B-1 Lancer?

[CrypticVillain]

Any chance we could get a strategic bomber like the B-1 Lancer? Really think it would help flesh out the experience you guys at ED are building with DCS.

[Davee]

Any chance we could get a strategic bomber like the B-1 Lancer? Really think it would help flesh out the experience you guys at ED are building with DCS.

 

 

And where would they get the classified data from?

[Tippis]

And where would they get the classified data from?

eBay? :P

 

Too soon?

 

 

Anyway, yeah, that's unfortunately the problem with any post-WWII strategic aircraft: by their very nature, due to their assigned tasks and the equipment they carry, chances of getting hold of a full range of legitimate sources of what they can and can't do are pretty much zilch.

[Harlikwin]

Amd really, what would you do with one in DCS? Fly to waypoint X. Launch off a bunch of cruise missles, have a cup of joe and fly home?

[CrypticVillain]

Amd really, what would you do with one in DCS? Fly to waypoint X. Launch off a bunch of cruise missles, have a cup of joe and fly home?

 

Multiplayer? I could see one of these providing great strike potential while some hornets provide cap and sead. IDK why is everyone being so critical just thought it would be cool and interesting. At the very least I asked just to find out if it was feasible.

[Harlikwin]

Yeah, but realistically what would you strike? No one is doing carpet bombing or anything like that with those platforms at this point. In any sort of near-peer conflict the mission is to drop a bunch of cruise missiles near the target and go home. And its classified anyway.

[Gladman]

I'd love to see it. Escort would be fun. As a module, just to check out the AA refueling, systems, etc. Yeah, I'd love it.

[Svsmokey]

Any chance we could get a strategic bomber like the B-1 Lancer? Really think it would help flesh out the experience you guys at ED are building with DCS.

 

None whatsoever , for all the above reasons , as well as :

 

Map sizes are too small for any strategic bomber

ED does not model more than two engines

[CrypticVillain]

Yeah, but realistically what would you strike? No one is doing carpet bombing or anything like that with those platforms at this point. In any sort of near-peer conflict the mission is to drop a bunch of cruise missiles near the target and go home. And its classified anyway.

 

This response is like saying whats the point of ED putting in the F-5e when the F-18 is far more capable. Come on its not about what would we use it for its just the fun of having a new type of air-frame to try new things with. Why wouldn't you do carpet bombing? Just because cruise missiles are far more effective and advanced doesn't mean you cant use the air-frame if we dont get them. Thats like saying dont use the F-14 it doesn't have Aim 9x's

[CrypticVillain]

None whatsoever , for all the above reasons , as well as :

 

Map sizes are too small for any strategic bomber

ED does not model more than two engines

 

Are they? I'm not looking to simulate the look flights of a strategic bomber from remote airbases. So other then that why are the maps to small?

 

Second that seems like a limitation/design choice that should be resolved If not for things like B-1 or B-52 but for the WWII aircraft. I'm sure there are plenty of quad engine aircraft people would like to fly.

[Lace]

This response is like saying whats the point of ED putting in the F-5e when the F-18 is far more capable. Come on its not about what would we use it for its just the fun of having a new type of air-frame to try new things with. Why wouldn't you do carpet bombing? Just because cruise missiles are far more effective and advanced doesn't mean you cant use the air-frame if we dont get them. Thats like saying dont use the F-14 it doesn't have Aim 9x's

 

I would buy it.

 

If ED will develop or sanction such a/c as the Christen Eagle, Yak-52, L-39 etc alongside the fast and pointy jets then why not something a bit different, like an E2, S3, B1, Sparkvark, Bronco, AC-130, etc. I don't know the technicality of the two-engine limitation but even if it can't be worked around there is still plenty of scope for a little more variety and some bigger birds. After all, many of these a/c already feature as AI so there is obviously a place for them within the sim.

