What after SU-25T? Viggen vs Harrier vs A-10C vs M2000C

I am looking for replacement for SU-25T that can fulfill its roles.

My usual equipment:

Versus ships: fantasmagoria pod, 2x KH58U, 4x KH28MPU, 2x S25L and ECM pods - this basically means I can sink aircraft carrier (or cripple it severely) in one successful attack

Versus airfields and ground targets: Either the same, or I replace two KH28MPUs with Vikhr missiles. So I can destroy either 4 SAMS from safe distance (as it takes usually one KH58U or two KH28MPU to kill one) plus two ground targets, or 3 SAMS, 2 large targets and up to 16 tanks (realistically, 8 at best). So I can pretty much clear the entire airfield in one successful attack.

It also has, not so terrible, air-air missiles R73.

If I want to kill tanks + infantry, I can load it with 16 VIKHR missiles and some 192 or who knows how many unguided rockets.

My issue is not with the firepower, that is perfect. My issue is with the speed. Basically I don´t manage to reach my target in 60-70% cases, because enemy can spot me flying, land, arm their fighter jet, take off, fly literally triple my speed and kill me before I release my missiles (sometimes I manage to fire the KH58Us as they have very decent range). And my chance to fight them is next to zero.

So I want a better jet. Such one that will have at least the firepower of SU25T but supersonic and that could at least have realistic chance to shot down another jet. But which one?

I did not buy FC3 (yeah, stupid me) but separate Mig-29 and F15C, neither of these has air-to-ground weapons that I could use for my missions. Bombs are useless for me as I get shot down by SAM waaaay before I am close enough for the bombs, and even then, they are not accurate.

I would like to spend up to 30 USD.

F/A18 - a bit pricier than I want to pay, I would like to avoid that one. And I hate that jet, for some reason. But you may change my opinion.

F16 - a bit pricier than I want to pay, but if it proves to be much better than other jets, I may take it.

A-10C - it seems to have good firepower, but very slow too, prove me wrong.

AJS37 - my primary choice, seems to be fast, capable for both air to air and air to ground, seems to have decent firepower and anti-ship missiles. No idea if it has radar-guided, laser-guided or TV-guided missiles, I think I would miss my fav shkval.

M-2000C - does it even have guided air-to-ground missiles?

Harrier - a bit pricier than I want to pay, seems to be a bit slow, although faster than SU25T and A-10C, but still slow and only has 6 hardpoints, so I also worry it would not have as much firepower as SU25T. BUT if it has significantly more firepower than the other jets, I may take it.

Did I miss any viable option?

Thanks to anyone who read this and can provide helpful advice. I don´t have money to try all of them and choose the best one. That´s why I count on you who already own some of them. Thank you again!

Mirage 2000C doesn't have any guided air-to-ground ordnance that it can self-target, it does have access to Paveway II, but it requires off board designation.

The Viggen is fast and is a blast to fly in my opinion. I think it also perfectly fits the current scope of DCS all things considered. It does have access to Mavericks (A, B and G if I remember rightly, just given Swedish designations). It is mostly limited to pre-programmed targets however, which maybe limits its capability.

The Viggen doesn't get access to guided bombs, the closest to it is the BK90, which is kind of like a low-flying JSOW-A just with a far reduced range. One thing to take into account with the Viggen is it does have a ground mapping RADAR. The final point I'd like to make is the Viggen is much more mature and fleshed out, and AFAIK is basically complete, the only issues I've noticed is some incredibly minor clipping issues with the exterior model and the position lights. The Viggen IMO also perfectly fits the era and scope of DCS all things considered.

The A-10C is very slow, but can carry a massive amount of payload at once. It is however quite a steep learning curve - though I find it's incredibly rewarding when you do start figuring it out. Nothing else does quite has the loiter time it does and it is an incredible CAS platform (probably the best one).

