Kev2go

Yes both are lightening 2 AT (same model)

would rather see F-86H. basically a better T/W ratio F86F with M39 revolving cannons, more modern unguided munitions( M117, Mk80 series, and Hydra rocket pods) and a larger payload. F86H would be interesting what if that never happened against a hypothetical Mig17F.

They probably would sell if they had a modern enough multi-role capable fighter derivative of flanker family , such as Su30MKI/SM, or especially larger extent Su35S, latter of which would feel like a full blown super fighter, relative to F/a18 or Viper. Unfortunately its such type of jets that aren't realistic to expect, especially from ED.

Razbam is actively developing the Mig23MLA. So its still not impossible to expect a 3rd party to do a Su17 or Su22. or perhaps a mig29A model since it also redundant, vastly exported, and even was formerly operated by ex warpact nations.

not exactly a fair comparison. Vintage mi24 helo to a modern flanker family fixed wing jet. They didnt deny not being able too russian helos. Certainly not antique versions. Only Russian fixed particularly modern flanker). The Mig24P they are making is a 1980s derivative of a helicopter that initially went into active duty service in 70s. ( they did the P because big bad 30mm cannon for anti tank) So far most remaining aged Mi24's have been withdrawn from active duty RUAF service. The modernized MI35M production is the replacement coupled with a number of MI24's rebuilt to Mi35 standards.

title of the thread should be changed as there countless aircraft listed that are not even jets.

Against a sabre you can easily disengage at will, be it tomcat, hornet or viper , purely because all of them have vastly superior T/W ratio and top speed that is so disproportionately better to the sabre they may as well be UFO', making typical dog fighting entirely unnecessary. Its not exactly a winning strategy to bet that all pilots are so dumb as to not be able to do anything other than do horzontal turn pulling as much as they can on their stick to fly in circles. The only missiles sabre could ever carry would be a pair of Aim9B's which are such absolute **** and have extreme limitations for their launch parameters they entirely unsuitable for any meaningful BFM manuvers, not to mention are easily spoofable even when flying in a straight line.

there is quite a bit if open source information on such systems, especially datalinks. Particularly Link 16 that you can model many aspects of applications of it it fairly accurately.

ED was developing the Hornet years before it was retired from the USN and there are also remaining export users of the legacy. So the the theory thats it was only added to DCS because its "retired" doesn't hold up. WE also have A10C and F16C which are still in active duty service, latter of which still has hoards of export operators. Granted all "legacy" aircraft, and not the latest and greatest toys.

jhmcs doesn't lock automatically in Hornet either unless you are using radar close combat modes and they slew seekerhead onto target, and in that case you can do the same with the viper. Still need to cage/uncage seekers either way . Utilizing f16 jhmcs is not painfully slow, works fine.

people are talking big picture not just guns only. I can cont the number of times i had a bfm merge in multiplayer that turned guns only i would be able count them if had only 1 hand, with fingers to spare.

Its not just meant as an agressor for DACT. the IDea came aftewords. the F5 was meant for front line combat as a very inexpensive lightweight export fighter. This aircraft did a a good job for what it was meant to be. There are many nations that utilized the F5E in a vanilla configuration. export users domestic upgrades of F5's generally came later in life, typical of any aircrat when it begins to become obselete. Ethiopians utilized F5's very successfully against somali piloted Mig21's. In the Iran iraq war, Iranian workhorse fleet of F5's saw combat against iraqi flown migs. most light fighters of the time typically did not have a large missile armament, nor a particularly powerfull radar. The F5E is a great adversary to a Mig21BIs. And as the older generation of aviation get expanded with more assets the F5E will feel more at home there than on modern era servers for frontline combat since those are the era of aircraft it should be compared to.

ever since 2.5 hit, the Radar scopes been busted. you can't see the radar grid lines, just dots where the lines intersected. Yea even outside of any HD cockpit or 3d model retexture, this module still needs support to fix the broken stuff from the various things users have mentioned here.

