Early models of the 4th gen jets we already have.

[FlankerKiller]

I want to clarify something. I'm not neccesarily trying to get away from the AIM-120 as much as I'm wishing to fly jets with the propor weapons, air to air, and air to ground, that would have been used in Desert Storm, a fictional conflict with the USSR in Its waining days or the fictional Red Dawn war, or a fictional war with Iran set sometime in the 90's. While I totally understand, and agree that ED needs to update the core game, I also want to see them create awesomely detailed models of combat aircraft. I hope that as DCS becomes more popular, it will generate more revenue, and that will generate more content. I've been on this ride long enough to remember how close it came to not happening at all. I'm never suggesting that they make a new toy instead of improving the world it flies in. But I am suggesting a product that I for one would buy, and i suspect many more would as well. And selling products makes profit. Profit makes more upgrades and fixes. Combined they make a better simulated environment. I believe it was Tom Cruise that said the upcoming Top Gun movie is a love letter to aviation. That's fine and all, but to me DCS is the ultimate love letter to aviation, and one we can all participate in, and I'm damn grateful for it. I've spent my entire adult life around these incredible machines. I've made a career out of keeping them in the air. DCS allows me to get a glimpse of them from the other side, and that is pretty damn awsom. Let's hope the future holds many more interesting modules, many more core upgrades and features, an unending virtual war, and peace and safety in the real world. 

[FlankerKiller]

16 minutes ago, henshao said:

 

Pretty interesting you don't consider the Tomcat, F-15, or Mig-29 4th gen by those combined criteria

I don't. The whole "generation" thing kinda got started as a way to sell the F-22. Yes I do remember it. I think the original criteria was something like this.

 

First gen, jet fighter, it has a jet engine, and is a fighter. 

 

Second Gen, all of the above with the addition of: swept wings, moving tail, Afterburner, super sonic, and is a fighter. 

 

Third gen, all of the above with the addition of: has an internal radar, has BVR capability, primary weapons systems is missiles, and is a fighter. This is the generation where cost started to sore. 

 

4th Gen, all of the above with the addition of: relaxed static stability, fly by wire, digital cockpit with increased use of MFDs, increased use of composites. I could also include the ability to do air to ground without significantly impacting its air to air capabilities owing to the lighter weight of digital equipment, and is a fighters. Until roughly the last decade these jets were also typically very cost effective. 

 

Fifth gen, all of the above with the addition of: massively reduced radar cross section, super cruise, AESA radar, data link I don't know how much I'm allowed to say about that so I'm leaving it there.  I'm intentionally leaving off thrust vectoring. 

 

I agree with this as much as I agree with the whole generation thing. Obviously with technology back porting to older generations creating +gens it gets a little blurry. I also left off the inclusion of EW on purpose. It was a logical conclusion to the third gens, and SAMs and started appearing on the third generation of fighters but seems to be standard equipment on the 4th gen. personally would call it a feature of 4th gens since they came with it. I'm also leaving off the ability to do multi target engagement and employ fox 3 missels because they have been added to every jet of any gen that could carry them. But the 5th gens are then first jets designed to maximize there capabilities.

 

So by that logic the F-14, F-15, Mig-29 are all late third gen fighters, or 3rd+ gen fighters. The only real 4th gen capabilities they had were ECM as standard, and maybe the Phoenix on the Tomcat. But it was more of a brute force solution then a new technology one.  

 

I know that the F-14 and F-15 are typically referred to as 4th gen. But I think that has more to do with not upsetting taxpayers then the actual new technology that thay incorporated. Make no mistake I'm not putting down those three airframes at all. Actually I find there engineering to be amazing. They use older technology and still manage to keep pace with or outright out perform the 4th gen aircraft. Albeit at a much higher cost in the case of the 14 and 15. 

