will we ever see a flyable B-52

[Wing]

19 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

 

 I am not moving the goalposts at all. I have always argued that the issue here isn't entirely one of outright secrecy but also that the B-52 as a platform is a delicate matter due to its active duty role in the USAF as a nuclear strategic asset. This isn't a light bomber with a minor nuclear role we are talking about here, this is one of the backbones of the USAF's nuclear strategy and that alone makes it a delicate, sensitive matter for a company (especially one with strong overseas roots) to simulate. 

 

  Here is the thing. For all we know, ED already has all the documents you have filed away somewhere in a cabinet. They probably have all the public documents on a lot of different aircraft just because that kind of stuff will come up in their line of work. Heck. They probably have stuff even you don't have just because they are better connected and have more experience knowing where to look for such things. It has never, ever been my argument that ED can't get these kinds of documents. My argument is that it takes more than that for them to even CONSIDER making a module. They have made this clear over and over. They didn't just make the A-10C, Hornet, and F-16 based only on public documents. They also had access to SME's, USAF/USN contacts, and industry experts. What's more. We (as the players) need to be willing to consider other factors that go beyond outright the level of secrecy attached to a certain document and see that sometimes the reasons for not doing certain aircraft are more general. It is the same reason ED isn't exactly eager to model modern Russian hardware while they are not against a third party giving it a go. They know that going that direction could create problems for them even if they have a bunch of public documents to go from. 

 

  As I keep saying. We are talking about an IN SERVICE strategic nuclear asset. I strongly suspect that if we were to sit down and ask ED's company management how likely we are to see such a thing, they would agree that tackling a modern, in-service strategic nuclear bomber (even if it does other things as well) isn't a smart move and would likely cause friction in their relationship with Boeing and the USAF. Regardless of the plane's age or even the availability of its documentation, it is still a tricky subject due to its strategic nuclear role alone. We shouldn't be so quick to discount that. 

 

  I won't argue that the manuals are a baseline and I also won't argue that they get a lot of their information from them. What I am arguing is that the reason that ED's modules generally set a high standard for DCS is because they always go above and beyond the manuals whenever possible and have the support from Air Forces and aerospace companies to help them do just that. If they were to suddenly ignore all the other DCS level issues preventing large, multi-crew aircraft from working well in DCS and asked Boeing and the USAF for the kind of support they would need to do a worthwhile B-52 module, they would very likely get told something to the effect of "Yeah...that is an in service strategic nuclear bomber so let's not go there". I mean. Seriously. Put yourself in the shoes of a USAF rep during that kind of conversation. I am sure you can see how that would have a lot of potential for a large amount of controversy. Can you imagine the headline? "USAF/Boeing helps Russian developer simulate in service nuclear bomber." You don't even need to bring up classified documents for that to be a controversial move. 

 

 If we were talking about aircraft that are not current, active service strategic nuclear bombers, this wouldn't really be a debate. If we were talking about the F-111 or something, I wouldn't really doubt that ED could get all the required "blessings" to do such a thing without stupidly burning professional bridges. Unfortunately. We are talking about a aircraft that is part of a EXTREMELY delicate topic and one that ED has already hinted at their feelings about when they said that they have no interest in nuclear weapons in DCS. It is a controversial, difficult topic that would be stupid to get wrapped up in when there are still so many iconic aircraft they can do that are not nearly as sensitive. 

 

  In the end, this all seems rather academic considering that you and I both agree that there are other issues that prevent ED from even bothering with such a choice to begin with. Even if the B-52 wasn't part of a EXTREMELY controversial and delicate subject (strategic nuclear aircraft and doctrine), it would still be too much work for not enough of a potential audience. 

 

  

  

 

Okay man, we get that you are very passionate about not bringing a B52H into DCS.

I continue to see paragraphs of text written by you - that try to beat this dead horse into oblivion. 

 

Fact of the matter, is that if you want to focus solely on the Nuclear side of things - then you need to also take into consideration that other airframes that are currently represented in DCS also belong part of the Nuclear mission. F16C, Mig21, heck even the KC135 ect... has nuclear mission sets. 

