Mig Fulcrum
-
Posts
899 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mig Fulcrum
-
-
1 ora fa, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants ha scritto:
Reading the manual right now. Very professionally done. I am impressed by "This page is intentionally left blank."
Yeah, I always wonder what was the point of leaving blank pages in the real manuals
-
5 minuti fa, lunaticfringe ha scritto:
For sake of clarity (and Бойовий Сокіл has the gist of it):
54C in RL, in the event of a lost STT lock, would independently go active, and remain SARH all the way to the target if the lock was held.
In DCS, to have the ability for the missile to go active in the event of a lost lock, the missile has to go active at some point in its flyout. So the C does this at the appropriate time.
The flipside of this, and why you want to take your STT shots when appropriate, is the fact that STT isn't susceptible to all of the issues TWS has for maintaining a track. So you get all of the reliability of a STT shot, with the added bonus of the active fallback.
Many thanks, pretty clear now
-
Very nice thank you very much!
I just have some question that I probably miss through time.
When you say the A has no internal guide it means it have no radar? it never goes active? it is basically a Fox-1 that can be used in TWS.
And about the error of the C, it means that once I shoot in STT it is pointless to maintain lock because it is active? Even if it is beyond its internal radar range? Or it become pointless to shoot C in STT? Or is it just a minor effect? Just curious to understand what the target RWR will display.
-
1 minuto fa, Avimimus ha scritto:
Updated!
Nice, but the AMX is an attacker, not a fighter lol
-
Very nice list, I'd like to add some planes, feel free to pick whatever you want.
Western Fighters:
1.98 F9F Cougar
1.38 F9F Panther
1.05 F-89
1.00 F-102
0.89 F2H
0.80 F-101
Warsaw Pact:
1.07 Mig-27
0.59 Mig-9
These are just the most produced but the list could go on:
0.54 Sea Hawk
0.51 F3H
0.45 Saab 32 Lansen
0.43 Javelin
0.42 F4D
0.34 F-106
0.33 EE Lightning (planned)
0.23 La-15
0.21 Buccaneer
0.20 F-11F
0.20 AMX
Ok I stop with 200 produced
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 ore fa, Mini.Adam ha scritto:
just doing some suggestions thats all
I got it but this thread is for E variants only (maybe F and some G too) but not for Navy Phantoms (or short nose in general)
Once HB will announce the Navy variant we will all suggest your kind of liveries but for this thread stick to E Phantom.
-
1
-
-
I think you did not understand
-
2
-
-
Honestly since the famous modern (American) aircrafts are finished I would like ED concentrate on early variants of these modules, like F-16A, F-15A, A-10A and even F/A-18A.
Pretty sure they would sell more than maybe more niche 3rd or 2nd gen aircraft. Let the 3rd parties do that. In this way we can simulate from early '70/late '60 all the way up to modern days.
-
3
-
-
2 minuti fa, bies ha scritto:
But after OUC it would be yet another heavyweight AMRAAM truck, with lower kinematic performance and maneuverability than Block 10, not relevant without any real air combat, too modern for earlier scenarios which are the reason why most people calls F-16A at the first place. It would be more or less like our late F-16C, but worse. They didn't shoot down any MiGs like Block 10, they didn't fly over Syria or Sinai.
For me the most important factor for F-16A is to depict its original lightweight flight performance and maneuverability of early pure blocks who fought real combat against MiGs.
I completely agree with that but I also find cool to be some kind of competitive even an a modern scenario with a much older F-16.
But as I said I also like the idea of a nimble only-aim-9-equipped F-16 as you say.
-
1
-
-
How cool would it be? (This is a ADF but I think it is pretty identical to the earlier As)
-
5
-
1
-
-
6 minuti fa, bies ha scritto:
No. F-16A ADF didn't have any TWS or AMRAAM integration, it was old variant with original APG-66 radar, just slighty modified to be able to guide Sparrow missiles for secondary duty National Air Guard units as budget bomber interceptor. It was heavier than F-16A Block 1, 5, 10 or even 15 and it didn't see any air combat.
No, being the ADF a post-OCU upgrade for blk15 F-16 it could certainly carry AIM-120 and there are plenty of photos showing it.
Said that I agree a standard blk15 (or 10) would be very cool.
-
1
-
-
+100000
I would very much like an ADF because it still can be used in modern combat with TWS and AIM-120 as a multirole (can even carry Mavs) but it can still be used as a late Cold War asset using Sparrow an Aim-9.
But a standard blk15 would be very nice as well (as far as I know it's the most produced block).
If a blk10 will arrive I ask just one thing: GPU-5/A 30mm gun pod for Desert Storm CAS.
Furthermore a blk10 can simulate a blk5 and blk1 with just some skins, differences are very minor.
-
1
-
-
If it is an option why not?
