Kev2go

I think its fair to assume the F16CM and F/A18 L2 pods are based on litening 2 AT ( or at least the l2 ER. The L2 AT based on public sources is basically just an ER with improved datalinking functions) even if its not explicitly stated in the manual. just becuase functionality wise they all have 2 levels of FOV and 9 levels of digital zoom. Razbams av8b Litening2 pod isnt called the Litening 2 G4 but we can deduce its that particular model from the additional features it has compared to the old litening 2 pod which had the same limitations as L2 pod all those other modules.

For me PiP mode is a gimmick that adds unessesary complexity Lack of a wide fov in tv mode makes it less usefull for loitering overtop targets for CAS. This something rl pilots have said litening 2 is better at. Except of course without the degraded image there is no incentive to use sniper over litening except maybe or a2a or if you really want multi target track.

Snipers TV mode has better resolution then its FLIR yes but it only has 1 FOV if you don't count the additional XR processing. which is unfortunate.

even without using any of x1-4 level of zoom on the Sniper pod. the image quality on Narrow FOV still feels lackluster. In its current implementation The only quality image IMO is with XR processing mode but it requires an area or point track and multiple seconds for the image to process so it cannot be slewn around all the time without the image looking like a blurry mess.

the 4x4 MFD is supposed to be 524x524 not 256x256. https://www.astronautics.com/pdf/product_brochures/F-16_4-Inch_MFD.pdf even so like these videos others have posted of MFD recordings ( so not stretched from recording software) i wouldn't be able to tell they were 500 something pixel image. when you have small displays you dont need as high resolution. anyone who has actually tried to sport any noticable difference for thier nakeyed between 1080p and 1440p on thier 7-8 inch smartphone screens will know this is true.

the CCD/ TV image quality of litening 2 G4 didnt improve based on public sources. IT was already 1024x1024 on litening 2 AT. with L2 G4 the FLIR resolution was improved to 1024x1024 to match the CCD resolution. so i dont see how allowing additional zoom levels would not keep the images blurry to the point of uselessness unless there is some under the hood similar to xr type processing going on.

if using anything past x4 zoom was useless why did the engineers even bother giving later models of the litening 2 even more digital zoom ( x16 on L2 G4 versus x9 on L2 AT) versus improving digitally enhanced zoom to look less pixelated within the existing 1 -9?

i personally think the GPS cutoff should be changed to an earlier date then 1994 at least for some platforms. the 1st gulf war is generally lauded as the first space war, due to the use of GPS aided navigation, even if it wasn't ubiquitous like it is today. A paper did mention that at least some F16C/D's ( i believes these would of been block 40's) were equipped with GPS receivers, and it did mention that in 1990-1991 3 additional satellites were launched to allow US forces 24/7 coverage in that particular region.

yeah this a core featurea that needed. ITs really lacking that in HSD page we dont see any information on Datalink contacts when cursor is hightling them or when selected in the HMD we are only given altitude and not any distance to target, Like someone pointed out even A10C and F/A18C have such features, so its not even setting a new bench mark by adding a feature never seen before.

yeah it would be nice if this got added. RECCE pod interface is described in the F16 MLU Production Tape M3 pilots guide.

Someone forgot about that 3 letter sim that used to only be f16's has a full fidelity f15 With datalink since late last year.

i recall it was supposed to be the AH1F after BST had initially been toying with the idea of doing vietnam era AH1G for UH1H engine commonality or something, and being bummed that it wasnt AH1W. Then of course it was put on indefinite hold.

oh didnt take note of that just read the label. Dont know why they call it a mark 3 then if its retrofitted to a later standard even if it was formerly a mark 3 tank. i assumed the mark 3 was chosen becuase it was a tank that was sold to Iran and used in the Iran iraq war.

