TLTeo

Out of curiosity, how many of those aircraft were actually Mig-29s in the late 80s? I would expect that the Fulcrums on their own likely did not outnumber whatever NATO had, but the Fulcrums plus Fishbeds, Floggers, Foxbats and Fitters definitely would. Those two are very very different scenarios (and the latter is far more complex), and equating them is highly misleading.

The region of added drag is not exactly at Mach 1, it's more between Mach ~0.9 and ~1.2 ish (depending on the aircraft), and as a rule of thumb the drag increases with speed very steeply near Mach 1, and then decreases more gently past Mach 1. You don't just go from "lots of transonic drag" to "no drag" when you get past Mach 1. Having said that, the FM is due for some re-work in the next patch, which will include adjustments to the TF-30 performance. In general I suspect that you are right and the engines are underperforming in some way, but I can't say just how much. We will see once the next round of FM tuning is in.

Woops I meant Crusaders, my bad. I could get behind an F9F module though

The D also had different avionics. It could fire the AIM-4D (which the -C could not), much to Robin Olds' displeasure, and it had a bombing computer with a rudimentary form of CCRP (like the Skyhawk mod essentially). The Spey engines also required the fuselage to be re-shaped, which broke the area ruling slightly compared to the J79 jets. That limited the top speed at altitude, but it made the aircraft perform a bit better at low altitude (hence the British Phantoms being nicknamed the most expensive, slowest Phantoms ever built). Between that and the different performance of the new engines, you're looking at pretty large differences in the FM - larger than the A and B model Tomcat for example. Yeah I don't really see the need to have an -F in game. You can easily just take an -E, keep it from loading Sparrows in the Mission Editor, and be close enough. Personally I'd hate to have one of these modernized Phantoms though, if I want an AMRAAM truck I'll just fly something else instead...although I'm sure the airquake muh capabilities crowd will be horrified. The F-4E replaced the Century Series, it doesn't really need to operate together with them. Between the Mirage F1, F-5E, Mig-21 and -23 we will have plenty of aircraft that were operated in the same time period tbh. As far as I understand, USN Phantoms didn't operate with gunpods much, especially not for air to air. They were mostly used by the USMC and USAF for a2g (and in the case of the USAF, the a2a thing was only until the -E came online). Having said that the best dogfighting Phantom is supposed to be a USN -S, but even then, I would prepare to be underwhelmed. Regardless of variants it will be a pretty tough aircraft to fly in BFM/ACM, at least if you're used to a Hornet, Viper or Tomcat, because you won't out turn (almost) anything, you will really really need to know how to use the vertical and how to unload, extend and re-engage.

It may be less an issue of weight and more of size - you can probably store a handful of Skywarriors on Essex carriers, but not entire wings of Intruders and Phantoms, so in that case you might as well just optimize logistics by operating only Skyhawks and Corsairs from them. edit: obviously I meant Crusaders, not Corsairs. Wrong Vought fighter, my bad.

It's really hard to keep up with all of RB's teases and announcements. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it. On a brighter note, I think other 3rd parties may also have a look at the Mirage 3 family. There's a group of modders trying to put a Kfir together and become a full 3rd party, and Aviodev may also think about it after the Mirage F1 since both served in the Spanish Air Force.

Also the C-101EB and CC. If we extend that to WIP stuff, then you have the Mirage F1CE/EE/BE/M, and the G-91R1B/PAN/R3 too. I'm not sure whether the MB-339 will have only the A version or the PAN as well (although admittedly, the PAN versions are pretty similar to the R1B/A). Honestly, despite all the fanboying over specific variants, I don't think you get much return on investment beyond doing an E bomb truck and a J or S fleet defender. Those cover a wide enough range of periods and capabilities that they can stand in decently for other parts of the Phantom's career, kind of like the Mig-21bis does right now. In general I think the Phantom could be a good testbed to have a DLC-type system where you get discounts if you already have variants of a similar aircraft though - say, paying 60/70 dollars for your first full fidelity Phantom, and getting 50% off the second one if you so choose.

RB have announced a very large number of projects, some full fidelity, other "first as AI assets, then as a full module". The Mirage 3 is in the latter category. In practice, their roadmap looks more or less like this: Near term: finish the Harrier, Mirage and Mig-19, release the Strike Eagle and Mig-23 Medium term: A-29, EE Lightning, Bo-105 Long term/completely unclear/teased or announced in some other way: AMX, Canberra, OV-10, Pucara, Mg-19S, AV/8B+, Mirage 2000-5, a mystery helicopter, Sea Harrier FRS-1, F-100. I'm pretty sure I'm forgetting something, but considering that none of the "near term" modules is anywhere near release, whatever we get from RM after the Mudhen/Flogger will only happen in a very distant future, if at all.

