A-7 by RAZBAM confirmed!

Only used as some ANG F-16 on Gulf War, but the entire stock of GAU-13 was adquire to the USMC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-13

The Pod also caused Recoil Stress on the Airframes...

Ahhhh SLUF......been missing seeing this guy around. Used to see the Iowa ANG birds when I would fly into Des Moines to visit my grandparents. Model looks good, my questions are also whether we'd be getting the D or the E.

Model looks good, my questions are also whether we'd be getting the D or the E.

This thread, page 7, post 61.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3015080&postcount=61

Some vids from archives I uploaded

Various HUD systems shown, both from the A7 as well as other planes. Most interesting is probably A7 FLIR imagery projected on the HUD at 15:35. This is what the Av8B NA is capable of as well.

General capabilities of the A7 HUD, nothing too crazy but some nice footage.

Based on the sticky note on there page at least 3 years till we see the A-7.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=183573

A-4 and the A-7...my two favorite ground attack planes (childhood playground memories)!!!

More info by Prowler:

A-7 is going to happen, when i posted pics of what we have in the sim i was clear about it, thing is, we have to get our stuff right, and this is what I´m working right now, as a 3d developer. The A-7 is also my work, so it will have to wait until i have time to devote to it accordingly.

About the T-2C..it´s pretty much shelved, even as we have lots of work in it, but not a priority of any kind for the time being, It´s was a great learning platform, it might see the light of DCS, but i guess you´ll rather see some A-7 than a T-2, right?

I would guess the schedule on the A7 is 'no comment' territory since it depends on EDs schedule with ground radar, and then still needing to modify it for the A7. Lots of unknowns I imagine with that.

I'd expect we'll have some better info on how it fits into the timeline once the ground radar is available.

Prowler is guessing right lol...I have ZERO interest in a T2, and I would much rather have a fully capable and functioning Corsair II

Echo and Delta Models.

Maybe someday and F?

Prowler is guessing right lol...I have ZERO interest in a T2, and I would much rather have a fully capable and functioning Corsair II

Because time & money?

And if I am gonna practice landings in something it might as well be the a/c I am to fight in as well!! Kinda eliminates a step, and for the money that these modules cost, well, I'm just a poor enlisted retiree and can't always afford two $60 airplanes, especially if you can only take off and land in one of them.....

Because time & money?

why the T2 is a simple trainer, and it can be sold off seperatley If its already WIP, for razbams learning experience it may as well be finished. its a shame to see efforts go be shelved/go to waste.

IF anything it seems like a greater waste of time to not release something that has already have been worked on quite a bit. T2 would far from fresh from scratch effort. besides we have no trainer jet IN DCS that is Carrier capable.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=93710

And if I am gonna practice landings in something it might as well be the a/c I am to fight in as well!! Kinda eliminates a step, and for the money that these modules cost, well, I'm just a poor enlisted retiree and can't always afford two $60 airplanes, especially if you can only take off and land in one of them.....

No ones forcing you to buy all modules. different people have interests in different aircraft.

an no if you are reffering to that 1 aircraft than can only "land and tekoff" you are mistaken, the T2 isn't just for "landing and takeoff". its not a unarmed trainer. it can mount some ordinance on underwing hardpoints.

RAZBAM stated when they suspended the project, that without working two seater code and support for carrier operations, there was no point in completing the T-2, and in that, they're not wrong. VEAO (yeah yeah, I know), got burned badly by assuming how the two seater code would be implemented, and there's no reason to think that the T-2 does not have the same shortcomings in that department, neither is it wrong to be concerned that ED may implement their carrier code for AFMs in a way that is not intuitive to third parties, leading to lots of backtracking to make things work.

Until ED releases its Carrier support, RAZBAM will not place itself in a position to get screwed over by the mercurial development cycle that ED operates under. Every decision they have made about module development has been logically consistent with that, the only exception being the MiG-23 fiasco.

The initial picks of the trainers was to be a simple aircraft to learn how coding in DCS worked, and make a little extra money on the side to kickstart main projects. RAZBAM has already completed any sort of learning cycle that the T-2 provided thanks to the completion of their Mirage 2000 module and so the only reason at this point to put resources into completing a project like the T-2 would be to cater to a niche market of people who actually enjoy the trainers. The community has been quite vocal about their lack of support for such modules, which is something I have no doubt helped spur them to securing the rights to make an A-29 after having put so much time into developing the less capable AT-27.

