bies

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 He WANTS to have A/G so he wrote the citation published few hours ago is outdated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.

According to the pilot interview 1980s F-111F variant with bigger intakes and more powerful engines can go up to Ma=1.4 in clean configuration at very low level making it practically impossible to tail chase. And having weapons bay flying in clean configuration was practical in high threat environment, especially delivering nuclear weapons. Or jettisoning the wing pylons after releasing the bombs. Any variant from 1960s A to 1980s F required a lot of skill for both pilot and wso so it would be attractive with engaging gameplay.

Agree. UH60M would be not only hampered by lack of classified data and out of context in DCS being too modern. What is more it has FBW flight control so I'm afraid it would be simply boring and trivial to fly compared to classic UH60.

Many myths and stereotypes here. F/A-18 ceased to be anemic when it received the new engines. F-16 ceased to be a Cold War lightweight nimble hotrod with extreme T/W since it grew tons of additional empty mass. T/W of very late Hornet and Viper variants we have in DCS is actually very comparable. Both received mostly the same weapon systems, both are very close in capabilities. F-16 will always have somewhat better supersonic acceleration, F/A-18 low speed nose authority, but this is not a make or break anymore, especially due to standoff weapon systems, like it was during 1980s when the differences were much more apparent.

Mirage F.1 is probably the closest one to release.

East German painting would be great. USSR from Europe and from Afghanistan as well.

Don't forget about Mirage F.1, looks like it will be released this year. Mirages F.1 fought in 1980s Iraq Iran war (and Desert Storm few years later) and and shoot down three Iranian fighters, two Phantoms and even one Tomcat. How certain this kills are is another topic, but nevertheless it was significant asset of Iraq air force. Iranians used many F-5E as well, IIRC Gazelle helicopters, Hueys etc.

What timeframe represents DCS Mirage 2000? IIRC Mirage 2000 is from 1983, but we have 1987 upgrade with Thales RDI doppler radar and 530D missiles, digital radio and SNECMA M53-5 P2 engine, but before 1999 -5F upgrade F-15C from FC3 is from 1979 but we have MSIP II upgrade used from 1985 to 1998 with new computer, NCTR and TWS, but before 1998- 2000s upgrade with Link16, AESA, JHMCS.

Agree, but we may be far from the fully functional Dynamic Camping as well, so it will be the future anyway. Cold War Su-27, F-15, A-10 and Su-25 will be FC3 for the foreseeable future. True to timeframe FC3 are still ok, better than nothing i guess considering limited number of platforms in DCS. And MiG-29A is planned as full fidelity. It would be ~20 modules, most of them full fidelity, modeled as one coherent 1980s timeframe set, with both sides having comparable amount of flyable platforms.

It sounds like a perfect choice for symmetrical histologically balanced plane set for the new Dynamic Camping with both sides flyable aircraft from the same timeframe.

Yes but I wasn't talking about preferences, obviously there are people who buy Warbirds, there are others who buy Cold Wars aircrafts, there are guys who buy 2000s modules. I was talking about limitations of human brain to remember and be efficient using more than 2-3 extremely complicated modules with 2000s timeframe. Talking with many guys I woul argue only a small fraction of DCS community having A-10C, F/A-18C, F-16C can remember all the systems and procedures in all three of them. With Hornet and especially Viper not even finished with many more systems incoming. And there are also VTOL AV-8B and totally different avionics JF-17. So who will be able to use even more complicated Apache without sacrificing previous ones? Then sophisticated two seater multirole F-15E. Then totally different EF2000 on the horizon etc. I can jump to any Warbird or Cold Wars aircraft and be ready for action right now. But 2000s modules i'm already forced to choose half of them at most. (except for buying everything for the sake of supporting companies but I can't expect everyone to be so generous) BTW. It's interesting discussion but I feel we drifted too far from the topic. This deserves another one.

On the other hand cold war aircrafts had very unitary avionics so if i lear i.e. MiG-21 i can jump right into new MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-15, Su-27, Su-25, Su-17 etc. and after just some short training I'm combat ready. This was the philosophy at that times since Soviet air force was ~10 times bigger than today's Russian Air Force so pilots had to be very fast and easy to retrain to another type. I'm case of more modern aircrafts i need long and throughout training and constant practice to stay "combat ready". I.e. i can barely stay trained and efficient remember all the systems in A-10C, F/A-18 and F-16 (and they are not even finished avionics and systems wise) and learning new 2000s sophisticated module because it is beyond statistical human capability. And there is also a life outside the computer. Even real pilot learn only one type, learn it for months if not years, practice daily and doesn't have any other job except for this one. So there are two options: forgetting and abandoning some modules only to be able and have a time to learn some new one or not to buy the new one knowing it's beyond my perception. Except for buying everything to support the company. That's why "modern" modules complication restrict potential sales.

Still good to remember AH-64D with digital avionics, datalink, next generation FLIR, CMWS etc. - just without FCR - will not be even close in capabilities to original Fulda Gap/Desert Storm analog AH-64A.

It's not like that. First current FC3 aircrafts are not totally unrealistic made up fiction, they have lot in similarities with the real aircrafts, including some documentation, but they are significantly simplified and simply way older than any DCS module. Second MiG-31 is an AI aircraft and to model AI aircraft you don't need really any documentation, the systems are even way, way more simplified than FC3 and FM is not meant to be even close - look at AI MiG-15 defeating energetically MiG-29 in a dogfight with ease. Third Russian equipment is strictly classified but Soviet aircrafts from 1980s like Mi-24P, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Su-25A, Su-17M, Su-24M, MiG-23MLA and similar are probably possible to be modeled faithfully with documentation and it looks like ED and 3rd parties are going this way already with Mi-24P released, MiG-23MLA being developed and MiG-29A and Su-17M already planned. (Even 1980s MiG-31 and Su-27 may be on the harder end being PVO fighters which were always absurdly classified)

This, and making some truly "modern" aircraft for the DCS with any level of realism is impossible for obvious reasons, ED stated that many times. If someone want to accept module having nothing in common with the real aircraft except for the 3D model there are always fan MODs. PS: MAC may be a "relief valve" for guys preferring less realistic approach. It may be even easier to modify for some of the wildest B-21, NGAD, Tempest etc.

+1, very interesting aircraft. It was similar to Su-25A in performance, capabilities and it carried practically the same weapons (250 and 500 kg bombs, S-5, S-8, S-24 rockets, 23mm gunpods, Ch-23M and Ch-25MR guided missiles etc.) just lower overall weapon mass, but with vertical takeoff and landing and a bit faster. It was first and foremost an attack/CAS aircraft, it wasn't much of a fighter obviously but it could take R-60/R-60M missiles to shoot down some some slower targets like helicopters or marine recon aircrafts. BTW. Soviet Union had an impressive marine landing forces with dedicated Naval Infantry forces (and additional 3 divisions and three artillery brigades hidden as "costal defense divisions") with their own amphibious AFV and tanks, more than 80 landing crafts, some 75 air-cushion landing crafts - the biggest fleet of this type in the world, big civilian fleet to be used as transport vessels etc. Yet the bulk of invasion forces consisted of Red Army units.