Kev2go

Depends on the nation and time period. Some just dont care about collateral damage. Or back in ww2 for example it was acceptable to carpet bomb an entire city block just to take out a factory complex, or outright level an entire city to demoralize the population.

Ikr I always was really surprised MC D's would not design the Hornet to have such capacity in such manner. Seems less efficient. But then again as is the Hornets Hotas system. The Hog and Viper have HUD symbology. Hell even the av8b Harrier has HUD symbology and its the same company.

to clarify the "distribution restricted stuff" technically isn't classified, although admitelly anything above level A probably shouldn't be shared willy nilly ( or sold). In short its about how you go about acquiring it. Anything that was legitimately classified, requiring an actual government issued security clearance ( IE Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) are actually tightly safe kept secrets and are actually strictly enforced under espionage laws with vastly more serious repercussions. No one is getting thier hands on classified material unless you get a whistle blower put it on Wikileaks or something. Either that or an actual declassification occurs and becomes public. The distribution restrictions Beyond A grade, are simply part of ITAR regulations . Meaning it is actually possible to legally obtain them as a civilian without any security clearance( in some cases even export them) if your willing to go through the bureaucratic red tape, to be 100% legal. Although as we can see from online, those red tape regulations are about as much respected as anti piracy laws for redistributing or selling DVD's, and about as efficiently enforced. ( not that i am encouraging of breaking the forum rules or in IRL, but im just pointing out purely from observation ) How else do you think ED or 3rd parties which are outside of the USA would develop an aircraft without even getting their hand on a basic flight manual which is a foundation block for the research needed for making an aircraft? ( never minding more advanced stuff like avionics or weapons operation) .

I had basically made that point before with regards to distribution statement A back when 1.16 first came out @al531246 In any case thank you Ed for making the decision for revising the rule.

Il28 will be great for early 50s circa Korean era scenarios, and although these bombers served for much longer they would have been hopelessly redundant by the 1960s going into present day. IE in an era of BOTH air to air and surface to missiles . No electronic warfare or countermeasures, and afaik no computer assisted bombing let alone standoff muntions. Imo tu16 and tu160m would be more ideal Russian bomber for dcs environment, although on typical mp servers these too are still going to have a really bad day when facing a tomcat armed with aim54,s. No doubt great for very custom/ bomber caterers scenarios though. I do agree a dedicated bomber of some sort would be nice as all pilotable fixed wing aircraft that are in dcs are either fighters ( be it proper multirole or just fighter/interceptor) or attackers

Becauae the tomcat was ( and currently is) much closer to completion relative to the hornet. I'm sure if ed released the hornet nearly feature complete but at the same time promised an additional variation part of the f18 module package ( say an f/a18a++) then you could be expected to get less frequent updates, because there would be less pressure to churn out against internal deadlines, whilst also dedicating time to developing the other variation.

Agree to disagree. And yea as of late I've been flying rio quite alot actually with a online buddy from adiscord channel I frequent, including having lantirn manually and fully mapped out to my Hotas And yes a year and a half for the hornet is a long time and so much is still unfinished relative to the tomcat that was not only more feature complete at launch but also released later than hornet.

pilot body just gets in the way of seeing panels and switches, wheras IRL you can just move your extremities around to reveal them, in game you can't., you have too entirely remove the body with key combo . Its Not gamebreaking lacking such a feature, and the least important of anything to nitpick about since not every module has one anyways, and you should be used to not having one because most other sims never did. Don't use it in any other module. Also The word virtual or virtually, doesn't have to mean in a computerized or virtual reality or virtual plane. It can means nearly or almost. In the context i used the word it very much makes sense. The F14B Tomcat is arguably nearly complete since its only missing a very handful of features ( of which are going to be ticked off in the very near future) . IT especially makes that term more impactfull when comparing the state the F18 or F16c are in.

that or an MH60S. Sh60B from what i have read began being replaced by the MH60R in the 2000s with it being complete by 2015. MH60S is pure utility version that in turn replaced UH1N , CH46, and SH3 sea king. IF possible the MH60 would fit better for the time period our Hornet is represented for Naval rotary carrier ops.

