mattebubben

And another point being. With the F-18C and then the F-15E we need for a F-16C is significantly less. As we will already have 2 Capable US Multirole aircraft with Aim-120s Targeting Pods all sorts of guided air-ground munitions etc from the 90s/late 80s. So in that sense adding a earlier F-16A would be more interesting then adding the F-16C that is just doing the same things that the F-15E and F-18C are doing. Where as the F-16A would be different in both capabilities and and cockpit design etc (not having the MFDs of the F-18C,F-15E while the F-16C would just be more of the same in that compartment) To start with id say maby the priority should be on non US aircraft for a while since we are getting in a short period of time the F-18C,F-14A/B and F-15E. (Ontop of the A-10C we already have and the F-15C of FC3 that makes for a pretty complete US rooster where as most others are pretty bare especially when it comes to fully modeled aircraft) So while adding a F-16C might complete the roster it would not add anything new. So pritority would probably to get some none US aircraft on the line primarily some eastern designs (Russian or Chinese) or if they should make a F-16 then a F-16A would as i have already stated bring something different.

Just give them each an Iphone when they are 2-3 months old and they should be Ok. That seems to be the most common parenting technique today so it must be "working" xD. Then you can go back to flying ^^ and if they need Food, money or a diaper change just tell them to text you.

Well there is already a F-18C on the way From ED. and its slated for a release either this year or "early" next year. So the F-18 slot is about to be filled.

Well why not a F-16A with Aim-7s and or Aim-120s?... F-16A Block 15 OCU for example. Old cockpit but with the ability to use Aim-120s and AGM-65s. But in general i would have no problems with a Aim-9 only F-16 (and that would probably be my preferred way of using a F-16A in the Air-Air role) And a F-16 with 6 Aim-9s would still be more then a match for a Mirage-2000 with 2x R-530s and 2x R-550s... You simply need to avoid those 2 missiles until you get into Aim-9Range and suddenly you have the advantage. And dodging two Semi active missiles in a head on when you know they are coming (and you are free to maneuver since you are not guiding a missile of your own) is not a major difficulty. a F-16A with only Aim-9s would have less problem against a Mirage 2000C then the Mirage 2000C has with Aim-120 or R-27ER equipped aircraft and if you know what you are doing the Mirage 2000C is very effective in the PVP role. For me Any F-16A would be a first day buy (be it a Block 1,Block5,Block 15 or Block 15OCU) where as a F-16C im not that sure. a F-16A would be something different and classic and would still be a very effective platform and it would be a better showcase of what the F-16 was designed to be then what a Block 50 etc is. And also we already have a combat sim where you can experience the F-16C (especially Block 50/52) namely Falcon BMS where as there is no such simulator for the F-16A. And personally i will get the F-18C when it comes out and that makes it so i dont really feel a need for a F-16C since the F-18C is very similar in abilities and task etc and can do most tasks as good (or better depending on the task) then a F-16C can. Where as the desire i have for a F-16A is not affected. I would be overjoyed if somebody made a F-16A but i would not be the least upset annoyed or angry if somebody made a F-16C instead. So i dont think people should be angry for the reverse either. Dont like something dont buy it dont be angry at those that do or those that made the product.

So sometime in July or August. That does not mean tomorrow. there is still more then a week left of July and then then all of August. So July-August only means sometime before the last of August.

Well it was a very early hud. So not much to base it on experience wise. No real standard existed in the mid/late 60s when it was developed etc so they simply had to make it up as they went. Might take some getting used to. But then again the only reason later huds were better is they had experience from the early huds and knew what to improve upon. The A-7D/E Corsair is an example of an Early American HUD. The F-14A also has an earlier style HUD (though a few years later then the A-7s or the AJ37 HUD)

The problem is that case is probably that the flew that low above ppl (and civilians) rather then the flew that low to start with.

i think so might be a general problem atm. the R-73 for example seems really flare hungry (which is again very wrong as the R-73 was also quite decent and rejecting flares).

The only numbers ive seen and heard on the question of minimum operational altitude is 10M above water (or extremely flat terrain) and 30M above ground or trees. But again the actual altitude would probably be slightly higher for most lost altitude flying (50-100M) since most terrain in Sweden is never completely flat and even the ocean usually has some altitude differences depending on wind/weather and at such high speeds you would never be able to correct in time for even a slight unexpected rise in the terrain etc. But it is true that the Viggens and especially the attack viggen very often flew at very low altitudes at very high speeds and thats were most of the losses came from for the attack viggen.

it did go past Prototype. It was a fully developed aircraft it just never got purchased by anyone. But still i dont think a full module is likely since there is probably not enough data on it. And i see no point/reason for adding aircraft that were never adopted / Used when we have so many aircraft that we dont have in the game that are much more important/significant (even though i really like the F-20 and im sad nobody adopted it as i think it was a great aircraft i dont think they should add it to DCS any time soon). Would be much better to add any number of aircraft that have seen service. Either common mainstream aircraft Like F-16 or Mig-23 or something more obscure like a Mitsubishi F-1 or AIDC F-CK-1. Or maby one of the many chinese designs since there is currently nothing chinese in DCS and they represent one of the big aircraft building nations, maby something like a J-8 or Q-5? or one of the later J-7 variants (that are different enough from the Mig-21 not to conflict with the existing mig-21Bis module)

Thanks for the Post =). Ive heard about that story of them testing the Viggen (and what they thought of the experience ^^) but i had never been able to find/read the story itself. But yea even if the AJ might seem to have some basic systems by Todays standard it was a very effective and well liked aircraft through out the 70s/80s (and though starting to be a bit outdated in the 90s the AJS upgrades extended its capabilities until the JAS 39 was ready to replace it). And internationally the Viggen (both Attack and Fighter Variants) where generally seen as very potent top of the line aircraft. And most International pilots who got to test it were impressed with its performance (as it usually beat their expectations).

