Kev2go

Same manual states that there are ( or were given its dated 2006 ) radar equipped models operated of the F5E/F. A chart has symbols various F5 models and what features they have for I for installed, S for some, and N for none. In the above example which F5E/F were fitted radar, S for some with older APQ 153 radar, rather than APQ 159 which isnt fitted in USN/USMC F5E's, but is in some F5F's Yes the F5E's bought from Swiss got designation of F5N. Then again when F5E was being made What Belsimtek had marketed the F5E specifically being a USAF based aggressor model. Which as i pointed out, wouldn't be accurate as the USAF F5E's even until retirement never had RWR or Countermeasures suite. ED didnt make it Belsimtek did. ANd yet the F16 and F/A18 hornet are actually a specific models.Those are the standards they set. But by all means engage in mental gymnastics to rationalize F5E as accurate enough. Ah well guess we will have to wait for DCS F5E II, a paid update to get correct F5 model, which should have been from day 1.

? Yes the F5N does have 'a' radar. an/apq159v3 to be exact according to the 2006 natops manual

no greece in Syria map. Cyprus ( soon to be added) and a portion of Turkey yes

In the sense example is more was more noticeably modernized relative to the other example provided. Which really was just a Mig29G with GPS. bolted in above Mig29's HUD repeater. IM sure adding in a MFD and Up front controller has to do more than just making it nato compliant., since thats what the Luftwaffe "MIg29G" already achieved, since from what i read it new databus, new mission computer, new navigation suite including a Moving map capability on the MFD

Seems like the Poles thought otherwise..... Although im sure you knov Having an added on GPS module isn't just " oh look i can have more waypoints"

and that is its the tomcats greatest weak point, especially as it has to be programmed manually ( no data cartridge) , and once you get too much drift cat cant update INS like you could in other teen fighters in a pre GPS era by using A/G radar to update the INS. That being said thanks to Lantirn pod having self contained GPS, Tomcat Drivers, will have an accurate coordinate position of where they are. Look how many waypoints on can have with an aircraft like Viggen, which is generation 3. For example which went into operation in the 1970s. can hold 9, and you dont have to manually program your entire navigation profile due to data cartridge. Again this is just a suggeestion that ED could do 2 Mig29 derivatives in 1 module. Polish Mig29A is a "mig29G" with GPS added in at some point. Not a big difference, to model a 2nd variant.

you mean something like this? some of the polish migs also have a Up front control display and a MFD

the Turks used F100 SUper Sabres and F104 Starfighters during their Invasion of Cyprus ( which will be added to the syria map) Can we have an F100 and F104 too?

yea i was thinking they could do a soviet vanilla Mig29A but also throw in post cold war polish 9.12A mig which has the AN/ASN 175 GPS added on. Since having a a crappy INS with only 3 waypoints would suck. That is assuming they can't find concrete documentation for a more intensely modernized export version of the 9.12 Dont have a Polish Mig manual but you can see how this particular GPS operates from the 1988 UH1H Manual ( 1999 revision)

To be honest it did strike me bit unusual that for a card advertised as sold enough for 4K only had 10gb vram Even more "normal gaming" that seemed long just bit low if looking for keeping a card longer term. thought it would of been a bit more attractive with 12gb. shame there is no 3080 more vram. Think middle ground of higher vram model 3080 ti with 16gb would have done the trick as a happy middle ground between what otherwise seem overkill and very expensive 3090 card. 24gb vram. IM wondering how other flight sims are also as vram hungry as dcs for vr, or if DCS is inadequately optimized with resource usage. BUt then again for a generation that is continually out of stock..... maybe il be able to get my hands on a 30 series with as advertised MSRP ( and not price scalped) by the time the 40 series come to the market.

after A6E and Draken AI,, and finishing the F14 out of EA, the full fidelity A6E module development, will keep them busy for the forseeable future

Unusual to have fishbowl Bomcats with lantirn, and disappointed it wasn't added in the end. But understandable form Heatblur. Ah well guess maybe we can expect that say around a decade later when module 3d textures get aged enough, we can hope heatblur opts for a DCS F14A/B tomcat II module update of which they will have the opportunity to include a updated PTID equipped bomcat.

why not both like we got F14A/B? Also as someone pointed out SWIP derivative did in fact see use in Gulf war and in Bosnian conflict. A manual i saw in ebay at one point was Natops 1994/1995 publication called A6E TRAM/SWIP. So because SWIP didn't represent the majority, and the differences aren't drastic the manual covered both models of that time frame. Given that we have late 1980s F14A, and F14B of roughly the mid 1990s, it would only make sense to aim for a comparable time frame intruder to compliment the tomcats.

not using said weapons doesn't mean having to turn the clock to the cold war, the Slam ER for example didnt enter service until the 2000's. Not every squadron gets issued said weapons, or if they do get a limited quantity of them. Slams are not the bread and butter of A/G, even in a precision guided era, they are very expensive. And some nations that use said airframe do not necessarily own the same weapons Take for example RCAF CF18's. We only started to aquire AIm9X' block 2 and JSOWS just recently, even though with Canada had the onboard capabilities to employ the same weapon for long time, and those weapons have already been produced since many years earlier. Or that swiss and Finish F18's had a focus of air defence.