 

Quit harping on it honestly... its a mission that we will never see represented in DCS. We understand that - but REAL WORLD wise as well, there's TONS of other mission roles that the B52 is utilized and trains for. In fact especially during the last 20 years, the airframe focus is so much more than Nuclear. So lets quit being buzz killers, and fixating on certain points... and be more open minded. The B52 can be utilized in some amazing roles in DCS World and its terrains, as it can real world - without the nuclear codes involved! Certain mission roles CAN be left out for DCS modules, as it does for various modules currently ingame! The consumer base understands that, as Nuclear warfare is a completely different ballgame and frankly doomsday scenarios would not be enjoyable to simulate in DCS. BUT we all have imaginations to look past that, and see the 90% other amazing mission roles that the B52 has to offer

 

I am failing to see that the F16C or F18C era documents are accessible for DCS, but a B52H platform of that same era isnt? Maybe you know more than I know about what systems are onboard though? (And I am not talking about the EWO station... that understandably doesn't need to be in DCS)

 

Your arguments are uneducated to say the least when you are making points such as that.

And it is becoming sickening hearing that same song and dance from ya... have some hope man. Dont be a buzz kill.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Wing

[Kev2go]

21 minutes ago, Wing said:

 

Okay man, we get that you are very passionate about not bringing a B52H into DCS.

I continue to see paragraphs of text written by you - that try to beat this dead horse into oblivion. 

 

Fact of the matter, is that if you want to focus solely on the Nuclear side of things, then you need to also take into consideration that other aiframes that are currently represented in DCS also belong part of the Nuclear mission. F16C, Mig21, heck even the KC135 ect... has nuclear mission sets. Quit harping on it honestly... its a mission that we will never see represented in DCS. We understand that - but REAL WORLD wise as well, theres TONS of other mission roles that the B52 is utilized and trains for. Infact especially during the last 20 years, the airframe focus is so much more than Nuclear. So lets quit being buzz killers, and fixating on certain points... and be more open minded. The B52 can be utilized in some amazing roles in DCS World and its terrains, as it can real world - without the nuclear codes involved.

 

I am failing to see that the F16C or F18C era documents are accessible for DCS, but a B52H platform of that same era isnt. Maybe you know more than I know about what systems are onboard tho? (And I am not talking about the EWO station... that understandably doesnt need to be in DCS)

 

 

 

 

I think it would be necessary to do an EWO station ( at least as much modelling as you can do from non classified sources)  because the station contains the RWR, Countermeasures dispensing the EW jamming of which a live crewmember controls. I would think these are very necessary defensive systems in modern aviation even if the latter bit is really undercooked in DCS.

 

the Manual that pertain to EWO: the T.O. 1B-52H-1-13 is not classified ( most up to date publication i found was 1996 but with revised changes from 2006) , and can be be found through public sources only the supplemental manual  for EWO " the T.O. 1B-52H-1-13-1 is classified. But purely from non classified open source information,  EWO station isn't  a black box behind an iron curtain that it would have to be left out from the module in my opinion, unless someone actually comes out and says it a absolute no no.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Kev2go

[Wing]

19 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

ok thanks for reclarifying your position. And whilst i dont really have any disagreement the practical reasons for why a B52 hasn't been done since i myself have considered them, however i do not know if i can also reach your conclusion on the permissions regarding defense contractor/ military not wanting to give permission or cooperate with ED, based on the fact the B52 is in still service or can can employ nukes.

 

Maybe Mike here can comment if hes thinks the USAF would refuse ED or a 3rd party from doing the B52 purely  on that basis alone, which i don't think he believes  that his likely given his posts from the thread he linked.

 

 

To be completely honest, from my experience, the systems currently being modeled in the F18C and F16C also will share alot of cross cannibalizations to represent the flight deck in the B52H. There are going to be sensitive systems behind the EWO station, but I dont expect the consumer base to really desire that seat anyhow - as the core DCS functionality for ECM is barely implemented as it is currently.

