Next aircraft speculation

Which is exactly who they did fight. while serving with the Brits (Who are making both those modules) -Woog

No, the P-40 in Africa fought late E models, F models and early G models.

i still think that there are more people buying and want to learn about an aircraft that they know actually and see in the real world.

The Swedish airforce historic flight still operate a Viggen which tours around the airshow circuit. I saw it at RAF Waddington last year and was just as impressed as ever, so plenty of people will still be seeing it fly today... Along with the Draken.

I agree with the basic idea though which is why I don't understand all of the complaints about trainers in DCS. The Hawk is something I've wanted at DCS level for years and I'm very happy to have it, can't wait for the Tucano, Tornado and Typhoon now.

It's not just familiarity but also interest. Why would someone prefer a plane they can fly around in circles with when they can have a plane they can fly around in circles with while blowing stuff up too? Yes I realize the Hawk has some limited armament options, but not on the level of a proper combat aircraft.

In any case, I don't think the Viggen is terribly obscure. I'd heard of it before all the way over here in the USA. Didn't know anything about it other than being one of those funny looking SAABs, but I had heard of it. I can't say the same for the Hawk, C-101 or Short Tucano. The Hawk is something I should probably have heard about before given how common they are internationally, but the other two aren't common at all. The C-101 was produced in very small numbers while the Short Tucano is an obscure British clone of a Brazilian trainer with little use outside of South America.

To me the Viggen is a lot more exciting than many of the other aircraft 'in development'. It has a unique bag-of-tricks and is certainly _not_ just another strike aircraft as someone suggested. It was once considered to be the replacement for Dutch F-5s and F-104s. It came quite close to actually beating the F-16 back in the late 70's. In the end the F-16 won but it shows how capable that beautiful aircraft really is.

Viggen all the way, baby!

 

*edit* also, an F-16, the most ubiquitous fighter aircraft in the west, hasn't even been ANNOUNCED. As best as anyone knows, NO ONE is making one. Nor an F-4. Nor an F-15E. In fact, there's pretty much nothing for the USAF but the A-10. Everything else is naval, or European. VVS is in the same boat: nothing modern. The two main air forces in the world have nothing to represent them in DCS.

IMHO, this is because it is probably going to be developed by ED themselves in the future after all the WW2 birds, F/A-18 and maps are out. Its like an "Ace under the sleeve". Its a good buissness model, you cant give all and everything from the begining, leave something for later on.:smartass:

It's not just familiarity but also interest. Why would someone prefer a plane they can fly around in circles with when they can have a plane they can fly around in circles with while blowing stuff up too? Yes I realize the Hawk has some limited armament options, but not on the level of a proper combat aircraft.

 

In any case, I don't think the Viggen is terribly obscure. I'd heard of it before all the way over here in the USA. Didn't know anything about it other than being one of those funny looking SAABs, but I had heard of it. I can't say the same for the Hawk, C-101 or Short Tucano. The Hawk is something I should probably have heard about before given how common they are internationally, but the other two aren't common at all. The C-101 was produced in very small numbers while the Short Tucano is an obscure British clone of a Brazilian trainer with little use outside of South America.

Because war isn't just about blowing stuff up, in fact it is arguably more about training than anything else (hard training, easy war) I get that some people just want to blow things up and that's fine, but there are plenty of modules to do that with already so moaning about resources being wasted on trainers when the devs have chosen to make that aircraft makes no sense. The Hawk is a good example of a fun little jet that many people actually see in their skies regularly and now have the chance to see how it flies and what all the switches do etc. That for me is what DCS is great at, along with blowing stuff up. In fact, the ability to actually learn how to fly the aircraft I see in the sky is what I look forward to moist from DCS personally, the combat comes second.

And the thought of a full and proper training campaign, Tutor >> Tucano >> Hawk >> Typhoon is just music to my ears. I suspect plenty of others will feel the same way. Anyway, I used the Hawk as an example of something that splits opinion and you proved that point with a differing opinion to mine. I do think you are very much missing out however if you aren't buying it simply because it is primarily a trainer... It is a great looking jet, with a nice cockpit and in the right hands, it has a sting in its tail.

Because war isn't just about blowing stuff up, in fact it is arguably more about training than anything else (hard training, easy war) I get that some people just want to blow things up and that's fine, but there are plenty of modules to do that with already so moaning about resources being wasted on trainers when the devs have chosen to make that aircraft makes no sense. The Hawk is a good example of a fun little jet that many people actually see in their skies regularly and now have the chance to see how it flies and what all the switches do etc. That for me is what DCS is great at, along with blowing stuff up. In fact, the ability to actually learn how to fly the aircraft I see in the sky is what I look forward to moist from DCS personally, the combat comes second.

 

And the thought of a full and proper training campaign, Tutor >> Tucano >> Hawk >> Typhoon is just music to my ears. I suspect plenty of others will feel the same way. Anyway, I used the Hawk as an example of something that splits opinion and you proved that point with a differing opinion to mine. I do think you are very much missing out however if you aren't buying it simply because it is primarily a trainer... It is a great looking jet, with a nice cockpit and in the right hands, it has a sting in its tail.

The reason for those planes is because fighter jets are way more expensive and nobody wants to get damaged or loose it. That's why they need trainers. But u can just train on a F15 and u can train more and better than in a training plane.

The reason for those planes is because fighter jets are way more expensive and nobody wants to get damaged or loose it. That's why they need trainers. But u can just train on a F15 and u can train more and better than in a training plane.

