bies

"French pilots [on Rafale] regularly confronting fifth-generation fighters [such as the American F35] in inter-allied exercises note that the mismatch between stealth fighters is unavoidable in terms of the current level of sensors." "In the event of a combat alongside its Western allies in a high-intensity conflict, the French fighter could be confined to the role of supporting fifth-generation fighters." https://www.lopinion.fr/international/en-combat-air-air-laviation-de-chasse-francaise-tiendrait-trois-jours

Go the first page.

Calm down Do you really thing FlyingIron have invested 3 years of work, research, coding and testing for nothing? They will post an update when ready.

Yes, 9.12B wasn't a "standard", like 9.12 or 9.12A, it was negotiated separately.

9.12 was baseline Soviet model. 9.12A for WarPac, basically the same, lacked one ECCM radar mode (not relevant in DCS at this moment) and had slightly different IFF and antenna. 9.12B for export outside of WarPac, e.g. India, Iraq, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Hungary, Peru, ldowngraded radar, SPO-10 instead of SPO-15, lacked IFF, lacked GCI datalink, sometimes lacking Schel helmet sight, limited countermeasures,

"T" would be a poor choice, just a few prototypes built, poor kinematic performance, poor maneuverability, unfinished, lacking documentation and SME to cooperate thus reduced realism/fidelity, not accepted by the military, zero history, zero relevance. The "T" and "TM" were rejected for excessive cost and poor handling. But original steam gauges Soviet Su-25 from 1980s for Fulda Germany map and Afganistan, to fly together with Mi-24, would be great. Skill dependant and engaging Soviet flying artillery, jet IL-2 on steroids, rich combat history, probably possible to model in depth. Going in hot wit a pair of Su-25 with guns, rockets, bombs and still being able to return home after getting hit by some AAA would be satisfying. I have a gut feeling it's going to be the next module, as ED decided to recreate some FC3 aircrafts as full fidelity, especially if MiG-29 sells well as both are from the same 1980s era with similar vibe.

"Gina" looks awesome! And we're getting 4 variants. Italian, German, NATO and NATO with different equipement.

I agree and all you've described require just high quality. Not full fidelity-like quality. Full fidelity-like extreme detail are visible only from ~5m where you're observing the object from external camera. It just kills the graphic card memory, causes micro-freezes during merge, generating big cost and time for the developer. Some reasonable high quality compromise should be found. Especially for the ground unnits. Better optimalization and big battles are more important, realistic and engaging - than every single antenna and hand handle of the single Tiger tank being modeled.

AI assets 3d models shouldn't be made in such extremely detailed way. Except for YT video, you will never be able to see them so closely to even notice such details. And super detailed models cost ED whole lot of money and time. To be fair every AI air/ground/navy asset (except for aircraft tankers and aircraft carriers) should be just high quality - good enough. Not phenomenal, close to flayable module quality. As 10 good quality assets are better then 2-3 super high quality which in practice player will never be able to see anyway.

APG-70 was a stop-gap radar for the F-15C, used temporarly on 45 F-15C/D airframes, then replaced by the more advanced APG-63(v)1. APG-70 offered more A/G options at cost of somewhat reduced A/A performance and reliability. F-15E avionics-wise it completely different aircraft. Performance are different as well.

Question is - is this become widespread standard in DCS or F-35 only. When all other aircraft will be still a single number, regardless of type of pylons, number of missiles, aspect angle rtc.

IIRC GE required slightly more room even though the main diameter was the same, it would require airframe modification. And its intakes may, or may not, have sufficient flow for the mass-pushing GE engines. F-14 may possibly not have sufficient flow in some regimes for the GE engines, but i'm not sure. F-16 required new, bigger intake to utilize GE engine to the fullest. Oh, BTW, such modified F-15C coupled with GE engines would have empty Thrust to Weight above 2:1 and in combat configuration (50% fuel, 8 AAM, gun ammo) ~1.5:1 It would have higher T/W than any fighter in history, including F-22...

Full fidelity MiG-29 may be an impulse to take care about them.

Okay, Buddy. Whatever you say...

Oh this F-15 Eagle firing Sparrow! I hope we will get Cold War 1985 MSIP II F-15 as well, as a variant of just announced 2005 F-15C MSIP II.

