TLTeo

I wish there was an option for "I don't mind either way". As long as it's a high quality DCS module, I will enjoy it. Regarding the Draken, I also don't care about what variant is released, it's just too cool regardless. The only caveat is that I think it would be neat if we could have one with the RB-28/AIM-4 just to experiment how awful that missile truly was.

Maybe shot the video on Tuesday and it was heaters only day

Heatblur: we're not doing the F-14D because we don't have enough information OP: after the F-14D you are not going to do due to lack of information can you please do an imaginary aircraft that never went beyond the drawing board and that, therefore, has even less info known about it I just...I don't get it.

As ever, Draken or riot

I guess the only way it doesn't impact their roadmap is if having HB+TrueGrit together let them get some additional investors that the original companies alone wouldn't have managed, which they could use e.g. to hire more people. But yeah, even if it does impact their roadmap, it really doesn't matter. There were two mystery jets on there and whether the EF delays one (or both) of those or not, we're still getting HB modules anyway and that's what matters.

Uh interesting, did it get removed or something? I thought those were former Italian Tranche 1s, and the AMI jets do have Pirate.

Tranche doesn't correspond to capability 1:1 in the way people think though (e.g. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/228911-eurofighter-typhoon-facts-and-myths-faq/ ). And besides, "we will be releasing EA with air to air capabilities only" does not mean "we will be doing a Tranche 1 at full release". I mean, by that definition we have and will always have a Block Frankenjet Viper because it doesn't have the full capabilities of a USAF block 50 yet.

The German Typhoons are the only ones that do not have Pirate (other than one test bird)

I can hear the people who think the Tomcat and Phoenix are OP already screeching about the Meteor and IRIS-T lol

The Phantom, Me-262 and AH-1 were also confirmed to be in development. Again, plans change, get used to it.

It's still WIP, no confirmed ETA

Reminder that Black Shark 3 had its development halted for a while due to Russian export laws, despite the fact that it was announced, confirmed, and in active development. Seriously all this talk about "plane X is confirmed so it's good to go ez" makes no sense. If something is not in the DCS store it should be regarded as not existing because getting info is hard, plans change, laws change, development is super time consuming, and a whole list of other reasons.

And that is why coding FMs in DCS is so easy and takes so little effort /s

I know they have said they don't find it very interesting, but I still think a Q-5 would be very neat (then again, I'm an a2g guy at heart). Some Su-17 variant, or even a -25, would be great as well. But yeah given that there are plenty of other devs doing Western stuff, I'd rather Deka keep doing their unique thing as well. The only exception might be perhaps a Mirage 3/5, since between South America operators, Pakistan etc it's not really a full on bluefor jet anyway - like the JF-17 actually.

Yep, and an -A model Viper is even worse given that the cockpit is completely different, so you need to re-do several systems, most of the avionics, art, plus FM (because analog vs digital flight control system, different weight, less thrust etc). People acting like "oh but the 3d model is there and the aircraft is the same, just a few systems" don't really know what they are talking about. This is true to some extent, but to be honest, DCS is a relatively unrealistic environment (for example, because you're either flying with dumb AIs or humans who have no idea of what they are doing) that it's stopped bugging me as much as it used to. Not having the right AWACS radar Doppler limits or whatever isn't nearly as big of a deal as my wingman not saying a single thing during ACM or BFM other than "fox 3! ejecting!".

4th gen is very poorly defined anyway, it covers a huge span of time in which the airframes remain the same but more stuff was added on mainly through software. If the Tomcat is a 3rd gen fighter with 4th gen performance, so are an F-15A or F-16A for instance.

I think the question is less whether Aerges is willing to include stuff, and more whether they can find the documentation necessary to include stuff. Again, reference the C-101.

I've said this a bunch of times, but if they were comfortable with the C-101 carrying the Sea Eagle or BL-755, I'm sure they'll be pretty generous with the F1's loadouts too.

This doesn't account for the aircraft's AoA though, right? E.g. when you're in the grove on speed. with no descent rate, the VDI and HUD show the aircraft being a few degrees nose up.

Fair enough. That doesn't sound too crazy because the numbers I found were from one of those dumb "I hate BVR and we all should be dogfighiting like it's ww2 and here is why" documents - which is why I bumped the Pk from the 20% they claimed in there, to 30%. Even if it were 50% though, I think my point would stand - the -A model Phoenix had a comparable Pk to the Sparrow, and because of the range and extra guidance modes it brought tactical advantages. Hence, good enough anti-fighter weapon.

Do you have a source? I definitely remember it being lower. There were also a bunch of duds etc. It's also the best comparison since it was fired at literally the same aircraft in the same air force as the Iranian Phoenix.

They are also trying to include a photo recon pod to the MB-339, which I suspect will be a prototype for the G91

I did address that though - the targets has the same ECM capability regardless of whether they were on the receiving end of Sparrows, Phoenixes or AMRAAMs. Yeah, and that's why STT shots should be your go-to against maneuvering targets. Except in DCS, the only radar that's limited like that is the Tomcat, while everybody else gets away with silly shots and therefore the community builds up ridiculous expectations. Sure, but it's not about whether a statistic is correct or not, it's about interpreting its meaning. Two out of three shots went off because the ground crew didn't arm the missiles properly, and should therefore be discounted. You are left with one valid shot, and one missile missing is entirely consistent with any sub-100% Pk (ie, with any 20th or 21st century missile just...existing). That's what you get for taking statistics out of context. In that sense, the Iranian stats are a much better sample to look at despite their large uncertainty. My point is, despite that uncertainty, you can still draw a strong conclusion about the Phoenix's performance from those numbers. I agree unfortunately, that's the Internet for you.

I actually made this post in another thread, but people that discredit the Iran/Iraq war claims just do not know how to math (or do not bother with it as it would disagree with their preconceptions of the Phoenix): 274 AIM-54s were delivered before the 1979 revolution. Assuming all were shot (which is wrong seeing as they still have them today) for a total of ~80 kills, one can estimate a lower limit to the Pk of ~30%. Supposedly there were 50 AIM-54s "operational" in 1987, but from what I can find that does not includes missiles that were not fired, but were not in combat conditions due to lack of supplies etc. If we assume they fired 174 rounds, had 50 operational left, and 50 non-operational left, the Pk goes up to ~45%. Obviously one can play this game and get even higher Pks, but let's take 45% as the highest sensible number. From what I can find on Google, the AIM-7 Pk in 1982 in BVR (for a very small sample size of 5 shots and 1 kill) was ~20%. I can't find good numbers for Desert Storm but I have seen claims that it was similar to Bekaa Valley - let's assume that instead, it went up to 30%. Also from what I can tell from Wikipedia, the AMRAAM all in all has a Pk of 63%. The fighters the Sparrow, Phoenix and AMRAAM were fired against also do not differ significantly in their capability (ie, they were all cheapy export models with mediocre ECM gear, save perhaps the Iraqi Mirage F1-EQs). Let's be pessimistic and assume all these estimates are off by a factor of about 15% each. That is still enough to conclude that at worst, the -A model Phoenix was as effective as late model Sparrows -or the Skyflash carried by the F3- in terms of Pk (plus bringing a bunch of tactical advantages, obviously). Likely it was considerably better, but still not as good as the AMRAAM. Financial reasons aside, I think that qualifies it as an effective anti-fighter weapon for its time.

I don't think that's possible given that DCS EFMs are written in C++ and encrypted. Just an idea - could it be that both thrust and drag are too small, so that when flying at high speeds the errors on both kinda balance each other out and the aircraft matches the performance charts, but during VTOL you notice the lack of thrust but not the lack of drag?