Comparing it to the Su-25T, the A-10C is slower, but has better loiter time, better situational awareness, better targeting capability and a missile warning system. I'd say it might have less firepower than the Su-25T in some aspects, but it depends how you weigh it up (the A-10C doesn't get access to dedicated SEAD weaponry).

The Harrier is roughly equivalent to Viggen in payload - anti-ship missiles and gliding cluster bombs. The Harrier does get the Sidearm, giving it dedicated SEAD capability, albeit pretty limited. It also has basically equivalent A2A capability as the Viggen, though mileage may vary as the 2 have different strengths.

The Harrier is obviously a V/STOL aircraft, so there's that too and it can operate off of a ship, so there's that, but it is suffering from what I'll call RAZBAMiritis.

The F/A-18C is a very capable aircraft, it can basically do everything and has the largest variety of munitions, but doesn't have the same payload capability as the A-10C. Plus it is carrier capable. I also find it very intuitive to use and far easier to learn, but mileage may vary. I didn't really like the airframe myself, but after DCS, I now do.

The F-16C is very fun to fly, it's very easy, very intuitive and unparalleled visibility. I love the experience I get in the F-16C - it is however missing a heck of a lot, limiting its capability, once it is fleshed out, the Hornet will still have the biggest variety of munitions.

Personally, based on your post, here's the list in priority order:

1. Viggen - this probably suits you the best, I would've put the Hornet here, but if you really don't like it, I'll put the Viggen on top.
2. Hornet - I would say it's the most capable airframe all things considered, it might not do one thing better, but it can do basically everything. I would've put this at no.1 but you don't seem to like it.
3. A-10C - This is more equivalent to the Su-25T, but with some differences, but it is limited to A2G pretty much exclusively - it's A2A capability is pretty much exclusively self-defence (same as the Su-25T).
4. F-16C - I'd rank this slightly lower than the Hornet in A2G but slightly above in overall experience, I've only ranked it low due to all the things missing - HARMs, JDAM, JSOW etc.
5. AV-8B - similar capability to Viggen, but is suffering from RAZBAMiritis, no dedicated anti-ship weapons.
6. Mirage 2000C - most limited A2G capability (basically equivalent to the F-5E).

F/A18 - a bit pricier than I want to pay, I would like to avoid that one. And I hate that jet, for some reason. But you may change my opinion.

It's supersonic (up to M1.8) and has an incredible versatile loadout with A-A missiles, anti tank missiles, anti ship missiles, anti radar missiles, rockets, dumb bombs, laser guided bombs, gps guided bombs and glide bombs. It's also carrier capable. It can't carry as much weapons at once as the Frogfoot though. I would say it would satisfy your needs better than any other aircraft besides the Harrier.

F16 - a bit pricier than I want to pay, but if it proves to be much better than other jets, I may take it.

Same as the Hornet, but slightly faster (up to M2.2 I think) and without anti ship missiles.

A-10C - it seems to have good firepower, but very slow too, prove me wrong.

It has incredible firepower, can carry a lot of stuff and has great sensors and sensor management to get the firepower to where you need it. It's slow as **** though, even slower than the Frogfoot. And it has no anti ship or anti radar missiles.

AJS37 - my primary choice, seems to be fast, capable for both air to air and air to ground, seems to have decent firepower and anti-ship missiles. No idea if it has radar-guided, laser-guided or TV-guided missiles, I think I would miss my fav shkval.

The Viggen is fast indeed (up to M2.0), but has very restricted capabilities, as it is a pure strike aircraft, where you head out to strike a certain point target (e.g. a ammo depot) and RTB. All its systems are designed to follow a certain flight path and do one single attack run, which is why it's not well suited for Close Air Support, where you need to find the targets first. It's loadout is pretty limited too. Wouldn't recommend it as a Frogfoot replacement, although it is great fun if used for what it is designed for (interdiction strike and naval attack) and it also is my favorite aircraft in DCS.

