Jump to content

Why Heatblur should do the F-111 next!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just like the title says here are some reasons why Heatblur Simulations should bring this awesome plane to life as their next project in DCS World. Feel free to add reasons of your own and discuss bel

i can just imagine the day when I get to hear the guy who did the F-14 training missions, to do the F-111 missions. +1 we need more cold war aircraft

Look at it this way, HB have announced the A-6 module properly, so even if you really, really, really want an F-111 from them, there's zero chance of it happening in the next 2-ish years while they're

Yes a Vietnam map would be awesome. However I do feel that the maps we already have are pretty great, there are many things I would actually like to see included in DCS World before any of these modules that we are wishing for (including the F-111) but that is a discussion for another thread. 


Edited by Lurker
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I was an avionics tech (COM/NAV/ECM) on the FB-111A, would love to see one in DCS!

 

  • Like 1

Win 10, Gigabyte Aorus Ultra with i5 9600KF @ 4.6GHz, 32G DDR4 3200 RAM, GTX 1070, TrackIR 5, TM Warthog stick on VPC Warbird base, Warthog Throttle for jets & helis, CH Throttle Quadrant for props, CH Pro Pedals, 500GB SSDs for installed sims :gun_smilie:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks like the super-secret-module that Eagle Dynamics finally teased is the Apache Longbow. Which would make the F-111 still available for development for third parties! So yeah, Heatblur what are you waiting for, just do it! 😊

 

(Yeah Im a glass-half-full kind of guy)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Only thing I will say is that ED have now also opened up the Phantom for 3rd parties too. Though I would love to see an F-111F some day.

  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Completely agree. F-111E/F USAF and RAAF variant would be great!  Way way complex. F-111 , in USAF service was known as 'graduate' or post-graduate' level aircraft. Meaning it was demanding to fly and required extensive specialized training. Wing sweep was manual. TFR was exacting. Nav was full time work. In 1989-1990 E and F got digital flight control to replace analogue flight control computers. 

Logic of adapting Jester to F-111 BN crewman cant be argued with. Though it can be applied to any number of two seat fast jets. Tornado, Buccaneer, SeaVixen, F-4 (any variant), SU-24, Mig-31, TU-128, YAK-25. An instructor IP AI would be beneficial to learning the complex types. If you are doing something bad, IP AI would tell you to stop.

One can extend logic to cover 3 or 4 crew type. Like BUFF or Bone, or MC-130 Spectre. You as pilot in command gives instructions , and AI Jesters perform their jobs. Single player can have a decent large aircraft sim. Jester AI , in F-111, would give you steering ques, and player would press weapon consent switch to release weapons.

I think, that perhaps, in keeping with international spirit of DCS, that a Tornado mod is more appropriate. Possibly simpler then F-111 to bring to fruition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

With today's announcement of the full fidelity A-6E from Heatblur a few more of boxes are ticked for tech needed for the Vark! Hopefully one day...


Edited by Vampyre
  • Like 1

Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.

 

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

 

"If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2020 at 1:46 AM, Lurker said:

Well it looks like the super-secret-module that Eagle Dynamics finally teased is the Apache Longbow. Which would make the F-111 still available for development for third parties! So yeah, Heatblur what are you waiting for, just do it! 😊

 

(Yeah Im a glass-half-full kind of guy)

Lurker, had to log in after seeing yesterday’s ED teaser video and HB’s official announcement of the Intruder being their next project. Just wanted to say hahaha I told ya so! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2021 at 2:20 PM, Devil 505 said:

Lurker, had to log in after seeing yesterday’s ED teaser video and HB’s official announcement of the Intruder being their next project. Just wanted to say hahaha I told ya so! 

 

Yep, it looks like the Intruder will be their next module. I am happy for all the Intruder fans. You will finally get a carrier based bomb truck. I don't think it will fare that well in the DCS multiplayer environment though, but for single player and\or on servers where you have air superiority it will probably be fun to fly. Especially considering that it was an all weather attack plane, so with the new clouds and weather we are getting it will definitely be an interesting module for people who like that sort of thing. 

