India Foxt Echo - F-104S-ASA

[TLTeo]

Frankly I don't think either the ASA or ASA-M are particularly relevant for DCS. By the time they were around the 104 was just a relic of an interceptor barely hanging on, and the -M upgrades aren't even relevant to how DCS is played. The ASA-M lost any a2g capability and basically never even carried a gun, and the -ASA may also have been mostly an interceptor since by the 90s the Tornado and AMX had fully taken over the strike mission(s).

The original -S on the other hand may actually be a good compromise between "muh capabilities" (because it still does carry the Sparrow) and the more historical/relevant variants.

And having said all that, I think some -G variant (there are actually quite a few) is much more worth including in DCS than any -S version.

[GUFA]

11 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Frankly I don't think either the ASA or ASA-M are particularly relevant for DCS

So you come to the Italian FF Module maker  and tell "them that DCS doesn't find that Italian "spec" Starfighter builds "Relevant". A genuine real life aircraft that was built in numbers and could offer a BVR capability from the mid 60s to the late 80's, Even though the AIM 7 Sparrow wasn't a great missile, It was used by the USAF in Europe(and worldwide) until Fox 3 emerged. And Sparrow was also used by RAF and the Swedish AF in the European theater for a majority of the "Cold War", Fact.

Now part of the reason for Fox 1s "bad press" is due to a decision of the "Civilian" US administration to requirement to PID on all Vietnamese air force kills during the Vietnam war.It unsurprisingly got a lot of (gun less & Slat-less) early model Phantom crews killed/ captured. But that didn't mean Sparrow was necessarily bad. IF so "why" did the US continue to use Sparrow until they developed AMRAAM?

And what about users that actually took Starfighter into Combat? Well this is were it gets interesting, Taiwan and Pakistan used "Starfighter" to great advantage against adversary aircraft that were subsonic and or used at the limits of their performance. The fact that a Starfighter Pilot could choose to engage and disengage was probably more important than having superior Fox 2, which neither Pakistan or Taiwan had. When the USAF took they're "Charlies" to the wars in  Indochina they found quickly that Starfighter wasn't all that good for the strike mission.

And It didn't have the juice to loiter in the Fighter mission, Fact is having a "Gun" wasn't as important as being able to pick and choose when to engage/ disengage., or having descent Fox 2s.

Sorry but every thing you just said is so floored and wrong

Any Italian spec Zipper is going to bring a great combination of capabilities to DCS world especially multiplayer early 60s thru to mid 80s scenarios. In the hands of someone that can make use of they're positives while managing the negatives will be able to get great benefits over REDAIR in said time period.

[TLTeo]

Re-read my post. I'm not saying no Italian variant is relevant, simply that the ASA and ASA-M were very late life updates to an aircraft that was already outdated, and lost a ton of other capabilities to keep going. That "BVR capabitlity from the 60s to the 80s" that you mention? That's the vintage -S for the AMI. In that period of time the Italian -S were arguably the most capable Starfighters in NATO.

Edited October 16, 2022 by TLTeo

[GUFA]

2 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Re-read my post. I'm not saying no Italian variant is relevant, simply that the ASA and ASA-M were very late life updates to an aircraft that was already outdated,

Re-read the first sentence of my last reply, it is the single most sentence in the whole post.

If IFE builds a F-104s FF module it wouldn't be out of line to see them of ASA/ASA-m as upgrades maybe for a small fee. S> ASA>ASA-m also seems to offer IFE a Flexible pathway that makes them money. Having made money, IFE may be more inclined to offer  TF/G models as well. Bremspropeller proposed we also build a TF model which after a short consideration I thought was a Brilliant Idea. So here's what I know think is a could be a good way for IFE to bring us the Zipper: F-104s-TF-104>F-104g>ASA>ASA-m, now surely that would be a good way to go about it don't you think?

2 hours ago, TLTeo said:

That "BVR capabitlity from the 60s to the 80s" that you mention? That's the vintage -S for the AMI. In that period of time the Italian -S were arguably the most capable Starfighters in NATO.