 

Majority of Radar nav, and Nav station systems - I would not see issues obtaining documentation for, judging off the systems ED has acquired for the same era of F16C and F18C. The flight deck irl is shown in full functionality for airshows, we just drape a curtain over the EWO panel due to sensitivity.

 

I think the major hurdle, would be for ED to develop the Sniper TGP to go along with a B52H module, or really any USAF heavy bomber. Currently, I am not sure if ED has obtained rights for that TGP. Munitions wise, there are TONS of JDAMs and GBUs that have already been modelled that can be added into the arsenals and systems. More advanced munitions like cruise missiles, and AGM-86s would be a bit harder to find access to. But then again, we dont necessarily require those weapon systems currently in the DCS World environment.

 

JTAC onstation support, with the Sniper TGP, and lazing for friendly forces with 2 pylons, and a belly full of GBU-12s is what I crave and dream about one day simulating in DCS.

2 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

 

 

 

I think it would be necessary to do an EWO station ( at least as much modelling as you can do from non classified sources)  because the station contains the RWR, Countermeasures dispensing the EW jamming of which  a live crewmember controls which  would necessary defensive systems in aviation even if the latter bit is really undercooked in DCS.

 

the Manual that pertain to EWO: the T.O. 1B-52H-1-13 is not classified, and can be be found through public sources only the supplemental manual  for EWO " the T.O. 1B-52H-1-13-is classified. But purely from non classified open source information,  EWO station isn't  a black box behind an iron curtain that it would have to be left out from the module in my opinion, unless someone actually comes out and says it a absolute no no.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, there are basic documents of B52 EWO functionality out there that is public knowledge - and no more sensitive than what is in our current modules.

Theres forsure a way to get it done.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Wing

[Kev2go]

11 minutes ago, Wing said:

 

To be completely honest, from my experience, the systems currently being modeled in the F18C and F16C also will share alot of cross cannibalizations to represent the flight deck in the B52H. There are going to be sensitive systems behind the EWO station, but I dont expect the consumer base to really desire that seat anyhow - as the core DCS functionality for ECM is barely implemented as it is currently.

 

Majority of Radar nav, and Nav station systems - I would not see issues obtaining documentation for, judging off the systems ED has acquired for the same era of F16C and F18C. The flight deck irl is shown in full functionality for airshows, we just drape a curtain over the EWO panel due to sensitivity.

 

I think the major hurdle, would be for ED to develop the Sniper TGP to go along with a B52H module, or really any USAF heavy bomber. Currently, I am not sure if ED has obtained rights for that TGP. Munitions wise, there are TONS of JDAMs and GBUs that have already been modelled that can be added into the arsenals and systems. More advanced munitions like cruise missiles, and AGM-86s would be a bit harder to find access to. But then again, we dont necessarily require those weapon systems currently in the DCS World environment.

 

JTAC onstation support, with the Sniper TGP, and lazing for friendly forces with 2 pylons, and a belly full of GBU-12s is what I crave and dream about one day simulating in DCS.

 

IF the sniper TGP can't be done what about the litening 2 TGP? I've seen some B52's carrying that, and from some articles i found was being tested as early as 2003 on that particular aircraft..

 

one of the aircrew weapons delivery  manual  dated from 2005 ( revised 2006) references TO N.O 1B-52H-851 which describes " installation of Targeting Pod on B52H Aircraft" and also references symbol [TP] for B52H aircraft that have it.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Kev2go

[Wing]

1 minute ago, Kev2go said:

 

IF the sniper TGP can' be done what about the litening 2 TGP? ive seen some B52's carrying that, and from some articles i found was being tested as early as 2003 on that particular aircraft..

 

one of the aircrew weapons delivery  manual  dated from 2005 ( revised 2006) references TO N.O 1B-52H-851 which describes " installation of Targeting Pod on B52H Aircraft" and also references symbol [TP] for B52H aircraft that have it.

