mattebubben

Well yesterdays post basically contradicts this. "Q:Are you planning on expanding the module with more variants in the future? A: For the time being we are planning on simulating the German version only. However, the Eurofighter is a truly multinational airplane, and we will try to bring this across as much as we can through liveries, campaigns and other content!"

Well do you have all the data they would need? The variant they have said they are considering and have some data on is the Su-30MKK in use with China. The SU-30MKI is a pretty different aircraft compared to the MKK. A very Different set of Avionics and Radar + very different FM due to the thrust vectoring and canards etc. Even the HUD and cockpit displays are different. (From Elbit/Israel) So pretty much none of the data they have for the SU-30MKK would be useful for a MKI. And the reason why they are primarily looking at Chinese aircraft (Operated by China) might be since that is what they know they are more likely to be able to get data for. So just because that they might have the data to make a Su-30MKK does not mean they have the data to make a MKI... And it probably becomes even more unlikely when we take politics into account. Deka is a Chinese team. India and China don't have the best of relations right now. And in addition Deka has stated that they had sources in Pakistan that assisted in the development of the JF-17. So i find it unlikely that India/HAL would be ok with Giving Deka all of the Data needed to model a Su-30MKI.

Well IIRC the Su-30MKK were Delivered to China between 2000-2003. So if they were to model a Early model MKK (so as delivered 20 years ago) Then it would actually pre-date the F-16C and F/A-18C etc that are modeled in the game as they are both modeled as they were in the mid 2000s (With the AV-8B (NA),A-10C and JF-17 versions etc being even more Up to date) So given that Deka has already made a 5-10 year old JF-17 that is far more recent then a 2000-2003 era Su-30MKK i would say it probably depends on the local laws and what contacts and sources they have etc. But since Deka has shown that they are openly considering it i would Guess they dont see it as impossible.

My order would be pretty similar. With the J-7 first and the J-8 last. But when it comes to the Su-30 and Q-5 im more conflicted. Personally i would probably get more enjoyment from flying the Q-5 (I prefer simpler cold war era and Single Seat Aircraft over modern glass cockpit and two Seat Aircraft) But i think the Su-30 would be much more important for DCS so i would probably put it higher on the list for that reason.

I have Still been unable to find any article or site that say that any part of the J-8II is based on or directly inspired by the Su-15. I find mention of the J-8II being comparable in aerodynamic performance to the Soviet Su-15 And mention that it is reminiscent of the Su-15 but never any mention that it is actually based on, inspired by or related to it in any way. In order to fit a larger more powerfull radar the nose and intakes for the J-8 needed to be redesigned. And during this time period China had purchased a number of Mig-23s from Egypt. These were studied in China and their intake design was used as a basis for the J-8II intakes. And if you compare the actual nose of the J-8II and Su-15 (and not the intakes of the rest of the aircraft) then there is a big difference in the shape and size of the radomes. Their similarity most likely comes from the fact that they were made with similar approaches and from similar Origins. The Su-15 design was basically a slightly enlarged twin engined solid nose version of the Su-9/Su-11 powered by two R-11 (first version) and then two R-13 engines. (That were also used in the Mig-21) The J-8 Design started as a enlarged twin engined J-7 / Mig-21 powered by two WP-7A (J-8) or two WP-13A (J-8II) engines. These engines are reverse engineered versions of the Russian engines (WP-7 being based on the R-11 and the WP-13 being based on the R-13) And while much larger the Su-9 and Su-11 used the same tailed delta configuration as Mig-21. So it makes perfect Sense that the J-8II and Su-15 look pretty similar as they are designed based on Aircraft that looked somewhat similar, they use more or less the same engines, and they are designed to fill more less the same mission (so they have similar requirements when it comes to radar and flight performance). So it is not a Huge surprise that they ended up look Kinda similar. But looking similar does not have to mean One is based on or inspired by the other

I have never seen any Source stating that the J-8 is based on the Su-15 . But rather that it was envisioned As an enlarged twin engine version of the Mig-21/J-7. While the New intakes for the J-8II were inspired by those of the Mig-23 (as China had acquired a couple of Mig-23s for study).

Well any skin would be extremely welcome =). Though having atleast one historical/accurate Mirage 2000EM skin would be awsome .

You said that in an edit. And that edit was made after or while i made my post (Since as you can see its not its not in your original post that i quoted) So that part was not there when i made my post.

Those are Mirage 5s not Mirage 2000s.