M-2000C - does it even have guided air-to-ground missiles?

No, it has not. It's a fighter aircraft with only very limited air to ground capabilities (dumb bombs and buddy lased laser guided bombs) and hence a really bad replacement for the Frogfoot.

Harrier - a bit pricier than I want to pay, seems to be a bit slow, although faster than SU25T and A-10C, but still slow and only has 6 hardpoints, so I also worry it would not have as much firepower as SU25T. BUT if it has significantly more firepower than the other jets, I may take it.

While being faster than the Frogfoot the Harrier is not supersonic (up to M0.9). It has a pretty good loadout for air to ground though and great sensors, which makes it a good choice for Close Air Support. It does not have anti ship missiles though and rather bad anti radar missiles. I would recommend this aircraft as a good Frogfoot replacement (besides the Hornet), if the module itself wouldn't be in such bad shape. The aircraft in DCS suffers from a lot of bugs and problems.

Viggen is very cool and unique, but Su-25T is a full on CAS, loiter, have half a million weapons kind of aircraft, and Viggen is a planned strike, one pass-haul ass kinda aircraft. So it may not be the replacement you want, especially as it doesn't have SEAD missiles (though, arguably, Mjölnirs can work for SEAD to some degree).

Requirement for SEAD leaves Viper, Hornet and Harrier as the options. Though Harrier's SEAD capability is mostly up to self defense degree. Viper is a do-it-all aircraft, but at this point it is missing too much of those do-it-all features to buy in my view.

When it comes to the ability of carriyng lots of weapons and doing slow, down and dirty kind of CAS too, A-10C is the answer, but you won't have SEAD, and it is so slow you may get surprised at that. If you think Su-25 is slow, A-10 can be a bad surprise especially when heavily loaded.

I think Hornet is probably the best fit for you, even though it doesn't carry as much as some others, it can still lug around a decent bit, is fast enough, and can do all kinds of ground attack missions, as well as some air to air thrown in for good measure. Though, Harrier may also be worth considering.

....

If I want to kill tanks + infantry, I can load it with 16 VIKHR missiles and some 192 or who knows how many unguided rockets.....

Maybe a different suggestion, JF-17.

You have "Amramm-like" AA missiles and nice AG weapons. TV Guided long range AG missiles, anti ship missiles, Gliding bombs(impact/cluster), and the best the BRM-1 is similar to your Vikhr missiles -> put 16 or 32 on your Jet + a TGP and you run out of gas before you run out of missiles :lol: You can AirAirRefuel it....

I just looked realy into this little bird a little over a week ago and loving it :thumbup:

F-15E :) But seriously , your wishlist is not realistic . You are requesting something outside the limits of RW technology , let alone what is available in DCS . A bunch of external stores will speed-limit even a supersonic aircraft .

I personally like the Hornet . My typical loadout is 4 mavs on the rails and two bombs on the belly station , along with sidewinders on the wingtips , two ammrams one 1 cheek , and a t-pod on the other . This gives me a bvr capability to fight my way in (or out) , wvr options , and 6 ka-booms on the ground . Many other weapons are available for more specialised missions , including sead , dead , anti-shipping , cas , etc .

- If you want the same payload of the su-25t, the only choice is the a-10c, but it's slow and can't do SEAD missions. Get ready to study 650+ pages of manual (but the precision you can strike with an a-10c when you have learnt it is uncomparable higher than the very basicly simulated su-25t).

- If you want speed then the f/a-18, but get ready to carry way less ordnances.

- If you want speed and anti-ship capability then the Viggen, but it's a kind of its own (boom and zoom at 50 ft agl and mach 2, but it's quite the only thing it can do).

- If you want a slightly faster su-25t, then the av-8b; there's the plus of naval environment and STOVL, but I do not know about SEAD (and its developer is not so good as the others above).

- f-16c is slightly more than a draft, too far behind in its development to be considered at the moment, IMHO.

