Kev2go

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"

IF the case is they are doing mirage 3's specific for the Falklands. then that means Mirage 3EA is possible, and should be the most likely variant, as those were the Mirage 3's Aregentina had in biggest quantity anyways. Id be very pleased that it would be the Mirage 3E derivative as opposed to the earlier planned Isreali Mirage 3CJ for six day war scenario since the 3E has a multi mode pulse doppler radar, and thus is more versatile as a fighter bomber compared to the Mirage 3C series.

I think only an F14D that can be interpreted (at least as of now) "completely" off the table for lacking data on FCS and AN/APG71 integration. with the B it was just some blanks on a few PTID menu options.

The walleye is an older generation guided munition. It aught to have lower resolution and more grainy imagery.

The above is just a transcript of a Appropriations committee for the fiscal year 1975. They said it was considered because it could be done with little modification by to quote the very same source from just paragragh lower " not planned to use" and is also mentioned Aim7E2 was not in production since 1971, and that there was no point as from henceforth the Aim7F was expected to enter production and be the new primary missile. Ultimately It never did, as F15A -34 shows only Aim7F at earliest is authorized. Therefore if F15A isn't using Aim7E2 ( let vanilla Aim7E) then surely an F15C post MSIP 2 a isn't using any of those neither.

because not all USMC F/A18C's are C+ a typical "vanilla" USMC F/A18C is just a USN hand me down and thus still have the CRT DDI. AS we all know the only reason they included the lightening because it did not have to involve any other avionics changes for the USMC version, and the fact they could include a TGP faster for the short term if they re used the same one on use on the A10C, as opposed to developing an entirely new one, and making everyone wait much longer to use the ATFLIR.

I havent played the FC3 in some time., but i noticed the F15C got Aim7E added recently? Why does a F15C MSIP 2 have a Vietnam era AIm7E when not only did the F15A enter operational use in 1976 but even the F15A documentation such as the manuals themselves does not reference and earlier sparrow type than the Aim7F, let alone the F15C

yea it also seems the new A10C' remastered cockpit despite improved textures is also darker

I noticed the cockpits was re textured last OB patch and in the latest Stable build patch and seems to have a darker toner overall. I liked the old graphite-ish look better as opposed to the current all out black, especially as most photos it doesn't look quite as dark as the current updated cockpit does.

From within block 1 is still plausible to wish for. Maybe even a early block 2 ( IE lot 26) Lots of core avionics and software commonality with a late lot legacy like we have in DCS along with carrying over the same post production upgrades it has. especially since the aforementioned models did not have AESA radars yet. That being said perhaps so a potential Super Bug offers some extra incentives over a legacy hornet the 2 seat F/A18F model could be considered as well. Sure the Cat offers 2 seat Coop experience opportunity with other virtual pilots for naval aviation, but is a analog experience. The F/A18F could be Digital cockpit naval aircraft 2 player experience to the Legacy. For those who don't care about 2 seat, it wouldnt be a big issue, as the F/A18F could still be piloted by a single operator as successfully as one can operate a single seat Super Bug or Legacy. Whears in the tomcat the RIO is crucial position, in the Rhino the second person filling WSO is mostly there for reducing workload burdens.

I know but i was only referring to versions that the US operates and thier manuverability not about avionics advances. You miss the point. My question was about considering that the reason why Block 30 may have well had superior turn rate relative to block 40 and 50 at some point was lesser weight with nearly as powerful engine back in the day. If you consider weaker engine and avionics enhancements ( and related weight gain) made to block 30 since 80s, is itreally still a better dogfighter than the block 40 let alone the block 50 post CCIP within 21st century? I have doubts it would be.

what about now? BLock 30 have had avionics upgrades in the 2000s and today are very comparable with its systems to CCIP Block 40/50's. ID imagine with the weight gain made that would otherwise make the block 50 the best performing F16 from the 3 due to better engines.

Im sure if you could get in modernized flanker or fulcum variants those would sell, especially when there is now an over-saturation of US aircraft from the 4th gen. Even if they still wouldn't necessarily offer tech parity. But as we know such variants aren't possible for the foreseeable future. Ultimately that's CHIZH's opinion, not necessarily the entirely of ED( though it could be?) . I live in a Western country, and have bought cold war soviet classics like the Mig15 and Mig21. IM certainly not the only one who has or who would show interest in a modern Russian gen 4 outside of any Eastern European countries. ED can develop only so many Teen fighters until they are forced to go to an earlier time period or start developing non US originated aircraft.

The tech disparity between the F15 Eagle and Su27 Is not even remotely close to being as drastic as your analogy, especially when the Flanker has its unique sets of avionics and weapons that when utilized with the right tactics still make it competitive. Obsession with exact balance is only relevant for those only interested for 16 vs 16 air quake type servers for 1 vs 1 dogfights. But frankly if anything i would find it boring fighting apples with apples. ( IE an aircraft adversary that was exactly like the eagle) F14 vs A6M2 Zero would be a more comparable aviation analogy to a bazooka Camaro vs Romans.

Yea would be nice wouldn't it? But its about as likely to happen as an F/A18F block 3

Actually it was also but mostly because the F14's main reason of existence ceased to exist ( Fleet defense), and they needed a new job for it to justify its service. But that wasn't the point of my post, of RL reasons, but to point out that irregardless of any real life ( perceived or otherwise) reason for it, the F14 is more versatile in roles due to presence of precision strike capability purely from consumerist POV of what the module offers. But sure the F15 has a radar is that better in every regard minus max detection range setting. and AMRAAM capacity. ( if going for post MSIP 2) along with better pilot - vehicle interface especially with the MSIP 2. That being said the F15A and C do have unguided bombing capability ( and some guidance in the form of EO bomb) that have simply remained dormant in USAF use, but otherwise an existing, documented and tested capability. Israel has utilized the AS eagles existing capabilities a bombing role in the past, and in present even modded them to include JDAM's.

Or the profit angle that a Teen fighter with a "glass cockpit" and other bells and whistles could sell better.

because we all know we shouldn't expect to see an F35 or F22 full fidelity module for a very long time. Maybe if ED is still around by the time anyone having a child now, that will then be in adulthood graduating from post secondary studies when those "may" be possible :D so so called "second rate" aircraft close to the end of thier life cycle with post production modernization packages from the 21st century is the next best thing. Although personally the F15C with AESA isn't really second rate when most "neer peer" adversaries still predominantly have gen 4 fleets with gen 4.5 and very few gen 5. Until Gen 5's become more mainstream with foreign operators, an F15C will continue to have relevancy. At the time of the Raptors introduction, it was the only stealth fighter in the world. The reason they are still in service and expect to be in service for many years to come is because there simply arent enough "1st rate" F22's to replace them in Air superiority. 180 something Raptors as awesome as they are aren't enough to fufill America's needs. Unlike the F35 which will have enough units produced to eventually replace entire F16 fleet in active duty service, as they are only being handed down and expected to remain in ANG only. As another theory based on some observation Its a generational thing. Depending on what age group people belong too they seem to be interested in aircraft, that they grew up with. AS a generalization ( since obviously people play varying eras or only into era's they they were not alive in) , Boomers seem to like thier gen 3 aircraft like phantoms or early gen 4 like the Tomcats. Gen X seem to like Gen 4 circa gulf war- post gulf war circa Yugoslavia, Millennials, seem to be into Gen 4 from GWOT - present.