Rick50

Have we gotten any confirmations about an F-4 Phantom module, yes/no ? I mean, seemed too early to know what variant, and what developer, but I'm just wanting to know if there was a translation or interpretation issue, or if someone truly has begun work on a Phantom? Or is this still somewhat muddy?

Ah, the Starfighter! Converting fighterpilots into test pilots whether they are ready or not! I can't wait to fly this challenging beast of speed!

LOL !!

I vaguely seem to recall that someone wanted to use a satellite datalink for BVR AAM mid-course corrections and maybe even full targeting. Anyone hear of such a thing or is this maybe just a figment of imagination? I'm not 100% on whether this would even be plausible, given that satellite coms inside a tiny airframe for an AAM could be problematic... not the electronics, but for antenna size. Recently I've heard of a couple of projects for very long range BVR missiles, ranges something like 150-250km or something? Is that kind of range even practical for use in the real world, given that most of the time a vis ID is needed?

I'm gonna make a suggestion, one I've made for a few different aircraft proposals (sorry if I'm a broken record!): PBY-5 Catallina / Canso mod! Not sure if multicrew would be possible with a mod. But otherwise, it has benefits: much more likely to be finished much quicker. If documentation is missing, no problem just don't model that part. No licensing permissions? If it's free then it's harder and less likely to get stopped by the rights holder. Uncertain payware dev will make money off it? No problem, no expectation of profits means no need for profits, just put in the time and effort you can, and colaboratively it gets finished. I've proposed the free mod idea for the B-52, B-1B and probably something else I'm not remembering, largely because those are complex aircraft to create the systems for, poor availability of deep documentation, risk for return on investment, and the demanding nature of purchasers of high fidellity pay modules in DCS could make it difficult to please, and how Boeing and Rockwell may have zero interest into offering a licensing deal, and who really knows what they'd charge you for the licensing?

True. Buddy of mine gave some other examples... I can't remember them, but basically he mentioned that a certain item is actually a standard high-volume automotive component... but the "airworthy certrified" component is the SAME EXACT product, but sold with this other sticker, because this 3rd party went through the laborious process of getting that component tested, retested and then go through the mountains of paperwork to meet FAA certification. Same component... but one is approved, the other is not. "Experimental hombuilt" class aircraft teaches a lot about this: Dynon makes AMAZING avionics systems for general aviation, but up until about a year ago, their stuff was not approved, and thus could only be used on "experimental" aircraft. The result? For $6000 you got avionics systems that put Boeing Next Gen and most fighters to shame... but you couldn't mount it in most aircraft because they would lose their airworthyness status (at least I think that's how it works?). Recently Dynon finished the process for full flight certification, and so the fully certified versions cost... I can't recall but I think it was about $30,000usd ? I think Dynon isn't abandoning it's original market though and still offers the "experimental" units at a nice price. I flew a plane 3 years ago with the experimental class version and it just blew me away at just how much useful data was being presented! Now.... that said, not everything in aerospace is actually the "same". There is likely a huge difference between a professional military simulator flightstick and the sticks we use at home. But is that difference in build and quality really of any use to us home pilots? Does it make sense to spend as much on a professional stick, as that new car in the driveway? Eh.... probably not. We aren't pulling G's. We don't have hundreds of pilots through the sim every year for two decades of use. We could spend that money better on a cheaper stick and other things we need and want, so it doesn't really make sense to spend giant amounts of money on pro gear, most of the time.

I think one of the little secrets is that inventories don't have all that many advanced air weapons in the first place. Recently someone looked up the somewhat current pricing for an Amraam and was hovering around a million dollars. It's kind of like shooting a tiny fighter plane that's expendable, to kill an enemy plane. "Well DUH!" yea ok I guess that's obvious! But the pricing means that airforces may not have a giant inventory of spamraams to give you on your 6th sortie... sure, attrition from your own airforce losses means you will end up with missiles intended for your wingman who got shot down last time... but still, if you run out there with 8 BVR's and get cut down by a Strella or Archer, you didn't just lose the airframe, you also lost 8 very costly and not easily replaced missiles that other pilots could have used. I could see how doing "beast mode" BVR-truck could make a lot of sense and tactical advantage for certain special situations, but it's probably not a good idea for "most" situations.

Thank you both!