We'll Yeah, but DCS is all about replicating real life scenarios. So while you could jump straight into a modern fighter and just train in that with no worries a real life pilot may have, it wouldn't be accurate. Again, I appreciate some people have no interest at all with some aspects of military aviation. But having real life trainer aircraft is just as exciting to me as the fighters. Just learning how they work and feeling how they fly is a thrill you can't really experience outside of dcs... Or the airforce if you are lucky. I'm all for trainers, transports, helis, next gen fighters, anything the devs wish to give us is just fine by me.

Super Tucano, C-101, Hawk have combat roles too. And they're not lightly armed compared to an armed Huey or Sabre, which are currently being enjoyed by the community.

:huh:

History has shown over and over that once you throw a newbie into an advanced plane without proper training they will fall out of the skies like a brick. Soviet pilots paid the price when the MiG-3 was introduced for example. No advanced trainers, crashes left and right, because they didn't know how to handle an advanced plane even though they had many available.

Trainers exist to create a better pilot overall. Then comes conversion training to create a better pilot for that specific plane, usually in 2-seater versions of whatever they will fly. Baby steps allow for more thorough training in the most basic elements of flying, which one would be too busy keeping a Mach 2 interceptor from crashing to observe. It's the same reason why you learn to stand on a snowboard before doing freestyle jumps with it: your jumps, once you get to them, will be better, because all the elements will be second nature and you will be able to focus on the jump itself.

Super Tucano, C-101, Hawk have combat roles too. And they're not lightly armed compared to an armed Huey or Sabre, which are currently being enjoyed by the community.

I agree with all of it, but just a note: the SHORT Tucano (dev by VEAO) is a training aircraft. The SUPER Tucano (not in development by anyone AFAIK) is a full-fledged attack aircraft. It won the USAF's light attack competition to arm the Afghan Air Force, and it has been ordered by the UAE recently if I remember correctly. It's more A-10 than Hawk, in short.

I don't think so. In real life they never flew in combat. All they are is trainers, and should be treated as such and as they do IN REAL LIFE.

As far as I know the Super Tucano has seen action in COIN operations. The C101CC is the dedicated attack version of the jet (Wikipedia says the C101BB has downed several drug smuggling aircraft) and I'm pretty sure the Hawk saw some action in Africa.

I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me if I am. :)

History has shown over and over that once you throw a newbie into an advanced plane without proper training they will fall out of the skies like a brick. Soviet pilots paid the price when the MiG-3 was introduced for example. No advanced trainers, crashes left and right, because they didn't know how to handle an advanced plane even though they had many available.

 

Trainers exist to create a better pilot overall. Then comes conversion training to create a better pilot for that specific plane, usually in 2-seater versions of whatever they will fly. Baby steps allow for more thorough training in the most basic elements of flying, which one would be too busy keeping a Mach 2 interceptor from crashing to observe. It's the same reason why you learn to stand on a snowboard before doing freestyle jumps with it: your jumps, once you get to them, will be better, because all the elements will be second nature and you will be able to focus on the jump itself.

 

 

 

I agree with all of it, but just a note: the SHORT Tucano (dev by VEAO) is a training aircraft. The SUPER Tucano (not in development by anyone AFAIK) is a full-fledged attack aircraft. It won the USAF's light attack competition to arm the Afghan Air Force, and it has been ordered by the UAE recently if I remember correctly. It's more A-10 than Hawk, in short.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=145234 ;)

History has shown over and over that once you throw a newbie into an advanced plane without proper training they will fall out of the skies like a brick. Soviet pilots paid the price when the MiG-3 was introduced for example. No advanced trainers, crashes left and right, because they didn't know how to handle an advanced plane even though they had many available.

Um, while this applies in real life... not so big of an issue when dieing just means respawning :lol:

Kolga, now you've intrigued me, I'm looking forward to that :D

Tirak, I would argue though. When a virtual pilot tries to fly the hardest plane in a sim without previous experience, they will learn not how to fly but how to keep that thing flying straight. Same goes for systems management. Of course, eventually time does the trick but if said person had spent some time flying a subsonic aircraft and mastering flight dynamics and systems in it, they would reach their prime faster when getting to something more advanced.

Kolga, now you've intrigued me, I'm looking forward to that :D

 

Tirak, I would argue though. When a virtual pilot tries to fly the hardest plane in a sim without previous experience, they will learn not how to fly but how to keep that thing flying straight. Same goes for systems management. Of course, eventually time does the trick but if said person had spent some time flying a subsonic aircraft and mastering flight dynamics and systems in it, they would reach their prime faster when getting to something more advanced.

Meh, and I would argue that such a pilot who jumps right into a full module will learn the nuances and behaviors of that aircraft very profoundly as he will have stared at his wreck many many many times and internalized those lessons of what Not To Do very well, but it's just a matter of opinion :megalol:

That's why im doing my research now instead of later. Even reading about it now will get you slightly ahead of the new guy who just jumps in with no experience whatsoever. Think of it this way, you have at least six months to study the flight manual, memorize emergency items on checklists, and learn the systems and capabilities of the aircraft.

Dear Leatherneck team,

At least we need another hint to guess what are you working on.:)

thanks

I'd love to have the PBY Catalina

:joystick:

That's right, it's now August. ;-) ;-) :-P B-)

Why are you people so certain that it's a Viggen? :)

Don't start up the hype train without any clues... My heart can't take it.

I think Cobra had an avatar with a swedish AShM, don't remember.

More clues:

- There was talk about an aircraft with a duck-related nickname and "Viggen" is Swedish for both "the tufted duck", and "the (thunder)bolt".

- Leatherneck recently added a bunch of Swedes to the team.

I know this wont probably be one of the two unknown aircraft, but is anyone else crossing their fingers for a MiG - 25 besides me?