Heatblur A-6 Intruder

5 minutes ago, ghostdog688 said:

My understanding is that it orbited the carrier and was there to keep those in orbit overhead topped up, and to prevent anyone from being fuel starved


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, thats my understanding too. Like the "F-18 buddy tanker"

I think it actually would have had longer time on station, the only reason the KA-6 was ditched is because they were done for and they didn’t want to have another round of life extension on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

16 hours ago, unknown said:

But that ED needs to provide a better infrastructure in DCS for many features is urgent, Reconnaissance for example. You can do ELINT missions with the Viggen but in the end it is not very usefull in the current DCS environment.

Problem for that is that in DCS there doesn't exist any system to transfer, manipulate and use the intelligence.

We need recon pods, so we can record video or take photos.

We need a automatic system where, let's say for game same a 15 min later we get images available that has any unit ID in them, be it a building or a vehicle.

We need ground recon teams, that will try to find enemy positions, report it back. Giving just the map coordinates and few reported units in general areas.

We need players capable after successful landing, to open a intelligence map and place manually few symbols on the map. It is up to their memory to remember where they saw them. And this is only possible for, let say 1-2 km from their previous flight path. So they can't add someone someone else reported, or just throw randomness everywhere, or add something from a previous flight where they died or ejected.

DCS needs intelligence mapping. Lots of moving troops and units, lots of false intelligence, old intelligence, lack of intelligence.

And we need to be able plan missions based to all that. Be greeted with a mission planning room, big map on the table, have a others planned missions visible, have a AI to generate missions automatically (like fly to there and destroy a bridge, or fly there and bomb a radar station) that you can just accept or modify as starting point.

This is corner stone for the dynamic campaign. A dynamic intelligence, with intelligence system and mission generation based only to intelligence.  Nothing would be done without some sort of intelligence where enemy is, their strength and type.

The A-6 is a bomb truck with great capability attack in zero visibility. And that means the flight is mainly just the waypoint to Waypoint flying, and being at the points in proper time etc.

But take away the intelligence part, and A-6 loses main benefits really.

@Fri13 +1 But i think we have to wait longer than DCS 3.0 for all of that but i would be gladly wrong on that 

1 hour ago, unknown said:

@Fri13 +1 But i think we have to wait longer than DCS 3.0 for all of that but i would be gladly wrong on that 

I would hope to see it in the 3.0 such kind features should be part of the Dynamic Campaign. And it is not just for A-6 but for all aircraf and multiplayer. It would shift the missions and campaings away from the mission desinger responsibilities to AI doing it mostly. Where the mission designer can design some larger scale parameters for the campaign like by date and time that given area should be tried to be captured or should be already under a control.

The module developers would need to be able program their modules (like A-6) to have a specific kind mission parameters that AI would then use to assign the proper count of aircraft, loadout for each and mission time/weather conditions even if time is not critical. So example the A-6 would become very much the one to be used to operate in zero-visibility missions either at night or in weather (or both) where other aircraft are not assigned for such missions.

But the AI would need to know that what kind a asset the A-6 is compared to other assets.

The A-6 is IMHO the most beautiful western aircraft (after that it is a Harrier. Yes, the F-14, is boring looking one) and truly deserves change to become later on as DCS: A-6 Intruder, instead just a AI one.

But considering we get already a AI that we can use for missions, I take that any time over having it not at all.... Hopefully we just get it to perform with its capabilitys that other aircraft do not have.

On 12/10/2018 at 11:48 AM, mongol-29 said:

KA-6 & EA-6 AI versions?

I hope with some "smart skinning" we can make an A-6 look somewhat like an EA-6 until the "real" model arrives

If you need a good read about the A-6, until EA, I can recommend this one:

So they're actually doing the A-6 in full? That's a day 1 buy for me.

Shrikes and Standards here I come!

Has there been any word on exactly what version HB is doing? A-6E seems to be given, but will it be post-TRAM?

14 hours ago, Intruder_360 said:

Would be nice to see both planes in the future

 

 

 

Damn it's huge

1 hour ago, Expert said:

Damn it's huge

Thats what she said... You should see it drop its load.

2 hours ago, PiratexCore said:

So they're actually doing the A-6 in full? That's a day 1 buy for me.

 

Shrikes and Standards here I come!

Get back your steam, yet, my guy?

10 hours ago, ghostdog688 said:

I think it actually would have had longer time on station, the only reason the KA-6 was ditched is because they were done for and they didn’t want to have another round of life extension on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's very much putting it lightly. They were downright haggard come retirement time.

8 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Get back your steam, yet, my guy?

 

I did, sadly it nuked everyone it talked to from my friends list.

Just now, PiratexCore said:

I did, sadly it nuked everyone it talked to from my friends list.

Yeah, they tried to shoot me some phishing link so I had to delete. Feel free to re-add me.

34 minutes ago, Vampyre said:

Thats what she said... You should see it drop its load.

