Vampyre

The F-16 is rather overdone in simulations. I'd like to see more aircraft that have rarely or never been simulated before. For me the F-16 doesn't even make it into my top 100 favorites. Never been much of a fan of the Hornet either but I'll get that module because I used to work on them in the Navy. I do want the F-16's immediate predecessor though, the F-111 (any and all variants). Being a Cold War aircraft fan, when the F-16 does get done (and it will get done eventually) I just hope they do a production standard block 15 and/or block 25 in addition to the highly accessorized version almost everyone thinks of as a "the" Falcon, the F-16C block 50/52 CCIP... or F-16AM or F-16I or F-16E depending on what country the person is from. I would like to have the early Falcons to include in my mid-80's missions even though I don't much care for them because there are a lot of people who do like them and they should have a presence.

1. F-14A/B Tomcat 2. F4U-1D Corsair 3. Mi-24P Hind F

I was with VFA-146 on the Reagan and VS-24 on the TR.

What about the one event that brought operations to a screeching halt- cleaning stations from 0900-1000.... the boat XO would be pissed if you skipped that. That looks reasonably accurate for normal operations. The only changes I have ever really seen to that were special situations like the TR's 2003 war cruise where we were the night carrier doing circles with the Truman in the Med... because our Admiral was low man on the totem pole. For the TR cruise, day was night and night was day for us so all the customer service hours were changed up and we finally got some decent chow instead of the miscellaneous conglomeration of random cold food that was midrats. Being nights for the vast majority of my career, I thought it was great... and I got to final check the first jet off the TR when we started combat ops then watch myself doing it 10 min's later on CNN. War cruises are definitely different from just making circles in the ocean. Another Special situation was Operation Tomodaichi on the Reagan. Most of the drills were suspended and flight ops were limited to helo's (lots and lots of helo's) C-2's and 154's Sharp recon runs. It was like pulling teeth to even get a pro out that we had been waiting approximatly two and a half weeks to get done. This was much worse than the normal everyday BS with all the radiation Fukishima was spewing out... and we were sailing right through... man you haven't lived until you have had your boots/clothes and tools confiscated because of an "indication" at decon in the Focsle with 100 of your closest friends watching... on the plus side we were leading the way on rewriting the never ever used at all navy CBR manual. If it wasn't for that cruise I would have never known that the best way to keep radiation out of a hangar bay was to stuff rags along the bottom of the hangar bay doors... totally neglecting the fact that the cracks along the sides and top were still open. It gets real when they issue the actual canisters for your gas mask instead of the training ones, they tell you not to drink the ships water because of possible contamination, all hands are to remain inside the ships hull and are to avoid all weather decks and then they finally decide to set Circle William after driving through the radiation cloud at least two times prior by my count.

Yup, It is an F4U-4B on the USS Rendova CVE-114.

Also, how could anyone not know about the recent studies conducted by noted astrophysicist Bobby Ray who has conclusively proved that the earth is indeed flat in the scientific journal twitter... with photographic proof as well...:doh: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/entertainment/rapper-bob-earth-flat-theory/ Luckily, Neil DeGrasse Tyson had a classy response to those theories. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/entertainment/neil-degrasse-tyson-bob-flat-earth-twitter-spat/index.html

Whichever Tuc you guys choose is great. This one will be fun to fly in either 312 or 314 versions.:thumbup:

and

I did... among other more colorful words as well.

Egar apparently has a passion for this aircraft by the look of the model. That is exactly what I like to see when developers decide to build a DCS module. That means they are going to be committed to modeling the aircraft to exacting details. I like flying the planes and this one looks like a little turboprop hotrod. We do not have any turboprops in DCS yet so this could definitely be an interesting plane to fly regardless of it's combat capabilities.:thumbup:

TFC's P-40F that VEAO are using to model the DCS version was actually flown in the Pacific Theatre of Operations in 42/43 and was recovered from Espiritu Santo in the 70's. We will of course need a Solomon Islands map to actually be true to life in the realism department but that is another issue. http://fighter-collection.com/cft/curtiss-p-40f-warhawk/ As developers, some of whom hail from Sweden, I see them doing what they are passionate about so another Swedish aircraft is not out of the realm of possibility. I can see them doing a JA-37 Viggen. I think further WWII modules might as well be a foregone conclusion at this point from what I understand of LNS's goals for theatre development. I assume they didn't pick the name Leatherneck for no particular reason. The US Marine Corps has flown many different types over the years. Some of the more popular of them are the F-4B/J/N/S Phantoms, A-4F/M Skyhawks, A-6A/E Intruder, F-8E Crusader, F9F Panther, Various F4U Corsair types, A-1 Skyraider, OV-10A/D Bronco, KC-130F/R/T/J, MV-22B Osprey, CH-53D/E Super Stallion, CH-46 Sea Knight... any one of these aircraft would make for a great DCS module. Also, my magic crystal ball tells me this thread will be incorporated into the "next aircraft speculation" thread where it should have been to begin with... sooner rather than later.

I was thinking NWU type III. CADPAT seems too dark.

:doh:Looks like you either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote. It's not about who is right or wrong. It is up to the individual to decide how they want to use the aircraft in game. I don't really care how you personally want to use the aircraft as long as the aircraft are modeled as correctly as possible for realisms sake so I can fly how I like. If you want to pretend the Su-25T is a fighter then by all means, use it as a fighter. There is nothing wrong with either stance. You fly your way and I fly mine. Like I said, to each their own. As for the multirole label for these aircraft... The Su-25T is a ground attack aircraft, as are the majority of the Harrier family with the exception of the SHAR FRS1 and FA2. The GR7/9 is a ground attack platform as is the AV-8B. Their differences are in the types of ground attack missions they are optimized for. Slapping some heat seekers on a dedicated ground attack aircraft for self defense does not a multirole fighter make. It seems your personal definition of multirole is not consistent with the commonly accepted definition.

