bies

Better speak with RAZBAM, they were asking Dassault many times for Mirage 2000-5 - refused. RAZBAM stated something like they would have to made up nearly everything and invent some fictional systems and equipment by themselves this it would be pointless. EDIT: RAZBAM's developer citation:

Yet you see the difference in real world - an early German Eurofighter is going to be modeled with cooperation with real life EF pilots when Mirage 2000-5 is not allowed, not even mentioning any Rafale. No Rafale pilots around eager to disclose anything. No Dassault eager to sign any license.

They have chosen an early German variant Gero flown IRL ~2006 as their first goal so it looks like they do care about realism and accuracy. They could go full fantasy totally classified Tranche 3 right away but they didn't - that's a good sign what we will see is going to be reasonably close to the real aircraft. Classified systems and inability to verify it's realism due to lack of public data may obviously take their toll, but I hope for the best. I trust in Heatblur supervising it seeing how fantastic their modules are and how they care about realism and accuracy.

Overall i agree earlier variant can come first. I enjoy the most historically relevant variant in it's prime. I.e. F-4B/C/D/J/E from 1960s / early 1970s with hard wing fighting full scale Vietnam war as US Top Dog, doing the most dangerous fighter, bomber and carrier job, able to face the most capable opposition on equal terms and with it's true atmosphere as an iconic aircraft - Great, the best choice Late F-4E from late 1970s/1980s with slats, partially replace by way more capable F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18, still used as a fighter, but already more often as a bomber, not being the top dog anymore, though still relevant especially in the Middle East - Good F-4G from late 1980s/1990s when F-4 became truly outdated aircraft, completely replace by F-14/F-15 in a fighter role and converted to SEAD, with only limited historical context and limited role - Not so much F-4 exterminator 2000 something, from 2010s etc. when F-4 was utterly hopelessly outdated and replaced by two subsequent Generations of fighters, reduced to standoff weapon carrier and zero threat environment operations, being completely out flied by basically everything in the air and with close to zero historical relevance and zero atmosphere - Absolutely not

Rafale is so classified, being used in combat currently, everything would have to be totally made up fiction. I would risk to say US F-22 could be made more realistic than Rafe. And without it's SPECTRA suite, one of Rafale's most crucial system it depends more than most other aircrafts, it would be crippled. It would be as (un)realistic as fan-made MOD so no point making it at this moment.

I've heard this information from a few guys and seen in some guide video so i believe it is angled downward a bit for strafing like typical A/G aircraft. But i can't really be sure because with Jeff - for the first time in DCS - they did something, it works, it flies, but absolutely nobody can verify it realistic or not. I can't find any real life detailed documentation about JF-17.

Gero said something similar that 27mm Mauser was probably better suited for A/G strafing. Do you know if Eurofighter's gun is tilted upward like in F-14 for A/A or downward like in JF-17 for A/G? This would reveal it's designed purpose. EF was overall mostly a fighter, only later receiving A/G capabilities. Especially in Germany.

Interesting info, thx, I didn't know about the frangible plate. Gero said 20mm Vulcan he has in Phantom was lot better for A/A than 27mm Mauser in Eurofighter. I guess pure rate of fire and some spread are the most important factors.

I would say, considering HB forum wishlist, there could be two of J35 Draken, F-111, Tornado IDS or F-4 Phantom II. Good thing is you can't go wrong with any of them.

Heatblur said they are working on TWO modules to be released before A-6E. Not just one I would say, considering HB forum wishlist, there could be two out of J35 Draken, F-111, Tornado, F-4 Phantom. But who knows? Maybe Tornado IDS could be the next project of TrueGrit and F-4 Phantom was reserved by ED and allowed to be made by 3rd party only recently. This would leave J35 and F-111 - for me both would be absolutely fantastic choices!

Thanks for the response, I'm glad everything is under control and a part of a bigger plan. I'll always remain a faithful fan of Heatblur's classic Cold War era steam gauges modules like Tomcat, Viggen, Intruder, Forrestal and I understand other guys concerns but I'm buying Eurofighter as well. I wish you all the best and thanks for your work!

Gero said in the interview British was debating about removing the gun, but finally they decided not to remove it and all Eurofighters have internal gun. According to Gero not as effective in A/A engagement as multi barrel Vulcan though.

To be honest I've seen a few interviews with TrueGrit and I would say something like: yes but also no. Yes, Gero was an instructor pilot and he knows Eurofighter very well, he knows exactly how different systems worked and how effective they were, at least when it comes to German Tranche 1 from ~ 2004-2006 when he was flying it. That's why they have chosen this variant, very good decision already, not going for different versions without throughout knowledge, at least not now. But also no. They said something like even though they know i.e. Eurofighter's EM charts precisely, they can't disclose them not to allow potential enemies to train how to exploit Eurofighter's weaknesses when avoiding it's advantages, and they will make the flight model according to publicly available non classified data and airshows But again, this can mean both, they are going to nail it anyway potentially disclosing sensitive data and simply not admitting it (i don't believe they would do that). Or they will be forced to change the flight model in sensitive parts not to disclose sensitive data. Or something in between. In Heatblur we trust, i doubt they will allow some completely unrealistic module to be released under their trademark so let's give TrueGrit a chance. Good thing is: considering how scarce publicly available Eurofighter documentation is - just like with JF-17 - nobody is going to know if it is close to the real aircraft or not. Or verify things anyway

I'm sure German military has its parameters. But one thing is what German military has in their document shelf another is what can be disclosed to public. If this system is declassified let's do it, I'm all in, I'm sure it very powerful. But it's always better to stick to what can be model reasonably realistically than to made up something in a fantasy way without data. Because that's what differs DCS, and make it a simulation, from toy sims like WT or AC7.

