Bananabrai

Well you were brining up that it was not solely developed for nuclear strike and I think you were assuming that that makes a difference for DCS development. But frankly it doesn't matter, because nuclear strike was part of the requirement. Even though the TSR2 didn't make it, ideas of it then materialized in the Tornado. So it doesn't matter what should have replaced the V bombers, the Torndo did in the end. That's at least what the V-bomber pilots tell. I value your knowledge but you seem to know everything. And that is not true, other people do know stuff as well. From my point of view, out of the company keeping the german IDS up and runnning, my knowledge tells me: a Tornado development is possible, but with the normal hurdle plus the nucelar topic making it more complicated than the modules we have to this date. You can believe that or not.

Da gebe ich dir recht, ich weiß auch nicht warum ED solche Schranken nicht einbaut, ich sehe das als machbar an. Aber das ist ja nur meine Sicht der Dinge.

It does unfortunately not only apply if a B61 would be included in a DCS german IDS. I was trying to say that it applies to nearly everything in the real aircraft regardless of its proximity or interaction with the nuclear systems. If a german IDS is modeled, the developer would have to guarantee that no related data or anything close is included in the model. During the Tornado development the nuclear strike capability was the main driving factor, it replaced the UKs V bombers and it's nuclear strikiing role. In germany the main purpouse was to replace the F-104G's nuclear strike capability. "A solely *insert specific role* platfrom" is a hard sell for the scale of european projects but you should not forget that nuclear was its main thing. Which platforms are really developed for solely one purpouse anyway, it doesn't happen very often. B-52 was also developed for conventional bombing, so was the B-1.

Kenn mich da auch nicht aus. Wäre jetzt einfach gekommen wenn sichs bei mir zeitlich ausgeht. Wenn jemand halt bedenken hat soll er's sagen, glaube damit kann man am besten umgehen.

Ist halt immer ne zweiseitge Medallie und manche Länder hand haben das halt anders, ich meine die Amis haben halt wie viele hundert F-16...? Würde ein DCS Tornado kommen, könnte man halt auch sagen man hat ein Flugzeug was die Vorlage ist. Ja, ist halt doof wenn einer da steht bei dem die shoulder pylons auf fuel umgebaut wurden, dann kannst du bis ans ende aller DCS Tage nur fuel untern Rumpf hängen, das wars dann auch wieder^^ Schön 4-tanker sight seeing und so... Wenn halt eine AF nicht hunderte von so Dingern hat, dann bauen die auch mal was um, oder etablieren eher mal einen Standart durch die Flotte der auf dem selben Level ist. Also es wird immer 2 Ansicheten geben und manche schreiben für sich die Sandbox in DCS groß, andere die beworbene Authentizität. Ich bin die 4-HARM config nie geflogen, weine ihr auch nicht hinterher, und bin selbst gerne auch mal puristisch unterwegs, aber hatte mich trotzdem dafür eingesetzt, denn man kann sich auch mal für andere Ansichten einsetzten Ich kann dem ja aus dem Weg gehen indem ich es einfach nicht nutze und meine Multiplayer freunde bitte in der Mission XY mit loadout Z zu fliegen, weil historisch passend oder so.

Wie es doch immer ein bischen eskaliert. Ich bin einer von den Nerds der sogar Windows Vista geil fand. Einfach weil mich XP irgendwann gelangweilt hat. War mir zu altbacken. Auch win 2000 hab ich sofort getestet weil mein dad bei 98 bleiben wollte. Aber ich kauf mir auch nur Festool und so ne Sachen ohne gelernter Handwerker zu sein, würde mich auch ne profi Küche kaufen obwohl ich gerade so nen Mamorkuchen hin bekomme. Ok, mit anleitung bekommt man echt viel hin, aber ich hab einfach gerne hochwertige Sachen und das legt ja jeder für sich selber aus ob das nun die inneren werte sind oder halt auch Optik. Ist halt alles subjektiv. Mein dad ist (auch) so eher der: never touch a running system. Ich eher so der trial and error. Windows 11 hat mich irgendwie geschockt, 10 schaut noch so fresh aus und läuft bei mir seit 2017 ohne issues, ich habe noch garkein neues windoof erwartet. Würde mein 10 enterprise gerne weitere nutzen, also kann ich ja auch noch ein bischen, aber ja, hätte jetzt irgendwie kein neues gebraucht. Let's see and wait

