TLTeo

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)?

Yeah. I'm sure some sort of F-35 sim will be a (flagship?) ED product at some point because there's too much money to be made from it, but I'm also sure that point is likely in a decade or two.

Yes but the radar is the same. TG/HB have a full deal with the Typhoon consortium though, RB have nothing like it in place with the British MoD, hence the lack of documentation. And tbh, having all aspect AIM-9s against opponents with only rear-aspect missiles operating at the limit of their range did far more to make the FRS1 successful in the Falklands than a mediocre search radar ever did (as you said, the Blue Fox is not exactly the Blue Vixen). The GR.3 can stand in perfectly well for it imo.

At a glance it looks to me like the gearing system is kicking in and limiting rudder authority, in the same way as elevator authority is limited as speed goes up. Whether the gearing behavior is correct or not, who knows.

Cool! Is it just me, or does the mouse pointer look like it has to be quite a bit below the CDU buttons to press them?

I mean, the issues DCS has with guidance and (in MP) net code are well known...

HB have also stated that they have been affected very heavily by the war in Ukraine (and personal stuff per the latest update) and are behind their roadmap. Knowing them (and how they tend to miss deadlines veeery slightly) I wouldn't expect a 2022 release anymore tbh.

Well technically the MLU gets the fancy GPS navigation system where you can input navigation points, markpoints etc, so that's actually a pretty large improvement over the vanilla -A.

Mavericks were definitely common for the IRIAF: Some aircraft also appear to have TISEO And this one has slats So at a glance, I guess HB's variant should be relatively close to an Iranian aircraft?

No AA missiles on the A or A MLU (which is the variant we're getting), only the CD carries them. The third picture you posted is a CD prototype I believe (you can tell from the shape of the nose). I-GROW is a civilian designation so it's likely a company aircraft used for marketing, not an aircraft in service with a military operator.

It would depend on relative heading too, but if the target is at 5km with the right geometry it might be doable (although being 10km apart only greatly complicates things - the Sabre isn't going to point its nose up and climb like an afterburning jet would). It gets really tricky if they are transonic at 30k ft or above though.

Because HB have announced almost a decade worth of modules.

To be fair I also do see AIM-54s fly off into space sometimes. My feeling is that when it happens, it's because the missile lofts when it shouldn't, and then it's so nose up it never really gets guidance updates and it goes on in a ballistic trajectory or something. In my experience in SP, it's only an edge case and it's easily solved by just firing in P-STT, since it appears to happen at intermediate to short ranges anyway.

At a glance it appears it was moved when the RWR was moved to its own display, rather than the ECM page on the TDI. If you look at some of the early teases (which all seem to have the early cockpit layout), the G-meter is where you say, without the RWR: But if you dig enough through google, this shows up:

Yeah I would expect something in the ballpark of the R-3R on the Mig-21 but less maneuverable. You may sneak front aspect kills once in a while, but I mostly expect it to be pretty mediocre against other fighters.

Man that last shot really drives the point home. There's zero chance that's intended behavior.

There is hardly any change between the A and B other than performance, as far as us DCS players are concerned. If you can fly campaigns in one, you can do it in the other very easily.