Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[jp203000]

Supersonic or subsonic?

 

Hmm...maybe it's a C-130 gunship....

F-18C

[thaihorse]

F14

 

If I don't see the F14 Im going to be mad as hell. Ive been waiting along time for a really good F14 sim.

[Bumbblbee]

Nope, it's true, fighters have more payload, longer loiter times, better fuel efficiency, can loiter at slower speeds

 

You are so mistakenly wrong. If there is another jet that can carry as much A2G ordinance as an A-10, can stay on station for 2 hours + and can take as much physical damage all while staying in visual range for CAS then you need to inform the USAF ASAP!! Lol.

The A-10 has been in service as the premier close air support aircraft for the USAF for good reason. A little research goes a long way.

Here is a taste.

[nomdeplume]

You are so mistakenly wrong. If there is another jet that can carry as much A2G ordinance as an A-10, can stay on station for 2 hours + and can take as much physical damage all while staying in visual range for CAS then you need to inform the USAF ASAP!! Lol.

I knew at least one person wouldn't bother reading the whole post before responding to it. Although, I am impressed it took this long! :)

[Pyroflash]

You are so mistakenly wrong. If there is another jet that can carry as much A2G ordinance as an A-10, can stay on station for 2 hours + and can take as much physical damage all while staying in visual range for CAS then you need to inform the USAF ASAP!! Lol.

The A-10 has been in service as the premier close air support aircraft for the USAF for good reason. A little research goes a long way.

Here is a taste.

 

Actually, the AC-130U technically fills all of the criteria you just described. But aside from that, yes, you should get in the habit of reading peoples' entire comments before making on judgement on them.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Pyroflash

[RIPTIDE]

You are so mistakenly wrong. If there is another jet that can carry as much A2G ordinance as an A-10, can stay on station for 2 hours + and can take as much physical damage all while staying in visual range for CAS then you need to inform the USAF ASAP!! Lol.

The A-10 has been in service as the premier close air support aircraft for the USAF for good reason. A little research goes a long way.

Here is a taste.

Reading Comprehension problem much? :doh:

[Weasel]

As a lot of simmers are using the HW or a Saitek Joystick, the next plane must have two engines ;) I would also love to see that the next aircraft would be the F-16C, but what should I do with my HW? :doh:

[Bumbblbee]

Actually, the AC-130U technically fills all of the criteria you just described. But aside from that, yes, you should get in the habit of reading peoples' entire comments before making on judgement on them.

Since I must have misunderstood your post (as you and a few have so kindly pointed out LMAO) as having read the whole thing. A simple courteous correction could have taken place.

This series just goes to remind me why not to post around here.

[Cupra]

As a lot of simmers are using the HW or a Saitek Joystick, the next plane must have two engines ;) I would also love to see that the next aircraft would be the F-16C, but what should I do with my HW? :doh:

 

By a Cougar ;) There would not be very much work for ThrustMaster to release the Cougar a 2nd time ;)

[Impact]

Actually, the AC-130U technically fills all of the criteria you just described. But aside from that, yes, you should get in the habit of reading peoples' entire comments before making on judgement on them.

 

 

 

The F15E can carry more tonnage of weapon than the A10C.

[Mt5_Roie]

The F15E can carry more tonnage of weapon than the A10C.

 

Yes, but it lacks that very nice titanium bathtub that protects the pilot. Also, F-15's aren't known to hang around target areas too long.

 

 

As for a single engine plane - F-16C would be a great choice. I know the X65 can lock the throttles to act as one.

[Laud]

The F15E can carry more tonnage of weapon than the A10C.

 

But it can't take as much fire as the A-10 can. Additionally it requires a crew of 2 and it's simply designed for another purpose.

 

Guys, you don't really want to compare attack aircraft to fighter/multirole aircraft. Each was designed for a certain purpose while most of them can carry out some more jobs also, even when they're not always the best choice for it.

 

Example: The Mudhen is better for high alt deep interdiction strikes with guided ammunition than the Warthog. But sometimes there is no Mudhen available and then you'll be glad the A-10 got it's precision upgrade so it can fill a part of the gap. Same goes for CAS just vice versa: If you need the A-10 with it's gun deep and close, you can also order a F-15E, it's just not the best choice for this specific task.

 

You all can carry this discussion right into nowhere, while EtherrealIN already said how it is: There will also be fanboys for each and every airframe, and there will always be some who want to try to tell ya that your favorite machine sucks.

 

However: EDs choice will not depend on what's the best aircraft in any respect. All the considered aspects have been mentioned here multiple times already, so let's just lean back and wait for our suprise, which I expect for X-Mas! :D

 

... argh... I always plan to leave this thread alone, but then it happens, that I just can't stand to join the fun... :music_whistling:

[Laud]

I know the X65 can lock the throttles to act as one.