[Harlikwin]

This response is like saying whats the point of ED putting in the F-5e when the F-18 is far more capable. Come on its not about what would we use it for its just the fun of having a new type of air-frame to try new things with. Why wouldn't you do carpet bombing? Just because cruise missiles are far more effective and advanced doesn't mean you cant use the air-frame if we dont get them. Thats like saying dont use the F-14 it doesn't have Aim 9x's

 

I mean you're right, it is that sort of argument. But I think most strat bombers are too classified even today. But really I think the "gameplay" for most of DCS doesn't really fit them very well is all. For example, outside of single player (And I think there is 1 campaign for it), the viggen is hard to use online because of the CAS centric nature of online servers and the nature of strike aircraft makes it less "fun". I.e. I start it up, plan out a mission using the variously kluged systems at my disposal (online), then I go fly the mission which means I spend 30 minutes hauling ass at 10ft, about 30 seconds actually doing weapons stuff, and then 30 minutes flying home and a few minutes dodging air defenses. About half the time I get killed by SAMs or enemy CAP because there isn't much coordination in many online servers. I think a strat bomber would be even worse since startup would take forever relatively speaking and you'd basically either fly to waypoint and ripple off ALCM's or maybe make a bombing run and fly home. I mean if you want a taste of it, try the viggen its not that far off. To the guy wanting to escort them I think there are AI models.

[Lace]

I mean you're right, it is that sort of argument. But I think most strat bombers are too classified even today. But really I think the "gameplay" for most of DCS doesn't really fit them very well is all. For example, outside of single player (And I think there is 1 campaign for it), the viggen is hard to use online because of the CAS centric nature of online servers and the nature of strike aircraft makes it less "fun". I.e. I start it up, plan out a mission using the variously kluged systems at my disposal (online), then I go fly the mission which means I spend 30 minutes hauling ass at 10ft, about 30 seconds actually doing weapons stuff, and then 30 minutes flying home and a few minutes dodging air defenses. About half the time I get killed by SAMs or enemy CAP because there isn't much coordination in many online servers. I think a strat bomber would be even worse since startup would take forever relatively speaking and you'd basically either fly to waypoint and ripple off ALCM's or maybe make a bombing run and fly home. I mean if you want a taste of it, try the viggen its not that far off. To the guy wanting to escort them I think there are AI models.

 

Some people still enjoy single-player. I have been using LOMAC/DCS for 15+ (and many before then) years and still never played online. I would love a proper bomber. Maybe not as my primary a/c but variety is the spice of life...

 

MP should be a consideration for new modules of course, but it shouldn't be the only deciding factor IMHO.

[CrypticVillain]

I mean you're right, it is that sort of argument. But I think most strat bombers are too classified even today. But really I think the "gameplay" for most of DCS doesn't really fit them very well is all. For example, outside of single player (And I think there is 1 campaign for it), the viggen is hard to use online because of the CAS centric nature of online servers and the nature of strike aircraft makes it less "fun". I.e. I start it up, plan out a mission using the variously kluged systems at my disposal (online), then I go fly the mission which means I spend 30 minutes hauling ass at 10ft, about 30 seconds actually doing weapons stuff, and then 30 minutes flying home and a few minutes dodging air defenses. About half the time I get killed by SAMs or enemy CAP because there isn't much coordination in many online servers. I think a strat bomber would be even worse since startup would take forever relatively speaking and you'd basically either fly to waypoint and ripple off ALCM's or maybe make a bombing run and fly home. I mean if you want a taste of it, try the viggen its not that far off. To the guy wanting to escort them I think there are AI models.

 

See I think your looking at it the wrong way. Something like a b-1 could be an asset that is strong enough to do some serious damage but it requires coordination. I think that would only encourage people to start working together more instead of having 40 solo flights on server. We see it already with the f-14 the Rio seat has encouraged lots of people to work together.

[Harlikwin]

See I think your looking at it the wrong way. Something like a b-1 could be an asset that is strong enough to do some serious damage but it requires coordination. I think that would only encourage people to start working together more instead of having 40 solo flights on server. We see it already with the f-14 the Rio seat has encouraged lots of people to work together.