Given Cold War Germany i think a whole slew of ground assets are needed. Sure there are plenty of Anti Air assets that can fit for a 1980s time frame. but i think there is need to have 1980s Nato/Warpact Infantry and armored assets to fit the era. Soviet Union/Russia T55 within DCS is only really fitting for GDR, but in turn there is not an appropriate T72 variation for that faction. Should be T72M and/or T72M1. The T72B was not used by GDR. For Soviets the T72B object 1985 was in service before the end of the cold war but T72's were only used with Category B soviet army formations. They are lower readiness units ( 70 – 80%) that were either stationed in military districts in Russia or lesser important parts of Warpact, and were not deployed as part of Soviet Forces in Germany. All of such divisions were of "category A". 95% or higher readiness and equipped with better equipment. T72 was a mass mobilization tank replacement of T55, whereas Category A units as part of Soviet forces in Germany were either equipped with T64 or T80 tank variations which had previously replaced T62 tanks. Sure the T80U is in the asset list as well , but according to CFE treaty document of 1990 only 420 were in service " west of the urals" at the time but as far as i could tell they were not actually deployed to East Germany. In Contrast to the 617 T80BV's that were in service or the 3020 T80B's in that exact year. In short the T80U barely fits into the 1980s so earlier variations that were produced and put into service in earlier portion of the 1980s and in much higher numbers should be added. BTR80 and BMP-2 are fitting for 1980s frame APC and IFV respectively but for an earlier portion of the 1980s Btr70 was also in service in this timeframe. Older model BTR like Btr60PB was still used by GDR so its also worth considering as a asset. BMP1 exists but a BMP-1P variation would also nice to have and fitting for early 80s. The CWG trailer showed off Btr70 and the T62M ( a modernization of the T62 which from exterior can be discerned due to laser rangefinder and applique armor package on turret and upper front plate) , but this vehicle AFAIk was only issued to Soviet military districts in the far east and combat deployed in support of Soviet forces in Afghanistan conflict. So whilst period accurate for the 1980s its not part of Group of Soviet forces in Germany. Since the T62M like BTR70 was not part of the recent patch I can assume asset is not ready but will be added at some point in the future? Soviet Motorized Infantry- early to late 80s, SSSH 68 helmet M69 pattern uniform. Ak74 rifle. Soviet Airborne Infantry - SSH68 helmet options are M88 (afghanka) BDU, or KLMK oversuit, 6b2 or 6b3 body armor. AKS-74 rifle The UK Chieftain mk3 is in the assets but this is rather early variant for a 1980s timeframe. Cheiftan Mk10 and maybe Mk11 should be added for the UK along with the Challenger 1. UK infantry 1980s - Mk6 helmet, DPM BDU, L85 rife. The US Army Humvee exists and the model looks like M1025 which can fit into the 1980s timeframe but could use with a 3d model update, but it is a very late cold war vehicle, being relevant for the 2nd half of the 1980s. M151 jeep. prior to the humvee being put into service this was the non armored utility vehicle in service since the late 1950s. It is relevant for early to mid 1980s timeframe of the map. Has M1A2 and M1A2C, which are anachronistic for the 1980s. M1A1 would probably be easiest model to make since the M1A2 existing model could be used as a basis for the M1A1. All the M1A1 3d model needs is the deletion of the CITV. Most M1A1’s produced had mounting ports for CITV so that part of the model could stay. Apart from that just maybe adjust some aspects of the Skin/ markings for the time period. M1A1 was produced since 1985 but not deployed in quantity until reforger 1988, so it’s a late 1980s service tank. M1 ( 105mm) is also aught to be included for early 80s to late 80s. although i think M1A1 should be priority in being added first just because that asset would fit into 1990s scenarios such as GW1 and early GWOT period. M2A2 Bradley exists as an asset. But they did not start being issued to units until FY1989. So like T80U it is a very tail end cold war vehicle that was not yet issued in substantial quanties. M2A1 or even initial M2 Bradley 3d model aught to be added for an earlier portion of the 1980s. Such earlier model bradleys did see use in 1990s conflict such as 1st gulf war, since US army had not converted its entire fleet to M2A2 standard yet even by 1991. M113 exists as an asset but is dated and could do with a new model. M60A3 already exist as an asset appropriate for the time period but is old 3d model and could do with updated model. Smoke dischargers are of the wrong sort for what the US army used in the 1980s so that would need fixing anyways. US Infantry models – early 80s – M81 woodland pattern BDU, M1 steel helmet ( m81 cover), PASGT flak jacket or M69 Flak jacket , M16A1 rifle. ( note whilst 82nd Airborne had PASGT Helmet and PASGT vest in 1983 during invasion of Grenada, most other units in early 80s still had older gear or a mix of old and new during that transition period) US infantry model- mid to late 80s - M81 BDU, PASGT helmet and PASGT flak vest, M16A2 rifle. For West Germany Leopard 2a4 exist as an asset, but this a mid to late 1980s vehicle. Leopard 1a4 exists an asset and of course various Leopard 1 models were in service in the 1980s still making a notable portion of the armor forces, but Leopard 1A4 is an aged model that could do with a remake or new model. West German Infantry - M62 helmet (very similar to US M1) Olive green BDU.and HK G3 battle rifle. Sources on NAto and WARPACT Table of organization and equipment https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2426107/soviet-tanks-in-gsfg https://www.scribd.com/doc/149485971/Nato-Order-of-Battle-1989 https://orbat.info/history/historical/nato/warsawpact.html

MH60L of course would be a far more versatile choice then Uh60L for DCS purposes because apart from more advanced avionics such as radar, FLIR, partial glass cockpit 160th SOAR can configure them as gunships, so it would give virtual pilots more to do than just slingload supplies or deliver troops with. But GL finding documentation on this particular variant needed to make a study sim level simulation.

