bies

Realistically after the USSR collapsed and symmetrical opponent disappeared nobody was going to pay for the new high performance aircraft. Even an F-22 has been barely saved, drastically reducing the orders and chosing only the cheapest options, resigning many capabilities etc. It's changing now with the new symmetrical opponent rises, this time it's China and we will see some new high performance aircrafts in the next decades. But overall the period from 1991 fall of the USSR/the end of the Desert Storm untill ~2017/18 definite rise of China - is the most boring and stagnated 25-30 years period in history of military aviation since WW1. Zero even semi-symmetrical advanced technology conflicts, just a mud hut bombing of helpless opposition, old 1970s/1980s airframes upgrades until they are simply badly outdated, no symmetrical opponents just the US dominance, all advanced programs either severely delayed and trimmed down or completely cancelled.

+1

With all respect, I'm not even going to say you are wrong, but instead i'll say you cook that up. Without the data which we'll never see, we can never say one of the two very similar missiles is more maneuverable than the other If anything, real life pilots talking about the Meteor missile, stating it's lot MORE maneuverable than AMRAAM because it still has the propulsion in the final phase of the interception, when AMRAAM has reduced maneuverability because, except the first few seconds, it just glides to the target without any propulsion. And having the thrust even right before the impact is a big deal.

My opinion about the Superhornet in DCS is as follows, only very early Block would be available in the future (if anything), from around 2005 just like our legacy Hornet. Avionics of such early Block is close to identical to legacy Hornet. The only significant difference would be the longer legs and added pylons (added drag) at the cost of highter speed bleed rate in the turn due to increased drag, not worth. And I like the more proportional legacy Hornet look more, plus it's more zipper airframe, nimble, faster to respond. My opinion about the Superhornet as a real aircraft is, such medicore upgrade over the legacy Hornet two decades later (instead of fielding new cutting edge airframe A-12) has been accepted only because the Soviet Union collapsed and the US Navy budget shrinked and performance ceased to matter nearly as much as when US had the real opponent. In many ways it was a downgrade of an F-14 the Superburg was meant to replace. Compared to the leap USAF did from the F-15 to the F-22 at the same time is an eye opener. Superhornet did well guiding precision munition bombing helpless or nearly helpless opposition, but it wouldn't be an optimal solution for some serious air combat against an advanced and competent opponent. Too slow, too draggy, too low thrust to weight, to high speed bleed rate in the turn, too slow acceleration, to low ceiling etc. And even then it's biggest advantages - by far - would lay in it's modern advanced electronic warfare capabilities, which would be omitted being totally classified and impossible to model in any public simulator.

As long as there are real relevant aircrafts like MiG-29A, Su-17/22M, Su-25A, Su-24, MiG-27, MiG-25PD to name just the Soviet ones, possible to model in realistic way, with real documentation, with SME input and cooperation, with license etc. - making some unrealistic guesstimated prototype, working completely different than the real aircraft, would be a mistake. I remember the Mi-28 in the "Apache vs Havoc" game, i liked to fly this helicopter in the dynamic campaign this game had. But it was obviously totally unrealistic with just some extremely simplified declassified Apache systems, symbology and logic working on a Soviet-era CRT monitor...

For me the Hind. It requires more effort, it's more engaging, pilot is manually flying the helicopter, gunner is looking for the targets and manually aims the missiles. I love legacy mechanical devices like the Hind's map with cursor and Doppler sensor. Or simple fan. Mi-24 behaves like a helicopter, with tail rotor. And it looks badass, both exterior and Soviet green cockpits. Ka-50 we have is practically a prototype, a few of them were built and tested. Mi-24 on the other hand is serially produced legendary helicopter built by the Soviets in thousands and used in many real life wars all around the world. Plus i like 2 seat aspect - if i want to play solo Petrovic my friend is doing the job, but when I want to fly with the friend we jump into the helicopter and look for the bad guys. Ka-50 is way different, way easier. It has GPS navigation so you always know your perfect position. Missiles are automatically guided with auto-track. You practically always fly on autopilot even on semi-manually director mode, you rather tell the autopilot what to do than pilot the helicopter. But it is fun as well in a different way. PS: Both have this nice atmospheric Soviet vibes, Hind more for sure since it's a Cold Wars legend, but Ka-50 has been designed during 1980s, fall of the USSR simply didn't allow them to finish the project.

I've noticed at this point we have practically Zero proper Cold War maps, 2 WW2 maps and 5 post-Cold War. Any proper Cold War map would be massive improvement of the current situation where all 1950-1990 modules have to fight over modern day cities; Korea, Vietnam, Fulda Gap, Northern Europe East / West Germany, GIUK, Iraq, Libya - anything.

