TLTeo

RB have not submitted a single module for ED to evaluate since 2019, it's not like they have sent a bunch of planes that ED are holding back. The MB-339 and Mirage F1 are taking a while to be approved, but I'd rather have that than whatever the Mig-19 or F-16 releases were. RB have done a great job on the Harrier and Mirage, but they still have a million modelers and artists and not enough coders to actually complete all the project they have announced. Hence all the pretty 3d models and zero coding done for said models. But we're going off topic so let's just drop it there.

Razbam is "working" on almost a dozen modules. Out of those at least the F-15E, Mig-23, EE Lightning, Pucara, A-29 and Bo-105 all have shown more progress. Assuming optimistically one release every two years, that still means waiting about 10 years. Assuming that the Mirage 3 gets done immediately after the Strike Eagle and Foxbat, you're still looking at about 5 years worth of wait. Hence my claim that Aerges will likely release a module after the F1, whatever that may be, before RB release a full fidelity Mirage 3.

At the end of the day DCS is full of these placeholders, we already have Mig-21bis and F-5E being used in "Vietnam-era missions" despite both first flying in 1972, Cold-war era Mig-29s, brand new JF-17s, mid-2000s Vipers and Hornets and 1990s Tomcats all fighting each other in various settings, etc etc. Is it realistic? Obvoiusly not, but it's the best we can do in the short and intermediate future. It's not surprising that people try extra hard to get placeholders for stuff that's not in the game, even though that stuff is a huge stretch.

That doesn't mean the engine is different though. The Israeli A-4s also received a different exhaust by the end of their service, but they were not re-engined afaik.

The engine of all Mirage III and 5 is some variation of the ATAR, including the Israeli ones. You are probably thinking of the Kfir, which was a Mirage 5 re-engined with the J79 among other modifications.

Aerges also have the advantage that unlike RB they don't have a huge backlog of modules. Doing four F1 variants is ambitious but it's nowhere near doing the F-15E/Mig-23/whatever else. I could 100% see them getting the Mirage III done before RB.

Yeah true, but I don't think that using e.g. the F-5 or Mig-21 as a placeholder would be significantly better. Plus the Harriers on the other side may not get radar, but they do get a more modern airframe and avionics, including an RWR.

I would expect the center of lift would also move with wing sweep.

I guess you could close-ish by forcing the F1 to fly without external tanks?

And PTID. HB have stated this over and over again, much like they have stated they have no plans or intentions do do an F-14D.

I guess it depends on what the radar gain and scale is like. If all you have available is a logarithmic gain then it won't be nearly as good as the Viggen (which definitely over-performs because DCSism), if you have a linear scale as well it may be comparable.

But somebody *has* to put stuff aside to make a modernized F-4. Whether that's HB or some other 3rd party that may not even be in DCS yet, they would have to make a choice between a modernized F-4 and some other module, which obviously includes aircraft that aren't anywhere near DCS yet.

You don't magically get more planes. Developers and other resources are finite and therefore the number of planes that can be made in DCS is limited. Just look at how long HB took to release the F-14A. By asking for a modernized Phantom in top of the already announced 80s ones you are asking to delay the A-6, or the Navy Phantoms, or the Typhoon, or the Iranian Tomcats, or whatever else HB might do eventually. You would end up with less variety, not more.

Considering the Mediterranean is one of the theaters where the Tomcat would have been most likely to face Soviet bombers had the Cold War gone hot, that seems extremely unlikely.

The Thunderstreak didn't really fly in Korea though, it wasn't ready in time to replace the Thunderjet. Syria is super performance hungry as is so I'm not sure how feasible it would be to enlarge it vs just having a separate map placeholder with the Sinai (which, yeah, would be a really good map for late 40s-mid 60s modules), but either way between the close ties between Israel and France in the 50s, and how much Greece and Turkey used theirs, it would fit the current Syria map perfectly well.

Hype! And those teases are both epic!

So, looking at today's patch notes: Reduced AIM-54 induced drag. Returned to original guidance parameters thanks to a guidance fix by ED. ED: AA missiles. Corrected target tracking extrapolation. ED: Weapons. AIM-54 launched by AI will enable active mode automatically instead of semi-active guidance in TWS. I guess what we can expect is better guidance in general, and AI missiles being more dangerous? Also, will the reduced induced drag have a noticeable impact on performance, or is it just a minor change?

The things that the AIM-54C improved (e.g. ECCM) are modelled horribly in DCS, so drawing conclusions as to why the US would adopt it IRL based on DCS makes no sense

That seems unlikely because it's not like TWS and RWS are doing completely different things, but what is possible is a) the Iraqi pilots definitely wouldn't know they had been fired on until the AIM-54 went active and I doubt they would have much if any useful training experience in going up against the Phoenix and b) the SPO-10 has a blindspot fair above and below the aircraft, so if the Phoenix lofted and was diving down on them they may not have realized an active missile was inbound

As long as it's not implemented, imo the best way to run recce is to carry the ECM and countermeasure pods in case you get jammed anyway.

Nop, currently it carries the F, M and MH.

The 9P is a USAF missile so it wouldn't be carried by the Tomcat, but otherwise yes, ideally the others would be included at some point.

The difference wasn't tiny at all though. Before the late 60s non-Crusader crews had next to no air to air training other than running intercepts. Almost no BFM and ACM, especially in realistic scenarios.

Classified or not there is also no reason to have an EW platform as long as the DCS environment is as simple as it is atm.

Maybe I mis-remember the symbology, but I thought in TWS:A the T was related to the scan volume rather than launch parameters (like in STT)?