Rick50

There are effectively two creatures that were referred to as the F/A-22. One, was the Raptor we know and love, the F-22. But fearing Congress might defund or mess with purchasing, they wanted to "add capability" to justify it's purchase, so they claimed by carrying two JDAM's it was now an attack aircraft. Not a lie, not really truly truthful since they knew it's true role. But to protect it from it's deadliest enemy: a politician looking to save tax dollars. But then there was the OTHER F/A-22 : a follow-on program for a dedicated strike variant, a little like the Mudhen. It never actually existed beyond talk and maybe a couple paintings or renderings. It was an idea, a proposal for a new program. There was talk of it maybe having a larger airframe, like a stretch for more fuel and larger internal bay, and might need a different wing configuration. But financial realities shot down that idea. The predecessor to the Hornet was in many ways the Northrop F-5, and in those days they tried to make it as multi-role as possible, but they were very much limited by the very basic computers available. When the Hornet was under development, they originally envisioned one airframe for two different variants, a fighter and a separate variant Attack version. But as development got going, and the US Navy's pressure to get as much functionality for each airframe on a carrier... they got to the point where they could put both AA and AG computers onboard. And once that happened, the Navy and McDonald Douglas REALLY wanted to make sure Congress and Pentagon leaders understood 100% that for the very first time, a Navy jet could do both roles equally well, ensuring it's approval and purchase. Since then... well the Mudhen, that was kinda the first to really ruin the designation, along with the F-117 Nighthawk, which was strictly an attack plane with ZERO "Fighter" in it. The F-15 A and C were not bought to be multi-role, that was just what the company wanted to develop to help sales, and could easily incorporate. Sure, they did drop a few bombs at the range in the 1980s' but that was very few. The F-16 went from a light fighter, to a multi-role, to the backbone of USAF bombing, yet no one would say it's not a fighter, because it can still do that very well before or after it removes the bombs. But no F/A-15's or F/A-16's. Maybe it doesn't roll off the tongue. Maybe they didn't want to add any confusion. Maybe they wanted to train people to be fighter pilots, not attack pilots, and to assign them fighters not attack planes... regardless of what their squadron taskings were!

Just a guess, but I'd say 500lb Paveways are the most used. Followed by JDAM, then Maveric, and on down. Not by numbers bought or stored, but raw numbers expended in operations. why? Because iron bombs aren't used as much anymore. Because SOOOO often the target is done using LGB's, whether it's a stationary target or moving. The larger LGB's are too destructive for many operations. Maverics haven't been used on massive numbers of armor. JDAM's are quite useful and been used a lot, but can't be used on moving targets, and can't be swayed off target at the last minute if innocents appear unexpectedly, but I do think laser guided is even more common. In training, just a guess but I'm thinking 500lb iron dumb. Again just a guess. This will probably change, next conflict, when the new generation of laser-capable JDAM enhanced gets more widely fielded. And when Stormbreaker comes online for many squadrons, which will allow many capabilities even with cloudcover. But that's the future.

I don't know. And if I did know, I might not be able to tell you. BUUUUT... my guess it's probably for an optical reason. Could be to allow for a clear picture when using NVG's at night. Or to reduce sun glare when the sun is behind the gunner. Or for compatibility with the helmet visor. Just a guess, but I think it's about offering a clear picture from the darkest night to the brightest sunny day, rather than glass protection.

I get that things cost more... but that's not just insane. Ought to trigger a criminal investigation, IMO.

Indeed! Related to this one, in this interesting presentation about drones in real world, the author presents operating and maintenance costs... and while many other airframes are represented from Hornets $9.2m to Raptors $22m and Spirits $63m, apparently the AH-1Z costs $4.2 million USD to maintain and operate, per year, compared to the AH-64 Apache at 2.5 million a year. Now... I wonder if his source was talking about an A model, instead of a D or E? Thing is, I can't help but think it's not even so much about the differences between these two birds... but more about where they live: Marines are on the ocean. Salt water. Corrosion cleaning, protection, a great many more inspections perhaps? Anyway it's a great video packed with lots of information from lessons and observations from the last month, but if you just wanna see the cost chart jump to 24 minutes!

Hmm... think I might know what this might be... maybe

Apparently the operating and maintenance costs for the F-22 Raptor are so expensive that the Pentagon is considering storing some Raptors for later use. I doubt they are retiring them complete and wholesale, more saving money and resources by parking some and wrapping them in plastic! https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20220403.aspx I can understand the need to keep expenses within the confines of reality... but I have to admit this gives me some pause. Particularly in light of the island that wants to remain independent, and the peninsula that sees a country wanting the same... just seems to me that the psychological effect of the F-22 is almost a strategic deterrent? Or maybe I'm oversold on it's usefulness?

