bies

'88 Norwegian F-16 intercept in the Arctic with Soviet Coot.

It would be awesome and super atmospheric. US carriers with A-6E, A-7E, F-4J, F-14A and Soviet interceptors like MiG-21bis, MiG-23MLA, MiG-29A, Su-17M, Su-25A fighting over Kola peninsula. Or earlier with F-8J, F-4B and MiG-17/19/21. Soviet Northern Fleet assets would be great.

Big advantege of Phantom's Sparrows was the aircraft has been designed with 4 low drag semi-recessed pylons dedicated only for AIM-7 missiles. They add very little drag having 4 big missiles blended in fuselage boundary layer having small drag index compared to aircrafts carrying missiles under the wings and having minimal impact on performance. Later on F-15, F-14 and F/A-18 had similar non universal low drag semi-recessed pylons as well as they proved to be successfull concept.

Plus early NATO launcher like Redeye.

Shafrir-1, -2, Python -3 might be possible. More modern are ridiculously classified due to Israeli policy. This earlier, yet distinct Israeli made weapons would be great, to be honest I can see them being added to DCS together with some aircraft of that era which Israeli used being released. IDK, maybe F-15A or C, or F-16A,. Mirage III or typical Israeli one like Kfir, Lavi. Our F-16C from 2007 would use Python-5, but we can safely forget about such missile as long as we don't want totally unrealistic generic weapon with close to zero in common with real life being added to DCS.

I won't say anything except for the fact ED made the right decision by only making API available to 3rd parties who can prove they are producing modules that meet certain standards. If there would exist this mythical group of modders capable of making high quality realistic Superhornet in DCS environment meeting DCS standard - they would already be working on it, as a DCS 3rd party with API and become rich after release.

More, reality of many similar games shows you would have 10 different simulations of F/A-18E. One totally unrealistic, but with very good graphic, very popular on servers, doing 200° super cobra maneuver. Second quite realistic, but bugged and unplayable. Third rater simplified and unrealistic, but with good PR team, very popular, having 3 different sub-mods variants. Fourth very ambitious and quite realistic, in some aspects not that far from some real modules, but unfinished, poor visuals, released only because guys were begging to release what that had anyway. Unplayable. Fifth, the most popular in competitive MP due to having "modeled" AESA radar being able to detect anything from at least 200nm and fire "realistic" AIM-120D from at least 100nm with deadly PK. And a few less popular. ------------------------------------- Truth is making reasonably realistic, good audiovisual, rather bug-free, supported and maintained to be playable F/A-18C Lot 20 we have in DCS is the fruit of 6-7 years of work of big team consisted of professional very experienced coders and flight engineers, working full time daily ~8h job and being well paid. Doing anything close to that by few amateurs, having another job to live, non-flight engineers and experienced coders, without any official chief designer having always the last word - it will be impossible and module would be unrealistic, unfinished, compromised, bugged, messed with every new update, after some time abandoned. Simple rudimentary A-4 Skyhawk with very simple avionics is maximum what can be done and we have zero guarantee they will stop supporting it tomorrow.

When it comes to Mirage F.1 it can comfortably fight anything pre-4th generation fighters. And the beauty of this era is pilot's skill is way more important than machine itself, if you manage to maintain better situational awareness and manage to attack from advantageous position it doesn't matter it is MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23, Phantom, Viggen, F-5E or anything else. Gun shooting or even going into position to fire early heatseeker from manual flight control tempremental aircraft is not so simple, there is lot more in such combat than 1-2° sustained turn advantage in one particulat conditions. You won't yank full stick and release 80° off-bore missile across the circle without aiming at first half turn. After one day flying it i think Mirage F.1 is in a great spot rigt now. Compared to i.e. Mirage 2000 which is too recent variant for Cold War scenarios, but outclassed by 2005 AMRAAM, JDAM, Link16, JHMCS Hornets and Vipers.

You mean Mirage F.1 is simply not the first aircraft in DCS able to carry them? At first i understood Mirage F.1 don't have acces to them when i just dropped them few minutes ago. But i give the credit to the original creator of Durandal bombs in DCS then -IFE, good job.

When dynamic campaign will be ready i can see runway cratering munitions like Mirage's Durandal and similar ones being way more important and some updated mechanics and graphical representation would be nice. It is still functional right now in DCS, just not very in depth.

