Interview with Leatherneck Studios

[Zakatak]

You guys are just withholding the Tomcat from us until December 25th so you can claim that you saved Christmas!

[streakeagle]

Jet flown by Navy, should have been flown by Marines: A-7 Corsair. Relatively easy aircraft to add to DCS: subsonic, avionics less advanced than those already in DCS other than radar.

[Scoggs]

God I hope it's a Tomcat

[Zakatak]

Jet flown by Navy, should have been flown by Marines: A-7 Corsair. Relatively easy aircraft to add to DCS: subsonic, avionics less advanced than those already in DCS other than radar.

Let's compare what it has to offer to DCS in comparison to the Tomcat.

 

Exploration into the mechanics of employing long-range missiles? Nope.

Exploration into the mechanics of a Radar Intercept Officer? Nope.

Exploration into the mechanics of swing-wing aerodynamics? Nope.

Exploration into the mechanics of a single-seat subsonic ground attack aircraft? We have four of those ready to purchase already.

 

It also doesn't give Leatherneck nearly as much money as a sexy interceptor with a large cult following behind it. F-14 please.

[Buckeye]

Plus it doesn't align with any of the other clues Leatherneck has laid out for us.

[streakeagle]

The only clues I knew were: jet, something Marines should have flown but didn't.

As for long range missiles, RIO, swing-wing... MiG-21 and F-86 had none of those, yet here they are.

 

For a plane to be profitable, they need to be able to build it on a reasonable budget: both time and money. What is reasonable about having to develop all new complex systems not already inherently supported by ED? If it took 4 years to do the relatively simple fixed wing single seat basic radar MiG-21bis, how long will it take Leatherneck to produce the F-14?

 

If it has to be a plane built and/or tested at Calverton, an older, simpler jet would make a lot more sense than committing to the F-14. If it is not practical to make an F-4E, which is the ideal companion to the MiG-21bis, how is an F-14 a possibility right now?

 

So, what is a complete list of jets associated with Calverton that were not flown by Marines, but should have been... and can be added to DCS World without programming an unrealistically high number of new/complex/expensive to program features?

Edited November 7, 2014 by streakeagle

[Revan]

The only clues I knew were: jet, something Marines should have flown but didn't.

As for long range missiles, RIO, swing-wing... MiG-21 and F-86 had none of those, yet here they are.

 

For a plane to be profitable, they need to be able to build it on a reasonable budget: both time and money. What is reasonable about having to develop all new complex systems not already inherently supported by ED? If it took 4 years to do the relatively simple fixed wing single seat basic radar MiG-21bis, how long will it take Leatherneck to produce the F-14?

 

If it has to be a plane built and/or tested at Calverton, an older, simpler jet would make a lot more sense than committing to the F-14. If it is not practical to make an F-4E, which is the ideal companion to the MiG-21bis, how is an F-14 a possibility right now?

 

So, what is a complete list of jets associated with Calverton that were not flown by Marines, but should have been... and can be added to DCS World without programming an unrealistically high number of new/complex/expensive to program features?

 

 

Cobra also put in the comment with the info that the plane was not flown by the marines was that the plane would have two engines. Well, the second hint was cobra changing his avatar to the Grim reapers squadren logo (and the only plane they flew that was not marines was the F-14). Next clue was a change of avatar to a picture from the movie Top Gun with jester's helmet in it. Then I believe the next change was a close up picture of the F-14's radar, and finally cobra changed his avatar to a picture of a goose (presumably referencing Top Gun).

 

EDIT: Oh, and the only plane built at Calverton that was not flown by the marines was the F-14.

 

EDIT #2: Also, the MiG-21 took 4 years to make because of some internal issues and shakeups, which we do not know the details to, and probably never will.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Revan

[Flycat]

they announcement it today,have enough money to work on,the little dick cheney said you can do it and northrop deal with his opinion.then wait and wait,many years past,it release,the kitty is young but I dont have tme to play with,sadly story.LOL

[Rangi]

they announcement it today,have enough money to work on,the little dick cheney said you can do it and northrop deal with his opinion.then wait and wait,many years past,it release,the kitty is young but I dont have tme to play with,sadly story.LOL

 

Is this another cipher? or if someone can translate from google translate into English, let me know what it means. ;-)

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

EDIT #2: Also, the MiG-21 took 4 years to make because of some internal issues and shakeups, which we do not know the details to, and probably never will.

It's 2016?

[Buren]

The genie is out of the bottle. It'd be very disheartening if it wasn't the Tomcat after all this teasing. It seems like it's almost a tacit fact with these allusions and implicit talk. I am cautiously optimistic about a future announcement. The team probably can't just comment straightaway "Yeah guys, we're making the F-14", presumably they have obligations to coordinate these kind of stuff with ED (and/or make 110% sure they really can/will do it).

 

Frankly, right now my greatest uneasiness is how the infamous company lawyer teams could affect potential projects like this. Just look what happened, for example, years ago to Pacific Fighters and recently, to the VEAO A-4. Hope these can be sorted out.

[Jester Darrak]

What's with the VEAO A-4?

[Einherjer]

Grumman seems to be lass strict with IP then Boeing... But better not talk to much about it...