I might consider getting it too, but like I've said previously to me it's not nearly as exciting as a supersonic bomber like the F-111. 

Well, fingers crossed that eventually someone makes the F-111 before the heat death of the universe 🙂


Edited by Lurker
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lurker said:

 

Yep, it looks like the Intruder will be their next module. I am happy for all the Intruder fans. You will finally get a carrier based bomb truck. I don't think it will fare that well in the DCS multiplayer environment though, but for single player and\or on servers where you have air superiority it will probably be fun to fly. Especially considering that it was an all weather attack plane, so with the new clouds and weather we are getting it will definitely be an interesting module for people who like that sort of thing. 

I might consider getting it too, but like I've said previously to me it's not nearly as exciting as a supersonic bomber like the F-111. 

Well, fingers crossed that eventually someone makes the F-111 before the heat death of the universe 🙂

 

Right there with you man! If the F-111 comes to DCS, it will be a day 1 buy for me as well.  Love the aircraft and it needs to come to DCS for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lurker said:

Yep, it looks like the Intruder will be their next module. I am happy for all the Intruder fans. You will finally get a carrier based bomb truck. I don't think it will fare that well in the DCS multiplayer environment though, but for single player and\or on servers where you have air superiority it will probably be fun to fly. Especially considering that it was an all weather attack plane, so with the new clouds and weather we are getting it will definitely be an interesting module for people who like that sort of thing. 

I might consider getting it too, but like I've said previously to me it's not nearly as exciting as a supersonic bomber like the F-111. 

Well, fingers crossed that eventually someone makes the F-111 before the heat death of the universe

 

The irony in this is that the F-111 and the A-6 have *exactly* the same mission: Low level attack in instrument flight conditions. Granted, the F-111 is about 50% faster in a dash (Mach 0.8ish vs. Mach 1.2ish), but for the vast majority of the low level penetration both types will fly at subsonic speed (because fuel). How much of the dash speed difference is really noticeable in instrument flight is another question. From RL tactical point of view and a DCS gameplay point of view, both aircraft are virtually identical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MBot said:

 

 From RL tactical point of view and a DCS gameplay point of view, both aircraft are virtually identical.

 

The difference in top speed, payload and combat radius makes these two aircraft completely different from a tactical and strategic point of view. If you look at just the top speed, the Intruder will never be able to outrun any pursuer, while the Aardvark will probably be able to outrun nearly every single aircraft except when caught by surprise. Not to mention the fact that it's top speed and acceleration in the final dash will make it very hard to hit by AA defenses. Then there is the combat radius and payload difference. So, yeah I'd say that not only are they not virtually identical, they are completely different from both a tactical and strategic point of view. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

The difference in top speed, payload and combat radius makes these two aircraft completely different from a tactical and strategic point of view. If you look at just the top speed, the Intruder will never be able to outrun any pursuer, while the Aardvark will probably be able to outrun nearly every single aircraft except when caught by surprise. Not to mention the fact that it's top speed and acceleration in the final dash will make it very hard to hit by AA defenses. Then there is the combat radius and payload difference. So, yeah I'd say that not only are they not virtually identical, they are completely different from both a tactical and strategic point of view. 

 

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.

 

Personally I do not see F-111 to come ever in DCS, as the maps are just too small. It is basically full afterburners through whole mission while laughing at anyone trying to intercept it.

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Payload: In practical terms nearly identical.

 

Range: Both aircraft are known to have very long range. The F-111 had a some more, the A-6 would generally start closer to its target due to being carrier base. In terms of DCS, both aircraft have plenty enough (combat radius beyond map size, so no practical difference).

 

Speed: Attack speed for both will be high subsonic. Bombing attacks are generally not carried out at supersonic speed because of maneuverability and weapon separation concerns. The F-111 will perhaps have 100 kts extra during the attack. The F-111 will of course have the superior dash speed if required.

