Vampyre

DCS thinking goes something like this: 11001001001101001001001111001010010100101001000111010110101010011 DCS is the software. I'll stop being facetious now. Eagle Dynamics, is thinking the best way forward is to have third parties come in and develop modules for DCS as a way to expand the content of DCS at an exponential rate. The more third parties that are developing modules, the more content we will have in a shorter amount of time. It looks to be a very smart business move on ED's part because there is no way they can develop very many modules while simultaneously updating the base game. ED is not developing the Hawk. That is VEAO Simulations, a third party. As for the Phantom, The version I most desire is the F-4G Wild Weasel V with the F-4E Phantom upgraded with the ARN-101 coming in as a close second. There is nothing being said about this aircraft at the moment. Is it being developed? Maybe or maybe not. If I were developing a module (especially an iconic aircraft such as the Phantom) for DCS I would not want anyone to know about it until release day. That is because I would not want to deal with the distractions of being hounded for information by enthusiasts. If the Phantom were released right now it is guaranteed to produce a large amount of sales just because it is a Phantom. Will it be developed? I believe yes, in time. Patience is a virtue. I'm actually looking forward to the Hawk as well! Cheers Tango! You guys are doing a great job from everything I've seen.

Well, there was this poll that had the P-47 in the lead for the free flyable: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114805&page=3 Maybe, when he gets the time, luther1 can pop in and let us know what plane was chosen to be the freebee.

Indeed, It is really exciting to see third parties working on all of their different aircraft. The MiG-21Bis that will be out soon is a perfect addition to a mid 70's-80's WWIII conflict. I can't wait to get my hands on that.

Sounds silly to argue about a name for a module that in all likelihood won't be built at all. If it is made, whoever makes the "WWIII" module will give it a name that will garner instant recognition to gain as many sales as possible. As for a separate install for all of the different modules, I really hope they do not do that. I would like to have one install that I will be able to fly all of the eras of flight on simply by selecting the aircraft, year and map that I want to fly. I don't want to fight a Su-27 in a F4U Corsair... I want era and region specific enemies to fight. The second you start breaking the game into different installs is when your community gets fractured and that is not a good thing with the size of the flight sim community as a whole.

Indeed... it's in our nature evidently.

That's the idea, I'd like to get a feel of how it might have turned out... even though I'm pretty sure the USSR and WP would have really ravaged NATO. Also, even with maps and modules that depict actual wars, the end result is fictitious anyway.

To be honest it is not really an original idea by me either, it's kind of a conglomeration of ideas on my part. It would make a great deal of sense to incorporate a feature such as this to minimize the installs required to fly in different era's.

Sounds boring for a WWIII module.... I'd prefer flying from RAF Upper Heyford and penetrating enemy air defenses at low level in an F-111E to deliver a pair of B-61 special weapons to targets in Poland or the western part of the USSR. I like the idea of flying as part of an AH-1F/OH-58 team picking off the massive river of tanks and fighting vehicles flowing through the Fulda Gap. Also high on my wish list is the F-4G Wild Weasel V to try to whittle down the most massive and deadly air defense network ever assembled... and maybe see if the F-117A would have been survivable in such a dense air defense environment. That's just the NATO side of things... How about a massive air assault with Mi-24 Hinds and Mi-8's to capture critical infrastructure like bridges and airfields or using Tu-22KD Blinders to attack RAF airfields at long ranges while trying to evade Tornado F3's.

I'm pretty sure I put this suggestion forth before. Every object in game could have service dates corresponding to a year month timeline that they were actually in service. Of course this feature would have to be selectable by the mission builder. The selection could be called Historical and Sandbox depending on what the mission builder wanted to do.

I'd like to have the option of using every weapon in the inventory be they special weapons or conventional. The truth of the matter is that, if WWIII did break out, Tactical Nuclear Weapons and Chemical Weapons would have been employed on the battlefield and to destroy key supply and communication hubs. I feel they would be a requirement for a cold war gone hot scenario. Just because they are available in game doesn't mean they have to be used on every flight... that is for the mission designer to decide. I'd rather have them in game... It would make for an interesting long range interdiction mission for the F-111's.

