bies

Super Etendard would be a great pair with both Mirage F.1 and F-8 / Clemenceau carrier. Perfect for RAZBAM's 1982 Falkland Map version as well.

Drag index for pylons and weapons would be grat addition, but last time i checked some modules still didn't have pylons drag and weight modeled at all, yet. I.e. F-14 huge fuselage pylons didn't chnge drag or even weight.

I'm not sure which Phantom variant i would like to see the most myself, but being objective Vietnam war was absolutely the high point of the Phantom's career. Quality wise as right after Vietnam F-14 and F-15 started to replace Phantom in combat units or relegate Phantom to other tasks and from this moment it was most definitely not the high point of the Phantom anymore since both F-14 and F-15 were superfighters compared to F-4. Quantity wise as well - during Vietnam war USAF nad US Navy lost probably more aircrafts than during all other post WW2 wars combined.

I would like to see more of them as well, but it's not true what we have now is either WW2 or 2000s. Most US ground assets in DCS like M60A3, HMMWV, M113, M2A2 Bradley, LAV-25, MLRS, Hawk, Patriot, Roland, Vulcan etc. - represent 1980s or at most early 1990s variants.

I would like to see original French Navy Super Etendard from 1970s/1980s in DSC to fly together with A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair, F-14A Tomcat, F-8J Crusader, Mirage F.1, maybe F-4J Phantom, when specialised strike aircrafts like Super Etendard had their specific role to fulfill. "Modernise" variant was just too late for the party, in 2000s it was outdated platform with modernised avionics, probably mostly calssified anyway so it would have to be fictional, especially radar and modern Sherloc electronic warfare. This times universal supersonic fighter/bomber like F/A-18C or Rafale could do everything Super Etendard M could. And do it better, faster, further, higher, defend itself etc.

Yes, there were different ways to do things with older technology, i've heard an interview with A-10A pilot in Desert Storm - they were flying A-10As at low altitude, at night, without NVG! TF Normandy was a special mission with specially prepared aircrafts, i would like to see it as well. Overall Apache destroyed ~1000 tanks / AFV and other assets during the operation.

On one hand it's true. On the other hand the all-digital cockpit, GPS navigation, NVG, datalink etc. kill some part of immersion - it's a different era of aviation compared to Cold War or Desert Storm technology Apache. All of this technology added far more capability to Apache than FCR - which was unreliable and had many limitations according to pilots. For now Apache / Kiowa squadron during 2008 Russia-Georgia war sounds the most appealing to me for AH-64D Longbow.

Is this "carrier capable" F-4E some kind of joke or serous suggestion? Even WT or old Strike Fighters didn't go that crazy unrealistic. Let alone DCS. I'm confident ED will never do something like that. To clarify: F-4E didn't have any carrier capabilities. It didn't have any device to connect to carrier steam catapult. It didn't have reinforced undercarriage. It didn't have naval hook, just a delicate standard USAF hook for emergency landing without brakes which would be teared immediately when catching carrier wire. F-4C had most of the navy equipment to operate from carrier since it was basically a Navy F-4B bought by USAF. Subsequent USAF variants lost naval specific features.

This would be the ultimate scenario, Desert Storm 1991 very good as well. But both are way outside our AH-64D Longbow Apache timeframe. There was original analog AH-64A guarding Fulda Gap during the Cold War or engaging Iraq armored and mechanized divisions in Iraq.

Drag index for pylons and weapons would be grat addition, but last time i checked some modules still didn't have pylons drag and weight modeled at all, yet. I.e. F-14 huge fuselage pylons didn't chnge drag or even weight.

IIRC we have 1980s UH-1H standard, modeled after Australian Bush Ranger, with 1980s cockpit and avionics. Vietnam era UH-1H would be great, with some of the field modifications you mentioned, when we get more Vietnam era aircrafts in DCS or Vietnam map.

It would be great. I remember an old "MiG Alley" sim, flying F-80, F-84, F-86, MiG-15 etc., figting for air superiority in stratosphere and attacking ground targets fighting over brown Korean peninsula map was awesome.

Play Sonalyst's "Dangerous Waters" a few days. You will have same basic understanding of submarine and naval warfare and what needs to be implemented to make it worth the effort.

First thing - i reply assuming this thread is not a cheap provocation but legitimate lack of knowledge. Maybe i assume wrong. So, do you know what speed meteor has flying from outer space to enter Earth's atmosphere? Around 50000kmh (fifty thousand) kilometers per hour. You would have similar chances trying to intercept it using your bare hands. Namely zero chance. If you are legitimately interested in this topic there is a "Quora" thread with in depth technical details to show why it would be impossible and what would be the most important limitations of our newest cutting edge systems in this regard. In short - you would need a full size space rocket (with nuclear warhead, conventional warhead would barely scratch meteor big enough to cross Earth's atmosphere) launched in advance, trying to intercept the meteor thousands of kilometers outside the Earth's atmosphere. Even this would have slim chances and requiring extreme precision in prediction of meteor's trajectory.

1991 Desert Storm map would be a border of Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Iran. I was sure it will be the first desert map in DCS. I was wrong.

Exactly that. What Eiffel tower has to do with Apache in this trailer? Nothing. And it doesn't have to. Two very different eras.

