bies

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.

I did measure F-14 speed with 2xAIM-7 at wing pylons than at semi-recess fuselage pylons some year ago - there was a significant difference. Similar with Hornet - AIM-7 or AIM-120 at semi-recess fuselage pylons slowing it way less than when mounted on wing pylons, but this require additional racks.

What about different pylons: i.e. AIM-7 at full drag pylon under the wing vs. low drag semi-recess fuselage pylon? IRL and in real manual they have very different drag index. IIRC they have different drag implemented in your F-14.

It would have to be totally fictional and made up, so what would be even the point? Flying generic fictional F-22 or Su-35 with all the avionics and systems completely unrealistic and made up to shoot generic missiles at each other? It would have absolutely nothing to do with what this planes do IRL. DCS is for now a flight simulator, ground and sea assets are obviously and understandably simplyfied. To be honest seeing utterly unrealistic made up "modern" aircrafts in DCS is the very last thing I would like to see.

AWACS, with reasonably realistically recreated it's only basic limitations and capabilities would add a lot of depth to DCS air combat.

It already happened - F-117 is already in DCS. Yes, it's AI, yes RCS part is simplyfied, just one number, but it's simplified in case of every other aircraft (i.e. IRL F-16 is notoriously hard to detect from the front and certain angles even with F-22 radar according to real pilot due to its low radar signature and reflective shape). So what other part would be impossible to model in 1980s aircraft? Avionics? Looks like they are already making it for XPlane. BTW. I'm not going to argue or anything, or say gib because I want, No. If it will be made - nice, if not - ok as well.

Christen Eagle or Yak-52 doesn't carry even one bomb. Not even a machinegun. Yet they are still worth the effort of full fidelity simulation. Many guys want unarmed transport C-130 or even civilian Cessna. I'm sure military F-117 would fit DCS and find many customers, me among the first. This plane was a legend in 1980s and played the crucial role duing Desert Storm air campaign initial phase. Just Cause in Panama 1989, Allied Force in Yugoslavia. Even Iraq and Afganistan. Night flying, laser communication, looking for targets in pitch black using integral double FLIR, aerial refueling, tempremental flight characteristics, being Cold War boogieman, Desert Storm glory. And i just like instrument flying at night, it's relaxing under shining stars.

"FlyingIron Simulations" - 3rd party doing A-7E Corsair II for tge DCS is also making F-117. For now F-117 is for a civilian XPlane 11. I hope for DCS also to show it's full potential in a military sim. Just look at their two dev blog Pages: https://flyingironsimulations.com/blogs/news/introducing-flyingiron-f-117-nighthawk https://flyingironsimulations.com/blogs/news/f-117-nighthawk-development-update-1

Yes, up to block 10. Starting from F-16A block 15 from 1981 (by far the most produced one) F-16 received enlarged horizontal stabilator due to "small tail" being constantly tilted when hauling bombs increasing trim drag. F-16A block 15 "big tail" was also beneficial in high AoA and loss of control situations. Somewhere around block 50 they came to conclusion F-16 lost so much of it's maneuverability they considered to significantly increase it's wing area to 375 ft² but this adds more cruise drag and a lot of turn drag nullifying additional thrust, additional thrust sucks fuselage fuel in a minute so it needs Conformal Fuel Tanks as standard which adds even more weight and drag nullifying the thrust once again... In short - when F-16 mass went out of control somewhere around block 40/50 there was no way to balance things again for maneuverability/performance/fuel consumption/range perfectly like in was in first F-16A, engineering is always a compromise. But with USSR collapse + introduction of AMRAAM maneuver air combat stopped being nearly as important as during the Cold War so they accepted it as it was. That's why guys struggle in DCS F-16 block 50CCIP in BFM gunzo calling ED to "change it's FM". Mass-wise it's like F-16A with 16 Mk.82 trying to turn, it's crazy when you think about it. First-hand information:

It was just a 1990s prototype though. Six prototype planes, each different than the others, with different standard, all classified. We could ask for idk Su-47, YF-23 as well.

