planes that you would like to see in DCS?

[Knock-Knock]

More AI units really, from various periods and countries.

 

[Fri13]

11 hours ago, Furiz said:

but why would I use those vs a Hornet that can do all that those planes can do and much more and in 10 different ways and even better.

 

Hornet can't do all those things that Harrier does...

 

https://youtu.be/h1cx4ZdyGyA?t=338

 

https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-066.pdf

 

"The F/A-18 Hornet dropped more than 17,500 tons of ordnance against a variety of targets. Its multimission capability was demonstrated on 17 January when a flight of four F/A-l8s encountered two Iraqi MIG-21s about 35 miles from their target. The F/A-18s acquired, identified, and destroyed the two MIGS. then shifted to an air-to-ground role and dropped their MK-84s. This was the only such incident in the Gulf War."

 

[Fri13]

On 3/30/2021 at 5:18 PM, Berserk said:

 

Has no one told them giving the names for some planes like "Super-Sukhoi", "Terminator" etc. sounds silly and childich? Imagine "Super F-35" or "Rafale Terminator"...

Regardless of the plane it sounds a bit pathetic.

 

Apache

Kiowa Warrior

Iroquois

Chinook

Cobra

Super Cobra

Sea Stallion

Sea Dragon

Super Stallion

Thunderbolt

Warthog

Hornet

Fighting Falcon

Super Viper

Eagle

Super Eagle

.....

 

All are as childish names as well to be "honoring" a Indian tribes, various birds etc.

 

[Furiz]

2 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Umm, you do realise that the Hornet is marginally older than the AV-8B Harrier...?

 

Marginally would be 20 years, they have their first flights few years apart, or you say marginally cause of AWPKS which make your Harrier frankensteins daughter.

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

Hornet can't do all those things that Harrier does...

 

https://youtu.be/h1cx4ZdyGyA?t=338

 

https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-066.pdf

 

"The F/A-18 Hornet dropped more than 17,500 tons of ordnance against a variety of targets. Its multimission capability was demonstrated on 17 January when a flight of four F/A-l8s encountered two Iraqi MIG-21s about 35 miles from their target. The F/A-18s acquired, identified, and destroyed the two MIGS. then shifted to an air-to-ground role and dropped their MK-84s. This was the only such incident in the Gulf War."

 

 

So Hornet can go AA then AG, perfect, its 10 times more advanced than Harrier, Harrier is just a good ground pounder and that's it, can do all the stuff a Hornet can, except good air to air. (I know Fri13 that it can do some air to air, it just can't do it as good as a Hornet can, dont pull straws on this one now)

Edited April 6, 2021 by Furiz

[3WA]

On 12/17/2020 at 1:58 AM, Laud said:

More Aircraft??? Hell no!

 

How about Assets? More variety on the ground (and sea). More infantry variations (weapons, clothes, equipment), more vehicles of all kinds to fit into the avaiable maps, more options to control ships / fleets. And so on...

 

We have way too many aircraft for way too little environmental / peripheral stuff and functionalities.

 

Just my 2c...

Agreed.  A few other fighters like Raphael and F-15 at the most modern we can get information for would be interesting, some of the large civilian passenger jets, but yeah, we're nearing the end of popular fighters.  I'm guessing that's why ED is starting to concentrate more on helicopters ( which I LOVE ).  Also, more detail in terrain and maps.  And of course, vehicles, troops, and equipment to populate the maps.

[Fri13]

3 minutes ago, Furiz said:

So Hornet can go AA then AG, perfect, its 10 times more advanced than Harrier, Harrier is just a good ground pounder and that's it, can do all the stuff a Hornet can, except good air to air. (I know Fri13 that it can do some air to air, it just can't do it as good as a Hornet can, dont pull straws on this one now)

 

Only once did the Multirole capability be used in the Hornet at the Gulf War, and people make "Multirole is critical feature and capability!". 

And no, you don't know that Harrier can do "some air to air" as you are totally ignoring that AV-8B+ Harrier (the 2/3-3/4 of them all) has the same capabilities as the Hornet does. It just has little smaller radar dish size so the maximum detection range is little shorter. But otherwise same capability to go Air2Air combat. Harriers are even going to receive a JHMCS and AIM-9X II in 2023-2025 (they are last in the list to be upgraded, just couple years before retirement).

So you are just pulling straws now... 

8 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Marginally would be 20 years, they have their first flights few years apart, or you say marginally cause of AWPKS which make your Harrier frankensteins daughter.