Which is laughable because the helicopter itself was a version of the EH-101. The RAF and RN were already operating them as the Merlin HM 1, Merlin HM 2, and Merlin HC 3. Heck the Canadians were even operating a version called the CH-149 Cormorant. While the R&D effort to make them more "US" was indeed spread over only a few airframes that just exacerbated the symptoms of the program mismanagement. That and it wasn't an American design so the politicos were against it as well and that is probably what really killed it. If the original winner was an S-92 it would have been flying as an executive transport right now.

One of my most hoped for era's of the cold war. NATO vs. Warsaw Pact in central Europe. A true WWIII scenario with a lot of Famous/Classic aircraft available. It would be a real challenge to survive in that environment.

The 2 MiG-23’s in Sarasota, Florida are N223ML and N23UB, and were bought by Doug Morgan from the former Czechoslovakia several years ago and shipped to the U.S. for restoration and are evidently for sale. MiG-23ML and MiG-23UB. http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&Mdltxt=MIG+23&Manu=MIKOYAN&mdlx=contains&bcatid=13&Pref=0

Hmmm... A Mitsubishi J2M Raiden. That would be nice to shoot down with my F4U-4 Corsair.:thumbup: Or my MiG-21Bis

I voted Tomcat... Here's one of my pics from the 2005-2006 cruise on TR.

The last time I saw underway replenishment undertaken in anything but ideal conditions was in 2001. It usually doesn't matter because we will have enough supplies to last several weeks before we will need to resupply and storms usually don't last that long. Exceptions have been made in the past due to operational commitment. I wonder what I did with that video... Your welcome WildBillKelsoe

The answers to your questions are highly dependent on the situation. During normal operations safety is paramount. I remember doing CQ on the TR off the coast of Maryland in February of 2003 in the middle of a blizzard... at night! The cold wind was blowing straight through all my layers of clothing like it wasn't even there. The snow was so bad we couldn't even see the jets until they were just over the round down as I was walking past the junkyard. After parking one of my jets at the top of the four row, and as I was walking back aft along the shot line, a F-14D that was being launched off the cat FOD'ed its motor right next to me creating a huge shower of sparks that really lit up the deck in that area. It was kind of spectacular but it made me wonder what the heck we were doing out there. The Tomcat ended up diverting to NAS Oceana. We had a mission which justified the risks. About a month later we were putting warheads on foreheads in Iraq. Tides mean nothing to a carrier conducting flight operations on the open ocean. The only times tides affect operations of a carrier are when transiting restricted waters due to the draft of the hull. I have seen flight schedules cancelled for weather on many occasions due to the risks outweighing the rewards of completing the schedule. If we have jets airborne and the weather turns to sh!t we will either a) divert them to the closest friendly/allied divert base which is pre-specified during the initial briefing for the flight or b) if conducting blue water op's we will recover them aboard the boat. Blue water operations are a certification the ship and air wing achieve during workups to deployment and is one of the last qualification achieved prior to being declared combat ready. We call the work up cycle this is achieved in COMTUEX which is then followed up immediately by JTFX. After that the battle group is declared deployable and is on call to go at any moment. See above. Highly dependent on the situation. To operate an aircraft that is as large as a C-130 (I know you said fictional and C-130 size aircraft have never regularly operated from carriers) yes you will need calm seas and a completely clear flight deck. The lack of a tail hook, associated landing aid's and enough accessible tie down points to safely secure a C-130 would require relatively calm seas. For something more realistic, such as a C-2 Greyhound, operations in stormy conditions will be dependent on how critical the cargo being transported is and it will be the call of the battle group commander (read:Admiral) or higher to authorize such a flight. When flying personnel and supplies to and from the carrier on routine operations the C-2's will only operate in daylight and in relatively good weather. Yes, there is nowhere near enough room on the hangar deck of a carrier to strike the entire air wing below. We will fit as many aircraft as we can in the hangar bay and every aircraft aboard the boat will receive heavy weather tie down which (depending on the TMS) will have 18+ TD-1A/B tie down chains. The aircraft remaining on the flight deck will be spotted in Fly-2 and Fly-3 (aft of the Nav-pole and crotch and all the way to the stern). Personnel will not be allowed on the weather decks (decks and catwalks exposed to the outside elements) during adverse weather conditions. When I was on the Kitty Hawk in 2000 we went through a storm with high waves and my shop, located on the sponson forward of elevator 1, received several epic wave slaps that ended up knocking a TV and its mount off the overhead to which it was welded on to. We were sitting in the shop just sort of feeling the ship heaving to and fro when out of nowhere there is a huge jolt and associated BOOM when the wave hit the side and threw tool boxes around, slammed drawers open in an instant and the TV fell to the deck narrowly missing one of my buddy's. In 2006 on the TR we were trans-lanting home through a lot of really rough weather that knocked several sections of the catwalk off on the port side. Heavy storms are kind of fun to ride out on a big ship. A buddy of mine who was HSL for a time tells me on a small ship such as a frigate or destroyer you are literally walking on the bulkheads while transiting the passageways and you have to strap yourself in your bunk to keep from falling to the deck. The "drain holes" are not really drain holes. We call them pad eyes and they are specifically used to secure aircraft and SE to the deck. All aircraft and SE when not in use are secured to the deck with tie down chains to keep them from rolling around and causing damage regardless of the weather. I have seen rogue waves appear out of nowhere in good weather and flat seas to give the carrier a good roll. I'm not an AG so I can't comment on the repercussions of a less than accurate weather report.