 

[henshao]

The biggest conventional distinction between 3rd and 4th gen fighters is in design maneuverability: Phantom -> Eagle, Flagon -> Flanker, Mirage III -> Mirage 2000, etc. Fly by wire can be part of that equation but it is only the means to the end, not the end itself. Same with composites to lighten the airframe and so on. In other words, just my opinion but you are putting the cart before the horse and I think you are very much on your own regarding obvious 4th gen fighters like the F-15 and Mig-29 as 3rd gen, they would slaughter any 3rd gen fighter in maneuvering combat quite handily

[Northstar98]

Personally, I would consider the F-14, F-15 and MiG-29 early 4th gen (at least for the initial variants of the latter 2). Generally I go by this.

[WinterH]

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

Personally, I would consider the F-14, F-15 and MiG-29 early 4th gen (at least for the initial variants of the latter 2). Generally I go by this.

So does just about everyone who considers the generation classification to be a thing.

IMO, aside from the emphasis on agility, other common things that define 4th gen goes like:

- Improved cockpit instruments with HUDs etc
- Focus on improved situational awareness: quick acquisition modes for dogfights, much better view out of canopy etc

- TWR close to, or greater than 1

[Baco]

Yes F-16 A, F-18 B/C, F-15As, either that or be able to retrofit Older weapons, like AIM 9 Limas, o Mikes Early AIM-7´s, etc, yo guove Mission creators flexibility...

[FlankerKiller]

3 hours ago, WinterH said:

So does just about everyone who considers the generation classification to be a thing.

IMO, aside from the emphasis on agility, other common things that define 4th gen goes like:

- Improved cockpit instruments with HUDs etc
- Focus on improved situational awareness: quick acquisition modes for dogfights, much better view out of canopy etc

- TWR close to, or greater than 1

That's the issue there isn't a hard and fast set of standards for generations of aircraft. It's a marketing tool at best. But there are core technologies that once they're out they set a standard that is then followed by all others. Technologies that can't be easily added to existing aircraft. But at the end of the day it's a pointless distinction. For instance what generation is a MIG-21 bison? Or an F-4 with updated radar, leading edge slats, and AMRAAM compatibility? Also what difference dose it make when its trying to kill you? So to my estimation the core technology's listed are the the most disruptive to aircraft design. Once there out everything that fellow has them or is considered obsolescent. I'm well aware that it's a minority view. It's also irrelevant. All three jets listed above were, and are staggeringly lethal. The F-15 and the Mig-29 are actually my favorite fighters. But this is off topic. There are some highlights that get back on topic though. Like how the electronics change over time on any aircraft, and how interesting the time between 1975, and 1990 was for combat aircraft. There's a lot of cool jets from then, and having correct late 80's early 90's Vipers, Hornets, Hawgs to fly and fight them with would be an absolute blast. 

[wilbur81]

22 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

The only thing I will say is that these 'nuanced old-models' should probably have been the ones to go with from the get go; 

 

Fair enough. I strongly disagree. I'm one who comes to DCS for the most modern simulation that is possible given man-hour and military classification restraints. And ED has given us that quite reasonably in the blk 20 Hornet and blk 50 Viper. I certainly don't think many at Eagle Dynamics would sympathize with your comment that "[the earlier, older models of these aircraft] should have been the ones to be developed from the get go." So we'll agree to disagree.

Edited December 22, 2020 by wilbur81

[FlankerKiller]

3 hours ago, Baco said:

Yes F-16 A, F-18 B/C, F-15As, either that or be able to retrofit Older weapons, like AIM 9 Limas, o Mikes Early AIM-7´s, etc, yo guove Mission creators flexibility...

But that's the thing. Lugging AIM-9Ls on your super high tech 2000s plus jet fighter feels off. 

[FlankerKiller]

3 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

Fair enough. I strongly disagree. I'm one who comes to DCS for the most modern simulation that is possible given man-hour and military classification restraints. And ED has given us that quite reasonably in the blk 20 Hornet and blk 50 Viper. I certainly don't think many at Eagle Dynamics would sympathize with your comment that "[the earlier, older models of these aircraft] should have been the ones to be developed from the get go." So we'll agree to disagree.

