ghostdog688

I'd take the RAF variant, or the -B model for carrier ops instead :) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

F4, f105 (with Shrike ARM) and a6... in that order! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, perhaps the first 10 preorders come with a customer cockpit lol Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never disagreed with the critique on fuel, loadout or single-engine risk. They are spot-on assessments :) Just wanted to offer an alternate point of view as to the other assertions about its safety etc, seeing as how you don't like anyone saying anything about the f-16 "because it's [better/worse]". It's a succssful design because as you say it's so cost effective as a multi-role fighter. It has out performed many aircraft over the years. The Danes thought long and hard before deciding between upgrading their vipers AGAIN and joining the f35 program - and there are many voices unhappy with the choice now that they are seeing how the project is (or rather isn't) developing. But that's a flame war for another topic ;) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where do you base the viper to be more dangerous? The numbers can be a little skewed given its long history and large adoption. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember you saying earlier you were always needing extra help... Can you tell us what kind of help is needed to help move this along? I'd love to help in anyway I can but not sure where to (or if I even can) start. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not that fussed over the strike eagle. Don't get me wrong, it will be a powerful addition to the DCS group, but I would just as soon have something older. F-105, a-6, f-4... All these birds are of an age which we are seeing too many of them unsuitable for flight at airshows and the like. In many ways, they paved the way for modern aircraft. Without the lessons learned here, we wouldn't have f-15s or f18s etc. Also I believe they were the last planes to really need a pilots skills to fly, the computers didn't do it all for them :) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, no one asked at the AMA :( Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam To be fair if RAZBAM had decided after reading this thread that there "wasn't enough interest" to put it on the dev plan, I probably would have the team sectioned as they would clearly have lost their minds. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, thanks for responding. I didn't mean this was exactly how you do things, but just that it's a risk any 3rd party dev team on this platform take here: if ED have to make changes to the software in order to better support their own modules, it's then up to you to re-do your work to make it fit in their newly updated environment. This means it's not just a simple case of 'let's make the module do this thing' - it all has to be compatible with existing code and that can hamper you if the existing code doesn't let you do what you'd like to do (multi-crew for example). Even then there's still the chance of a rewrite of the code if it becomes obsolete by a new change or improvement to DCS:W made by ED. while I'm sure they tell you when the changes will be, I doubt they are asking you if that's okay by you - the changes will be happening whether they break your module or not. all you can do is roll with the punches in that case :) I may, of course, be wrong; this is how it seems from the outside looking in. Feel free to correct me :) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if BANA could reach out to them as subject matter experts?

I'd just love to send it off the deck and trap it :) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm no coder or modeller, but I'm good at researching and finding out details and data. Is there any resources for your research you're missing or struggling to find that would be pretty handy? I'd love to help in any way I can, but I'm not gifted well in the computer side of things :) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam A nice idea, but sadly this sometimes necessitates a complete rewrite - look at what happened to the Huey, hawk and the f14 with regards to multi crew. They all had ideas on how it would look and while dcs releases l-39, my impression is that they are going to have to basically wait to see how it takes shape and re-structure that part of the code. Just approximating how it works has left them with twice as much work to do now that multicrew is on the horizon, assuming they decide it's worth the effort it will certainly be a while down the line I expect. If RAZBAM doesn't make an honest attempt at an AFM in the early stages they could make a rod for their back if DCS decides to implement changes designed to improve the models down the line. Always remember that DCS is ultimately in charge of how the code runs. If they want to make it run in a manner the 3rd parties don't expect or if they try to impose a workaround the code that only works for their module, breakage can ensue if/when DCS decides to tweak that aspect of the modelling code. Then we all end up complaining at how horribly broken the model is while the poor devs have to go back to square one.

It's been mentioned a few times, including myself. It's been pointed out that this would necessitate a separate cockpit layout and some exterior tweaks, almost making them do two sets of models and two slightly different Flight Models. Also I'm not sure how well DCS would model the sudden changes in centre of gravity and fuel balance when the tanker ditches all its fuel. But if those problems aren't major enough for razbam, it would be a nice bonus to add to the module. I too would like to refuel planes returning from a strike, and having a piloted tanker allows things like breaking the tanker pattern for a sick/damaged plane leaking fuel or refuelling a sick bird barely able to maintain altitude.

A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam Yeah I was thinking that the a-6's speed disadvantage plus the small heat source would've made a successful intercept unlikely Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shooting down an Exocet with a sidewinder seems hopelessly optomistic. But I guess that's the military for you...

That's a fair point. Bit telling that they only wanted to lug one along though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The choice not to fly sidewinders in the A6 seems more doctrinal than capability. I guess thinking is that a lot of people in planning, BARCAP, AWACS, and many other supporting roles in the intruder's mission will have completely screwed up if a flight of intruders have to make fox-2 calls... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A-6 "Intruder" by Razbam Or passing fuel to late night bolters, in the weather, then making your own traps By the way, any former intruder pilots or B/Ns here? I'd love to know more about how DIANE looked and worked, and haven't a clue where to look around. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd actually like to see a ka-6 pilotable: would add a new dimension to carrier-based recoveries (two pilots both flying straight and level) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That seems reasonable. But I'm real glad we are not in a country vs country war, as two or three big tankers getting shot down in a war environment would seriously screw with any air superiority plans for NATO then. Seems we need a solution that handles both designs on one plane to minimise disruption due to operational loss. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't that stop the Air Force guys getting fuel then? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wondered about that. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But don't the navy use probe-and-drogue vs AF's boom? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk