TLTeo

Not really, the phrasing "with the F-111B eliminated" just means that - the F-111B was gone and something had to become the next fleet defender, not that it had competed against the Tomcat at any point.

Nice! Sounds like I'm going to need a lot of extra commands to my Hotas, but should be pretty intuitive otherwise.

Yea a better example would be either the Viggen (which always worked pretty well), or the community A-4 (which is fine but required major updates recently to bring it up to par). The issue with that is that none of those radars have EXP modes (which is the whole selling point of the SE's radar for a2g), and even Deka haven't implemented that yet. But more importantly, we all complained, very loudly at that, that module developers and RB especially should stop releasing EA modules with half baked features that remain a mess for years, and that then get neglected when the next new module comes up. RB got that feedback and basically stopped developing any other module until their current ones were considered complete - which, again, we all commended. Of course that's going to delay a massive, flagship-level product for years, especially with RB's habit of teasing things extremely early on in development.

And yet, ED is not adding "what if" weapons to their Viper like LJDAM, APKWS or SDB, because they were not active on the aircraft they want to simulate. In the same way, HB won't add AMRAAM or HARMs to the F14 because want to simulate a jet from the active fleet, and those aircraft never went anywhere near that capability. That ME feature is mostly meant for somewhat unit-specific/unclear situations like carrying 4 HARMs or tripe Maverick racks. It's not really there to allow users to turn modules into what is effectively a prototype.

I just flew it, no problems for me. First JSOW was called "no joy", the rest hit perfectly well. The only minor issue is that the Harriers messaged that they were rolling in with GBUs while my wingman was doing the 4th attack run. On a practical note, I'm impressed that you managed to make a JSOW mission this fun! Flying at night really adds a lot.

Iirc the default loadout for a lot of the Iran-Iraq war was 4 Phoenixes, full gun, no other missiles, and plenty of optimism, so this would be a great option.

edit: redacted, not worth it.

JH-7 at the top (basically the Chinese equivalent of the Tornado), KJ-200 AWACs at the bottom

But muh capabilities. What's the point of bringing Harpoons, HARMS and Walleyes when I can just load 4 B-61s in the tunnel and 2 on the wing pylons?

This. Just having a picture of an aircraft carrying a missile doesn't show whether that missile was fully integrated, or what needed to be done to have that happen. It also doesn't provide HB the information they would need to model that integration. If a picture and some vague claims about testing were enough, we should also expect the MIM-23 to be carried by the Iranian variant. Except HB have stated repeatedly that won't happen either.

@IronMike would be great to have this looked at

Haha

Off the top of my head, the Harrier, Mirage, Viggen, C-101 and Mig-21 have also received updates to their cockpit. Not ED, I know, but it's worth mentioning. I agree that graphics aren't everything, but they still play a big role imo, and these older modules, fun as they are, are definitely starting to show their age.

The RWR is still wrong (the search/lock logic is asinine), arguably the radar could be improved (mostly in terms of how it looks), the TACAN sometimes stops working. Realistically, I doubt there's much of a market for any new addons to the module a-la A-10C 2/BS2, but updated cockpit textures at least would be nice since other modules receive those all the times. The same could also be said about other older ED modules.

The full manual is still WIP. Like you, I'm waiting until it (and the training missions) to consider the module.

Also, unlike older systems, modern ones have no problem engaging a target at low altitude Exactly - and that's with only ~10% of ordnance dropped being guided and a fair amount of low level still being used. There are a few reports on the effectiveness of air power during Desert Storm out which, if you read between the lines, basically spell the requirements for JDAM/LJDAM/JSOW/SDB et al.

Obviously yes, the technology to do low level improved over time. Just like the Tornado itself improved as it changed from a low level strike aircraft, to the standoff strike aircaft of today Or still do standoff delivery but with a full package of aircraft around you that can jam, suppress or destroy the IADS on the way to the target. Low level flying won't save you from modern SAM systems, EW and staying as far from them as possible just might. Besides there are plenty of weapons that outrange the GBU-39, should it be necessary.

Low level didn't become a thing at the end of the Cold War, it was the main tactic for most of it precisely because of the introduction of SAMs and EWRs (which dates back to the late 50s/early 60s). It was a large part of the tactics during e.g. both Vietnam and the Six Day war. In fact, by the late 80s it was on its way out. What has happened since then is that low level tactics have mostly been replaced by guided standoff weapons, regardless of what the aircraft launching them is. It's much, much easier to avoid air defenses by staying the hell away from them, than it is by flying close to them but low level in order to try and shrink their envelope. Stealth makes low level even less attractive (and standoff delivery more attractive), but it's not the only reason why it's gone, far from it.

Eh I can see it being somewhat useful. It's kind of like VSL hi in the Tomcat - you canput a weapon on the air without having to be exactly nose on, which (especially for something that doesn't have great ITR like the Phantom) can be very nice on occasion. The crazy off-bore shots you can do with the R-73/AIM-9X are obviously in a whole other league and not a good comparison for sure.

Pretty sure there's a Mover video about how the FLCS handles things

And on a practical note, the Swedes weren't unique in that either. The Western-trained Iranian Air Force didn't really do what we would call "CAS" either in the Iran-Iraq war (e.g. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA263552 ) And yeah, lots of people, simmers or not, generally doesn't have the faintest understanding of how the air to ground mission works. They think plinking tanks is all there is to it (which in turn spawns all sorts of dumb, misinformed claims that this or that aircraft is not suited for a2g for whatever reason).

Also lots of missiles in DCS have been improved massively. The AIM-120 we have now is miles ahead of the AIM-120 from ~3ish years ago.

It's described at page 363/364 of the manual, but iirc: 1) Master mode SPA (or to be precise - SPA/MAL to create a markpoint but not track it) 2) Take a radar or visual fix wherever you want to make markpoint (e.g. to save the position of a ship, as the manual states, or to cue your Mavs more easily) 3) The Nav system will select the newly created markpoint automatically. They are marked as M1-9 on the waypoint display thingy on the main instrument panel, except the letters should be red rather than white 4) You should be able to toggle between markpoints by selecting AKT POS/OUT and just pushing the corresponding number on the CK-37 keypad (NOT the waypoint selector buttons) 5) With your markpoint selected, switch back to master mode ANF and your markpoint will be displayed as an empty circle on the HUD as usual, allowing you to put the FP vector there and actually find stuff with that awful Maverick sight.

That's exactly why I am confused

Ah fair enough, I thought you meant DCS and some weird Hornet feature I don't know about.