- m2000c is a pure fighter-interceptor, it has nothing to do with the other five.

Guys, thank you all for answers. Maybe I myself don´t know what I want. You answered much better than I asked. I understood that my wishlist is unreal, so I am keeping SU-25T as option for CAS and also SEAD and anti-ship, latter two when the skies are clear of enemies.

So far:

Mirage is out, thanks for clarification.

Warthogs are out as they would be better and slower frogfoots, but similarly vulnerable against let´s say Hornet or Viper.

JF-17 would be my first choice, but 65 dollars is way more than I would ever spend for a GAME, not for a plane for the game :( not living in a rich country. But thank you for clarification. Maybe I can wait for some better discount.

Harrier is half out, as it is interesting, but lack of anti-ship options is a bit of a deal breaker.

That leaves Hornet, Viper and Viggen.

Viggen - what does it do exactly, again? It is not great SEAD, not CAS, not air superiority either I guess, so what does it do? I put some coordinates into GPS, fly over that location and go home?

Hornet - based on your answers, it is the most universal aircraft, so whatever I need, Hornet will do it. I like that, because my fear from buying Viper and especially Viggen is, that they will miss something I will need and I will have to buy another aircraft. But I really disliked Hornet when it was free trial, because:

1. It is very difficult to learn, unlike F-15C, Mig-29, Frogfoot. But later I learned that all FC3 aircraft are supposed to be easier to learn, so I can expect Viggen and Viper to have similar learning curve?

2. It was buggy and unfinished. Engines wouldn´t start up sometimes, at some ocassions my cockpit look locked itself at very uncomfortable angle etc.

3. Everybody has it. I don´t usually buy stuff that everybody has. Just some part of my personallity prevents me from doing so. But if everybody has it, it has to be good and just to make it clear, I don´t want to buy any more aircraft any time soon.

Viper - like Hornet, but does not take off from carriers and does not have anti-ship missiles. I really like F16 but it costs the same as Hornet and lacks features. Does it have any air-ground advantage over Hornet, or all of its advantages are air to air? Because I don´t necessarily need even better air to air, as I already own two air-superiority fighters that seem to be better than either of these.

Maybe my question was all wrong. I am not very experienced in DCS and currently I play mostly multiplayer server where you capture bases and I play on the side of defense. Therefore I naturally look for the best way to destroy ships (as that cripples enemy capability to launch aircraft at bases), SAMs and tanks. Before that, I played dogfight server, that´s why I got Mig-29 and later F15C. Maybe I will find that there is more to DCS and whatever I buy for what I play, will be useless there. So maybe a much better question would be:

If I have F-15C, Mig-29 and SU-25T and I can buy one more aircraft, say, under 40 dollars, which one would you recommend me to fill in the gap, so that I don´t have to look for another one anytime soon?

You need to recruit some of those teammates in multiplayer to actually work as a team and provide you fighter cover with their fast jets and fancy missiles while you move mud with the Frogfoot...

These other aircraft are fantastic at their respective missions, but the best aircraft for the Frogfoot mission is still the Frogfoot (or the Warthog for the other side of the Iron Curtain).

There is no GPS in the Viggen, all the navigation is handled by its Doppler suite. We have 90s avionics which make it pretty precise, but you can disable it and rely on using your A2G radar to update your position as the mission goes if you prefer.

What you do (mostly) is you fly at 50m AGL at Mach 0.9+, avoiding SAMs and fighters in the process, one pass on a target (which may be a control centre, runway, whatever), drop your loadout, and then leave at Mach 1.f**kyou because nothing can catch a clean Viggen on the deck.

Alternatively, you have a platform that's better (currently) at anti-shipping that the Hornet thanks to its search radar. Contrary to popular belief it's also not awful at CAS - you can use the A2G radar as a poor man's targeting pod, and it can carry as many Mavs as the Hornet and Harrier. If you carry the gunpods, you have better guns than either too. It's no A-10, but it's not as bad as it's made out to be.