I'm going to take a very wild guess and say that people who have worked for years on simulating the Tomcat and collaborating with people who actually flew the thing are more likely to have a more educated opinion than what any one of us can find on Google. It's up to us to prove that does not hold by providing tangible information of the contrary beyond nomenclature.

Lovely pictures!

I dug around the Mirage 3/5/F1 manuals on Avialogs but there are no hard numbers on there. My entirely uninformed guess is that knowing it's a pretty early missile, it's probably in the ballpark of an AIM-9P in terms of range, but with a bigger warhead and the maneuverability of an AIM-9B/R-3, so you could possibly take front-aspect near BVR shots at high enough altitude and speed (sooort of like the R-3R), for but rear aspect shots at low altitude, no chance. If you want to be sneaky in multiplayer I don't see why I would take an IR R530 over a Sidewinder tbh.

Just a quick reminder that engaging with csgo about the Phoenix is a waste of time. The concept of objective reality doesn't work on the guy. Uh, I didn't know this bit. Should this apply to shots with the ACM cover up too?

Yep, but I don't think it will be a good anti fighter weapon, because unlike the SARH version I don't see it being all-aspect, which is the main advantage of using these early Fox-1s. I think it will be more or less similar to the R-3R/S on the Mig-21, but maybe with a bit longer range and a larger warhead.

It never was. 4 variants is already a lot, so don't hold your breath for any more. At some point it stops making sense to add more variants, especially for free, just in the name of users screaming "muh capabilities". I wouldn't worry, they've always been pretty quiet. These last few months are no different (whether you like it or not is a whole other discussion ofc). Yep knowing this would be nice, maybe with a breakdown for each variant if possible.

I'm amazed we now have a thread complaining that the Phoenix isn't good enough. We really have gone full circle. On a more serious note, there are a lot of things that in DCS can't be simulated well enough to represent relative performace - EW being the big one. We have jammers on the Fishbed, Viggen, Warthog and Harrier that all perform perfectly identically to each other, which is much, much less realistic than the details of the Phoenix variants' guidance. It is entirely possible that what sets the -C apart from the -A would show up with a better EW model, and that until that's happens DCS just can't capture those details. Until then we may be stuck with just a slightly lower value in a .lua file. Personally I don't particularly care either way, but it's just worth remembering how simplistic a lot of this stuff really is under the hood.

Most of those aren't even pictures of flying F-15Es without CFTs. Let's assume however the very, very, very unlikely case that you're correct and F-15Es take them off as often as Vipers take a wing pylon off; if that doesn't happen, your comparison is still entirely invalid. You're still left with what multiple people in this thread have repeated: RB themselves, who are not exactly known for under-promising features, have gone on record saying it's a no go because it's too much work for them. Until that changes, there really is no merit to any of your arguments.

Just to be nitpicky - unlike the IRIS-T, the Meteor has been teased but not confirmed. It's not impossible that HB will decide not to include it until they have more info on it.

Yeah all these pictures do not exist and you're not comparing apples to oranges:

The G-91 also qualifies, although of course it's role and performance are quite different. In fact, because of that role (a2g vs our interceptor Farmer), it's probably the best match in DCS until the F8 and F100 come out.

Depends. If it was the price of two full modules, probably not. If I got, say, 50% off the second variant if I already own the first, then yeah sure.

On top of what Quigon said, the Italian Air Force dedicated SEAD squadron (the 155th Group of the 6th Wing) flies both ECRs and IDSs, and both carry the HARM (and have fired it in combat - e.g. during Allied Force). In fact, they intend to upgrade to the AGM-88E. This is an ECR (notice the lack of guns, and the small FLIR under the nose): And this is an IDS (no FLIR, but guns installed):

Some versions of the Rafale as well iirc - although that aircraft is basically in the same boat as Russian jet when it comes to information available.

From what I can tell, higher up makes the cue less accurate, not more, so that's unlikely. Good reminder though, I forgot your thread!

One thing I noticed is that the BK90s don't really glide horizontally like a JDAM or JSOW, instead they fly a shallow dive until they reach low altitude, so it makes sense that they wouldn't benefit as much from high alt launches. Hmm, so we're back to "either the flight model or HUD symbology are wrong", except it applies to low altitude as well. Interesting.

These "much capabilities" posts are really getting out of hand. If that's your metric for what a DCS module needs to be worth flying, then only the Hornet, Viper and Jeff belong in DCS. "There is no HUD or FBW and the radar screen is bad!"...really?