Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[tflash]

Except that the one thing they work on the most is to make the job of the pilot easier.

 

Sit yourself in a real Su-27S (or any other 80's bird) and cry. Yes, you will cry.

 

I really want to cry while flying DCS:Flanker! Tears of joy! The best thing I guess is that you have to do a lot of stuff before you can shoot an R-27 missile. That must make it most thrilling.

 

Living for ages on the wrong side of the clouds here in Belgium, my dream is to virtually fly high, not down below. Su-27S: whaaaawwww!!!! Let it come!

[Sov13t]

I don't quite agree with that statement - that if there was a high-fidelity SU-27S or even MiG-29A simulator it would require a lot of operations to perform a 'simple' task.

 

As has been mentioned before... a lot of the switch flipping is done way in advance of entering into contact with the target, the rest is either directly on the HOTAS, or in the case with SU-27S right under the Throttle (for radar control, etc.). Also, don't forget pre-flight preparation by flight crew for the mission profile they are going to fly... even in modern birds this is still done... in fact I might even argue that modern birds require a lot more preparation and "customization" for each specific mission due to their multi-role capability than frames from the 80s.

 

Now, what you will not have is Air Quake style missions where just after you go wheels up you are expected to engage the target within 20 clicks - but who will not be happy about that?

[GGTharos]

I don't quite agree with that statement - that if there was a high-fidelity SU-27S or even MiG-29A simulator it would require a lot of operations to perform a 'simple' task.

 

I sort of agree - the devil is in the details. The real question is, how fast can you perform a certain action under particular circumstances compared to the other guy? From what I've heard, the 'older' modern Russian birds have been hehind their contemporaries in that department.

 

It's hard to tell how much that may have mattered, though, without really detailed access to knowledge.

 

I don't think DCS would do a Su-27S (just a guess here) so I don't think you'd find an 80's flanker vs. an 80's (or even 90's) eagle scenario happening.

 

As has been mentioned before... a lot of the switch flipping is done way in advance of entering into contact with the target, the rest is either directly on the HOTAS, or in the case with SU-27S right under the Throttle (for radar control, etc.). Also, don't forget pre-flight preparation by flight crew for the mission profile they are going to fly... even in modern birds this is still done... in fact I might even argue that modern birds require a lot more preparation and "customization" for each specific mission due to their multi-role capability than frames from the 80s.

 

You do that on the ground though, and you can achieve more complex tasks, and get more/better results. There is a lot to be said about an aircraft that gets more results per mission, quantitatively, than one that does not. It means you can reduce the size (and thus cost!) of your air fleet.

 

Now, what you will not have is Air Quake style missions where just after you go wheels up you are expected to engage the target within 20 clicks - but who will not be happy about that?

 

Sure you will ... SHLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEM! :D

[Cali]

I don't quite agree with that statement - that if there was a high-fidelity SU-27S or even MiG-29A simulator it would require a lot of operations to perform a 'simple' task.

 

As has been mentioned before... a lot of the switch flipping is done way in advance of entering into contact with the target, the rest is either directly on the HOTAS, or in the case with SU-27S right under the Throttle (for radar control, etc.). Also, don't forget pre-flight preparation by flight crew for the mission profile they are going to fly... even in modern birds this is still done... in fact I might even argue that modern birds require a lot more preparation and "customization" for each specific mission due to their multi-role capability than frames from the 80s.

 

Now, what you will not have is Air Quake style missions where just after you go wheels up you are expected to engage the target within 20 clicks - but who will not be happy about that?

 

I agree that a lot is done before the pilot steps out the door. Preflight is something that is completely missing in FC2, there is no need to spend more then 5 seconds looking at the map. For strikers it may require up to 10-15 seconds. I don't have A-10C, so I don't know how much time is required for that. From what I remember flying it at a friends house, it's the same as BS. BMS on the other hand does require some time to get everything set up. Hopefully in future DCS releases, ed can work on getting something set up kind of like the F4 UI.

[GGTharos]

Are you talking about data cartridge?

[Cali]

Are you talking about data cartridge?

 

Yes and everything else, from changing steerpoints, pre-planned treats, picking out individual weapons...instead of having pre-made ones. Not sure what DCS A-10C has cause I haven't spent a lot of time in it.

[Sov13t]

From what I've heard, the 'older' modern Russian birds have been hehind their contemporaries in that department.

 

While the systems certainly help perform tasks quicker, ergonomics and pilot training is an equally important factor, so just the airframe itself will not be a proper benchmark. Also, have to keep in mind that neither the F-15A-B-C or the SU-27S of the 80s are really meant to be in a sterile environment... both become exponentially more efficient with support from AWACS, GCI or even a wingman.

 

It's hard to tell how much that may have mattered, though, without really detailed access to knowledge.

 

Which is even still often biased, due to human factor... pit an Ace pilot vs. a Newbie... won't be a trustworthy result.

 

I don't think DCS would do a Su-27S (just a guess here) so I don't think you'd find an 80's flanker vs. an 80's (or even 90's) eagle scenario happening.

