Next aircraft speculation

[Hummingbird]

So what we have is a top speed of 634 km/h at mil power and without ejector exhausts.

 

With WEP + ejector exhausts I could imagine a 686 km/h top speed was quite attainable.

 

Looking at period footage of the aircraft flown by the US I don't see any reason that the TAIC figures weren't derived from actual flight tests - would seem odd to estimate top speeds when you've got a fully functional aircraft at your disposal.

[Hummingbird]

Just realized we were going madly off topic here, perhaps any further talk on Ki-84 performance needs a thread on its own.

[Hiromachi]

Well, its speculation. We were speculating over the possible Japanese aircraft and now about its performance, maybe a bit of the offtop but no harm was done :music_whistling:

[aboodspin]

Mig-23 - 21 the best <3

[Nerd1000]

Since no different fuel was used no different boost ratings could be obtained. Again, Olmsted Field documents indicate a maximum take-off/emergency of 3000 RPM / 49.6"Hg and rated power 43.7"Hg which is consistent with ratings from Japanese documents ( respectively +500 mmHg and +350 mmHg).

The point I was making was that even if the USAAF had tested the plane on 150 octane there would be no difference in performance unless they also modified the engine to allow higher boost pressures (something nobody in their right mind would ever do to a valuable test plane).

[yufighter]

Against the background of the Phantom, which does not mean that this is the choice for DCS.

[Hummingbird]

Against the background of the Phantom, which does not mean that this is the choice for DCS.

 

But if it is = :cheer3nc::cheer3nc::cheer3nc::cheer3nc::cheer3nc::cheer3nc::cheer3nc::thumbsup::thumbsup::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[MBot]

In the best tradition to dissect every word from Cobra, here is the latest wild theory :)

 

Considering that LNS made it clear that they want to put their aircraft in a proper context of maps and units, I always wondered what kind of carrier air wing composition we would see along the Tomcat. The only attack aircraft we currently have is the F/A-18, so I figured this would be the aircraft we would escort on strikes.

 

With the latest news of LNS planning to do the 1980s Forrestal carriers, I noticed that none of the class deployed with the Hornet in the 1980s. Forrestal got two F/A-18 squadrons in 1991 for her last cruise, Saratoga and Independence switched in 1990 and Ranger never carried the Hornet. So what would be the strike aircraft along our Tomcat?

 

The following caught my eye:

 

We'll be aiming for an 80s Ranger-ish.

 

Ranger had a rather unusual CVW configuration from 1986 to 1993: Two fighter squadrons with F-14A and two medium attack squadrons with A-6E (no light attack squadrons with Hornets or Corsair). Therefore here is my wild theory: LNS will do an AI A-6E Intruder initially to flesh out the scenario and later make it flyable, profiting from their experience with ground mapping radar and multi-crew.

 

P.S. Yes I am aware of the RAZBAM plans, but these seem to be a very long way off.

 

 

 

 

Annex 1 - Forrestal Class CVWs in the 1980s

 

USS Forrestal

-Until 1982 two fighter squadrons with F-4S, two light attack squadrons with A-7E, one medium attack squadron with A-6E plus usual support

-1983-1985 Service Life Extension Program

-1986 fighter squadrons switched to F-14A

-1991 light attack squadrons switched to F/A-18A

-1993 decommissioned

 

USS Saratoga

-Until 1980 two fighter squadrons with F-4J, two light attack squadrons with A-7E, one medium attack squadron with A-6E plus usual support

-1980-1983 Service Life Extension Program

-1984 fighter squadrons switched to F-14A

-1990 fighter squadrons switched to F-14B, light attack squadrons switched to F/A-18C

-1994 decommissioned

 

USS Ranger

-Until 1979 two fighter squadrons with F-4J, two light attack squadrons with A-7E, one medium attack squadron with A-6E plus usual support

-1980 fighter squadrons switched to F-14A

-1986 both light attack squadrons with A-7E replaced by an additional A-6E squadron

-1993 decommissioned

 

USS Independence

-Until 1981 two fighter squadrons with F-4J, two light attack squadrons with A-7E, one medium attack squadron with A-6E plus usual support

-1982 fighter squadrons switched to F-14A

-1985-1988 Service Life Extension Program

-1990 light attack squadrons switched to F/A-18A

-1998 decommissioned

Edited March 14, 2016 by MBot

[Frisco1522]

Fun Fact:

In the movie Top Gun, the scenes inside the aircraft carrier were supposedly taken from the USS Ranger, NOT the Enterprise.