 

I think I can agree with both of you. I do feel that the older versions should have been developed first. But I also agree that ED should have developed the current ones once the older, and therefore easier, ones were completed. I think ED bit off a bit more then they could chew, with the rout that they took. Two and a half years later, and my Hornet is still getting finished, the Viper is still pretty beta. Also EDs sympathies with customer opinion mean not a thing to me. ED provides a product for us, if we buy it they will profit, but if we dont they will fail. Also you may be here to get the most modern aircraft you can find, and that's all well and good. But it's not the only reason to be here. 

[wilbur81]

2 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

 Also you may be here to get the most modern aircraft you can find, and that's all well and good. But it's not the only reason to be here. 

I 100% agree. My only beef with this whole discussion is the suggestion that ED would put their precious resources towards earlier models of jets they're already in-very-deep developing. 

[Northstar98]

On 12/22/2020 at 9:00 PM, wilbur81 said:

Fair enough. I strongly disagree. I'm one who comes to DCS for the most modern simulation that is possible given man-hour and military classification restraints. And ED has given us that quite reasonably in the blk 20 Hornet and blk 50 Viper. I certainly don't think many at Eagle Dynamics would sympathize with your comment that "[the earlier, older models] should have been the ones to be developed from the get go." So we'll agree to disagree.

It's not that I don't want newer modules, I'm well aware that the majority (or at the very least apparent majority) just wants the absolute latest and greatest possible, that's fine but it does cause issues in terms of era consistency; especially when peer REDFOR is most likely not going to happen in the near future (though we'll see what Deka can do). Now I appreciate that some don't care about this, and that's fine too, you do what you want in your missions - as it should be.

But, for me, it's the fact that everything else in DCS is markedly older than these newer aircraft variants, and is very likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future (at least as far as full-fidelity stuff is concerned). Which makes doing older aircraft seem (to me at least) the more sensible option.

As of right now, If you want to do missions with historically consistent modules and assets (which I'll define as being +/- 10 years of each other, which I'd say is pretty generous) while keeping it peer-to-peer, my options are heavily constrained; in many cases a single aircraft module on each side and unless you're going for WWII or the 70s/80s/90s you'll be hard pressed to find appropriate assets.

If we had our eras filled out comprehensively, then this wouldn't be a problem. Of course that's a high workload, a very high workload, and almost certainly unfeasible given the spread.

So, for me, I'd much rather developers pick a decade (I don't really care which - though my personal preference is 70s-90s) and then concentrate getting that decade comprehensive with modules, assets and maps that fit. Instead of what we have at the moment, where we have a very large spread going from the mid-40s to late 2010s, but if you pick any one of those decades you really won't find much that fits together, often a single aircraft and very little assets; it's quite literally a mile wide, but an inch deep.

As the vast majority of our current assets are mid-to-late Cold War, the best era to pick is probably that, as it's the closest to being comprehensive (even if the bar isn't exactly high) - it makes sense to start here, which is why I said that those variants might've been the better choice from the get go. Then once that is more fleshed out (at least to the level of how fleshed out WWII is now) then move on.

But never mind, the ship has already sailed. 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[FlankerKiller]

55 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

Fair enough. I strongly disagree. I'm one who comes to DCS for the most modern simulation that is possible given man-hour and military classification restraints. And ED has given us that quite reasonably in the blk 20 Hornet and blk 50 Viper. I certainly don't think many at Eagle Dynamics would sympathize with your comment that "[the earlier, older models of these aircraft] should have been the ones to be developed from the get go." So we'll agree to disagree.

 

I think I can agree with both of you. I do feel that the older versions should have been developed first. But I also agree that ED should have developed the current ones once the older, and therefore easier, ones were completed. I think ED bit off a bit more then they could chew, with the rout that they took. Two and a half years later, and my Hornet is still getting finished, the Viper is still pretty beta. Also EDs sympathies with customer opinion mean not a thing to me. ED provides a product for us, if we buy it they will profit, but if we dont they will fail. Also you may be here to get the most modern aircraft you can find, and that's all well and good. But it's not the only reason to be here. 

