Why Heatblur should do the F-111 next!

[Devil 505]

12 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

You don't put A-6 to heavy enemy anti-air protected areas or where enemy has air patrols. But F-111 is put right there. The low level penetration at high speed through the heavy SAM network and to strike a target in one run and then run away while trying to avoid getting intercepted by enemy fighters.

 

A-6 in those missions? No.... No matter how amazing its sensors are at the time, and how amazing payload it can carry, that aircraft just can't survive so well because its slow speed.

 

 

Lets not disregard the primary role of the intruder during Vietnam and its success ratio flying Iron hand as well as strike missions and avoiding SAMs.  Before you say it, yes there were SAM casualties of course, but to say the aircraft just cant survive at slow speed is an inaccurate assumption.  There are a lot of Navy a Marine pilots that would strongly disagree.  As a matter of fact, many stuck with the old girl instead of going over to the Hornets until forced to.    

 

As far as avoiding Migs, most were guided by the surface to air radars during Vietnam, so they had a major disadvantage over fighting the Intruder.  If you are talking DCS and putting it in an unrealistic or should I say no historic role against fighters it was never intended to fight, then the point is mute.  The reality is, we have the Hornet and Tomcats there to provide Air support the Intruder and our beloved Crusader is inbound at some point to. 

 

All I can say is I have not been this happy for Naval Flight Simulation since Janes US Navy Fighters.  DCS and their third parties are making my simulation dreams come true.  The high fidelity super carrier combined with the A-7, F-8, F-14, F-18, A-6 is damn close to complete.  All we need to complete the show is the Phantom and the A-4.  Plus it would be really nice to see Pollychop knock out some Naval Helos.  Sea Sprite, Seahawk, Sea King, Sea Knight ect....

Edited February 9, 2021 by Devil 505

[Fri13]

7 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

Lets not disregard the primary role of the intruder during Vietnam and its success ratio flying Iron hand as well as strike missions and avoiding SAMs.  Before you say it, yes there were SAM casualties of course, but to say the aircraft just cant survive at slow speed is an inaccurate assumption.  There are a lot of Navy a Marine pilots that would strongly disagree.  As a matter of fact, many stuck with the old girl instead of going over to the Hornets until forced to.

 

Lets not now twist the things....

 

I wrote about the F-111 vs A-6, not the A-6 as alone. The A-6 is amazing and very capable aircraft TO AVOID SAM and so on. But, it is NOT A F-111. It was never designed to perform the duties that a high speed F-111 was designed to do.

 

The F-111 comes with a internal weapon loadout to maximize the speed, that is required for a long range strike mission to literally zoom through the enemy air defense. It was not meant to carry a full bomb load while doing so. The A-6 was designed to be that, a bomb truck, to be able carry more bombs than a WW2 era bomber, in fast and small agile platform.

 

Lots of interviews going on how first pilots were depressed when they heard they didn't get chosen to fly Hornet or F-14 etc. But after learning that what the A-6 can do, they wouldn't change their seat to anything else. That similar thing is with Harrier, many of the current pilots do not want to transition to F-35 that they think is a "unicorn" and is not capable do the sorties that Harrier was designed to do.

 

The A-6 is amazing, but it is not a F-111 mission capable. It can be said otherwise that F-111 is the A-6 mission capable, excluding the carrier landing. But those are very different aircraft.

 

Quote

As far as avoiding Migs, most were guided by the surface to air radars during Vietnam, so they had a major disadvantage over fighting the Intruder.

 

The Soviet GCI network is very wide and well covered, where operators saw more detailed than what AWACS or E-2 could from long range. It did have the problems like when there was no visibility to area, then it was a blank. And common strict rules like if GCI didn't see the target, then it was not to be attacked as GCI couldn't confirm is it a hostile or not, and check what are the strategies.

 

Quote

  If you are talking DCS and putting it in an unrealistic or should I say no historic role against fighters it was never intended to fight, then the point is mute.  The reality is, we have the Hornet and Tomcats there to provide Air support the Intruder and our beloved Crusader is inbound at some point to.

 

No, I am talking about historical technical capabilities. The A-6 is not a F-111. Not to perform the missions that F-111 was to.

No matter how I would dislike the F-111, the credits needs to be given for F-111 design and missions types. The A-6 has been very successful because it has been able to operate in the wars that fitted to its capabilities very well. Enemies changes, and so does the weapons and means to fight against. The F-111 didn't really get to its mission elements as designed and why A-6 was more fitted to complete its designed missions.