None of those are a Mirage 2000 though. Have the Mirage 2000 ever used that Camo scheme? I have only seen pictures of the Mirage 2000EM in the simple grey.

Nope. Im Swedish. But i like the Mirage 2000 and have wished for a Egyptian skin since the 2000 was released.

The Egyptian Mirage 2000EM is mostly the same as your JF-17 skin. Except for no Orange + the Radome is Black. Mirage 2000EM Mirage 2000EM Mirage 2000EM Mirage 2000EM Mirage 2000EM Mirage 2000EM Mirage 2000EM Mirage 2000EM

Looks awsome! And if you are making more Egyptian Skins i really hope you do a Mirage 2000EM. Since its a real Shame there are no Egyptian Mirage 2000 Skins (Official or user made) considering they are one of the operators (And they were the first Export Customer).

I'm not sure. I would say it's an easy modification. But given the fact they didn't have Super 530F before procuring former Qataris Mirage F1 EDA, they probably didn't do it. Spain bought EF/A-18A (C.15) in the 1980', upgrading the Mirage F1 was probably a lower priority. It would be wise for Aerges to make a French Mirage F1 C-200, apart from the weapons, it's very close to the CE. Well they have always said they are willing to do other variants. But they need the data for them. They are currently making the variants they have all the data for. But if they got additional data they can make additional variants.

I think there are two issues with how the CBU-87 is simulated currently (Disregarding the Burst height and rotational speed) The first is concerning bomblet count and bomblet damage. IRL a CBU-87 carries 202 BLU-97/B bomblets. While in game in order to reduce the impact on performance the number of bomblets are reduced (I think its around 50 or so) but with the damage per bomblet supposedly increased to simulate similar area of effect damage. (though im unsure how this works since the BLU-97/B combined effects bomb is a shaped charge munition so in addition to its AOE fragmentation and incendiary effects it should also have a armor penetrating shaped charge penetrator, so while simply bumping up the damage might help with the AEO Frag damage it wont really help with the missing 150 or so shaped charge projectiles) And this causes some issues in the game. Since it seems the only way the bomblets cause significant damage to even lightly armored vehicles like ACPs is if a bomblet makes direct impact (Probably representing the Shaped charge hitting / penetrating the target) but since we only carry 1/4 as many Bomblets that are supposed to cover the same area the chance of a direct hit is much smaller. So either the bomblet count needs to be increased or the bomblets have to cause more damage / splash damage to simulate the other bomblets (Though that becomes tricky since they still need to find a way to represent those other shaped charge Anti-Armour projectiles) and second in my experience the bomblets seem to be spinning in a strange fashion (and are not stabilized by the ballute like they should be) which is causing them to spread out in a very random way leaving large gaps in the bomblet pattern. (Also unsure how the Spinning effects the accuracy of the shaped charge projectiles) These two issues together make the CBU-87 a very hit or miss weapon. Since you can drop a bomb perfectly on the target with the enemy vehicle in the middle of the pattern but due to a mix of the low damage per bomblet, low bomblet count and large gaps in the pattern can cause little or no damage dealt to the target or targets. I really hope they fix the CBU-87 since at the moment sometimes feels more like a glorified Sparkler then the devestating weapon its supposed to be. Because at the moment there is almost never a point to use the CBU-87 since most of the time i find even Mk-82s to be more effective / reliable (Since atleast you know that if you place the bomb on the target you will get a result where was with the CBU-87 even if you do everything perfect it might still deal no damage). which is a shame since for missions like DEAD etc (Where the CBU-87 should be highly effective) you really need a weapon that does reliable damage since if it does not hurt the target the target will hurt you... (Since atm in game it wont even kill Shilkas, Strelas or even Sam launchers reliably) And Fixing the BLU-97/B submunitions would effect more then just the CBU-87 As they are also used by the AGM-154A JSOW.

I think it might be that A-10 Pilots had given up on a change for CBU-87. But had hoped it would be looked at now that it was used on a new aircraft. (Similar to how the Rockeye was improved after the release of the F/A-18C) I never flew the A-10C (Though i flew the A-10A for a bit back when i first started playing and i complained about the CBU-87 back then as well) so it might be that many people have not really used the CBU-87 that much before and thus only now realize that it needs to be fixed. Currently is that its very hit or miss. The spread of the bomblets is very random and has large gaps in it (Both due to the way they are spinning at the moment and also because there are far fewer bomblet then IRL). I Find that i get the "best" result with either a 25-30 degree dive with a release at 2000-3000 ft or with a low altitude release (300-800 ft using the Nose fuse) with other types of releases having little to no effect (Even with the pattern right on the targets) since the gaps in the pattern will be larger. So even while yes its possible to kill light skinned targets (sometimes) with the CBU-87 it still really needs to be looked.

