Kev2go

A) Not everyone plays arcade air quake. That shouldn't be used staple point game mode of whether an aircraft gets added or not. B) Besides substantially reduced RCS due to stealth design, the avionics/ sensor suite of the F117 is way more advanced than the Su25...... nor is it a close air support jet. Not even a remote close comparison between these two aircraft . Besides its worth noting Su25's bet it A or T model doesn't do laser bombing in DCS. Late in life the F117's were modded to have JDAM capability. And no in a giant battle sams and enemy aircraft are going to be busy dealing with conventional observable aircraft, all on thier very own missions ( be it SEAD interdiction or CAP). Its not like the F117 is going to be the only aircraft flying in a given scenario. in the gulf war the F117's never got shot down, taking out strategic targets over well covered areas even within the opening nights of the war, when the SAM network had yet to be dismantled. Over Bosnia they only got shot down due to flying the exact same flight path, and finally flying directly over a sam site where it would have been expected to have been detected at such distance. So no id say you still are under-appreciating the advantage of stealth even in pre gen 5 period of designs. The F117 ain't going to be a hopeless duck if employed like its supposed to. But i get it for the typical fighter jock in DCS anything that aint an actual fighter holds no appeal.

USA uses it as a "pure" fighter, but some limited secondary attack capabilities have always been present for the F15A/C but simply left dormant in US service purely due to the AS Eagle pilot community's stubborn insistence for "not a pound for air to ground". CCIP and CCRP modes exist for use with Mk80 series bombs, as well as integration for EO based GBu8 ( although latter EO bomb was never used on eagle AFAIK, but operation described within -34) for which the radar screen is alternatively switched over to view its TV imagery. Israel made use of these already present capabilities IRL on their Eagles.

Although not near the top of my wishlist yea +1 for something new and entirely different even if it doesn't appeal to a typical fighter jock. ( and even i predominately fly fighters). A pure bomber has yet to be done in DCS. Id especially be interested if ED allowed you to walk around in first person and switch crew positions and even more so if it was a 21st century B52H variant, as it would allow for a TGP and modern precision guided munitions.

The f18c and f16c are still flying in operational service...... with some aspects that are still classified. Such aspects are estimated from open source data gathering, and could be for the f117, " stealth" aspect, assuming its feasible enough.

Except that's irrelevant when there are no aircraft with ultra modern irst. In dcs.

Yea would be nice if we got a full fidelity f15c of the fc3 aircraft. Even better if such a module could potentially be expanded further as a proper 2000s eagle with aim9x , jhmcs and link 16.

Thats your belief, and you said it not I. All i said was not to get into that to avoid going OT on a single muntion type when plenty of text has been typed on the matter in other threads. You dont need to be happy, but there is no need to beat a dead horse ..... again. Besides who said they can't or wont at some point? After all Mk77 was ( and still is) planned list for the Hornet. If ED develops the nessary engine effects for simulating them im sure theyl be added accordingly to other aircraft eventually.

Short answer: Hornet now f16 when it's in a more complete state. Further elaboration: Although I kinda prefer cockpit layout of the horent, and I certainly appreciate carrier ops, I muxh prefer the f16,s pilot machine interfacing especially when it comes to hotas. It's more streamlined. The horent requires hands off for anything not related directly to a2a. In the f16 even in a2a related stuff it's far faster to switch radar ranges and max azimuth scan for eg ist just a matter of moving your cursor up/down and sideways. Switching between mfd pages is also all hotas bound. Ordinance wise in the f16 can a actually carry slight bit more than the hornet for a/g stores In terms of max allowable weight and in terms of quantity with certain bomb types. Plus it's also significantly faster in speed and accelration. I really learned to appreciate the f16 more flying it here. Cant wait till its complete

oh yea id absolutely love the immersion to be able to start as a pilot on ground ( or on carrier deck) and be able to physically see the animation of climbing in (and vice versa) out from a cockpit. Although not necessary for dcs it is certainly a nice to have feature for immersion. One that i would appreciate.

Now you change the goalpost. You complained about the su33 lacking ordinance. You yourself brought it on yourself to go OT, so dont think you can just pull the OT accusation card just because someone else rectified some other claims made.

There aren't any firebombs on any aircraft in dcs period. This has been discussed countless of times.

Look just accept the fact that Ed is not going to further develop currently existing fc3 aircraft, Or offer modernized versions of them.Especially not if they do,nt have the documentation to confirm such features or understand how they procedurally are implemented on such airframe.

Let me guess?? You saw the erroneous list of A/G stuff listed on Su33 Wikipedia ? Current Su33 is fine as as is. Wikipedia is misleading because it only applies to recent modernized variation perhaps.

A) it's a block 50, so it didnt have war hud like block 40/42 for lantirn. B) even if it was a block 40/42 lantirn is obselete tgp next to litening 2 at or sniper xr, that a post ccip 40/42 is using from the 21st century. Plus pilots just use nvg goggles.

