bies

I would say 1980s. US Navy decomissioned A-7E in year 1991 right after USSR collapsed and Gulf War ended.

I'm citing real life F-15 pilot opinion who flown both types extensively, not an amateur from the internet trying to interpret by himself some video without any telemetry - no offence, nothing personal. Nobody said 2-seat F-15 can't turn at all, it's just significantly worse at low speed/high AoA than 1-seater canopy. That's all. Nice airshow BTW, thx.

Block 10 would be even more fun, being even more maneuverable with original "small tail" optimised for maneuver air combat and not for hauling heavy bomb loads which was incorporated in Block 15 and all later variants. Israeli were using this early Block 10 super nimble F-16A extensively in real air combat scoring many air kills during the Cold War era. And Block 10 could be more historically relevant with more than 40 air kills in real wars when Block 15 didn't see much real combat, let alone achieving air kills. If we go with another variant let's make it as different from what we have now as possible.

I would like a fighter variant JA-37. But original Cold War one, with Skyflash missiles, stronger engine, internal extremely powerfull gun firing GAU-8 Avenger cardridge in times when gun was still usefull etc. Perfect for Red Storm Rising scenarios against the Soviets over Kola Peninsula map. Not modern AMRAAM truck, with classified avionics JA-35D Viggen.

Why is this wrong person? I'm quoting sentences - not people. I try to never be personal discussing on fora.

Opinion of reali life pilots is all 2-seat canopy F-15 are way worse at high AoA than 1-seater due to disturbed air behind 2-seat canopy.

Yes, that's true, but the difference was not as big as it seems. The most modern Gulf War aircrafts like F/A-18C, Apache, Tornado, MiG-29 etc. were 1980s Cold War variants. Not similar to 2000s we have in DCS. Gulf War Hornets didn't have Link16, JHMCS, AMRAAM, AIM-9X, JDAM, JSOW - they were expected to perform classic air combat and HUD/INS aided iron bombing and sometimes some rudimentary guided weapon attacks. Even the most advanced Cold War air superiority fighters F-15C MSIP II used by USAF during Desert Storm, having big advantages of all kind, technological, pilot training, AWACS coverage, EW, intelligence, recon, command and control etc. were still often forced to merge with Iraqi MiG-25s and MiG-29s and perform classic air combat. Not just release AMRAAMs form 20nm and go home like during Balkan war, some decade later. Apache didn't have Longbow datalink, interferometer, II Gen FLIR, FCR, digital avionics. Similar to classic analog A-10A, Tornado GR.1, F-16C Block etc. The airframes were similar but avionics and weapon were very different.

What kind of propaganda? If anything NATO always gave significant benefit of doubd to all kind of Soviet equipement, even the types which later porven to be really unsuccessfull. There is multitude of examples where NATO was overestimating Soviet weapon systems and not many, if any, where NATO underestimated them. I like Yak-38 not because of some "propaganda" of one side, but because it was distinct and unique and it had its role in Soviet naval aviation which suffered from insufficient sea/air component. But i know it was very much compromised all around due to its VTOL design. Many guys want even transport aircraft or non-armed helicopter, or acrobatic civilian aircraft. Yak-38 was armed, serially produced, challenging to fly.

During an interview he didn't say it was useless, it was useful for non complicated intercept i.e. straight flying bomber. AIM-120 required far less accurate tracking to hit the target or just painting it with TWS without tracking at all. In case of SAHR AIM-7 missile guidance precision depends directly on accurate single target tracking and practical range of the missile guiding on radar power and antenna size thus the power of radar signal reflected by the target.

If anything i've seen someone from ED stated some other F-16 variant is possible when current Block 50CCIP will be finished. I have not followed this topic, so I may not have the latest information.

I can understand the sentiment, but personally i'm the other way around - all FC3 modules are on my TOP full fidelity wishlist, Cold War Su-27S, F-15C, MiG-29A, Su-25A, A-10A - truth is FC3 simply took most of the sexiest airframes of 1970s/1980s. It would be a shame FC3 standard would remain for such important aircrafts. For me FC3 is totally different than DCS module, not even close to be any substitute. Yak-38 for Soviet Aviation, together with Kiev class carrier/cruiser would be great as well. I remember operating from this ship in Apache/Havoc older sim.

If you fly FC3 regularly, you probably remember all this - next radar PRF mode, next navigation mode/waypoint, next bomb/rocket interval etc. because they are identical to all FC3 planes. I don't remember them by memory since i fly FC3 very rarely. And there is no shortcut - you just need to remember it. In full fidelity you don't have to remember, you just see physical lever in the cockpit and you pull it, or button with A/A text - you press it. And MiG-29, F-15, Su-27 etc. are not comparable in terms of realism or in depth modeling to DCS modules. Full fidelity simulation is the reason i'm buying just about every DCS module and i'll definitely buy any FC3 module when developed in Full Fidelity DCS standard. Developers was talkind about disconnecting FC3 from DCS a few times, idk if this was due to announced MAC game or something else or i understood this incorrectly.