or out of far cry 4

sadly no. Initally it was announced it was supposed to, but was recanted later. ED said they would strive for an accurate viper limited by the most up to date publicly available information they could legally get thier hands on would thus only allow them to do a 2007ish viper at latest, apparently. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3916621&postcount=10 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3916880&postcount=24 IRRC JSOWS only started becoming fully integrated ( beyond dvelopment testing) with F16C's operating with software tape 5.1 which started being introduced in 2009/2010ish. On the Other hand JASSM is more recent. Software tape 7.1

Alas sadly no JASSM for this circa 2007 Viper model since it is only software tape 4.2 or 4.3 , so the Hornet will still be the better standoff platform-for A/G when AGM84 SLAM ER gets added. This thing will allow you to take out targets even outside of long range SAM types like the S300, or outright attack such SAM types.

:megalol:

yea the new updated M2000C cockpit besides having higher textures is meant to represent a 21st century m2000c in a form still in use to present day by ADA The only they had before was basically a late 80s-early 90s mod. There aren't substantial changes in the current day mirage 2000C. NVG compatible cockpit ( its darker) , updated ECM, and to add new digital radios, and what i also noticed some new + and - pushbutton for changing way points. If you don't use NVG's and ignore those few other incremental improvement, M2000C capability wise is essentially cold war jet.

Capabilities wise the F5E is good enough to be representative for late 70s- into 80s, because its still representative of the technology that was already available back then ( not sure about all the F5E users that got RWR or when but Switzerland only 1 of them). I don't know if that rwr was installed for Swiss F5E's only as late as the 90s, but the ALR 87 is nothing more but a export version of one of ALR 46 models ( not sure but likely either ALR46 V3 or V4) . ALR 46 was 1970s tech already present in late 70's F4E Phantom as well as being the RWR eventually installed on the B52H ( not sure which year). Sure it has alpha numeric symobology as opposed to cruder analog RWR scopes displaying "strobes" of the 1960s-early 70s circa Vietnam but nonetheless is still less more antiquated than more modern RWR found on gen 4 jet from 80s- post cold war . such as the AN/ALR 67 for the Hornet/F14B or the AN/ALR56M on the F16C blk 50. Similarly Taiwanese F5E's use said RWR ( not sure which but either ALR 87 or 46) plus AN/ALE40 CM dispensers as the Swiss F5E, however in the Taiwanese F5's the CM control panel is instead installed at the top end of the left hand console side above the throttle instead of the very end. The swiss F5E is unique because they had an INS systems, and digital radio set which IRRC were in house made avionics. Regardless yea the F5E is a something franken jet as it was intended as well a marketed by ED/BST as a USAF aggressor model yet has avionics that were only present ( and installed in specific places as opposed to others ) for foreign users, but at the same time lacking others.

Lack of TWS auto is only an issue when flying with jester. With a real person not an issue. Jester Ai was nessary as it would be impossible to operate the TOmcat alone ( in MP in particular) and otherwise inneficient to swap seats all the time in singe player. JEster AI however is not more immersive than a human rio, as you have to basically "instruct" jester on every little thing thing from that drop down menu, which is distracting amidst combat, but the best compromise that can be done for a single play experience. AS IRL, in DCS a human RIO doesn't ( or at least shouldn't ) have to be micromanaged.

key word was virtually. Virtually does not mean everything, and relative to whats missing on the Hornet that has been out for how many years, it is very fair to say the F14B is virtually complete. AS regards to the instrument panel What we have now is a former F14A rebuilt to F14B standards as opposed to a new F14B factory production. Only those have the different ( in this case digital) engine indicators as opposed to analog ones found on F14A and A's upgraded into B's Refinement of Phoenix missiles capabilities doesn't count as unfinished. They just need to be adjusted. That would be like saying FC3 F15C was never finished because AIm120B and C weren't performing as quite as supposed to. TARPS is only relevant for recon purposes ( which arguably a niche role within a niche genre of combat flight sims), and even then its more sense for an F14A than the F14B. even though both could carry it. RIO flood light minor thing. - Proper carrier arrestment. Thats again refinement So again this is Virtually finished.

