kseremak

No. "Not a single pound for air-to-ground" But it's good. The less they are distracting with A/G the more in depth and realistic they can go for A/A. Always look at the bright side of life. I prefer specialised uncompromised fighters for A/A and dedicated pure strikers/bombers for A/G. I don't like compromised "Jacks of all trades but masters of none".

I enjoy both, but to be objective human skill factor is smaller and smaller part of the equation every subsequent decade since WW1 and pilot will be replaced by the drones at some point in the future. Notice 5th gen fighters don't even have 2-seater trainer variants anymore because flying itself became a trivial task compared to older manual jets. Some pilot said in the interview you could take a guy from the street and he most likely would be able to takeoff, turn and land an F-22. In times of F-4 or F-14 he would kill himself during the first few seconds of takeoff... So no need to flex "Vietnam" vs "flying computers", both have their charm. Very different one. No need to be salty about Sparrow failure - if you would know maintenance heavy modern jests are and how often different systems fail and how many of them are "hangar queens"...

Yes, but there is no reason to act like that. Meteor will be a curio, obviously it will have incomparably greater range and NEZ than any other missile (3 times (!) NEZ than AMRAAM according to pilot interview), easily outshooting everything in DCS, but Meteor became operational in Luftwaffe in 2021 and we don't even have other aircrafts from this timeline, so it most likely wouldn't be included in most servers. I.e. F/A-18C has been phased out from US Navy before Meteor even became operational. So after all mission creators will decide if they include it in particular timeline scenario or not. IRIS-T became operational around 2006 together with Tranche 1 Eurofighter, but it will be simply a very good short range missile, similar to AIM-9X with helmet sight, possibly with even slightly better agility. Interesting and successfull European design. (Even 2006-2008 German Tranche 1 EF with AMRAAM / IRIS-T will make a short work of any aircraft in DCS due to it's kinematics, supercruise and high altitude performance.)

GR are still suffering due to what they presented some 2-3 years ago, namely tutorials where Cap was learning live, making tons of mistakes in what supposed to be a tutorial and so on. It was just bad. Some 2 years ago they have changed, their tutorials are of decent quality and great quantity, very often their tutorial is the only one video on YT about the specific topic. They also update their tutorials when the module evolved and changed. They have good interviews with unique guys, pilots or ground crew. They test and confirm or debunk some concepts, they are looking for mistakes in different DCS mechanics due to viewers requests. Cap is now educated guy with decent knowledge and understanding of the topic. I despiced their content 2-3 years ago, bun now i really like their videos. They are doing a good job.

Yes, you miss the fact this aircraft doesn't exist. It may exist in the future if everything will go as planned. It's performance are marketing rounded assumptions before the real engineering challenges and required compromises took their toll in the real (not mockup) plane. The only thing i know is it's planned engine, which is hoped to be ready in 2025, will have less power than today's F-35 so it will have to be lighter than F-35 to have similar T/W ratio. When F-35 is planned to receive even more powerfull, 45,000lbf (200kN) class, adaptive cycle engine in a few years. In short you can use any data you want in the advertising materials for every futuristic project, but reality is verifying every plan.

When F-117 operated freely over downtown Baghdad, being completely invunerable, over the air defense few times desner than Soviet air defense over eastern Europe, a new era has begung. F-117 was one of the most successfull and revolutionaly desingns in history of military aviation. Never before military planners had a silver bullet which can go over Baghdad, pick targets they want, destroy them and return freely, just like that, without any loses, or escort needed. All other strike aircrafts suffered losses and have been shoot down by SAM and AAA during the Gulf War, F-15E, F-16C, Tornado IDS, A-6E, F-111, AV-8, A-10, F-4G, A-7E. But no F-117, despite operating in way more dangerous enviroment before Iraqi air defense being crippled. For it's time F-117 was a phenomenal ingeneering achievement, having no counterpart in the world. It was a father of all modern stealth aircrafts.

Not really, as AlphaOneSix shown. Different philisophy i think. Apache is maneuverable, it has very good visibility with big transparent canopy, but offering little protection when i.e. Mi-28 is heavy, not particularry nimble, it has tiny windows with restricted visibility, similar to Ka-50, but with thick bulletproof 22mm/42mm glass protecting well against small arms fire. Similar with maneuverable A-10 with huge bubble canopy offering great all around visibility at the cost of protection, when Su-25 has lower maneuverability and restricted visibility with small canopy blended with the fuselage but offering better protection in case of hit. US - if you fire i'll see it and i'll dodge. USSR - if you fire i may not see it, but i'll be able to withstand the hit.

Did MiG-29, Su-27 and i.e. Ka-50 use the same HUD?

They are making progress

I've seen an empty mass of the F-14D and it was significantly bigger than the B and a lot bigger than the original A. Differences were measured in tons. The '80s B was the peak of performance.

6 April 1987. A Canadian F-18A Hornet aircraft leading a Belgian Air Force F-16A Fighting Falcon aircraft, a Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16A aircraft and a French Dassault Mirage F.1CR aircraft. These aircraft were part of a larger, 15-aircraft formation taking part in an aerial review for Allied Air Forces Central Europe.

Yes, unfortunately Hornet has JHMCS, SA Page with Link16, stronger engines, color DDIs and probably many other less important things, impossible to remove. I'm not even mentioning modern weapon and pods because this could be restricted. Does cold war Hornet, even late '80s Charlie, have NCTR IFF? Maybe ED could make some earlier Lot later on, just remove a few components, because right now it would be definitely too modern for the cold car scenarios even without some weapon types like AIM-120, 9X or GPS munitions. EDIT. I realised when we will have many other cold war modules in DCS which are now during developement this will be far more important than it is right now. I.e. MiG-29 9.12 vs F/A-18A. Original F/A-18A was praised by the pilots as being even better for BFM and nose authority.