 

Quote

All I can say is I have not been this happy for Naval Flight Simulation since Janes US Navy Fighters.  DCS and their third parties are making my simulation dreams come true.  The high fidelity super carrier combined with the A-7, F-8, F-14, F-18, A-6 is damn close to complete.  All we need to complete the show is the Phantom and the A-4.  Plus it would be really nice to see Pollychop knock out some Naval Helos.  Sea Sprite, Seahawk, Sea King, Sea Knight ect....

 

DCS World has only in the last couple years started to become together, it has been a long road and for very long time we were forced to just fly a KA-50 or A-10C, only extra being the Flaming Cliffs 3. Now we are seeing all kind modules coming from all different places. And I would even love to see ED to allow more non-direct military aircraft to be done, like the DHC-2 Beaver or An-2 Antonov. Both have a military versions available, both are very special (and fun) to fly. They could offer new special features like a float-equipped variants for water and river landings, very short take-off and landing and anyways historically special.

I don't see any place for 747 and a like long range aircraft. That is why the F-111 is little out of question for its tasking, even when A-6 or F-14 could do the same ranges.

 

But ED is going to be in small trouble, once they have gathered a complete US Navy category and other popular west aircraft, where to get more? Just doing a western aircraft will leave to bad situation. Why ED should seriously separate the Belsimtek from themselves again or start a new company outside of Russia, and do the russian aircraft from other countries, and really work only as a publisher without any data validation or checking to avoid Russian laws.

The only option we can see otherwise is that DCS World becomes only about west aircraft, and soviet/russian ones are nothing more than a simple AI.

 

I wanted first to see ED to make the MiG-23 as Chicz said once that "Don't worry, we are not giving it to anyone ;)" and then suddenly Razbam announced it (AFAIK without ED permission) and now they are doing it.

When the Heatblur made the Viggen, I was hoping then that Heatblur could get to do the MiG-23 with that quality, but they did the F-14 instead. Now there is again the F-4 on the table, and I am more than happy that they are doing the A-6 as that I wouldn't have wanted to see be done by anyone else than HB.

But there are many other great ones like Saab Draken. Of course the F-111 would put many to happiness, but maybe it is just so that if someone should do it, it is then the HB. And it might need to be done at some point anyways.

[Devil 505]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

"That similar thing is with Harrier, many of the current pilots do not want to transition to F-35 that they think is a "unicorn" and is not capable do the sorties that Harrier was designed to do."

 

I currently work with F-35 pilots from around the world and have never once heard the aircraft referred to as a "Unicorn" and two have not a met a pilot yet that flew Harriers who did not want to transfer to the F-35.  Like the Intruder pilots, when the Harrier squadrons with the USMC are being phased out, they are transitioning into the F-35 Bravo.  There has been some adjust going from the Harrier to the 5th Gen technology no doubt, but never has a pilot said it is not capable of doing the sorties the Harrier could accomplish.  As a matter of fact, the USMC were the first to use the Bravo in combat gaining the first confirmed kills in the US.  Israel beat us to the punch with confirmed combat kills.  Now the two jets compete for combat time on deployment.  So FACT, the above statement is shit and Lightning can  complete a Harriers mission criteria with no issues.  The only thing you are going to hear is a pilots love for his/her older aircraft leaving service.  It is a respect thing for all the hard time they have put in with the Harrier and memories of successful deployments with her.  Same for the Britts that have made the same transition to the B model.  

Edited February 9, 2021 by Devil 505

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

I currently work with F-35 pilots from around the world and have never once heard the aircraft referred to as a "Unicorn" and two have not a met a pilot yet that flew Harriers who did not want to transfer to the F-35.

If I recall correctly, there were few in the Reddit thread (mod confirmed pilots) and then there was one at the Fighter Pilot podcast.

 

 

 

 https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/056-av-8-harrier/

 

And I have flown a real F-35 simulator, and it is not "flying".... It is like a 90's arcade game where you "put this there". Vertical landing is like you would be a kid that holds a toy airplane in hand and just "parks it there" without any demand to even think that what is required to be done.

The F-35 is almost like from a sci-fi show where only thing missing is a inertial dampeners so you wouldn't feel any G's.

