Please include the B-61

[felixx75]

A nuclear mission would be (PvE, because most PvP server don't allow nukes):

 

Flying (like with every other bomb) to the target area, then you drop your bomb (you don't need to be precise, so it's even more simple, than dropping a JDAM) and return to base. Where is the added value in adding a nuke, beside, "I'm cool, because NUKE!"?

[notproplayer3]

1 hour ago, felixx75 said:

Why do we need a nuke? There is no added value in gameplay with a nuke...

Like I said above, when the dynamic campaign is going to be added, nukes would add a lot of strategy and new planning since if the enemy has nukes, you are compelled to attack him as fast as you can for example but if you've got the nuke you've got the upperhand.

Nukes could wipeout a big chunk of enemy forces at once (such as an entire airbase).

Yes, right now nukes aren't that useful (well, I played a lot of missions with the mig21 and nukes), but in the future the could really take the role of deterrent or tide changer in a dynamic campaign. Only the future is going to tell if my predictions are going to come true.

Pure gameplay wise, nukes are different to employ than normal bombs plus they've got different system procedures. Toss bombing in the mig21 can indeed be quite the challenge.

Edited February 7, 2021 by notproplayer3

[GGTharos]

56 minutes ago, felixx75 said:

A nuclear mission would be (PvE, because most PvP server don't allow nukes):

 

And?  Do you believe that the number of privately hosted missions (PvE or PvP), single player missions are somehow small in number?

 

56 minutes ago, felixx75 said:

Flying (like with every other bomb) to the target area, then you drop your bomb (you don't need to be precise, so it's even more simple, than dropping a JDAM) and return to base. Where is the added value in adding a nuke, beside, "I'm cool, because NUKE!"?

 

A nuclear weapon requires delivery and escape planning.   You have a bunch of different delivery modes to help with this.   So sure, in some respect you could just drop a JDAM and evaluate whether it ended up in the right place/altitude/time, and you got out to whatever minimum safety distance etc.

 

But doing that is about 'the same' as saying you don't need JDAMs because you could just drop iron and LGBs accurately.

 

And what do you mean 'don't need to be precise'?   Can I be 10m off?  100?  500?   What if my target's a bunker of some sort?

 

If you don't like nukes, say so, it's the only argument you have.  You are not the arbiter of gameplay value.

[Mars Exulte]

Technically, this is a public forum and people can disagree for any reason they wish including thinking your avatar is silly. If you want an echo chamber, start a read only blog site and moderate your comments to eliminate everyone that doesn't agree with you. Otherwise, get used to the fact some ideas get panned because people think they're silly/pointless/stupid whether you think so or not.

 

And this definitely is indeed pointless, as ED control the weapons now and they explicitly stated they're not going to do it. Why is irrelevant, as is whether anybody likes it at the end of the day. The reasons are numerous, obvious, and already mentioned repeatedly.

[GGTharos]

Yes, the B-61 should be included for the numerous and obvious reasons that have been stated

[FoxOne007]

This would be the most pointless weapon ever, like any other nuke. There is a 0% chance this will happen, for very obvious reasons....

[Fangs Out]

I'd rather have the devs focus on weapons that the F-15E used in combat such as the AGM-130 , GBU-28, GBU-16, etc and etc.

[Wizard_03]

On 2/25/2021 at 6:41 AM, Bravelink03 said:

I'd rather have the devs focus on weapons that the F-15E used in combat such as the AGM-130 , GBU-28, GBU-16, etc and etc.

If they had went with that approach in the hornet, the jet would only have like 5 weapons in the game. This is a big part of the USAF F-15E's mission set, It absolutely needs some attention. At the very least, they could add an Inert version for training. Just to acknowledge the fact that tactical nuclear weapons delivery is something aircrews do indeed train on and are expected to be able to perform if required.

 

It is a part of the F-15E experience.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Dragon1-1]

I don't think things like MFD pages and nuclear consent switchology for the B-61 are going to be available in public sources. They tend to be contained in documents that are classified in the entirety because they're related to nuclear weapons. So it doesn't matter that it's part of "F-15E experience", because it's impossible to implement. Like with ever other nuke currently in service and most historical ones.

[GGTharos]

You mean like the RWR?

[Blaze1]

9 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I don't think things like MFD pages and nuclear consent switchology for the B-61 are going to be available in public sources. They tend to be contained in documents that are classified in the entirety because they're related to nuclear weapons. So it doesn't matter that it's part of "F-15E experience", because it's impossible to implement. Like with ever other nuke currently in service and most historical ones.

While TO 1F-15E-25-1 Nuclear Weapon Delivery Manual, containing details of nuclear weapons programming is a classified manual, there are also unclassified supporting documents that describe the nuclear armament displays and switches.