I hope so, as it's got a lot of potential for the Hind and Apache modules... I think general improvement to the overall AI behaviors and pathfinding might go a long ways.

That would be quite nice! Haven't heard anything though.

Forgot to post the thread with more info about this!!

I'm not with the company, nor a developer, but both those planes present significant challenges, discussed already in these two threads:

Not sure how much or little this might appeal to people, but how about the MQ-9 Reaper? And or the General Atomics Mojave? That's basically a Reaper adapted to do large air to ground work, CAS and so on. Take a Reaper, shorten the fuselage a little, put a thick high lift STOL wing on it with giant flaps. Now add giant tundra balloon tires. And as many Hellfires as you can stick on it, they figure it should be able to do 16 just like the Apache. Not in service yet, and not entirely certain it will be even adopted.

Hmm, you might be onto something...

I got the impression that generally the cannon was for low-threat targets, and unexpected reactionary suppression (suddenly seeing tracers flying by you, you turn your head and rip off a long burst as you try to escape). That if you were expecting a high threat target, something that could blast you out of the sky, you weren't going to use the cannon but Hellfire from as far a standoff distance as you can manage. And if you could sneak closer for a rapid attack, use rockets. But I'm no mil pilot IRL !!

Oh, and a BD-5J with RWR, deployabe from a horse trailer.....

Tornado GR.1 .... because of course!! An AI Vulcan would be very nice for many reasons, including the upcoming South Atlantic map. C-130H, the old version that flew for many decades with steam gauges. AC-130 Specter. Not sure what era, because honestly anything from the Vietnam war until the super modern versions of today would be interesting. Ok it's not a plane, but I'd love to see a major revamp, overhaul of Combined Arms.

Hmm, food for thought. I wonder about creating templates, pick a group of vehicles that work as a formation, make the template. Then, when creating new missions or scenarios, or an entire battlefield, just grab this SAM site template and drop into the map, edit slightly as needed. Then go grab another template, say an armored spearhead, with many MBT's and IFV's and a few forward anti-aircraft units like Avengers Gepards or Tunguskas. And then a third template for a supply convoy, with many cargo carriers with food and munitions, and a whole bunch of diesel tankers. A fancy complex FARP or SAM site too. Maybe that's already being done well and I don't know of it, but it's little functionality like this that can really enhance mission editors and what you can do with them. Reminds me of the first time I played Command and Conquer... selecting a bunch of tanks and guys, send them around a ridgeline to wait in ambush at the edge!

Thank you for the tiny update! I very much look forward to using the full module... the FLIR sensor ball designator... APKWS as a force multiplier, high drag free fall bombz... intercept and dogfighting with other trainers and COIN light strike, guerrilla and smuggler aircraft...

Fair points, and yea, it might be worthwhile for ED to hire someone who's worked on ground combat wargaming products, who has a better idea how to implement a ground combat simulator. We probably don't need to go full "Steel Beasts" or "VBS3" level, but something partways there would be a vast improvement.

I meant to say VBS3... https://bisimulations.com/products/vbs4

Day 1 buy for me!!

You'll be back. They always come back!

A civilian retail product might... or might not, be affected by a military training contract. We don't really know as we'll never see the contract's stipulations. We also don't know what that training package's scope really is. Often military contracts are not as complete as a DCS full fidellity module, rather instead focusing on only one or two objectives. Yes, most of the time when they show off a simulator, it's a "full mission simulator", all the bells and whistles, all singing all dancing, with a giant round dome to project a beautiful image, every switch from startup to mission to shutdown. BUUUUT.... 15 years ago someone got a contract for a simulator to teach new fighter piilot trainees how to do low level tactical navigation in a relatively simple T-38. They got the contract and used FS2004 with a T-38 cockpit. Similarly, helicopter door gunners, and Humvee .50cal gunners often get simulation on that, standing in a partial mockup of the helo or truck, a dummy machinegunn, and wear VR headset displaying the sim. What simulator? eh... Ive forgotten the name now... it was originally a realism for training offshoot of Bohemia's ARMA or Flashpoint series, and has been used a lot for all kinds of training contracts. So for instance, this particular training package might be strictly for flight, navigation and radio training. Or maybe just for familiarity of flying by the numbers. Or maybe just to fly basic AG with dumb bombs in a simulated online coordinated team. It even might be restricted to just representing / teaching how do use Paveways with the turret ball designator FLIR, and nothing else. This is very common in the branches of the US military, different sims for different purposes. So what's my point? Only that the existence of a training contract is not a sign of doom for a DCS module. It may be that the work done already may not be nearly enough for a complete FF DCS module, and that this work may be ongoing for eventual release.

Yea, and that'll probably come... but even then, there's something about a real person thinking through tactics and strategies, who decides to try something unusual, unexpected...

Not my creation, just thought this was nice enough to share! \