A) You arent forced to use these. This isn't the only weapon. Mission editors can still restrict these. B) these weapons are only really used against high value targets. At best a Hornet will carry what? 4? Even then Hornet wont get far without EFT's so realistically that only means 3 or only 2 SLAMS if one wants symmetrical loadout( centerline EFT not an option due to datalink pod). a;sp they are heavy and very draggy. Such standoff weapons would be more useful if we had a much better A/G radar to work with ( or better yet real time updates from JSTARS), because to maximize said range, and seeing smaller specific targets you would like to engage like say a individual Tank or SAM system its well beyond how far a targeting pod can see. ANd not every targets exact location is known. C)A launched weapon doesn't guarantee mission success. These sort of standoff missiles can still be downed by SAMS. In a multi layered air defences, No risk sure, but a single hornet wont end the entire M/P A/G mission in a single sorties.

just becuase its the 2000's doesn't mean gps based munitions are the end all weapon in every scenario. GPS exclusive based munitions for example are not suitable for attacking targets capable of moving. GPS guided muntions you still need to know where your target is, if you dont know exact coordinates beforehand, than its up to the pilot play around with a targeting pod to search and destroy. This is only seems boring because people only consider real life scenarios where for over a decade pilots have been operating in non contested environments, in low intensity warfare rather than a conventional war with neer peer adversaries.. Even as such gen 4 aren't stealth planes, they have lots of fancy standoff weapons , but they are still detectable at range, are still vulnerable against multilayered Air defense systems , and can still have enemy interceptors scrambled against them.

The pilot won't be removed from the cockpit by the 2040s. Gen 6 aircraft fighter concepts are still being designed around having a human manned aircraft. never mind what wealthy industrialists like Musk say who have a vested interest in pushing for AI purely to make $$$ and would want nothing more than to get juicy defense contract, their predictions are too premature and optimistic even for 20 years from now to entirely remove human pilots from the next generation of aircraft. Although I think people focus too much on a2a combat when comparing the generations. The developments of generation 5 are also quite exciting for those who like surface strike. AESA radars which also have much higher resolution and magnification levels for A/G mapping, the type classification of detected vehicles, and a new helmet sights that show video feed through the HMD so your not obstructed by your cockpit when looking under, to name a few.

actually they would, in the same way that a most would be able to tell 1980s F16C block 25 from a F16C Block 50 FIrst step even in someone relatively unaware google searchs f18 cockpits " huh why when i google F18C cockpit most images i see has fancier screens?" then theyl look a bit more deeply and realize Lot 10 isnt merely an earlier production, but pre Night attack version. Even when comparing a pre 2000s JHMCS/ Link 16 era Lots. The Lot 10 would not have MPCD , a non NVG compatible cockpit, weaker engines, older radar, older ALE39 countermeasure suite. the "night attack" series lot 12 and upwards are the definitive legacy Hornet productions. Lot 10's werent brought up to Lot 20s. Pre night attack hornets faded into obscurity judging by the T.0's as only lot 12 and upwards had continual upgrades. On the other hand it would be very true Lot 18-19 would in fact be virtually indistinguishable from a Lot 20, especially a circa mid 2000s, except to the most well read rivet counters which i think would probably get duped without a BUNO # reference of these lots. IN the case of the Hornet though F/A18C lot 10 than a F16 would still require more development time purely because Hornets had larger weapon variety then vipers of the time frame , and a targeting pod, and a more advanced navigation suite. ( still have MM)

ahh yes that was the paper.

yeah in detection ranges the APG 68 V5 seems to perform better than the APG 68 v9 would. since ive seen calculated estimates say air target with an RCS of 1m^2 for the v9 would be around 35-40nm at best if memory served me right. Indeed IRL between two APG73 > APG68 v5.

luckily for you the F16CM circa 2007 uses the same APG68 V5 radar that the F16C block 50 had they day it rolled off the production lines, which IIRC is also the same radar that the block40/42 had when they came out. AS for the Hornet APG 73 vs a 1980s era APG65 im not sure if ED would be able to model the nuanced differences that pertain to A2A to be noticeable apart A/G aspects of the radar by removing EXP 3 SAR mapping. Becuase the APG73 is only a product improvement of the APG 65 and not a new next generation radar. to quote Raytheon's product page " It is an upgrade of the APG-65 that provides higher throughputs, greater memory capacity, improved reliability, and easier maintenance without associated increases in size or weight." I recall reading a paper of av8b harrier plus remanufacture program that noted eventually once spare parts ran out for APG65's since it already shares 3 module sets in common with new APG73., once apg65 spare parts ran out, there was an option to move to using APG73 logistics of replace the other 3 components of the APG65 ( the exiter/reciever, target data processor, and computer power supply ) in the future would put those APG 65 produced radars on par with new APG73 productions. https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/222126.pdf

so in short its not so much the extra GPU processing power, its mostly becuase the 3090 has so much extra vram, and VR is much more vram hungry especially for the higher detail syria map?

