Wing

Litening TGP has been mounted before, and can be done. I just know my entire career at Minot AFB for the last 6 years, its been strictly Sniper TGP.

To be completely honest, from my experience, the systems currently being modeled in the F18C and F16C also will share alot of cross cannibalizations to represent the flight deck in the B52H. There are going to be sensitive systems behind the EWO station, but I dont expect the consumer base to really desire that seat anyhow - as the core DCS functionality for ECM is barely implemented as it is currently. Majority of Radar nav, and Nav station systems - I would not see issues obtaining documentation for, judging off the systems ED has acquired for the same era of F16C and F18C. The flight deck irl is shown in full functionality for airshows, we just drape a curtain over the EWO panel due to sensitivity. I think the major hurdle, would be for ED to develop the Sniper TGP to go along with a B52H module, or really any USAF heavy bomber. Currently, I am not sure if ED has obtained rights for that TGP. Munitions wise, there are TONS of JDAMs and GBUs that have already been modelled that can be added into the arsenals and systems. More advanced munitions like cruise missiles, and AGM-86s would be a bit harder to find access to. But then again, we dont necessarily require those weapon systems currently in the DCS World environment. JTAC onstation support, with the Sniper TGP, and lazing for friendly forces with 2 pylons, and a belly full of GBU-12s is what I crave and dream about one day simulating in DCS. Yeah, there are basic documents of B52 EWO functionality out there that is public knowledge - and no more sensitive than what is in our current modules. Theres forsure a way to get it done.

Okay man, we get that you are very passionate about not bringing a B52H into DCS. I continue to see paragraphs of text written by you - that try to beat this dead horse into oblivion. Fact of the matter, is that if you want to focus solely on the Nuclear side of things - then you need to also take into consideration that other airframes that are currently represented in DCS also belong part of the Nuclear mission. F16C, Mig21, heck even the KC135 ect... has nuclear mission sets. Quit harping on it honestly... its a mission that we will never see represented in DCS. We understand that - but REAL WORLD wise as well, there's TONS of other mission roles that the B52 is utilized and trains for. In fact especially during the last 20 years, the airframe focus is so much more than Nuclear. So lets quit being buzz killers, and fixating on certain points... and be more open minded. The B52 can be utilized in some amazing roles in DCS World and its terrains, as it can real world - without the nuclear codes involved! Certain mission roles CAN be left out for DCS modules, as it does for various modules currently ingame! The consumer base understands that, as Nuclear warfare is a completely different ballgame and frankly doomsday scenarios would not be enjoyable to simulate in DCS. BUT we all have imaginations to look past that, and see the 90% other amazing mission roles that the B52 has to offer I am failing to see that the F16C or F18C era documents are accessible for DCS, but a B52H platform of that same era isnt? Maybe you know more than I know about what systems are onboard though? (And I am not talking about the EWO station... that understandably doesn't need to be in DCS) Your arguments are uneducated to say the least when you are making points such as that. And it is becoming sickening hearing that same song and dance from ya... have some hope man. Dont be a buzz kill.

Can we confirm any new details on this?

Mike, I posted up a reference sometime last year for Eagle Dynamics to look at these characteristics of Andersen. Hope they pay attention to this:

@mkellytx If you have not already, please vote on my thread here: Former BUFF guy as well, would love to see this airframe in DCS. For all the "naysayers", please checkout this thread... Its all been said and discussed before. Same song, different dance. One day, I have the dream, that we WILL see a heavy bomber like the B52 in DCS World. And yes, the current maps - especially NTTR and Persian Gulf would fit the module just fine. Dont be a buzz kill fellas. Have hope.

Thats the issue tho, you are comparing apples to oranges. How does your comparison of F-14 in a simulator with no A/A, make any argument that a B52 cant "strategically" fulfill its "legacy" (whatever that is, because BUFFS have been doing missions other than 30+hr sorties since they were invented), within the DCS environment? You are reaching for anything you can on the vine, and continue to come back to map size being the main inhibitor preventing the user from experiencing the B52(H) model. Heck, they even trained back in the original days of the B52 to fly nap of the earth SAM avoidance tactical strikes. It has NEVER been COMPLETELY ALL ABOUT 30+hr nuclear mission strikes against Soviet Russia. So what "LEGACY" are you trying to find in the B52H that is not able to experience in DCS, that overrules making such an aircraft relevant in the DCS environment? We also need to keep in mind that we are talking about a jet that has a HUGE lifespan. Models differ ATON, but G and H model BUFFs are what would be most appealing to the DCS system ecosystem and customer base. Here’s another mission set example from G models several decades ago... `B-52Gs operating from the King Abdullah Air Base at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom, Morón Air Base, Spain, and the island of Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory flew bombing missions over Iraq, initially at low altitude.` P.S. Strategic bombing does not mean 30hr mission durations/range.