I went from a 23 inch 1080P monitor to a 27 inch 1440p monitor a few years ago not that long after i upgraded from an AMD 280X to the Nvidia GT 1080, because at the time i realized the GFX seemed overkill for 1080P. I currently use x2 AA with 1440p. Looks good definitely better than the 1080p, and with the larger size i don't need to zoom in or tilt my head as much to see stuff. . Its definitely more than good enough sharp resolution that I don't feel the visuals are jagged. Thus I personally feel no need to upgrade to 4k yet. Even if i did i suspect DCS would murder my frame rates on the current graphic card.

i never said otherwise that ED choice to model it was because it was out of service... but the same is the case for the F16C. Still in active duty. far more viper users around the world than Hornet operators, and still going to remain in ANG service for years to come even if USAF is gradually phasing them out for F35A's. Even so ED can only manage to get dated information, hence why we have decades old derivatives of these airfames. Circa 2005 Hornet or a 2007 era Viper etc. As opposed to a present day versions of them.

The USN had been gradually retiring Hornets for years. UMSC needing parts/airframe was just final nail in the coffin, not the start. Considering they stopped investing money in modernism C's there really was no point to keep around aged and obsolete C's in active duty service when nearing the hornets last few years the USN already have large fleet of more capable super hornets ( hell even remaining block 1's are being considered removed from active duty) especially now with F35C's entering service, not to mention additional orders for block 3 super Hornets. IF they didn't that would have mean supporting 3 airframes.

Block 1's already had new DDI displays with the very last production lot ( Lot 25) as to create a baseline for block 2. The main difference is that the Lot 26 air frame has a redesigned nose to house APG79 with its larger antenna ( for when they became available to replace APG73) . Although relative to lot 25 the lot 26 F model will have the larger 8x10 display for the WSO. i too would rather have a Block 2 Lot 26 with APG73, just for the reason that down the line if enough information becomes available there could be potential for an "AESA" radar DLC.

sharing this article that was published yesterday. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets Given the nature of his firm, these aircraft are not going to be stripped of thier combat systems.

Yes if a MP servers allows F14B + Aim54, that is a reason for any pilots to wary of high altitude flying. :D IL have to test the OB build. I haven't done any serious online MP flying in OB as of yet due to performance issues that everyone is constantly complaining about ( stuck to stable for online flying) , so i am totally ignorant of noticing any amraam changes. going from being able to wishfully hope for a max 15 nm to a 40 nautical miles with an Aim120 shot at low altitude sounds too good to be true!

under what conditions? Even with the supposedly inferior FC modelling i can typically discover F/A18's or Vipers within 60 - 70 nautical miles, and thats at 1000-2000m. At such low altitudes its generally impossible for amraams to want to go further than 15 nautical miles. They have the SA advantage purely because of Link 16, not because the radar is so good that they can close the gap to under 20 NM without ever being seen. ONly at high altitudes can you expect to lob them and at high altiudes without any terrain in the way it should be even higher detection probability. So there should be no way even with dumbed down systems that F15C will not see Hornets or Vipers, under 20 nautical miles to allow them first detection capability. IF thats the case then its a pilot issue not a aircraft system issue.

Not to mention both the Hornet and F16C still lacks semi automatic and automatic modes for the AN/AlE47 suite.

good question! Seems like it aught to, and probably will eventually as it moves through early access.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/465001r1p.pdf Excerpt from Battlespace Technologies: Network-enabled Information Dominance By Richard S. Deakin - 2010 Don't know what other nuances there are the would permit Link 16 to update at a faster interval when looking at the above. But multiple public open source info seems to point to transmission update only every frame ( in other words 12 seconds). Hence probably why ED decided to simulate like it is in DCS.

looking further into it It seems to come from the general description of JTIDS ( which fall under Link 16 umbrella) " It produces a spread spectrum signal using Frequency-shift keying (FSK) and Phase-shift keying (PSK) to spread the radiated power over a wider spectrum (range of frequencies) than normal radio transmissions. This reduces susceptibility to noise, jamming, and interception. In JTIDS Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) (similar to cell phone technology), each time interval (e.g., 1 second) is divided into time slots (e.g. 128 per second). Together, all 1536 time slots in a 12-second interval are called a "frame". Each time slot is "bursted" (transmitted) at several different carrier frequencies sequentially. Within each slot, the phase angle of the transmission burst is varied to provide PSK. Each type of data to be transmitted is assigned a slot or block of slots (channel) to manage information exchanges among user participation groups. In traditional TDMA, the slot frequencies remain fixed from second to second (frame to frame)." It would seem that "12 seconds" then is perhaps not necessarily entirely a speed limitation but because of specific transmission processes.