mattebubben

I dont understand how so many people have the Idea that the Tranche 1 Eurofighter lacked Aim-120 Capability =P. The Focus for Tranche 1 was Air-Air. So obsiously it would have to have a Medium range or long range missile. And The Aim-120 has been the Nato standard for Medium range Air-Air missiles since the 1990s (And was in use by Most of the Nations that took part in the development of the Eurofighter) So obiously it would be part of the Day 1 Air-Air Armaments =P. Here is an Example of a 1999 article https://www.flightglobal.com/war-of-words-over-eurofighter-missile/26837.article

Well for one The German Eurofighters lack the IRST. There are also differences in regards to weapons etc.

Im just hoping they will allow asymmetric wing tank loadouts soon. Being able to carry either a C-302/CM-302 or a GB-6 under one wing with a fuel tank under another would be really nice (with the centerline having either a Targeting pod or the Datalink pod etc)

There has been no Stable update since the JF-17 released in December. So its still Open Beta only.

Though the Mig-23 and F-4 are far more comparable then the Mig-21 and F-4 or Mig-23 and Mirage 2000 are. (The Mig-21 is closer to a Mirage III or F-104 in terms of Capabilities / performance) But yea of the aircraft ingame the Mirage 2000 is probably closest to the Mig-23MLA (No Fox-3 only 2 BVR missiles etc) Though the Mirage 2000 is far more nimble and has a better Radar and RWR which gives it much better situational awareness (Though hopefully they will model the Mig-23MLA's Lazur Datalink which should give it a kind of SA)

It will be fast. The radar will be mediocre (Better then Mig-21 worse then Mig-29 or Mirage 2000) The missiles will be Mediocre with R60M for close combat and R-24R and R-24T for BVR (mid 1970s with a 50km range under optimal conditions). As standard it would have the Spo-10 RWR (Same as Mig-21Bis) (Though if i remember correctly they talked about adding the Spo-15 and maybe even R-73 missile as optional upgrades but i could be wrong). So the Mig-23MLA will be at a significant disadvantage in a modern Scenarios against a F-18 and F-16 with Aim-120s, Aim-9X and Datalink etc. It would have to rely on its acceleration and high speed and use ambush tactics doing quick hit and run attacks (Preferebly with GCI / Awacs to help guide you to the target). In a cold war scenarios (With no Aim-120,Aim-9X or helmet mounted sights etc) it would do much better as its weapons and sensors were Ok for the 1970s and 1980s and while it still would not be able to turnfight a 4th Gen fighter its powerful engine gives it very good acceleration,top speed and climb rate.

im having the same problem. The missiles hit and explodes but does not seem to do any damage.

No mention of the Radar in the changelog =(.

The Gripen has a retractable probe. (The first version the Jas 39A/B lacked a fuel probe but it was added with the Jas 39C/D in the mid 2000s) And its only 250kg or so heavier so its still very much a Light fighter.

It my knowledge it has not been implemented. I fly the Viggen regularly and i have not heard of any changes (and ive not seen any changes done to the selectors etc)

My understanding (Though i could be wrong) is that they still use Russian weapons (So they have the R-77 but no SL-12/SD10) but they have significant multi-role capabilities with the ability to carry a wide range of Russian build guided air-surface weaponry Such as the KH-29 Family of Missiles ,Kh-31P Anti-Radiation missiles,KH-59M cruise missiles and KAB Guided bombs (Both TV guided and Laser guided). Though im unsure if it has a targeting pod or rely on buddy lazing for its laser guided munitions. (And the MK2 also has the capability to carry the Anti-Ship variants of the KH-31) (Note what looks to be a KH-29T on the Wing and possibly a KAB-500KR on the inner pylon) So a SU-30MKK (or MK2) would be a proper Multi-role strikefighter. Though even if Deka decides on a Flanker in the future its unlikely to be their next aircraft as they have already sated that they are going non Glass cockpit for the new one. (and while the Su-30MKK is less "glassy" then the JF-17 or later SU-30 models its still has MFDs)

Maybe a SU-30MKK? Its old enough that it might be easier to get data for it (while still being capable) and Since its Operated by China Deka might have an easier time getting Data for it. Or maybe even a Su-30MK2 as again might be easier for Deka to find data on then a Russian Su-30M2.

Another example from a recent Grim Reapers video. Starting at 6:35

The Pre-Order Discount was kept untill the last of December. Not untill the 1st of January that it was full price to buy.

