Jump to content

Eagerly awaited aircraft for DCS World


phant

Recommended Posts

I cant recall where the reference was to "brain melting" or "mind blowing" although it has been mentioned as a criteria. If that is the case I feel the most "brain melting" and "highly detailed and complex aircraft" that could be announced as a module would be the Panavia Tornado IDS. Also highly anticipated.

i9-9900KS, 32GB DDR4, RTX2080Ti, 55" QLED, HP Reverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many side-by-side multicrew aircraft do we have? Medium-range dedicated strike aircraft?

None of that says "milestone" to me. Having multiplayer at all was the milestone there, and it's already achieved.

 

Any new aircraft module is going to have some differences from existing modules. After all, it's a different aircraft. Different range, different weapons stations, different model of radar. To be not just a new module but a milestone, it will need to be something different. Open up a new era (WWI biplanes?) or environment (space shuttle?), a new mission (photo-recon, EW, COD, sub-hunting?), first of a new type of aircraft (drones, floatplanes?), or break through some existing barrier (can't make redfor jets, can't have more than two engines).

 

That's what I consider a milestone. And very few of those are also "eagerly awaited" by more than a very few. Maybe also electronic warfare, if ED can pull that off, or having multi-engine aircraft. But something more than just a new aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the first one was 010. It seems everyone is sure that 12 were made by 1994, there were further orders but most places seem to say they can’t 100% sure any were delivered past those 12 despite further orders.

 

I spent most of my time looking here http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-50.php

 

Well I don't blame you for being confused :) . There are several things that can cloud the exact number. Aside from the part about planned procurements vs. realised, sometimes company owned prototype/test aircraft are repainted and issued new bort numbers - i.e. the same airframe can appear different at different times for whatever reason. They are also often re-used as basis for upgraded versions - e.g. a new night-attack prototype may not be a completely new-built aircraft, but rather one of the initial airframes being recycled and modified with new equipment etc.

 

The latter is the case with the "Su-37" - it was one of a dozen original Su-35(Su-27M) test aircraft from the late eighties - modified with TVC engines(and unique cockpit layout) for demonstrating thrust vector control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I knew that about Su-37 but didn’t realize how widespread the practice was. To me figuring out all the different variations and designations of these Russian birds in the 90s and after is pretty fun. For example I always heard that it was Sukhoi that first started calling their planes Su-30, Su-33, Su-35, as for the ministry of defense they were always Su-27UB, Su-27K, Su-27M. I mean they must have given up at some point right?

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I knew that about Su-37 but didn’t realize how widespread the practice was. To me figuring out all the different variations and designations of these Russian birds in the 90s and after is pretty fun. For example I always heard that it was Sukhoi that first started calling their planes Su-30, Su-33, Su-35, as for the ministry of defense they were always Su-27UB, Su-27K, Su-27M. I mean they must have given up at some point right?

 

All those Su-27UB etc are the real names, while Su-30, Su-35 etc are export names.

Like there is the Su-27M that was Su-35, but then Su-27M2 became Su-35S.

 

Sukhoi-Su-27-Flanker-Timellne-Family-Tree.jpg

 

0aaff76d976e.jpg

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many side-by-side multicrew aircraft do we have? Medium-range dedicated strike aircraft?

 

The problem with F-111 I see is the current maps sizes. Where a usual multirole fighter like F/A-18 can perform very well, but F-111 becomes like a bird in a cage.

 

The F-15E fits to DCS as one can fly it alone without requiring WSO.

How is it with F-111? Can you fly it alone?

 

Mi-24P was chosen as you can fly it alone because fixed cannon and rockets. I would have taken Mi-24V or VP so you have a gunner to task.

 

The F-15E is already dedicated medium range strike aircraft. Two seater even, not much different to be side by side. But F-111 is tremendously wanted aircraft. It can't be denied.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yak-38? Over land!