And of course, after all that, you are can land in 500m on a road, rearm and do it again if the mission is setup for it. I mostly fly single player, but I think the Viggen is the best module in DCS (for what it's worth, I also have the Hornet, Viper, F14, F5, F86, Mig21, L39 and C101).

If you want a few reviews:

I am looking for replacement for SU-25T that can fulfill its roles.

Only two aircrafts fill that capability.

1) F/A-18C

2) F-16C

My usual equipment:

Versus ships: fantasmagoria pod, 2x KH58U, 4x KH28MPU, 2x S25L and ECM pods - this basically means I can sink aircraft carrier (or cripple it severely) in one successful attack.

A-10C can't do any Anti-Ship tasking (unless you want to go with Mavericks against those).

The same problem is with Harrier, just four mavericks at best.

A-10C is not fast at all, so you are dead in the water over water....

Harrier would be faster, but subsonic limited too, and only the AV-8B+ would be capable carry HARPOON and SEA EAGLE missiles.

But so is the Su-25 as well subsonic, but it is faster than A-10C, just like Harrier.

That is where F/A-18C and F-16C are completely different class than A-10C or Harrier, and why Su-25T is so capable as you get those anti-ship capabilities with it too.

Versus airfields and ground targets: Either the same, or I replace two KH28MPUs with Vikhr missiles. So I can destroy either 4 SAMS from safe distance (as it takes usually one KH58U or two KH28MPU to kill one) plus two ground targets, or 3 SAMS, 2 large targets and up to 16 tanks (realistically, 8 at best). So I can pretty much clear the entire airfield in one successful attack.

Well, if you are so free to fly around the airfield that you can be there 100-150 km from it, then A-10C and Harrier can as well operate you the same tasking. Yet, I wouldn't take A-10C for that task either as it is slow, and while having nicer loadout options than Harrier, you would like to take again F/A-18C or F-16C for that tasking. You do not beat with any of those aircrafts the capability that Su-25T has with Vikhrs, ELINT and couple extras, but that is already huge loadout to carry.

But A-10C has nothing against radars, Harrier has at least the AGM-122 SIDEARM that you can carry four in total.

It also has, not so terrible, air-air missiles R73.

If I want to kill tanks + infantry, I can load it with 16 VIKHR missiles and some 192 or who knows how many unguided rockets.

A-10C can't match anything to that, neither can any other with that rocket loadout. The Su-25 is a true rocket truck if wanted. And the 16 Vikhr missiles makes it serious destroyer of the tanks, if you can survive otherwise in the area whole that time.

My issue is not with the firepower, that is perfect. My issue is with the speed. Basically I don´t manage to reach my target in 60-70% cases, because enemy can spot me flying, land, arm their fighter jet, take off, fly literally triple my speed and kill me before I release my missiles (sometimes I manage to fire the KH58Us as they have very decent range). And my chance to fight them is next to zero.

That is why you don't want A-10C. You are awfully slower than Su-25T is. And why you would like to get F-16C or F/A-18C as true multirole fighters.

Neither one will go past Mach with good loadout, and with Harrier you can fly at around 0.8 Mach, you have better climbing speed than any other of those aircrafts up to 9000 feets, so you can easily use low-high altitude transition as your benefit.

So I want a better jet. Such one that will have at least the firepower of SU25T but supersonic and that could at least have realistic chance to shot down another jet. But which one?

1) F/A-18C.

2) F-16C

Either one.

I would go toward F/A-18C.

I did not buy FC3 (yeah, stupid me) but separate Mig-29 and F15C, neither of these has air-to-ground weapons that I could use for my missions. Bombs are useless for me as I get shot down by SAM waaaay before I am close enough for the bombs, and even then, they are not accurate.

The MiG-29 and Su-27S we have in DCS are the early ones against air interception. They do have the limited A-G capability as Soviet doctrine dicrated, but only the later ones received the A-G missiles etc. And our F-15C is without A-G loadouts.