I thought DCS was supposed to be simulating what is FACT? So what is the issue here... I am confused. Fact of the matter is - there is no wiring for those stations in order to support that weapon system. PERIOD. Quit bantering around, there should be no argument at this point unless if DCS is no longer trying to simulate fact for their modules.

Appreciate that - yeah its just another conspiracy that DCS code cant handle 8 engines. BN said anything is possible, with the right amount of passion and motivation. So I want to squash that concern right away. 4 or 8 Engines IS possible in DCS.

I am just going to leave this here... 1). During the mission durations in the Middle East supporting JTAC with sniper tgp, our aircrews use the B52H to its full capabilities. I would almost argue being more intense as there's a lot of details a Heavy bomber must figure out... in such shorter timeframe of flight duration. Same capabilities have a place in DCS, as they do in other airframes currently in game. 2). The long mission durations you continue to talk about - of 30+ hours watching fuel gauges and doing logistics do not honestly provide the virtual player with any new simulation than what we can currently do in DCS Persian Gulf, DCS Nevada (BUFFS hangout at Red flag and Green flag every year operating out of Nellis AFB), or DCS Syria. I dont see how a DCS player would be "left out" feeling they are not "experiencing" their modules full potential by not flying these oldschool 30+ hour mission durations. They can experience EVERY system in DCS B52H with what has currently been modeled for other modules, well besides the EWO/ECM stuff... but thats to be expected. There's not this magical experience that IRL Buff pilots experience when flying 30+hr sorties as compared to their 4hr sorties in the sandbox CENTCOM AOR. The B2 is the airframe you are thinking about that takes on those super deep missions on the regular. Now if that was being proposed, it would be a completely different story when it comes to relaying that into DCS. 3). Don't get stuck in this Soviet Cold War nuke mission that everyone still thinks the B52 is solely based on... Getting a BUFF out there over the AO, lets say in the Persian Gulf or Syria - and providing buddy Sniper TGP lase supporting DCS Hornet, Viper, Warthog drivers in itself would be a great thing. And it has a place in real life, as it would in DCS. The "full potential" you are dreaming of is already doable in DCS. So again, dont get tunnel visioned. ... And if you really want to "go there" with map sizes after all of this is said and done. Well our current map sizes are not even large enough for "proper" Carrier operations. As @Revisaid: "i can guarantee you, if someone would make the B52, and you would make some awesome trailers, previews and what not of the cockpit and all, people will stand in line to buy it, it is such a unique and iconic aircraft, everyone wants to feel like how it is to fly such a thing" It is not about map size man, its about mission set. And DCS Persian Gulf provides the current mission set that the B52 can be translated into. Even if its just a virtual theatre. @statrekmike

Hold on - Let me just make sure I’m understanding you correctly with this... Youre telling me, that regardless of the mission set that we were tasked with in the Middle East, and the countless JDAM strikes I helped produce for continuous missions while my squadron was in the Persian Gulf - that is unable to be simulated in a simulator like DCS because the B52 was originally labeled a strategic bomber with strategic air command nuke missions 60 years ago? Conflicts change, theatres change, and so do mission sets. It’s the nature of literally every aircraft produced. That again is why a F16 (which was originally built and designated for A/A only) has a nuclear consent switch. F15 went from (A/A) C model to a E. Or a KC135 has a doomsday mission plan. Ect. The B52 for almost 40 years has had more mission sets than just a strategic long range plan. That’s what I am trying to harp on about. Therefor, the mission set in the Middle East AKA the DCS Persian Gulf is a home for the B52 from the realistic perspective. Let me quote this article from the USAF: Features In a conventional conflict, the B-52 can perform strategic attack, close-air support, air interdiction, offensive counter-air and maritime operations. During Desert Storm, B-52s delivered 40 percent of all the weapons dropped by coalition forces. It is highly effective when used for ocean surveillance and can assist the U.S. Navy in anti-ship and mine-laying operations. In two hours, two B-52s can monitor 140,000 square miles (364,000 square kilometers) of ocean surface. All B-52s can be equipped with two electro-optical viewing sensors, a forward-looking infrared and advanced targeting pods to augment targeting SNIPER Pod, battle assessment and flight safety, further improving its combat ability. Pilots wear night vision goggles, or NVGs, to enhance their vision during night operations. Night vision goggles provide greater safety during night operations by increasing the pilot's ability to visually clear terrain, increasing the peacetime and combat situational awareness of the aircrew and improving their ability to visually acquire other aircraft. B-52s are equipped with advanced targeting pods. Targeting pods provide improved long-range target detection, identification and continuous stabilized surveillance for all missions, including close air support of ground forces and LASER designate for other aircraft. The advanced targeting and image processing technology significantly increases the combat effectiveness of the B-52 during day, night and less than ideal weather conditions when attacking ground targets with a variety of standoff weapons (e.g., laser-guided bombs, conventional bombs and GPS-guided weapons). https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104465/b-52-stratofortress/ We have no room for this type of tunnel vision in DCS. It will only stunt future hope for heavies in the simulator.