 

It should be noted though that in the era most relevant for both types (Cold War), low level flight at night made aircraft practically immune from interception from most Soviet aircraft such as MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25 or Su-15. Some people might argue the MiG-23, but I stand by it (and with it MiG-29, which has basically the same radar performance as late Floggers). Su-27 would start to become a problem, but they started to appear only at the end of the 80s. The biggest threat was the look-down/shoot-down capability of the MiG-31. The A-6 would have to deal with those in certain areas it was expected to operated (Kamchatka, Sakhalin, Kola). MiG-31 would also have been a big problem for the F-111, but it did not operate in Eastern Europe, so the F-111 out of England would not have met them. In general, low level night flight was considered to be sufficient protection from the most common Soviet fighters regardless of own speed.

 

The task and mission profile of both types was very similar.

 

Let me quote Aviation author Rick Morgan: "The General Dynamics F-111 was the closest thing the Air Force had to the Intruder, at least in terms of mission, if not performance."

 

I am a big fan of both types.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

 

It did.

 

Just look at Eldorado Canyon in 1986. Both types operated side-by-side, carrying out a similar mission. The F-111 struck in the west in the Tripoli area, A-6 struck in the east in the Benghazi area. Both areas were heavily defended (A-6 got shot at and dodged SA-3). By the way, one F-111 was shot down by a Shilka while the A-6 didn't suffer any losses.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MBot said:

 

It did.

 

Just look at Eldorado Canyon in 1986. Both types operated side-by-side, carrying out a similar mission. The F-111 struck in the west in the Tripoli area, A-6 struck in the east in the Benghazi area. Both areas were heavily defended (A-6 got shot at and dodged SA-3). By the way, one F-111 was shot down by a Shilka while the A-6 didn't suffer any losses.

 

The A-6's were protected by the F/A-18's performing SEAD/DEAD mission denying the SAM operations. The F-111's didn't have a such protection.

And A-6's took of from the fleet just near by, while F-111's did fly all the way from the UK, around the Spain peninsula and from there to Libya, and back.

 

Totally different missions, different packages, and different changes.

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MBot said:

 

It did.

 

Just look at Eldorado Canyon in 1986. Both types operated side-by-side, carrying out a similar mission. The F-111 struck in the west in the Tripoli area, A-6 struck in the east in the Benghazi area. Both areas were heavily defended (A-6 got shot at and dodged SA-3). By the way, one F-111 was shot down by a Shilka while the A-6 didn't suffer any losses.

 

Everyone likes to bring that mission up as some kind of standard reference for why the A-6 were as good if not better than F-111s. It's just one mission, where crew fatigue and experience was also a big factor. (The F111s were launched from England and had to go around the whole of Europe, while the F-6s were launched from a carrier in the area)

If you want to compare the two airframes it's probably a better idea to look at their entire combat records instead of just one mission. 

Look, I'm not saying that one is better than the other, both aircraft have their pluses and minuses, but to claim that they are virtually identical is disingenuous at best. I would love to see the F-111 in DCS and I have listed my reasons in this thread and wont go into them again and in the end it's a matter of personal preference. I think it would be a joy to fly and fight in and would be a thrilling ride, especially online considering the current multiplayer environment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

The A-6's were protected by the F/A-18's performing SEAD/DEAD mission denying the SAM operations. The F-111's didn't have a such protection.

And A-6's took of from the fleet just near by, while F-111's did fly all the way from the UK, around the Spain peninsula and from there to Libya, and back.

 

Totally different missions, different packages, and different changes.

 

The Navy provided fighter and SEAD support for the F-111 in the Tripoli area as well.

 

The F-111 required a fleet of tankers, the A-6 a fleet of ships. Both dealt with reaching the target according to the doctrine of their respective service.


Edited by MBot
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MBot said:

 

The Navy provided fighter and SEAD support for the F-111 in the Tripoli area as well.

 

For that I don't know, as Navy only launched 6 F/A-18's, and 24 A-6's and all six F/A-18's went with the A-6's and none went with the F-111 part, as Navy mission was not the west but only the east. While airforce was responsible alone for the west.