 

Same goes for the TMHW. So that is my least concern about a single engine aircraft.

 

My primary concern is what happens, once you notice the ENGINE FIRE caution light! :helpsmilie: :joystick: :doh:

[Pyroflash]

Since I must have misunderstood your post (as you and a few have so kindly pointed out LMAO) as having read the whole thing. A simple courteous correction could have taken place.

This series just goes to remind me why not to post around here.

 

Feel free to hang around more. I am sure you will find that most of us are actually quite a good bunch of guys/and gals. Just don't take it personally when stuff like this happens, it is just like taking the pi** out of the new guy at work. However, we are always mature(even though we sometimes don't act like it), and always respectful(well, most of the time anyway). If something happens and the situation gets out of hand(happens from time to time), the moderators are usually very quick to sort the problem out.

 

So stay, have a beer, and chill out.

[Mt5_Roie]

The you have two choices:

 

1) Pull the engine fire lever and find a suitable place to land.

2) Put you head between your legs and kiss you arsh goodbye...and while your down there pull the eject loop and eject.

[Laud]

The you have two choices:

 

1) Pull the engine fire lever and find a suitable place to land.

2) Put you head between your legs and kiss you arsh goodbye...and while your down there pull the eject loop and eject.

 

Yeah, I know these choices. I wanted to say that I don't like them. Or better said: I prefer the options a twin engine aircraft has. ;)

[Gembrid]

ребята, давайте вспомним 2008 год. что нам говорил самый главный?

 

DCS: Black Shark Update: 09 July 2008

 

1- A-10A Suite 2 (latest version of A-10A in active use)

2- A-10C Suite 3 (we now able to develop an entertainment version of the simulation we developed for them. We are very happy and excited about this).

3- AH-64A Blk. 49A

4- Su-27

5- F-15C

6- Mi-24V

7- F-16C

8- MiG-29A

 

Thanks,

Matt

 

это будет F-16C, кто желает поспорить на деньги? 100$

[kylania]

это будет F-16C, кто желает поспорить на деньги? 100$

 

Running this through Google Translate comes up with:

 

For sure F-16C, it's next aircraft from Eagle. 100$

 

You heard it here first! :music_whistling:

[Frostiken]

That's exactly why A-10C is an ideal aircraft for CAS, because it's slow. If multi-role fighter can out perform A-10C in every aspect I'm sure that USAF would have replaced all of them F-15E long time ago.

 

There's one thing you're not considering here - in our modern theaters of war, the A-10 is *not* ideal specifically because it is slow.

 

In fantasy land DCS where lines of Russians need to be shot full of holes, and more specifically it's arranged in such a way to accommodate the A-10's slow speed, this is fine.

 

However, in Afghanistan and Iraq, the A-10 is way too slow to be much use to JTACs, because when they need air support, they need air support *now*, not in thirty minutes.

 

Nope, it's true, fighters have more payload, longer loiter times, better fuel efficiency, can loiter at slower speeds, and can also fly higher and fly faster than the A-10C.

 

Anyone who agreed with any of the above before the "and can" separation, should probably re-check their facts.

 

The F-15E can give the A-10's payload a run for its money. Fuel efficiency is a trade-off. The A-10 might be able to fly for two hours on a single tank of fuel, but it's going to take twice as long to get anywhere.

 

 

Example: The Mudhen is better for high alt deep interdiction strikes with guided ammunition than the Warthog. But sometimes there is no Mudhen available and then you'll be glad the A-10 got it's precision upgrade so it can fill a part of the gap. Same goes for CAS just vice versa: If you need the A-10 with it's gun deep and close, you can also order a F-15E, it's just not the best choice for this specific task.

 

You speak like the F-15E (Mudhen? Psh, civilians...) is the odd-man out. The fact is, the A-10 is the aircraft that's out of place in modern theaters. It was made to shoot up Russian tanks as they shuffled through mountain chokepoints, but times have changed since the 70s and the A-10s been shoehorned into other roles specifically because its original purpose has passed. Practically speaking, in a real-world engagement I doubt you'd ever see A-10s doing the kind of stuff we do in DCS because frankly it's incredibly dangerous, much more dangerous than it used to be. The A-10C upgrade was more to let the A-10 stretch its wings into the kind of work that we need now, not back in the 70s: PGM employment, aerial overwatch, quick-response work, and combat in an integrated battlespace. I'm sure the USAF is kicking its ass for stopping F-15E production just before Iraq / Afghanistan blew up, but the fact is that they can't be everywhere - if they could, they would. They're expensive, resource-hogging beasts but nothing can even begin to do the job they do.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Frostiken

[EtherealN]

Yea yeah frostiken, you work on f15. We know. Get assigned to some other pane for a bit. >(

[EtherealN]

Hmm... for some reason my new tablet reads the wrong keyboard language. That was meant to me a smiley...