Im glad Ed did the C version rather than just settle to make a full fidelity A as a first move, although i don't see why not to make an A10A at some point in the future. Frankly the A10A is overrated, people have this romanticized notion of the vanilla hog, a vision of which which has been further perpetuated by channels like History program. A10A pilots transitioning to the A10C liked the upgrades and said they were in fact long overdue ( relative to avionics on teen fighters from comparable time frames). The biggest complaints pilots had was the lackluster pilot machine interface. IE lack of proper Hotas system, in particular the analog armament control panel being a pain in the *** for selection ,arming, and management of stores. A10A's legacy navigation system was also criticized as being inaccurate and unreliable, which wasn't remedied until late 80s with INS, but not truly perfected until EGI + MM. As a interesting fact prior to the gulf war the pilots too learned from training exercises that using the A10A as a gun strafer for tank busting within protection of simulated air defenses was near suicidal and that being a missile platform with mav's was the far better option for armor busting in a non permissive environment. Something reflected in the gulf war, although even as a missile truck the Hog still had the most losses of any US flown combat aircraft for strike, so much that the generals had to pull them from further battlefield interdiction in spite of its accomplishments due to what they deemed too high an attrition against mere SA13's, never mind proper IADS. MY dcs A10 experience was very much a reality check, and very much mirrored what pilots themselves realized.

No ones forcing you to use LGB's and JDAM's on the A10C. It still capable of being utilized with just MAv's and unguided munitions, just as fast movers can.

RWR would be useful feature, i dont see a reason not to include a RWR variant Huey if there is ever a remodel/cockpit update done ala Ka50, A10C or P51D25/D30 as even if not all had, it it certainly is noted as a standard feature in the manual I have. ( after all thats why later productions had those cones built into the airframe for RWR sensor mounting)Fact is minus RWR this current Huey model is already representative of not only a post nam but a late 1980s model given not only installation of countermeasure system, but also composite rotor blades and NVG compatible cockpit. After all AN/APR39 is a RWR system that Ah1S modernized ( or depending on chosen nomenclature : the Ah1F) will have, a module ED has planned. May as well kill two birds with 1 stone.

id also want a Huey upgrade to include a RWR since post Vietnam Army hueys had such capability (you can also see mounts spots the air frame within DCS 3d model where RWR sensors would be installed) US army huey's had AN/APR39 RWR, but what former BST had modeled was something closely resembling the Aussie bushranger as opposed to US army Huey mode.

because the radar DISH ( or Antenna) isn't everything. its everything else that changed that made very substantial difference. with AWG9's design and being a analog system it would be extremely difficult and impractical to really do any proper modernization. Probably just shy of impossible whilst considering the size constraints. IN essence what your down to is creation of a totally new radar which is essentially what you got when you attach a F14 antenna array to F15E components. ( IE APG71) Although this can still vary, IN a generalized manner to break it down these are major components in current radars. Hyperlinks included so you can read through and thus understand what each components main role is. Antenna Receiver Exciter (To note: sometimes can be integrated as 1 component as both Receiver/Exciter ) Transmitter Radar Data processor Radar signal Processor The Tomcat also had components that fulfilled similar purpose but due to analog nature, and more inefficient design relative to what was already possible for radars in the early to mid 70s. AWg9 had 19 components as opposed to the F15A/C which had 9 ( last is technically just cockpit radar control box, so practically just 8 ) and to further streamlined lighter weight fighters like F16 and F/A18 which only had 5. Remember that despite being still very good radar system at the time of its introduction relative to what any other country had in their fighters the AWG9 system is still 1960s radar technology. it was not the sort of cutting edge stuff for radar tech that they pursued when designing the Eagle's radar system which no doubt also had the benefit of being a few years younger in its conception. Although it was major requirement point it wasn't just a matter of addressing the needs of streamlined components, or increasing mean time between failures, and ease of reliability. APG63 and later radars all had increased performance for A2A alone purely because of ability to utilize the Medium PRF. Medium PRF allows a radar to have reliable all aspect detection. AWG9 system could only use Low and High PRF. IN Although the Tomcats could detect targets longer ranges than APG63. they had inferior ability reliably track targets rear or side aspects. because of how these modes work. Although AWG9 is still a pulse Doppler radar capable thus capable of ignoring ground clutter reflection on radar scope display, nonetheless its ability to actually track targets among ground clutter interference was still not as good as APG63 and successors. Furthermore those radars could also RAID assessment modes, to verify against close formation targets as multiples and not confuse them as single unit. Not to mention considerable improvements in radar signal processing speeds due to the digitization. Now see this all good enough capability for typical bomber intercept work given the Tomcats Fleet defense role in an open sea, but it certainly means the radar is not quite as good for low altitude intercepts deep inland, or for Fighter vs Fighter CAP, nor is it as future proof option due to its design limitations any sort of upgrades in the digital spectrum. In short the F15's APG63 was so influential in mechanical Array radar designs utilizing much more cutting edge tech for its time all the whilst breaking records in reliability that it would be what the legacy of John Browning's 1911 handgun meant in the world of firearms. This is precisely why the APG71 was still a significant upgrade in capability over the AWG9, even if you only look at A2A aspects. The problem was budgetary. IF the Navy had the budget they would have either refitted APG71 into F14B's if not outright built more F14D's, which in the latter case IRRC was exactly what they wanted. BUt as we know contracts for tomcat production cancelled. and funding for the fleet reduced and eventually forced the entire tomcat fleet into retirement earlier than expected. So they navy couldn't be picky, all those ancient F14A and B's would still have to make do until retirement.

