RoflSeal

Well, you need STT to guide Sparrow, otherwise, no.

The F-117 had its handling characteristics very similar to the A-7

Even more ironically, second wave feminists pigeon-holed pink as a feminine colour in the 70s-80s and nowadays third wave complain pink enforces gender stereotypes. Anyway, this is the internet, where all women are men, and 12 year olds are FBI agents.

[ame]https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1982/1982%20-%202151.PDF[/ame]

Yeah, you can slam the Sabre so hard ingame that IRL the gears would go through the wing.

Well, except Maverick. Maybe F/A-18 will be really good at A-A when loaded with AGM-65

Yeah, pretty strange comparing the F-35 and the F-16 lift producing capability by their ability to do a carrier landing.

You always see a 29 on the radar. F-15 RWR doesn't differentiate between MiG-29 and Su-27.

Well, you would in the Su-27, The one thing Beryoza is good at ingame is estimating the range of the primary threat.

I don't see active cancellation working against AESA too well as they send their emissions over a range of frequencies and continuously change them to stop stuff like this.

Part of the reason why aircraft like to hunt in mountains on the 104th is that we have much less situational awareness then we would in real life. No AWAC/GCI, or datalinking that would be available in real life due to their buggy nature which means that all the information we get is from the 60 degree arc from our radar and almost blind 1.5-2nm visual detection, so you stay in the mountains to have more chance of spotting visual threats, especially since shadows are much easier to spot then actual aircraft. And what's the point of staying at 35,000ft when missiles are broken and you don't get a significant range advantage over a someone at 5,000ft when the missiles don't loft and under 20,000ft they deploy a parachute.

I have Plantranics 788 and its pretty good.

According to Wikipedia (I know, but still), The Spanish version we are getting should get Sidewinders after the Spanish and Greeks requested Sidewinder integration for their versions. Hopefully someone with more knowledge on the F1 can confirm that. This F1EE definately has sidewinder mounted

Well, you can't engage 4+ targets at once with SAHR, neither can you turn away once pittbull or just launch them maddog, nothing specifically to do with effectiveness vs chaff.

Probably something to do with the phase difference between the refresh rate of the camera and the HDD

I recede my point on the Mirage III and F-104S (I wasn't even thinking about that) but F-104A/C/G, no. The only reason why I don't include F-104S is due to the fact that is has AIM-7 (without a gun btw) so it can engage the MiG-21 in BVR (though BVR in DCS is 8nm but that is still more then twice the range of the R-3R). The other F-104s would have to rely on rear aspect Sidewinders, and with those short stubby wings and a T-tail, I don't see them getting on the rear of a MiG-21 if the MiG-21 is aware of them.

Mirage III and F-104 can't compete with the Mig-21bis. Both are late 50s vs a 1970s aircraft. Nesher is more appropriate instead of Mirage III and instead of lawndart, F-5 Tiger II and/or F-4E phantom.

Can the mesh be changed such that it becomes into a Super Tucano?

To me it suggests that the HUD was prone to failure IRL.

DCS also has a time accelerate, much harder to use though as DCS doesn't have a autolevel/autopilot mode.

The R-60 and 23mm cannon have trouble killing the M2000C

It's most definitely possible to go 36000m, when you enter a Mach 2+ zoom climb at 15,000m

Probably no different since the roof/side and rear armor have little difference between T-55/62/64/72/80/90. All ~30mm/80mm/45mm respectively. And its just steel, no reactive armor is mounted on the roof or rear and usually only the front half of the side has reactive armor.

A lot of the stuff in the F-117 is taken directly from other aircraft (e.g. FBW is from F-16). The only major unknown is the RAM coatings, which can be overcome by assigning a number in DCS.