 

APKWS II is 100% backward compatible, even our Hornet with its 2005 software versions is capable (and used operationally) carry and launch AGR-20A. Same thing is with Harrier, fully capable and operationally used. The difference is just that Razbam actually did it correctly, while ED is denying it with double standard claim. But that is Off-Topic and already dealt topic. 

[Fri13]

3 minutes ago, 3WA said:

but yeah, we're nearing the end of popular fighters. 

 

So majority is already done or coming. So if the current selection has been done in sake of maximizing the profits, then it means that in the future there are less popular aircraft options and that means profits are going to be smaller (or worse case marginal). 

 

Like there might not be any more demanded aircraft than F-14, at least I wouldn't even bet that F/A-18C has been more wanted than the star of famous Top Gun movie that even got people to recruit to Navy. There will always be some minor groups that are willing to buy some less known aircraft, but that is the problem that if group of 1500 buys one and other gets only group of 300, it will signal something business wise. 

[rkk01]

My point re Harrier & Hornet wasn’t about comparing capabilities...

 

... it was to counter the idea that somehow the Hornet was modern and the Harrier was obsolescent Cold War era

[Avimimus]

Su-17

Pucarra (Or OV-10 or OV-1/JOV-1A), also A-37

Panavia Tornado (Or Sepecat Jaguar)

Mil Mi-2

 

After that... well, a Mig 1.42 if I'm honest... but the community wouldn't stand for that (as it'd be almost entirely speculative).

 

I guess I'm a strange fish.

[Fri13]

13 hours ago, rkk01 said:

My point re Harrier & Hornet wasn’t about comparing capabilities...

 

... it was to counter the idea that somehow the Hornet was modern and the Harrier was obsolescent Cold War era

 

I got that, but when people think in the terms of "capabilities" more as "I can win more with this, so it is more fun" is just personal character. Just like it is to enjoy from challenging and limited earlier fighters. Like one can enjoy dropping JDAM from a 10 km altitude on a target that is visually visible on ground, while other likes to fly below 100 meters and try to time properly the bomb release on target that will require correct pop-up and dive angles with speed etc.

 

The funny part as that what you pointed out that Harrier we have is actually from 1985 but it is as high tech as is Hornet from 1983. Both are "obsolescent Cold War era" aircraft - equally.

Yet when I sit in a AV-8B N/A and then F/A-18C, I get always the feeling that Harrier is much more high tech than Hornet is. But it could be just the visual look how ED and Razbam presents them. But one thing I do agree is that Harrier has much better interface design and system logic than Hornet (and F-35 even) does.  That is something that makes Harrier so pleasant to fly and operate in the digital battlefield compared to A-10C or F/A-18C etc as you get to focus so much more to the situation on the ground that those others feel so much more from the past than Harrier does.

 

 

[upyr1]

On 4/1/2021 at 1:15 AM, Furiz said:

That is what draws me to DCS and I love every second in my Hornet and Viper!

 

As for Helicopters, Apache and the Hind are coming which is great, but I have no idea if I would like one cause I have nowhere to test that, FC3 should have a low fidelity Heli module imo.

The only logical choice for a fc helicopter would be the mi-28. 

[yann59]

hello,

F-111's, EF-111

SEPECAT JAGUAR,

TORNADO F3,

Tu-16 Badger,

A-6, EA-6, KA-6 INTRUDER,

Mirage 2000D

.....

Thanks

 

[bies]

On 4/6/2021 at 8:26 AM, Furiz said:

for example, Harrier and Tomcat are both carrier capable planes, but why would I use those vs a Hornet that can do all that those planes can do and much more and in 10 different ways and even better.

I like all the systems those modern planes have, that are lacking in the older jets. I see majority here likes cold war era but I don't like to stick to the old stuff, I like technology.

 

If anything, our "Harrier II" AV-8B is a bit more modern representing ~2010 standard than our F/A-18C modeled as ~2005 standard. Our AV-8B has digital avionics, JDAMs, NVG, FLIR, moving map etc.

 

(I'm not trying to compare naval plane with VTOL plane with it's obvious limitations and unique capabilities. Just modernity level.)

 

F/A-18C has been phased out from US Navy years ago and USMC as well when AV-8B is still active in USMC.

 

Both original planes F/A-18 and AV-8 were designed in 1970s deep into Cold War.

[Baco]

F-4 Phantom II, All and any of them as long as its carrier born.