Ich würde aus Ingolstadt ggf. auch vorbei kommen. 2 weitere kenne ich mindestens die auch den DCS-Hirnbrand haben^^ Edit: ok 1 Staffelkollege bekommt am 27. seine zweite Dosis, der wäre dann raus

To be honest, I don't want to say that a Tornado is not doable and I hope we will get one at some point. But the statement that the B61 is no factor for a DCS developed german IDS is not true. I cannot speak for a UK version, I would prefer a UK version for various reasons, one of them being this issue. I was working in Tornado deveolpment and all I can tell is that Panvaia makes a real big thing out of almost any topic. The nuclear function and secrecy has to be guaranteed to the US, ITAR regulations (international traffic in arms) are a peace of cake compared to that. Convince me that I am wrong, but I think you have no idea how complicated it makes things even for the real aircraft that nuke and ac are not from the same country. The weapon system is tied around the function of delivering special weapons and the hurdle is to not let anybody find out how that works or ANY data, function or fart relatet to that. And the manufacturer doesn't care if the Tornado is from the 70s and will be phased out eventually in a not too distant future. It's not that I want a B61 or WE177 in the game by the way, nukes have been ruled out by ED and thats fine by me.

True, but the bombs are not from the same country as the aircraft, which makes things actually a lot more complicated than with just an F-16, etc.

Don't forget, the Tornado is a nuclear weapon carrier. You know what that means when replaceing a screw becomes an issue just because you have to ask the US for permission. Any screw^^ So unfortunately it means nothing that the Typhoon comes to DCS

I thought there was already another topic about this. I don't know the U22/A but in my eyes it should be better. Other systems of that kind from the same age perform a lot better. Unfortunatly that is not something to prove here and I don't know if the Viggens system is used in some variation on the Gripen or some other platform as their Global ELINT platform.

Hi together, I lately have a crash on reconnaissance but want to achieve it in 80s style without TGP, or other too fancy stuff. I build a mission on the Syria map with kind of the worst case scenario: Some SCUD randomly placed in the vicinty of military bases but still remote. I used the Viggen, Hornet and Harrier out of Kirjat Shmona and placed three groups of 4 SCUDs each arround damascus, close to the military airfields but not on them and also outside of vilages. I first tried to find the targets with the Hornet EXP modes and have to say, holy nutttts, it's not easy. My experience with the Viggen A-G radar is quite good I would say, and I found them really fast with Viggen. And here is the problem, if it is one. I found the Hornets radar performance very convincing with getting also a lot of returns from towns, etc. The viggen however in LIN mode and between 1/4 and 1/3 of gain shows very clear returns from the targets without beeing cramped with other returns of nearby villages, and to the stories of pilots I know, that doesn't sound realistic. I know that in the 80s they really used photo recon for this, but we don't have such a thing in DCS (...yet...hopefully) How does Heatblur see this issue? Are you guy's waiting for a new API or Vulcan or something or is that topic counted as finsihed as is. Feels kind of strange to me, A-G radar performace maybe to good, ELINT feels to weak (from the knowledge I have about equal systems) Cheers.

There is some wrong info in this video though. 1. Tornado never carried AGM-65. The best info I could get on this is, the launcher rail that was used for the ALARM could technically be used for Mavericks, it's the same mounting mechanisim, and the Italians either thought about integrating it or did flight tests, but I was never able to find pictures of these tests, if they have happened. For sure though, they never integrated it. 2. The ADV never had an automatic wingsweep mode. The RAF always wanted it, but it never made it into the AC. No idea why, it shouldn't have been to hard to develop. I thought it would also have been very interessting to explain the throttles a bit more (for other viewers) The throttles could be rocked outbord / pushed sideways outbord. Rocking the left one outboard pre-selected lift-dump mode, so on main gear touchdown the spoilers will extend. Rocking the right one outboard as well pre selected the thurst reversers, which will open after nose gear touchdown

But you have to admit, it's like saying the Tornado beats the G.91 Gina. The sheer difference in size, fuel carried, payload carried,... I think they made a good job of cramping as much of the capabilites that the Aardvark has into a Viggen size. TSR 2 was kind of the starting point, so for that it's not bad at all.

I think you already got quite good answers. Well, maybe there will other poeple replying, but that takes time. A second thread will not change much though I guess.

