Cunctator

I am not sure, but voted NO. I had great fun flying the OV-10 in FSX, but here I strongly prefer to see the Sea Harrier or Mirage III first. And since developer time and my own for flying all those planes is limited...

Carriers were also used to ferry non naval fighters to the war zones. They were launched once and then operated from land bases.

A bigger airframe with two engines can more easily absorb the extra volume and weight needed for strike role. The F-35 is significantly smaller than the Raptor, yet they managed to include more fuel, a bigger weapons bay and still got a very decent performance. A larger aircraft with the same bomb load as the F-35, that can supercruise for a significant amount of time, features the next iteration stealth technology and is even prepared to be equipped with self defense lasers will be much more survivable against any threat, not just in a2a. That is exactly what they did to develop the Super Hornet, a "redesign" which essentially amounted to a brand new aircraft. Just compare the timelines of the SH, Raptor, F-35 or Typhoon projects. This approach most certainly has benefits. For me the F-35 is a brilliant design, but that does not mean that there is no need for any other new airframes in the coming decades. If another platform is much more survivable and/or more effective in a number of missions it will always be worth the costs. A limited number of "Strike Raptors", or a similar new design, working in concert with a large number of F-35s would just repeat the successful F-15, F-16 combo of the past.

This time it could replace all Eagles, not just the pure fighters as they planned in the 80s, but also the Strike Eagles. To replace the F-15E it would need at least a slightly increased main weapons bay, capable of holding two 2000 lbs class weapons and more fuel. Any new F-22s should also be upgraded with an IRST sensor, the F-35's DAS and if possible its less maintenance intensive stealth materials. All this would result in some quite extensive redesign of the airframe, but anything less would be nonsensical. As others have said before the budgets for dedicated air superiority fighters aren't there anymore. Few air forces can afford huge fleets of fighters these days and, with the possible exception of China, all would be greatly outnumbered by the F-35 force of any western coalition. Ground based defenses will be the greatest threat to attacking aircraft, not enemy interceptors. For a war against China the base F-22, designed for an European war, lacks the range to be truly effective over the vast expanses of the Pacific. However, some kind of Strike Raptor that can conduct deep strikes against heavily defended high value targets while still excelling in the air superiority role has its merits. But I don't think this will happen. The money required to restart the F-22 line and upgrade the airframe (even in a more modest way) is better spend developing an entirely new high performance 5.5th generation airframe, with advent based engines and free space for some laser turrets in a later upgrade. Using F-35 avionics and sensors would allow for much shorter developing times and more commonality later.

The perfect opportunity do to the Super Hornet trick again and get Congress to fund an enlarged and thoroughly modernized aircraft. An airframe mating the F-22A's performance with more range and internal payload could replace all remaining F-15s and would be better suited for the requirements of the 21st century.

No, just various dumb bombs (up to 2000 lb on center line rack, 1000 lb on inner wing stations), napalm, eight 5" HVAR and 11.75" Tiny Tim (2) rockets and with some luck the ASM-N-2 Bat radar guided bomb.

+1 Also, there are many airliners with military variants. A Boeing 737 and P-8 or Airbus A330 MRTT would give us some realistic civil traffic and enhance the military aspect.

I, too was talking of the ground textures. Terrain height mesh stays, mostly, the same throughout the centuries, but the ground changes a lot. That's why they can't use modern aerial images as base for WW2 era ground textures as they can do for modern era maps. Thus they have to draw their own textures from scratch, choose appropriate colors etc. Plus the sparse vegetation of Nevada or other deserts makes it easier for the mapmakers, who don't have to recreate all kind of correctly colored and placed trees, hedges etc. A good texture, derived from aerial images plus some random clutter is sufficient.

AT-27 Tucano.Harriers and the F-15E are among the most complex aircraft. Look how long ED needs to develop the F/A-18 and how many more simple things they have released between A-10C and F/A-18C. Developers can probably do significant work on something simple as the Tucano, while they have to wait for some bottleneck to be cleared, without slowing down the complex add ons.

It should be much easier to make excellent looking modern scenery than WW2 maps. For Nevada, or any modern maps, they can use high resolution aerial or satellite images as base for terrain or building textures. For any historic map they have to recreate everything manually.