Great read, thanks. Yes, end of the Cold War killed or at least crippled the developement of every type of weapon designed with symmetrical warfare and all out war in mind. After the end of operation Desert Storm mud hut bombing era began. On the other hand in DCS people want to fight two sides symmetrical all out war, kind of what if Cold War didn't end, because killing some hopeless oposition would be boring, but '2000s equipement was optimized for mud hut bombing. That's why all this propositions to give not historical not realistic equipement and armament.

It was due to outer pylons having different, simpler construction not able to support Rb-74 seeker cooling system. But this was the case in all AJ/AJS-37.

Radar functionality won't be available, but the mast itself may be there. It is very heavy and placed on top of the mast. It changes Apache handling significantly. That's the reason why in real life Apache D usually fly without it.

Seems like more accurate aiming system than Mi-24P cannon, but bigger cannon bullet dispersion.

I've heard some 3rd party plans to make full fidelity Su-17 but it's not confirmed yet. It will be very important late Soviet era ground pounder. Flying Su-17 along other '80s Soviet era air force MiG-21bis, MiG-23MLA, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Su-25A, Mi-8, Mi-24P against A-6E, A-7E, F-14A/B, F-15C, A-10A, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Mirage F.1, Gazelle, Huey and so on, promises to be great!

The only desert map i really wanted was Kuwait Iraq Iran SA border for Gulf War, Desert Storm and Iraq-Iran War. I thought i was an obvious choice but we have Persian Gulf map instead.

Soviet MiG-29A, MiG-25PD , Su-27S, USAF F-16A, F-15A or C, F-111 and European Tornado GR.1 Interdictor Strike as full fidelity aircrafts. And AH-64A Desert Storm apache helicopter.

I remember today's Hoggit post, when guy said he's not going to buy JF-17 because he's already barely able how to use two other modules: (110) Djeff! : hoggit (reddit.com) For people unable to open the link So maybe modeling very complex aircrafts will really hamper the size of customer base in longer term. For example i could learn hypotetical full fidelity A-10A in a few hours so i can buy even 10 similar modules still being proficient using simple systems and manual weapon. Or F-5E, MiG-21bis, ff MiG-29A and so on. But digital A-10C? Many days (more realistically weeks) of scrupulous learning and at least 3-4 flights a week to maintain habits, subconsious memory for HOTAS and systems, procedures to fire simple unguided rocket. If today real life rigorously selected full time miltary pilot is expected to be proficient using only one aircraft, why the idea average amateur part time gamer can be proficient in more than 1 or maybe 2? It may be a long term problem when trying to sell more complex aircrafts, each very hard to learn. Realistic complex simulators of old, like F4.0, iF/A-18E had only one to learn but ED financial model depends on making and selling another one, then another one, then another one... Who will be able to use at least 30% of them (and buy next) in a next few years?

About diversity; i've read an interview with Russian Su-27 and Su-35 pilot, here on DCS forum in Russian section, and he stated due to technology and computers advances, smart long range weapon (and post cold war budget cuts) the diversity dissapeared since fighter like Su-35 or Eurofighter can do everything; air combat, interception, CAS, ground strike, SEAD, recon, long range strike with cruise missiles and so on. And do it even better than previous, diverse, specialised aircrafts palette. He said even modern ground attack plane Su-34 has been bought by Russian Air Force to save Sukhoi company from bancruptcy and Su-35 can do everything Su-34 can and more, being able to defend itself. During '80s Soviet union used very diverse aircraft fleet; Su-15TM, Tu-128, MiG-31 and MiG-25PD as interceptors, MiG-21/23/29 as tactical fighters, Su-17 and MIG-27 as ground attackers, Su-25 as CAS, Su-27 as long range escort and air combat, Su-24 for SEAD, Yak-28 and MiG-25 for reconissance, Su-24 for low level strike, and many others. US during '80s F-14 and F-18 as navy fighters, A-7 as navy CAS, A-6 as Navy bombers, F-111 as low level strike, F-4, F-16 and F-15 as fighters, F-117 and F-15E as strike aircrafts and more. Today - F-35 and F-22 do everything (with outdated F-15, F-16, A-10 designed 50 years ago as support) Now Russian Su-35, French Rafale or British Eurofighter can do basically everything so diversity dissapeared naturally due to technological progress. A month ago USAF general said USAF will use only 4 basic types of combat aircrafts in near future. USAF with 5500 aircrafts. Eurofighter and F-35 are practically the only combat airplanes used by whole RAF, no diversity. For France Rafale is doing everything (with some help from outdated Mirages 2000 being phased out gradually.), zero diversity. During '80s they used Mirage III interceptor, SEPECAT Jaguar low level strike aircraft, Mirage 5 CAS, Mirage F.1 fighter, Mirage IV bomber, F-8 Crusader navy fighter, Super Etendard navy attack aircraft, Mirage 2000 fighter interceptor, all having their roles. The more you go back the bigger diversity with a pick around '80s before dissolution of the Soviet Union, modern day one type is doing everything.

According to official requirements it's fighter role was of secondary importance: Як-38 (archive.org)

Yes, Harrier's one engine concept offered an advantage.

Nobody is comparing '70s Yak-38 or '80s Yak-38M with DCS AV-8B NA from '2000s. As Northstar98 said Yak-38/38M was a counterpart of cold war Sea Harrier, rather GR.1, GR.3 (and US AV-8A, AV-8C) than FRS.1 since FRS.1 was a fighter with doppler radar when GR.1, GR.3 and Yak-38 were attack planes with some basic fighter capabilities. But this were not 100% direct counterparts so you can compare it to any cold war Harrier.