Yes, all 3 of them; F-15A from 1975, F-15C from 1979 and F-15C MSIP II from 1985 are pure Cold War machines. Su-27S entered service 1985 exactly like F-15C MSIP II. After the Cold War F-15C still received modernisation far later on, but it was slow due to lack of priority and lack of need for specialized air superiority fighter at all in a world of US military dominance. But yes, F-15A from mid 1970s would be great, it had the best low speed maneuverability and nose authority and awesome acceleration with lighter airframe, but tempremental engines to tame. In 1970s, just like F-14A, it was considered superfighter. It had much simpler radar avionics and it relied more on a classic air combat, being great for mid Cold War 1970s scenarios. It would be fantastic if someone would make F-15 like DCS F-14 equivalent - with A, C and C MSIP II versions.

Full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 is coming to DCS. It will have far less buttons to remember than FC3 one, because it will have clickable cockpit. I'm always reluctant to fly FC3 modules being forced to remember huge amount of buttons due to their non-clickable cockpits. If something is visually represented in cockpit, like gear handle or some cockpit button with name on it or contrast fire extinguisher i remember it just after one use, but to remember 20-30 FC3 abstract commands like next radar PRF mode or next navigation mode/waypoint, or next bomb/rocket interval etc. is pain in the ass compared to full fidelity modules - despite them being way more realistic and in depth simulation they are simply way easier and more pleasant to operate.

No, they are yet another type, they are MiG-29 9.12, not 9.13 - without hump behind canopy, but with different classified avionics package, integrated with R-77 missiles and rescaled cockpits, they have been retired in 2017.

Yes, early F-16A would be the best, the earlier Block the better like Block 1, 5, 10, it would be the most distinct, with completely different gameplay and character, analog cockpit, short range weapon only, but fantastic maneuverability with "small tail" optimised for dogfight and light nose with APG-66 radar. When it comes to Block 30 - later on they were modernised, received reinforced structure to houl more bombs, integrated with more weapon systems, new avionics blocks - and they grew in weigh being only marginally lighter then Block 50 and their kinematic performance difference diminished. Block 30 from late 1980s and Gulf War though - it was half ton lighter airframe with nearly identical GE engine and significant kinematic advantage over later Block 50 having significatnly higher T/W and even bigger advantage in wing loading.

We are having two F-4E variants, one from 1970s, one from 1980s. Great for? Great for nearly any conflict F-4E was being used, Vietnam war, Iran-Iraq war where we have practically all assets for both sides, Israeli-Arab wars like War on Attrition 1970, Yom Kippur war 1973, Mole Cricket over Bekaa Valley 1982 and all what if scenarios with different remaining F-4E operators all around the world since 1970s like Turkey, Greece, Japan, Australia, Egypt. And F-4S? Only fictional scenarios. And I'm not extreme, I still see a place for the F-4S, but let's not be silly, the F-4E was incomparably more relevant than the F-4S. In short F-4B in early 1960s was the best fighter aircraft anywhere in the world, with cutting edge performance, holding speed and climb records, able to fight every most modern opponent and win, still having multirole capabilities. F-4J in late 1960s was still top fighter as well. F-4S in 1980s was just a way cheaper substitute of modern and capable F-14, giving up prestigious role of a fleet defender and being relegated to secondary duties. Libyan Su-22s and MiG-23s were delt with by Tomcats, for a reason. Everything has its own time.

Agree, but Block 30 would be nice as well having better kinematic performance than our late Block 50. Higher T/W, lower wing loading, better acceleration, climb, sustained and instantaneous turn. At cost of simpler Cold War avionics. And it was the main variant during Gulf War and famous US Navy aggressor hotrod to train dissimilar air combat.

There were two main very distinct 9.13 variants. One 9.13 was Soviet fighter produced from 1986, produced in hundreds, its only important modifications compared to 9.12 were added Gardena ECM, slightly increased fuel tank inside enlarged "hump" behind the canopy and additional 2° AoA requiring less physical force from the pilot. At the expense of slightly lower kinematic performance of a bit heavier airframe compared to 9.12. And there was 9.13S, post Cold War variant, produced in tiny numbers in mid 1990s, this had modified radar with TWS and R-77 missile (which didn't entered service in RF), modified IRST, newer computer etc. at cost of further mass increase. This is the one we have in FC3. The first may by possible to model in full fidelity and it was possibly used in some limited combat. The second is strictly classified, only marginally relevant and probably with 0 combat use, and a mix with prototype solutions.

It was used by the Soviet navy during 1980s, but it couldn't operate on ocean, only at closed calm seas like Caspian Sea. Never intended to be used in Arctic. Only one single craft was built. But yes, it was unique distinct interesting design. Just not suited for Arctic.

I didn't say anything about it being a concern. I said i just treat it a disadvantage compared to more combat aircrafts which have more atmosphere, if there is possible to chose between few variants. I.e. if we would have P-51H instead of P-51D it's lack of combat use would make it way less appealing then P-51D - iconic WW2 aircraft. Despite P-51H having better performance and capabilities.

F-4S would be nice, it had two disadvantages that's why i listed it only at 3rd place: it was relatively significantly less capable than F-4B and -J during it's time of Tomcats and Eagles, it was simply becoming outdated as soon as it entered service. And, contrary to F-4B and -J, it didn't see any combat IRL so it lacks the atmosphere or combat variants.

Lightweight F-15A from 1975 with Vmax switch and analog cockpit.

DCS Cuban Missile Crisis ! Needed aircrafts of this era like MiG-21F-13, Su-7B, Su-9, F-4D Skayray, A-4D Skyhawk, F-8U Crusader, U-2, F-104 Starfighter etc. SA-2 S-75, CIM-10 Bomarc missile systems.

Maybe by changing Normal to Bore button befow the HUD.