[Frederf]

Small detail, it's B61 not B-61. All the nuclear weapons are dashless in the name.

[Nahen]

Yes, atomic bombs, laser cannons and, finally, a star destroyer on center pylon I suggest.  <face palm for all this topic>

Edited April 12, 2021 by Nahen

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

If you’re looking for reasons its a bad idea, here’s mine anyway:

1. Single player, fly out, drop bomb,

pow. Eat pizza rolls, Meh...

2. Dynamic campaign, fly out, drop bomb, they retaliate in full. End of game. Eat pizza rolls, Meh...

3. Multi player, trolls fly out, drop bomb wreck fun for everyone per usual, call mom for more pizza rolls,  repeat

4. Ed staff takes time to create this over some other needed features or upgrades,  insert any of the above, Meh....

 

These are my reasons but I suspect why these threads continue to drabble on with the “I know you are but what am I “ response of the OP is because of some folks not being used to being told no....

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by Mr. Big.Biggs

[Schmidtfire]

A functioning B61 might be the only thing that could convince me into getting the F-15E.    

[felixx75]

On 4/12/2021 at 4:28 PM, Schmidtfire said:

A functioning B61 might be the only thing that could convince me into getting the F-15E.    

Then you will skip the F-15 for sure...

Edited April 13, 2021 by felixx75

[Tank50us]

My two cents on nukes in DCS are this:

From a gameplay perspective, we don't really need them, since any mission we can do with a nuke, we could do with existing ordinance.

 

From a technical perspective, they've been known to crash servers when suddenly a half million objects are obliterated (both those that are part of the map and those we put down).

 

From an aircraft perspective, I only agree in that the aircraft was capable of carrying nukes, and thus, should be able to do so in game.

 

but that last one alone isn't enough for me to say "Yeah sure, have da nukes", right now, with the technical reasons alone, I say no. If ED can safely make it where a thousand objects can be destroyed at once and not make a server dry-heave, then fine. But I doubt they will given the state of the worlds optics right now.

[Rainmaker]

The ‘facts’ in this thread are pretty funny. 

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

Im all up for huge explosions

Edited May 1, 2021 by IkarusC42B Pilot

[Tank50us]

On 5/1/2021 at 2:56 PM, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Im all up for huge explosions

 

I'm all up for Micheal Baying it up as well, but when doing that causes a server to crash... is it worth it?

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

8 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

I'm all up for Micheal Baying it up as well, but when doing that causes a server to crash... is it worth it?

Yes

[Tank50us]

20 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Yes

Yeah, you must be popular at parties... or must like being "That Prick" on multiplayer servers (quoting Loabi)

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

6 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Yeah, you must be popular at parties... or must like being "That Prick" on multiplayer servers (quoting Loabi)

If you dont want to play with them turn them off for your server. You must be one of those guys that ruins the fun for everyone else at partys becuase he dosent have fun.

[Tank50us]

5 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

If you dont want to play with them turn them off for your server. You must be one of those guys that ruins the fun for everyone else at partys becuase he dosent have fun.

 

No, I'm arguing against nukes from a technical standpoint. The sudden destruction of thousands of objects at once causes servers to crash, which ends up ticking people off, especially those who have to maintain the server who now have to go through the process of booting everything back up.

 

@BIGNEWYor @NineLine can we nuke the topic now? We all know that nukes aren't coming to DCS, and yet people keep insisting on it.

[Lace]

Ok, everyone is focussing on what DCS is now and how it is played currently.  There is also a massive misunderstanding regarding the effect of a smaller nuclear weapon.  Nobody is asking for MT class weapons.  Here is an American 300kt B61 on somewhere all DCS players know - Batumi.  We are not talking about wiping clean entire maps in an instant.  That is Hollywood nuclear warfare.

 

Link here: NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein (nuclearsecrecy.com)

 

Imagine the new dynamic campaign.  Each side has a couple of tactical nukes.  You don't know which facility they are stored in, but you are tasked to find and destroy them before they can be used against you.  Suddenly, intercepting an incoming strike has significantly more importance attached to it.  You are no longer going to lose a hanger or two, but perhaps a huge part of your weapons and POL storage capacity.  Do you throw everything you have at stopping them?  Or is the attack a feint, or just probing your defences?  Or how about another scenario, when your forces have been pushed back and are facing an enemy with numerical superiority (think Fulda type situation).  Your only choice now is perhaps a tactical nuclear strike to buy you some time.  But of course this brings it's own risks and now the enemy will be looking to match your escalation.  

 

Like any weapon it's use will be controlled by mission designers.  If it is not in a warehouse, it can't be used.  You don't want them, fine, but we aren't vaporising cities here, we're talking about a legitimate and realistic use of a weapon which was designed to be used at a tactical level, rather than strategic.