Jump to content

Next aircraft speculation


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

why would it need to be the Gripen C again?

 

 

The Jas 39A was very capable.

 

Mostly the C is just an upgrade to make it NATO compatible and some slight systems/radar upgrades.

 

But the Jas-39A is also very much a Multirole aircraft and can use targeting pods aswell as LGBs AGM65s aswell as the advanced DWS 24 (BK-90 Mjölnir) Long range glide cluster munition.

 

Aswell as advanced Anti ship missiles like the RBS-15E etc.

 

While the Jas-39A is slightly "worse" then the Jas-39C when it comes to overall capability the jas 39A is still a capable aircraft and was possible one of the best Multirole aircraft in the world when it enterd service in 95.

 

The main reasons for the C upgrade was the desire to make it nato compatible thus the addition of Link-16 (ontop of the swedish Data link system that was probably superior to Link-16)

And also they added the Aerial refueling mostly for export customers.

(since it was never really needed in swedish doctrine)

 

The Jas-39A would be a full Multi role aircraft and extremly capable with the opposition it has ingame.

 

I dont think the Jas-39 is likley anytime soon but it would not "HAVE" to be a Jas-39A

 

It probably should be a C though since thats the variant that is exported and in use by several nations world wide (including 2 nato members).

(Alot of the Jas-39C aircraft in use internationaly are Jas-39A aircraft upgraded to Jas-39C standard)

Link to post
Share on other sites
why would it need to be the Gripen C again?

 

 

The Jas 39A was very capable.

 

Mostly the C is just an upgrade to make it NATO compatible and some slight systems/radar upgrades.

 

But the Jas-39A is also very much a Multirole aircraft and can use targeting pods aswell as LGBs AGM65s aswell as the advanced DWS 24 (BK-90 Mjölnir) Long range glide cluster munition.

 

Aswell as advanced Anti ship missiles like the RBS-15E etc.

 

While the Jas-39A is slightly "worse" then the Jas-39C when it comes to overall capability the jas 39A is still a capable aircraft and was possible one of the best Multirole aircraft in the world when it enterd service in 95.

 

The main reasons for the C upgrade was the desire to make it nato compatible thus the addition of Link-16 (ontop of the swedish Data link system that was probably superior to Link-16)

And also they added the Aerial refueling mostly for export customers.

(since it was never really needed in swedish doctrine)

 

The Jas-39A would be a full Multi role aircraft and extremly capable with the opposition it has ingame.

 

I dont think the Jas-39 is likley anytime soon but it would not "HAVE" to be a Jas-39A

 

It probably should be a C though since thats the variant that is exported and in use by several nations world wide (including 2 nato members).

(Alot of the Jas-39C aircraft in use internationaly are Jas-39A aircraft upgraded to Jas-39C standard)

 

Yes actually, if you'd use the late A's that would be fine. The A's did not have AMRAAM capability until 1999 (hence Rb 99) and i think the C's started to enter service less then 3 years later, in 2002. In fact, they only had Sidewinder capability up until 1999. I'm also fairly sure the official entry to service was 1997.

 

This is going completly off-topic however, lets talk about how DCS: Wright Brothers plane is the next LN module.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes actually, if you'd use the late A's that would be fine. The A's did not have AMRAAM capability until 1999 (hence Rb 99) and i think the C's started to enter service less then 3 years later, in 2002. In fact, they only had Sidewinder capability up until 1999. I'm also fairly sure the official entry to service was 1997.

 

This is going completly off-topic however, lets talk about how DCS: Wright Brothers plane is the next LN module.

 

I was just going to guess that it was the Wright Flyer as well :pilotfly:

 

004%20Wright%20Flyer%20Scale%20Replica.jpg

 

and while we're at it, how about the other one... hmmm

 

da-vinci-drawings-helicopter-843.jpg

 

If I try hard enough to can take things completely out of context enough to make the clues fit. I mean what the hey, that's what everyone else is doing :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

and while we're at it, how about the other one... hmmm

 

da-vinci-drawings-helicopter-843.jpg

 

If I try hard enough to can take things completely out of context enough to make the clues fit. I mean what the hey, that's what everyone else is doing :lol:

 

Well it does fit the "New or unique methods of propulsion or force distribution" bit doesn't it! Da Vinci Aerial screw confirmed! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it does fit the "New or unique methods of propulsion or force distribution" bit doesn't it! Da Vinci Aerial screw confirmed! :lol:

 

But there were two more hints in the form of ground mapping radar and advanced missiles. I guess it could work though, with some fictional extra equipment. Da Vinci Aerial Screw confirmed!

Link to post
Share on other sites
But there were two more hints in the form of ground mapping radar and advanced missiles. I guess it could work though, with some fictional extra equipment. Da Vinci Aerial Screw confirmed!

 

Little known fact, it was also known as the duck, Flying high in the sky davinci could certainly sketch the ground below (ground mapping radar) and quite frankly you don't what to know what the advanced missles were :megalol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is the month when we are supposed to get the announcement?

 

"Force distribution" also relates to variable sweep wings, so bring a few examples of variable geometry types. (I still have this F-5 feeling:music_whistling:)

 

Come on, you can make it. Think of an variable geometry aircraft that have ground radar and advanced missiles.:doh:

 

Also, in new methods of propulsion, a propeller fits really well to LNS, they have only made a reactor so far.