Su-17/22

F-9F Panther/Cougar 

La-11

F-84

Anything from 50s to 70s-

[Evoman]

On 4/1/2021 at 2:15 AM, Furiz said:

I like technology so modern planes for me, since post 2000 we only have few planes, Viper, Hornet and Jeff and A10C2, it is good that Eurofighter is coming, but I'd like to see more modern Russian planes, SU27, SU30, MiG 29 versions of those planes around 2005, I'd love to see Rafale and Gripen C, J-11 etc...

 

That is what draws me to DCS and I love every second in my Hornet and Viper!

 

As for Helicopters, Apache and the Hind are coming which is great, but I have no idea if I would like one cause I have nowhere to test that, FC3 should have a low fidelity Heli module imo.

I don't think a low fidelity helicopter is needed if all you are looking for is a basic trainer type helicopter to learn to fly in. I for one could also use such a helicopter since I was unable to fly the Huey successfully in just a few days of a free to fly event. With the OH-58 Kiowa currently in development it would be great if ED could work something with Polychop to get a TH-57 Sea Ranger variant out of it to be used as a basic helicopter trainer to be included in the DCS free download.

 

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Evoman said:

With the OH-58 Kiowa currently in development it would be great if ED could work something with Polychop to get a TH-57 Sea Ranger variant out of it to be used as a basic helicopter trainer to be included in the DCS free download.

 

 

Install that.

[DarkFire]

Some modules that I'd love to see and that I think would be achievable in terms of available experts / documentation:

 

1. Su-27SM (my personal dream module).

2. Blackburn Buckaneer.

3. Tornado GR1 / F3.

4. MiG-25

5. SR-71.

 

Modules I'd like to see that may not be achievable:

 

1. Su-24M2.

2. Tornado GR4.

3. MiG-31.

[Morrov]

On 4/11/2021 at 5:23 PM, Evoman said:

I don't think a low fidelity helicopter is needed if all you are looking for is a basic trainer type helicopter to learn to fly in. I for one could also use such a helicopter since I was unable to fly the Huey successfully in just a few days of a free to fly event. With the OH-58 Kiowa currently in development it would be great if ED could work something with Polychop to get a TH-57 Sea Ranger variant out of it to be used as a basic helicopter trainer to be included in the DCS free download.

 

Well, if you want a trainer helo to prepare for the Kiowa, you have the Bell 407 available for XPlane.
But I agree that it would be awesome to have a "built in" chopper.

[rkk01]

I picked up the Gazelle in the last sale (having tried in the free to fly period) as I wanted a light trainer helo

 

Despite the dire warnings I found the Gazelle to be a lot of fun to fly... Yes she is very sensitive on the controls but there is good advice on here and on YT, especially on cyclic saturation 

My biggest weakness with the Gazelle is breaking it by going too fast... VNE VNE VNE

 

Also tried the Huey and the Hip - bought the Hip in the sale as I will get the Hind, but really didn’t gel with Huey

 

12 months ago I’d been firmly set on not being interested in DCS rotary wing... but quite like the look of the Bo105 and would also be tempted by a Little Bird

 

Push come to shove though, a Royal Navy Lynx would be a day one purchase 

Edited April 13, 2021 by rkk01

[Exile5121]

Gripen. Man, Gripen. 

[Ashayar]

I would add a Super Etendard on the list.

[Evoman]

13 hours ago, Ashayar said:

I would add a Super Etendard on the list.

Your in luck. RAZBAM is currently working on the Super Etendard to flesh out the Falklands map they are also working on.

 

 

 

[Ashayar]

On 4/15/2021 at 10:31 PM, Evoman said:

Your in luck. RAZBAM is currently working on the Super Etendard to flesh out the Falklands map they are also working on.

 

 

 

Really? I'm sorry I didn't know that! But that's excellent news!!! <3 Thank you!

[Silver_Dragon]

On 4/15/2021 at 9:31 PM, Evoman said:

Your in luck. RAZBAM is currently working on the Super Etendard to flesh out the Falklands map they are also working on.

 

 

 

Meanwhile RAZBAM has show a Super Etendard 3D model, has actually not confirmed on the "Falkland Assets Pack" (show on the falkland video interview by Tactical Pascale).

[Baco]

The only Aircraft I know of being work right now by Razbam regarding Malvinas/Falklands, is the AI 58 Pucará.

No Mirage III no SUE, no A-4B/C as of yet.

Also I have seen a Harrier FS1 announced but much later not currently being developed.