bies

It's all theoretical chit-chat. I fly both 1980 Cold war and 2000s servers for years and truth is on 2000s server air combat is very shallow, it's all about AMRAAM and it's current parameters, it's also very easy to learn for beginners - fire AMRAAM right before MAR, slice and run. Very repetitive. With little skill involved. Air combat on 1980s servers is all about close visual maneuver air combat with very rudimentary and limited BVR possible only in specific conditions adding another layer, it's way harder to learn and master, having way more depth, with all weapon systems useful AIM-9, AIM-7, R-60, R-73, R-27, R-23/24, AIM-54, R-40 and even guns. In practice NEZ of AIM-7 or R-27 is about 7-10 miles in frontal engagement or 1-4 miles in chase, it's very much visual range like it was IRL during Sidra Gulf engagements, Bekaa Valley, Desert Storm etc. It's very similar situation with A/G. 2000s - effortless, very easy to learn releasing very long range self guided JSOWs and SLAM-ERs way beyond enemy defense or SAMs cruising on autopilot like an airliner and RTB. 1980s - skill requiring short range dumb bombing with simple aids, unguided rockets, gun strafes, very rudimentary guided short range Mavericks/Walleye at most, all under SAM and AAA dodging enemy fire, low level penetration flights, hands-on manual engaging weapon employment etc. And both 1980s and 2000s are the same airframes: F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, MiG-31, Mirage 2000 etc. In 1980s lighter variants underlining maneuverability, in 2000s heavier with more advanced avionics and weapon.

True, MiG-29 is faster high up because F-16 doesn't have regulated air intake. When it comes to fuel efficiency early lightweight F-16A from 1980s with F100 engine had stunning performance being able to wait out every fighter, even full fueled F-14, still having fuel. Sometimes it fought mock dogfights against two adversaries one after another when they run out of fuel. It was perfectly balanced for dogfight. But it's long gone. Later models like Block 50 had to receive more powerful engine to compensate for big airframe mass increase and it burns through internal tank as fast as most other fighters. And heavier airframe with the original wing make it suffer at higher altitude, contrary to original F-16A. Mirage F.1 used turbojet not turbofan, so i expect it to have very fast throttle reaction and stable airflow but high fuel consumption.

If it will be AH-64D with Fire Control Radar you technically don't even need another guy to destroy 16 enemy tanks, FCR computer makes up for the gunner: park behind some obstacle showing only FCR -> release 16 automatic guided Hellfire missiles to 16 targets detected identified and prioritized by FCR visible on your MFD -> RTB There are good interviews with RL Apache pilots on YT. AH-64D has avionics designed the way each pilot can do everything with some small exceptions, especially when ORT has been replaced by digital display. Mi-24 - or Desert Storm AH-64A - depends on gunner whole lot more (guiding optical and laser guided missiles, searching new targets with optical devices/FLIR) than AH-64D with FCR, computer and radar Hellfires. It's like Tomcat / Strike Eagle analogy: In analog Tomcat or AH-64A both guys have different responsibilities, functions and cockpits, digital Strike Eagle or AH-64D can by operated by one crew member - second is there to decrease the workload.

This time-frames are great idea, i saw many similar posts in the past. There is one problem with post 2000 period: it doesn't feel authentic at all. It's all about AMRAAM and AMRAAM is not realistic, and it will never be realistically modeled in open software because it's strictly classified, especially guidance unit with it's code and algorithms, ECCM etc. And when AMRAAM is fiction all post Cold War air combat is fictional. Some arbitrary numbers. Another problem is there will be no Russian or Chinese realistically modeled "modern" fighter. Not at all or total made up unrealistic fiction if community will be pushing hard enough. We can safely forget about S-400, Patriot PAC-3 or AEGIS having anything in common with the real devices as well, not at all or total fiction with ~10% of it's real capabilities. And the selling point of the DCS is realism. But overall i agree more specific time-frames in DCS where every module would be specified as fitting one of the periods is fantastic and refreshing idea. Especially seeing DCS growth.