 

Interesting, how come you feel this way? Unless of course DCS isn't planning any OPFOR birds at all... the 27 and 29 are really the only candidates here.

 

You do that on the ground though, and you can achieve more complex tasks, and get more/better results.

 

Definitely, I am sure you follow a thread by Mikhail Viktorovich (a former SU-25 pilot), he mentions multiple times that pilots do a lot of "dry runs" where they get in the cockpit and run through all the procedures on the ground long before mission time, as well as pre-configure certain systems per mission profile. I am certain so do BLUFOR pilots.

 

There is a lot to be said about an aircraft that gets more results per mission, quantitatively, than one that does not. It means you can reduce the size (and thus cost!) of your air fleet.

 

An F-15 takes off and CAPs the area for 4 hours and achieves nothing except burnt fuel, an F-16 takes off and gets lucky enough to have 5 half-broken MiG-17s flying at it... gets 5 kills in the first 20 minutes. Which one is more effective?

 

I think you mean that a multi-role jet is better than a single-role jet... in that case yes, definitely. This is what we are seeing with all air forces in the world now, moving away from classifications such as fighter, interceptor etc.

 

 

Sure you will ... SHLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEM! :D

 

When do you cool your 73 warheads? before take off? what if there are no bandits and you just wasted your cooling, and all of the sudden your missiles are one quarter as effective? Will be fun :) Who blinks first.

[GGTharos]

Right, but their performance in isolation is still important. You can't achieve anything with crap planes, even if they're paired up with other things. You can certainly exchange some things because you'll be fighting in a team, but you can't just give up performance for nothing. The airframe still matters - it's just that the way in which is matters becomes more complex. You don't want to fighting F-15s with MiG-21's for example.

 

While the systems certainly help perform tasks quicker, ergonomics and pilot training is an equally important factor, so just the airframe itself will not be a proper benchmark. Also, have to keep in mind that neither the F-15A-B-C or the SU-27S of the 80s are really meant to be in a sterile environment... both become exponentially more efficient with support from AWACS, GCI or even a wingman.

 

Because I believe ED would be interested in making more advanced variants. It all depends on what you can get your hands on.

 

Interesting, how come you feel this way? Unless of course DCS isn't planning any OPFOR birds at all... the 27 and 29 are really the only candidates here.

It's the same. These guys are expected to know their stuff cold. Not like vPilots do things - oh, here, I'll consult the manual ... oh, right, this is the switch I must flip. Nope - they know it all before they're even allowed to touch the plane, so to speak. They know all their emergency procedures, etc, etc - it's all rote-memorized. And they test you to make sure you're not forgetting ...

 

Definitely, I am sure you follow a thread by Mikhail Viktorovich (a former SU-25 pilot), he mentions multiple times that pilots do a lot of "dry runs" where they get in the cockpit and run through all the procedures on the ground long before mission time, as well as pre-configure certain systems per mission profile. I am certain so do BLUFOR pilots.

Bad comparison. Try An F-4 vs 5 half-broken MiG-17's. We're talking about capability, not about OPFOR lacking in money.

Further, you can see the same with ground strikes. An F-15E with 16 SDBs can potentially hit 16 targets in a single pass, from stand-off ranges. Compare with an F-15E hauling 12LGBs.

How much more surviveable have you made your F-15E with those weapons? How much more effective?

 

An F-15 takes off and CAPs the area for 4 hours and achieves nothing except burnt fuel, an F-16 takes off and gets lucky enough to have 5 half-broken MiG-17s flying at it... gets 5 kills in the first 20 minutes. Which one is more effective?

Single role fighters are better at their role. Multi-role fighters are cheaper. Thing is, even the multi-role fighters are heavily affected by the prioritization of a given role. Take the Typhoon: It is generally said that it is better at A2A than A2G. I'd say same with the F-16.

 

But - you're buying /one/ fighter to do it all. It's cheaper in a whole bunch of ways. From the number of airframes, engines, and weapons you have to maintain, and airbases, to the number of pilots and maintenance crew and logistics peeps, etc.

 

I think you mean that a multi-role jet is better than a single-role jet... in that case yes, definitely. This is what we are seeing with all air forces in the world now, moving away from classifications such as fighter, interceptor etc.

Meh, they'll get all sorts of cool once you get'em out in the wind ;) I thought the nitrogen bottles had enough nitrogen to last a while though. Cooling itself should be reasonably quick as well.

 

When do you cool your 73 warheads? before take off? what if there are no bandits and you just wasted your cooling, and all of the sudden your missiles are one quarter as effective? Will be fun :) Who blinks first.

Edited April 20, 2012 by GGTharos

[Pilotasso]

Some missile designs include a multitude of cooling solutions, each with its own performance. The Lima Sidwinder for example can either use the bottle or be simply air cooled. The AIM-9X is always air cooled wich enables the missile seeker to be activated for extended periods.

 

The PoAF has evaluated both the X and the IRIS-T and found the sidwinder not only to be more economical but also free from bottle restrictions, even though the IRIS was more lethal one could buy more sidwinders for the same ammount of money (each IRIS is not far behind the AMRAAM in price tag) and never having to worry abou cooling the missile in the last minute.