Simple fact is that in that time period you had limited choices if you were playing BLUFOR or non-aligned you could go French, Tomcat, Phantom or Zipper s. Now if you are role-playing a country that cannot afford 1-3,or have bad relations with the French, Then a Zipper s look quite inviting don't you think? Should you have the funds but Tomcat is unavoidable or unavailable due to USN getting priority. then this also give a Mission/campaign builder an option that I believe makes a good mission/campaign great. also in a 90s scenario the ASA models come into they're own as well. Thinking of countries such as Philippines, Columbia, various African states.

Now did this really happen no, but it could have don't you think?

[Tengu]

9 hours ago, GUFA said:

Re-read the first sentence of my last reply, it is the single most sentence in the whole post.

 

 @GUFA, you started your "last reply" by quoting TLTeo not finding the ASA or ASA-M particularly relevant.  And the "first sentence from your last reply" appears to be...

On 10/15/2022 at 8:30 AM, GUFA said:

So you come to the Italian FF Module maker  and tell "them that DCS doesn't find that Italian "spec" Starfighter builds "Relevant".

 

Firstly, let's give @TLTeo some credit.  I sincerely doubt he has some anti-Italian Starfighter bias sporting a Frecce Tricolori avatar.

 

The second sentence of said reply begins...

On 10/15/2022 at 8:30 AM, GUFA said:

A genuine real life aircraft that was built in numbers and could offer a BVR capability from the mid 60s to the late 80's

From the numbers, GUFA focuses on ~147 (ASA) > ~49 (ASA-M) out of almost 2600 airframes.  The G-model alone is over 1100 airframes.  Consider the strike focused CF-104s and the air-to-air J's, both essentially G models, and you're talking about ~1500 airframes and way more countries.  I'd also point out that 125 of those G's were manufactured by Fiat for the AMI.  The G can be Italian too if that's all IFE can secure documentation for.

From the dates (60a to 80s), that's an S; not the ASA or ASA-M.  This thread is titled F-104S-ASA, but GUFA repeatedly talks about mission editing for the mid-Cold War.  In the 60s to 80s, that's just a plain S.  S's served in the time frame you mention.  S's were refurbished into ASA's and delivered in the late 80s and early 90s.  ASA's were modified into ASA-M's and delivered starting 97/98. 

On relevance, TLTeo has twice now acknowledged that S's were BVR capable, and rather capable in general.  He stated that an S might be a good compromise for IFE.  It came in interceptor and strike subtypes.  Some carried the Vulcan.  They also carried a Sparrow.  So depending on what you want to do with the Starfighter in DCS, it covers a lot of bases.  This is one way to measure relevance, in this case, why buy a Starfighter module and how do you want to fly and fight with it.

All of the rebuttals about the efficacy of AIM-7s are non-sequitur to TLTeo's post.  He never commented on the Sparrow's usefulness.  I'm also puzzled about Taiwan and Pakistan.  TLTeo didn't bring up who went to war in the Zipper, nor did those two nations use S / ASA / or ASA-M models.  The argument about the gun misses a point about relevance.  GUFA wants to Fox-1 something. Others might want to strafe something.

I interpret TLTeo's argument to be that the ASA's and ASA-Ms are very few, very late, and very specialized.  But from a pragmatic go-to-war relevance, by the 80s and certainly the late 80s, you also Eagles and Hornets and newer Mirages on top of the older French aircraft, Phantoms and Tomcats.  By 97/98, Falcon-Cs joined Eagles and Hornets, with all carrying AMRAAM by that point.  There are pointier "more relevant" sticks to grab by these time periods.  From a DCS fan relevance, G's were more widely used in more numbers, more liveries, more countries, and more roles than the ASA and ASA-M.  @Volator was driving at this earlier.  (At this point, let me acknowledge the suffering RedFor pilots while I argue about BluFor options here.)

So?  Why does that (numbers) matter?  Because, ultimately, DCS is not W-- T------.  Even with the amazing and exciting announcements from the past three months, we still don't huge numbers of aircraft types or necessarily deeply-curated lists of region- and era- relevant resources.  Development times are long.  Sales volume will never look like Halo or other AAA title sales.  So if you can't have a fully populated Swedish Cold-War tech tree and you can only get one model, maybe a couple or three sub-types of said model, what do you start with?  If Heatblur changed their mind and said we only get one Phantom after all, would you argue they go with the F-4F ICE because it got AMRAAMs?  I'm THRILLED we're getting a Phantom, but if the ICE, diminishing returns and market cannibalization hypothetically bumped a naval Phantom or the more "mainstream" E model / subvariants, I would be gutted.