 

You might be right, but I think really what MP DCS needs is some sort of "planning" system. I think a big hurdle is the ad-hoc nature of just jumping on, jumping in etc. Also mandatory integrated comms would help too (like SRS).

 

Plus how long does a B1 take to cold start?

[Harlikwin]

Some people still enjoy single-player. I have been using LOMAC/DCS for 15+ (and many before then) years and still never played online. I would love a proper bomber. Maybe not as my primary a/c but variety is the spice of life...

 

MP should be a consideration for new modules of course, but it shouldn't be the only deciding factor IMHO.

 

I do both. I generally find MP online to be depressing in a way since its for the most part aeroquake, even on the PVE servers. I'm just not sure a B1 is good fit, even if you can get over the classified issue.

[Eagle7907]

In the OP's defense, I think it would still be a pretty good success developing. I recall seeing a post about posing the question developing a C-130 to fly. Not a gunship. Just a mover. The responses were surprisingly positive. I didn't think it would be a good idea, but the results were mostly positive.

 

 

Also, who says the B-1 has to have cruise missiles loaded? That argument doesn't really hold water, especially since the server can limit any munitions on the map.

[Harlikwin]

Well, the B1 mainly carried cruise missiles, and nukes... MUCH Later in life it carried shittons of JDAM's. I just don't think you'll get docs on any vaguely recent versions since its still in service.

[Eagle7907]

Well, the B1 mainly carried cruise missiles, and nukes... MUCH Later in life it carried shittons of JDAM's. I just don't think you'll get docs on any vaguely recent versions since its still in service.

 

 

You may be right. But that still doesn't mean ED cant make one that a player can fly. I don't think it has to simulate every system, plus there will be no way ED would allow nukes anyways. So nukes would be definitely out.

 

 

Anyways, I'm not holding my breath. If it comes, I'll buy it. If not, I'll buy something else developed by ED.

[mkellytx]

Plus how long does a B1 take to cold start?

 

Crews usually step 90 minutes prior to TO, walk around, check bombs, load all their stuff on the jet, review forms, APU start around 50-60 minutes, engine start 35-45 minutes, taxi 10 minutes, then take off.

 

That's pretty standard timeline for both the BUFF and the Bone, I was a maintenance officer on the latter and a flight test engineer for both with almost 100 hours on the BUFF. Lots of checklists and lots of of things to check.

[Eagle7907]

B-1 Lancer?

 

Don’t forget they do have a scramble start up too.

 

Also the start up time isn’t really an issue, especially when we have people doing auto-start for a jet that takes half the time anyways.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Cik]

well, and how long does it "actually" take.

 

 

if you don't have to worry about your engines catching fire because of an undetected fault, your bombs getting anchored wrong and hanging, etc because your jet is "perfect" (as it is in DCS) you can probably do it much quicker without all the checklists, walkarounds, etc.

 

 

it's not like IRL you're supposed to be taking off an F-15/A-10/F-16/whatever in 5 minutes or less but everyone in DCS runs an "abbreviated" checklist that's 1/10th the length of the real life one because you just don't have to worry about random breakages.

[mkellytx]

Don’t forget they do have a scramble start up too.

 

Also the start up time isn’t really an issue, especially when we have people doing auto-start for a jet that takes half the time anyways.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

He didn't ask about cart starting a hot cocked BUFF on alert. The Bone is cold start only, once it lost its SIOP mission the go button on the nose gear was no longer deemed needed.

[Harlikwin]

Im sure someone here is into that. Just not me :)

[Eagle7907]

He didn't ask about cart starting a hot cocked BUFF on alert. The Bone is cold start only, once it lost its SIOP mission the go button on the nose gear was no longer deemed needed.

 

 

 

Ah okay. I didn’t know that. I saw the documentary mentioning the scramble capabilities. Looked somewhat recent. Maybe early 2000s.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro