Jump to content

Heatblur A-6 Intruder


Recommended Posts

Wrong movie brother.  That was Air America, but still a GREAT movie.  If we ever have a proper military cargo plane, maybe we can get Robert Downey JR to be the AI. LOL.  The golden BB line was "Jack" actor Art LeFleur.  Funny guy in that movie.  

I hadn’t meant to quote a movie. It was more intended to be a reference to the events leading to Morg’s exit from the book ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2021 at 3:22 PM, jojyrocks said:

So...one thing is not clear to me.

 

Are we getting JUST the A-6E as a full on module or is it a double full module, as in A-6E and KA-6?

 

Personally, I more into the A-6E, not the tanker. Its only useful in MP...for SP, its just flying circuit and refueling others. But that is just me....:angel:

I have seen many people over the years comment that they have no interest in flying combat missions in DCS. The few of those that still do fly in DCS do it just in single player mode because they enjoy DCS’s great flight model. However a lot of those same people have also expressed that if there were something like an E-2 Hawkeye or tanker they would me more interested in taking part in support missions.

"Would love to see an E-3 Hawkeye join us in DCS. Being a Commercial pilot, that would make my day. All this Hornet stuff is far too stressful. LOL"

 

KA-6_F-14_DN-ST-87-10386.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As wierd as it sounds, I’d love to at least have the option to fly the Tanker variant. Imagine having to come and catch a navy buddy stuck on fumes by leaving your tanker track and going and getting them.
Imagine the challenge of having to maintain a speed and attitude to keep the aircraft steady, or helping a greenhorn by changing speed slightly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ghostdog688 said:

As wierd as it sounds, I’d love to at least have the option to fly the Tanker variant. Imagine having to come and catch a navy buddy stuck on fumes by leaving your tanker track and going and getting them.
Imagine the challenge of having to maintain a speed and attitude to keep the aircraft steady, or helping a greenhorn by changing speed slightly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+ 1 :balloon:

A-10A, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, F-86F, Yak-52, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Supercarrier, Combined Arms, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Evoman said:

I have seen many people over the years comment that they have no interest in flying combat missions in DCS. The few of those that still do fly in DCS do it just in single player mode because they enjoy DCS’s great flight model. However a lot of those same people have also expressed that if there were something like an E-2 Hawkeye or tanker they would me more interested in taking part in support missions.

 

"Would love to see an E-3 Hawkeye join us in DCS. Being a Commercial pilot, that would make my day. All this Hornet stuff is far too stressful. LOL"

 

 

 

 

 

Only VERY FEW purists would love it and its a only niche group that loves just flying circles and waypoints...enjoying the scenery.

 

But the majority do not, maybe for MP, yeah. But SP. I do not see what is the big interest or fancy in flying waypoints, circles and refueling X amount of planes, reporting contacts as an AWACS flyer and those work only good in MP and satisfying feel of support.

 

For developments to happen, one needs some bit of profit on sales in accordance with their development costs. Passion can only go so much, there is a limit to things.

 

Lets say, If the Devs gave a choice between F-4 Phantom and and E-2 Hawkeye ( most of the vocal ones for E-2 Hawkeye will be multiplayer people who likes co-ordinated play), the most votes would go to the much awaited Phantom. The Phantom is pretty much multi role of that era and most would vote Phantom and if you want to fly scenery, one can do that in Phantom too. Also If its A-6 vs E-2, vote would go to A-6. If the vote is for A-6E/B/C etc vs KA-6...vote would still go to A-6E.

 

The most votes and sales would be for the F-4 Phantom series and the A-6E. Not E-2 and KA-6 much. Only a few would like E-2 and KA-6, primarily for MP.

 

I can understand your passion, as Commercial pilot and maybe that is why you are so interested in E-2 and tankers planes doing support roles...just flying waypoints and circuit. Support roles as of present are not that good in the current static Campaigns of SP. In MP, support role is pretty good, perfect fit for you.

 

Now ED has already stated their stance, it would up to the 3rd party devs to take up the decision to do or not to do a support centric plane in DCS.

 

So...are you not interested in the A-6? I mean, if it does get the full go ahead of development as a full module...

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bozon said:

How did the A-6 compare to or complemented the A-4 and A-7? 
Was it the sophisticated night bomber while the other two were the dirty day-time bomb-porters? I am pretty ignorant as to its place in US carrier groups during Vietnam/the 70s.

 

Personally, I’d much rather have a Phantom by Heatblur - that would have been an instant buy, but the A-6 may still be interesting enough for me to buy to play offline/cold war server (since we won’t get an official A-4 either).

It certainly filled the role of night bomber, but it was more than that. It could carry a huge payload of ordinance and in all weather. The Intruder was at home hiding in a layer of clouds and using its sensors to find ground targets. So, it flew with the A-4s, it flew with the A-7s, but when the weather got too bad for them? A-6s were still flying. In addition, there are other roles the A-6 held that it did better than the A-7 and A-4. Like dropping mines. The A-7 could carry a pair of mines while the A-6 could carry more or bigger mines.

 

 

Unlike the arguably early retirement of the A-7, by the time '97 rolled around, the Intruder fleet had just been worked down to the bone. The A-6 was the backbone of the US Navy's strike capability since the 60s and it was only when the first generation of Hornet really started to arrive in squadron that it relinquished that claim.

  • Like 1

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really glad HB has announced to make the A-6!  Free 🍻 for the Team!!!!

Considering the KA-6 question, i think i would try it but i think i would get bored by it(not a big MP guy). I would be interested to know if ED(HB?) will update the jtac to use the "radar transponder" so the position of that transponder is shown on the A-6 radar and you can set up an OffsetPoint from the transponder position to attack the target.(for targets not visible on radar and bad weather) I know, it's to early to answer that question but still.... 😁

Modules: KA-50, A-10C, FC3, UH-1H, MI-8MTV2, CA, MIG-21bis, FW-190D9, Bf-109K4, F-86F, MIG-15bis, M-2000C, SA342 Gazelle, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, F-14, C-101, FW-190A8, F-16C, F-5E, JF-17, SC, Mi-24P Hind, AH-64D Apache, Mirage F1

System: Win 11 Pro 64bit, Ryzen 3800X, 32gb RAM DDR4-3200, PowerColor Radeon RX 6900XT Red Devil ,1 x Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe, 2 x Samsung SSD 2TB + 1TB SATA, MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals - VIRPIL T-50CM and VIRPIL MongoosT-50 Throttle - HP Reverg G2, using only the latest Open Beta, DCS settings

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding a flyable KA-6D. The A-6E could and very frequently did equip a buddy refueling pod, and with such had identical fuel offloading capabilities as the KA-6D. In fact, even the KA-6D frequently used the buddy pod itself. So if you want to refuel other aircraft, the vanilla A-6E could easily do it as well. Of course either with the KA-6D or A-6E, human tankers would require major coding by ED first.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, unknown said:

I'm really glad HB has announced to make the A-6!  Free 🍻 for the Team!!!!

Considering the KA-6 question, i think i would try it but i think i would get bored by it(not a big MP guy). I would be interested to know if ED(HB?) will update the jtac to use the "radar transponder" so the position of that transponder is shown on the A-6 radar and you can set up an OffsetPoint from the transponder position to attack the target.(for targets not visible on radar and bad weather) I know, it's to early to answer that question but still.... 😁

For some, sure, it could be a joyless ride. But, DCS really needs to expand into other roles as aviation's value to the warfighter isn't just in the immediate boom-boom-dead-things. Reconnaissance, lift, and other such jobs are absolutely vital to a campaign. However, a lot of those missions badly need DCS to provide better infrastructure for it.

 

The refueling mission not so much outside of developing the actual aircraft, I'd imagine. It could be a good starting point.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

For some, sure, it could be a joyless ride. But, DCS really needs to expand into other roles as aviation's value to the warfighter isn't just in the immediate boom-boom-dead-things. Reconnaissance, lift, and other such jobs are absolutely vital to a campaign. However, a lot of those missions badly need DCS to provide better infrastructure for it.

I have no problems with support missions in DCS, my most flown module is the MI-8 - troop transport, internal cargo, sling load/precise dropping is still challenging and fun. Flying straight or circle to refuel somebody? Today i can only see MP for that role, maybe later with the dynamic campaign this will change. But that ED needs to provide a better infrastructure in DCS for many features is urgent, Reconnaissance for example. You can do ELINT missions with the Viggen but in the end it is not very usefull in the current DCS environment.

  • Like 1

Modules: KA-50, A-10C, FC3, UH-1H, MI-8MTV2, CA, MIG-21bis, FW-190D9, Bf-109K4, F-86F, MIG-15bis, M-2000C, SA342 Gazelle, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, F-14, C-101, FW-190A8, F-16C, F-5E, JF-17, SC, Mi-24P Hind, AH-64D Apache, Mirage F1

System: Win 11 Pro 64bit, Ryzen 3800X, 32gb RAM DDR4-3200, PowerColor Radeon RX 6900XT Red Devil ,1 x Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe, 2 x Samsung SSD 2TB + 1TB SATA, MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals - VIRPIL T-50CM and VIRPIL MongoosT-50 Throttle - HP Reverg G2, using only the latest Open Beta, DCS settings

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, unknown said:

I have no problems with support missions in DCS, my most flown module is the MI-8 - troop transport, internal cargo, sling load/precise dropping is still challenging and fun. Flying straight or circle to refuel somebody? Today i can only see MP for that role, maybe later with the dynamic campaign this will change. But that ED needs to provide a better infrastructure in DCS for many features is urgent, Reconnaissance for example. You can do ELINT missions with the Viggen but in the end it is not very usefull in the current DCS environment.

Truth. Refueling might not be worthwhile on the air quake servers, that's for sure. But, they're angry plebeians! For the co-op audience and the people who want realistic operations? Different story. 

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MBot said:

Regarding a flyable KA-6D. The A-6E could and very frequently did equip a buddy refueling pod, and with such had identical fuel offloading capabilities as the KA-6D. In fact, even the KA-6D frequently used the buddy pod itself. So if you want to refuel other aircraft, the vanilla A-6E could easily do it as well. Of course either with the KA-6D or A-6E, human tankers would require major coding by ED first.

 

Weren't the KA-6Ds mainly converted from beat-up high-time airframes anyway?

 

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Weren't the KA-6Ds mainly converted from beat-up high-time airframes anyway?

 

When did aircraft time even factor into DCS? Basically, everything we get, behaves as if we got it fresh off of the factory line to begin with.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

so I did some investigation and it seems the A-6 shown in EDs latest video is a A-6E SWIP:

 

xgoxo5lvk4g61.png

 

unknown.png

 

made 1991, went to the boneyard 1996

Makes sense. ED seems to be going for a '90s timeframe with a lot of these planes and the SWIP was the final modification to Intruder before it retired in 1997.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we've got the F-14A/B, F/A-18C, E-2D (stand-in for E-2C), S-3B, and soon, the A-6E. Is there anyone out there who'd be interested in creating historical air wings? We have players who create time-specific skins, it'd be cool if we could re-create entire air wings. I'd love to fly as part of CVW-11 as they were in 1995!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be nice to see both planes in the future

 

 

a6-f4.jpg


Edited by Intruder_360
  • Like 5

Monitor: ASUS TUF Gaming VG27AQL1A| Case: Thermaltake Overseer RX-I | PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA 1300 G2 80+ GOLD, 1300W| Mobo: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master | CPU: Intel Core i9 9900KS @5 GHz | CPU-Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 Tower Cooler | RAM: 32GB G.Skill F4-4133C17-8GTZR | GPU:NVIDIA GeForce RTX4090 OC 24GB |SSD: Samsung SSD 860 M.2 1TB | Keyboard: Logitech G110 | Mouse: Logitech G502 | Gaming Devices: Hotas WW Orion 2 Stick&Throttle, Thrustmaster MFD, Pimax Crystal, Stream Deck XL

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Nexus-6 said:

Or Virgil...

But that was his name right? Cole, Virgil Cole 😉 While his call sign was "Tiger". Like with Jake "Cool Hand" Grafton .

Modules: KA-50, A-10C, FC3, UH-1H, MI-8MTV2, CA, MIG-21bis, FW-190D9, Bf-109K4, F-86F, MIG-15bis, M-2000C, SA342 Gazelle, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, F-14, C-101, FW-190A8, F-16C, F-5E, JF-17, SC, Mi-24P Hind, AH-64D Apache, Mirage F1

System: Win 11 Pro 64bit, Ryzen 3800X, 32gb RAM DDR4-3200, PowerColor Radeon RX 6900XT Red Devil ,1 x Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe, 2 x Samsung SSD 2TB + 1TB SATA, MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals - VIRPIL T-50CM and VIRPIL MongoosT-50 Throttle - HP Reverg G2, using only the latest Open Beta, DCS settings

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would sooo love to be able to fly the tanker version aswell, it would be a load of fun. Get some fuel to the front line fighters, refill at a tanker further back and shuffle more fuel to the frontline before heading back to the boat. Sounds like a great thing to do. Please please please... pretty please HB! :) :) :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HawkCZ6 said:

I'm personally hoping HB will make more than one variant just like with the 'cat. Old Vietnam era A-6A and a TRAM/SWIP version would be awesome. Or add the A variant as a sort of DLC later on.

 

I'm hoping they don't go down that road again. Supporting multiple variants is time consuming and costly. I think it would be much better for all involved if they focused on one variant alone. 

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KA-6 could provide maximum of 14,500LB Fuel. How much would a Cat or any other navy bird normally take if they would join an KA-6 during a mission? Because if im not mistaken a Cat carries 20000LB Fuel fully loaded with external tanks. So that means the KA-6 cant really top off empty birds without being dry and having to RTB itself. Or was it more used as a jump point till it reaches bigger tankers? 

g8PjVMw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KA-6 could provide maximum of 14,500LB Fuel. How much would a Cat or any other navy bird normally take if they would join an KA-6 during a mission? Because if im not mistaken a Cat carries 20000LB Fuel fully loaded with external tanks. So that means the KA-6 cant really top off empty birds without being dry and having to RTB itself. Or was it more used as a jump point till it reaches bigger tankers? 

My understanding is that it orbited the carrier and was there to keep those in orbit overhead topped up, and to prevent anyone from being fuel starved


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...