[Frostiken]

Yea yeah frostiken, you work on f15. We know. Get assigned to some other pane for a bit. >(

Oh, you.

 

The entire point of this thread is to argue about stupid stuff and you know it :P

 

Hmm... for some reason my new tablet reads the wrong keyboard language. That was meant to me a smiley...

It's a cyclops with lemon juice in its eye smiley

[Laud]

Reading the JTAC stories from Afghanistan, it seems like the gun-runs of the A-10 are still highly welcome by troops in contact! ;)

 

Once you're danger-close, you might feel a bit sweaty when an aircraft drops bombs from 20k ft above you. :D

[Rhen]

***Where's my soap box... Ah! There it is! :smartass:

 

There's one thing you're not considering here - in our modern theaters of war, the A-10 is *not* ideal specifically because it is slow.

 

In our current "modern theaters of war" Afghanistan and Iraq, actually something much slower and forward based is what ground troops desire for CAS, like the currently proposed AT-6B:

 

 

They want something that can get lower and slower and mix it up with the ground troops. Personally, that holds ZERO appeal to me, as survivability is directly proportional to speed and the number of engines attached to my aircraft... and inversely proportional to the number of crew members :megalol: But then again... I'm an air superiority guy... :smile wink:

 

The hawg is still the preferred CAS platform in our "current" AOR until then. It would be even more preferred if it was forward based to decrease reaction times... but that's not how the USAF rolls. :music_whistling: The marines, OTOH.... Which could explain why the harrier is the next, best CAS platform requested by those who play with rifles and carry their socks into combat (God bless them!).

 

In fantasy land DCS where lines of Russians need to be shot full of holes, and more specifically it's arranged in such a way to accommodate the A-10's slow speed, this is fine.

 

However, in Afghanistan and Iraq, the A-10 is way too slow to be much use to JTACs, because when they need air support, they need air support *now*, not in thirty minutes.

 

 

 

The F-15E can give the A-10's payload a run for its money. Fuel efficiency is a trade-off. The A-10 might be able to fly for two hours on a single tank of fuel, but it's going to take twice as long to get anywhere.

 

 

 

You speak like the F-15E (Mudhen? Psh, civilians...) is the odd-man out. The fact is, the A-10 is the aircraft that's out of place in modern theaters. It was made to shoot up Russian tanks as they shuffled through mountain chokepoints, but times have changed since the 70s and the A-10s been shoehorned into other roles specifically because its original purpose has passed. Practically speaking, in a real-world engagement I doubt you'd ever see A-10s doing the kind of stuff we do in DCS because frankly it's incredibly dangerous, much more dangerous than it used to be. The A-10C upgrade was more to let the A-10 stretch its wings into the kind of work that we need now, not back in the 70s: PGM employment, aerial overwatch, quick-response work, and combat in an integrated battlespace. I'm sure the USAF is kicking its ass for stopping F-15E production just before Iraq / Afghanistan blew up, but the fact is that they can't be everywhere - if they could, they would. They're expensive, resource-hogging beasts but nothing can even begin to do the job they do.

 

The Mudhen also has its limitations when it comes to real, high-intensity conflict, with a mature IADS. I would kick someone's ass for not buying 4x as many Raptors, and half as many lightnings as planned. Any conflict requiring air superiority will be sorely pressed to plan with C & E model Eagles, with a smattering of Raptors and Lightnings for back-up.

 

We enjoy the fruits of our labor when it comes to air superiority. That is, we enjoy it, our enemies don't. It allows A-10s, AT-6s, and ground forces to operate unmolested in current battlefields. With future conflicts protected with newer generation IADS, that's no longer guaranteed. Our combat losses will increase with concomitant lengthening of conflicts. I really don't think many people understand that, especially those who make decisions, and I might add, many who believe they're military aviation experts.

[Laud]

As costs are playing a role that is worth mentioning it (costs/piece, maintnenance-costs, fuel-costs), you come to the saying: "Money rules the world", which implifies "money makes the decisions". ;) Those concerning the Raptor AND the AT-6. The (expensive) Raptor falls short and the T-6 (at least it's concept) seems to be on it's way together with more UAVs), and as you said, the air-superiority task will need to be achieved by mainly using more or less modernized older aircraft types!