The West / East Germany Cold War would be the best. But Fulda Gap 1980s and Desert Storm are practically the same aircrafts. It's only a few years difference, i see the first Gulf War as the last final battle of the Cold War. Only after the Gulf War things changed for the worse, Soviet aviation collapsed completely reduced to a small fraction of the former power, AMRAAM turned the air combat upside down and made merge way less probable and less needed, low level bombers like F-111 or A-6 has been retired in a few years, F-14 and F-16 were practically turned into a bombers, training level and risk have dropped in the NATO and practically collapsed in Russia. All ambitious western programs like the F-22, Eurofighter, Rafale had been delayed by a decade and Soviet/Russian like MiG 1.42 was terminated completely. An era of helpless mud hut bombing begun.

That's what I call a low hanging fruit. Having all of this work done making the final step and full fidelity module out of F-15C would be relatively easy. Just like ED plans to do with the MiG-29 9.12 But unfortunately now we will have to wait for the F-15E first, not to inter interfere with RAZBAM F-15E sales.

According to US Navy 4th generation airframes, regardless of upgrades, will not be survivable in 30 years. Too short legs, no weapons bay, big RCS, big heat signature, low electric output to support the new electric devices, too slow, no supercruise... Super bug has been developed, instead of the new high performance navy fighter, because Soviet Union collapsed and nobody needed the new and expensive advanced high performance "Tomcat of the XXI century". Raptor for the USAF has been nearly cancelled as well.

Very dangerous yet necessary job. Respect to the guys doing it back then. And training to do that in case of "round three in Europe". Overall Tornado GR.1 / IDS in DCS attacking Soviet / WARPAC targets in Europe would be a blast. One of the most tense type of missions i can imagine. Flying at 200ft in bad weather, possibly at night, over the enemy territory, with INS, drift, moving map, avoiding detection, SAM, interceptors, dodging AAA and attacking using simple aids to aim the bombs.

Just three basic variants like F-14A GR95, F-14A GR135, F-14B: F-15A since 1975, the lightest and most nimble, the best nose authority, 7.5G, tempramental PW100 engines (with VMAX switch!) and initial analog weapon control panel. This variant together with F-16A decimated Syrian air force in 1982 over Bekaa Valley. F-15C since 1979, enlarged internal fuel volume, 9G full envelope and overload warning system (over G!), digital central computer PSP, slightly improved radar. F-15C MSIPII since 1985, upgraded avionics with TWS, NCTR, RAID, built in ALQ-135 ECM, improved RWR, improved radar, digital weapon panel. It's what we have in FC3 right now as low fidelity, used in Desert Storm, later integrated with AMRAAM and used to the late 1990s.

I hope MiG-25PD can be done after the MiG-29A. Fox at definitely has it's own character and quite a combat history in the Middle East. It would be like MiG-21 on steroids with nearly everything being bigger and more powerful. Very similar cockpit as well.

For the Iraqi forces we will have practically everything in the future; flyable MiG-21bis, MiG-23, MiG-29A, Mirage F.1, Mi-24, Mi-8, Bolkov 105, Su-22, L-39 + AI MiG-25, Su-24, IL-76 Ground assets: AAA: ZSU-23-4, ZU-23-2, ZSU-57-2, Bofors 40mm SAM: SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13, Rapier, Roland Tanks: PT-76, T-55, T-72 Armored vehicles: BMP-1, BMP-2, MT-LB, BMD-1, BRDM-2 Artillery: 2S1 Gvozdika, 2S3 Akatsiya, BM-21 Grad, SS-1 Scud ZIL-135 Truck and many more. For the Coalition we will have FC3 F-15C MSIPII and analog A-10A, F-14A and B, A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair, OH-58D + AI E-3, E-2, AH-64A, AH-1W, F-117, B-52H, EC-135, S-3A (F/A-18C, F-16, AV-8B, F-15E maybe could kind of mimic Gulf War legacy variants without Link16, JHMCS, different engines, LANTIRN, AMRAAM, GPS guided bombs etc? But it can be impossible to limit their avionics and systems in the game.) Missing Tornado GR.1 with JP233, F-111F, EF-111, F-4 Ground assets practically everything except for M1A1 Abrams. There are M60A3, HMMWV, M113, M2A2 Bradley, LAV-25, MLRS, Hawk, Patriot, Roland, Vulcan etc. All of that in proper Cold War / Desert Storm variants.

It's always a compromise. You can't obviously see the eyes since pilots wear glasses, googles, visors but Heatblur's F-14 level animations when pilots look around the cockpit add lot of life, realism and authenticity. Especially for the bubble canopy planes where the pilot is a big and very well visible part of the aircraft.