What makes FSX and similar sims so attractive is that you can fly everything everywhere. There might be a big enough group of virtual VFR pilots who would prefer the superior flight dynamics or damage modeling in DCS over the greater freedom in FSX derivatives, but I doubt it would be worth developing civil maps and planes at the expense of more and improved military content. For me the only place for civil stuff in DCS is through dual use modules, such as civil versions of military planes, thus as a bonus for customers and developers. A detailed mid 1980s map of central Germany for Cold War gone hot scenarios would be a fantastic place to fly some GA planes, just as the Nevada map if they add a few smaller civil airports over time. Within a few years DCS could maybe become attractive enough to generate some significant extra income from civil aviation fans.

Obviously because such a map would help ED and partners to sell more WW2 aircraft modules and full sized maps. Train for free, buy a large combat theater map with campaign later. Free base package + paid add ons as business model was ED's choice, not mine. Arguable the MSFS approach, pay for a base package with scenery available to every user, would work better for them, but that is not for us to decide. Flocks of P-40s and Spitfires over post soviet Caucasus is hardly perfect for newcomers looking for the most authentic WW2 sim.

Because a big map like Normandy will be a separate module just like Nevada and thus not available to everyone. Even when developers are making maps to accompany their aircraft modules such a map will mostly still be a better place for training, i.e. Leatherneck is developing the F4U and Iwo Jima.

Currently the only free map in DCS World, and thus the only map available to everyone, is the good old modern Caucasus map. Consequently it is used for all training missions for every module. For me it is a big immersion killer to conduct all flight training over modern Georgia, especially with the growing number of WW2 era planes. Since ED obviously can't make a free full sized map I would suggest to make a tiny one that does not require many resources, just big enough for flight training. It would just need a single period grass airfield with a couple of hangars and maybe a fistful of farms close by. Something like Phenick Field for FSX. Preferably the airfield should be located somewhere close to the coast, so that a sufficiently large portion of empty ocean for future carrier practice can be included as well. As bonus such a map would better showcase the current capabilities of DCS than old tech Caucasus. All newcomers downloading free DCS world would get better first impression, if they can learn to fly the TF-51 from an appropriate place.

September 2002, a book: "Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea", by Barrett Tillman

Adaptive cycle engines, designed with directed energy weapons in mind

Fully agree with you here. But my two points remain. - It will be a new airframe - If they use the F-22A as a base design they will have to heavily modify it to meet modern requirements for more range and payload. That just what they planned to do for the FB-22. Of course the actual configuration will be different.

The F-15 started an air superiority fighter and become a world beating striker. The USAF apparently does not want to have just more Raptors. To get an slightly updated F-22C they would not launch a formal competition that will take years. Also they would not expect to wait 5 to 10 years for it. They seek a more modern and versatile platform instead. Nobody will develop a high end single role airframe again in the near future. The budgets aren't there anymore and there is no reason to do so. Since WW2 all great fighters could be matured to become great multirole aircraft. There is no reason to stop now. A supercruising heavy strike fighter featuring the next iteration of stealth technology will be much more survivable than the F-35. With greater range and a bigger internal weapons load it will also be much more capable. It will be a true and much needed replacement for the Strike Eagle that will have an increasingly hard time conducting deep strikes against modern air defenses and fighters.

An unmodified F-22 neither has the range required in the Asia Pacific region, nor the payload to replace the Strike Eagle. They will surely build a new airframe and probably use F-35 derived avionics. I would expect something like the FB-22 concepts from a decade ago. Just as the Super Hornet went through development to production in less than decade, a Super Raptor could be ready to replace the remaining Eagles in time.

The Navy is looking at using the V-22 for its tanker needs going forward if I recall correctly. The Navy has just started to develop an UAV tanker to free up its fighters from that duty. The Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System (CBARS).

Hm. I had hoped for a sexier, faster design. But using only matured technology an evolution of the B2 seems to be the most logical choice.

Maybe LN is waiting for ED to implement improved carrier ops first.

Corsairs also dropped napalm in WW2 and some were field modded to handle a 2000 pound bomb on the centerline rack. I still hope somebody will make a Korea map in the not so distant future and for that war the F4U-4 would fit perfectly. The later Russian piston engine types used there should also sell quite well in Russia and the east.

It wasn't even a match for Kawanishi N1K Even when using favorable test data for N1K the F4U-4 has an 40 mph speed advantage at almost every altitude. That's hardly not even a match. You can always compare performance figures, which are not that far apart from the other late war beasts that this statement would be devalued. Everything else is up to pilots and tactics.

I voted for the AV-8B simply because it was built in greater numbers and is still in service. I wouldn't be unhappy with the GR7/GR9 either, especially if you plan to release an AV-8B+ one day.