The B-47E Stratojet would be best for the first heavy bomber module due to its tech

Should any developer deviate away from small aircraft, the B-47E would be a good starting point.

Due to its age, a lot of the planes of its era are already in DCS (F-86, Mig-15). Its age would also hopefully correspond to ease of access to its materials and a relative simplicity in its avionics compared to later bombers.

Its cockpit is very fighter-esque so it would help to ease in DCS players.

It would have the Mig-21's JATO system, the Harrier's 4-point gear arrangement, and the Gazelle's multicrew.

I'd be happy with ANY large multicrew attack jet. I had hoped for Su-24 but the RussFeds shut that one down, much to my dismay. I do like the B-47, too. I think biggest hold up on this stuff is they're still developing multi engine simulation side of thing if I remember right

any big plane is welcomed. but ed doesn't seem to like them

.... single seaters are easier to deal with than six-man heavy bombers, and 2-man strikers. Has nothing to do with not liking them. This isn't Jane's Fighters where you just hop into any plane with generic cockpit and systems. All that stuff adds complexity of you intend to do it right. @@

+1 A great first choice for a bomber module should ED or any 3rd party decide to pursue one.

I'm down with this. I think its pretty unlikely though.

Should any developer deviate away from small aircraft, the B-47E would be a good starting point.

 

Due to its age, a lot of the planes of its era are already in DCS (F-86, Mig-15). Its age would also hopefully correspond to ease of access to its materials and a relative simplicity in its avionics compared to later bombers.

 

Its cockpit is very fighter-esque so it would help to ease in DCS players.

 

 

It would have the Mig-21's JATO system, the Harrier's 4-point gear arrangement, and the Gazelle's multicrew.

An argument could be made for the B-47 vice other large bombers. There are several flight manuals floating around in the ether. There are only 3 crew members for the bomber (yes there were EB-47's with men in the bomb bay...) one of which is the co-pilot so the complexity on multi-crew is easier than a B-1 (2 pilots, 1 DSO, 1 OSO) or a B-52 (2 pilots, RN, N, EW, G).

Downside, B-47's were notorious for bad handling from their swept wing and 1st gen jet engines. While they could carry conventional bombs, most of their career was the SIOP SAC mission. Most of the technology for the avionics isn't too much advanced from WWII.

the b47 was a bomber that dropped nuclear bombs. DCS banned the nuclear armament now why do you want to propose it again? with the b47. It's useless.

Most everything supports nuclear weapons, that's beside the point. It also carries conventional bombs.

-edit

This guy wants stealth fighters and Fps Movement, but a big bomber is too much for him? :p

have doubts about financial viability of this, its a lot of work for something few people would enjoy and even fewer would fly on a regular basis

as an ai model? absolutely

just put every airplane in history as an ai model already

I don’t have doubts about this, I know many in the community who would give it a shot, sometimes it’s ok to have something different. Personally I would like any large bomber in DCS. And the B-47 seems pretty cool to me so why not?

have doubts about financial viability of this, its a lot of work for something few people would enjoy and even fewer would fly on a regular basis

 

as an ai model? absolutely

just put every airplane in history as an ai model already

That's where the new MAC model comes into play. Simplified systems initial release, with an expansion later if it proves popular. If it flops, they're out a few months, instead of a few years =)

I have another suggestion for a bomber that would be far more versatile than the B-47, The A-3 Skyworrior. It was designed originally as a strategic bomber but later it was adapted as an electronic warfare platform, tactical air reconnaissance platform, and high capacity aerial refueling tanker. And to top it off it served with the Navy so it was capable of operating of carrier decks.

Check out this video for more info. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WroFJEYUE0Q

I have another suggestion for a bomber that would be far more versatile than the B-47, The A-3 Skyworrior. It was designed originally as a strategic bomber but later it was adapted as an electronic warfare platform, tactical air reconnaissance platform, and high capacity aerial refueling tanker. And to top it off it served with the Navy so it was capable of operating of carrier decks.

Check out this video for more info. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WroFJEYUE0Q

Good call, could get a two for since the B-66 was a derivative and did much the same for the blue suiters.

It would be great even if they did B-47E only as an AI. We really need more period bombers in DCS. It would make a great target for the upcoming Mig-19.

It would be great even if they did B-47E only as an AI. We really need more period bombers in DCS. It would make a great target for the upcoming Mig-19.