 

Frisco1522

 

P.S. MBot, I like the way you think! Dream big baby! Dream big! :thumbup:

[Donut]

Fun Fact:

In the movie Top Gun, the scenes inside the aircraft carrier were supposedly taken from the USS Ranger, NOT the Enterprise.

 

Another fun fact: The movie Flight of the Intruder was filmed aboard the Independence. Also, Maverick wore a USS Ranger CV-61 patch on his bomber jacket in Top Gun.

[King_Hrothgar]

I doubt LNS will touch the A-6E given RAZBAM's recent statements, even if it is a long ways off. I'd prefer they go back to eastern block for a bit anyways though. We are getting an awful lot of western aircraft of all types but nothing on the eastern side. So maybe instead of another USN plane, they could do stuff meant to sink a Forrestal class carrier.:D Obviously those strikers need some escorts too, so umm, DCS: Su-24 and MiG-23 confirmed? :cheer3nc: :P

[MBot]

While the post above is not meant to be 100% seriously, the interesting question remains on what kind of carrier air wing composition we will see with the Tomcat, even if it is just AI. Some of the support aircraft like Hawkeye, Viking, Sea King or Sea Hawk are present (though some of the 3d models are really old). Others like the Prowler could be omitted, as they currently serve no purpose in DCS. But there certainly needs to be an attack component, everything else would seriously limit the missions available to the Tomcat.

 

When it comes to USN carrier attack aircraft in the 1980s you end up with Hornet and Corsair for the light attack squadrons and Intruder for the medium attack squadrons. It could well be they go with the existing Hornet, even if it is not historical for their carrier.

 

 

Regarding RAZBAM, I have doubts whether most of their planned aircraft are already fixed with ED or actually known by the other 3rd party teams. They have some extremely complex aircraft on their table. The AV-8B(NA) is easily on terms with the A-10C and they talk about upgrading it to AB-8B+ if the ground radar comes in time. The AV-8B+ basically has the same avionics as the F/A-18. Now look at how many years ED has been and is working on the A-10C and F/A-18 (and this is not just ground radar related). Then RAZBAM wants to do the F-15E next, which is one of the most complex aircraft you could possibly do. I predict this will occupy them for years.

[BlackLion213]

In the best tradition to dissect every word from Cobra, here is the latest wild theory :)

 

Considering that LNS made it clear that they want to put their aircraft in a proper context of maps and units, I always wondered what kind of carrier air wing composition we would see along the Tomcat. The only attack aircraft we currently have is the F/A-18, so I figured this would be the aircraft we would escort on strikes.

 

With the latest news of LNS planning to do the 1980s Forrestal carriers, I noticed that none of the class deployed with the Hornet in the 1980s. Forrestal got two F/A-18 squadrons in 1991 for her last cruise, Saratoga and Independence switched in 1990 and Ranger never carried the Hornet. So what would be the strike aircraft along our Tomcat?

 

The following caught my eye:

 

 

 

Ranger had a rather unusual CVW configuration from 1986 to 1993: Two fighter squadrons with F-14A and two medium attack squadrons with A-6E (no light attack squadrons with Hornets or Corsair). Therefore here is my wild theory: LNS will do an AI A-6E Intruder initially to flesh out the scenario and later make it flyable, profiting from their experience with ground mapping radar and multi-crew.

 

Ah yes, the "All Grumman Air Wing" championed by Secretary Lehman (he was a former A-6 BN). He theorized that a pair of A-6 squadrons would offer more than two A-7 and one A-6 squadrons.

 

Thats an interesting point MBot, a 1986-91 Ranger would require less AI than other airwings. Though it depends on how much work that AI represents. Razbam has lent their 3D models with SFM to other companies as AI for prior FSX projects. I'm not sure if that could happen here, Razbam already has a complete 3D model for the A-7 and a FSX flight model, creating the SFM might not be very intensive, though if Leatherneck needs to create all of that from scratch its a different matter.