 

 

Litening TGP has been mounted before, and can be done. I just know my entire career at Minot AFB for the last 6 years, its been strictly Sniper TGP.

[statrekmike]

44 minutes ago, Wing said:

 

Okay man, we get that you are very passionate about not bringing a B52H into DCS.

I continue to see paragraphs of text written by you - that try to beat this dead horse into oblivion. 

 

Fact of the matter, is that if you want to focus solely on the Nuclear side of things - then you need to also take into consideration that other airframes that are currently represented in DCS also belong part of the Nuclear mission. F16C, Mig21, heck even the KC135 ect... has nuclear mission sets. 

 

Quit harping on it honestly... its a mission that we will never see represented in DCS. We understand that - but REAL WORLD wise as well, there's TONS of other mission roles that the B52 is utilized and trains for. In fact especially during the last 20 years, the airframe focus is so much more than Nuclear. So lets quit being buzz killers, and fixating on certain points... and be more open minded. The B52 can be utilized in some amazing roles in DCS World and its terrains, as it can real world - without the nuclear codes involved! Certain mission roles CAN be left out for DCS modules, as it does for various modules currently ingame! The consumer base understands that, as Nuclear warfare is a completely different ballgame and frankly doomsday scenarios would not be enjoyable to simulate in DCS. BUT we all have imaginations to look past that, and see the 90% other amazing mission roles that the B52 has to offer

 

I am failing to see that the F16C or F18C era documents are accessible for DCS, but a B52H platform of that same era isnt? Maybe you know more than I know about what systems are onboard though? (And I am not talking about the EWO station... that understandably doesn't need to be in DCS)

 

Your arguments are uneducated to say the least when you are making points such as that.

And it is becoming sickening hearing that same song and dance from ya... have some hope man. Dont be a buzz kill.

 

 

 The F-16 and the F/A-18 are not PRIMARILY designed around strategic nuclear weapon employment. I think you know that as well as I do. 

 

  Also. To be VERY, VERY clear. I am not against having a B-52 in DCS in general. If they opted to do it, I am not going to throw a fit and stand in their way. If ED ever feels that they can get enough info and support from the necessary parties to do such a module, I see no reason to stand against them in the slightest. What I am against is creating a narrative that module creation is just a matter of public documents and that there are no other significant variables at play. I prefer to acknowledge those variables and set my expectations accordingly. Likewise. I am against pretending that just because a F-16 has a switch in the cockpit for nuclear weapon launch that it is somehow proof that a B-52 is just as plausible. You know there are other elements at play when you bring a in-service strategic nuclear bomber into the equation. 

 

  Again. If ED thinks they can pull it off and announces it as a upcoming module. I won't arbitrarily be against it. I just don't think it will ever really go that way because we are talking about a in-service nuclear bomber. Let's be real here and actually consider the other implications that come with that.

[Iron_physik]

51 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

 

 The F-16 and the F/A-18 are not PRIMARILY designed around strategic nuclear weapon employment. I think you know that as well as I do. 

 

  Also. To be VERY, VERY clear. I am not against having a B-52 in DCS in general. If they opted to do it, I am not going to throw a fit and stand in their way. If ED ever feels that they can get enough info and support from the necessary parties to do such a module, I see no reason to stand against them in the slightest. What I am against is creating a narrative that module creation is just a matter of public documents and that there are no other significant variables at play. I prefer to acknowledge those variables and set my expectations accordingly. Likewise. I am against pretending that just because a F-16 has a switch in the cockpit for nuclear weapon launch that it is somehow proof that a B-52 is just as plausible. You know there are other elements at play when you bring a in-service strategic nuclear bomber into the equation. 

 

  Again. If ED thinks they can pull it off and announces it as a upcoming module. I won't arbitrarily be against it. I just don't think it will ever really go that way because we are talking about a in-service nuclear bomber. Let's be real here and actually consider the other implications that come with that.