 

It is possible that the R-73 could be bottled but use air cooling as well.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Pilotasso

[Pilotasso]

Single role fighters are better at their role. Multi-role fighters are cheaper. Thing is, even the multi-role fighters are heavily affected by the prioritization of a given role. Take the Typhoon: It is generally said that it is better at A2A than A2G. I'd say same with the F-16.

 

You do need a better criteria do define "better" role. The F-16 is surpassed by very few planes in AG (perhaps more planes surpass it in AA than in AG).

However I think the case for the typhoon is different, It is better in AA because it was capable of doing it out of the box while the AG capability has lagged behind schedule due to budget cuts. Untill today it lacks parts logistics and weapons integration to undertake variate AG missions that other more mature planes enjoy right now such as the F-16.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Pilotasso

[Sov13t]

Meh, they'll get all sorts of cool once you get'em out in the wind ;) I thought the nitrogen bottles had enough nitrogen to last a while though. Cooling itself should be reasonably quick as well.

 

You are right, up to 70min of cooling but takes up to 2 minutes to reach operating temps dependent on atmospheric temps. 20secs of on-board cooling after launch. Been a while since I read those docs.

[Pilotasso]

70 mins for bottled cooling? perhaps from the aircraft own bottle plumbed to the missile? I have been hearing much lower times for western types that use in-missile bottle only.

[Sov13t]

70 mins for bottled cooling? perhaps from the aircraft own bottle plumbed to the missile? I have been hearing much lower times for western types that use in-missile bottle only.

 

Oh yeah, fed from the aircraft. The in-missile bottle is only enough for 20sec of cooling, which given the ranges should be plenty.

[tflash]

I don't think DCS would do a Su-27S (just a guess here) so I don't think you'd find an 80's flanker vs. an 80's (or even 90's) eagle scenario happening.

So it will be SU-35 then. I can live with that :D

 

Honestly it isn't really my ambition to fly the Flanker primarily against Eagles, like in FC2. I guess unless in a full scale peer conflict most of these air superiority fighters do largely asymmetric stuff, keeping watch over the airspace.

The Flanker's wing makes that you can fly fast but also can loiter and be very manoevrable at low speeds. Plus you got very good range. Ideal for CAP, QRA, Border patrol, intercepting UAV's etc.

 

Currently, in FC2 off-line I'm trying to intercept and visually identify Yak-40's, that I let fly very high or low in the mountains.

[Sierra99]

500 pages !

 

and I am pleased to announce the A-37 Dragonfly is the next aircraft

 

 

LOL

 

I got 2 incentive flights in my career...An F-16C out of Tyndall and an A-37 out of Edwards. Of the 2 the A-37 was the most fun... Why? Because it was pretty clear I was a passenger during the F-16 ride... And I was fine with that... During the -37 ride the pilot let me fly MOST of the mission (except for a few minutes during an actual "Test" he was monitoring that got cut short.) He got it Airborne (In formation with an F-4 I might add!) and after we split off from the Phantom he said OK You got the controls... I flew at his direction until about 50 feet in the air when landing when I felt him gently take the controls and say I got the aircraft as we touched down... VERY VERY easy aircraft to manuever.

 

Tha Being siad... Id love to see an A-10C quality F-16CG/CJ...

 

HOWEVER...I expect THRUSTMASTER to re-issue THE HOTAS COUGAR using the same technology as the Warthog AND (AND!) The proper Idle and Burner detents as found of the real Jet! Not "Clicky Clicky" But a true lift and move OVER the detent into blower or up over the stop into cutoff.

 

(Not that I expect that to happen... BUUUUUT)

[Rikus]

 

:P

 

Greetings

[Hueyman]

Continue voting people :) !

[Dudikoff]

The AH 64 is same configuration but more " futurist " with double tail rotor and ugly shape..

 

X-type tail rotor is fitted to the Mi-28N and Mi-24PN, too. I don't see anything "futuristic" about the Apache's looks, though, but I do agree that it's rather ugly.

[Grimes]

I'd be fine with any of the 2 seater attack helicopters to be honest. Although the Hind would be a pretty interesting addition due to its mass production, storied history, and troop transport ability. However the infantry component of the sim is rather dull, so putting the troop transport gameplay aspects into practice probably won't be as cool as it sounds.

[martinistripes]

Voted :D

[Kuky]

another prop in front or above... booooooring

[Boberro]

Hell yeah! Mi-24 is a must :D

[empeck]

My only issue with the hind is that we already have a Russian attack helo.

 

That is not an issue at all. Mi-24 and Ka-50 would be awesome for coop play. :thumbup:

[EagleEye]

I´ve voted for the Hind, but I don`t think that poll`s are relevant for ED. Does anyone have voted for the P-51? :P

Edited April 24, 2012 by EagleEye

[Jona33]

X-type tail rotor is fitted to the Mi-28N and Mi-24PN, too. I don't see anything "futuristic" about the Apache's looks, though, but I do agree that it's rather ugly.

 

Their callsign in Afghanistan was even Ugly. :D