If you're going AI only go big, rather Big Belly, B-52D Big Belly modification.

Full disclosure, I used to fly on an H model, Balls 50

My handy work

I'm somewhere in this picture

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=219866

I proposed a nuclear weapon and the DCS community replied to me -----------NO

this weapon carry many NATO aircrafts including my favorite the TORNADO.

Now you propose long-range strategic bombers for the transport of nuclear weapons like the B47 .....................I not understand.

The problem with these long range, strategic bombers is that there is simply no way for them to be effective in theaters as small as DCS.

ED have I believe already mentioned (unofficially) that there is very little point in including large long range aircraft into this sim.

I believe if a third party or ED does go for a multi-engine, large body aircraft it's a good bet that its going be some kind of multi-purpose utility/close air support aircraft such a variant of the Hercules C-130.

Like with the Heli's that we have in the game that thing can fulfill a lot of roles, and could be used effectively both online and in single-player scenarios.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=219866

in addition to the weapon that I have proposed myself and a mini nuclear bomb that can also be modified and then we talk about energies stipulated on the kilotons. the B47 is nuclear bombs with megaton-based energies so let's talk about much bigger things.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=219866

 

I proposed a nuclear weapon and the DCS community replied to me -----------NO

 

this weapon carry many NATO aircrafts including my favorite the TORNADO.

 

Now you propose long-range strategic bombers for the transport of nuclear weapons like the B47 .....................I not understand.

It's reallllly simple : One lags games near to crashing, one is a large plane that carries bombs NOT ncessarily nuclear.

@OnlyForDCS

I agree in principal and don't really expect anything like that to be forthcoming. It's out of scope, but then people regularly ask for things that are out of scope... at least this is an airplane potentially doable :p

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=219866

 

I proposed a nuclear weapon and the DCS community replied to me -----------NO

 

this weapon carry many NATO aircrafts including my favorite the TORNADO.

 

Now you propose long-range strategic bombers for the transport of nuclear weapons like the B47 .....................I not understand.

The B-47 can carry 28 500lb bombs, much like how the other strategic bombers in DCS had nukes at the forefront of their design but can only carry conventional loadouts in game. Stop cluttering up the thread with your weird obsession.

I'm sorry and I do not want to ruin the thread of the argument but the question I ask myself is logical ........ What is the use of a long-range tactical bomber that carries conventional bombs but above all nuclear bombs in a simulator like DCS that is only air combat?

repeat argoument ONLY AIR COMBAT

it is not a strategic and tactical simulator it does not have long-range maps.

the simulator does not use tactical and stealth bombing.

the simulator is unavailable of nuclear weapon.

What is the use of putting a nuclear bomber in as much as it can not shoot nuclear bombs?

example and as if you ask me to use a tank to shoot only small caliber bullets ..... it's ridiculous

I'm sorry and I do not want to ruin the thread of the argument but the question I ask myself is logical ........ What is the use of a long-range tactical bomber that carries conventional bombs but above all nuclear bombs in a simulator like DCS that is only air combat?

 

repeat argoument ONLY AIR COMBAT

 

 

it is not a strategic and tactical simulator it does not have long-range maps.

the simulator does not use tactical and stealth bombing.

the simulator is unavailable of nuclear weapon.

What is the use of putting a nuclear bomber in as much as it can not shoot nuclear bombs?

 

 

 

example and as if you ask me to use a tank to shoot only small caliber bullets ..... it's ridiculous

DCS has not only "air combat", has a air / land / sea simulator.

Remember ED has build the A-10C/A-10A/Su-25A/Su-25T attack aircrafts, has on progress to build a WW2 Mosquito and plans to a A-20 tactical bombers by the WW2 team. The AJS-37 viggen has a attack / antiship aircraft, can coming a A-6 tactical navy bomber by Heatblur and the AV-8B, and plans to a A-7 and others attack aircrafts by RAZBAM.

Any tactical and Strategic bomber has feasible into DCS "ecosystem". Has similar if ED or other 3rd party build a B-29, F-111, F-105, Vulcan, Buccanner, Camberra, Tu-22 or H-6, feasible armed without a nuclear bombs as a B-47.

And about "maps"..... RAZBAM plan build mainland "Argentina" with airbases to Falklands / Malvinas map with near hours of fly for a attack / tactical bombers as Camberras / A-4s / Daggers, and ED plans (far) implement a "whole world" technology.

I think this boy's cheese done slid off his cracker...