I think side-by-side cockpit will be great in DCS. Both A-6 and F-111 had analog navigation and fire control systems, involving and fun to operate and manual flight control. F-111 had fantastic performance when A-6 was carrier capable. Both would fit DCS or flight simulator perfectly. And we're withdrawn after USSR collapsed, not a big problem obtaining very detailed data.

This was true, obviously in 1991 tail gun wasn't particularly useful, but it was because B-52 was already badly outdated during those times. It could rely only on total alled air dominance to operate. Or to be used to lauch very long range cruise missiles from way outside any enemy SAM reach. During 1950s or even early-mid 1960s tail gun was considered very useful significantly increasing difficulty for enemy interceptors. It was only in Vietnam late 1960s tail gun started to be less and less relevant as interceptors became flying high supersonic speed, using first early guided missiles and early radars.

I agree, grat classic.

Plus AdA were using first F.1C without refueling probe in early 1970s. Good counterpart for our MiG-21bis, F-5E or future F-4E.

This is very much true, but i see that from another perspective as i think we could have some more widespread and relevant aircrafts than prototypes like Ka-50 or Su-25T. Let alone F-20. With very limited data, not real air war history to have some point of reference, practically impossible to find subject matter experts, it would be simply unrealistic module.

Cobra would be great, especially some earlier variant like AH-1G from Vietnam/mid Cold War or AH-1W from 1970s/80s with TOW missiles. When in a mood to fly extremally complex and sophisticated one i would fly Apache D, when i would prefer to fly simpler aircraft and enjoy just manual flying, looking, aiming, shooting without the need to remember long complicated procedures i would fly Cold War Cobra. AH-1Z would be both classified and too similar to AH64D.

First probably because Tejas entered service only in 2011 so it's strictly classified so it would have to be completely made up and have fictional avionics. Second because we don't have any 3rd party from India to make some exclusively Indian module knowing Indian language documentation. Third because India is absolutely crazy about it's military equipment documentation secrecy, even more than Russia.

It was December 1992, after Desert Storm, nothing controversial here. Desert Storm took place 17 January to 28 February 1991. What you cited is no fly zone more than 1,5 year after Desert Storm ended. AIM-120 was already operational by this time.

Some 3rd parties are doing just that, depending of how profitable such variant would be. I.e. Heatblur is making Iranian F-14A GR-95. Note it still takes huge amount of time despite of very minor changes it requires. Making completely new avionics and weapon systems for modern-ish AMRAAM carrying F-4 would take many additional years of work.

Do you have such document? Not trying to tell you you are wrong, but I've always heard something exactly opposite. USAF received short serie of 50-80 pre production version of AIM-120 deferent than production AIM-120A in 1988 and evaluated them and requested some changes. It became operational after Desert Storm. If USAF would secretly cleared AIM-120 to take off in combat area why they didn't use it a single time? Why even taking off with a missile if you are forbidden to launch it? To carry some ballast?

Is there a single photo from Desert Storm with any aircraft carrying AIM-120? AIM-120 became operational only after Desert Storm ended, why would anyone even take off with AIM-120 in combat area?

Great work RAZBAM, i appreciate all this details.

Mach=1.4, not 2.4, it's some mistake in the video. To go Mach 2.4 Tomcat would need to fly with max 4 Sparrows in semi-recessed low drag fuselage pylons only, no Sidewinders and for sure no Phoenixes. It would need to fly straight and high at least 37,000-40,000ft, accelerating for a long time. In tactical situation like the one in the video when they needed to have their options open and be able to outmaneuver the enemy flying at Mach 2 would be a big mistake.

Armed F-4 Phantom was losing relatively only small amount of speed compared to i.e. F-16 because Phantom carried AIM-7 Sparrows in non-universal semi-recessed fuselage pylons, without any external pylon and missiles were inside of fuselage air boundary layer. AIM-7 in F-4, F-14, F-15 or fuselage mounted on F/A-18, or even AIM-120 on EF2000, had relatively small drag index.

I would like to see any aircraft from this era, but F-84F Thunderstreak didn't have a luck to see any serious combat. It was too late for Korean War when F-84 Thunderjet was widely used, but USAF replaced it with F-105 Thunderchief before Vietnam War. All in all Thunderjet for Korean War or Thunderchief for Vietnam War would be better, but F-84F would be good as well for Cold War gone hot in Europe 1950s.