This one made me laugh:

Did anyone else notice at 4:36 in the most recent DCS video showing the new clouds and A-6.............. the names on the Intruder?  Thanks HB

Something to consider on that skin analysis: That doesn't mean that's the version we are getting. From what I understand the textures are still WIP. Whether we get SWIP and whether that gets confirmed will have to come once HB actually does their research to assemble documentation. It's quite possible that we get some compromises behind the scenes in similar fashion to the F-14B, where we get an 80s/90s TRAM but not SWIP. Or hey, maybe the Intruder is less tough to get a hold of docs since nobody else used them. It could be the opposite too where everything got chucked like the PTID manuals.

And case-in-point on the skin, the F-14B includes skins of B models well past the timeframe of the modeled Bs we have. The VF-103 JR skins and some of the others are B Upgrades, which our jet is decidedly not. So it may be that they made their model off a jet they had access to but one that won't be 100% representative of the jet they are able to model the most accurately.

....and not really "topped up" either. They just gave them enough to go around the boat a couple more times if necessary.

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Something to consider on that skin analysis: That doesn't mean that's the version we are getting. From what I understand the textures are still WIP. Whether we get SWIP and whether that gets confirmed will have to come once HB actually does their research to assemble documentation. It's quite possible that we get some compromises behind the scenes in similar fashion to the F-14B, where we get an 80s/90s TRAM but not SWIP. Or hey, maybe the Intruder is less tough to get a hold of docs since nobody else used them. It could be the opposite too where everything got chucked like the PTID manuals.

 

And case-in-point on the skin, the F-14B includes skins of B models well past the timeframe of the modeled Bs we have. The VF-103 JR skins and some of the others are B Upgrades, which our jet is decidedly not. So it may be that they made their model off a jet they had access to but one that won't be 100% representative of the jet they are able to model the most accurately.

I went through all BuNos of our default B liveries and couldn't find any that were definitively past "our" timeframe. The BuNos in general are hit-or-miss anyway.

17 minutes ago, Nealius said:

 

I went through all BuNos of our default B liveries and couldn't find any that were definitively past "our" timeframe. The BuNos in general are hit-or-miss anyway.

 

It's not necessarily the BuNOs it's the skins presented. Most of them are totally that mid/late 90s B model, but a few are definitely the 00s and GWOT era B Upgrade jets.

The BuNO for VF-103 HiVis is for a B Upgrade (161435), which we decidedly do not have feature wise. And it looks like from 1998 around the assumed period our B is, that jet had the black and white JR scheme as 103. Later around 2002 it had the black and yellow scheme we have in the module. And the VF-102 '102' skin is also shown as a B Upgrade. Looking at photos of around '97-'99 it looks like the B Upgrade markings showed up for VF-103, so heck even a 1998 skin might be right, but our jet quite likely didn't have the right features. But that's splitting hairs. And the "last ride" skin would be even later and has the wrong MODEX (should be 1xx).

I'm pretty sure it's been said our A and Bs don't represent the Global War on Terror era jets, maybe to some degree the late As. In the same way the last cruise VF-31 skins are cool, but they still belong on the "D", or the VF-2 and VF-213 skins. While PTID was done before then Sparrowhawk was around 2003+, so the late VF-32 and VF-103 skins for example would have all that.

In a similar way, an early A model test jet from the -60 or -65 blocks rebuilt to Block 130 or 135 in an NATC or Grumman test skin would be "out of timeline" for late 135, even though it's the same BuNO. Same concept just other direction.

All I'm saying is going off the BuNo from the Intruder vid probably isn't going to tell us 100% what build they're doing until they actually get there and tell us. Which after the Tomcat I think they'll want to get good and clear about what variant or variants they want to offer. I don't think there's any doubt it would be a TRAM, but only doing the super late and super few SWIF is less "flexible" for those wanting to do more historical scenarios from the 80s and 90s.

Maaaaybe we'll get both like the A/B we have now, but it sounds like there's a significant systems difference as well as cockpit differences. Essentially sounds like 2 different jets to have to model and research.

I hope we get some hi viz Vietnam era skins as well.

Well, one thing seems certain: the AI we are getting is at least a TRAM. But, that doesn't mean eventual DCS: A-6 module will be exactly the same variant as AI object is. We have a list of modules like that: F/A-18C vs F/A-18C Lot 20, F-5E vs F-5E-3, and we have like what 4 F-16s in mission editor? Heatblur folks have already said since this announcement that it is too early to talk about what variant will the upcoming module be.

I would personally be very happy with TRAM with WCSI, so a mostly early to mid 80s one I think. It would be TRAM + ability to use Harpoon and AGM-123 SKipper, which is essentially a laser guided bomb with a rocket motor strapped to its back :). That would be a happy medium of old-school and modern without losing all the analogue oldy-timer A-6 vibe. But I'd be happy with before WCSI TRAM too, or a SWIP, or even an A-6A really. TRAM + WCSI is definitely my first choice though

I hope the tanker variant becomes flyable. I'd love circling the boat to tank up guys online. 

18 minutes ago, Nealius said:

I hope the tanker variant becomes flyable. I'd love circling the boat to tank up guys online. 

+1