 

Also, I would argue to include the EA-6B since it played a big role in the airwing. Its SFM would be very similar to the A-6E (especially for being AI, most differences would not be relevant for the sim). Plus, EA-6Bs assisted with SEAD and Tomcats would frequently escort them (HVAP), adding to possible player missions.

 

With the A-7 planned for DCS in the near-ish term, it would be nice to integrate an AI A-7 with the Tomcat. Plus, it would be good for Razbam since it would help promote the A-7E module - seeing the A-7E in action from the F-14 is good PR in my mind. :)

 

I'm also really glad that LNS is creating their carrier and making it Ranger-ish so that it offers more flexibility to represent other class members. That's a smart move since it will give much more future mission flexibility than modeling one specific carrier for one specific config/cruise. I'd rather have the flexibility.

 

-Nick

[kolga]

Ahhhhhh, Its great to have this thread up and running again!

[Exocet]

Ey guys! we wait an other anoucement for 1 aircraft??

[mattebubben]

Regarding RAZBAM, I have doubts whether most of their planned aircraft are already fixed with ED or actually known by the other 3rd party teams. They have some extremely complex aircraft on their table. The AV-8B(NA) is easily on terms with the A-10C and they talk about upgrading it to AB-8B+ if the ground radar comes in time. The AV-8B+ basically has the same avionics as the F/A-18. Now look at how many years ED has been and is working on the A-10C and F/A-18 (and this is not just ground radar related). Then RAZBAM wants to do the F-15E next, which is one of the most complex aircraft you could possibly do. I predict this will occupy them for years.

 

Well the reason the A-10C and F/A-18 took so long is because they had to build so many things / functionalities from scratch.

 

But then they are able to Re-use alot of those calculations / systems in follow up modules wich makes them go faster.

 

And also when it comes to the F-15E and A-7 from Razbam.

 

They are not starting work on them.

 

They are already well into development and are partially paused waiting for the Air-Ground radar to be completed and implemented into DCS.

 

So once ED releases the Air-Ground radar they can continue and finish those modules.

 

But they have pretty much confirmed that a majority of the work that does not relate or depend on the Air-ground radar has already been done.

[mjmorrow]

An Aircraft is only as good as it's Pilot,In the right hands a maneuverable light weight Zero with 20mm cannons could be Deadly.

 

A LNS Zero would be awesome. Maybe LNS will consider making the A6M5 Type 0 Model 52. I think that version of the Zero would make a really interesting adversary for the Veao P-40F and other planes, too. :thumbup: MJ

[Cobra847]

Well the reason the A-10C and F/A-18 took so long is because they had to build so many things / functionalities from scratch.

 

But then they are able to Re-use alot of those calculations / systems in follow up modules wich makes them go faster.

 

And also when it comes to the F-15E and A-7 from Razbam.

 

They are not starting work on them.

 

They are already well into development and are partially paused waiting for the Air-Ground radar to be completed and implemented into DCS.

 

So once ED releases the Air-Ground radar they can continue and finish those modules.

 

But they have pretty much confirmed that a majority of the work that does not relate or depend on the Air-ground radar has already been done.

 

 

Just to clarify-- our ground radar is our own and does not share any functionality with any generic engine or F/A-18 specific one in development.

Thus any delay is solely on us. :D

 

Keep in mind the Viggen has been in development for years now; and much of the weapons or navigation systems would not have been able to have been built without a working ground radar during this time.

Right now we are working on making it look nice and perform well. These are very difficult tasks (the former less so) though!

Edited April 24, 2016 by Cobra847

[probad]

the last 10% of work takes 90% of the time

[Buzzles]

the last 10% of work takes 90% of the time

 

Well, it's actually the first 90% takes 90% of the time, the final 10% takes the other 90% of the time :)

/Tom Cargill

[Pronin]

MiG-25 please.

 

Thank you.

[QuiGon]

MiG-25 please.

 

Thank you.

 

This is not a wishlist thread. It is a speculation thread.

 

#learnthedifference

 

Thank you

[frodrigues2016]

More migs

 

I think we need more Mig´s and Su´s.......and more WWII fighters ans bombers.

[Veritech]

More russian hardware is needed indeed

[QuiGon]

The next LNS aircraft are in this order:

- AJS-37 Viggen

- F-4U Corsair

- F-14A/B Tomcat

 

They will be busy with them for quite some time.