Tirak

Mate, I know about business, I know about integrated deadlines, and I know that if a shop shoots by it, they ain't gonna be in business long. Software development isn't some magic land of exceptions, there's a reason why crunch time is crunch time. I'd like to remind you though, you're in the LN section of the forums. Here we have a much more relaxed way of looking at things, and while there is certainly some grumbling about the deadlines for announcements, of which we are now six months past, and some good natured teasing on all sides, we are not infected with the rampant "Fanbois vs Detractors" mentality that exists in certain other sections of the forums, so please kindly take your confrontational attitude elsewhere, or calm down and enjoy the atmosphere.

Um, I think you'll find that in most industries, when you give an estimate, you damn well better deliver on time or you won't be doing business with whoever you just screwed by going off schedule for very long. I work in machining, and when we give a time estimate, we stick to it come hell or high water, and yes, for projects lasting out for a very long time. Let me be clear on this, I'm not phased by the endless delays and re estimations because I haven't paid anything for it, but don't try to sell me on "nobody keeps deadlines", because that is completely false.

The Belsimtek approach certainly has its merits.

So is that an indication you're backing off your late 2016 estimate? Just so you know, most estimates build in some leeway to take into account unexpected delays, doing so might help alleviate some of the complaints about them.

Ok, here's some news. F-14 update expected mid/late March, module expected out in late 2016. Viggen is still a no show, last information promises it in the first half of 2016.

The amount of sarcasm in my response was enough to murder an elephant :doh:

Absolutely. After all, what everyone seems to be forgetting is that while it may be 2016, absolutely no progress in missile technology has occurred since 1970. I know, I know, you've got more computing power in your watch than sent the astronauts to the moon, and the pace of technology enhancement is an exponentially increasing curve, but in terms of missile seeker head technology, there's been no progress at all. So seriously, stop trying to remove the only weapon that aircraft fight with.

Because an AIM-120 weighs 335lbs and an Phoenix is 1040lbs not counting the heavy pylons that it needs in order to be mounted. Literally that's the only reason a lot of us were pushing for AMRAAM support. In absolute range the AMRAAM loses, and as long as its under power the Phoenix actually is pretty nimble, the problem is dragging them to the fight. In any event, LN has opted not to model any of the test loadouts, really this thread serves no purpose anymore...

This is still my favorite quote when talking about the Tomcat's strike capability, and why I'll be heartbroken if the F-14B doesn't have LANTIRN support.

Wonderful pictures, though boneyard pics always make me feel sad. It's just feels wrong to see them rusting away like that...

Which as far as I know, was not put on F-14Bs, so modeling the ground radar mode like you imply wouldn't be an issue since even the late F-14B wasn't upgraded to AN/APG-71 status.

Sorry, but what? I was under the impression that the AN/AWG-9 didn't have an air to ground mode.

For our new people here, the full fanfare announcement of the Viggen was supposed to happen August 2015, we've been waiting 6 months, so there's no point in getting worked up over when information on the Viggen will actually drop. It'll happen when it happens, and until then, you haven't paid for anything so there's no point in getting worked up about it.

Then please explain to all of us plebeians why you haven't gone to Iran and offered them a sufficient amount of money for them to sell you one of their F-14s. :doh: It would be anti consumer bullshittery of the highest level, and anyone supporting policies like paying to activate systems already on the plane that you already payed full price for, frankly needs their head examined.

"You just spent 60 dollars on the module, now spend another 5 dollars to unlock the TGP! Want Sidewinder support, that'll be just 3.99!" If that happens, I'm out, and it boggles my mind that anyone would come out and hope for that to happen.

The day Microtransactions for aircraft capability comes to DCS, I'm out and will boycott any company supporting such a scummy finance scheme.

Bloc 53 E Phantoms also have slats and a smokeless engine... and Maverick capability :pilotfly:

Gonna have to explain that one mate.

The question is not if the F-14B could carry the LANTIRN pod, it's whether or not the version modeled will be one of the one's upgraded to do so. A mid 90s F-14B, which is how LN has described it, is right on the cusp of introducing the pod, which could mean they could go either way. As of right now, the only thing we're certain of in terms of sensors, is the TCS and the AN/AWG-9 radar, any additionals are completely up in the air at the moment.

We don't know. Next Tomcat update is expected in March.

Just because a sidewinder is all aspect, doesn't mean it has the same detection range from the front as it would the back. Head to head, advantage is most definitely the MiG's.

We'll all find out in a few months, but I do think that the MiG is going to have one hell of an advantage going into the merge. If the F-5 survives past that point it'll be dangerous, but that opening shot... well the MiG gets to take the first one...

... Yeah, sure...

If a Block 20 or 30 were done, they would be done in a similar way that the F-5E was done, an early version most easily matched by original flight manuals and not MSIPIII standard. In order to avoid any confusion, going with a Block 40 would be easiest, and most fully represents the capabilities I would want to see replicated on any DCS F-16C module.

LANTIRN, FLIR, AMRAAMs, GBUs, GPS, really from Block 40 up the F-16 could do anything under the sun.