depends which version. UH60M? Sure wouldnt think twice. Any day of the week over Uh1N, . However IF its only a Uh60A/UH60L , id still be tempted to take a UH1N over that, purely because the Uh1N has superior protection suite, thus making it more survivable in a modern scenarios, even though it cant haul as many troops or have anywhere as much lifting capacity as any Uh60 variant. a 2000s UH1N has AN/AAR47 v2 laser and Missile warning system, AN/APR39 v2A RWR, and ALE47 countermeasure suite. As a cherry on top you can also get a optional addon on FLIR mount for nighttime navigation. You dont get a comparable ( or rather superior) protective suite until the Uh60M, which mind you also has a glass cockpit as well. But in contrast to the UH60M the UH1Y is now a thing. Which again UH60 is obviously superior for lifting and troop capacity, although UH1Y does have smaller size, which depending on preference is something to consider.

Short answer. . IF ED really wanted to they could still include the AAS38 Nitehawk pod for Lot 20 hornet we already have for a more retro experience. Not simply out of the sake for making those who want older tech happy, but it was realistic for the time frame to still have Nitehawks in operation and not entirely phased out in the "circa 2005" timeframe for Legacy Hornets. Long answer for historical context: Remember than in 2005, the ATFLIR has not yet been acquired in significant enough quantity to replace the Nitehawks. There is an old paper published by the USMC in 2006 : "The Next Marine Corps F/A-18 Targeting Pod: ATFLIR or LITENING?" https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a498288.pdf The USMC was deciding whilst ATFLIR would be purchased for squadrons operating from carriers to have TGP commonality when sharing the deck with USN Hornets, whilst land based USMC Hornet squadrons would be getting Litening 2 AT's purchased. The reasoning for this augmentation of using two pods was that Litening 2's were cheaper than ATFLIR, but were also available to be acquired at a faster pace. At the time the uSMc observed that Raytheon were unable to manufacture and deliver ATFLIRS fast enough pace needed to replace then very dated AAS 38 Nitehawks. USMC noted that by 2005 ( since 2003 production of ATLFIRS first began in 2003) only 75 ATFLIR's were delivered by that point in time whereas in 2004 alone Northrup grumman had 400of 500 Litening 2 pods delivered. Reality was during 2005 timeframe ATFLIR's were prioritized for Super Hornets ( at this point paper cites 250 Super Hornets were available in this year) whilst legacies were still stuck to rely on Nitehawks since not enough ATFLIR's could be allocated to legacy Hornet squadrons during that timeframe. It is noted as an example in the above linked paper that a commander of USS JOhn F kennedy Strike group had testified to congress , complaining that limited number of ATFLIRS posed a problem. That his strike group of 34 Hornets only had 4 ATFLIRS available in inventory, wheras the rest of pods in the Strike group had gone to Super Hornets.

It still is a sim for military aviation enthusiasts. MAC is going to be that middle ground for those who still want a realistic experience but without clicky pits just as FC. Remember that at the end of the day those who only like more arcadey games like WAr thunder ( and remember War thunder been out since like 2012 or 2013?) are never going to truly get into DCS. At least not for long term, as so far DCS/FC3 has never really been practical with a mouse and keyboard, and been more demanding requiring higher end hardware to run more smoothly. for turly immersive experience, Players evnetually get around to investing gadgets like track ir ( or go for VR) plus HOTAS and pedals to a basic flight stick. "insert, always has been meme" Air quake servers always existed for those who played FC3 modules. ANd most people who initially got into DCS came from LOMAC or Flaming cliff days. before Hornet or VIper, there were a fair share of Sukhoi drivers that complained about eagle Amraam spamming advtange. But Something like the Hornet or Viper is what DCS always needed to be honest. I myself had long wanted 1 ( or both) of these fighters. Before DCS remember that was older 3 lettered viper sim? That was for enthusiasts too. Viper In DCS if anything was going to attract members from that community to hop over. We area also getting ED to working on dynamic Campagins., which was the 1 main selling point that 3 lettered sim had over DCS. IM myself have been playing DCS more regularly when pointy nosed gen 4's got added. Flying a pointy nosed fighter with 1:1 T/W or greater is simply more exhilarating and "multirole" is popular because it allows get the most moneys worth from a module and also have much more replayability as you can perform various functions. DCS has done enough to grow larger, to become less of niche. such modules have attracted plenty of new players. That is a good thing, because too niche and DCS wouldn't be sustainable, if they never added any further modules. besies the KA50 and A10. Even if ED hadn't done these 2 fighters. Someone else from the 3rd party developers would have. Actually I learned the F86F as a first module because the A10C seemed too daunting at the time. Whilst everything is manual there is far less learning and instructive manual reading because you dont need to learn all the different digital avionics, and weapons systems. Just fundamentals of flight and basic instrumentation. Those early jets in thier own right those are actually simpler planes to learn, merely takes more time to master.