I would like to spend up to 30 USD.

F/A-18C and F/A-16C sales just ended...

But best you can get for that price.

F/A18 - a bit pricier than I want to pay, I would like to avoid that one. And I hate that jet, for some reason. But you may change my opinion.

 

F16 - a bit pricier than I want to pay, but if it proves to be much better than other jets, I may take it.

 

You mentioned Viggen, what would be in its pure role as strike/attack aircraft too. Designed to be fast on the deck, get in, strike and get out. And you fly low, and when someone say "Viggen" and "low", they mean that you fly at 20-40 meters from the ground, you hug those trees and its flight system allows you comfortably fly at those altitudes at high speed.

But it is not just the aircraft that does it, it is the training and the pilots. The Viggen pilots has been trained to fly at those altitudes and they can take any aircraft to those levels and fly comfortably at Mach 1-1.2. They are just crazy people....

yeah you missed out not being able to buy Hornet for 50% off, but that would be your best bet for the A/G options currently present on it.

compare to the harrier waaaaay Long loiter time, greater weapons carry capacity, and better protective suite ( Automatic CM dispensing and IR Missile warning system) and it has a datalink system. The Hog will become even better when ED gets around to making Warthog 2.0, as they made mention a later software suite, but the disadvatage is the slow speed.

The most well rounded option is just going for a multirole fighter like the F/A18 since it can do both A2A, A2G weaponry options are more versatile than either A10C or Harrier

Since when does the Hornet have a MAWS?

There is no GPS in the Viggen, all the navigation is handled by its Doppler suite. We have 90s avionics which make it pretty precise, but you can disable it and rely on using your A2G radar to update your position as the mission goes if you prefer.

 

What you do (mostly) is you fly at 50m AGL at Mach 0.9+, avoiding SAMs and fighters in the process, one pass on a target (which may be a control centre, runway, whatever), drop your loadout, and then leave at Mach 1.f**kyou because nothing can catch a clean Viggen on the deck.

 

Alternatively, you have a platform that's better (currently) at anti-shipping that the Hornet thanks to its search radar. Contrary to popular belief it's also not awful at CAS - you can use the A2G radar as a poor man's targeting pod, and it can carry as many Mavs as the Hornet and Harrier. If you carry the gunpods, you have better guns than either too. It's no A-10, but it's not as bad as it's made out to be.

 

And of course, after all that, you are can land in 500m on a road, rearm and do it again if the mission is setup for it. I mostly fly single player, but I think the Viggen is the best module in DCS (for what it's worth, I also have the Hornet, Viper, F14, F5, F86, Mig21, L39 and C101).

 

 

If you want a few reviews:

As much as it hurts me to talk bad about the Viggen, I have to do it: It seems to me that the Viggen would be a rather bad fit for the OP, as the role the OP wants to fulfil (attacking bases on open MP servers, which are usally consisting of units scattered around) is not well suited for the Viggen. Sure, you can make do with the tools you described but in the end this works rather clumsy, as it is not what the Viggen is designed for. It excells at pre-planned interdiction strikes behind enemy lines on single targets (bridges, command bunkers, depots), but not at killing single enemy units scattered out in the open. The other planes mentioned here (Hornet, Viper, Harrier) are much better at that.

It excells at anti shipping though.

there are two planes that may be comparable to the SU-25.

the planes in question are:

Northrop YA-9

and second airplane is:

AMX International AMX GHIBLI.

I see Hornet at discount from 80 to 40 dollars, is that a discount or there was some better one?

So now for me it is:

Viggen - a very interesting plane that I would love to have and fly, but I am afraid that it would not fulfill some of the roles I would like it to as it seems to be more specifically oriented. I did not gave up on it, but I have to check it out more carefully and think more critically about it. Maybe it will suit my gameplay but I am afraid it will not.