 

15 minutes ago, MBot said:

The F-111 required a fleet of tankers, the A-6 a fleet of ships. Both dealt with reaching the target according to the doctrine of their respective service.

 

Doesn't matter. The navy has as well tankers in use, it is not a thing for air force alone.

The point still is, F-111 is for different kind missions and capable for different tasks than A-6 is. But both are capable to perform the similar simple bombing runs if mission criteria allows it.

Heck, even the F/A-18 can do the exactly same thing that F-111 and A-6 can do, just with much smaller payload, but that is as well only if the mission criteria are such that all can do the same thing. The F-111 was put away, and F-15E got in its place, and again the A-6 is not for the same missions that F-15E is capable to do.

 

The F-111 needs to be remembered that it is not a Fighter, as designation states, but it is a medium-range bomber. The A-6 is a Attack aircraft, for a Close-Air-Support missions to strike a enemy at any given time. The F-111 in other hand is not a CAS aircraft. Even when a B-52 and B-1 are both used in CAS missions, those are not in its main purpose as only because current military situation is such that those are used for such roles as it is possible. 

 

The A-6 regardless its nickname "Intruder" is not to be performing the missions that F-111 was designed for.

The F-111 has its own traits as well for the F-111B that was fleet defender and original AIM-54 carrier to destroy Mach 2 bombers and their launched cruise missiles.

Something that F-14 was required to take on its shoulders as F-111B project got cancelled (but without F-111B there wouldn't be F-14).

The A-6 was not to be a replacement for F-111B or F-14 but just do different kind things.

 

I take any time a A-6 over any F-111, as personally the A-6 is the most beautiful western aircraft and has best of missions capabilities for the DCS, but it is not a F-111 for US Navy.

Closest thing for the USAF F-111 is the F-14.

 

 

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it this way, HB have announced the A-6 module properly, so even if you really, really, really want an F-111 from them, there's zero chance of it happening in the next 2-ish years while they're working on the A-6.

 

Might as well let this thread (and the Tornado + F4 threads) sleep for a while.


Edited by Buzzles
  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

For that I don't know, as Navy only launched 6 F/A-18's, and 24 A-6's and all six F/A-18's went with the A-6's and none went with the F-111 part, as Navy mission was not the west but only the east. While airforce was responsible alone for the west.

 

6 A-7E from USS America supported the Tripoli area (8 Shrike and 16 HARM fired).

 

I also refer to "Osprey Combat Aircraft 102: F-111 & EF-111 Units in Combat", where F-111 pilots mention concerns that Tomcats patrolling off-shore might mistake them for enemy aircraft when coming off target.

 

43 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Heck, even the F/A-18 can do the exactly same thing that F-111 and A-6 can do, just with much smaller payload

 

No, the F/A-18 is not capable of terrain following flight in instrument meteorological conditions.

 

43 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

The A-6 is a Attack aircraft, for a Close-Air-Support missions to strike a enemy at any given time. The F-111 in other hand is not a CAS aircraft

 

Sorry, but you are very wrong about this. While the A-6 did perform all-weather CAS for the USMC, this was not its mission in the Navy. You must understand that, Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles aside and prior to Tomahawk cruise missiles, the Intruder was the US Navy's primary nuclear and conventional strike system. As such, the Intruder must have been able to penetrate even the most heavily defended Soviet targets during its time. And while luckily it never had been necessary to prove this, it is generally accepted that it could.

 

The support that point, the Soviets were opposed to the USMC deploying A-6E to Norway during NATO exercises, because of its nuclear strike capability against Soviet basis on the Kola peninsula. To not anger their neighbors, the Norwegian government allowed USMC deployments of A-4, F-4, Harrier etc. to Norwegian bases but never A-6E 🙂

 

The A-6 was expected to (and did) perform the same deep strike missions for the USN as the F-111 did for the USAF.

 

I guess just like Heatblur had to clear up some misconceptions about the Phoenix being just a bomber-killer, it will also have to teach a lot of people that the Intruder was not just a bomb truck.


Edited by MBot
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...