusion, at least for the early access, and even if it is added later, I would prefer to be able to fly without it. There are just really only a few missiles it can spoof in DCS. But yeah, I can see the appeal later down the line if we get more oldie missiles like Redeye, Strela-3 etc.

For all my "E or bust" rhetoric so far, I must say that I absolutely agree with you. I mean, since naval Phantoms are different enough compared to land based ones, I would even be perfectly fine with "a little more than a small fee". It would really be a shame not to get more than one side of Phantom coin, as each lineage is distinct enough in its own way, with different advantages/disadvantages/taste.

For an interceptor role, true... but F-4E is perhaps the earliest materialization of true multirole fighter with precision strike and CAS capabilities, and was ahead of Naval phantoms in that respect. And frankly, that is by far what I am interested in. Naval F-4 in addition to F-4E? HELL YES. But if we are going to get a single variant, it should be the E. If we will get two Phantoms, but not simulataneously, the first one should also be the E. Seriously, it is the Phantom world-wide...

I'd personnaly expect it to be a PKM when it arrives. Though, if cargo compartment doors are removable, Kord might be feasible too, but I don't know if it was ever a thing. If it was a thing realistically/historically though, I'd surely like kord to be a possibility, however the few images I've seen of Mi-24 with machine guns installed in cargo compartment were PKMs as far as I can recall. RPK would be very strange. Weak cartridge, and no belt feed would make it an odd choice to use from a fast helicopter's side door in my opinion. Even more so with an AK.

As far as I am concerned, F-4 is F-4E, and is foremost a strike-fighter, and then only secondarily a fighter. A later F-4E can still be fighter do anyway, yes not against its contemporaries, but their radars and missiles for air to air wasn't much different compared to what they had in 70s. Besides, it isn't like MiG-23s and 21s vanished in 80s, on the contrary they were still abundant, and we have 23 coming, and 21 is already here. So F-4E should be 75+ earliest, or early to mid 80s with ARN-101 update. Perhaps it will have a better RWR not sure, but that would be the only thing to really matter when it comes to air to air compared to earlier variants. So yeah, I want the most capable version of the iconic F-4E. And no, I don't want Meh-16 nor am I asking for a Kurnass, Terminator, or ICE. I am asking for the most common F-4 variant's best version when it comes to This is DCS guys, the idea of historical scenarios is nice, but it is yet to happen for any period in 7 years I have been using it. So, more periods a module can fit, the better, especially for iconic planes like this one. I want my leading edge slats (yes slower, but I want the turnin performance), steampunky targeting pods, mavericks, shrikes, GBU-15s and 12s, and my nose gun, thank you very much :).

Well, not really. Rather, depends on what upgraded F-4E means. Things like 2020, Kurnass, EJ-Kai, ICE, Peace Ikarus fit to the definition of fitting only to airforce that operate them. However, these aren't really F-4E anymore, they are whatever the upgrade program is called at this point. On the other hand, as with many other aircraft there are many blocks of F-4E. The earliest F-4Es would really only fit USAF during Vietnam, and perhaps also when they were sold to Egypt and Iran. Many other countries got later blocks too, and used them. Or got earlier blocks and had them updated into later ones etc. Besides, unlike with most other planes, upgrades are mostly things that make it a better striker, so if you don't load them up, it can sort of fit into an earlier scenario as an earlier F-4E. It gives you an aircraft that can be put into 70s,80s,90s, and even up to 2000s scenarios and do lots of different mission types. It would be a damn shame to make earliest F-4E's without (for its time) sophisticated strike-fighter options that makes it so versatile. It'd be like a bigger, fatter F-5 It is a vanilla version. It was aproduction variant, which makes it vanilla enough

F-4E 2020 Terminator (holy crap that name is cheesy lol) did not get any air to air weapons, at least not originally, and I really don't think AMRAAM capability was added at any point. German upgraded Phantoms, as well as the Greek update based on them got a new radar, as far as I recall the same one that was on Hornets, or one based on it. It was a more multirole kind of upgrade. Turkish ones also got a new radar, but an Israeli one that, at least at the time, was not AMRAAM compatible. Turkish Phantoms were upgraded as a strike platform, air to air duties fell on F-16Cs. Later down the line, I think additional updates allowed F-4E 2020s to use locally developed tech like ASELPOD targeting pod and SOM air launched cruise missile, both also fitting in with long range strike role. I find things like ICE, Peace Ikarus, 2020 Terminator, EJ-Kai etc to be really cool. Same goes for similar upgrades on other oldie aircraft: Bison, LanceR, FigtingHawk, similar ones done on F-5s and Mirage IIIs/Vs etc. I would find it really cool to play around with them in DCS, but only after the mainline variant is already in the sim. Any upgraded F-4 would be a cool curiosity, but would not nearly represent the type as it served many countries through decades. That's why I want that 80s F-4E as the last "normal F-4E" without later 3rd party upgrades. I supposed a late 70s one would be ok too. While I understand bies, I also strongly disagree with that position. Air Force F-4 before a Navy one please, and while I would prefer a "vanilla" version, I'd like the most updated vanilla version even if it was second fiddle by that time I'd much prefer the strike fighter F-4E than "whenever it was considered ok for air to air" one. With slats, mavericks, old-school targeting pod, and shrikes, and guided bombs. Have no problem that it won't have look-down capability. Also, once a "vanilla" version of a jet in sim, Like MiG-21Bis, I'd very much love amazing "pieces of junk" like Bison

80s E or bust

I think pilotmi8 commented on this recently, essentially saying no. His reasoning was that UH-1N is almost entirely another helicopter than UH-1H module development wise, and yet it does not add much of anything to experience, so for that much of effort it would be a better idea to do something else like UH-60 etc. I do agree to be honest. Honestly, I would prefer a late army Cobra to go with upcoming Mi-24P as they would be of roughly same vintage and mostly similar capabilities. Belsimtek had exactly that planned: AH-1F, maybe they will be back on it after AH-64D eventually. It would also have more in common with a single engine Huey, so perhaps some bits of UH-1H module can be reused in development. Though, I certainly wouldn't say no to an AH-1W of same vintage either! I am not averse more utility helicopters. On the contrary, the more helos, the merrier! But I think if we get one, it will be something that will feel more unique to potential buyers.