 

And about the Sukhois, that’s well and great about 30/33/35 being export designations, but I doubt Russians still refer to their domestic Flankers as Su-27UB instead of 30, Su-27K instead of 33, or Su-27M instead of 35. I know they wanted to export the Su-33 but no one bought it so it’s domestic only. I might be totally wrong, but that’s the impression I have, that what maybe used to be an export designation by Sukhoi ended up being the de facto way to refer to them. I mean there is a lot of them! I’m inclined to believe it was just slick marketing on Sukhoi’s part, Give your new plane a special name and call it that so much that everyone uses ends up using that name


Edited by AeriaGloria

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-15E fits to DCS as one can fly it alone without requiring WSO.

How is it with F-111? Can you fly it alone?

 

Mi-24P was chosen as you can fly it alone because fixed cannon and rockets. I would have taken Mi-24V or VP so you have a gunner to task.

 

 

Not sure if the F-111 can be flown alone but that shouldn't be a problem if ED comes up with an equivalent to Jester AI for the Tomcat.

We already know they're building one for the Mi-24P that is planned to work as gunner/pilot that seems to follow a similar approach and ED will probably build on this tech to use it in other modules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I knew that about Su-37 but didn’t realize how widespread the practice was. To me figuring out all the different variations and designations of these Russian birds in the 90s and after is pretty fun.

 

Yes its a pretty widespread practise, but then thats also basically what prototype/test aircraft are for - i.e. to try out different things, test them and then refine/modify until a definitive configuration meets the customer's requirements for full scale serial production.

 

Another example is with the six MiG-29M(9.15) test aircraft(also from late eighties) - the fourth of these was modified to a twin seat configuration as the "MiG-29M2 MRCA" and later further modified with AESA radar(and other system upgrades) becoming the first "MiG-35" prototype....so 3 different designations/appearances for the same airframe. The sixth prototype was modified with TVC engines to become the "MiG-29M OVT" for demonstrating thrust vector control....exactly as with the "Su-37".

 

For example I always heard that it was Sukhoi that first started calling their planes Su-30, Su-33, Su-35, as for the ministry of defense they were always Su-27UB, Su-27K, Su-27M. I mean they must have given up at some point right?

 

That is correct - to begin with Sukhoi just gave further developed versions of the Su-27 an extra suffix to denote their purpose, but(unlike MIG) later decided to come up with these new designations for marketing purposes in order to separate them from the basic versions(Su-27 and Su-27UB). But I think you are right that the Russian military often stuck with the original designations.....e.g. I remember back when the Russian MoD announced their their intention to procure the replacement for the Su-24, they referred to it as the "Su-27IB" although Sukhoi had long since changed the name to "Su-34" :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And about the Sukhois, that’s well and great about 30/33/35 being export designations, but I doubt Russians still refer to their domestic Flankers as Su-27UB instead of 30, Su-27K instead of 33, or Su-27M instead of 35. I know they wanted to export the Su-33 but no one bought it so it’s domestic only. I might be totally wrong, but that’s the impression I have, that what maybe used to be an export designation by Sukhoi ended up being the de facto way to refer to them. I mean there is a lot of them! I’m inclined to believe it was just slick marketing on Sukhoi’s part, Give your new plane a special name and call it that so much that everyone uses ends up using that name

 

No you are not wrong - thats pretty much what happened :) . Mind you, the Su-27UB is not the same as the Su-30. The very first Su-30 was originally called "Su-27PU" and was a dedicated interceptor variant - it was based on the Su-27UB, but with the addition of a retractable IFR probe and rear-seat position modified with a separate radar display, so the rear crew member could act as "RIO" and mission controller. The basic Su-27UB combat-trainer is still referred to as such by the Russian airforce(and Sukhoi for that matter).

 

Later when they further developed the Su-30 into a multi-role fighter, they first added an -M suffix to denote this. The Russian MoD didn't show much interest(probably for budget reasons), so Sukhoi started marketing it as a dedicated export article under the name "Su-30MK"(added -K for export). It was always the intention, that customers would define the exact configuration according to their needs, so the myriad of Su-30 designations just reflect this - e.g. "Su-30MKI" denotes an Su-30MK with the chosen configuration of India(added "I").