 

Quote

So FACT, the above statement is shit and Lightning can  complete a Harriers mission criteria with no issues.  The only thing you are going to hear is a pilots love for his/her older aircraft leaving service.  It is a respect thing for all the hard time they have put in with the Harrier and memories of successful deployments with her. 

 

Remember, you are hearing as well lots of praises for new toys, with exciting to new stuff. So your fact is not a fact, just an opinion among many.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Fri13

[Devil 505]

11 hours ago, Fri13 said:

And I have flown a real F-35 simulator, and it is not "flying".... It is like a 90's arcade game where you "put this there". Vertical landing is like you would be a kid that holds a toy airplane in hand and just "parks it there" without any demand to even think that what is required to be done.

Given the fact that I know where the "real" F-35 simulators are located, I am fairly certain I know exactly what you sat in and flew, it is not the "real" F-35 simulator.  Unless you are current service with the hooks ups, a pilot for the armed services, or a Lockheed Martin employee again with the hook ups, you flew a watered down version using Lockheed Martin Prepare 3D.  The stick and throttle were more than likely Bug Eye Technology replicas of the F-35.  If you are prior/current service and were fortunate enough to get into what the pilots train in, then good on you, but because I work with this stuff every day and know the clearances and strings that need to be pulled to get into the real sim, I am going to go with you probably did not fly the real one.  It was nothing more than a fancy tech demo.  I am no pilot for the armed services, and all I can go off of is what I have heard from the gents I know and work with around the world.  So maybe there are some out there that prefer the old Harriers over the 35, but again, as you said its all opinion.  In the end, the performance of the F-35 clearly impressed the USMC and the UK or they would not be replacing all their Harriers.  

Edited February 10, 2021 by Devil 505

[Repth]

Sigh...

 

We all knew the A-6 was coming. Heatblur said as much the day they released the trailer with their plans to move from AI to FF. It makes sense, they had the Grumman license to make the 14, might as well make the A-6. I just hope it leads eventually to an F-111 and that it comes sooner rather than later assuming they can even get a license to make one. I just don't want it to be 15 years down the line, given their track record for completion times. Not that that is a horrible thing, it definitely shows in their amazing work. All the other wish list items are great, but I can't think of one Sim that ever really put you into a combat role in the 111. The Tornado has been done already, the F-4 has been done already, etc.

 

Oh well, one can hope and dream.

[Dudikoff]

On 2/10/2021 at 5:36 AM, Repth said:

All the other wish list items are great, but I can't think of one Sim that ever really put you into a combat role in the 111. The Tornado has been done already, the F-4 has been done already, etc.

 

IIRC, Fighter Bomber.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Dudikoff

[Lurker]

On 2/17/2021 at 2:46 PM, Dudikoff said:

 

IIRC, Fighter Bomber.

 

 

I had to google that one. Wow 1989, no wonder I never heard of it. I only started getting into PCs in 1991 or 92

[Dudikoff]

I didn't actually play that as I had Atari ST at the time and didn't have that one. Plus, it only had 512 kB of RAM so I couldn't run F-16 Combat Pilot I did have. But, I did read about it in gaming magazines.

 

To be fair, the first more serious "study" sims only came with 386 PCs, like e.g. Spectrum Holobyte Falcon 3.0 in 1991, Microprose F-15 Strike Eagle III in 1992 and F-14 Fleet Defender, Tornado in 1993, etc. I never did get into Falcon 3.0 for some reason (graphics were kind of obsolete already I guess), but I over-played the other three mentioned (among others) on my 386DX40. F-14 & Tornado are still among my all-time greats, while the F-15 was quite decent systems-wise (e.g. it had SAR radar mode and its various limitations implemented quite nicely for the time), but they didn't have multiple flights yet in their game engine, so the world and missions were kind of empty and not that immersive.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Dudikoff

[Repth]

I stand corrected, 1989 was a little before my time. Still, to see it come to life in a more modern Sim would be a nice surprise.  

[Devil 505]

8 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

To be fair, the first more serious "study" sims only came with 386 PCs, like e.g. Spectrum Holobyte Falcon 3.0 in 1991, Microprose F-15 Strike Eagle III in 1992 and F-14 Fleet Defender, Tornado in 1993, etc.