Vietnam is DCS is a no-go right now. If we get an F-4E, and it is a Vietnam variant, it would be more or less a huge waste. 80's one is the one to go, because it fits Cold War scenarios, can be still sort of workable underdog in post-Cold War, and to some degree can work for older scenarios with restricted loadout, as the radar is still the same, though its agility and navigation systems will be better than old variants. Similarly, the most any naval Phantom can provide over this would be possible with a late naval F-4S, because they got a new radar with look-down capabilities. We have a good bit of 80s stuff both as ai and flyable modules. There are quite a few upcoming ones that would fit too. Vietnam map is not coming, and we have almost zero Vietnam era aircraft with Vietnam era capabilities. F-5E we have is more advanced by a fair bit than F-5Es served there, which were a footnote in that conflict anyway. MiG-21Bis was not available for Vietnamese air forces, and what they had instead had a lot less capable engine and radar. Only things that barely fit are MiG-19 if you squint hard enough, and UH-1H if you restrict its loadouts. Upcoming F-8 will fit too, but it will be a void... When it comes to Phantom in DCS, 80s versions are really the ones that make sense.

While normally I would agree with Huey suggestions, the question is specifically for getting ready to use Mi-24, and in that context it really should be Mi-8, no contest. Flight characteristics will be closer, so will be some of the cockpit instruments/systems. It can also carry some of the same weapons like GUV-8700 gunpods, which admittedly Hind won't often need, and S-8 rockets, which Hind should often use. It will also have a similar stabilizer autopilot as the Mi-8.

IRL, low caliber HE/Frag rockets shouln't do particularly well against proper tanks. Well, they would of course be able to damage sights etc, and degrade fighting capability, but their chance of going through the armor and "destroy" the vehicle would be slim, so HEAT warheads may provide more of a chance, at least if they hit weaker parts of armor on older tanks. But they require direct hits. It's worth noting that, damaging tracks, sights etc to cause mission kills is not a thing in DCS, at least not yet. Quite honestly, I am not entirely sure how it is at this point, been a long time since I tried to engage tanks with rockets in DCS. I will actually test this, got me curious. In days of yore though, S-8OFP2 (HE/frag) was a lot more reliable than S-8KOM (HEAT) against tanks. I still habitually load only OFPs on Russian aircraft when I take S-8s, but frankly in most missions I make, it is against AAA, lighter vehicles, infantry etc. One thing is sure though. Against anything that isn't a proper tank, HE/frag rockets are more reliable than HEAT ones. Because a salvo of them will do decent bit of damage even if you can't score direct hits. Blast/Frag damage is somewhat muted in DCS, but it still exists. HEAT rockets need direct hits to do anything, and depending on where you hit the tank, they may still fail to penetrate. Lately it feels like armor/penetrator interaction in DCS got more serious than earlier. So, testing the waters with both HE and HEAT rockets again might be a good idea to find what's best nowadays. Edit: welp, just tested. Put an M1A2 and a Leo2 on the map, and tested: Mi-8 full of S-8OFP2, Mi-8 full of S-8KOM, and UH-1 with HE. Now granted, these are really the big boys, Abrams and Leopard 2. But the results are: Huey's HE rockets and Mi-8's HE rockets don't do crap, often even with direct hits :). S-8KOM, the HEAT rocket, can kill the Abrams with 5-6 direct hits. But scoring that many hits took all my 120 rockets lol. I have approached and attacked them from their 3 o'clock. So, yeah, armor is a thing now, and HE rockets splashing tanks to death is a thing of past apparently :).

I, for one, am getting pretty sick of most of the recent modules being 4th gen, or even 4+, and want a return to 70s-80s-early 90s modules a lot. I also believe that period is the most sensible to make, for it is where there can be possibility of a proper blue vs red set up with some parity. DCS is a valuable flight simulator that allows me to fight with 60s-90s jets, uniquely. The trend started with F-4E getting canned for an 2000s F-16C continues. Some of us wish it wasn't quite so. Oh well, I suppose it is a lot less one sided than I made it sound like here. We are still getting things like Hind, Mirage F-1, F-8, A-7 etc. And to be fair, in case of a proper red jet, I honestly would love a good 4 or 4++ jet, so I too would love Su-30MKK. I guess I just wanted to voice that despite many "give the most modern plz" voices, there are still some of us that would very much like more Cold War birds. But yeah, Su-30MKK is something I would look forward to honestly. At least it is not yet another F-something airborne computer carrier.

Uh? A nice red attacker with decent payload, and probably decent flight characteristics given its MiG-19 pedigree. Why not? It is more interesting than J-8 in my opinion, which would be just another fighter, and not even a particularly interesting one at that. There's no dedicated attacker from that side of the fence right now after all.

Uhhh... we are talking about preparing for Hind right? Only thing I'd say Gazelle fits the bill is, using Viviane to guide missiles with will somewhat apply to using Raduga-F for same purpose on the Hind. But for flying, and general systems similarity, Mi-8 would be the one to look at.