Vampyre

CAS on a scale required to win the battlefield will not be a priority in contested airspace with an aircraft designed for multiple missions. The maximum effort will be devoted to winning dominance over the aerial battlefield through attrition of enemy aircraft, air defenses and C3I targets. Once a permissive environment is established, only then will the CAS missions will become more of a priority for the air commanders. Only a dedicated CAS platform will be doing CAS before complete dominance is achieved simply because it has no other role to fill. Logically, the F-35 variety of CAS involves flying circles at 20k feet or higher and dropping a couple of JDAM's to avoid low level optically aimed point and shoot weapons systems. Even an aircraft equipped with stealth by design is not totally invisible to radars from all angles plus, it can still be seen with the Mk 1 Eyeball. The A-10 has a combat persistence that is much higher than the F-35 by virtue of its loiter capability (which can be translated into multiple unrefueled weapons loading evolutions in a peer vs. peer scenario), heavy war load, and ability to operate from austere forward locations with a minimal amount of ground support. What is the projected unit cost of an F-35 right now? $100-$150 million...ish. The A-10 unit cost is around $20 million right now and they are already paid for. We could lose five to eight A-10's for the cost of one F-35. The peer vs. peer conflict will be a short and bloody affair and the winner will be determined by who can attrite whom the quickest and still maintain the advantage on the battlefield. This type of conflict will likely last less than two months (I believe far less, possibly only weeks). World War Two was the last true peer vs. peer conflict fought and was won by the superior numbers of the allied side. Quantity has a quality all of its own and the country with significantly higher numbers will win regardless of the advanced technology fielded by either one of the sides. Right now the US has the numbers and the technology but that could change in 10 years. The cost of the F-35 means that they will probably be limited in number and losses of them will be unacceptable whilst losses of a cheaper, lower technology aircraft that are designed to take damage and make it back to base will be much more acceptable. I think the US was on the correct track in the late 70's with the concept of the high/low cost mix. The F-35 was an attempt at that high/low cost mix but the concept is turning out to be a high/higher cost mix. For low intensity conflicts the F-35 makes even less sense as an A-10 replacement... It's like using a Bugatti Veyron to run out and get groceries from the local supermarket... wrong tool for the wrong job. A low cost, dedicated CAS platform has a place in our order of battle. On call CAS is a game changer on the front lines of battlefields and has the ability to instantly change the tempo of a ground fight. Most other aerial missions (Strike, BAI, CAP, Sweep, ISR) over and just behind the front lines are fragged to support that front line fight. Having a less effective CAS aircraft flown by aircrew who have to learn many more mission set's filling the CAS role is a less than adequate solution. While the F-35 seems to be a poor CAS aircraft it looks like it will excel at short range Strike and will be a worthy replacement for the F-117 for sure. Everything else... well, I just don't know. From what I have read of the F-35 both pro and con, the F-35/A-10 replacement plan seems very poorly thought out. Perhaps more A-10's or a similar dedicated CAS platform would be a better investment... we could afford another 60-90 units of a low cost ($20 Million) CAS aircraft by simply not purchasing 12 F-35's.

My speculation is 1- F-14 Tomcat 2- MiG-23BN Flogger H 3- F6F-5 Hellcat Cats and Duck...s...:smilewink:

Great Idea! Then we could expand that map to the west until we hit Europe!;)

Being a huge fan of the F4U Corsair, my true desire lies with the Pacific Theatre of Operations... specifically the Solomon Islands campaign. That is still a number of years away as there are no aircraft or maps being made yet for the time period but the F4F Wildcat is on VEAO's roadmap. Seeing as the kickstarter campaign was the catalyst for DCS:WWII with the concentration on the Western European air war in 1944, I submit that the era already being worked on will be expanded upon to include early to mid war aircraft and maps in time. There are many people out there who thoroughly enjoy the simpler aircraft and very close combat that typifies the fighting in the WWII time period. Hopefully VEAO's negotiations with the BBMF will result in numerous early to mid war British aircraft that will enhance the incentive for other third parties to focus more on the early to mid war periods. I too would like to see the maps expanded once the hoped for performance benefits of DCS2.0/EDGE are explored. I'd really like to have flyable German, British and American Twins like the Bf-110 series, He-219, Me-210, Me-410, Hs-129B, Mosquito FBVI, B-26 Marauder, P-61 Black Widow and A-20 Havoc. An expanded map to include Germany will enable the full use of these types of aircraft. Western Europe is my number two want for the WWII time period.