The sales demand for niche trainers is very weak, and the fact that essential code to allow full operation of the T-2 is still missing means that it would be unwise for RAZBAM to put work into a module that can only be released on another companies time table, requiring extensive updating and coding, and will only be sold to a small market. That is why the T-2 won't be done. Because at the end of the day, even after the carrier code gets implemented and the two seater code is more refined, there are far more popular aircraft that can be done and will sell much better.

RAZBAM stated when they suspended the project, that without working two seater code and support for carrier operations, there was no point in completing the T-2, and in that, they're not wrong. VEAO (yeah yeah, I know), got burned badly by assuming how the two seater code would be implemented, and there's no reason to think that the T-2 does not have the same shortcomings in that department, neither is it wrong to be concerned that ED may implement their carrier code for AFMs in a way that is not intuitive to third parties, leading to lots of backtracking to make things work.

 

Until ED releases its Carrier support, RAZBAM will not place itself in a position to get screwed over by the mercurial development cycle that ED operates under. Every decision they have made about module development has been logically consistent with that, the only exception being the MiG-23 fiasco.

 

The initial picks of the trainers was to be a simple aircraft to learn how coding in DCS worked, and make a little extra money on the side to kickstart main projects. RAZBAM has already completed any sort of learning cycle that the T-2 provided thanks to the completion of their Mirage 2000 module and so the only reason at this point to put resources into completing a project like the T-2 would be to cater to a niche market of people who actually enjoy the trainers. The community has been quite vocal about their lack of support for such modules, which is something I have no doubt helped spur them to securing the rights to make an A-29 after having put so much time into developing the less capable AT-27.

 

The sales demand for niche trainers is very weak, and the fact that essential code to allow full operation of the T-2 is still missing means that it would be unwise for RAZBAM to put work into a module that can only be released on another companies time table, requiring extensive updating and coding, and will only be sold to a small market. That is why the T-2 won't be done. Because at the end of the day, even after the carrier code gets implemented and the two seater code is more refined, there are far more popular aircraft that can be done and will sell much better.

so this sounds as it can very much be done, in the future once some work on ED's part is done, Just not now. Trainers aren't as niche as you think. weve got 3 of them. C101, Hawk, and L39. Yes those were learning opportunities, for the developers more than giving in to a request, or a passion towards some favorite aircraft, but they weren't scrapped jsut because of that. They were finished to a releasable state( and in some cases are being fixed/ improved upon such as the Hawk, and the Second C101 version) and sold as modules.

Its a shame because having a carrier capable trainer would offer something new.

so this sounds as it can very much be done, in the future once some work on ED's part is done, Just not now. Trainers aren't as niche as you think. weve got 3 of them. C101, Hawk, and L39. Yes those were learning opportunities, for the developers more than giving in to a request, or a passion towards some favorite aircraft, but they weren't scrapped jsut because of that. They were finished to a releasable state( and in some cases are being fixed/ improved upon such as the Hawk, and the Second C101 version) and sold as modules.

 

Its a shame because having a carrier capable trainer would offer something new.

We don't have 3 trainers by choice mate. The market on trainers is very niche, and the learning cycle is over, there's no reason to continue making such pointless modules. The time and effort to bring the T-2 up to release status would be a waste of resources on a module that would sell poorly, especially in an environment where a free A-4 is being made, and aircraft like the Tomcat and Hornet will fill any desires for carrier based strike aircraft. RAZBAM would lose money trying to shove a T-2 out the door. Or, they could go ahead with making more full combat modules like the A-7 and sell them like hotcakes, because the Corsair has a hell of a lot more name recognition than the Buckeye.

We don't have 3 trainers by choice mate. The market on trainers is very niche, and the learning cycle is over, there's no reason to continue making such pointless modules. The time and effort to bring the T-2 up to release status would be a waste of resources on a module that would sell poorly, especially in an environment where a free A-4 is being made, and aircraft like the Tomcat and Hornet will fill any desires for carrier based strike aircraft. RAZBAM would lose money trying to shove a T-2 out the door. Or, they could go ahead with making more full combat modules like the A-7 and sell them like hotcakes, because the Corsair has a hell of a lot more name recognition than the Buckeye.

well Recognition is not a reason to prevent aircraft from being in a simulator.

And that is not correct. Trainers aren just for learning, or even leisure flying. They still can function as light attack & COIN aircraft since they are capable of mounting ordinance, and in the some cases gunpods.