AS ive said F14B(U) in all honesty is something of a unofficial term. various documentation will have comparison charts and note F14B with brackets to denote upgrade features. F14B with PTID ( is an upgrade feature) F14B with DFCS is an upgrade, as is EGI an upgrade feature. Its just that when people refer to F14B(U) they have this idea as i mentioned earlier of a finished/ ultimate version of the F14B Upgrade program near the end of its service life. Ie the F14B with Sparrowhawk AWG15H replacing initial AWG15R can and was installed to PTID equipped F14B even before sparrowhawk, that was still used in conjunction with the original HUD. PTID a digital multipurpose display unit relative to the older "fishbowl" TID. Even the main page is essentially the same format as old TID. The prime reason for the PTID was better for use with the Lantirn. AS we know minus initial evaluation, and for a brief period of 1996-97, where 25 cats were reportedly using Lantirn with TID , otherwise source state that any Lantirn equipped cat ( be it F14 A or B) would need to have PTID integration. So as i suggested IF documentation is not present for the finalized version, go for a early 2000s version. that has "upgrade" features, but not a final culmination of all of them. Because there very much is 2001 publication prior to added revision that presents the F14B in such a fashion. At this point in time you are looking at a F14B that is improved upon in having a PTID, DFCS, and EGI, but not yet JDAM integration or Sparrowhawk HUD since they were still being evlatuated and would not being installed to fleet until the following year(s) after 2001.

Ultimately what i was getting at. Fire control aspect is pretty much just that. AWG9 as a radar itself still has the limitations of a old analog types of its class had at the time relative to more modern digital radars utilizing the medium PRF such the APG63, etc.

Respectfully that specific county doesn't need US manuals because you can't reverse engineer tech from it anyways purely by knowning the procedures. That holds about as much water as using a flight sim to observe general procedure to copy technology, but as most of us realize computer code does not substitue for any in depth understanding that compromises avionics technology. If that were the case none of the current in service aircraft would be allowed to be simulated. Furthermore They already have digital modernization of the F14A avionics with help from Chinese and Russians to what basically amounts to an F14A(U), which also includes compatibility with locally produced missile derivatives and Russian ones. On another note the AWG15H is still not as capable in A2A as the APG71. APG71 wasn't just A/g Stuff, it was a fully digital radar derived from the F15E's which in turn was a further evolution of the APG63 PSP with better A/G stuff. However mind you that even last production series of around 40 F15C eagles were also fitted with the APG70 due to the cessation of APG63 production ( that radar also had some A/G modes). In A2A aspects APG70 is essentially comparable with APG63( PSP), and on the strike eagle A2A page is virtually the same as the F15C. You cant compare an old analog radar with a merely updated fire control to utilized to present information for a new HUD to a totally different radar design that is virtually fully digital and much more mature as a whole. You can still see this in RIO cockpits when comparing the B(U) to the D.

replacement of UHF ARC 164 with ARC 210 radio and functionality of SADL fleshed out. to make it a proper suite 5 ( not a franken plane of suite 3 and 5 features) Either that or keep ARC 164 with total removal of SADL entirely for an accurate representation Suite 3.0 as it shouldn't have datalink

Not necessarily. I have a 2001 documentation of the f14b. It's just prior to the revision that includes additional upgrades like sparrowhawk hud and inclusion of jdam which would be end of life circa 2004-05 However at this point the bomb cat already has Has dfcs , PTID , and also egi. This is all well documented, including em diagrams for application of flight model. The radar and fire controls are still all analog as the current 90s f14b as it still utilizing the same awg9 system., no changes noted yet in TO of the manual. Therefore Sparrowhawk or JDAM isn't necessary to have a more up to date F14B unless going for a finalized end of life F14B(U) . Thus no changea need to be made with regards to radar or fire control system. As for the digital smart weapons, the JDAM guided bombs and associated mil bus std1553 ain't a military secret. Its applied to other jets already present in dcs. So yea an early 2000s f14b could still be done even if still not perhaps a totally finalized f14B(U) with Sparrowhawk although as others have pointed out perhaps one could fill in the blanks for the sparrowhawk hud by looking at the t6 Texan manual.

Not fair to call current f18 product fiction and assume the super hornet would somehow be the same ,especially when hornet its in ea stage without all features present. This is not a final product. Without elaboration of what you consider fake and why, it comes off as quite a troll thing to say. When you consider it a not yet a final product. Given ED reputation I seriously doubt they would have chosen to develop aircraft that would fall under "speculative fiction"