Aircraft before the 1993 tech explosion for DCS

[upyr1]

47 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Very interesting read, and I have to say I agree completely with the OP. The Cold War era would hold more interest for me in terms of learning jet aircraft if and when I start. And while this thread is centered mostly on the flight aspects of DCS, it would be fair to say that a more lively ground war is missing from all time periods being represented. More Ai assets, especially more capable Ai assets are needed.

Maybe a little of both, but something tells me you should maybe brush up on your chopstix eating skills.

It looks like that, the question is what have they said about the pack if anything

Looking at this post 

The planned asset pack is 1955-1965 which would put you the period where the US is retiring Korean war era equipment and phasing in Vietnam war era equipment. The thud in the screenshot is after this period. The F-105F Wild Weasels starting entering service in 1966 and I think the G entered service for the linebacker campaigns. so two possible ideas on the thud weasel 

1. They dates are more like guidelines so the Wild Weasels make the cut (becuse why not the thud's already there)
2. They are being really strict about the dates but a flyable F-105G is doable. 

I expect the first is the case.  The next question is what do they have planned. If the asset pack(s) come(s) with a theater like the South Atlantic asset pack then there are three possibilities here.

1. Centeral Europe-  the ideal theater if they keep the pack together
2. Korea
3. Vietam

The last two make sense if they break the asset packs into two. 

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

IDK, The ships/units they released so far are mostly from the 70's or fit the 82 conflict. IDK exactly what else they have planned. Aside from absurd reload times I really find the seacat a really fun looking missile which dunks itself into the water a fair amount, which might actually not too far off from reality. 

Achilles and Ariadne fit their entire service life, Andromeda fits before the Falklands (and in a pretty massive way). Invincible is correct for the Falklands in the fit depicted (received 2 Phalanx shortly after the war, later 3 Goalkeeper and later still Sea Dart removed and the forward end of the flight deck reconfigured), as is the ARA Santa Fe (though that thing is firing Yu-7s). The 2 Condell-class ships are more 80s in the fit depicted. Castle-class appears accurate for the Falklands, but has completely the wrong gun.

For the remainder of the asset pack - looks fairly comprehensive for the Falklands War - we're at least getting a Type 21, 22, 42 and County. Though for the Falklands it was 22 Batch 1, 42 Batch 1 and County Batch 2, fitted with Exocet.

As for Sea Cat, I think it suffers from the same issue Rapier has in DCS - they both exhibit very similar behaviour.

As for its effectiveness IRL? My Dad was on Ariadne in the early 90s and here's what he had to say about it: "You might as well get it from the magazine and chuck it over the side" - make of that what you will - it is essentially an ATGM adapted for use as a SAM.

On the Leander's it's the more advanced GWS 22 from the 70s, so it is ACLOS capable (earlier versions were MCLOS), though the director is adapted from a 1950s naval gun director.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Northstar98

[Harlikwin]

16 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Achilles and Ariadne fit their entire service life, Andromeda fits before the Falklands (and in a pretty massive way). Invincible is correct for the Falklands in the fit depicted (received 2 Phalanx shortly after the war, later 3 Goalkeeper and later still Sea Dart removed and the forward end of the flight deck reconfigured), as is the ARA Santa Fe (though that thing is firing Yu-7s). The 2 Condell-class ships are more 80s in the fit depicted. Castle-class appears accurate for the Falklands, but has completely the wrong gun.

For the remainder of the asset pack - looks fairly comprehensive for the Falklands War - we're at least getting a Type 21, 22, 42 and County. Though for the Falklands it was 22 Batch 1, 42 Batch 1 and County Batch 2, fitted with Exocet.

As for Sea Cat, I think it suffers from the same issue Rapier has in DCS - they both exhibit very similar behaviour.

As for its effectiveness IRL? My Dad was on Ariadne in the early 90s and here's what he had to say about it: "You might as well get it from the magazine and chuck it over the side" - make of that what you will - it is essentially an ATGM adapted for use as a SAM.

On the Leander's it's the more advanced GWS 22 from the 70s, so it is ACLOS capable (earlier versions were MCLOS), though the director is adapted from a 1950s naval gun director.

 

Yeah IDK on the seacat, in testing vs silkworms and other ASM's it varied from worthless to good, alot of the time it basically got fired and "dipped" into the ocean like 100m from the ship, sploosh. IDK if thats real or not, but I Wouldn't be too surprised if it was accurate. Supposedly it was basically worthless vs crossing targets, which I'll believe. The biggest current issue on the seacat is the reload time which is currently instant. 

SeaDart seems far more effective as an ASM/fighter intercept system.

 

23 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The South Atlantic and the 1960s asset packs are two different things. I've read the 1960s asset pack would is probably better described as a cold war asset pack as it would cover both the 1950s and 1960s, focused in the years 1955-1965. Any way Razabam posted this F-105G on their facebook page, so I am thinking something extending a little later than 1965

 

I think I can smell them cooking something up at Razbam, I'm not sure if they are fixing brats and saurkraut or banh mi and pho. 

 

 

Ah yes thanks for the clarification...

 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah IDK on the seacat, in testing vs silkworms and other ASM's it varied from worthless to good, alot of the time it basically got fired and "dipped" into the ocean like 100m from the ship, sploosh. IDK if thats real or not, but I Wouldn't be too surprised if it was accurate.

I mean, I don't expect it to miss for no reason and I'd expect it to be more successful against slower targets with a low LOS rate, but it is a pretty limited missile system in pretty much all aspects.