Tornado GR1 didn't drop "LGBs and such" back in the days when they were crucial NATO assets and when the enemy would actually try to shoot them down and had capability to do so. British Tornado GR1 served under SACEUR and under Quick Reaction Alert, also nuclear. They were tasked to attack Warsaw Pact airfields, SAM sites, bridges, communication centers etc. in all out war with unguided bombs dropped it toss bombing flying at extremely low altitude, JP223 anti-runway submunition and - if ordered - also nuclear bombs, all of that preferably at night or bad weather. Just like F-111. And this would be absolutely fantastic to do in DCS. Tornado received self-lase ability only after everything was over. WARPAC desintegrated. Tornado received it's second life as precision bomber for low intensity conflicts. Not too prestigious task considering ever tactical fighter could do the same. In symmetrical war lasing LGBs would be problematic and sporadically useful at best and suicidal at worse. GR1 didn't need that. If i would be to chose I would take RAF or Luftwaffe IDS from the cold war when it was very important part of NATO force. As other guys said ADF was poor fighter and GR4 was not important anymore, it was too late for the show - every common tactical fighter, like i.e. Hornet or F-16 could do the same at this point lasing LGBs, dropping JDAMs or releasing cruise missiles due to computer technology advance.

No point debating on such specific topic as AIM-54 real life combat effectiveness in this thread. We will probably never know exact hits per missile fired during Iraq-Iran war. Iranian pilots praised AIM-54 as the best and most reliable air-to-air weapon in whole Iranian inventory and this approximation will have to be enough when it comes to it's effectiveness during Cold War days. In ~2005 scenario not only AIM-54 but also whole Tomcat avionics suite, massively underinvested and purposeless after USSR collapse, would be of doubtful value. They still used basically 1970s analog avionics. There were few digital F-14D but Navy didn't modernise the rest because without USSR nobody needed them. F-14 was the definition of Cold War fighter, one of the very best, it did it's job, it performed hundreds of air combat engagements, being a winner in nearly all of them and that's it.

ED obviously has knowledge about older, partially declassified Cold War systems and ability to code them, but they are limited in resources - they can't do everything at once. Now, ED having hands full with many priority tasks and modules, it's up to 3rd party to develop particular aspects of the simulation. And up to multi-core to support this new aspects without degrading performance.

With dedication and resources, like i.e. new Integrated Air Defense module DCS can reasonably realistically recreate systems like MIM Hawk, S-25, S-125, Nike Hercules, S-200. Maybe somewhat reasonably approximate very first 1980s phased array PATRIOT or S-300 with their limited memory and processing power - but this at the very stretch with some guestimation. 2000s systems after computer revolution, with their super sophisticated algorithms, systems more strictly classified than modern aircrafts it will be always extremely simplified and completely fictional. I hope new IDS allow to simulate at least Cold War systems reasonably realistically. @Noctrachand @Northstar98thx for the YT link and .lua files description.

I would rather have Sea Harrier 1980s fighter with British HMS Hermes aircraft carrier than F-15E, but that's me.

US fired some three AIM-54 in combat but it was around year 2000. AIM-54 were badly worn out at this moment and poorly maintained, low priority, close to retirement and practically purposeless. IIRC their motors didn't even start and missiles simply dropped to the ground like dumb bombs. It was lethal weapon in 1970s and 1980s, property maintained, crucial for fleet defense, but when Soviet Union collapsed danger for US Navy disappeared and systems designed for all out war like Phoenix lost priority and whole F-14 concept lost it's purpose. During the test in 1970s Phoenix missiles fired from one F-14 managed to hit 4 our of 6 drones at the same time, at very long range guided by one APG-9 system. They were tested some 60 times against different targets, very often at extremely long range of around 100nm, some with ECM and achieved high success rate. If they would perform poorly Navy wouldn't order ~2500 of them for very high price. In Iranian service during 1989s AIM-54 were praised for their performance and probably of hit, Iranians claimed 78 enemy aircrafts plus 3 enemy missiles shoot down with AIM-54. Out of this number 62 air-to-air kills is presented in "Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority" document and "Iran-Iraq war in the air 1980-1988" book. For comparison R-27 missiles are cited to achieve 1 kill out of 24 missiles fired during Ethiopia-Eritrea war when Russian mercenaries piloted Su-27 and MiG-29. Does it mean R-27 was useless garbage and only a ballast to decrease fighter performance? No. In combat enemy doesn't want to get hit and tries to evade the missiles. ---------------------------------- Cold War generally means limited BVR and lots of merges, dogfights and manual weapon employment - that's the whole beauty and that is the point of this whole forum thread.