Spurts

A Viper will out climb a Tomcat if it keeps it's speed up around .8-.9M, but that's about it.

I have the Hornet. It is very capable. I call it "The Easy Button". I fly it the least of my FF Modules. Tomcats and Harriers for me.

@WarbossPetrossEverything about the Tomcat is so satisfying. It is a non-stop visceral thrill-ride.

Except launch standoff A-G munitions larger than a Zuni. Or have a clear TPOD picture outside of 15nm. Makes anti-ship or SEAD/DEAD an exercise in either dodging missiles until they run out or <50ft ingresses to min range. That said, my first time killing an SA-10 site solo was in a Tomcat. Zuni to the radar, Mk84s to everything else.

right, which made me wonder if the A-10C II was due to the AF saying "go ahead and release it" or ED taking time to change the modern stuff to declassified settings for release.

Ooh! Having "Jester-Lock enemy fighter ahead" be persistent so that you can notch, give the command, recommit, and he will lock the bandit once he finds it

Oh wow! I do find the F-16C one odd. Namely, why a 2007 F-16C for the ANG if the trainer is for 202x USAF... unless that is the "downgraded" version we are allowed to have.

Is the F-16 also banned because it's radar is game breakingly better than is should be by several times over? It seriously has detection ranges 2.5-3x real life and 2x the Hornet.

So the M2000 is a French Air Force contract sim the same as the A-10C for the USAF? <hits google real quick> ooooh, Ada, Armee del l'Air....

Believe me, I got this. I can read the shimmy, the shake, and the rattle to know what my "roll" input needs to be. That's how I can spit an AI MiG-15 out from my tail. I've just never turned anything off.

Hahahah! @captain_dalanI often end up in a "bandit gathering turn" myself.

@wormeaten you did not read/understand my post. Dassault has already issued C&D orders against developers trying to make full fidelity Rafale. So the answer to your very first question above "Is it possible to develop Rafale?" is "No". Dassault will issue a C&D and then sue if the C&D is not obeyed. No Rafale. Not happening.

Why ban Flankers? Radarless intercepts using Datalink and OLS is too OP?

really? I have never turned anything off in BFM. I guess I can get my kills fast now as the wandering nose means I sometimes miss a shot opportunity. Roll-Only you say?

/\ Question.... \/ Answer.... If Dassault won't collaborate with the Mirage there is no way they are going to collaborate on a Rafale. 3rd party high fidelity Rafale mods have already been hit with Cease and Desist orders from Dassault. This is the same reason we can't get a full fidelity Flanker of any model. Russia (since Su is state owned) says no. This is the same reason we can't get a full fidelity F-14D. US Gov refuses to release the necessary docs. Saying that just because one canard delta was built that all can/should be built is just wrong.

I still just wish I knew what the position callouts meant. If I am 50 degrees nose down and banked 130 degrees and I hear "Bandit, 4 oclock high" is the relative to a tope down, horizon fixed heading direction? Or is it a plane of the aircraft reference? if my heading is 000, then the former means the bandit is above the horizon on a roughly 120 degree bearing, while the latter means it is below the horizon on a roughly 240 degree bearing. As for the speed callouts, I would think that callouts should be as frequent as changes. Say, one callout per 20-50 knots of change. If I get eyes on the target and do a hard pull, I want every speed callout I can get and I don't need a position callout. This is where a human crew with voice comms is best. "I got him!" from my pilot tells me I can give speed callouts and maybe try to get a P-STT lock to give closure callouts.

I agree.

Why am I not surprised you also defeated them?

We already have asteroids. Isn't that enough?

it sounds like you are describing FOV with zoom instead of moving the pilots head position backwards.

I understand your viewpoint @QuiGon, I even agree. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a cheap fix, just that I don't expect we will get one.

I understand what you mean, that from a functional standpoint we, the user, can get a workaround. The issue is that ED radars are "Hey, is that target in my sweep pattern? Based on the RCS can I see him? is he jamming? Okay, I will put "X" up on the radar display based on target speed and heading" So internally that is all they are doing anyway. HB radars are "I sent out a 2 degree beam, did it hit anything? Based on his RCS how much energy got returned with the selected XMIT frequency and PRF? What doppler shift occurred? Okay, I'll put that into the range and doppler bins and see what the AWG-9 decides it can or cannot see and process based on the current mode." Kind of like how the F-14 RWR will change where a threat is displayed based on the deflection of the tails, since that is where the antennas are. Or how the Viggen had ground mapping radar for over a year before the Hornet. The HB radars are honestly looking for simulated emissions, not binary flags for Jamming=Y/N or BurnThrough=Y/N. This is why TWS is so much more finicky in the F-14 as opposed to the other jets, because it is supposed to be finicky. This is why PD-STT vs P-STT matters for different types of missile guidance. HB is basically refusing to reduce the fidelity of their sim for a Kludge fix, even if the end result is more realistic. Again, that is my understanding.

IIRC isn't the reason because ECM is just a reduction factor and BH built the AWG-9 to simulate actual input signals? Meaning as soon as ECM is modeled in a realistic manner the AWG-9 will respond accordingly.

An F-104A with the big -19 motor

That was the one! Thanks @Sideburns