[MBot]

Grumman seems to be lass strict with IP then Boeing... But better not talk to much about it...

 

Unfortunately Grumman was a huge problem during the Pacific Fighters fiasco. It went so far that even WWII aircraft carriers that were built in yards which ended up in Northrop Grumman were off limits for inclusion in the game. But this was also under quite special circumstances (the whole thing being started by the Grumman name being put on the Pacific Fighters box). Let's hope that LNS can either make a satisfactionary arrangement with Grumman or fly completely under their radar.

[Einherjer]

Lets hope the best - and now... Dont talk about it... ;)

[OnlyforDCS]

Cobra also put in the comment with the info that the plane was not flown by the marines was that the plane would have two engines. Well, the second hint was cobra changing his avatar to the Grim reapers squadren logo (and the only plane they flew that was not marines was the F-14). Next clue was a change of avatar to a picture from the movie Top Gun with jester's helmet in it. Then I believe the next change was a close up picture of the F-14's radar, and finally cobra changed his avatar to a picture of a goose (presumably referencing Top Gun).

 

EDIT: Oh, and the only plane built at Calverton that was not flown by the marines was the F-14.

 

EDIT #2: Also, the MiG-21 took 4 years to make because of some internal issues and shakeups, which we do not know the details to, and probably never will.

 

Nope, there was one more plane built at Calverton that the Marines did not fly: the F-11 Tiger. Also Cobra never said the plane had two engines. He said that the plane had "maybe" one or "maybe" two engines.

 

I too am hoping that it´s the F14 and all signs/hints are pointed in that direction, but I don´t want to get too excited as long as there is a chance it might be something else.

Edited November 7, 2014 by OnlyforDCS

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Then why would he mention that LNS has good AI developers in regards to aircraft requiring a RIO? :B Not to mention, that'd fly in the face of Rudel's own avatar. The Grey Ghosts were never slated to receive the Tiger, while they were to be the second Marine squadron equipped with F-14As if the program were to have been followed up.

 

Unfortunately Grumman was a huge problem during the Pacific Fighters fiasco. It went so far that even WWII aircraft carriers that were built in yards which ended up in Northrop Grumman were off limits for inclusion in the game. But this was also under quite special circumstances (the whole thing being started by the Grumman name being put on the Pacific Fighters box). Let's hope that LNS can either make a satisfactionary arrangement with Grumman or fly completely under their radar.

 

Flying under the radar is not going to be a wise choice of action. It's basically planning for mediocrity.

 

However, we're dealing with a singular airframe, one that is no longer in service, and one only in limited service in the IRIAF.

Edited November 7, 2014 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[thawall]

Maybe they are building the Iranian version xD

[Laro]

Maybe they are building the Iranian version xD

DCS: grounded F-14 ?

:noexpression:

[King_Hrothgar]

The IRIAF F-14's fly just fine. Not sure they have too many original parts on them at this point, but that isn't relevant. Though hard to confirm numbers, it seems likely the IRIAF F-14's shot down more aircraft than the US ones ever did. So there's that too. I'm not praising Iran, it just annoys the hell out of me when people spew nonsense just cause they don't like someone/something.

 

In any case, they should request permission. I don't think it will be an issue so long as they are upfront about it. Hell, the game already has the F-14A in it. I don't think Grumman cares if it's flyable or not.

[thawall]

Didn't VEAO have problems with getting permission from Grumman Northrop to build the F-14?

[Buckeye]

Didn't VEAO have problems with getting permission from Grumman Northrop to build the F-14?

 

 

I believe you're thinking of the A4 from McDonnell Douglas.

[thawall]

I was referring to this statement from Pman, but of course that must not necessarily also apply to LN...

 

...

 

 

 

We have been asked alot about the Phantom and the Tomcat, This will be the only time I discuss these aircraft in this thread. Due to restrictions put in place by various governments and aircraft manufacturers we are unable to produce an ASM / AFM level DCS aircraft for either of these. With the current redactments that we would have to make we are of the belief that we would not be able to do them justice and as such we are not going to undertake any work on either of these aircraft.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Hope that answers some of your questions

 

 

 

Pman

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

The IRIAF F-14's fly just fine. Not sure they have too many original parts on them at this point, but that isn't relevant. Though hard to confirm numbers, it seems likely the IRIAF F-14's shot down more aircraft than the US ones ever did. So there's that too. I'm not praising Iran, it just annoys the hell out of me when people spew nonsense just cause they don't like someone/something.

 

In any case, they should request permission. I don't think it will be an issue so long as they are upfront about it. Hell, the game already has the F-14A in it. I don't think Grumman cares if it's flyable or not.

 

The Alicats, designated F-14AMs, have some upgraded avionics and can sling R-73s in addition to the standard Sidewinder.

 

Truthfully, though, the Alicats end up being used as a pseudo AWACS in this day and age.

 

I believe you're thinking of the A4 from McDonnell Douglas.

 

That'd be Boeing, these days.

[zaelu]

Also Cobra never said the plane had two engines. He said that the plane had "maybe" one or "maybe" two engines..

 

I think it can fly in one engine if one fails... Thus that part of the riddle could be solved. :)