Thanks guys, I somehow got the impression the Longbow would be a real handful for systems management. Between all the hat switches, the MFD's, radar modes, all the other dozen or so sensor systems, I got the impression... Dumb question: are Apaches, Longbows and Guardians equiped with autopilots? I mean, I wouldn't think they would get much use most of the time, but for long boring ferry flights... or loitering for hours at one point, I could see it might be useful to reduce crew fatigue? I know that at one time, only a couple of helos had autopilots, I think the early ones were the Sea King and maybe the HH-53C "Super Jolly Green Giant", but I don't even know if that was when first introduced or a later retrofit? But today it seems you can get autopilots of brand new helos of nearly every size... maybe not a Robinson, but even the smaller Bells apparently offer them.

I'm not concerned about that. Anphibious landings and takeoffs in other sims work fine, I doubt it takes much programming for function. Now, if you wanted a full phyics package where every wave pushed the airframe round, feel each wave crest, that might take a lot more effort. Or it might just require a physics plug-in like some game engines use.

Well... Consider that there is at least two products I know of that "gamers" have played, that are now used quite a bit in actual military simulations. One offered by Lockmart, the other by Bohemia (unless it's now a separate biz unit). The Lockmart offers the whole world, and I'll bet the mil product is substantially upgraded from it's original "retail" version in some dramatic ways. For instance, I know it was being offered with a sub right from the start, so I'm guessing they have since made the sea bed accurate for Navy simulations. They likely then added all sorts of properties to the water, like thermal layers, salinity layers and so on. Stuff that has nothing for virtual pilots, but is of vital importance to training a real Navy submarine crew, and or simulating advanced sonar properties, simulating a new piece of code for the latest Mk.48 Torpedo, then re-write, and re-test the code again in say 10,000 virtual torpedo attacks. But I think this is getting a little off topic. I think that waiting for DCS to get realistic and somewhat complex Navy functionality, will take many years. Why? Well, first off, Navy actions are not the current focus of DCS... sure, we have carrier ops, but still the focus is on the jets landing and taking off for missions. Combined Arms may get an upgrade sometime soon-ish, but even that might take 2 more years. The customers really seem to want integrated air defense systems, so that the SAM's are more realistic and a worthy opponent. They also seem to really want dynamic campaigns. More multi-crew aircraft. Maybe a bomber. More AI assets, and that do a better job of replicating human behavior. Somehow I think detailed complex Navy systems is near the bottom of a very long list of things ED wants to do. That said... maybe a 3rd party wants to make a detailed Navy Ops Module ??!

Raptor, thanks for explaining that. It does seem to me that the Apache has received an awful lot of upgrades through it's entire service life, from the early A's to today's Guardians... almost like it wasn't really a static item at all. I remember reading about the Robbie tanks, in AW&ST in the late 90's I think... they didn't call them that, just that someone was making fuel tanks that would fit where cannon rounds were normally stored, to increase endurance/range. Seemed like a good idea to me. At that time (late 90's) they had another article about intent to develop 70mm / 2.75in rockets to have a laser seeker head, which took SOOOOO long to develop that I'd forgotten anyone even tried! But of course that turned into APKWS and it's clones. I don't know why development took so long, but it did... I think they quickly found some major insurmountable problems/issues that needed tech or inovative ideas to solve, because talk about such a product just disappeared from industry mention for maybe 10 years? I think maybe the seeker sensor itself might have been fragile or too big for such a package... or maybe cost/complexity was too high to justify? Maybe stuffing enough computer in such a small nose section was an issue. I dunno. But we clearly see the potential for such products today!

Maybe it might be worthwhile as a "Black Cat" for raids. Also for antisub searching with the Mariannas map... If a "Solomon Islands" map gets created, that could make for some very interesting gameplay. Why? Many islands, lots of different places for ships to be searched for, many possible ground bases. Could make some barges with cam nets on top, as a moveable "FOB" refueling/spawning/rearming point you could place using the editor, or as an asset for a dynamic campaign. Similar for a smaller supply ship. One thing to consider, that I proposed about Sea Kings and Sea Hawks, is that while they would be complex and capable in a barely working Navy system, their and Catalina's existence could help PUSH the development of a full working Navy, rather than waiting for the working Navy and then build the aircraft. The downside to that, is that this means signifcantly increased risk for a 3rd party dev, who's really uncertain of how this might sell or bomb horribly, given that it's rather less "sexy" or "exciting" compared to a Moskito or Tomcat... ultra low speeds, the aerodynamic qualities of a brick, as important as it's missions were there was not as much variation as other types, drop a couple pieces of ordnance and then fly a few hours home. All for a "Navy" system with all the sophystication of a potatoe. But it could work, it COULD sell.... it's just not a guarantee. One thing that gives me hope for DCS long term is the S-200 SAM system that just got released. That shows to me that ED is committed to DCS and improving its overall systems, along with the new clouds systems, multi-crew and so on. I expect the Navy systems will get some upgrades in future, along with Combined Arms and improving ground units.