 

 

The B-52s modern main role is NOT nuclear, its conventional, so stop trying to push this narrative that the B-52 is mainly a nuclear bomber, when it isnt.

also consider this:

 

Boeing is helping RAZBAM making a year ~2000 era F-15E strike eagle, the newest F-15E manual I could find is from the mid 90s

so Boeing is certainly interested in having their aircraft implemented well.

a B-52 is ALOT LESS advanced than a F-15E and most of its systems are well known.

[Kev2go]

2 hours ago, Iron_physik said:

 

 

The B-52s modern main role is NOT nuclear, its conventional, so stop trying to push this narrative that the B-52 is mainly a nuclear bomber, when it isnt.

also consider this:

 

Boeing is helping RAZBAM making a year ~2000 era F-15E strike eagle, the newest F-15E manual I could find is from the mid 90s

so Boeing is certainly interested in having their aircraft implemented well.

a B-52 is ALOT LESS advanced than a F-15E and most of its systems are well known.

 

I would also add that with the Harrier Boeing also must have forwarded some newer publications not available online, because since end of 2020 Razbam has had decided to also model employment of  GBU54, APKWS as well as replacement of the  original Litening 2 AT pod  with the newer Litening 2 G4 TGP. Such recent additions weren't part of the originally planned features.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Kev2go

[Furtherexplination]

Cockpit 360 (https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Virtual-Tour/Cockpit360/) might be a good resource for internal shots of aircraft. The National Museum of the US Air Force has taken a 360 degree camera inside of the aircraft in the Museum. They have shots of both the B-1 Lancer, B-52D Stratofortress, B-36 Peacemaker, and B-29 Superfortress

B-52D

Cockpit: http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/SEAW_tour/SEAW-3.html

Electronic Warfare Station: http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/SEAW_tour/SEAW-4.html

Radar-Navigator: http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/SEAW_tour/SEAW-5.html

B-1B

Cockpit: http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/CW_tour/CW-2.html

Offensive/Defensive Station: http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/CW_tour/CW-3.html

[Furtherexplination]

Forgot to mention Cockpit 360 also has B-58 (http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/CW_tour/CW-13.html) and XB-70(http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/RD_tour/RD-9.html) if those interest anyone, I personally prefer the B-52H for it's bomb-load and service life. 

[Svsmokey]

Nevah . Gonna . Happen . Period .

 

[Tank50us]

6 minutes ago, Svsmokey said:

Nevah . Gonna . Happen . Period .

 

 

Funny, people said the same thing about the C-130, and yet people love the Super Herc mod.

[Svsmokey]

Yeah , both of them .

[Tank50us]

2 minutes ago, Svsmokey said:

Yeah , both of them .

 

try over a thousand when ya look at the Super Hercs own discord. My own unit has seen a few dozen of them join simply because we operate the C-130 in our campaigns. There are people who play DCS who would love to fly a bomber, especially a hot-rod like the B-1B or Tu-160

[Svsmokey]

You make my point !

Lessee , a thousand times say $100 . Yeah , that would pay for the massive development effort required to bring an utterly incompatible aircraft to DCS .

The Hercules is at least compatible , and it's development would require an order of magnitude less effort than a B-52 .

Nor does the effort required to bring a B52 into DCS lend itself to a "labor of love" by a non-commercial entity .

Nevah . Gonna . Happen - at least in something other than a severely "dumbed down" version that bears no relation to reality - rather like this thread .

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Svsmokey

[Furtherexplination]

1 hour ago, Svsmokey said:

Yeah , that would pay for the massive development effort required to bring an utterly incompatible aircraft to DCS .

As I understand it your problem in this sentence is that the B-52 has a lot of range and nuclear weapons, and that it's development costs are high

 

Yes it would be expensive to make, but I believe quite a few people would pay a good amount of money for it.

Don't forget that launching ALCMs is the most unlikely mission to undertake.