Edited by Seaeagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the first one was 010. It seems everyone is sure that 12 were made by 1994, there were further orders but most places seem to say they can’t 100% sure any were delivered past those 12 despite further orders.

 

I spent most of my time looking here http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-50.php

 

“Four for Russian Army service trials, plus eight flying prototype and pre-series helicopters; all delivered. Further 10 ordered in 1997 budget and six in 1998, of which first three were due for delivery before end of 1998; initial helicopter eventually completed in June 1999, two more being due by mid-2000. By early 2003, it was still unclear if helicopters from the first batch of 10 had been delivered to Army Aviation. Two operational Ka-50s shown at Moscow Salon in August 2001 may have been repainted trials aircraft.”

 

“ Further army evaluation followed when first two of four production Ka-50s were funded in 1994 and officially accepted on 28 August 1995; third and fourth received in 1996; these four numbered 20 to 23 (prompting pre-series 021 to be renumbered 024 to avoid confusion). Arsenyev production was to have increased to one per month during 1997, but this did not occur. The original Ka-50 (and rival Mi-28A) were overtaken by the issue of a revised requirement which emphasised night capability - favouring the two-seat Mi-28. The initial order for 15 Ka-50s was reportedly cancelled in September 1998, with procurement postponed until 2003.”

 

I’m overdue for some Shark time, can’t wait for the new pit, a lot of people would be happy if this new plane ended up being Ka-52, I mean they’re already making president-s, ground radar and FLIR API, it would fit

 

Sorry Teknetium I was wrong, shouldn’t have trusted the first number I saw online. I love the Terminator all the same, always wondered why even Su-35BM didn’t run with the rear radar idea, the tail stinger is perfect for a R-77 seeker

 

No worries, any modern Flanker would do even a S model would do just fine.


Edited by Teknetinium

Teknetinium 2017.jpg
                        51st PVO Discord SATAC YouTube
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the feeling it will be an Apache. :/

It is complex, with multicrew and andvanced systems.

It is definitely eagerly expected.

It would be the first western style, multipurpose attack helicopter in DCS. A milestone for sure.

It used to be in develompment ages ago and is mentioned on the TBS page. Same pattern as with the F-16.

 

 

However, I would kill for a Fulcrum/Flanker or anything 4th gen red. Tornado IDS would also be a dream coming true, but not as awesome.

 

 

Anything more unorthodox, like bombers or cargo planes would be milestone for sure, but obviously not eagerly expected.


Edited by Schnelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many DCS owners (as opposed to DCS vocal forum posters) REALLY want another multi-crew aircraft...even the Apache (and thats speaking as someone that loved Janes Longbow)

Multi-crew AI is very far, far from ideal (and I would imagine even more difficult to implement in an A2G/CAS environment than in A2A) and how many people can regularly hook up at the same time, with a competent, same language speaking, DCS player willing to take on the "mirror-image" role in your chosen multi-crew plane...

That's got to be a tiny fraction, of a tiny fraction of the small minority of DCS owners who actuallyplay in multi-player...

Wouldn't DCS be better off concentrating on single-seat planes...there's plenty out there to do..

Airbag_signatur.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many DCS owners (as opposed to DCS vocal forum posters) REALLY want another multi-crew aircraft...even the Apache (and thats speaking as someone that loved Janes Longbow)

Multi-crew AI is very far, far from ideal (and I would imagine even more difficult to implement in an A2G/CAS environment than in A2A) and how many people can regularly hook up at the same time, with a competent, same language speaking, DCS player willing to take on the "mirror-image" role in your chosen multi-crew plane...

That's got to be a tiny fraction, of a tiny fraction of the small minority of DCS owners who actuallyplay in multi-player...

Wouldn't DCS be better off concentrating on single-seat planes...there's plenty out there to do..

 

Well, ED said it won't be a helo, as it will be done by the "fixed wing" team so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. And I totally agree that they have to sort out the AI multicrew issues before any attack helos become really popular. I personally stopped flying certain versions of the Gaz on account of it.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What'll be the first mission you all fly in the Yak-38?

 

This one?

 

giphy.gif

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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