Perhaps not but my point was they weren't the only ones claiming so. Besidez journalism myths seem to be perpetuated even by af personell. ( I'm Preet sure one of them was who they say they were from a given forum unless the LinkedIn profile they had under same name them too is also fake l, and they are so imaginative they can fake walking the walk)

i know it was not constantly emitting...... You should also know that the first sweep around the S125 radar didn't detect anything, however the allowed themselves for a second follow up sweep because the serbs were confident there were no EW assets covering it. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-shootout-1999-us-air-force-f-117-was-shot-down-heres-how-it-went-down-37762 IF its a myth or outright fabrication that the F117 had opened its bay doors why is still presented as fact by journalists writing articles to this very day or even by former or current AF personnel with knowledge on the topic? Whats your source that you can claim for 100% certaintly its not the case?

Yes +1

i'm A bit late to the Party. Even though you've made your choice, let me point out that the F14B is virtually a finished product. All features are essentially there As of now minus Jester AI being able to operate Lantirn. IN the future you will also get F14A as well as modern built B ( basically just digital Engine control panel) Even though the A10C is a complete product, and still a fine simulation let me point out that A10C is nonetheless a bit of a frankenstein aircraft. Its a combination suite 5 Features ( SADL datalink) but missing AN/ARC210 Digital Radio set present from that specific suite , but also in turn anachronistic features from suite 3 like AN/ARC 164 radios which in turn wouldn't have had SADL datalink integration at the time. Regardless of the Franken status, SADL functionality is severely limited. I don't know what the agreements ( besides no laser mavericks) that the ANG forced on ED when they made the consumer version of the ANG A10C for DCS , but i can tell even just from purely non classified public sourced information SADL is barely functional relative to capabilities already present on early access Link 16 simulated on the F16C and F/A18C. As of now you can only See A10's and only see other blueforce aircraft like Viper or Hornet if AWACS is up to host a gateway link between SADL and LINk 16. SADL is capable IRL to also display symbology based on friendly, unknown and confirmed enemy contacts detected by AWACS radar or other fighter's radars. Although not part of SADL also missing is the A10's ability to display known SAM threat radius's on the TAD page like you can on the Viper and Hornet.

Of course i dont doubt that could have been detected at such range. However I read a source that claimed it was as little as 8 miles when the S125 actually locked on to it. and only 15 miles out when the P18 EWR filtered it out as a enemy contact. 18 km = 11.1 M = 9.7 NM, so depending on which distance you believe, it could have been even closer. But as you say there is certainly no disagreement that either way its a huge difference between the range you would expect detect a typical fighter aircraft and the F117. I don't think it was a falsehood at with regards to the bombbay. I had read about people in the know say so, and also recall reading an analysis from a USAF systems engineer that had case studied the F117 shoot down whilst attending the Air force command and staff college say thats what was taught. Is the AF officer grade educational curriculum presenting "alternative facts" to thier own students as well? I wouldn't think so.

Not to mention the distance of which it was locked and targeted at with the actual s125,d radar ( not by low wave ewr) was right around the time the f117 opened its Bombays, which as we know makes any stealth aircraft more vulnerable by increasing a given rcs. It's quite possible the sam would have had to fire at the nighthawk at an even closer distance had it not been for that, or possibly it may have been incapable to do so entirely. 2 missiles had been fired, first of which missed the predictable intercept path since no defensive maneuvers were even attempted.

I'm not going to debate anything with you if you are just going to be disingenuous and resort to use fallacies against specific nitpicked snippets and also change your goal posts just to win an argument. Edit: Ah of course. A Russian user from Russian section of the forums.

All aircraft are "observable" to an extent. You can meddle with words all you want to fit your POV of underplaying the F117's lowered RCS relative to a gen 4 or even a 4.5. The obsolete sam network argument doesn't really fly considering plenty of gen 4 strike fighters were constantly spotted on Iraqi radar, targeted and a number that were actually shot down. IF F117's lower RCS was negligible, then they wouldn't very well have been able to fly unmolested like those fighters even against "obsolete" sam systems, especially when used as a tip of the spear in the opening of the air campaign. Its not like the F117 was designed as a something to be used against 3rd world counties with low tech, but precisely to penetrate airspace covered by ( at the time of its design) modern soviet anti air defenses network to strike high value targets with an element of surprise offered by stealth design giving it considerably lower RCS than lightweight strike fighter. This thing was introduced in the 80s, along the time frame of many NATO "gen 4" aircraft.