How is this a boycott? I buy a module if i think i will enjoy playing it. I only play DCS in MP. And i only play on a particular set of servers. If i think i wont be able to enjoy flying the JF-17 due to the way the IFF is simulated why should i buy it?... Im not telling anybody else not to buy it or that i Dislike Deka etc... Im not demanding that they change it and cater to my desires. Im just saying that with how the IFF is currently simulated it would likely cause me more distress then enjoyment if i were to buy it and play online with it. :(

And this is the source of my worry and why im holding off on buying the JF-17 =P. Most People in DCS are not cordinated enough for this to work reliably. And having to rely on the servers i play forcing the IFF setting is not ideal as it very much limits where i can play. Personally i very much prefer Simple IFF for the JF-17 untill ED makes advanced/realistic IFF game wide. Since as is with the JF-17 having realistic IFF but everything else having Simple it just hurts JF-17 pilots (making JF-17 vs JF-17 blue on blue incidents far more likely). And it pains me since i really like the JF-17 and Small single engine fighters are what i love.

For me the IFF is the main concern that is currently keeping me from buying the JF-17. I mainly play MP (99%) and as such having an IFF that is Simple to use (and that cant be exploited by players on the enemy team) is something that is key. Currently im a bit confused as to how it works as ive read conflicting reports and they have also stated it might change in the future. So im currently confused on the issue and will probably hold off buying the JF-17 untill i have a more clear understanding of how the IFF works (and will work in the future).

i think people might have voted for that reason simply because it has the M in it. So if they want the M that is the only option. There is no M only option or EE+M option.

I forced a repair and now it works.

Its seems like it did not make it into yesterdays update either. Atleast i still have the old skins for the RB 75 =(

I would actually be more interested in a F-16A then i am in the F-16C. And if they go with a F-16A Block 15 OCU it would still be capable enough (AGM-65s and Aim-120s etc) while still being able to easily simulate non OCU variants by just limiting weapon options. I just prefer the cold war era timeframe and i really like the F-16A cockpit so as is i dont even know if i will get the F-16C =P but a F-16A (Or even a F-16C Block 25) would make me pre-order right away.

You guys work quickly to fix complaints :megalol: :thumbup:

Also still no updated (Correct) visual models for the RB 24J and RB 75. (White Nose RB-24J and White RB 75)

I think your mixing up Austrian Drakens and Danish Drakens. The Austrian Drakens were second hand J35D Drakens with some modifications (With Some additions being made prior to delivery and they were also upgraded again in the 90s while in Austrian Service when they were Given Chaff-Flare dispensers and RWR taken from the Danish Drakens when they were retired from service) but they did not have increased air-ground capability (to my knowledge) and certainly were not able to use the Maverick. The Danish Drakens (Saab F35 and the RF 35 Recce Variant) were the ones with increased air-ground capability and they had a significantly redesigned airframe / wing that gave them both more internal fuel and a much greater payload. (8 Pylons in total with two dedicated for Fuel tanks where as the J-35A+B had 3 pylons D+F had 4 with the J35J and Finnish J35F being given an additional 2 Launch rails in the 1980s bringing them up to 6) They did not have a Radar though as they were primarily strike aircraft so initially the nosecone was empty (actually had counterweight to replace the weight of the radar) they were upgraded multiple times with the most major upgrade being in the 1980s when they were given a laser rangefinder & marked target seeker in the nose and a HUD,INS and Nav-Attack Computer etc. It was not able to use the Maverick however so it relied on unguided bombs / rockets and the manually controlled AGM-12 Bullpup in the air-ground role and was able to carry the Aim-9 for self defence. It would be really fun to Both get both a Swedish fighter version with the J35J being the most capable of the Figher versions (And the Swedish Drakens were able to carry Rockets both 75mm air-air rockets and 135mm air-ground rockets though its primariy role was certainly air-air so i dont think much focus was put on the air-ground role though the capability and the rockets was available) and the Danish F35 Draken. Both because it would be fun to have a strike version also and note the difference in how they handel etc but also because i would pay money to see peoples reactions when Heatblur Announce a F35 and how long it would take people to realize that its not the F-35 xD. Also here is a great site for any who want to know more about the Draken and its different Variants. http://www.airvectors.net/avj35.html#m3

It seems like this is one of those things that while it might be possible in theory it has never been done in reality. Page 2. http://www.midkiff.cz/obj/firma_produkt_priloha_140_soubor.pdf