Kev2go

so how could an Aim7 be useless on a viper if APG68 equipped C blocks were paired with Aim120s ? and If F16A ADF with a mere APG66 could use sparrows?

looking further into this... I found some F16A MLU documents. M1 tape dated 1998 documents APG66 V2 A/G modes which has EGM. but a F16C blk 50 1997 dash 34 using Apg68 v5, does not. Me thinks ED is filling in some blanks for a F16CM using F16A MLU documentation

really the F4E was used in the gulf war? i thought that was the F4G wild weasel.

somone once sold a paper copy on ebay. So somewhere out there.... somewhere is a dash 34 https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1960s-original-training-aircraft-1886135975

yes agreed!

Most scenarios in DCS are fictional. ANd its moot discussing historical relevancy considering we dont even have the scenarios for certain aircraft that people want to see, or vice versa have aircraft and scenarios for a time frame where they just flew in circles fighting in low intensity warfare, dumping jdams on jihadis in toyota pickup trucks. F4B doesn't have a map scenario where it fits and it would be an orphan aircraft considering the other existing ( or planned) 3rd generation aircraft are from later periods. Ignoring ww2 Map, s we have Caucasus ( aside from narrow 2008 Georgian war) , all fictional scenarios . Marianas (outside of potential future ww2 uses) , all fictional. Persian Gulf isnt large enough to include Iraq, so its not adequate for gulf war, or Iran Iraq war scenarios. Aside from maybe a handfull of skirmishes agianst Iran, otherwise all fictional scenarios. Falklands doesnt have much use outside falklands war ( and there are still so many lacking aircraft for that exact war). This leaves Syria as the only map relevant for a wide variety of non fictional scenarios over various timeframes 1967 war, 1973 war, 1982 war, and low intensity conflicts during 21st century. However for the 67 and 73 wars there are lacking avation assets. Its more relevant to discuss features than what wars it was or wasn't used. So If you want an interceptor, the F4S is more for you, If you willing to sacrifice BVR capability for more multirole, F4E will be more for you. simple as that. Navy only cared about allowing their cream of the crop tomcats to get the limelight. F4S would of been more than able to carry its own weight against Su22's and export downgraded Mig23's, especially considering these were just skirmishes and not fights in a full fledged war

Im glad they are doing the C7. You have a HUD , PD radar and some quasi digital avionics

In addition f4ej Kai is also now retired from military service Although tbh I think I would prefer the f4f ice peace Rhine over the f4ej Kai , just because of the apg65 > apg66, that and the f4f has the wing slats. since heartblur is already working with the luftwaffe for eurofighter it would maybe be easier getting documentation for the luftwaffe phantom?

the Mirage F1CE had a integrated countermeasure system, whereas the French air force Mirage F1C's had to carry external countermeasure pods for chaff and flare.

its only unfortunate that the Mirage F1 doesn't have IFF interrogate capability with the radar, when it was common for other aircraft to have such functions in that timeframe.

So I don't see a problem allowing modders or non 3rd parties from having access to those tools. If they made a bad quality mod. Nothing of value was lost. People can simply Uninstall it an another group of people can make a better one. People such as yourself that have faith only in paid 3rd party projects as the only people competant enough to design modules outside of ED can continue to only want to fly aircraft made by them, and pay for them. So no one in the community would really lose from this. Open source is better than closed source api. By the same logic there would already have been a team that would have been a official 3rd party to develop a Skyhawk. A much simpler plane. I think all of the existing 3rd parties have done more complex aircraft at this point Again there are many other strings attached that would make being a 3rd party developer a headache or for that matter, considerations for being economically viable etc besides meeting a ED quality threshold. Unless of course you want to argue there isn't a 3rd party skyhawk becsuse there isn't enough interest in it, and its an obscure aircraft no one cares about ( it's not)

Not really considering i Flew a super Hornet and was able to very easily transition and fly combat the DCS Hornet on Day 1 release due to the same Hotas and fundamental systems operation, as well as being familiar with the symbology. DCS world as a platform has the benefit of being a proper combat sim platform environment. so you just described heatblur. they had developers with with another full time job part of the team, and even development for another sim platform once the F14 released into EA. 3rd parties like heatblur proved that you can make on par or arguably better quality modules than ED. But im sure you will say HB is the exception to the rule. Again with the Hornet you could reause many of the same systems on a block 1 Super Hornet versus starting from scratch. But if you want to continue to be a naysayer and makes excuses why a Super Hornet will not be possible go ahead. All resting on the assumption modders wouldn't be able to get access to RL pilots willing to offer input ? If such a hypothetical mod was created you would loose nothing from it by not playing it if you really want to only simp for paid modules. Again IM willing to give money for effort, but some of us appreciate mods if they are of a good quality. because modders don't have access to the same development tools licensed 3rd parties have ( which is what ED do) ...... So yes it would have been a better made module. hence proving my point of what the issue here was. So the issue is not amatuer developers but lack of proper tools that are going to be a limitation as it was in the case of the A4 mod. By all means if ED want to let slip a potential super hornet module to a 3rd party so be it, their loss. People said a Eurofighter would never be possible, yet suddenly some naysayers are going to eat thier words real hard.