IN black hawk down those were the Mh60L. the modified more advanced variant the 160th SOAR flew. The regular army UH60, the UH60L was basically just a UH60A with updated powertrain and more powerful engine. Although looking at the DCS UH60L mod its a 1996 or later version given the presense of AN/ASN-128B GPS doppler system and AN/ARC220 radio, and an/avs7 clip on monacle hud system for night vision.

If its the cobra i hope its the Ah1W not the Ah1F. Whiskey can still use TOW's for those who want an olderschool missile, but it can carry the Hellfires too. Plus wingtip Aim9's or AGM122 sidearm.

The L would be an L " badum tsss" attempt at pun aside. I really do think Uh60M would fit better along what we have in terms of helos Like Ch47F,Ah46D and Oh58D all having glass cockpits.

unless you have a different reference material then i do, the 2006 natops which covers F5E/F/N variants the F5N still has a radar installed with operation of APQ 159 described. Only some F5F's did not have radars installed and the above aforementioned manual has cockpit diagrams for radar and non radar installed F5F. The only thing missing from making it an F5N proper is the lack of digital radios and INS which is what the swiss had, which is noted in the manual to describe the difference between the F5N and the older F5E aggressors Navy had. There was no explicit mention of removal of guns, and the manual still had diagrams of how they are installed, and instruction on how to do aerial gunnery with with the gunsight and/or aid of radar.

sure GPS updating can be removed by date forcing nav system to fallback to INS only, but the new nav system can't be removed ( unless ED plans to do both variants). The pre EGI jets have different nav system with a different physical panel.

with the exception of the flight stick yea. looks about the same.

He has point the F15C radar has fixed detection ranges in the sense it doesn't take into account probability of detection. Unless somethings changed recently and i missed it in the patch notes.

I get what your saying but F15e that razbam was modelling wasnt even all that early. Like day 1 ea. The f15e variant came with egi navigation suite. So that alone made it unsuitable for gulf era, unless you turned off the gps within the ufc functions, and then just kept in mind armament limitations for 1st gulf war. Suite 4 + was supposed to be the baseline. And this was a circa 2003-2005 era aircraft. At a time when it got datalink and jdam integration( with plus version) with features from later iterations that were planned to be added down the line. Of course not all baseline suite 4 features got a chance to be completed but that another topic. But to get back to your point of course the ideal solution to make everyone happy is either having multiple iterations of the f15c ( eg msip 2 circa gw1 and a msip 2 late) or having a checkbox what features are enabled or not

IF you want to cite missions like the Iranian reactor strike its worth recalling for the sake of context the timeframe and version of F15 used. Israelis had only the F15A at the time, and when most aircraft didn't have targeting pods, precision guided muntions, or a good enough a/g radar, ccip delivery of unguided bombs was fine. Circa 2005, having only unguided bombs utilizing ccip or cdip makes you more limited, and is no longer considered the peak of a/g bombing capabilities. It of course is still nice to have then just a pure a/a platform. Even though in the usaf bombing in the eagle wasn't done, I'd think an f15c would have better bombing ability then the f15a just due to assumption it will have sarmap capability. According to f15's radar development roadmap apg63 psp was supposed to get " high resolution" radar map in 1987. In turn according to forecast international they stated apg63v1 carried over operational modes of the apg70. So I don't know for certain if the usaf detuned the air to ground capabilities of apg63v1 given f15c's missions is air to air or if strike eagle tier sarmap resolutions were retained, but the implication of what I read from forecast international seems to to impy the latter. Of course i haven't found a recent enough manual from time frame of apg63v1 was in use to self verify with certainty that's the case.

I don't think the old f15c photo I shared was a non msip 2 bird since it has mpcd. No what I mean is original msip 2 birds didnt have have advanced stick. I think It's a 1990s upgrade to the msip 2. There are various in incremental changes that don't differentiate an original 1985 msip 2 versus a post gulf war version terms of nomenclature but in terms of functionality some stuff like flight stick got replaced later.