The A4 doenst count since at the end of the day it will still be just a mod, not a fully fledged module.

lack of USe or historical recognition is not a reason to exclude aircraft. IF that was the sole logic behind allowing aircraft into DCS then the AJS37 Viggen shouldn't be in DCS since it saw no combat, and was only ever used with its nation of origin. But no thats the wrong attitude it does have a place in DCS. Then again one shouldn't be comparing a ww2 bird (like the Corsair )to a jet era aircraft or jet trainers.

again different people like different aircraft you go to the ww2 section, many there don't care for jet designs. Then at the opposite end of the spectrum there are those who insult and mock anything that is not a Modern 4th generation multi role fighter, and then Finally you have true Aviation enthusiasts who can love and fly them all.

IT subjective to what sells like "hotcakes" becasue even to flagship modules like the A10c or the Upcoming F18, I still think theA7 still wont sell as good. However lets not get to obsessed with what seels good, Otherwise if developers forget about thier passion and become too obsessed with $$$ only, they will be no different than toxic AAA companies like EA. So be careful what you wish for. its best if personal interest and passion takes precedence for module development over simply going for development of aircraft that they think will bring in the most profits.

seems we should just learn to accept any and all aircraft. The more the merrier.

I disagree. Recognition is absolutely a reason to include or exclude certain aircraft from being made. The reason is simple, this is business. When given a choice, if the community would want a T-2 Buckeye or an A-7 Corsair, the answer will overwhelmingly favor the Corsair because it is better known, has superior capabilities and thus will sell better.

And I'd be more than willing to make you a bet that when the Tomcat releases, it will have sold far better than the Viggen. RAZBAM makes sound investment choices in their aircraft, and completing a trainer that most people have ever heard of and fewer still have a real desire to purchase and fly makes no sense when compared to other aircraft they have expressed an interest in producing. I don't want a company like RAZBAM, who has demonstrated competency to waste time on such pointless airframes.

I disagree. Recognition is absolutely a reason to include or exclude certain aircraft from being made. The reason is simple, this is business. When given a choice, if the community would want a T-2 Buckeye or an A-7 Corsair, the answer will overwhelmingly favor the Corsair because it is better known, has superior capabilities and thus will sell better.

 

And I'd be more than willing to make you a bet that when the Tomcat releases, it will have sold far better than the Viggen. RAZBAM makes sound investment choices in their aircraft, and completing a trainer that most people have ever heard of and fewer still have a real desire to purchase and fly makes no sense when compared to other aircraft they have expressed an interest in producing. I don't want a company like RAZBAM, who has demonstrated competency to waste time on such pointless airframes.

again its a subjective opinon on wht you think is a pointless airframe. And frankly sometimes the aircraft with lesser recognition deserve some light too. Doesnt nessarily mean they wont be enjoyable or useless. Like the Viggen. or the even F5, which is far overshadowed by the F4 and MIg21.

hell to many north Americans, even the M2000 can be considered as less recognized airframe, but it fits well into DCS world, enjoyable to fly. I say even the Viggen i actually knew not much about, but its an aircraft i bought and warmed up to. especially since the viggen has a interesting design history and some unique features.

Really developers should make modules they are personally interested in and not nessarily get obsessed with aircraft that they "think" will get them a crashgrab. Eventually anyways all the iconic and popular aircraft will have been development and there will be no choice bu to turn to lesser known aircraft anyhow.

The F-5 was a sound business choice. Demand for a counterpart to the MiG-21 as well as its own Hollywood pedigree made it a good choice, and it sold well. The Viggen is quirky, but half of LNs business model has been based around slightly off color choices and making them work. The MiG, at least in most western circles was not seen as a good choice initially because it was the bad guy jet and had a poor reputation, however it succeeded initially because it was the first full fidelity fighter, and word of mouth spread how much fun it was, which then lead into learning about the aircraft's rich and storied history by the East Bloc, it was a confluence of circumstances.

I don't think the Viggen was nearly success as the MiG was, though I have no numbers to back that up.

The F-5 was a sound business choice. Demand for a counterpart to the MiG-21 as well as its own Hollywood pedigree made it a good choice, and it sold well. The Viggen is quirky, but half of LNs business model has been based around slightly off color choices and making them work. The MiG, at least in most western circles was not seen as a good choice initially because it was the bad guy jet and had a poor reputation, however it succeeded initially because it was the first full fidelity fighter, and word of mouth spread how much fun it was, which then lead into learning about the aircraft's rich and storied history by the East Bloc, it was a confluence of circumstances.

