cailean_556

Let me break it down for you, Sun Tzu. 1. Pre-MH17, probably. Post MH-17, less likely but airline operations are governed by their CEO and board of directors. Local airlines would likely still operate. International ones probably not so much. Airlines would take advice from the appropriate authorities whilst also attempt to meet customer expectations. If the monetary reward outweighs the risk, someone will fly there. 2. Fujairah (the area of concern for the OP) is not a military airbase. It's a civilian passenger terminal. It does not possess a dedicated taxiway, meaning aircraft need to taxi down the runway and turn around (at either end) to take off. Fujairah is of importance, strategically, due to its oil storage facility however unless Iran truly wanted to piss off the majority of South East Asia (and by extension their allies) such wanton destruction is not likely. If Iran put on some big-boy pants and wanted to go to war by itself, pissing off a quarter of the world (not including allies) would not end well for Iran long-term. Even if ED decided to pull the 5 static aircraft in Fujairah, there's a maximum of 7 extra spaces (as estimated by me) at Fujairah. 10, maybe 11, if you include the offshoot ramp area west of the main gates. The downside to that is a) that means 14+ human players need to try and workout who's taxiing/landing/taking off from a single runway, b) even a coordinated player effort means that aircraft are stuck waiting for those before them to take off/taxi/land before they can do the same. Like I said, the focus of this map is on the ACTUAL MILITARY bases, not the POTENTIALLY COMMANDEERED IN TIMES OF WAR airbases. 3. I don't profess to know how to prosecute an air war, but ED were kind enough to model the buildings I stayed in at one of the UAE airbases during part of my time in that region. So while my knowledge of war doesn't extend to how to fight a war in the air in reality, my knowledge, and educated guesses, come from personal experience in the region in question. What are your credentials on the knowledge of war, sunshine?

Not only what Pikey has said, that but those parking spaces face a building. Last time I checked, there's not 'taxi back' option so - depending on the size of the aircraft (which the A380 is definitely on the bigger end) - aircraft wouldn't be able to turn around: hence they start facing out.

Unlike the Caucasus region, which I believe is modelled on the area at the height of the Cold War, the Persian Gulf is modelled quite closer to our current time and space. Therefore, like it or not, it makes sense that the lion's share of parking spaces go to the currently active military airbases in the region. For 'BLUFOR' that means Al Minhad and Al Dhafra airbases, for 'REDFOR' predominantly Bandar Abbas International Airport (which also doubles as a military airbase). Later we will see both Shiraz and Kerman being implemented (both are joint civil/military). More space *could* be opened at some of the civilian airports (Fujiryah included) however, even in war-time, the lack of available resources, security and protection would mean that military deployments to civil airfields would not be large-scale. Certainly not to the scale you might see at bases such as Al Dhafra (which, as you can tell in-sim, is HUGE). The advent of air-to-air refuelling means that any air operations taking place over areas, like Fujiryah, would mean that the aircraft would take off from Al Dhafra or Al Minhad, conduct their mission (such as CAP) and refuel as required before end of mission and returning to base.

Don't take anything I say as gospel, as I'm going off memory here, but Al Minhad and Al Dhafra in the UAE are definitely military airbases - I'm not sure of any others, perhaps one of the islands closer to the UAE coast but that's just me speculating. For Iran, the only one currently implemented that I know of for sure is Bandar Abbas which is a joint civil-military base (the military complex is the northern most area of Bandar Abbas International Airport). I also use Havadarya as an Iranian military base however I don't believe it is (or was) in reality. In time we'll also see Shiraz and Kerman implemented (for Iran) but both are further north (of Bandar Abbas). Although information contained on a Wiki should be taken with a grain of salt, you can find useful information on Iranian military bases here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force#Facilities

Is the team also aware that none of the Iranian airfields/bases/ports allow for larger aircraft such as C-130s and IL-76s to be parked at the ramp on start (and I imagine larger bombers such as the Tu-160/Tu-95 which I've not tested)? Is that going to be addressed as well? Bandar Abbas can accommodate 747s. It's kind of a deal breaker when Iran's airbases can't support cargo aircraft and strategic bombers thus limiting REDFOR options mission-editor wise... I agree that there could be some more spots available at some civilian-oriented airfields but I also agree with you in that the primary focus should be on the military airbases (where military aircraft would obviously be kept, deployment to civilian airfields wouldn't be en masse).

