At fling slower… yes. 
1 Like
Squishy, slow, air-breathing launch vehicle.
No guidance package.
No multiple warheads.
Not even in the Megaton yield range for a single warhead weapon.
Shakes head. Come back when you’re serious.
2 Likes
Beautiful thing about two fleets is you can have multiple favorites 
Also, someone on Hoggit threw together an Imgur gallery with photos of all the Squadrons to be included.
3 Likes
Given the A and C models are almost identical externally, there’s no issue with making an A skin for a C that is nearly perfect.
So while, yes, it’s not technically accurate to have Canadians and Aussie skins on a C…it’s not like they’re making an A Hornet, too.
Check the ship name on the side - right above where it says NAVY - USS INDEPENDENCE (decommissioned a long time ago)- these days they just get to do the tail special for the “CAG’s Bird”…also known as “double nuts” - because its number is 100, 200, 300, 400, etc. - two zeros.
Titan II ICBM
Fixed launch site (stationary target)
Liquid fueled
Single warhead
…just say’n
Now a Trident II D5…
1 Like
I’ve never been a big fan of Hornet sims. I have one, but haven’t tried it - I got it from GOG, so it’s an old job.
I do think the plane is pretty smart, but it has just never floated my boat, really. However, I was wondering - I do like the F-16 and I am just amazed that we don’t already have a DCS: F-16, what the hell is that all about? It’s just crazy - surely ED are not scared of BMS comparisons?
Anyway, as I said, I was wondering just how different the two aircraft are to operate. Obviously not meaning the carrier ops etc, but to actually operate the weapons systems, they must be very similar. If I do buy it, it will only be when it’s on sale - I can’t justify getting another £46 module when I’ve barely touched the MiG-21bis (was an indie backer), M2k, Viggen and F-5E as it is.
PS - I do like the F-14 (the IRIS FSX one is fantastic, had loadsa fun in it) but as I’m not an A/A guy, I can’t really justify that expense, either.
The Harrier is another story, though I’m still mad at them for asking what we wanted - AV-8B or GR7/9 and then doing the opposite of what was voted for. Yes, may have been some circumstances, but they should have checked before they asked! I’m due a code from Razbam for services rendered, so I reckon I’ll ask for a Harrier 
The F-16 is one of the big mysteries. Perhaps a combination of different legal, financial and other reasons. They never told us and probably never will so I stopped caring.
I for one prefer the Hornet, even though I like the Viper as well. I just have flown it in half a dozen sims (including BMS) already and the carrier capability of the Hornet makes it more interesting for me.
If I had to choose between Eagle (C-Version) and Viper I would choose the Viper any day though, because multi-role.
1 Like
Hmm, I will have to learn carrier procedures anyway, I guess… that’s going to be a whole load of fun and twisted metal! 
Answer 1) Because they haven’t gotten around to it, but there are rumors one is planned
Answer 2) Because the F-16 is a boring plane that can’t carry very much very far, doesn’t do enough with what little it has once it gets there, and can’t even land on a carrier to make up for it.
Conceptually? Not terribly, but the devil is in the details, and the details diverge quite a bit.
2 Likes
Eh, she was on display in our hangar Bay on Commissioning Day in 2003 in full livery… I’ll have to find the pics.
…That said:
Number of Astronauts propelled into space by Titan: Entire Gemini Program
Number of Astronauts propelled into space by Trident: ZERO
Not sure if I’m ready for the “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb” Mudspike thread. 
Take this with a grain of salt because this is just me speculating, but…
Think back a few years when ED decided they wanted to start modeling a full-systems-depth, modern, multirole fighter. You probably want such a project to be something iconic with a robust history and a lot of documentation.
Most Russian / Eastern Bloc systems are unfortunately out due to their policies on information security (and, arguably, less design emphasis on multirole capabilities), which leaves the Hornet, Super Hornet, Viper, Strike Eagle, Tornado ADV, Rafale, and Sea Harrier (and, if I’m being generous, late-model Tomcats) for 4th-Gen Multirole.
The Tornado, Strike Eagle, and A/G capable Tomcat need multicrew or very good assists for management of systems meant for a crew of two, so those were probably crossed off to simplify development. Hats off to Heatblur for attempting that with the F-14A/A+/B, hopefully that’ll pave the way to a MudHen and Tornado!
IIRC the Sea Harrier has issues with secure information still- hopefully RAZBAM’s AV-8B will scratch that itch for people that were looking forward to that for a while!
Now we’re down to the Bug, Super Bug, Viper, and Rafale.
- Since the Super Bug is so current, specs and accurate info related to the plane is probably harder to come across, so we’ll scratch that one off.
- I have no idea why the Rafale didn’t get more attention. Maybe there’s a big limit on available technical data?
Now we’re down to the F/A-18C and the F-16C. I think Eagle Dynamics saw its options, figured the F-16C was already pretty well covered currently by Falcon BMS, and decided the Hornet would be a nice, unique, iconic choice that would also give them an excuse to greatly expand DCS’ NATOPs features.
…but that’s just my hunch.
5 Likes
Because as a rule, the Europeans are much more stringent when it comes to releasing technical information about their toys, and Dassault in particular is merciless with technical releases and copyrighting.
5 Likes
Its probably safe to say that any air frame that has come on line since the 90s is gonna be out of the question for a DCS module.
1 Like
*laughing * 'Cause no one like French pla… * Mirage 2000 stares intently at Komemiute *
Dunno, it’s a true mistery.
4 Likes
C’est magnifique, non?
2 Likes