That sure don't look like a Super Bug to me. :smilewink:

Didn't notice that earlier... hmm, well Utkonos was one of the Russian nicknames for the MiG-23B/MiG-27 aircraft and it means platypus which has a duck nose... Or we could go French and use Canard... isn't Cobra a Swede... Viggen anyone? It also makes me wonder what other Grumman Cats they might be working on... Hellcat, Wildcat, Tigercat, Panther, Cougar, and Tiger. Definitely very interesting.

I could get behind an AT-802F if the fire physics and weather were well modeled.:pilotfly:

Three aircraft in an advanced state of development... outstanding! Nice to see the "Heavily Hinted" blurry airplane as one of those advanced projects. Now what are the other two? I'd like to start the speculation off with a P-38 Lightning and... Su-17M4 Fitter. Congratulations on you success with the MiG-21Bis and I wish you the best for your upcoming projects. Great Update by the way and thank you and the LN crew for your efforts.

Two Weeks:D

You know good and well I cannot prove what I have done before so stating that I have flown around the Black Sea will not magically make it true in anyones mind. Nice try though. With EDGE coming out sometime this year (hopefully) there will be performance improvements within the engine and it is my hope that it will mean better optimization and use of system resources that will enable larger maps with more detailed terrain than is currently possible. I suppose it all boils down to what you want DCS to be for you. I want the realism that I have never had in a combat sim before. The argument for anything less than real world distances is a moot point when the one thinks about it. DCS aspires to be more than just a game. ED want's DCS to be a full fidelity simulation (as full as it can get anyway) and cutting corners to make it more game like would take away from that. Stating that you want less of something is a sure way to get exactly that. I say shoot for the stars.

That is fine for single player but what about multiplayer? There is no way I know of to force the use of certain weapons on aircraft other than completely removing them. Even if you have aircraft based at different locations there is nothing stopping a pilot from flying his plane to the base that has the weapons, loading them up and flying the unrealistic loadout. Right now the only options are to completely remove said weapons from the map or not use the unrealistic aircraft at all. This has an impact on gameplay in the future. Now if DCS had an option that identified unrealistic loadouts and blocked them from use in the ME I would be all for it. As it stands now without that feature I don't think it is a good idea.

Gotta love the Bf-110. I'd like to see a Me-410, Hs-129 and He-219 as well.

Well it seems that there is no reason to have anything other than the Georgia map then. Just change the colors of the map add some era specific objects and viola, its just like New Guinea without all the dreaded true to life simulation inconveniences. Not everyone wants less realism with half or quarter scale maps for gameplay purposes. I was always irritated with IL-2 maps for this very reason. I would want the entire earth modeled but it seems this will not be possible. The current Georgia map is far too small for my tastes as it is. There is no real use for the tankers because every aircraft in game (minus the helo's) can fly from one side of the map to the other with no problems and many can make it all the way back as well. My hope is for a realistic map.

I want larger maps because there are more options as far as gameplay is concerned. My want is for a map that covers New Guinea, New Britain and the Solomon Islands. Not just New Guinea/New Britain. My preference is for long ranged aircraft so the P-39/P-40/Wirraway/Boomerang are not what I want to fly. The vast majority of Corsair operations were from the Solomons and (The Corsair being in the top three of my most wanted aircraft) that is what I want to simulate most. For multiplayer having larger maps with many airbases scattered around different islands is a plus as it doesn't have to be strictly historical for the airquake type missions everyone seems so fond of. Just pick two bases that are reasonably close to each other and have at it.