While I acknowledge the mod creator's hard work, I agree with the OP. DCS should be able to do something like this out of the box - no modding required. DCS could either a) integrate the CAM and RAT mods into the game, therefore it is no longer a mod or b) add some civil airliners to REDFOR and BLUFOR for us to tinker with. It could work in a similar manner to the civilian ground traffic - with a slider to modify density - except we'd have to be able to see these on radar and lock them. The way I see it, there could be a 'Civilian' faction which would be neutral, applicable only to airliners, so they could traverse between RED and BLUFOR areas without being downed by SAMs and they could also be set to REDFOR/BLUFOR for interception/engagement as a scenario permits. I use the Yak-40 and the An-26B, on occasion, to simulate regional airliners but I'd appreciate a 737, at least, being thrown into the mix (as an AI, obviously). While it's not truly dynamic, you can set aircraft to spawn in when others land - which is what I do. Except I've found that the AI doesn't always use their navigation lights and strobes - so perhaps a Civilian faction could be set to 'Use lights - all the time' or have a tickbox in the aircraft's menu to enable that. Just my 2 cents.

Disclaimer: Persian Gulf has exceeded my expectations in most areas. I acknowledge the Hornet is Priority 1 (as it should be), but just want to throw this out there so its written down. First negative - while it's obvious Iran has been worked on, with a number of new liveries included, most of their non-flyables lack an Iranian livery. Iran is also missing some key aircraft from their available inventory (e.g. F-4, C-130 and F-14 - the F-4 is especially noticeably absent, it's one of their most numerous fighters). Are these planned or...? Second negative - Goes hand in hand with the above, NONE of the Iranian airfields/airbases allow for the IL-76 to take off from the ramp. Once set to 'Take Off from Ramp' (in the Mission Editor)they teleport across the map to the UAE. I've not tried the A-50 yet however assume its in the same boat. Surely this is a mistake? Bandar Abbas has 2 runways, both in excess of 1.5nm in length, and similar-sized civilian jets land there - it is able to take 747s, surely it can handle IL-76s? - From a mission design point of view - this is my biggest gripe. Third negative - While it's obvious that the Iranian faction has been worked on, the same can't be said for the other two nations in the region: UAE and Oman. Neither have ground forces yet and neither have access to the F-16 (the backbone of their respective air forces). The UAE operates the Mirage 2000-9 however the 2000C can perform most of its functions but the UAE livery included with the Mirage 2000C can't be selected if the aircraft belongs to the UAE, only France at this stage. Are new liveries, and a faction overhaul, (for UAE and Oman) incoming? And can the UAE livery either be the default selection for the UAE M2000C (much like the Greek livery is for Greece) or at least be available for selection? POSITIVES! So I don't end on a whingey, negative note I've saved the best for last. As stated above, the map has - for the most part - exceeded my expectations. From the lighting effects down to the detail. It has been amazing. However I was definitely NOT expecting the rain effects to be snuck in quietly and seemingly unannounced. Not that I saw it rain much when I was over that way but it does give just that bit more immersion and realism. Also the existing liveries for the Iranian side are schmick, I especially like the new IRIAF MiG-21 livery.

1400Z? Aw man, where I am it won't even be the 23rd then... :bye_3: Well...it will be the 23rd, still, but there won't be much left of it. Especially by the time its done downloading. :pilotfly:

Please find attached, a picture of the 'Command Center' static object. It is registered in-sim as destroyed, and you can see it is clearly deconstructed, however it remains standing. I've not gone through every building type yet, however the 'Workshop A' damage model works as it should (you can see it in the background). In line with that, the AI F/A-18C's AGM-154s release from their pylons and remain seemingly connected to the aircraft for 10-20 seconds - AT MORE OR LESS 90 DEGREES TO THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL - before resuming on course. AGM-84Es, however, work as intended. Apologies, I don't have a pic of that yet: will need to recreate the mission. EDIT: Attached pictures of the AGM-154 issue.