 

I don't think the Viggen was nearly success as the MiG was, though I have no numbers to back that up.

actually no ... its the other way around. many people like the Mig21 because its an iconic Eastern bloc plane and was the most mass produced, and widely exported. I get the feeling that ther are more Mig21 fans than F5 fans. but i dont have #s to back that up either. Similarily there would still be more F4 fans than F5 fans, for the reason that the F4's was much more known Mig rival.

its very petty of someone hate eastern bloc aircraft just because thye were once conceived the"bad guys". it would be similar to to ww2 community having some sort of mass hate towards German designs just because the side they were on.

Anyways even the trainers we have are actually well known Even the L39 for EG, is can still be familiar to people not nessarily interested in the military because its popular in civilian air show,s and Aerobatic teams

DCS A10 on the other hand was merely a civilian version of the professional Military trainer made for the US ANG, and its deemed a flagship module. No one here asked for that either. or collected statistics pointing it would be highly desirable.

Still buissnes is put into perspective, sure its fine to have balance between the two, e day these developers still have self interest and passion towards aircraft, especially LN. i have greater respect for such developers. really you dont want 3rd parties or ED to become like EA becoming too obsessed over profits. Itls only be worse for the customers buying them in the end.

[...] especially since the viggen has a interesting design history and some unique features. [...]

That right there. The Viggen only sold because it brought brandnew features like an A/G-Radar, Anti-Ship Missiles etc..

But, according to you, the appeal of the T-2 lies within its carrier capabilitys, something which the A7 can do too, and even more.

The T-2 is obsolete, because it would not bring anything new to the table, which couldnt be done by airframes much more capable. I mean, its fine if you have that kind of love for it, but from a company's perspective it would be just uneconomical, sorry.

That right there. The Viggen only sold because it brought brandnew features like an A/G-Radar, Anti-Ship Missiles etc..

But, according to you, the appeal of the T-2 lies within its carrier capabilitys, something which the A7 can do too, and even more.

The T-2 is obsolete, because it would not bring anything new to the table, which couldnt be done by airframes much more capable. I mean, its fine if you have that kind of love for it, but from a company's perspective it would be just uneconomical, sorry.

No i dont consider Anti ship missiles and A/G radar unique. Its not like the Viggen was the only aircraft in history to have such capability.. Yes its the first Aircarft to have them in DCS, but even if the viggen didnt come out, the F/A18 release would have therse very features and then some, with a much more modern avionics package.

The unique ability i was referring too was more of its STOL capability with its thrust reverser, and how Swedish defense needs differed from American or Russian ones. In any case, i think we can all agree, its nice every once in a while to see designs that aren't American or Russian get some limelight. ( nod to Razbam's M2000 as well)

Again LN just takes more risk and likes to introudce aircraft that they have interst in. when the Mig21bis came out initaly it had no counterparts, It still had no era appropriate maps and still have no legacy appropriate units. Were getting there eventually, but someone had to make the first step.

BST did the same thing with the Sabre jet with the following MIg15 release. No one asked for those when at the Time DCS was basically just FC3 and the A10C plus a few helicopters. and while we have 2 Iconic Korean era jets, we dont have Korea map.

someone had to be the first to do something new.

What you also need to release is the same would have happened in a alternate direction of things.

even if you get obsessed & nd place priority over the most popular or $$ making aircraft, you still end up at the point where developers would have no choice but to go and create lesser known aircraft and modules, becasue the other option will be cease development and no more income anyhow.

As all things in life there needs to be a balance between things LIke your diet or moderation of alcohol. Same should apply to business decisions/ and development.

need to balance personal passion and personal favorite A?C interest with profits as well as risk.

Similiarly VEAO apart from a few exceptions is focused and interested almost predominantly on UK aviation, liekly since they are Uk based developers. almost any suggestions for aircraft popular or not, if its not British, its gets put down, Nationalism plays as a factor in thier case.

Good that LN made the MIg21 and Viggen, before moving on to something lke the F14. I think its better to start with a main course dinner first, instead starting from final Dessert Entre from the menu.

A question.

For instance, do you want a flyable Starlifter in DCS, or do you want a flyable Starfighter in DCS ?