Kev2go

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.

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.