Hi -Rudel-, thank you for the reply. I'm not sure what the Virtual Algerian Air Force has done/will do/wants to do, considering almost every other livery they've shown has been added - as I understand it, their project started off as a petition to include Algeria and went from there - but an example of the livery I refer to is located here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159756&page=7 Towards the bottom. I lack the ability to link a specific post. I was under the impression, having read through most of the 7 pages, they'd all been submitted.

With the inclusion of the Algerian Air Force liveries, I spotted a MiG-21 livery that I've noticed is not included (yet, or at all). While there are 101 important tasks probably going on in-house, I was wondering if Magnitude intends to include this livery at any point? It seems a pity that their work is, as I understand it, recognised by ED (hence the Algerian Air Force has a number of quality liveries) yet the MiG-21s livery is missing. Not demanding anything, just curious as to its omission.

What tanker did the Argentinians have to conduct AAR from? Or did they do buddy refuelling? That'd be a new mission type for pilots in DCS...

I'm looking forward to this map. I am curious as to it's general layout however. Will it feature Argentinian coastline, with at least one airbase all the way over there so 'REDFOR/BLUFOR' are separated by ocean East/West or will it centre on the Falkland Islands and be surrounded by water? Or will the Falkland Islands even be included (logic would suggest 'Yes', given the Falklands-era units being produced)? Flying from mainland Argentina is going to take some time (and pilots will learn new respect for fuel conservation) and then getting back is going to be an issue also. They didn't have AAR back then - at least not the Argentinians - unsure if the RN FAA had it either for Sea Harrier and Harrier, although the RAF did with old Victors. Of course, more modern scenarios can get around this easily using assets already in DCS. If this map centres on the Falklands and then there's nothing but water it will slightly disappointing, for me personally, however considering this is also focusing on 'what if' scenarios, I would also be disappointed if this turned into an 'Argentina is the China of South America' and there's artificial island airbases made in this map. Hopefully we can see some early concepts of the area they intend to replicate.

It's more so about acquiring the requisite technical documents to fully simulate the aircraft. The AH-64D Longbow is still in widespread service with the US Army, and much of its systems are likely highly classified. I do believe they intend to produce an AH-1 module, unsure of the variant - I'm hoping a 'T' model, as I like the angled canopy rather than the rounded one personally - so that might be a bit of a compromise. It's still a twin-seat, narrow profile attack helicopter. However, I'm not sure who's working on what without referring back to the ED and 3rd Party developers lists but in terms of helicopters, the Mi-24 is being worked on. Plus they're also working on a number of fixed-wing aircraft such as the F-14A/B, F-4E, F/A-18C, F-16C, F4U Corsair, P-40 Warhawk, P-47 Thunderbolt, MiG-19, an aerobatic biplane I won't be purchasing, the Yak-52 and A-29 Super Tucano (both of which I will be purchasing) and a number of other aircraft that've hinted at but not confirmed. If we were to get an AH-64, it would likely be an earlier variant like the A model. Sadly, it's unlikely we'll see an Apache of any variant as a DCS module any time soon. That being said, it would be a welcome addition.

I've not played it myself, but I've had my eye on it. I'm intending to start a virtual squadron (still laying ground work at the moment) that would fly Rise of Flight, IL2 and DCS - so aerial warfare across the entire spectrum (WW1, WW2 and Korea, Cold War and beyond). RoF is old, however the developers of IL2 are looking to give RoF a facelift. Cliffs of Dover, while it *was* the proverbial POS, is now reasonably polished. Again, I've not played it, however considering it was a mod-team that fixed it, and that mod team now works with/for the IL2 developers, read into that what you will. While a new and improved RoF is likely 12-24 months away, as it stands right now, it still looks pretty reasonable. Look up footage on YouTube, there's plenty of it.

Sorry to necro this couple month old thread, but I noticed the MiG-21 livery in this but I've not been able to find it in DCS, under Algeria or the MiG-21 liveries - is it in yet? I can see/use all the others, except I haven't looked at the Su-25T in a while, but I've been most interested in the MiG-21 livery for a campaign I'm developing.

(sigh) *casts pointed finger into the air* ACKCHEWALLY... (/sigh) :argue: Fine. Over-exaggeration on my part HOWEVER once the Hornet releases its stores (i.e. "unloads", as you put it) it CAN go supersonic, none of this 'almost' business. And how many unprepared bases are there in DCS, without ones you might make yourself? IRL, depending on how they're used, that's something to consider. In DCS, that's not a thing I've seen done. I will have to look into that. The Su-25T was never designed to be fast to begin with so you're basically flying a very small airliner. That was designed to shoot and be shot at... Back on topic, who's confident in taking on R-27ER/ET equipped MiG-29s with AIM-7s? :helpsmilie:

When I refer to SEAD in DCS, I mean either the destruction or neutralisation of air defences. While that may not be what SEAD is IRL, you can't suppress air defences in DCS - as Vampyre has said above. You can either destroy them, disable them or force them to use all their ammo. That's about the extent of your abilities. Against AAA, MANPADS, short range SAMs or non-radiating medium/long range SAMs, of course you would use bombs, rockets and AGMs - because you can get close enough to use them without being shot down (provided there's no air threat). Against radiating medium to long range SAMs, I prefer to stay well out of their engagement range. Kh-58s are great for this, except against SA-10s and Patriots. Kh-25MPUs even less so, unless you're lucky enough to be able to use terrain masking to get within launch range. The F/A-18C and HARM pairing means I don't have to run the risk of having to dodge SA-10s or Patriots - only the missile does. And if the missile gets intercepted, you can go back and rearm - the SAM site takes longer to rearm than the plane does. EDIT: Plus, the F/A-18C is much, much faster than the SU-25T so the F/A-18 might potentially be able to take off, launch, land and reload, take off and launch again before the Su-25T is turning back from its first engagement.

I think you spelt 'Aerial Fire BOMBING Operations wrong'... :P Edit: To clear up any confusion - as fire bombing can also be the water-dropping kind, I meant the explodey-kind of bombing... And I was being sarcastic. Unless they make a Canadair CL-215...

Truth be told, the F-4 came up against more MiG-19s than MiG-21s over Vietnam but they were certainly the 'flagship' fighters for both sides.

"Wish List", not "Demand List" or "Business Analysis". It wasn't directed at the OP. It could be a language or context disconnect, just a couple posts I read in here come across as people demanding ED do a thing when they've clearly got their hands full right now.

Not sure if serious... If you are, a healthy alternative full of aircraft made from wood and canvas would be Rise of Flight. Not sure WW1 biplanes would fit within the scope of DCS... Having said that, Magnitude is making an aerobatic biplane so you never know...

I'd be inclined to agree with you - and they do have a very detailed Tornado IDS model just waiting for a soul BUT they've committed to the Hornet, Mi-24 and F-16C. Unless they suddenly expand their 3rd party developer list, or grow an extra development team, we won't see it for some time... But it would be nice to see the UK air inventory receive some flyable aircraft they actually used. I discussed the inclusion of a naval F-4, over in the Belsimtek subforum, based on the F-4K for that exact reason - as much as I believe REDFOR needs a day/night all-weather strike fighter, it would be ideal for the UK to have a flyable aircraft they actually used.

It's all well and good for us to sit back in our comfortable gaming chairs and suddenly fix EDs issues by saying things like "Just do 'X' and you can get 'Y'..." It's one thing to make suggestions - and I do agree, aircraft used in the locales the terrains take us could use an upgrade - but it's another entirely for anyone not working for or with ED to tell them how to do their job. I'm sure they'll get the attention they deserve in the fullness of time - they're just a little busy. An old model isn't going to kill the game, but releasing a broken EA Hornet might. Patience.

We're already getting the F-16, so I don't believe it should have been included. Make no mistake, I'm looking forward to it, and it will be a Day Zero purchase. Anyway, while I am fond of western jets (F-16 and F-4 are among my top 5 favourite aircraft), Red NEEDS a capable strike-fighter to counter the F/A-18, F-16 and F-4. The airframe that trumps any interest in western aircraft, in my own humble opinion, is the Su-27 and its extended family. Because of the new technologies being developed in some of our incoming modules (particularly two-seater AI and AG radar) I elected to vote for an Su-30 - on the proviso the variant they offered is able to use guided weapons (missiles AND bombs), anti-radiation missiles AND is all-weather day/night. When it's all said and done, BLUFOR will have 3 all-weather/SEAD and supersonic capable strike fighters. The reds have nothing all-weather and their most potent strike platform is the Su-25T. An Su-30 won't tip the scales but it WILL even the odds.