I really hope they get around to fixing the CBU-87. Because at the moment its just a big sparkler where in reality they should be highly effective. Since ingame even against light targets (like BMP-1s,Shilkas and Sam sites etc) they are very hit or miss and somtimes cause no damage at all even when the target is in the middle of the bomblet pattern. I think the problem isnt just the Burst Altitude but also the fact that the dmg per bomblet is to low. In DCS in order to reduce the performance impact they dont model every bomblet. The CBU-87 should carry 202 bomblets where as in game i think it only has around 50 or so but with the damage supposedly increased in an attempt to simulate the effect of 202 bomblets. But the problem with that is that due to the lower bomblet count the chance of a direct hit is much lower (Since the gaps in the pattern are far larger) and a direct hit is still required to do any real damage to light skinned or even unarmored vehicles which in turn makes it far less capable then what it should probably be when using the standard burst heights since with the proper bomblet count the gaps would be far smaller (So the chance of a direct hit would be far larger)

And the Analog version might actually still be in use. As even pretty recent videos like this one. show both UFC Variants. So the Analog variant could be viable for even current day scenarios. And its also further example that just because it has the Analog UFC that does not say anything in terms of capability and weapon options etc. Optimally they would add both (Either at launch or down the line) With the Analog being the standard (as its the Original) and then simply adding a Special menu option for the Digital UFC for those that want it. But if we have to pick just one i will 100% go with the Analog version as i have pretty much no interest in Post 2010 scenarios which is what the F-15E with the Digital UFC will be limited to.

Analog version. Most likely wont buy a version with just the digital UFC. And i really wish they had worded the question difference. Outlining the differences as a whole (Or lack of differences in this case). Since a F-15E With the old display will still have all the same weapons and capabilities. (As they have never specified otherwise of the exact planned timeframe) But it will also be suited for many more Scenarios (1989-2014) So from the last years of the cold war to Gulf War,Balkans,Iraqi Freedom,Afghanistan etc. Where as the Digital version is 2010 and later so it can only accurately simulate post 2010 scenarios. (Unless simulating a Export F-15 as Export Strike eagles got the Digital UFC much earlier) Additionally if you want to be really realistic this could also mean an aircraft with less capability not more. As there are weapons and systems that are no longer used post 2010 that were used in the 1989-2010 timeframe. Only upside for me with the NEW display is if they want to simulate a export F-15E. But for a US F-15E i very much prefer the original UFC and probably wont buy one limited to the new one.

Oh well Since you were talking about 60s i assumed you were talking about the Milan. Since the Kfir is mid 70s (With the C1 having Small "Canards" and the 1976 C2 and later variants having full size canards) And the Mirage IIIs got their Canards in the 80s to my understanding. (With the Swiss Mirages getting theirs in a 1985-1988 upgrade program and Brazilian Mirage IIIs got theirs starting in 1989,+ The South African Atlas Cheetah around 86-87) So i think the only Mirage III variant with canards in the 60s is the Milan.

Well Dassault Refers to them as "a fixed canard ancillary wing, dismountable and adjustable in flight" https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/mirage-4000/ And as to the Mirage III Knockoffs. Are you thinking of the Mirage III Milan? (Which was a pretty interesting design with those Whiskers) https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/milan/

It had Fixed Canards though. So the Viggen Significantly predated it in that area. (And Fixed canards became more popular in the 70s/80s appearing on the Kfir and on many upgraded Mirage IIIs etc) The Big deal about the later Canard Deltas (Gripen,Eurofighter,Rafale and J-10 etc) is the fact that the Canards are fully moving.

I really hope they add the AIM-9L(I)-1 for the Eurofighter instead of having it use the Aim-9L currently in the game. Since the AIM-9L(I)-1 is much closer to the Aim-9M in terms of performance/flare rejection then it is the original Aim-9L. Though the IRIS-T will ofc be the standard Short range missile either way. (Though having the AIM-9L(I)-1 would still be fun and worthwhile)

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/03/26/germany-reportedly-moving-toward-a-split-buy-of-super-hornets-and-eurofighter-typhoons-to-replace-tornado-jets/