TLTeo

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?

That strongly depends on what configuration that jet flew in. If that configuration is not represented in DCS (much like e.g. the Streak Eagle, which was nothing like your average front line F-15A), then no, it should be impossible. That is completely different from an arbitrary g limit imposed to extend the service life of the F-14 fleet.

So in which situation would you be willing to take a BVR shot against someone (with all the ROE/ID complications it carries)), but decide to take that BVR shot with an inferior missile that puts the firing aircraft in a more dangerous position? The only way that actually happens is if the -C AMRAAM hasn't been fully replaced by the Meteor yet - similarly to the Sparrow/AMRAAM loadouts during Allied Force. Beyond that, tactically it makes about as much sense as expecting to make good use of a 18 air to air missiles in a single sortie.

This isn't unusual either. The F-104S/F-21 radar combination was the same, depending on altitude the max range of the Aspide was limited by the radar's ability to lock targets, rather than the missile's ability to go far enough. Granted, that's an extreme example with a fairly decent missile for the time and a god-awful radar. I'm pretty sure it's less that the AIM-7 is much better IRL than DCS (although a fair comparison is near impossible given that DCS has no EW) and more that USAF Eagle drivers are likely a wee bit better at employing it than us armchair nerds.

Tomcat and Phoenix haters all over the world have just felt a disturbance in the Force...on a serious note, I don't think those exchange rates are necessarily unbelievable. The Eagle at that time was just incredible, as evidenced for example by its performance with the Israeli Air Force in 1982.

I'm not sure whether that's the reason. The CBU-105 is also guided exclusively by an INS, rather than GPS, and it can do high altitude perfectly fine. In fact, correcting for the wind is the whole point of the WCMD kit, it's in the name. Both are area weapons anyway, so a bit of drift is probably perfectly fine. They don't need the accuracy of a JDAM to do their thing. On the ethics side, the BK-90 supposedly has all sorts of in-built ways to avoid leaving submunitions behind, so I think that's factored in already.

According to Wikipedia, the Phantom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Air_Force#Air-to-ground Could be that it's either retired because cluster munitions (even though Greece did not sign on the Cluster Munitions Convention), or standard Wikipedia bullcrap though. I think my point stands though. I don't think you introduce a supposedly standoff weapon in the 90s, post Desert Storm, that can only be launched at treetop level. That's just weird, the RB-15 which was introduced at the same time on the same aircraft does not have that limitation to name one.

Speaking of which, beyond the armament and number of hardpoints, what are the differences between the R1B and R3 (and R4 I suppose)?

Yeah I shouldn't have used the plural, I convinced myself that Gulf Air Forces used it but I must have confused it with some other cluster weapon. From what I can find, the Hellenic Air Force are the only users.

So I'm trying to figure out exactly what the BK-90 is capable of, because there's quite the discrepancy between the manual and HUD symbology, and what one can actually do in game. The manual states that allowed release altitudes are between 50 and 500 meters, in which case the range is ~10 km or so depending on our airspeed at release. This also seems to match the HUD symbology. The issue however comes when one tries to release the weapon from higher altitudes, say, a few thousand meters. In this case, the weapon still guides to the target perfectly well and actually has far more range, but the symbology does not reflect this capability. I have attached a Tacview of me hitting some dummy targets from ~16nm away, releasing from ~16000 feet (unfortunately tracks are completely broken for me, so I can't include that). By the time they reach the target, the dispensers are flying at ~300 knots and fairly high (~10 degrees) AoA, so they are at the limit of their range. This is not quite what a JSOW does, but better than a e.g. JDAM or CBU-105 dropped from a similar speed/altitude, which is still impressive. In this case however the HUD range bar is flashing, indicating that a course correction is required. Diving to below 500 meters causes the flashing to disappear and the normal symbology to appear, so the jet does not expect that drop to be succesful. So what I'm getting at is - should the BK-90 be capable of high altitude releases and achieve such a large standoff range? If yes, how come the HUD symbology does not reflect this? If not, how come we can artificially get so much more performance out of the weapon? Personally, my gut feeling says yes, high altitude standoff delivery should be possible - given that it's a modern weapon that is still in service with several air forces, which certainly don't limit themselves to Cold War era low level strikes. Tacview-20210825-235618-DCS.zip.acmi

Unless you really, really need the standoff range, I don't see why I would use one over a WCMD. Hopefully that gets reworked when they release the CBU-103.

Cluster munitions in DCS are all over the place tbh. The JSOW and Rockeye are pretty awful because of how the bomblets' damage is calculated, meanwhile the CBU-97 and 105 are unstoppable weapons of doom.

Uh, TIL. I always wondered why the Viggen didn't have a way to disable NWS. Turns out it's much smarter than that, in typical Viggen fashion

Regarding the toss symbology, if I understand the video correctly, your pull-up cue is when the arrow stops flashing? I like these videos but it would be nice if you could channel your inner Wags and explain what's going on too

Yes let's ignore the fact that aircraft have been able to jettison their fuel tanks for 80 years. Or that jets do fly without external tanks all the time. Or that developers themselves have stated that you can't compare the two.

Pretty much, yeah. Since the Hawk debacle especially, ED has been much more strict with what they allow 3rd parties to release. Leatherneck in general is a small team so they work pretty slowly, but the Mig-21 is a really good module.

I'm going for a wild take here - I think your English and reading comprehension are perfectly fine, and the issue lies somewhere else. But yeah the...posters with a creative perspective on the laws of physics, shall we say...have been putting in the effort lately.

Because they literally have the full Eurofighter consortium collaborating with them. Also because the F-14D for obvious reasons is going to be subject to stricter rules because geopolitics. Also because different aircraft and governments from different countries operate differently. It really, really shouldn't be this hard to understand, and yet every week we have a thread like this. It's mind boggling.

Pretty sure they are considering that for pretty much everything that's being made for that map