The very definition of exciting, attractive, engaging close air combat, only visual dogfight with guns and heat seekers. Air superiority concept of John Boyd, Pierre Sprey and fighter mafia. It worked great in the Middle East 1980s when Israeli lightweight F-16s with guns and heat seekers and F-15s decimated MiG-23s and 21s. All F-16 kills were achieved in close visual dogfights. Why DCS tournaments organized by ED or YT community guys or exRL pilots are close dogfights with guns or hear seekers? Because that's the core of exciting air combat, not some AMRAAM tennis which can be learned in one day. Who would feel the excitement when two guys would click the button 20nm from each other and run. I've seen a lot of interviews with RL pilots they stated even if BFM is unrealistic after the Cold War and in simulated wars like "Red Flag" they didn't see even one merge for years - they still seek any opportunity to train BFM just because it's lot more fun - After BVR training "there is simply nothing to talk about at the bar".

According to Su-27SK manual 9G with 100% fuel is way, way above the limit. From my head: Su-27SK was allowed to squeeze 9G only below Ma=0.85 and only with 20% internal fuel + 2xR-73 and 2xR-27. Structural damage at 9,5G with full fuel supersonic is already really big safety factor. Su-27SK for normal takeoff weight 60% fuel + 4AAM: Notice transonic region is considered more stressful than supersonic. 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% I think ED has a good idea about Su-27 realistic limits.

Which K variant exactly? The one from late 1980s named 9.31 tested on Tbilisi cruiser along with Su-27K in the last years of the Soviet Union? I guess i could be possible in the future if ED will really be able to model 9.12. Especially AI doesn't have to be as detailed as full fidelity module. Or the new totally classified MiG-29K which Russian Navy just received, 24 pieces in 2016 with completely new airframe, two-crew canopy, AESA radar and so on, with absolutely no data available and zero subject matter experts input (way more modern and recent than our retired F/A-18C)? This is totally impossible except for some completely unrealistic made up fiction mods. Or AI with new skin and arbitrarily "let's add some more radar, some more avionics, some more range etc.".

It may be. But was that really their purpose? Or they were designed for one goal - to penetrate Soviet air defense and to drop nuclear weapons? And after the enemy disappeared in 1991 they lost their purpose and SAC used them as a bomb truck/CAS in zero threat environment due to enemy being unable to do anything and they were free to operate wherever they wanted in some Afghanistan to bomb some completely helpless terrorists/insurgencies? Their true designed nuclear mission excites me to be recreated in computer simulation, playing cat and mouse game with Soviet SAMs and GCI guided interceptors, long range patrols, forward stations on a huge cold area, but the second, bombing some helpless guys in zero threat environment... not so much. So I'm both for and against strategic bombers, depending on concept.

Even if there will be some big map, even if ED would decide to make 8 engines multicrew super complex aircraft for somewhat limited audience what variant we are talking about? • 1950s when it could penetrate Soviet air defense at high altitude to drop gravity bombs? • 1960s when it could penetrate Soviet air defense at low altitude with standoff Hound Dog missiles? • 1970s when most variants were retired and other, already outdated, would try for the last time to penetrate Soviet air defense with SRAM missiles? • 1980s when B-52 became heavily outdated, wouldn't even try to penetrate Soviet air defense, releasing very long range ALCM cruise missiles from outside of Soviet airspace instead? For me only 1950s or early 1960s would make sense. Later B-58 then FB-111, B-1b would be much more exciting having far bigger chance to actually "get through". But really all of them would need some gigantic North Pole / north Soviet Union map to have a real purpose - they were all made for one specific goal, more or less depending on nuclear weapons.

Objective conclusion balancing different arguments.

Exactly my opinion - B-58 Hustler would fit, B-52 no, maps are too small for the Buff. Maps in DCS are all about tactical aviation, not strategic. To perform it's primary mission strategic bomber would need some room to actually penetrate enemy airspace. And even then B-52 would be more exciting if modeled as late 1950s or at most early 1960s variant when it actually still had a chance to penetrate the defense. For sure not 1980s standoff long range cruise missile carrier.

Having slightly modified AJ-37 as variant, like F-14A, would be fantastic expanding Viggen's timeframe considerably into cold war era when Viggen truly shined. I keep my fingers crossed.

