Redkite : JF-17 Pre-Release Preview!

[RedKite]

[uboats]

Good job!

[Phantom453]

Truly awesome and thorough "first look" at the JF-17. Thank you Mr Kite!

 

I have to say congratulations and well done Deka Ironworks for an amazing first effort!! Very impressive indeed. Really surprised at the level of completeness and systems detail at EA. The configuration on the Specials Page and data cartridge are excellent inclusions.

 

I haven't had much focus on this aircraft until just recently, but the more advanced avionics, bespoke weapon systems, balance required for mission planning and the fact that it can be a REDFOR or BLUEFOR aircraft, depending upon the scenario, makes it highly interesting. Hopefully they will include a Block 2 upgrade at some time

 

The only thing that caught my eye were SOME of the cockpit textures, which looked a little VEAO ish to be honest, but you could also see others that already looked much better and as Mr kite stated, "They are WIP and may be replaced already by EA on 4 Dec."

 

I'm sold so far and very happy that it looks like we have another solid an innovative 3rd Party Developer at the DCS table.

[johnv2pt0]

Great video! Answered a lot of questions. Thanks ~

[DmitriKozlowsky]

OK, the English Chinese Lolita 'Bitchin Bai' voice, is a entertaining touch.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

So the flight model is Standard, external, or proffesional? But the question is, how 'real' is it to the actual aircraft?

[Manuel_108]

Flight model looks very well made from what I have seen so far. Deka has a few videos about their fly by wire simulation etc. on their youtube channel if you want to take a look.

[razo+r]

So the flight model is Standard, external, or proffesional? But the question is, how 'real' is it to the actual aircraft?

 

SFM is not supported anymore. EFM and PFM are the same but PFM is for ED and EFM for 3rd party aircraft.

 

as for how real, like any other module probably. As close as possible.

[J20Stronk]

So the flight model is Standard, external, or proffesional? But the question is, how 'real' is it to the actual aircraft?

 

 

[L0op8ack]

WOW, great video!

[RSharpe]

Thanks for all of the info RedKite. Especially those laser guided rockets.

[Konovalov]

Great video as always Redkite. Certainly an interesting aircraft that will provide for some interesting mission designs. One of the key things pointed out by Redkite is that this aircraft is not going to be able to conduct multiple mission roles in a single flight. It neither has the range or payload capability to fulfil multiple roles in a single sortie. I am quite impressed by the near complete state that this will be released in. My hat off to Deka Ironworks for that.

[izzyssm]

It's the module I didn't even know I wanted! This might be my modern aircraft purchase. I didn't really want or care for the F-16 and I spent a decade working on the F-18 so I can go a while without seeing it. I'm hoping I can get some love out of this module as much as I do from my MiG-21.

[VBS_Nero]

BRAVI

[YoYo]

Nice video, agree and thx.

[Lymark]

I wonder If the data cartridge thingy would allow us to preset our waypoints or share the settings with other players?

[Terrorban]

What I want to understand better is that in the Q&A video from jabbers, Deka have said that the aircraft can operate for up to 3 hours while RedKite claims that it cannot remain in the air for much long. Since neither of them explained this in much detail, what do I make of this?

[Positrons95]

In Jabbers video, I believe they mentionned the 3 hours was done by using 3 external fuel tanks, while in Redkite's video, he said the plane wouldn't have much air time with a mutli-mission loadout, ie with all pylons used for weapons or sensors and only internal fuel.

[RedKite]

It's got good cruise endurance with 3 tanks. But moment you start operating it as a combat aircraft it's far more restrictive. You need to reserve enough fuel for a good stint in afterburner for self defence, carry heavier draggier payloads, fly at lower altitudes as dictated by the mission and operate the engine at higher levels in the combat area. These all eat significantly into the fuel load, couple that with carrying one or two tanks and you can see the issue.

 

Some larger weapons like the Man in the loop or anti-ship missiles can only be mounted on the same pylons as the ones able to carry wing tanks. Then there's the Targeting pod, ecm or datalink pod, you'l always be compromising on loadouts

 

It'l be just fine in a lot of dcs situations, with our often compressed missions and disregard for personal safety, but you certainly have to budget your load out and fuel for combat.

Edited December 1, 2019 by RedKite

[Terrorban]

Thank you for the clarification. I understand better now. The tanks play a big role on this aircraft. I hope it has as much mission time as the harrier at least. I will probably use it more for ground strikes. I am also curious how it will perform with similar air to air load out like the mirage from Razbam.

[shaHeen-1]

S530(Fox-1) has what? 10 nm range? And there's only two of those.

 

This gets 4 Fox3s with 20+ range and it can engage multiple. id say they're not even in the same league at the moment.

[RedKite]

SD-10's get 30nm+ on closing targets at altitude. I've scored kills against closing migs that then turn defensive after launching at 30nm, there's an example of that in the Tacview in the video

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

amazing, best videos of dcs out there!!:)

[Fri13]

Awesome that the module allows pilot to change from rasterized map to height map in digital map!

 

I so would like to use DCS height map in A-10C, AV-8B Harrier etc, as all those USMC etc rasterized maps are "useless" to me after so custom to clarity and high information of the KA-50 ABRIS (and to what the DCS map is based to).

[shaHeen-1]

That drag chute swings way too much. It should be more rigid but vibrate a bit more right?