@upyr1and @Northstar98have good arguments for 1980s Phantom to saturate 1980s late Cold War era in DCS. On the other hand there is one counterargument i can't find solution: in 1980s F-4 Phantom was already badly outdated, nearly completely replaced by F-14 and F-15 in combat units, in A/A department it would be a "whipping boy" or at least a poor cousin of an F-14 and F-15. It wouldn't be a glory but the fight to just survive and F-4 Phantom was once the most powerful fighter in the world in mid-late 1960s. So maybe early 1970s, (just like MiG-21bis, F-5E, Mirage F.1C, F-8J) has its place being able to show it's potential in air combat. Maybe changes to model both are not too big. (Cold War servers already noticed proper 1980s aircrafts like F-14B, MiG-29A, F-15C, Su-27S are too powerful compared to 1970s F-5E, MiG-21bis and future Mirage F.1, F-8J and often dividing them. During the Cold War one decade was like three decades now.)

I think it's the opposite: in Afghanistan, we are talking about US/NATO engagement, there was not really any "war" (as most people understand a war). No tanks fighting each other, no naval combat, no air combat, no any threat to the coalition air force - AKA flying training missions. Just a small sporadic light infantry vs partisans indecisive skirmishes, practically impossible to recreate in aircraft simulator like DCS. Contrary, in Iraq there were two all out wars, Iraq-Iran war in 1980s and Desert Storm 1991. Both with thousands of tanks, AFV, artillery, hundreds of thousands of military personnel engaged, aircrafts and helicopters destroying thousands of vehicles, naval combat, air combat and dogfighting with air kills, air defense combat, losses for both sides - something attractive and possible to recreate in DCS. Especially we have nearly all assets for both sides and for both Iraq-Iran war and Desert Storm (except for F-4 Phantom, but today's trailer suggests it may be developed) F-5E, F-14A, Huey, Gazelle, MiG-21, MiG-23 WIP, MiG-29A, Su-25A, Mirage F.1 WIP, Mi-8, Mi-24, F-15C, A-10A, A-6E WIP, A-7E WIP etc. This short A-10 pilot interview tells everything

Great aircraft. I've heard an interview with the Thud pilot, he said early variants - before they started to add additional draggy elements (dog ears) to the airframe - were exceptionally fast at low altitude. He stated he saw Mach 1,5 before recovering from the shallow bomb dive.

You suggested HB chose A-6 and EF instead of F-111. So i thought you didn't know about the two unannounced modules to be released BEFORE the Intruder and possibly EF. I'm the last person to be a dick and argue about semantics.

They didn't "went" with the Eurofighter. Eurofighter is being made by TruGrit, Heatblur just help them with some techical aspects and they merged for this project. But TrueGrit is the one providing the data and SME.

Su-27 with 59% fuel ("design weight") had significanly lower luel fraction than F-15C. Su-27 has fuel fraction of the F-15C when Su-27 has 88% fuel, but this is significantly above "design weight", especially if having additionally 8 AAM like the F-15C, and this makes Su-27 even more G limited than shown above. Just saying.

F-15C had great T/W ratio, but original 1980s Soviet MiG-29A (9-12) had even slightly better T/W (comparable to F-15A with VMAX switch) at cost of smaller fuel fraction. Later MiG-29 variants obviously had lower and lower T/W due to gradual mass increase. Another thing is uninstalled thrust doesnt equal real thrust at certain conditions, speed, altitude, air intake operation etc. There is an article USAF pilot Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton, one of the most experienced aggressor pilots ever, having flown the F-15, F-5, F-16 and the MiG-29, compares directly F-15C and MiG-29 9-12 right after the fall of the USSR, flying both next to each other and testing acceleration and climb. MiG-29A was slightly better, but again, similar fuel fraction (F-15C without full fuel) could equalize that to some extend. Plus F-15 engines were tuned to higher speeds. Both F-15 and first MiG-29 were nearly uncompromised A-A hotrods with fantastic performance.

IRL Su-27 G limits are way more complicated than that. According to manual Su-27 is limited to 8G at subsonic speed, limited to 6,5G at transsonic (Mach 0,85-1,25) speed, limited to 7G at supersonic speed. All of that is for so called "design weight" of 21,400 kg which means only 60% of fuel and only four AA missiles - quite lightweight and restricted configuration. With more than 60% fuel / more weapon Su-27 is even more G limited. That's why all Su-27 fuel above 60% is called "internal external fuel tank" - it was an artificial way to make the Soviet Air Force to accept the aircraft and its G limits acceptable for them only at less than 60% fuel + 4 AA missiles. (And that's the reason every fighter in DCS has default fuel set at 100%, but Su-27 default fuel is set automatically at 59% and if you want to take more fuel you have to change it manually)

There is an interview with Ukrainian pilots regularly flying MiG-29s against Su-27s since 1980s. According to the interview MiG-29 9-12 had better sustained turn rate than Su-27S and more G available in its envelope, but pilot has to be physically strong to make use of that. MiG-29 9-12 had higher thrust to weight than Su-27S which make its advantage more pronounced at higher altitudes. (Obviously later MiG-29 variants grew in weight, decreased thrust to weight, increased wing loading etc.)