TLTeo

Holy crap this is so awesome! After doing a bit of digging around, I think for the S the very theoretical limit would still be six missiles - two on the wingtips, two on the outboard stations (which potentially could carry AIM7/Aspide) and in theory two on the catamaran rack (which in practice wasn't used). The inboard stations on the S only carried tanks, not missiles. Regarding the catamaran rack - other -G users did carry it; there are lots of pictures of Dutch, Norwegian, Japanese and Taiwanese aircraft hanging AIM-9Bs or Ps from them.

Most ASA and every ASA/M also lost air to ground capability completely, as well as the gun (they put avionics for the Sparrow/Aspide in there). If we had to have only one version I would much rather it was a classic G for that reason alone. Of course, Aerges could also repeat what they've done with the C-101 and Mirage and just give us different versions. I don't think it's a coincidence the announcement picture didn't show the tail for instance, since that is the most noticeable differentiator between the A/C and G/S.

Per thread title, with radar on standby you still get to scan and lock targets, take missile shots, and guide missiles. The only differences compared to TX are a) the close combat mode does not work and b) the intercept/lock HUD symbology (including velocity/distance scale/radar gunsight) are not displayed. Steps to replicate: just do not switch the radar to TX and go into a fight. Track attached for demonstration. Radar_bug.trk

Re-read my post. I'm not saying no Italian variant is relevant, simply that the ASA and ASA-M were very late life updates to an aircraft that was already outdated, and lost a ton of other capabilities to keep going. That "BVR capabitlity from the 60s to the 80s" that you mention? That's the vintage -S for the AMI. In that period of time the Italian -S were arguably the most capable Starfighters in NATO.

Frankly I don't think either the ASA or ASA-M are particularly relevant for DCS. By the time they were around the 104 was just a relic of an interceptor barely hanging on, and the -M upgrades aren't even relevant to how DCS is played. The ASA-M lost any a2g capability and basically never even carried a gun, and the -ASA may also have been mostly an interceptor since by the 90s the Tornado and AMX had fully taken over the strike mission(s). The original -S on the other hand may actually be a good compromise between "muh capabilities" (because it still does carry the Sparrow) and the more historical/relevant variants. And having said all that, I think some -G variant (there are actually quite a few) is much more worth including in DCS than any -S version.

It was the main interceptor and strike fighter (which means nuclear bomber) in NATO for most of the Cold War, so it's an icon for a lot of countries. It just so happened that its main operators didn't fight in many all-out wars. It also wasn't as unsafe as it's made out to be for a lot of reasons: other planes from the same era had a similar or worse accident rate (e.g. the F-100 was just as bad) and the safety record improved greatly once it was supported properly. For context, in Italian service it had roughly the same accident rate as the AV/8B has had in USMC service.

Starfighter or C-27J for me. Guess I'm a bit patriotic like that

Bring custom tweezers with you on the flight, duh

That's exactly what I mean - the 101 has the Sea Eagle even though no country ever actually bought/used them. You're right about pit/controls for the Exocet, but depending on how much work it is it wouldn't be impossible either, see e.g. Lantirn on the Tomcat (or some features on the Mirage 2000? I think the GCI datalink thingy changes the pit a bit for instance).

I don't think the argument of "it was never on the Spanish jets so it won't be included" works, given what they're doing with the Super 530 or the Sea Eagle on the C-101. My guess is if the F1M was remotely capable of using it (or other similar weapons), it will be included for the sake of variety. Which is honestly perfectly fine given how loadout restrictions work these days.

Yea the issue isn't that the datalink is classified and therefore it can't be implemented (datalinks are super simplified in DCS anyway). It's that the datalink is classified for whatever reason (and other things on top of it?) and the document that details it also contains information on other systems.

ED's guns are consistently too inaccurate for whatever reason, from the weird barrel issues with the M3, to excessive dispersion in the M39, M61 and GAU-8, all of which have been reported. I don't think one can infer anything about the F-14 just by comparing it to ED's modules.

Take height h from the radar altimeter, take dive angle a from attitude gryo, assume terrain is perfectly flat, estimate range as r = h/cos(a) I guess?

It was never alive

Nothing at all there is specific to the CE. It only says the E (which is relevant to the EE variant, NOT the CE) has improved a2g avionics and that is true - it comes with an INS and improved RWR. Nothing at all on that page says anything about CCIP or CCRP.

The CE was just the export version of the C, it did not receive the upgrades of the CT. The upgraded version is the M.

I don't understand why this conversation is still going on when Aerges wrote that they will tune the adverse yaw behavior days ago.

Yea it could be fun. I'm excited to see how that works out for IndiaFoxtEcho's modules.

True, I forgot about those. Still not F-4Es though.

^ This. The only F-4 variant that contributed meaningfully to Desert Storm was the F-4G.

Yea the point is whatever you call that switch, it's not on the HOTAS, it's on the sidewall next to the throttle just like on the Mirage.

I assume they refer to the switch used to toggle between VSL Hi/Lo and PAL modes.

There are also pictures of EX prototypes with AMRAAMs on the CFTs

Weird, I've never had anything go wrong. Do you have a link to any threads?

For those with a two stage trigger, I think the ideal is having unsafe be the first stage of the trigger, and weapon release be the second.