Now it is more or less F-16C vs F/A-18 - I wanted neither of these, but I understand that these are the best multi role fighters and especially if I want to buy only one aircraft that will do the most of the jobs.

So now which one? Most of you recommend Hornet. What advantages do they have over each other? Is F-16 more air to air oriented? I am thinking Hornet, because for air to air I already have F15C. Being able to take off from carrier can also be useful in some situations.

So now for me it is:

Viggen - a very interesting plane that I would love to have and fly, but I am afraid that it would not fulfill some of the roles I would like it to as it seems to be more specifically oriented. I did not gave up on it, but I have to check it out more carefully and think more critically about it. Maybe it will suit my gameplay but I am afraid it will not.

It is a very lovely aircraft with a lot of oddities that make it special, but it's usage is limited, especially in DCS public multiplayer. I hope it will start to shine, when we get the dynamic campaign for DCS.

Now it is more or less F-16C vs F/A-18 - I wanted neither of these, but I understand that these are the best multi role fighters and especially if I want to buy only one aircraft that will do the most of the jobs.

 

So now which one? Most of you recommend Hornet. What advantages do they have over each other? Is F-16 more air to air oriented? I am thinking Hornet, because for air to air I already have F15C. Being able to take off from carrier can also be useful in some situations.

They're both true multirole aircraft and it's hard to find another aircraft that is more versatile than these two. Besides the lack of carrier capability and anti ship missiles for the Viper, their capabilities only differ in very minor details. The Viper is a bit more user friendly though as its HOTAS system is much more thought through.

It is a very lovely aircraft with a lot of oddities that make it special, but it's usage is limited, especially in DCS public multiplayer. I hope it will start to shine, when we get the dynamic campaign for DCS.

 

 

 

They're both true multicrew aircraft and it's hard to find another aircraft that is more versatile than these two. Besides the lack of carrier capability and anti ship missiles for the Viper, their capabilities only differ in very minor details. The Viper is a bit more user friendly though as its HOTAS system is much more thought through.

Think you meant to say multi-role .

Just an advice to add: whatever you choose, keep in mind that any module that is not FC3 has a way steeper learning curve since it's a full simulator on its own. Maybe 70 euros can look too much for a module (I always buy with discounts too), but a full module is not just a "dlc", it's a full very complex and very detailed simulator on its own! A completely different product than FC3.

That said, only 3 things:

1) if you have not tried the a-10c you cannot say what truly is dcs in its full potential.

2) if you like Vikhrs, you could consider the ka-50 too. It's not fast and it does not have anything against fast movers, but it has some sort of anti-ship capability (and you can land on a carrier or a frigade too).

3) F/A-18, when finished, will become as complex as the a-10c, so it can be an option; the same is true for the f-16, but at the moment f/a-18 is far ahead in the development than f-16.

looks like ED is extending thier stay at home sale. for thier E shop ( only steam ended)

I see Hornet at discount from 80 to 40 dollars, is that a discount or there was some better one?

 

So now for me it is:

Viggen - a very interesting plane that I would love to have and fly, but I am afraid that it would not fulfill some of the roles I would like it to as it seems to be more specifically oriented. I did not gave up on it, but I have to check it out more carefully and think more critically about it. Maybe it will suit my gameplay but I am afraid it will not.

 

 

Now it is more or less F-16C vs F/A-18 - I wanted neither of these, but I understand that these are the best multi role fighters and especially if I want to buy only one aircraft that will do the most of the jobs.

 

 

So now which one? Most of you recommend Hornet. What advantages do they have over each other? Is F-16 more air to air oriented? I am thinking Hornet, because for air to air I already have F15C. Being able to take off from carrier can also be useful in some situations.