The weapons systems are quite extensive for all models,

Nuclear weapons the B-52 could carry:

-Free fall nuclear bombs

-ALCM A/B

-AGM-129

-SRAM

-AGM-28 Hound dog

We will likely not see the above because nukes are not prominent in DCS, however they are only a small part of the B-52's armament

Conventional Weapons Carried:

-500-1000 lbs GP bombs

-Quail decoy

-CALCM (AGM-86C)

-Harpoons

-AGM-142 Have Nap

-JSOW

-JDAM

-WCMD

-Small Diameter Bombs

-Quickstrike Naval Mines 

All of these are viable, except maybe the mines, and many are in DCS already.

Source: https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b52/#:~:text=Boeing B-52H Stratofortress weapons payload&text=The nuclear weapons capacity includes,(ALCM) and eight bombs.

 

In other words B-52s can do:

1.  Strikes against naval targets

2. Mining

3. CAS

4. Precision Strikes

5. Conventional Cruise Missile Strikes

6. Nuclear Cruise Missile Strikes

7. Nuclear Attacks with free fall bombs

8. SEAD against known sam sites.

 

In other words you are angry that you can't do the most unlikely mission set for a B-52H to undertake. In fact, with the New Marianas map that is coming out somewhat soon, naval strikes with the B-52H will be more viable.

Also, what about attack aircraft, they have less fuel and bombs, but they are vary similar anyways? Is there some magical upper limit of weaponry and range that makes something more or less viable.

Besides, with the B-52 you would have an effective CAS platform that can stay in the air for a very long time. Personally I would love to use it to launch CALCMs at targets, and sink ships with 8 harpoon missiles.

 

Aircraft like the Hornet are also nuclear capable, and like the B-52H it is not their main role, so what gives?

 

The B-1 would be easier to implement, since it isn't nuclear capable anymore.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Furtherexplination

[Svsmokey]

I'm not angry at all . Why should I be ? And I never used the word "nuclear"

So your points are about as realistic as your expectations .

 

 

[Tank50us]

15 minutes ago, Furtherexplination said:

As I understand it your problem in this sentence is that the B-52 has a lot of range and nuclear weapons, and that it's development costs are high

 

Yes it would be expensive to make, but I believe quite a few people would pay a good amount of money for it.

Don't forget that launching ALCMs is the most unlikely mission to undertake.

The weapons systems are quite extensive for all models,

Nuclear weapons the B-52 could carry:

-Free fall nuclear bombs

-ALCM A/B

-AGM-129

-SRAM

-AGM-28 Hound dog

We will likely not see the above because nukes are not prominent in DCS, however they are only a small part of the B-52's armament

Conventional Weapons Carried:

-500-1000 lbs GP bombs

-Quail decoy

-CALCM (AGM-86C)

-Harpoons

-AGM-142 Have Nap

-JSOW

-JDAM

-WCMD

-Small Diameter Bombs

-Quickstrike Naval Mines 

All of these are viable, except maybe the mines, and many are in DCS already.

Source: https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b52/#:~:text=Boeing B-52H Stratofortress weapons payload&text=The nuclear weapons capacity includes,(ALCM) and eight bombs.

 

In other words B-52s can do:

1.  Strikes against naval targets

2. Mining

3. CAS

4. Precision Strikes

5. Conventional Cruise Missile Strikes

6. Nuclear Cruise Missile Strikes

7. Nuclear Attacks with free fall bombs

8. SEAD against known sam sites.

 

In other words you are angry that you can't do the most unlikely mission set for a B-52H to undertake. In fact, with the New Marianas map that is coming out somewhat soon, naval strikes with the B-52H will be more viable.

Also, what about attack aircraft, they have less fuel and bombs, but they are vary similar anyways? Is there some magical upper limit of weaponry and range that makes something more or less viable.

Besides, with the B-52 you would have an effective CAS platform that can stay in the air for a very long time. Personally I would love to use it to launch CALCMs at targets, and sink ships with 8 harpoon missiles.

 

Aircraft like the Hornet are also nuclear capable, and like the B-52H it is not their main role, so what gives?

 

The B-1 would be easier to implement, since it isn't nuclear capable anymore.