Eventually... it's too close to the map we have right now. I choose to abstain from this vote because my answer is not in the choices. I'm looking forward to a little more variety.

From what I remember, ED is supposed to be working on the F/A-18C Lot 10 or 11 (the first night attack versions) which are equipped with the APG-65. Cortex is supposed to be working on an early lot F/A-18E Super Hornet with the APG-73 RADAR. I personally think that the third party route was a good choice. The fact that the third parties are developing what they want to develop is good for the DCS brand. What some think are useless airframes in the context of what their opinion of what DCS should be is really just them selfishly trying to push the development in the direction they want it to go in. There are real limitations on DCS at the moment that serve to limit the types of aircraft that can be developed with any fidelity and until those barriers are broken progress on DCS level multirole aircraft is severely limited. The basic features such as multiple seat multiplayer and A/G radar are required to move forward with almost any modern multirole aircraft. Exceptions for ground attack would be aircraft like the Jaguar, MiG-23BN, MiG-27, Mirage F-1AZ and a number of others I'm not thinking of off the top of my head all of which do not have A/G RADAR. As far as fixed wing is concerned, single seat dedicated A/G or A/A platforms are the way forward at the moment but hopefully that will change within the next couple of years and we can get our grubby little hands on some truly outstanding multirole fixed and rotary winged modules. I don't mind having the different era aircraft in game because they all bring something interesting to the table and there is always going to be someone who has an interest in whatever module is released. Me, I want it all... The more the better.:thumbup:

I was thinking DCS: Space Mountain. It would be so much easier to make than monorail!

True but we would still need a MiG-21 for the map. The MiG-21Bis was not in service until 1972...with the Soviets. North Vietnam used MiG-21F, PF, and PFM's during the war. My hopes for the Bis are for a European map so we can do a cold war gone hot in the late 70's and 80's.

I'd like to see the MiG-23MLD Flogger K, MiG-23M Flogger B and MiG-23BN Flogger H.

I voted other... MiG-27K Flogger J2. Of course I would love to have a Su-17M4 or similar version as well. The Su-17/20/22 family of aircraft were all very interesting... I just prefer the MiG-27.

As far as the EA-18G Growler is concerned, our primary mission is called Airborne Electronic Attack. SEAD is a component of this mission and can also be done by the F/A-18E/F as well. Of course the Growler is capable of much more than just suppressing air defenses which is why you will never see a DCS quality Growler... It's true capabilities are classified. I would like an F-4G Wild Weasel V though... or to keep on topic a Tornado ECR!

If the terrain issues are ever going to be worked out then this could possibly be a good replacement for Steel Beasts Pro PE... It's been forever since I lost my stupid dongle.