That version is not an option of this poll. RAZBAM has indicated that they will probably do the B+ when ED has successfully integrated ground radar into DCS. I'd expect it sometime after the DCS F/A-18C is released. LOL... you're kidding right? Su-25T is the prototype for what would have been a great Anti-tank/CAS aircraft but it's air to air capabilities are not great by any stretch of the imagination. I've killed the odd Su-27 and F-15 in the Su-25T but I don't go looking for a fight in one if it can be avoided... I'm more into using the proper tool for the proper job to effect mission accomplishment but I also understand that other's don't care about that and will play the game in ways other than how the actual aircraft and systems are meant to be used in real life. To each their own. Now a little history on the GR7/GR9 The Harrier GR7/9 was originally purchased as an interdiction aircraft. This was the primary driver for the different avionics fit of the second generation British harriers compared to their American counterparts. The GR7 was required to penetrate the FEBA, hit its targets and egress posthaste similar to the mission profile of a strike aircraft. An interdiction aircraft is meant to disrupt enemy troop and supply movement and communications thereby slowing an enemy attack/reinforcement/resupply/retreat by creating confusion/mayhem behind the enemy lines. There would have been no time to loiter and make gun runs within contested airspace which makes the gun useless to its primary mission. Hit and run is the name of the game. That is why the gun was never a priority weapon development for the GR7/9. The funds were never made available to solve the problems of the new 25mm ADEN revolver cannons and there was no attempt to even retrofit the 30mm ADEN's from the GR3 or the GAU-12 of the AV-8B even though it should have been technically feasible. Instead of the gun, the RAF opted for the use of CRV-7 and SNEB rockets in when it was doing CAS over Afghanistan. If you want to fight air to air in the Harrier the AV-8B+, Harrier FRS1 or Harrier FA2 will be the machine's with the best capabilities in that respect. The APG-65/Blue Fox/Blue Vixen Radar's, AIM-9's and (in the case of the B+ and FA2) AMRAAM's will even up the playing field but will still be lacking performance wise as air to air platforms against actual 4th generation fighters.

Just so everyone is clear, the AV-8B(NA) and GR-7/9 are not fighters. They are ground attack aircraft that have limited air to air capability. Externally the GR7/9 have a more conical nose, extra sidewinder rails at stations 1A and 7A, lack the scabbed on expendable countermeasures buckets on top of the aft fuselage like the AV-8B(NA) which, as a result of that modification, required the extension of the air scoop at the base of the fin. Also the antenna fairings for Zeus are mounted on the lower side of the nose below the ARBS (looks like tusks jutting out) and on the tail section. Everything else about the airframe is pretty much interchangeable between the two which is why the Navy snapped them up for a spares source.

Yes, we know what the LNS modules are now and people are still making wildly unfounded guesses. Usually it's just about what they personally want in DCS which is most certainly wish list material...:doh: Since the Steam leak, we don't even have any clues to speculate on right now. It's pretty humorous.

My understanding is that the B(NA) or GR7/9 from this poll will be one or the other. RAZBAM have not made a statement as to the possibility of doing both the B(NA) and GR7/9. With no official statement I have to make the assumption that it is one or the other as far as the non-radar versions are concerned. They, from what Zeus was saying in the other Harrier thread, will do the B+ when ED sorts out the ground radar. From the other Harrier thread.

They have actually been very close the entire time... perhaps they should just do both.:thumbup:

The AN/ASB-19 ARBS is an optical target sensor with a laser spot tracking capability similar to the AN/AAS-35 on the A-10. It is used to spot and improve the accuracy of unguided ordnance dropped by the aircraft. It has no laser ranging capability. Currently, ranging capability comes from the use of Litening, Sniper or TIALD targeting pods mounted on the aircraft. The primary weapons of the initial production AV-8B and AV-8B(NA) are the Mk-82 general purpose bombs. The need for accurate delivery of these weapons is why they have ARBS in the first place. The laser spot tracking feature of ARBS assisted in pinpointing hard to see targets from the air and requires an external laser source from a JTAC or another targeting pod equipped aircraft. The FLIR J3ST3R mentioned was probably the AN/AAR-51 navigation FLIR mounted on the top of the nose. It displays wide angled imagery of the path of the aircraft on the HUD for terrain avoidance purposes. Not quite true. When upgraded with the Pegasus Mk-107 (aka the F402-RR-408 in US service) the designations were changed fron Harrier GR7/GR9 to Harrier GR7A/GR9A.

Oh, you mean the rifleman?:smilewink:

I have a feeling the first Marine fixed wing will be the F4U-1D.:music_whistling:

Nice find. This photo actually answers a question I had about the ALQ-126C being carried with the gun installed. If it can carry the Litening with the gun it can carry the jammer with it installed. I haven't found any photos of the B(NA) with Litening on the centerline but I imagine it now has the capability as well. I wonder when this configuration was approved for use as, up until this point, I have not noticed this configuration before? It must be fairly recent, within the last five or six years, because the Harriers have the new dark grey paint scheme that I first remember seeing in 2009.

... but what comes after the Tomcats?

Well, I guess the AF can finally call the F-15C a multirole platform now... or should we start calling it an EF-15C?

So far it looks like a slim majority want this rather than the GAU-25. ... and it'll be useful for the F-15E when it is released.