Might not be the prettiest aircraft, but it's got a unique character! Never actually seen one flying, but I have seen one 20 years ago on Vancouver Island... guessing it might have been a waterbomber forrest fire conversion? I do think the PBY deserves to be modelled... I flew a freeware fan-made version in FS2004 and it was one of my favorites... had to really think through your landing approach since it didn't have flaps. Use angle of attack as your "flaps". Thing is, what would we use it for in DCS ? Are the WW2 Navy assets enough to justify actually going sub hunting? Are the areas so small that it's kind of a turkey shoot for a couple of PBY's ? I'm not saying it doesn't have merit, just wondering if it's a practical module for today and not say in 5 years after the various eras of DCS Navy systems get upgraded...

OOhhh, I think I need to find me a calibrated "brick" too! Thanks for the additional information!

Since we have the Hind and Hip, and soon the Kiowa, Longbow and BO-105 tank hunter... we could use something different: Black Hawk, Sea Hawk, Knight Hawk... Sea King, Chinook... really we could use any of these... I'm not sure the Navy assets are really advanced enough yet to fully take advantage of ASW helos like SeaHawk and SeaKing... but modules like that could push the further dev of Naval warfare. Sea Hawk for the Super Carriers, and Sea King for the older carrier that HB is developing, and maybe too the Royal Navy ships that Raz is making for the South Atlantic. That said, Black HAwks and Chinooks are favorites of mine!

True, but Germany may be wanting to get something more stealthy itself... then again, cost is ALWAYS a factor for any aircraft purchase, and stealth is... pricey!

So youtuber and F-16 F-18 pilot "Mover" covers military aviation topics mostly, and sometimes does "Mover ruins movies" where he critiques and makes comments about various movies that feature aviation and fighters in them, and his newest is looking at the trailer for "Sky" that I posted earlier:

I should point out, that the Longbow's release (whenever that will be) won't stop me from getting the Kiowa... sure, they are complimentary, but they also have been known to do well independently too, as uber-gunship and mini-me microgunship for LIC ! Clearly for some uses, great agility, a Browning 50 and a few rockets, have an indispensible quality all their own, in much the same way that the MH-6 and AH-6 Littiebird variants still keep getting fielded and upgraded endlessly, in the same world of Longbows, Tigers, Guardians and Hinds! One reason I'm looking forward to the Kiowa, is that I'm starting to wonder just how complex the Longbow will be to learn, and to get enough controls for... have you seen the number of hat switches exist on the real Longbow?!?! Kinda think a T.16000m just isnt' gonna cut it... might need some stout AI helpers to keep it all working smoothly! On the other hand, the Kiowa seems like it might be more manageable, and still rain hellfire thanks to AI Apaches. Either way, more rotors can't hurt!

Well 4 ball 1 trace is very common in Western militaries, but of course there will be exceptions here and there. No idea about Vulcan equiped 20mm's though. And the Bradley IFV has two feed belts at the same time. I think they just press 1 button for belt 1 and a different button for the second belt... that way they can pick and choose what munitions they dispense, at the press of a button... thin skin, HE, thick armor or brick wall, AP rounds... That's an interesting mix for the HIND's gunpods, but kinda makes sense, as you probably want to do "one pass hit the gas", or at least only a couple of straffing runs before leaving the threat zone.

so someone posted spacewalker on youtube, and I must say it was good! Space travel in those days was extraordinarily risky... a crappy death always trying to bite you. In Arthur C Clarke's 2010 Odysee, the exploration ship is named after the Spacewalker Alexei Leonov Now to try finding "Sky"

True... I agree, though it does seem this is more about doing training with less expense, not pushing old airframes for operations in shooting wars!

Sure, but that doesn't mean that buying brand new Bug airframes NOW makes much sense anymore. Existing Superbugs will soldier on for decades with some upgrades, but the tip of the spear may need to be something else. I hope it will be something more than an F-35.... at a more reasonable pricetag for what you get.

Since they've gone quiet, I think it's more likely a 2022 launch, but I hope to be wrong/surprised!!