[FlankerKiller]

41 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

I 100% agree. My only beef with this whole discussion is the suggestion that ED would put their precious resources towards earlier models of jets they're already in-very-deep developing. 

Well, it's a free forum, and we all paid some amount of money into this sim. So we all get to have and state our opinions on the direction that ED takes the sim in. And apparently several of us would like to see that be the late cold war. That isn't to say anyone is suggesting that the projects already under way dont get completed. Just that we would like, and be willing to pay for the variants from that era. 

[Harker]

FWIW, I would have very little interest in Cold War era development. I understand the appeal and respect the opinions of others, but IMO, the gameplay and mission variety is limited by the technology of the era. I care about combat and mission effectiveness and for that, the more modern, the better. Contrary to popular belief, modern air combat is much more than lobbing AMRAAMs or JDAMs at a target and then flying home. This is a very limited way to view the issue. Modern air operations are every bit as complicated as older ones, if not more so. Good decision making and resource management become the primary qualities of the fighter pilot and/or flight lead. Utilizing datalink features, building and contributing to the global SA from far away, achieving objectives while adhering to ROEs, using intel, SA, sensors and smart weapons to outwit or aoutrange your enemy and achieve your objective safely, assigning fighter roles on the fly, opening new avenues of attack. Of course, this has always been the game, it's just that you have more toys at your disposal and so does the enemy. Being smart becomes more important than anything else and that elevates the entire game experience. At least if the missions are designed correctly.

The only real issue with modern stuff in DCS is that the sim itself isn't there yet, tech and units-wise. But it's getting there and every new modern module pushes the sim forward. The F/A-18C necessitated the development of the datalink API that several modules now use, for example.

Also, it does look like modern, capable modules are the most popular. Even in the case of the F-14, a lot of people are disappointed they don't have the more modern D version.

[henshao]

7 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

That's the issue there isn't a hard and fast set of standards for generations of aircraft. It's a marketing tool at best. But there are core technologies that once they're out they set a standard that is then followed by all others. Technologies that can't be easily added to existing aircraft. But at the end of the day it's a pointless distinction. For instance what generation is a MIG-21 bison? Or an F-4 with updated radar, leading edge slats, and AMRAAM compatibility? Also what difference dose it make when its trying to kill you? So to my estimation the core technology's listed are the the most disruptive to aircraft design. Once there out everything that fellow has them or is considered obsolescent. I'm well aware that it's a minority view. It's also irrelevant. All three jets listed above were, and are staggeringly lethal. The F-15 and the Mig-29 are actually my favorite fighters. But this is off topic. There are some highlights that get back on topic though. Like how the electronics change over time on any aircraft, and how interesting the time between 1975, and 1990 was for combat aircraft. There's a lot of cool jets from then, and having correct late 80's early 90's Vipers, Hornets, Hawgs to fly and fight them with would be an absolute blast. 

 

It's not off topic if the topic is "Early models of the 4th gen jets we already have" and you have your own bizarre distinction of what generations are

[Northstar98]

12 hours ago, Harker said:

FWIW, I would have very little interest in Cold War era development. I understand the appeal and respect the opinions of others, but IMO, the gameplay and mission variety is limited by the technology of the era. I care about combat and mission effectiveness and for that, the more modern, the better. Contrary to popular belief, modern air combat is much more than lobbing AMRAAMs or JDAMs at a target and then flying home. This is a very limited way to view the issue. Modern air operations are every bit as complicated as older ones, if not more so. Good decision making and resource management become the primary qualities of the fighter pilot and/or flight lead. Utilizing datalink features, building and contributing to the global SA from far away, achieving objectives while adhering to ROEs, using intel, SA, sensors and smart weapons to outwit or aoutrange your enemy and achieve your objective safely, assigning fighter roles on the fly, opening new avenues of attack. Of course, this has always been the game, it's just that you have more toys at your disposal and so does the enemy.

 

I kinda see where you're coming from, though I'd argue all of those things apply to basically any era of air combat, just modern aircraft make it a fair bit easier. I definitely wouldn't say that mission variety is limited by the technology, it's just harder with more work on the aircrews. 