LOL!!! I love it! 386 PC.  I am old enough to know exactly what that is.  Going old school with the 286 IBM floppy's.  I remember the upgrade to 3.75in hard disk and then moving into a CD ROM drive with my 486.  The 486 was purchased with Janes Us Navy Fighters.  Now I am Flying off of the super carrier.  What a ride Sims have been since I was a kid.  I remember my first one being F-19 Stealth Fighter.  OLD SCHOOL.  

[Dudikoff]

15 hours ago, Repth said:

I stand corrected, 1989 was a little before my time. Still, to see it come to life in a more modern Sim would be a nice surprise.  

 

Wasn't trying to correct you as it wasn't really a study sim as the sims were not quite there yet, was just trying to reminisce those old times.

 

But, by 1993 already, DI's Tornado was a pretty serious game for the time and I guess offered a lot of that F-111 experience with its fast flying at low level with swept wings and a TFR set to 200 feet, A2G radar, dive-bombing, dumb, cluster and laser guided bombs, etc. with an extra twist of quite useful ALARM ARMs with their unique indirect mode.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Dudikoff

[arneh]

On 2/17/2021 at 2:46 PM, Dudikoff said:

 

IIRC, Fighter Bomber.

 

I did have that one on the Amiga (but then I had about every flight sim available back then )


It did have a F-111, among other fighter bombers (F-15E, F-4, Viggen, Mig-27 and two versions of Tornado), but apart from a different cockpit layout and weapon loads, all the planes were the same. They all had the same instruments, just in different locations. And they all handled and operated the same.
The map was a strange place for a war, Dakota. The AI were very simple. At first I tried to dogfight the enemy, but in the end it turned out the simplest way of defeating them was to just allow them to come up behind you, be ready with the chaff/flare button (which always worked 100% effectively), and then they would overtake you and fly straight into your gunsight. It was just a case of pressing the trigger at the right moment, no need to manoeuvre  You also had a radar which showed aircraft 360 degrees around you (or was it supposed to be a RWR which showed accurate distance?), so had full control of where the enemy were at all times.

Even back then there were better sims than this one

Hopefully we will get a better and more accurate simulation of the F-111 at some time

[Dudikoff]

22 minutes ago, arneh said:

I did have that one on the Amiga (but then I had about every flight sim available back then )

It did have a F-111, among other fighter bombers (F-15E, F-4, Viggen, Mig-27 and two versions of Tornado), but apart from a different cockpit layout and weapon loads, all the planes were the same. They all had the same instruments, just in different locations. And they all handled and operated the same.
The map was a strange place for a war, Dakota.

Even back then there were better sims than this one

 

Yeah, it wasn't the most "serious" sim of the day, but having different cockpit arrangements was a nice touch compared to e.g. Birds of Prey which came even later IIRC. Sure, there were better sims like Falcon and Combat Pilot, but FB and Birds of Pray were only ones which had the F-111.

 

Regarding the location, it wasn't a war game, but it was set around Curtis Le May trophy IIRC.

 

Quote

The AI were very simple. At first I tried to dogfight the enemy, but in the end it turned out the simplest way of defeating them was to just allow them to come up behind you, be ready with the chaff/flare button (which always worked 100% effectively), and then they would overtake you and fly straight into your gunsight.

 

Well, I guess that was the limitation of those times. In DI's Tornado, the enemy fighters would kind of stick on you when they ran out of missiles (flares and chaff weren't 100% effective, though) and try to gun you down, so you could use a similar breaking trick and switch to A2A mode and AIM-9s and then if you're lucky enough for them not to crash into you (about a 50/50 chance) and if you were quick enough, you had a decent chance of locking them up and hitting them with winders before they made a fast turn and got back behind you.

 

Fast forward to DI's F-16 in 97 and the enemy fighter AI and FM still felt the same (where they would stick on you or sometimes just fly in super tight circles), but by that time it was quite obviously obsolete in that regard.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Dudikoff

[Frederf]

The F-111 is a very interesting airplane to me and I would very much like to fly it in DCS.

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, Frederf said:

The F-111 is a very interesting airplane to me and I would very much like to fly it in DCS.

