TLTeo

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.

Viggen Either a Mirage 3 or F-104 would be sick. The Phantom would be cool but who knows whether it's taken already or not... edit: grammar

In that case, would it be possible to add a request to remove the RWR from the AI to the ticket (or make a new one)? @myHelljumper

Yep, although I wonder whether that's more related to how simplistic the AI systems are....if it's not possible for the AI to have a directional RWR, it may be best to just force them to never mount it tbh. It's the "default" state of the jet for the player after all.

Yeah maybe. Another big thing is that by the early 90s the technology was starting to just make it unnecessary to do low level. If I remember correctly, during DS about 10% of weapons dropped were guided, which went up to like 80/90% during Allied Force. I also remember reading about a Jaguar pilot doing an exchange with a USCM A-4 squadron druing the 80s, going to Red Flag, and being surprsied because they were going in at medium level with Walleyes rather than doing the usual low level thing, and even more surprised when it actually worked.

From the previous page, ~22 degrees off boresight for the AIM-9, so probably not too far from the canopy bow. 60 degrees off bore for a radar lock is quite nice though.

Yep. There's more to DCS than being a PGU truck, hence why having both an -E and some sort of Navy variant would be ideal. This thread is proof that there's sufficient demand for both.

Yep, SPA mode and markpoints are incredibly under rated functions in the Viggen. It's so much better than creating them in e.g. the Mirage. I wish people were more aware of that functionality so we could stop the incredibly stupid "the Viggen can only hit pre planned targets!" posts, but nooooo, it's listed as a reconnaissance function and recce things don't make other things explode, so let's ignore it entirely. Rant off.