Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by TLTeo

  1. Meeeeh I don't buy those arguments. The Crusader community had a ~6:1 kill:loss ratio mostly achieved through missiles. The gun-less Navy Phantoms went from 2:1 to 7:1 between pre and post Top Gun. The USAF jets stayed at ~2:1 throughout Vietnam regardless of whether they carried guns or not. Meanwhile those same -E model jets in Israel did extremely well for themselves. The problem at that time wasn't the design of the aircraft. It was the god-awful doctrine and training of the people who commanded those aircraft.
  2. Yep, DMT and ARBS replaced by the APG-65
  3. The Skyflash (and Selenia Aspide) basically started from an AIM-7E and then overhauled most of it. In terms of capability they should be in the ballpark of an AIM-7M iirc.
  4. It's very simple. "If I can't have thing X, nobody should get thing X. If others benefit from thing Y, me not benefiting from thing Y is outrageous" is an overly simplistic opinion that fails to take into account how the world works. If you fail to grasp that, then frankly any further conversation is a waste of time and patience.
  5. The airframe is identical except for the vertical stab as far as I know. The engine was less prone to compressor stalls at high AoA but that's it. Turn performance should be unchanged. Yep this is correct The question isn't whether the above are doable by a modder taking educated guesses (the A-4 mod had an air to ground radar years ago before the Hornet even, and that was entirely lua based), but whether all those features can be implemented while re-using the FM, systems model, and art of the AJS.
  6. I guess if someone could pull it off it would be neat, but I don't see how you would include e.g. the HUD symbology for an a/a gun or radar, or BVR missiles (or whether they could be included in the mod at all), while recycling the assets from the AJS.
  7. It's planned among a couple dozen other modules. Make of that what you will.
  8. I posted the difference between the B/J/N/S above But yeah I agree, it's really hard to do justice to the Phantom in one go. I half think they should have two separate modules, each fully priced, and then whoever has the first Phantom gets a ~50% discount on the second one. It will be on the pricey side, but it could work.
  9. Sort of, they did plenty of a2g during Vietnam (and obviously CAS is the main mission of the USMC) but that role was still mainly taken up by the A-7 and A-6 It was awful, which is why it was yanked in the J/S. Similar to (but worse than) to the F-14A indeed, since that one also went pretty quickly.
  10. Correction: HB did this in addition to the full campaign they released, which is set in Caucasus and is a continuation of the mini-campaign
  11. Iirc the F-4N were rebuilt Bs with the AWG-10 radar, bombing computers, RWRs, and sometimes slats (which required removing the BLC). From what I can tell they retained the IRST. The -J were (mostly) new jets with the similar avionics to the N. I don't know whether they got slats or not. The -S had a further improved radar and slats. The J and S did not have the IRST. The UK Phantoms were more or less built to J or S spec, except for the Spey engines (which would completely change the FM). Honestly, I don't see what asking for all these variants can bring, you can cover pretty much all of their history/service life/peculiarities with even one of them. The UK ones are the most different, but even then we can just pretend jets with a UK livery are part of the batch of F-4J (upgraded to S spec) the Brits leased in the early 80s. None of these jets used PGMs.
  12. Yes, the Italian Air Force has pretty amusing official designations for each jet. The AMX is officially called the A-11 Ghibli, the Tornado is designated as the A-200, and the Typhoon is the F-2000. Most people call it the Eurofighter though.
  13. But the sim crowd now has plenty of ways to play the game they want to. DCS is a sandbox after all. It only becomes a problem when said sim crowd goes on an airquake server and expects realism to apply to that...if they do, I have news for them: the number of HARMs carried by Vipers is the least of their concerns. If they don't do that, and instead fly single player and/or with milsim squadrons, then where's the problem?
  14. Uh, could you elaborate on this? Have there been bug fixes not included in the change logs? Which bugs are gone?
  15. Cobra giving not one but two deadlines! What could possibly go wrong...going back on topic, beyond whether we get new stuff released or not, I think a sore point for the Viggen has been the lack of dev interaction here. RagnarDA used to be around addressing all sorts of questions, but he's mostly been missing for a long time and any questions about the details of some systems (e.g. mine about the BK-90) are pretty much just user speculation. Regarding EA status, I've written this elsewhere but the EA tag is just entirely arbitrary at this point. For all its bugs, the Viggen is more complete than, say, either the Mirage or Harrier, and both of those have been marked as being out of EA for a very long time now. I think ED really should rework the whole concept of EA, and possibly centralize that on their side rather than let individual 3rd party devs do it themselves and just confuse users. edit: grammar/wording.