 

I just think it is the natural fit for Heatblur. If they decide to do another module after the Intruder. Sometimes we forget that this for most third parties, this is a labor of love. One that takes YEARS to accomplish. People change, priorities change, job security changes etc. etc. etc. Heatblur are one of the most professional third parties in DCS World, and they do this mostly because of a love of aviation. (Making modules for DCS doesn't pay the bills)

We are very lucky that DCS World even exists, let alone that it supports such talented 3rd party developers. I hope, that one day someone develops the F-111 and I hope, that someone is Heatblur.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Lurker

[TRIBVNE]

I am not going to lie, the A-6 would be a "one hit wonder" in DCS.  People will love it for about a month before realizing how vulnerable it is.  We aren't talking about real life combat with squadrons of aircraft supporting each other.  The Intruder is a hell of a bomb truck.  That said, I don't see its relevance in game besides being carrier borne.  People will complain about being shot down and it will become that module in the corner.  Fun to fly a premade mission, but with minimal use in multiplayer without a server full of CAP and BARCAP.

 

I think the F-111 is a better choice for the game.  It allows for people to "go it solo."  They can play missions, they can just fly it low level at night while dumping and lighting the burners, they can go into servers and do solo strikes on airfields.  I just think it is a million times more practical for DCS than the Intruder.  And besides, all of the things Lurker pointed out about carrying over F-14 development to ease costs and time constraints should be a factor.  You gain a new aircraft with a completely unique role, but you already have figured out things such as wing sweep, the engines, etc.

 

Also, the Tornado is cool.  I like it and would love to see it some day.  Maybe the European devs doing the Eurofighter would be a good choice for it in the future.  But the F-111 is unique, just as proven, and could be perfect to fit what I view is a hole in the DCS world.  Plus I like bombs in bomb bays and all that gas to burn.

Edited April 10, 2021 by TRIBVNE
Added a sentence.

[MAXsenna]

I just want both!
I also think more two seaters in MP will benefit the experience. I'm in the process of teaching my girlfriend flightsims, but she doesn't really want to "fly", yet.
She actually wants to be my RIO/WSO. I can't complain!
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Spurts]

On 4/10/2021 at 12:20 PM, TRIBVNE said:

 People will love it for about a month before realizing how vulnerable it is.  We aren't talking about real life combat with squadrons of aircraft supporting each other.

Like the A-10 that they released three versions of?

[Lurker]

On 4/16/2021 at 4:56 PM, Spurts said:

Like the A-10 that they released three versions of?

 

The A10 is pretty great, it's an iconic plane in it's own right. But to be honest, it suffers from similar problems when used on line. It's just the nature of the game. With that said I have nothing against the Intruder, the A10 or any other module. I'd simply like to see the F-111 in DCS World. I think it would be a great addition for all the stated reasons. 

[Spurts]

I agree that the F-111 would be amazing.  I have the A-10C v1 and would get the Intruder when it's released, but then I am a sucker for carrier ops.

[Stearmandriver]

On 2/8/2021 at 10:40 PM, Devil 505 said:

All we need to complete the show is the Phantom and the A-4.

Have you tried the free community mod of the A-4E?  I'm just now getting into it,  and it is FANTASTIC.  Absolutely payware quality.  If you're a Vietnam - 80s naval air fan, I strongly recommend! 

 

I'm greatly looking forward to the Intruder, and contrary to an earlier comment, it definitely won't be a short-time fling for me.  In a Liberation campaign with era-appropriate factions, it's gonna be great. 

[BMGZ06]

I never really took notice of the F-111 since back in 86 when I saw Top Gun I was smitten with the Tomcat. I never understood what the F-111 was capable of or the role they played. After spending the last week learning about it and listening to the pilots who flew them and the stories they have, I have to say it was a pretty badass plane. I could not imagine flying at 900kts so close to the ground. Jeff Guinns story of flying past an EA-6 and the shock wave rolled it over going past it around 900kts is pretty amazing. The F-111's always had to take off last to not get on target too early before everyone else. Most of the time they were going twice as fast as any other fighter. The F-111 F was a monster. That said I am a fan of the A-6 as well. It would be a great plane to have in game. But if the F-111 F was modeled properly with the TFR and multicrew, I would likely convert to flying it all the time since it would be a really fun mission always being on the deck going like stink.

[Spurts]

21 hours ago, BMGZ06 said:

 always being on the deck going like stink.

This is how I fly the F-14 half the time.  This is also my SEAD tactic against the SA-10.

[Blaze1]

The F-111F would be the obvious choice due to its PGM capability and action during Desert Storm, but I'd really also love to see an F-111D with that beautiful digital cockpit.