 

Cobra, I have a question. Are you capable (a 3rd party) of including ground crew units to the modules?

 

There´s not need for them to do anything to the aircraft, just the possibility to control them like the normal infantry guys in the editor. I think that will bring a lot of immersion.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue is I am holding off until they announce to get the Mirage as RAZBAM is unqualified and Leatherneck has shown themselves with the Mig to be AAA quality modules.

 

For me I don't need a trailer or fancy screen shots. Just a post on the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another picture and comment on the DCS A10C Facebook page:

 

12115677_1181941471823026_7130265567194128224_n.jpg?oh=144659690435153d4a79860dbb7ed0b7&oe=5694113D

 

Their comment is telling: "Well, it's no F4U, but nice none the less"

 

A10C_facebook.png

 

DCS: WWII PTO - I think it's real!

 

There was also a F4U photo that was on the DCS A10C website for one day - this photo might not last long either.

 

-Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ki-84 or A6M?

I told you buddies!!!

i7 2600k -- Noctua NH-D14--Asrock Z75 Pro3--ASUS GTX970 Strix --16Go Ripjaws X 1333--Thermaltake Smart M650--CoolerMaster Silencio 652S--AOC E2752VQ-- Sandisk Extreme II 480GB--Saitek X-52 Pro --SAITEK PZ35 Pedals

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Force distribution" also relates to variable sweep wings, so bring a few examples of variable geometry types. (I still have this F-5 feeling:music_whistling:)

 

Come on, you can make it. Think of an variable geometry aircraft that have ground radar and advanced missiles.:doh:

 

 

B-1B

F-111

Tornado

Mig-27

 

Any of those will be a great addition to DCS. The tornado AI in 1.5.0 looks great where as the Bone still looks basic.

InWin S Frame with Asus Z170 | i7-6700K @ 4.5 Water Cooled CPU and Graphics | 16GB DDR4 | GTX1070 | 240GB M.2 SSD | Warthog Hotas | MFG Crosswind | 40" Samsung 4K | CV1 | Replica MB Mk10 Ejection Seat with Gametrix 908

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another picture and comment on the DCS A10C Facebook page:

DCS: WWII PTO - I think it's real!

 

There was also a F4U photo that was on the DCS A10C website for one day - this photo might not last long either.

 

-Nick

 

That Facebook page is a fan page and is in no way, shape or form official or tied to any of the third party devs.

 

They often post nice pictures of things they like, like a glorified wishlist. Take what's on there with a pinch of salt. Personally I wish ED would get it shut down as people keep mistaking it for one of the official pages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So do we know if both announcements were delayed? Since cobra is the one making the promotional materials I imagine the other announcement wont be till november?

 

Also cobra, was wondering if we could expect the first announcement early this month or is the mig-21 bug squashing the priority atm? (Which I understand if it is, just hoping to build a timeline.. trying to figure out how to buy these modules and the M-2000 lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hard to tell for certain, but I think the photo is a A6M3 type 22 (or A6M2 type 21), but the shape of the cowl really looks A6M3 to me.

 

 

You´re accurate on that picture. It´s that one.

 

Can we more or less be agree that Zero is one of the upcoming ones?

 

B-1B

F-111

Tornado

Mig-27

 

You forgot the Su-24. Also, the MiG-27 doesn´t have a ground radar, just a laser rangefinder, pretty much in line with the Su-25. It´s called "FON".

Link to post
Share on other sites
You´re accurate on that picture. It´s that one.

 

Can we more or less be agree that Zero is one of the upcoming ones?

 

Don't know between Rudel's post "something something" (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=142270) and the hint today, it seems possible.

 

However, I still feel that other stated hints (our next release will be strongly related to our name) and this picture:

 

f14_f4u.png

 

The F4U-1 in the Solomon's seems most likely. However, the F4U and A6M3 Type 22 fit really well together. I wondered if part of the "jaw dropping" would be the announcement of a module that includes both the F4U-1 and A6M3 - two of my favorite aircraft in my favorite theater of WWII (hold on...having palpitations!).

 

But for LNS to create 2 WWII modules, a modern module, and 2 new theaters over this period of time - that sounds crazy! With all the work involved...

 

Maybe a more realistic scenario is announcing an F4U (which has been hinted more I guess) with an A6M3 on the way in 2016. Because they still have their "modern module" with another theater to announce.

 

How much content can one 3rd part developer create in a year??

 

-Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoy this uncertainty.:D To be honest I will buy anything be WWII or modern if it´s well made (not an helicopter tho), so no problem for me if they delay the announcement.

 

I´m almost sure that Zero is one of them.

 

How much content can one 3rd part developer create in a year??
In my experience?

 

Many things have influence, time, economic status, family, access to technical data, but most important:

 

If you are good doing what you do and you have fun, the output increases exponentially.

 

IMPORTANT EDIT: Be sure to get an ambulance to control that heart!:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wondered if part of the "jaw dropping" would be the announcement of a module that includes both the F4U-1 and A6M3 - two of my favorite aircraft in my favorite theater of WWII (hold on...having palpitations!).

 

Maybe one could be realease as an AI to fit well with the other ? :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...