Supersonic B-58 Hustler would be a dream come true. It would be one of the best suited bombers for DCS map size and SP/MP environment. It would be simply very attractive to operate for virtual pilots. Flying this thing alone would be ton of fun and a real challenge, with flight characteristics different than any other existing module. I assume it's declassified. (F-111 as well but this is already one of the most anticipated aircraft in the DCS community.) (B-1b would be something in between, but many crucial systems are probably strictly classified - it's an active duty strategic bomber. And I doubt ED would be able to sacrifice resources needed to do just one module, Apache is nothing compared to B-1b when it comes to complexity.)

Two engines = bigger vertical stabilizer needed in case of one engine failure to maintain yaw stability. Probably more aerodynamic consideration as well, after all F-111 has relatively smaller vertical stab being low level penetration two engines swing wing strike aircraft just like Tornado.

Agree, earlier B-52 model would be great. Nearly all relevant B-52 career happened before 1992 - with tail gun. Cold War airborne nuclear alert patrols - Head Start, Chrome Dome, Hard Head, Round Robin, Giant Lance. Vietnam war with 17 B-52 being shot down (and their gunners shot down 2 MiG-21), Desert Storm where B-52 dropped some 40% of the coalition munitions. After the Cold War add collapse of the Soviet Union B-52 operated only in zero threat environment without a single plane being lost, ceased their 24-hour SAC alert duty, their defensive armament had been removed and all B-52G had been destroyed.

Fragmentation, not defragmentation. Defragmentation = consolidation, connecting the pieces together.

If anything, our "Harrier II" AV-8B is a bit more modern representing ~2010 standard than our F/A-18C modeled as ~2005 standard. Our AV-8B has digital avionics, JDAMs, NVG, FLIR, moving map etc. (I'm not trying to compare naval plane with VTOL plane with it's obvious limitations and unique capabilities. Just modernity level.) F/A-18C has been phased out from US Navy years ago and USMC as well when AV-8B is still active in USMC. Both original planes F/A-18 and AV-8 were designed in 1970s deep into Cold War.

AH-1Z for Marine Corps? Serial production started 2010, good luck obtaining documentation avionics flight data, subject matter experts etc. But some older declassified Cobra would be great for sure.

When it comes to technological advances Mars is right. Germany/III Reich had really significant advantage with chemical warfare (luckily had not been used) - both in terms of quality and quantity, rocket science - German scientists created big part of both US and USSR rocket programs, submarines - nobody had anything like Type XXI and slightly modified Type XXI became a backbone of both USSR and US submarine fleet for the next decade after WW2. When it comes to jet fighters though US and UK were very close.

I remember being small kid i played my first helicopter game, Apache vs Havoc from 1999, it had variable weather like rain and working windscreen wipers. Those times it looks stunning and unbelievable. With more and more helicopters I'm sure ED will make working wipers since they are really big thing in helicopters when not important for fixed wing aircrafts.

With nearly all modules developed for DCS being Cold War aircrafts like Mi-24 Hind, Mirage F.1, A-7E Corsair II, A-6E Intruder, MiG-23MLA, Bo-105, Sea Harrier, MiG-29A, F-4E, F-8J Crusader etc. + current Cold War MiG-21bis, Viggen, F-14 Tomcat, F-5E, Huey, L-39, MiG-19, Gazelle, C-101 and most of FC3 planes like A-10A, F-15C, Su-25A, Su-27 etc. - i can see a Cold War servers becoming extremely popular soon, with engaging skill based close air and ground combat instead of, as you said, "take off -> spam aim-120 -> die -> repeat." That's why I can see a bright future for all this modules including Hind.

I fly exclusively in VR and I like ED Hornet's pilot, i liked A-10 and Ka-50 as well or even old FC3 Su-27. It doesn't have to be of great quality to increase the immersion for me. For me high quality pilot is nice but mediocre quality is still way better than empty cockpit.

Absolutely yes. Each of them would be a great opponent for the Mi-24.

I said just that: wing pylons vs semi-recess fuselage pylons.

I can't check it unfortunately but someone can test the Tomcat with 2xAIM-7 at wing pylons vs 2xAIM-7 at semi-recess fuselage pylons.