And as GUFA wrote in the IP, AND JUST BE CLEAR A KFIR IS NOT A MIRAGE 3.  Sometimes, you just prefer a specific model / sub-type / mission.  GUFA prefers the ASA while...

TLTeo, Volator, @Mig Fulcrum seem to be arguing for the G as priority, and I agree with them.  With the G, you have more potential buyers who flew them or maintained them or have family who did.  The G checks more patriotic boxes.  "My country flew it."  If you're pushing yourself to master a Widow-maker and her tendencies, it was mainly the G model manning those Cold War walls and killing all those NATO pilots.    @Bremspropeller suggests if you're role-playing a G as an A or C model, you can as easily pretend a S is an A or C model.  Fair, but Brem's proposed build order still prioritized the G, then S, and then ASA.  But again, TLTeo seemed fine with the cold war S as a compromise.  It does give you a Fox-1 capabilities.  But a Cold War S is not a Glasnost-era ASA / post-Cold War ASA-M.  

 

 

[GUFA]

1 hour ago, Tengu said:

Firstly, let's give @TLTeo some credit.  I sincerely doubt he has some anti-Italian Starfighter bias sporting a Frecce Tricolori avatar.

Look Some of the posters have tried to impose what they want on my topic and have tried to lobby for the G over others/to the exclution of other Zipper variants. Even if they try to deny it read what they say and it isn't HARD to work out. Simple fact is  that IFE are PROUDLY ITALIAN and as such are keen to bring ITALIAN designs to DCS. They don't have to build the Starfighter, The can actually build Agusta helicopters, Alenia G222 or Piaggo MS UAV. Even though the Italians (Aeritalia/AMI) did use some/build Gees early on.

They did so, not because the wanted to, but because they didn't have the S model out of the design/testing phase yet. If you had bothered to read my last post you know I am not rejecting the Gee. and I have evolved my proposal.

1 hour ago, Tengu said:

So?  Why does that (numbers) matter?  Because, ultimately, DCS is not W-- T------. 

Isn't this a pretty low "put down" Surely you can do better than that, And no numbers dont matter otherwise we wouldn't be getting have got the Cristen Eagle. Simple fact is if IFE don't do the F-104s+ASA updates then NO BVR, it wont happen. And be the way Canadair CF-104 and Mitsubishi "Js" aren't "Gees". similar yes but they are builds that contain "locally designed & manufactured parts" and as such variants that have theyre own peculiarities.

 

1 hour ago, Tengu said:

I'm also puzzled about Taiwan and Pakistan. 

So we cant talk about "Actual combat users & they're impressions

1 hour ago, Tengu said:

I'm THRILLED we're getting a Phantom

When did I ever mention a "paper" Phantom, All 3 Italian variant were the really deal and served AMI!!!

1 hour ago, Tengu said:

And as GUFA wrote in the IP, AND JUST BE CLEAR A KFIR IS NOT A MIRAGE 3. 

So what, I want an authentic Miracle/Zipper S+, BIG DEAL!!! I dont care for or want the Kfir, it isn't up to you to impose YOUR solution down on me or others. I am not a sheep, and if I DONT follow along with the crowd SO BE IT. And by the the way some posters are being very parochial about what they want, It "IS" okay for others to have different views, who are you to play "Enforcer".

Edited October 17, 2022 by GUFA

[Tengu]

Thanks @GUFA.  Welcome to the forums, BTW.  I never welcomed you.  Your obvious passion is ultimately good for DCS.  Truly. 

I'll keep my comments short.

I wasn't playing "Enforcer".  Both you and those "parochial" posters are equally entitled to your thoughts.  In my previous post, I was trying (and perhaps failing) at articulating other posters' nuances even as you accuse us of missing yours. 

The W-- T------ comment wasn't an insult or putdown.  It wasn't even about you.  That comment was observing that DCS fans have not been blessed with anywhere near the same abundance of choice or rapid speed to market as some other platforms.  DCS doesn't yet have all the major types covered, let alone their opfor and all the subtypes.  Our DCS reality is that the pipeline is still limited and development priority makes winners and losers of us who are still craving a specific derivative or model, ideally within the next five years.  I didn't accuse you of bringing up a "paper" Phantom.  The F-4F ICE was absolutely as real deal in-the-aluminum as the Starfighter variants we've been discussing, and I presented the ICE as a thought experiment about development priority.  