 

 

Let's also not forget that not everyone who wants to play DCS is really capable of performing the fighter roles, either due to not having the right setups, or have physical limitations that mean they can't do the whole HOTAS thing... but they can still fly a bomb truck, they can still be an AWAC, and they can certainly fly a boom to a thirsty plane. There's also those that just don't like the short bursts of fast and frantic action that's involved with being in the smaller jets, and prefer the more 'relaxed' life of a bomber or transport pilot. And to those people... why shouldn't they be allowed to have what would make them happy? Heck, if my JROTC CO were to catch wind of a B52 being added to DCS, he'd probably download and buy the module in a heartbeat purely because it's what he flew in the 70s.

What this guys deal is with bombers I have no idea, they have a place in modern warfare, and it wouldn't surprise me if in a few hundred years we're hearing of B52s making daring raids against Covenant Ships assaulting Reach, and still kicking ass at the rate that the B52 seems to be going.

1 hour ago, Svsmokey said:

The Hercules is at least compatible , and it's development would require an order of magnitude less effort than a B-52 .

Also, the Herc we have is a mere fraction of the real thing. The C-130J has a lot more systems in it that aren't modeled due to their classified nature, and all of the things that a C-130 can do could only be modeled correctly using the SDK. But again, look at the support that mod has gotten, and imagine if it could have all of its capabilities properly modeled.

[Hammer1-1]

On 2/15/2021 at 12:20 PM, Rick50 said:

 

B-1B has 4 crew members. Does nothing in A2A. Can't fire HARM for SEAD, though one could argue it could help in a SEAD role. Soooo... to meet the expectations of the DCS customers, it would need to be realistic. That means either you jump from seat to seat punching virtual buttons, or you try to find 3 more Bone-fans who are willing to sit in a virtual chair, with no outside view, for hours, to punch buttons to make the mission happen. And it all has to be coded by people who don't need income for doing it, because it may not break even in sales vs cost of development. 

 

Same for a B-52, except that for earlier models, there's 6 crewmen: two pilots, Electronic Warfare Officer, Gunner, Navigator, Radar Navigator. So not only is that a LOT to learn, it's a lot to handle in flight if you are doing singleplayer, and developer it's a LOT to model and code. And most of the handbooks for one specific variant might be very hard to find, getting all of them, legally, might be impossible for the variant they think will sell well.

 

The Bone and Buff are complex enough that a developer might have to charge double that of a Hornet or Tomcat and still might not break even. But millions of people dream of flying a Tomcat after seeing Top Gun, and think basically the same about all fighter jets and fighter warbirds. But really, not very many actually dream of being strategic bomber pilots, and far far fewer dream of being in the windowless belly of a BUFF, staring at a radar screen for hours, ready to eject down to a frozen arctic sea (I'm talking for an entertainment product, I'm not commentating on air force career choices!). It's... not that exciting for someone wanting to spend their free time doing, after work or school, before spending time with the wife/girlfriend/kids before going to sleep. Sure, that might not describe you, but it DOES describe at least half the customers who buy modules, and it will describe you sometime in future.

 

F-117, or F-111 is more likely to bring SOME sales, at least there's an outside view, and the workload in flight might be manageable. Similarly, the A-6 Intruder that Heatblur confirmed will be developed from an AI plane into a full flyable module, looks to be a winner for a pure bomber: even the secondary crew can see outside, not sure if the bombardier has flight controls on an A-6 or not, but also it's got the excitement of carrier ops like cat launches and grabbing a wire!  

 

Just my opinion, I think that a greatly improved AI examples of these aircraft would be very good: if their AI can accomplish a mission and survive it competently, and look good doing it, with new better models and textures. Having a bright reflective early bare metal and white B-52 with a giant tail... or a camoflage BUFF with a pitch black underside would all do very nice for Cold War scenarios. And we REALLY BADLY need a much upgraded reflective bare metal Tupolev Bear. Flexing wings, ray tracing compatible textures, with truly great AI would be a great improvement.