Thanks. That changes all. So Heatblur would really be perfect developer to make it after Tomcat. Considering how many guys are expecting an F-4 i think ED blocking it and opening it for the 3rd party only now is the sole reason there is no F-4 in DCS yet.

Late Vietnam carrier capable F-4J with powerful look-down Doppler radar made by Heatblur on Forestall Carrier would be awesome but didn't Simon Pearson revealed a year ago ED is making F-4 and they were deciding which variants to choose? Did something change?

PIRATE would be, by far, the biggest elephant in the room in non-German version. Increasing EF potential by a big margin. It is nothing like Cold War IRST like F-106, MiG-29, Su-27 or F-14. It's a very powerful FLIR/IR device, probably as complicated to code as a radar itself and possibly even more, detecting and tracking dozens of targets at once, able to determine an aircraft by the air friction etc. And since Gero has access to German military variant without the PIRATE, it would probably have to be "made up" in completely unrealistic way without using data. Hard to tell such thing still could be named a "simulation". It's always better to stick to the variant the can make in a reasonable realistic way.

Exactly. I prefer historical accuracy and realism so I'm waiting for some good explanation. But really even ~2006 EF will ba a balancing act between realism and classified documentation important for national security which can't be revealed. Anyway I look at Meteor missile with a - really big - pinch of salt. Good luck recreating guidance unit algorithms, classified propulsion modes, ECCM algorithms, active radar modes etc. of a super modern cutting edge technology missile which is just starting to enter service.

Probably nothing has changed. He WANTS to have A/G so he wrote the citation published few hours ago is outdated

Well, since they probably are absolutely not allowed to model 2016 Eurofighter and since Meteor became a thing in 2016 I would say Meteor is going to be an "additional what if" weapon, not connected to real life version. I may be wrong but that's how it looks like.

Fuel fraction is way more reliable measure because if you give "8k lb for twin engine" to compare i.e. MiG-29 and Su-27 it will be very misleading - Su-27's way bigger 122,6kN engines will burn this fuel way faster than smaller 81,6kN engines. That's why fuel fraction is so commonly used. (In fact "8k lbs" wouldn't even fit inside MiG-29A when for Su-27 it would be less than half fuel capacity - hardly useful) Su-27 is simply unique with it's huge internal fuel capacity, it's restricted in maneuverability with full fuel load, but it doesn't have to carry draggy external fuel tanks.

Full fuel? Fully fueled Su-27 (not to mention Su-33...) has way lower T/W than F-16C Block 50 CCIP and even marginally lower than F/A-18C. Fuel fraction - it practically decides fully fueled T/W ratio. (Notice kilonewtons devided by kilograms in all cases for simplicity) Mass taken directly from the DCS, Fully fueled + gun ammo + pylons T/W ratios: MiG-29A 2x81,6kN (163,2kN) / 14445 kg = T/W 1,13 (fuel fraction 23%) F-15C 2x 105,7kN (211,4kN) / 19727 kg = T/W 1,07 (fuel fraction 31%) F-16C 1x 131kN/ 13119 kg = T/W =1 (fuel fraction 25%) F/A-18C 2x 79kN (158kN) / 17058 kg = T/W 0,93 (fuel fraction 29%) Su-27 2x 122,6kN (245,2kN) / 26797 kg = T/W 0,91 (fuel fraction 35%) F-14B 2x 125kN (250kN) / 27560 kg = T/W 0,91 (fuel fraction 27%) Su-33 2x 122,6kN (245,2kN) / 29327 kg = T/W 0,84 (fuel fraction 32%) In case of Su-27 everything above 60% internal fuel is considered as "internal drop tank", it was the reason of some considerable scuffle between design bureau and Soviet military. That's why when you set Su-27 in mission editor it has only 59% internal fuel as default setting, when all other fighters have 100%. And that's the reason fully fueled Su-27, not mentioning way heavier airframe Su-33, has lower T/W ratio than most comparable fighters. Set Su-27 88% fuel and you have fuel fraction just like an F-15C (and only slightly lower T/W than F-15C) Su-27 with 88% fuel 2x 122,6kN (245,2) / 25669 kg = T/W 0,95 (fuel fraction of F-15C) Set Su-27 default 59% fuel and you have T/W just like an F-15C (but lower fuel fraction than F-15C) Su-27 with 59% fuel 2x 122,6kN (245,2) / 22943 kg = T/W 1,07 (T/W like an F-15C) Su-33 is simply to heavy airframe to compete against non-carrier capable airframes with T/W. Early MiG-29A has the best T/W, even slightly better than the F-15C (comparable with F-15A), but it's due to MiG-29A's proportionally lowest fuel fraction of only 23%. Cold War lighter F-16s (and F-15A) had similar fuel fraction and T/W to MiG-29A - and similarly, all subsequent MiG-29 variants were losing more and more of it's T/W.

According to it's pilots "big motor charlie'' was better for BFM then Superhornet. And the original F/A-18A was even better than F/A-18C being lighter, especially lighter nose, having lower wing loading and even better nose authority. Original F/A-18A would be the best Hornet for the airshow or the gun fight.

+1

Huey has even smaller caliber 7,62 and it's doing well against soft targets. Soviet and WARPAC Mi-24V variant with the turret would be great. Maybe some addon later on like A-10C 2 or Black Shark 3.