At this point, I'll leave my previous post where it is.  You like that the Starfighter in many flavors and the ASA in particular.  And that's fine.  No sarcasm.  No irony.

Have a good day and happy flying.

[GUFA]

16 hours ago, Tengu said:

Thanks @GUFA.  Welcome to the forums, BTW.  I never welcomed you.  Your obvious passion is ultimately good for DCS.  Truly. 

Thanks for the welcome bro and as it appears you are "new" to DCS as well same to you.

16 hours ago, Tengu said:

I wasn't playing "Enforcer".  Both you and those "parochial" posters are equally entitled to your thoughts.  In my previous post, I was trying (and perhaps failing) at articulating other posters' nuances even as you accuse us of missing yours. 

I happen to come from an English language country so it is entirely possible that I'm also not quite interpreting the message properly, either.

 

16 hours ago, Tengu said:

The W-- T------ comment wasn't an insult or putdown.  It wasn't even about you.

Yeah I've tried War thunder, World of... and there's nothing wrong with those games some people like them, some don't I'd say we both fall in the Don't column.

 

16 hours ago, Tengu said:

DCS doesn't yet have all the major types covered, let alone their opfor and all the subtypes.  Our DCS reality is that the pipeline is still limited and development priority makes winners and losers of us who are still craving a specific derivative or model,

Look I'm fighting for the Italian Zippers cause I see endless scenarios I can use the in. As someone who's keen on learning mission/ campaign editing it's something that I have a personal interest in seeing happen. I also hope that the Gee is also developed as a FF Module. The easiest way would be an amalgam of both Gee & S but this is DCS and the "Fundamentalists would take a dim view...

16 hours ago, Tengu said:

Our DCS reality is that the pipeline is still limited and development priority makes winners and losers of us who are still craving a specific derivative or model, ideally within the next five years.  I didn't accuse you of bringing up a "paper" Phantom.  The F-4F ICE was absolutely as real deal in-the-aluminum as the Starfighter variants we've been discussing,

I honestly don't know a lot about the "ICE" upgrade. I may have moved off of the drawing board and started a test & evaluation cycle, just don't enough. But I do know German Politicians killed it much the same as Israeli polys killed they're Phantom 2000 upgrade. But no doubt DCS has been a ":Long Hard Road".

Look I lobby hard for what I would like to see in DCS, but should someone come out tomorrow and announce they are doing a Zipper Gee then I would have to accept that reality. But until that day arrives I will try to get up the "Italian option". I'm not against a Gee, just want the Italian variants to be very much in the plan as well. And I'm not even Italian (or Euro based)

Anyway It was good to hear from you.

And have enjoyed the debate with you and the other guys.

Edited October 17, 2022 by GUFA

[ThorBrasil]

Independente do terceiro que faça o F-104 espero que tenha o som gravado da aeronave real. O som do F-104 é lindo e único. Um módulo sem o som gravado da aeronave real é o mesmo que a Fórmula E em comparação com a Fórmula 1. Perca toda a emoção!

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2022 by ThorBrasil

[tigayot228]

Being italian myself, I'd love to fly the Starfighter.

[GUFA]

2 hours ago, ThorBrasil said:

Independente do terceiro que faça o F-104 espero que tenha o som gravado da aeronave real. O som do F-104 é lindo e único. Um módulo sem o som gravado da aeronave real é o mesmo que a Fórmula E em comparação com a Fórmula 1. Perca toda a emoção!

Cool movie thanks man,

41 minutes ago, tigayot228 said:

Being italian myself, I'd love to fly the Starfighter.

Yeah sexy aircraft wasn't she.

[ThorBrasil]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CjIhvP2JFSs/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

[MAXsenna]

On 10/23/2022 at 1:28 PM, ThorBrasil said:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CjIhvP2JFSs/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Can't wait. Remember building that cockpit as ESCI 1/12 kit. I believe it's branded as Italeri these days. (Not my build below though).