 

As far as you not being interested in Cold War stuff, that's absolutely fine - to each his own. Personally I'm interested in 70s - 90s aircraft and variants as I feel that this was the era with the most potential. But I'm okay with whatever era so long as it's comprehensive (and as of right now it isn't, but in my view, the Cold War stuff is closer and more feasible to make comprehensive than modern).

 

One other thing I will pick up is "so does the enemy" The 'enemy' as far as BLUFOR is concerned is for the overwhelming most part, stuck in the 90s at best, with only a few exceptions.

 

Spoiler

 

The latest REDFOR module we're going to get (at least as far as fixed-wing aircraft go) for the foreseeable future is a 9.12 Fulcrum A from 1982.

 

When it comes to air defences; the SA-10B is mid-80s, the SA-11 is early-mid 80s, the SA-15 is late 80s/early 90s, the SA-19 is early 80s and the HQ-7 is late 80s/early 90s). The SA-2D, SA-3B and upcoming SA-5B are all variants from the 70s.

 

Onto tanks, the T-55A is early 60s, T-72B obr.1985 is mid 80s (as evidenced by the name), the T-80U is mid 80s and the T-90 is early 90s; the only modern REDFOR vehicles are the T-72B3 obr.2016 and ZTZ96B both of which are mid 2010s.

 

Similarly for IFVs, the BMP-1, BMD-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3 are mid 60s, mid 60s, early 80s and mid-to-late 80s respectively. The only one that isn't Cold War/Soviet era, is the ZBD-04A which is somewhere around the 2010s. 

 

The only REDFOR APC that is newer than the mid 80s is the BTR-82A, which is 2010s.

 

 

Quote

Being smart becomes more important than anything else and that elevates the entire game experience. At least if the missions are designed correctly.

 

Yes, but doesn't that apply to basically anything? I'd argue that it's hardly exclusive to just modern aircraft, they just make it easier as the workload is less on the pilot as they have more information to work with.

 

Personally, doing something difficult and achieving results is much more rewarding than how modern aircraft typically play out.

 

Quote

The only real issue with modern stuff in DCS is that the sim itself isn't there yet, tech and units-wise. But it's getting there and every new modern module pushes the sim forward.

 

I agree that the simulator isn't there yet. In the 2 or so years since the F/A-18C (which I think really started it), we only saw the Chinese asset pack naval units (of which the surface ships are pretty graphically questionable, even when you compare them to free assets added half a decade ago). The T-72B3 obr.2016, BTR-82A, the Merkava IV, ZTZ96B and ZBD-04A and that's it - that is every single modern ground vehicle in DCS.

 

Quote

The F/A-18C necessitated the development of the datalink API that several modules now use, for example.

 

Very true.

 

Quote

Also, it does look like modern, capable modules are the most popular. Even in the case of the F-14, a lot of people are disappointed they don't have the more modern D version.

 

Also, very true.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Northstar98

[FlankerKiller]

11 hours ago, henshao said:

 

It's not off topic if the topic is "Early models of the 4th gen jets we already have" and you have your own bizarre distinction of what generations are

It is because I named the three jets that I was referring to. One of which is the

A-10A, which isn't a 4th gen anything. Although, yes I would love to see Razbam do a Desert Storm F-15E. I also truly wish ED would do the AH-64A first. There's a trend here. One I would like to see the Desert Storm aircraft fleshed out, more because of the era it happend in, and the aircraft involved. Two I would like to see future developments release the older, simpler model first, then the newer more complex model later. The latter probably won't happen, the former might. As for aircraft generations, it's a marketing tool, and a buzz word, and very little else. There is no set definition of the generations. As someone who understands aircraft technology very very well, my views may be and are uncommon, but they are not bizarre. They are however irrelevant to this conversation. As I would like to see aircraft modules of any generation from the late cold war time period. 

[Harker]

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I kinda see where you're coming from, though I'd argue all of those things apply to basically any era of air combat, just modern aircraft make it a fair bit easier. I definitely wouldn't say that mission variety is limited by the technology, it's just harder with more work on the aircrews. 