I understand your frustration, but no, it's not the same. Not even close. And i'm not even an enthusiast of F-35 in DCS, being as sceptical as many other guys. F-35 and J-20 documantation availability is on a completely different level. J-20 is like F-22 - Chinese exclusive totally classified air superiority fighter, and more then a decade more recent, in a completely closed country. So good luck. And even F-22 in DCS at this moment would be impossible. (contrarly to export highly open F-35) And just ask yourself - would flying and fighting in 100% made up J-20 where nothing, avionics, weapons, cockpit, HOTAS, performance, sensors etc. - not even remotely resembling real jet?

"D" AMRAAM truck wariant may be a imposible to model in reasonably realistic way due to common datalink with Gripen. And it wouldn't fit the timeframe anyway. But 1980s Cold War JA-37C with Skyflash missiles and its ultimate sniper-gun would be great! Counterpart to all 1980s modules like MiG-29 9.12, Tornado IDS, F-14A/B, A-6E, MiG-21bis, Su-17M, A-7E, Mi-24P, Mirage F.1, Bo-105, Gazelle L etc. Perfect for Cold War Gone Hot over Kola Peninsula and declassified for highly realistic simulation.

Yes, having ONLY 2005+ variant would be a gatekeeping 20 years of F-15C service. With all the real life fighting.

As other guys said, a flayable one would be completely fictional fairy tale, having nothing in common with the real one except dor the external 3d model. Everything would be totally made up, avionics, weapons, performance, logic, HOTAS. Not even close in terms of realism to old simplified Flamming Cliffs F-15 and MiG-29. J-20 has nothing to do with mass produced, by open producer, by open nation, publically presented dozens of times F-35.

4 confirmed kills over Balkans? I knew about two MiG-29 from 24 March 1999.

MiG-23 in the USSR didn't have any capabilitities in 1960s. In summer of 1970 the first initial MiG-23S has started "state evaluation program" - still with tiny and dated MiG-21 radar and with severly limited maneuverability and insufficient structural integrity of wing sweep pivot and structural fuel tank nr.2 - causeng many fatal accidents and dozens of non-fatal crashes after which max G-loads have been reduced to 3,5G. The first MiG-23 variant ready to combat was MiG-23M (23-11M) from 1974. It still had weaker engine, some structural problems, underwhelming radar and many other problems, but it could be used in combat. During 1982 Lebanon War Syria had ~25 MiG-23MS and ~30 MiG-23MF. MiG-23MF based on Soviet improved MiG-23M from 1977 (Israeli F-15A 1975), it already had RP-23 Sapfir 23D radar and weapon system, R-60 close range missiles and R-23R/T missiles.

The closest ever were was Syria-Israel 1982 Lebanon War, where Syrian Soviet-made integrated air defence coupled with GCI and Soviet-built interceptors fought US-made fighters used to defeat both ground air defence and military aviation. Both sides used doctrine and tactics from respectively the USSR and the U.S. and older versions of their fighters; Israeli F-15A and F-16A when USAF used F-15C and F-16C, and Syrians MiG-23MF, Su-22M and MiG-21bis, when USST used MiG-23ML. Plus Soviet SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-8, Soviet radars and electronic warfare, Soviet training and Soviet advicers and technicians directly in Syrian military. Western elastic doctrine and fighters with SA and electronic warfare prevailed in a spectacular way, despite Syrian Soviet fighters and ground air defence having numerical superiority.

So F-117, but i thought FlyingIron is making this one as they've shown quite some progres, 3d model, cockpit, wrote about spending money to obtain all the necessery documentation. Or maybe F-111. But it was retired around 1996, after the Cold War ended. Not much presence in Balkans, except for some Ravens.

Cold War F-16A, especially early like e.g. Block 10 “small tail” would be fantastic in DCS. All dick no balls! Pure dogfighter, all about close air combat, close CCIP manual aimed bombing etc.! Not all about staring on display inside a display and remembering some long procedures to program standoff weapon. And far more nimble then our digital heavy Block 50CJ. BTW: F-16A Block 10 scored overwhelming majority of RL F-16 air kills in the biggest air battle since Korea, over Bekaa Valley.

4. Make a small additional number of sales with both variants - without investing more money, just disabling a few things in existing one. To be fair sales will increase even if only a bit when both versions are present, and they won't spend any significant amount of money by just disabling few elements in earlier variant, not modeling anything new.