I believe ED recently hired a new User Manual writer. Hopefully with that, this issue improves...

Not really sure why this is even in question tbh. The wiring doesn't exist for those stations. Period. If ED sat here, and modelled every weapon system that has been tested/loaded onto pylons real world - for DCS modules, we would never see a proper module completed. With this logic, we might as well let DCS F16C load every TGP under the sun... (various TGPs have been tested and flown on the Viper irl right?) Voted hard no.

I mean, with that said... we are never going to get the Nuke mission set in DCS. Just like how the DCS F16C has a non functional nuclear consent switch as well - DCS isn’t utilizing its full mission set capability. I get what you’re saying, but the B52 is being used to its max potential in other mission roles as well. It’s not often commanded to do long range strikes like it was back in the Cold War days - so the USAF utilizes it in a more effective mission. Still uses its max capability. Unless if we are going to see a doomsday scenario in the world, the B52 isn’t really outfitted these days for the type of long range strike you’re thinking of. We have other tools and resources that are much more quick, and have less radar signature for that. Shes a massive weapons truck, is very versatile and reliable for what she is. She can be used to her full capacity in a lot of roles. That’s why the USAF keeps on flying her.

I get what you’re saying - but to be honest your point is invalid when it comes to certain bombers like the B52. Real world missions take place, and use the full capability of the aircraft in theatre launching & recovering all within the Persian Gulf map area/span.

I would imagine this would require a completely separate 3rd party developer to be completely dedicated to the ground support side of DCS. As much as I would love ground crew to see more support, its been pulling teeth just to get the Supercarrier deck crew sorted with lighted up wands for example from the ED side of the house...

You would think ED would be all over this, and acknowledge it. GCI is such a huge part of aviation combat.

I see a ton of value in offering a real ingame version of GCI/AWACS support for human slots. Currently users are resorting to third party apps like LOTATC to make it happen. Again, another big door that is open for a heavy module!

NineLine and BN have both confirmed that the DCS engine is not limited to 2 engines. And anything can happen with enough determination in DCS. This was via Discord, so dont have the exact quote currently...

Quite obvious theres alot of dreams about heavier aircraft being brought into the DCS ecosystem. Looks like all we need is a 3rd party dev willing to take up the challenge, and become the first dev to make this happen! A lot of opportunity here!

Excellent campaign so far. Any chance of becoming multicrew compatible? Flying with a Human RIO during these missions would be a huge treat!

Bump - should be a core asset.

Currently experiencing this same issue since the last DCS update. Any word on this BigNewey or NineLine? Cannot join a MP server now due to this bug, so it is game breaking.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4161577#post4161577

With the upcoming Mariana Islands, including Guam, I figured it would be solid to reach out about some uniqueness of Andersen AFB especially when it comes to modeling it correctly. Its not your typical set of runways, and because so, there have been a tragic history of aviation accidents/mishaps on takeoff and landings. Somethings I hope the ED dev team would put some extra care into: 1). Both runways at Andersen AFB are on a slight slope due to Island challenges of building the runways. From SW/NE the runways slope slightly upward leading to the cliffs. Pictures dont do it justice, but I will try to demonstrate this in pictures below, because this is actually quite noticeable, more so than majority of other uneven runways. Will DCS model this properly? 2). The cliffs on the NE side of the field are VERY dramatic. And offer quite a solid altitude change/challenge to judge while on final approach during bad Pacific ocean rain/fog. These cliffs have proven to be a huge learning curve to landing on these runways for aviators in history, and today. The difference from sea level, to runway in altitude is really something you have to be careful with, and I hope these cliffs really are modeled in a realistic fashion. Especially when coming from the NE landing on a downward sloped runway (coming in from that directional), is challenging. ED Devs I just reach out to you in this fashion to maybe look deeper into the runway design of this base, as I truly hope it doesnt turn out to be a basic flat runway, like majority of others in game. Aborted takeoff at this base is one horrible event... as theres more so a "point of no return" than ever before with other bases in DCS.