 

As far as you not being interested in Cold War stuff, that's absolutely fine - to each his own. Personally I'm interested in 70s - 90s aircraft and variants as I feel that this was the era with the most potential. But I'm okay with whatever era so long as it's comprehensive (and as of right now it isn't, but in my view, the Cold War stuff is closer and more feasible to make comprehensive than modern).

[...]

Yes, but doesn't that apply to basically anything? I'd argue that it's hardly exclusive to just modern aircraft, they just make it easier as the workload is less on the pilot as they have more information to work with.

 

One other thing I will pick up is "so does the enemy" The 'enemy' as far as BLUFOR is concerned is for the overwhelming most part, stuck in the 90s at best, with only a few exceptions.

They do apply to every era of air combat. I'm just saying that analyzing information and managing assets becomes an even bigger part of the game now, because you have more information available. The more you have, the better you need to manage it and the more decisions you have to make. I understand this is not everyone's cup of tea and that a lot of people prefer a more hands-on approach, but it is a very real part of air combat and one I am personally very interested in.

The way I see it, you always have the option of playing simpler missions with modern fighters. We sometimes do, with my squadron. More straightforward missions that yet remain within the realm of realism, where you don't need to spend your time heads down, looking at your displays.

I meant this as a generic statement about modern air combat, not in the context of DCS. I agree with you that modern REDFOR is not as nearly as developed (or developed at all) as modern BLUEFOR. It's part of my statement that the sim isn't there yet, both from the perspective of AI units and modules. I really do hope that if we cannot get access to Russian modules, we can get access to Chinese ones, at least.
 

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I agree that the simulator isn't there yet. In the 2 or so years since the F/A-18C (which I think really started it), we only saw the Chinese asset pack naval units (of which the surface ships are pretty graphically questionable, even when you compare them to free assets added half a decade ago). The T-72B3 obr.2016, BTR-82A, the Merkava IV, ZTZ96B and ZBD-04A and that's it - that is every single modern ground vehicle in DCS.

Agreed. I see DCS as a long term project though and investments starting today will pay dividends in a few years. To me, it's about steering the sim's development towards this direction, knowing that they'll have something to show for it down the line.
 

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Personally, doing something difficult and achieving results is much more rewarding than how modern aircraft typically play out.

As I said before, it depends on what you consider difficult and/or rewarding. I do find enjoyment into the management and coordination aspect of things and it can get quite challenging, if you're facing opponents that can also think for themselves, namely other players. In the context of SP, it's not difficult to outsmart the AI. I'm talking from the perspective of a guy who spent 6 years playing 99% SP and transitioned to playing almost exclusively MP in the last year. We fly both the F/A-18C and the F-14B in my group. I primarily fly the F-18, but sometimes switch to the F-14 as well. I'll choose the F/A-18C 9 times out of 10, simply because it makes my life so much easier and allows me to focus on things that matter, namely coordination, SA, target management etc. Especially when I assume wing or flight leadership roles, the increased SA, DL contacts on the JHMCS etc, automatic IFF etc become invaluable. And even with all of these helpers, I have my hands full. Just in a different way than in the F-14B. And I find it very satisfying to be able to analyze all this info in real time and make correct decisions etc.

At the end of the day though, considering that DCS has a lot of 3rd party devs, there is room for both eras, I believe. It's just a matter of making a coordinated push towards consistency in both. We already have a lot of Cold War assets that require a model rework, at least. And the two eras do overlap, with several countries using Cold War equipment well into the 2000s, so late Cold War assets would serve both of us. At the same time, adding new modern AI units shouldn't be that difficult, since they do not require the same level of sophistication as modules do, not even close. It's just a matter of getting some correct data and building the 3D model and textures. I honestly do not understand why some units are delayed the way they are, but that's a conversation for another time.

[Christophe D]

I cannot agree more with the original poster.

