bies

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.

I would like to see any Cold War aircraft carrier form Korean war straight decks with Skyraiders/F2A Banshees to 1980s like Forrestal with F-14/A-6/A-7. Or Vietnam with F-4/A-4/A-6/A-7.

Simon Pearson said yes for the Cold War 1980s Germany in the interview.

Exactly. In some 40 years F-22 will be absolutely a piece of outdated junk compared to modern fighters of this new time (or maybe drones squeezing 20G without a drop of sweat and sprinting Mach 3 firing 200nm ramjet hypersonic missiles or lasers). Context is everything. When Phantom was setting time to climb records and operating all weather/night early Sparrow, hauing B-17 worth bomb load at the same time and all of that operating from aircraft carrier - it was engineering marvel.

Or maybe MiG-29A is a part of the plan to replace FC3 by full fidelity modules. F-15C - there is like ten threads asking for FF one. Su-25 - no problem here. Just a bit of work hours. A-10A - the same, nearly all the job is already done on the occasion of A-10C and many guys are asking for FF simple analog A-10A. And Soviet era Su-27S - MiG-29 9.12 counterpart, who knows, it may be possible in the near future.

People are making too much confusion here about different variants. Simon Pearson said in the interview they are making F-4 Phantom and they want to make "everything Phantom", but they are simply checking if they can make all this variants or not, many reasons can be involved. I guess at least they will make basic F-4E and if it will be possible also different variants. But all this Heatblur making one variant, ED different, RAZBAM yet another - all independently repeating each other work? It would be unreal. And to be clear i would buy every historically relevant variant B, C, D, E, J, N, S. I would guess it would be a "pack", for sure not every single variant sold separately for the full price. Some exotic niche modernisation would be coding completely different avionics, creating completely different 3d cockpit with MFDs, completely different weapon systems all of that probably without any data or documentation and for sure without any license or any Turkish subject matter expert input. I can bet no one is going to do something like that.

Phantom with MFD? So you will not buy Phantom since it didn't have MFD. Maybe Turkish F-4 modernisation "Terminator 2020" but this will never by allowed to disclose or reveal any real data. So no chance to have something like that in DCS.

A-1 Skyraider. Veteran of both Korea and Vietnam war. With big A-G ordinance payload and sturdy construction. First used by Navy, later also by USAF from land bases. F7U Cutlass, aka gutless. First fligh in 1948, operational from 1954. Aerodynamically ahead of it's time but suffered due to somewhat insufficient engine power. Dangerous and skill requiring during carrier operations (like it's Vought F4U predecessor). More than 300 has been built. There was interceptor variant with small radar and 4 beam-riding early Sparrow missiles. Photo recon variant. Air refuel capable. It was even used by Blue Angeles in 1953 season.

Yes, no point of going off topic, only thing I can say real life Tornado IDS and ADF Pilot stated Tornado was never much of a fighter and overall IDS was way better than ADF in what it was designed to do.

They said that but i think it's more a matter of priorities. There is only one more multirole aircraft possible to model, F-4 Phantom, all other are single role. After Phantom ED will have to make single role modules. F-111, F-117, F-104, F-106, Tornado IDS, Tornado ADF, Draken, A-6, A-7, F-8, MiG-29, MiG-23, MiG-27, MiG-25, MiG-31, Tu-128, Su-15, Su-27 etc. - all are single role, just like F-15A/C with it's rudimentary dumb bombs CCIP.

Yes, long nose had teeny-tiny radar

Is that true? Do you have this charts? What is more F-15C would have to deal with additional mass of the airframe. I mean i would like F-15C engines to be more powerful than common figures for uninstalled thrust, but it's hard to believe. I would be really glad to be proven wrong.

F-15C with PW229 would have Streak Eagle performance! It could rival Eurofighter in acceleration, though i'm not sure it would supercruise, it was aerodynamic concept of late 1960s. And even then it was a little bit conservative compared to even more impressive North American project with blended body aerodynamic configuration. I read "F-15 Eagle Engaged" by Doug Dildy USAF F-15 pilot. He said first F-15A had the most impressive kinematic performance having lighter airframe than "C" and famous VMAX switch still working increasing thrust to whooping 27,000lb per engine! Pilots were shocked by it's overall performance and handling, in 1970s F-15A was the Superfighter.