There are 2 WWII maps (Normandy and Channel) for 9 WWII modules existing and developed (Spitfire IX, P-47, P-51, Bf-109K, FW-190A, FW-190D, I-16) + (Mosquito, F4U-1) There are 5 modern maps (Hormuz Strait, Syria, Nevada, Caucasus, Marianas) for 10 2005-2010 modules (F/A-18C, F-16C, A-10C, Ka-50, JF-17, AV-8B ) + (Kiowa Warrior, AH-64, EF, Strike Eagle) There are 0 (zero) Cold War maps for 32 Cold War from Korea to Desert Storm modules (MiG-15bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, MiG-21bis, F-5E, L-39, C-101, F-14A, Mi-24, Gazelle, Mi-8, Huey, Mirage F.1) + (F-4E Phantom II, Fiat G.91, MiG-23MLA, MiG-17, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, Bolkov 105, Sea Harrier, OH-58 Kiowa, MiG-29A, Su-17, F-8 Crusader, F-100 Super Sabre, A-1 Skyraider, Tornado IDS) + low fidelity A-10A, Su-25A, Su-27S, F-15C, MiG-29A About 2/3 of all DCS modules - released and during development - represent Cold War era and they have at this point 0 (zero) proper maps, this period is massively underrepresented. Maybe one of proper Cold War map like Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Fulda Gap, North Europe divided Germany etc. as the future map for DCS.

If your map will be similar to existing ones it will have to compete with them for attention and this will decrease popularity of your new map and sales - find a niche to make your map the only choice. There are 2 WWII maps (Normandy and Channel) for 9 WWII modules existing and developed (Spitfire IX, P-47, P-51, Bf-109K, FW-190A, FW-190D, I-16) + (Mosquito, F4U-1) There are 5 modern maps (Hormuz Strait, Syria, Nevada, Caucasus, Marianas) for 10 2005-2010 modules (F/A-18C, F-16C, A-10C, Ka-50, JF-17, AV-8B ) + (Kiowa, AH-64, EF, Strike Eagle) There are 0 (zero) Cold War maps for 28 Cold War [from Korea to Desert Storm] modules (MiG-15bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, MiG-21bis, F-5E, L-39, C-101, F-14A, Mi-24, Gazelle, Mi-8, Huey) + (Mirage F.1, Fiat G.91, MiG-23MLA, MiG-17, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, Bolkov 105, Sea Harrier, MiG-29A, Su-17, F-8 Crusader) + low fidelity A-10A, Su-25A, Su-27S, F-15C, MiG-29A Conclusions is obvious: about 2/3 of all DCS modules - released and during development - represent Cold War era and they have at this point 0 (zero) proper maps, this period is massively underrepresented when it comes to maps. If you make any of Korea, Vietnam, Fulda Gap, North Europe divided Germany etc. proper Cold War map - your map will be an obvious and practically the only possible choice for the most of DCS existing and developed modules.

US Navy wants this year to be the last to buy the Super Hornet. They want to invest the savings into naval variant of the NGAD project. US Navy predicts new Super Hornets Block III will not be a suitable platform by the end of their 30-year service life. https://insidedefense.com/insider/loiselle-navy-opposes-congress-adding-unrequested-super-hornets

Yes. JF-17 and Eurofighter are different than all other modules in DCS since there is absolutely impossible to verify if they are realistic or even close to realistic since there is practically zero detailed documentation publicly available. For all other modules there are literally hundreds or thousand of pages of declassified detailed documentation to verify, even 2005 Hornet, let alone Cold War aircrafts. When it comes to A/A weapon systems obviously everything post ~2000 is partially fictional because it has to be like that for obvious reasons.

Everything suggests the most common variant uses in Europe like AIM-120C-7 (or early D) since this is the missile used among the NATO since more a decade. B is probably phased out many years ago, C-5 may be still in depots, D may not be operational in Europe yet, even though production of D started in 2008? He gave an impression Meteor is a game changer compared to AMRAAM. But all of the details are strictly classified obviously, we will never know the details, they are way too modern.

I've heard an interview with Eurofighter or Gripen pilot on YT and he said Meteor has practical NEZ about 3x bigger than AMRAAM and that this is a really big deal. But any details are obviously classified.

IIRC some Eurofighter pilot said during the YT interview it's about this official 90kN but it can be increased by some 10% with some emergency power switch or something. But this is only an anecdotal knowledge and zero documentation or data. Or maybe this engine regime is classified?

Did he really? IIRC Gero always said they don't plan beyond Eurofighter because EF will take a lot of time and effort. The only one time I've heard he even considered anything beyond EF was Tornado, but this was some big maybe, or they woul like to. Nothing more. I've never heard absolutely anything about Rafale or anything from outside Germany. For Rafale they have probably zero first hand knowledge, zero detailed data, zero SME and zero legal permissions. Just my opinion, maybe someone else heard something else.

A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, Mirage F.1, MiG-23MLA, Su-17, F-8J, Fiat G.91, Bolkov 105.

I can add I've heard an interview with the veteran Apache pilot instructor, available on YT. He said different configuration/variants behave differently. AH-64A - the lightest, the fastest, the most maneuverable and with the best power to weight, called sport variant. AH-64D - heavier, less maneuverable and less performance due to increased mass, but more modern avionics. AH-64D with FCR - even heavier and less maneuverable/less excess power due to additional FCR mass + it's mounted on top of the mast which is apparently especially adverse place to add mass.