Well the Mig-21 has some advanced missiles. The R-60M for example is a 1980s missile (entering service around 82-83) So its of the same age as the Aim-9M or Aim-9P5. So on any server where the Mig gets the R-60M the F-5E should get the Aim-9P5. And that is also why we need it (and the rear aspect Aim-9P) to be properly modeled and performing correctly.

If it loves flares then the modeling of the missile likely is not completed yet. Since the Aim-9P5 uses the same Flare-rejecting techniques/Tech that the Aim-9M does. (The Aim-9P5 seeker is based on the Aim-9M seeker where as the Aim-9P4 had a seeker based of the Aim-9L) So the Aim-9P5 should not like flares any more then the Aim-9M does. But its most likely that it just behaves like the Aim-9P atm (as a placeholder) but with all aspect capability. Will probably (hopefully) be improved either before or soon after launch of the F-5E. Since the Aim-9P5 will be a staple weapon of the F-5E and will be its most effective missile so having it underperform will very much hamper the F-5Es abilities.

Actually a F-16A would probably be my Preferred F-16 Variant for a DCS module. I would be ok with a F-16A Block 15 OCU as a compromise (Late F-16A Block 15 with a new HUD and Aim-120 / AGM-65 capability and a more reliable engine as well as some other minor changes but with the old style cockpit etc) Since that would give you a F-16A that could easily fit early or later scenarios (And there are still F-16A OCUs in service in some nations) Or maby they could even make a F-16A Block 15 and one F-16A Block 15 OCU package (since the differences were mostly weapon based and they had different HUDs and a slightly different engine and more minor changes).

Do you have actual Facts that there was an Optional IFF Interrogator available for Export versions? or is that just guess work. Since i have found nothing to lead me to think that. More over For its intended Duties it did not really need a IFF interrogator to start with. Its Air-Air role was as a Day fighter. It was never intended to do all weather missions or night missions. (it could do so by following its radar and especially with the help of GCI) And for the Day fighter role and only being armed with Within Visual Range weapons the lack of IFF interrogation abilities was no real negative. In comparison some of the later Mig-21 variants (Mig-21Bis included) had the IFF interrogation ability as it was designed so that it could be used for limited all weather interception missions (with GCI guiding it to where it could see the target with its own radar). And for that mission and used together with the R3R radar guided missile there was actually a point of having the IFF interrogation system since with the R3R they did not have to be visual with a target to launch at it. While with the F-5E you had to be Visual to get a good missile tone (radar lock could guide you to an intercept but you still had to see the target to be able to get a reliable missile lock on it. And during this time period it was not unusual at all that fighters (especially those without BVR armament to not have IFF interrogation systems)

a Bit off topic but i just love this meme xD. And when this module is out you to can be a part of the Glorious Sweden Arming Force xD.

Should have gone Guns at the end there ^^. As he passed right Infront of your gun.

What version are you Playing on? And what is the target doing. Since 2.0 has not had an update for a long time (so it might still have the radar problems that have been fixed in the 1.5.4 version) and 1.5.4 got a bit bugged after the last update with all missiles (not just M2000 but across all aircraft) behaving alot worse then they should. And what was the range and what was the target doing. And was the target AI or Player?.

When it comes to Radar / RWR the Mirage has the same advantages over the Mig-29/Su-27s that the F-15 has. Its not 100% better but it has some advantages. Placement for example is better as its easier to keep constant watch over the RWR. And in a 1vs1 scenario the Mirage RWR does not give it a great advantage (Other then when it comes to Active missiles) But in a general air battle with multiple aircraft going around the Mirage and it western style RWR display does paint a clearer picture of your surroundings. And when it comes to the Radar the TWS of the mirage is Reliable and can be used in a heavy jamming environment where the Mig-29 tws can not. And its also easy to use especially now when it automatically changes to STT when you press to launch the missile (so you dont really have to give a lock warning untill you launch your missile which nr1 can take the enemy by surprise the enemy and also might fool them into thinking its an active missile since they had no lock warning prior to the missile warning). The one major fault with the Mirage atm when it comes to the RWR is the lack of the Semi-Radar launch warning (though if you play defensively you can work around that without any real danger) but once that is implemented it will be very effective (just as good or better then the F-15 RWR).

No im not just talking about IRL. I have the Mirage and its my main fighter in MP and i feel it does very well. And for me the TWS and RWR is more of an advantage then 2 extra missiles and the IRST is. Thats just me but id rather have the advanced RWR and TWS of the Mirage then any of the advantages the Mig-29 might have (IRST,2 more missiles and the helmet mounted sight).

But the Mirage 2000 has a better radar (with a very effective TWS mode) and a much better RWR system granting better situational awareness. id say they are very evenly matched. in a 1vs1 they are evenly matched and in a 2vs2 i would almost have to bet on the Mirage (due to the better situational awareness etc)

Well if i ware to operate them with my full feet on the pedals they might be narrow. But the way i use them is i basically just have the two innermost toes on each foot resting as far out on the pedals as possible. That for me gives me both a comfortable position as well as very good sensitivity/input. So i place my heels infront of the heel rests and then the 2 first toes on each foot on the tips of the pedal bar and thats what works for me. And also it should not be impossible to perhaps extend the Pedal bars if you want them wider. (or to replace them with something longer) After all they are just metal Bars/Tubes.

So no doubt allot of ppl would buy it just so they can do well in MP...

Well the way a significant part of the Community only wants the most powerful aircraft available and frown at anything that is not as or more powerful then the F-15C with 8x Aim-120s i think it would have allot of sales...

Next RAZBAM Module?