This is not true and has been clarified by Wags:

Interesting. A story comes to my mind. My dad once had a meeting where a bunch of engineers evaluated the uselessness of an AG radar of an unmentioned type of aircraft. They were looking at a picture of a point of interest saying that it's completley useless. Then he stood up and explained what he could see on the debated picture. They were pretty astonished. I completely understand your point. I also think that it is a true statement that Hornet drivers didn't use it that much in RL. You also mentioned the problem itself, VID and ROE. Different countries have different ROE and VID rules. So to meet on a neutral point here, it's true that in comparision even to 1990 TGPs the A-G radar is useless for your above mentioned example. But that example is a pretty extreme one, because it is even hard with a TGP or with your eyes to find that tank in a town. In crontrast to that, a tank in a town is a tank that can not adavance to fast towards your troops, so it also has a lower priority than one that is moving on open ground. An A-G radar is always best on an aircraft that you use for the strike role. I think the Hornet was rarely used for that task. Idealy you use the A-G radar to confirm a location of a FARP, or ships in a port, or aircraft on the apron of an airfield, when you either can not use a TGP due to weather or you do not have one available (say 1980s scenario for example) It is crucial that you use gain an contrast, I think that is not something to explain easily and I don't know a video for that. I learned it by playing around, that's all I can say, sorry. Small changes in these controls can have great effect. Try it out, maybe you eventually will like it. And if not, I don't judge you.

Thanks for the info, thought that might be a thing but in that case it's from the table. An oldschool RECCE platform for BDA an so on would be really cool.

I think you are missing how old this tech is and for what it was made. I showed the Hornets A-G radar picture to my dad and he was able to make out a good amount of things, because he was trained to. Just because it's not giving you a cristal clear picture like a 21 century targeting pod doesnt mean it is useless. Fly the Viggen, learn how to use it.

The only way I could imagine it to work is to modify one of the available sidewinders parameters to that of the shrike. That's doable. However after that you need to tell the aircraft that this "sidewinder" can be on another pylon. That's probably not doable, I already tried that some 2 years ago as I wanted to try it with 4x AIM-9.

Could the real F-5E be transfromed into a RF-5E and back just for a mission? I read somewhere, that the nose could be swapped. I don't know if ED works on the implementation of RECCE and most people would use the TGPs for that anyway, but I think the cold war way of doing RECCE could be really challenging and nice, if there will be ways to process the taken snapshots. Would be a nice addition for the slightly forgotten Tiger.

MIDS was not really designed to transmit voice, it can provoce different problems in the network. As far as I know it is not used in RL and you'll get problems in the debriefing of large exercises if you used it. It goes as far as f***ing the network for all other clients.

Zu Vulcan gabs auch schon länger keien News mehr... Hoffe da wird noch dran gearbeitet. So langsam bin ich auch heiß auf den Hind, damals als das Tauschen noch ging hab ich meinen Ka-50 gegen die Tiger getauscht und mein Hangar auf NATO only kastriert. Die YaK war dann der erste und bisher einzige Flieger der mit dieser Tradition gebrochen hat. Ist es für euch eher der Hind oder die Hind? Normalerweise ist es ja wie bei Schiffen, immer weiblich, selbst Schiffen die "Graf XY zu Preusen" heißen wäre es "die Graf XY...". Aber es ist ja trotzdem der Tornado... Nur so aus Neugierde.

I'd really enjoy a Navy variant with the possibility for sonar (hope that becomes a thing in the distant future), penguin, hellfire but also the other utility rolles. I just really like the looks of the "short wheelbase", the twin rear gear. Unfortunately I get so confused with the designations / naming scheme, so I don't know what that variant woule be. Maybe someone could write a big overview? Other than that, I like the CH-53E over the Chinnok in terms of looks. I also really like the Merlin a lot (was my main aircraft to go FSX, did everything with that, and the Nemeth Design CH-53^^) Attack Helos are not my thing, for attacks I still love late cold war strike fighters the most. But even if the Blackhawk has aged, I always liked it and still like it a lot, just the Navy version as described would be my all time favorit helo in DCS. I have to say though, I am not all in for the rest of the current 'DCS-all-Navy-focus' (subjective exaggeration) with the Tomcat, Hornet, SC, maybe A-6, A-7. I am really enjoying it (apart not waiting for the A-6) but I hope the focus stays equaly spread across the different battlefields for the long term.

Have already seen it the other day in the user files downloads. Thanks! is it 'COOP-able'?