The primary reason most people are recommending the F/A18 over F16 purely because its in a more finished state. Right now the Viper is only viable for a2a. ITs ground attack is limited to unguided bombs, rockets . yes it has LGB' ans a TGP but as of now self to self designating for now in the F16 messes up your waypoints.

when both are 100% complete out of EA, I would still say the Hornet will remain bit more versatile of the two due to anti shipping ( AGM84 harpoon) and long stand off attack capability with the AGM84 SLAM ER.

the closest equivalent to the SLAM ER would be agm 158 JASSM which the DCS viper is not modern enough to get. ( post 2007 feature)

Also to note the Hornet has a better navigation suite as it can overlay a moving map if need be on HSI and SA pages, and that the Hornets radar will have better A/G radar mapping. SAR quality imaging and EXP 3 magnification as opposed to being limited only Doppler beam sharpening method and EXP 2. The Hornet is also expect to get a second targeting pod the ATFLIR.

Think you meant to say multi-role .

Indeed :doh:

Thanks for the hint! :thumbup:

So I want a better jet. Such one that will have at least the firepower of SU25T but supersonic and that could at least have realistic chance to shot down another jet. But which one?

Something to keep in mind is that even supersonic fighters might struggle to pass Mach 1 when loaded with bombs. You'll be better off against enemy fighters, but if those are loaded for air to air, they will still outperform you in an AG loaded F-16/18.

Now it is more or less F-16C vs F/A-18 - I wanted neither of these, but I understand that these are the best multi role fighters and especially if I want to buy only one aircraft that will do the most of the jobs.

 

 

So now which one? Most of you recommend Hornet. What advantages do they have over each other? Is F-16 more air to air oriented? I am thinking Hornet, because for air to air I already have F15C. Being able to take off from carrier can also be useful in some situations.

The F-16 is better at air to air because it's much faster. They both are good at manuvering although the F-16 likes to turn at higher speed while the Hornet likes to dogfight at lowers speeds where it can take advantage of its AoA capability. The F-18 has more MFD's to fiddle with and provide you with data but I think the F-16 has the better cockpit and controls ultimately.

I usually recommend the F-18 for air to ground, but when heavily loaded it flies like a brick. The F-16 also flies like a brick when loaded for AG but it still holds a slight edge over the F-18 in my experience, so in terms of defending yourself from enemy fighters it might be the better choice. Really though you'd probably want to jettison weapons unless you were being intercepted by something vastly inferior to you. If you do end up jettisoning, the F-18 would be able to defend itself and it might be the better choice for you.

EDIT

Has the JF-17 been mentioned? I have yet to fly it but it's similar to the F-16/18, but with a MAWS (which will may if enemy fighters sneak up on you) and a very large guided rocket loadout for AG. Performance wise it doesn't match the F-16 but it will far exceed what the Su-25 offers.

It was not in the OP or poll, but here is a second for the JF-17. It may cover all the bases the Viper does but more fleshed out in the game right now?

Otherwise I would say Harrier - I just started into learning it and am finding it very enjoyable - I have also been mainly flying the SU-25T and FC3 fighter jets.

Need to remind that going to missions, one is not going to load Hornets or Vipers full of bombs and missiles.

That is same thing with A-10C that ignorant people load it to full and then want to take out whole army alone....

No, Harrier is as capable as hornet or viper, and more so as you get to land near the front line, rearm and take-off again to keep loitering longer period than those can from bases further back.

Still, same limitations exist, no A-A capability like those two.

Why Hornet and Viper are nice as you can be flying with 2x AIM-9, 2x AIM-120 and 2x GBU, while Harrier would be with 4x GBU or 2x GBU and 2x AGM, maybe even 2x AGM and 2x ARM.

Example here is real Hornet loadouts in first Gulf War.

https://dstorm.eu/pages/loadout/f-18.html

One can find that Hornet didn't really fly with larger A-G loadouts, difference was that Hornets had their medium range A-A missiles too that Harrier didn't have as it had just AIM-9's.

That is it, Harrier drops as many bombs etc but can just reload faster for a another round.