+1 I totally agree on more realism
-
2
-
-
+1 on a FF A-10A, Desert Storm or even a earlier version
-
5
-
-
3 ore fa, Northstar98 ha scritto:
Our current A represents the mid 90s (if C:MO is to be believed, owing to the RWR) up to 2003. Though that changes to the late 90s to 2003 with LANTIRN. The current B is somewhere from the mid to late 80s up to 2005, though again that changes to the late 90s - 2005 with LANTIRN.
I remember HB said the B is late '90 (1997 if I remember correctly) and the current A is late '80 (maybe I'm wrong but I think 1989)
-
Oh yes this aircraft would be soooo cool, just hope for the afterburner variant. It remind me a lot the SEPECAT Jaguar.
And it would fit in the (hopefully) future Balcans map.
I would like a G-2 Galeb too.
-
As far as I know the current USS Forrestal is a '80 modification an that's cool but since there is no need for more modern-oriented carriers (we have CVN-74 and CV-59 for free and the whole SC module) it would be cool to have the remaining ships of the class representing different time frames.
In this way we could have a carrier for almost each decade to make period-correct scenarios.
For example:
CV-59 - '80
CV-60 - Late '50 with still early deck markings and original armament
CV-61 and CV-62 - Late '60 and '70s for future Vietnam scenario (along with the future naval F-4 by HB) and perfect for the upcoming F-8J (maybe one free and one part of the SC module).
Just a suggestion, what do you think?
-
1
-
-
Il 3/8/2022 at 04:20, Stearmandriver ha scritto:
I'm wondering at this point which gets released first: the Intruder or the Corsair. Two of my favorite aircraft of all time. C'mon guys! (Said not in a demanding, but supportive and rallying, fist-pumping tone
.)
If you are talking about the F4U it'll definitely come first.
If you mean A-7E my bet is on the Corsair.
-
1
-
-
2 ore fa, Baco ha scritto:
Atcually we do have opposition, what red asset we have are more suited for early cold war than modern scenarios.
besides 60s and 70s for the red side was pretty rudimentary: mig 17, 19 and 21. we have all three, not exact versions but still very close. Yes i woudl kill for an SU 15, Su 17, maybe a il-28, Yak 28 or any of teh obscure small tactical bombers...
But a 90s Tomcat is not close, and a 90s Phantom is not close either.
If we are talking about F-4S it's not a '90s machine, it's a late '70s / early '80s. Pretty different.
-
29 minuti fa, LanceCriminal86 ha scritto:
Hwat? No such thing occurred. The -95 wasn't originally promised, then or now, only an Iranian spinoff with some disabled systems was added further in development. There's TALK of setting up the "early" -135 so it can look like the older jets for the most part. Functionally the -135 "early" is going to fly the same as a US -95 would, just with a little extra jamming. All the early/late and -135 naming from HB were intended for was to separate the later 90s LANTIRN equipped jets that eventually got ALR-67 from the 80s-90s Tomcat with the old ALR-45 and still Air to Air focused. Giving us some visual or mounting options would let you maybe remove some stuff to pretend it's a -95 in 1981 off the Nimitz with no TCS or ALQ-126. Again, being considered but nothing concrete.
And the early jet basically is waiting on art from what I understand in past updates. Once the model can have the features backdated/added for the different As and the B then it should just be testing of the ALR-45 and that's about it.
Ehm no.
HB is actually developing a true -95GR for the iranian version that will have a somewhat restricted weapon loadout, no TCS and no lantirn capability.
They recently told in the recent interview once the -135GR Early is released it will "unlock" the development for the -95GR.
Check their roadmap if unsure: https://trello.com/c/gTm512yI/15-f-14a-95gr-iriaf-version-bonus
-
1
-
-
3 ore fa, Zahnatom ha scritto:
2025 sounds more like a full release date to me rather than early access
To me instead 2025 sounds like a early-Alpha release
-
1
-
-
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't the PF/PFM the most used in combat variant of all MiG-21s?
-
Esatto, è quello che volevo dire.
Oltretutto è strano che abbiano già ricevuto l' "autorizzazione" a diventare 3rd party ufficiale senza altri lavori in passato da dimostrare o un modulo dell'F-100 già testabile. So che hanno fatto una ottima mod dell'F-22 ma non pensavo bastasse.
Vabbè, alla fine meglio per noi però è una cosa un pò atipica.
-
A PFM for recreating some Vietnam duels would be amazing, such a good match with F-4E and F-100D
-
3
-
DCS Newsletter discussion 2nd September - DCS C-130J | FLIR is progressing | Open beta patch
in DCS 2.9
Posted
Very nice add, the entire cargo mechanic is very interesting and I'm curious to know how it will be implemented in MP and Dynamic Campaign.
I'm only a bit skeptical about the current map size for a cargo plane, I think they are still a bit small for a good implementation