After some more research I see that uboats was correct, The PFM is the only version to use it. Perhaps the missile should be removed from the Bis. I'm not sure I like the idea of test loadouts being included. Next thing you know we will have F-14's with AMRAAMS and AGM-88's, A-6's with AGM-109's, B-1B's with AGM-86 and AGM-129's, and C-5's with LGM-130's. In the ME the only way to restrict a weapons use on a particular airframe is to simply remove the weapon from the inventory or, on the flip side, remove the aircraft you don't want using it. Restricting the weapon is fine for an obscure type such as the AGM-109 but when it comes to the AIM-120 or AGM-88 you will be removing either the F-14 from the carriers or a lot of capability from the F/A-18's with the removal of those weapons. That is the problem with fictional loadouts and until there is a way to easily force true loadouts only in the ME I don't believe the nonstandard loadouts be included. That and not all aircraft have fictional loadouts or even the actual loadouts the aircraft has carried in combat in the case of the Israeli F-15's. If the fictional route is chosen then who would like to see the F-15C with AGM-88's and Iron bombs as well and wouldn't a B-1B look sweet with its external hardpoints activated... imagine the devastation.

From what I have read the PFM was the first to use the Kh-66 and every single seat Fishbed after that model has the capability to use it. Seems illogical that a precision guided weapon such as the Kh-66 would be abandoned in the definitive fighter-bomber version of the Fishbed. What is your reference?

I'm only thinking of the range and situation of the F4U-1, Beaufighter Mk XXI and B-25. I'd like to see this more than any other area of operations for a WWII specific DCS map. Hopefully EDGE will make the entire map MiloMorai posted achievable.

Late Cold War for me as the Fixed and Rotary winged aircraft really became potent, but not invincible, although I enjoy the WWII era almost as much and the Vietnam era is a firm third place. Korea... well if I can have an F4U-4 or F4U-5N then ok I'd fly against the early jets in that frozen wasteland. The very modern stuff seems boring to me as there is far less skill involved in dropping GPS weapons from 20k ft from an airplane that fly's itself and does everything for you. Pre WWII holds little interest for me as well as the combat capabilities of the early fabric and wood planes were very poor... But if I could fly a Zeppelin...That might be interesting.:thumbup:

Nice VF-213 Avatar Cobra. Sounds like an exciting forecast for the new year. I can't wait to hear the announcements... and Happy New Year to you and the crew at Leatherneck as well.

Has anyone ask an F-86 pilot for a comparative evaluation? As far as current F-86 drivers, Capt. Snodgrass immediately springs to mind.

True, the F/A-18 is a poor performer when compared with the Tomcat. It was never designed for all out performance. The only reason they cover the decks of our carriers is that they were the cheaper alternative to everything else that was proposed. The only real advantages the new F/A-18's really have is in the electronic gadgets they carry. Currently, the F-35 is way more expensive than the F/A-18 and it seems that it is a poor performer from most reports so, for what we will be paying for it, it had better kill all of our enemies from just the sight of it. I'm really hoping for Leatherneck to produce a F-14.... it doesn't even matter what version either. A,B or D are all great. That being said (and hopefully in the works), I'd like an OV-10A/D Bronco, F-105D/G, F-4E ARN-101 Phantom or F-4G Wild Weasel as well.

Those must be for the naughty kids.:smilewink:

What he said. I hate being stuck using the Su-25T, of which only a very limited number were built, because of a lack of suitable alternatives on the red forces side. A Su-17M4 Fitter K or MiG-27K Flogger J2 would be great additions to finally put the Toad to rest.

I'm currently having a blast with Leathernecks MiG-21Bis. I'd like to see more Russian planes from the same era as the Fishbed. I'd like to see any of the following planes: Su-17M4, Su-17UM3, Su-17M, Su-7B, MiG-23BN, MiG-23MLD, MiG-23MF, MiG-27M, MiG-27K, MiG-25PD, MiG-25BM, MiG-25RB, MiG-17F and even less capable MiG-21's like the SMT, MF or PF.

I want a Hawk