I would dream for instance of a very early F-15A for fictional, but nevertheless realistic USA/USSR Cold War scenarios, for instance in Alaska or in Groenland.

"Seventies" option would also allow to have, I think, more easily Russian aircrafts with clickable cockpits (there will never be a "Red" aircraft in DCS to go against the coming Eurofighter Typhoon).

Also, Sparrow only equiped US fighters are, at least for me, much more interesting, as these less performing missiles (when compared to the AMRAAM) would permit much more interesting dogfights, than simply firing a bunch of AMRAAM's from the distance. Add to this the fact that most of the aviation combat missions are done now without any real air or ground threats, what is probably good for the pilots, but extremely boring in a sim. Frankly, if I had to choose in a sim to simulate a modern mission over Afghanistan (for instance, bombing a goats hut from 8000 meters without any threats) or trying to recreate in DCS "Operation Bolo", my choice is easily done.

And as already said, the early F-15A had the most "badass" cockpit of that era:

 

 

 

PS:"For instance what generation is a MIG-21 bison? Or an F-4 with updated radar, leading edge slats, and AMRAAM compatibility?"

 

I always thought that the most common variants of a peculiar aircraft should be developed in priority.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Christophe D

[FlankerKiller]

+1 for and F-15A. 

[TotenDead]

F-16 block 1-10 to verse MiG-23MLA would be interesting

[bies]

18 hours ago, Christophe D said:

I cannot agree more with the original poster.

I would dream for instance of a very early F-15A for fictional, but nevertheless realistic USA/USSR Cold War scenarios, for instance in Alaska or in Groenland.

"Seventies" option would also allow to have, I think, more easily Russian aircrafts with clickable cockpits (there will never be a "Red" aircraft in DCS to go against the coming Eurofighter Typhoon).

Also, Sparrow only equiped US fighters are, at least for me, much more interesting, as these less performing missiles (when compared to the AMRAAM) would permit much more interesting dogfights, than simply firing a bunch of AMRAAM's from the distance. Add to this the fact that most of the aviation combat missions are done now without any real air or ground threats, what is probably good for the pilots, but extremely boring in a sim. Frankly, if I had to choose in a sim to simulate a modern mission over Afghanistan (for instance, bombing a goats hut from 8000 meters without any threats) or trying to recreate in DCS "Operation Bolo", my choice is easily done.

And as already said, the early F-15A had the most "badass" cockpit of that era:

F-15A also had better kinematic performance than C variant, having lighter airframe and slightly more powerfull engines (plus working VMAX button for extreme engine performance at cost of engine core life).

 

There were some plans to upgrade engines of C at the beginning of 1990s to regain F-15A performance, from PW220 to PW229 like in case of F-16, but with collapse of Soviet Union there was no threat to F-15 air superiority anymore thus no more money for conversion since it required some airframe changes. They barely saved 190 F-22 out of 700 originally ordered.

[henshao]

3 minutes ago, bies said:

F-15A also had better kinematic performance than C variant, having lighter airframe and slightly more powerfull engines (plus working VMAX button for extreme engine performance at cost of engine core life).

 

There were some plans to upgrade engines of C at the beginning of 1990s to regain F-15A performance, from PW220 to PW229 like in case of F-16, but with collapse of Soviet Union there was no threat to F-15 air superiority anymore thus no more money for conversion since it required some airframe changes. They barely saved 190 F-22 out of 700 originally ordered.

 

F-15A also had more temperamental engines ala F-14A although I don't think they were as mercurial to the same degree. Allegedly the best turning airframe is the F-15E without conformal tanks due to the 229 engines in spite of the extra ~3700lbs over the C and ~4700lbs over the A.

[FlankerKiller]

You guys are making long for an F-15A. More powerful, temperamental engines, a lighter airframe, old school FOX 1 fights, an analogue cockpit, oh and it's an F-15 just take my only now. Really this would be a great jet for DCS. A good thing is a pretty good chunk of the work is done too. Also the A is the variant that actually shot down most of those Migs. We have Syria. It would be beyond cool to recreate some of those dogfights over the Golan heights.