  16. Yeah the main issue right now is the Viper radar over-performing by a large amount, the Hornet may be under performing by a small amount, and track memory on the Hornet is busted. Having said that, I think the Viper is also helped by the fact the radar is much easier to use (imo). You don't need to worry about toggling PRFs, changing scan azimuth can be done faster, and RWS/SAM modes are more intuitive (imo) than anything the Hornet does (and by definition, in RWS you don't get issues with weird dropped tracks).
  17. Those are Brazilian Navy A-4s (and an Argentinian Tracker, as the colors on the tail make abundantly clear) and that's Sao Paulo, which is what Foch was called after it was sold to Brazil:
  18. Nop, they flew the Super Etendard in that role
  19. That's actually a surprisingly good STR indeed. Do we know whether this is for a jet with or without slats?
  20. Calling the R.530 a BVR missile is highly optimistic tbh. From what I've found, it doesn't even outrange the AIM-7E.
  21. Out of curiosity, how many of those aircraft were actually Mig-29s in the late 80s? I would expect that the Fulcrums on their own likely did not outnumber whatever NATO had, but the Fulcrums plus Fishbeds, Floggers, Foxbats and Fitters definitely would. Those two are very very different scenarios (and the latter is far more complex), and equating them is highly misleading.
  22. The region of added drag is not exactly at Mach 1, it's more between Mach ~0.9 and ~1.2 ish (depending on the aircraft), and as a rule of thumb the drag increases with speed very steeply near Mach 1, and then decreases more gently past Mach 1. You don't just go from "lots of transonic drag" to "no drag" when you get past Mach 1. Having said that, the FM is due for some re-work in the next patch, which will include adjustments to the TF-30 performance. In general I suspect that you are right and the engines are underperforming in some way, but I can't say just how much. We will see once the next round of FM tuning is in.
  23. Woops I meant Crusaders, my bad. I could get behind an F9F module though
  24. The D also had different avionics. It could fire the AIM-4D (which the -C could not), much to Robin Olds' displeasure, and it had a bombing computer with a rudimentary form of CCRP (like the Skyhawk mod essentially). The Spey engines also required the fuselage to be re-shaped, which broke the area ruling slightly compared to the J79 jets. That limited the top speed at altitude, but it made the aircraft perform a bit better at low altitude (hence the British Phantoms being nicknamed the most expensive, slowest Phantoms ever built). Between that and the different performance of the new engines, you're looking at pretty large differences in the FM - larger than the A and B model Tomcat for example. Yeah I don't really see the need to have an -F in game. You can easily just take an -E, keep it from loading Sparrows in the Mission Editor, and be close enough. Personally I'd hate to have one of these modernized Phantoms though, if I want an AMRAAM truck I'll just fly something else instead...although I'm sure the airquake muh capabilities crowd will be horrified. The F-4E replaced the Century Series, it doesn't really need to operate together with them. Between the Mirage F1, F-5E, Mig-21 and -23 we will have plenty of aircraft that were operated in the same time period tbh. As far as I understand, USN Phantoms didn't operate with gunpods much, especially not for air to air. They were mostly used by the USMC and USAF for a2g (and in the case of the USAF, the a2a thing was only until the -E came online). Having said that the best dogfighting Phantom is supposed to be a USN -S, but even then, I would prepare to be underwhelmed. Regardless of variants it will be a pretty tough aircraft to fly in BFM/ACM, at least if you're used to a Hornet, Viper or Tomcat, because you won't out turn (almost) anything, you will really really need to know how to use the vertical and how to unload, extend and re-engage.
  25. It may be less an issue of weight and more of size - you can probably store a handful of Skywarriors on Essex carriers, but not entire wings of Intruders and Phantoms, so in that case you might as well just optimize logistics by operating only Skyhawks and Corsairs from them. edit: obviously I meant Crusaders, not Corsairs. Wrong Vought fighter, my bad.
  • Create New...