 

 Also, if you REALLY want these aircraft, then learn how to make a mod in DCS. It won't be "realistic" but since no one's paying for it and not expecting realistic perfection, pure realism won't be needed or expected. I think a GREAT example of how this might turn out, is Anubis' C-130 free mod project: it has a proper Hercules cockpit, has multiple payload options, flies fairly realistically how you might expect a Herc to fly, has multiple workstations to not just fly the plane, but perform Loadmaster functions among others. With enough help, you could represent different variants of an aircraft.

So you're a glass not full enough to quench the thirst of a severely dehydrated man kind of person.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Hammer1-1

[Furtherexplination]

1 hour ago, Svsmokey said:

I'm not angry at all . Why should I be ? And I never used the word "nuclear"

So your points are about as realistic as your expectations .

You mentioned it being incompatible with DCS as it is currently and some people mentioned the nuclear roles in earlier posts. 

Besides, how are my expectations unrealistic, I think one would expect a hypothetical B-52 H module to have all the weapons of the B-52 H. 

 

Also, I thought you were the same person as before, who has a similar name and pfp, and who I was directly referring to

 

In other words, there was a minor misunderstanding, but I believe that my points are valid

Edited May 20, 2021 by Furtherexplination

[Rick50]

On 3/16/2021 at 3:10 PM, Wing said:

Yeah, there are basic documents of B52 EWO functionality out there that is public knowledge - and no more sensitive than what is in our current modules.

 

 

Just because you can find documents on open servers, that don't appear to you to be "sensitive", doesn't mean the US Pentagon will agree with you.  ED people have stated in the past, that just because someone posted documents, doesn't guarantee ED or other devs can use that document without having rather severe consequences. One dev even spent time in jail recently over possession of a publication he thought was surely ok to have. I think it was over a manual covering something about the F-16 Viper. My point is that just because you and I found a manual at a site, doesn't guarantee it's useable by a dev team for a pay product.

[Rick50]

On 3/16/2021 at 4:38 PM, Iron_physik said:

Boeing is helping RAZBAM making a year ~2000 era F-15E strike eagle, the newest F-15E manual I could find is from the mid 90s

so Boeing is certainly interested in having their aircraft implemented well.

 

Sorry but is this confirmed??!

 

Boeing isn't just letting Raz make a representation of the Beagle, but they are ACTIVELY HELPING??? Providing current documents? Helping in describing all the modes, display pages, detailed flight profile details, fuel burn estimates used for mission planning???

 

I guess that's possible... but I think I'm skeptical that the Pentagon and Boeing would be that helpful with details that would be of great interest other nations.

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

 

 

Just because you can find documents on open servers, that don't appear to you to be "sensitive", doesn't mean the US Pentagon will agree with you.  ED people have stated in the past, that just because someone posted documents, doesn't guarantee ED or other devs can use that document without having rather severe consequences. One dev even spent time in jail recently over possession of a publication he thought was surely ok to have. I think it was over a manual covering something about the F-16 Viper. My point is that just because you and I found a manual at a site, doesn't guarantee it's useable by a dev team for a pay product.

 

RAZBAM stated in a recent interview that even if certain bits of information are public knowledge, if the company that built the aircraft in question says "No" to the question of whether or not they can add that function, then the group cannot add it, simple as that. As for the nukes and modern bombers, ED has come out and said that they will not be adding nukes, but they can still be added since they can still drop a stick of conventional bombs and turn a few miles into the surface of the moon.

[Nomatic]

On 5/19/2021 at 4:12 PM, Tank50us said:

 

try over a thousand when ya look at the Super Hercs own discord. My own unit has seen a few dozen of them join simply because we operate the C-130 in our campaigns. There are people who play DCS who would love to fly a bomber, especially a hot-rod like the B-1B or Tu-160

Ohhhh boy… don’t start talking about the Bone now, lol. Day 1 purchase for me. Mudhen will probably be my new fixed wing addiction. If the B1 came out, game over. I’d move to that airframe in a heartbeat.

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

Hopefully