I kind of posted it as joke, knowing that some people would reply " bruh, just fly F/A18C with SAF skin, we want new aircraft not a variation of an existing aircraft " But at the same time since original EF18 is an F/A18A it would give the cold war enthusiasts the early 4th gen version they want for 80s scenarios. Honestly im not sure Aerges is willing to simulate a variation of the Hornet if ED already had developed a USN/usmc F/A18C, though i have to admit if they could get documentation of the EF18M, that would be interesting as its a mix of new and old. The Hornets in SAF service are due to be phased out by 2024, with another contract for additional Eurofighters having been signed to replace them. https://sofrep.com/news/spain-and-nato-eurofighter-close-2-15-billion-deal-to-purchase-airforce-upgrades/#:~:text=News %2B Intel-,Spain Will Replace F%2FA-18 Hornets with NATO,Eurofighter in %242.15 Billion Deal&text=Spanish Air Force's F-18s,Berlin Airshow by Carlo Mancusi.

the R530 is over performing? oof, and I already find it underwhelming and wishing for the Super 530F. Overall yeah basically all the 3rd gen era radars suck relative to what we are used to on 4th generation. it will be a question which aircraft has the least sucky radar. F4E has may have better ranges on paper relative to the Cyrano 4 in ideal high altitude intercept, but it will also struggle ( if not more so) at low altitude as it has no lookdown shootdown capability. APQ120 is just a pure pulse radar, so I think that leaves the planned Mig23MLA as the aircraft with the least worst radar from its generation. When the Mig21 first came out i found its radar to be quite impressive emulation of such a simple radar of its timeframe It even had cloud interference on the scope. AS for the mirage F1 its still EA. There are more radar modes that will be developed, and existing modes will be tweaked im sure. ITs a wait and see on how radar will behave in a fully finished product.

the EF-18

IM wondering did the Spanish Mirages at any point get Magic 2's or Aim9L and/or M? ( be it the F1CE or later versions?) P.S I know the Aim9Juli is a thing, before someone tells me to use that if i want an all aspect missile.

It's going to be alright when it's facing f5s , mig21s , and future f4's and mig23 yes

cant use the full potential of such missiles if you have a finicky radar or also have to deal with a higher risk of blue on blue in bvr lacking an IFF interrogator.

Even though the Mirage F1 counts as a 3rd generation aircraft. the issue is still radar limitations. even for its timeframe. American 4th gen teen fighters have Radars with planar array antennas with digital signal processing . save for tomcat, even though its its a Analog PD, it is still a proper PD radar. Cyrano 4 is Pulse radar cassegrain antenna with MTI like functions for lookdown ( that mode which wasn't known for being particularly useful for that purpose) . I think its even more limited than the Saphir radar of the Mig23MLA/MLD, for air to air which is also an MTI radar. I cant find any information whether the F1 has an IFF interrogator, It would be unfortunate if it didnt, since many other aircraft of same generation already did in that timeframe.

I would still expect the F5E to have a tighter turn , though the F1 will have a better T/W ratio to work with. the Engine as i saw from some youtube content creators is still possible to stall out like the F14A TF30's if you abuse too much, wheras in the F5 i cant recall ever doing that to my engines Mirage F1CE does has a better radar than the F5 ( although its still not a pulse doppler, but an MTI) , and a medium range radar missile to go with it , the Radar warning receiver however seems to be pretty rudimentary something akin to a Mig21 SPO 10. Though i would say long term investment is with it as they plan to include in the same pack the Mirage F1EE ( will have INS navigation and a proper RWR ) and then the F1M ( modernized digital cockpit avionics)

did usaf ever actually put adopt APG68 v9 upgrade? There was huge debate over this many times, and it wasn't verified. i thought that was only by export users. whilst USAFvipers continued flying with apg68 V5 until present day when they started getting AESA's.

boy its nice goin back to old threads seeing whos posts aged well ( or didnt)

poor line of reasoning considering by that logic we shouldn't have a F14A or a F14B module either. as Harlikwin said.

I find it interesting that the APG 68 v5 has Enhanced ground Mode ( sharpens the resolution of what would be the basic Real Beam map) versus just plain old real beam mode, when ive found no reference of such a feature. ever being added to the V5 . APG66 V2(A) which was an update of the apg66v2 of the F16A MLU which references some sar like like A/G map features ( probably EGM) but i cant verify the same for V5.

so im guessing youtubers get acces to some developers build of WIP MAC to participate as testers? Then if MAC has gotten that far along i wonder when DCS community can expect some official announcements. Also Id hope that MAC will include updated cockpits for all of these aircraft, and thus in turn for us module owners. IT would seem silly to release a new game with simplified aircraft with those dated models.