I am fairly sure that the dipping into the ocean 100 m away thing is a guidance bug - in DCS, Rapier does exactly the same thing, for no clear reason.

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Supposedly it was basically worthless vs crossing targets, which I'll believe.

Yeah, sounds about right

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

The biggest current issue on the seacat is the reload time which is currently instant.

Yeah, definitely - the system should take much longer to reload. Batch 2 Leanders mitigated this by having multiple launchers (up to 3)

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

SeaDart seems far more effective as an ASM/fighter intercept system.

Yeah - it's superior in every aspect, main issue it has is poor low-altitude performance, mostly arising due to pulse-only acquisition/search radars with no MTI, not that DCS models that.

Edited July 14, 2022 by Northstar98

[Callsign112]

On 7/13/2022 at 2:23 PM, upyr1 said:

It looks like that, the question is what have they said about the pack if anything

Looking at this post 

The planned asset pack is 1955-1965 which would put you the period where the US is retiring Korean war era equipment and phasing in Vietnam war era equipment. The thud in the screenshot is after this period. The F-105F Wild Weasels starting entering service in 1966 and I think the G entered service for the linebacker campaigns. so two possible ideas on the thud weasel 

1. They dates are more like guidelines so the Wild Weasels make the cut (becuse why not the thud's already there)
2. They are being really strict about the dates but a flyable F-105G is doable. 

I expect the first is the case.  The next question is what do they have planned. If the asset pack(s) come(s) with a theater like the South Atlantic asset pack then there are three possibilities here.

1. Centeral Europe-  the ideal theater if they keep the pack together
2. Korea
3. Vietam

The last two make sense if they break the asset packs into two. 

In true ED style, I think the answer to your question is.... very little, next to nothing!

I would take any and all of the possibilities you listed, the only difference being things got hot in the last two.

[MickV]

I'm only a couple of months into DCS, so take my opinion for what its worth (ie not much), but count me as another diehard Cold War afficionado, for all of the reasons already articulated, and a few more:

I'm a history buff (which I suspect many of you are also), and the opportunity to try and re-create historic air battles is a HUGE part of the fun of DCS. From a flight sim standpoint, the GWOT is simply no comparison to Vietnam, the Iran-Iraq War, the Arab-Israeli conflicts, etc etc. It just isn't. (At least not without getting your Tom Clancy on and going full what-if, which I enjoy as much as the next guy - but then you end up hobbled by the lack of RedFor modules)

I've also noticed that friends who choose the F-18 or F-16 as their primary module don't seem to have much interest in branching out into other airframes. Given the F-18's ability to do everything, I can understand that sentiment.

The more specialized nature of many Cold War-era aircraft, combined with the shallower learning curve for older aircraft would seem to me to be a better business model for ED. A given Cold War module might offer the chance for a radically different gameplay experience, even from other peer aircraft of its own era.

Whereas I don't know how true that is for modern, multirole fighters with large amounts of overlap with one another in terms of systems, capabilities and roles. 

If I'd gotten into the Viper instead of the MiG-21 as my primary module, I don't know how excited I'd be for the F-4, the MiG-23, the Mirage F-1, the A-6.... As it is I'm likely to buy some or all of them, just because I know they'll be very, very different from one another, and offer a ton of gameplay options that I simply don't have while flying my beloved MiG-21.

[Hiob]

I saw a little "documentary" about the F-111 Aardvark yesterday. I always saw it as the ugly uncle of the F-14, but boy, was I wrong.

The longer I look at it, the sexier it becomes. Looking badass both with swept wings and spread wings. It would be an interesting addition for DCS for a couple of reasons I think.

It is old enough, for data to be easily obtainable. It saw plenty of action. It has some interesting technologies - e.g. ground following radar guidance. It has a tandem cockpit like the Intruder or the Mosquito.

 

[bies]

16 minutes ago, Hiob said:

It has a tandem cockpit like the Intruder or the Mosquito

I think side-by-side cockpit will be great in DCS.

Both A-6 and F-111 had analog navigation and fire control systems, involving and fun to operate and manual flight control.

F-111 had fantastic performance when A-6 was carrier capable. Both would fit DCS or flight simulator perfectly. And we're withdrawn after USSR collapsed, not a big problem obtaining very detailed data.

Edited July 15, 2022 by bies

[Hiob]

33 minutes ago, bies said:

I think side-by-side cockpit will be great in DCS.

Both A-6 and F-111 had analog navigation and fire control systems, involving and fun to operate and manual flight control.

F-111 had fantastic performance when A-6 was carrier capable. Both would fit DCS or flight simulator perfectly. And we're withdrawn after USSR collapsed, not a big problem obtaining very detailed data.

 

I'd love to see both. But since the A-6 is more or less on its way, I'm advertising for the Aardvark here.

I'm a littlebit torn here. They have for sure similarities in their mission profile and the Intruder has some pop culture merits, much like the Tomcat, due to Flight of the Intruder.
But where the Intruder is more like a friendly bumblebee, the Aardvark has the vibe of an angry wasp.....

[Bremspropeller]

I think (well, I hope) people will realize there's fun beyond staring at a TV screen. Is the JDAM boring? Yes. Are there ways to make it more exciting by building a challenging scenario? Yes. The scenario will never be as exciting as providing accurate CAS or RESCAP under a 500ft ceiling with dumb bombs and rockets, though. You know, like Vietnam.

I think (I hope) people will realize this with the arrival of the F-4E. It's basicly a steampunk F-15E. I'll most probably end up buying both, as both have their ways of being fun. It's not like fiddling with JDAMs is bad. It's just a completely different player-experience. Especially if you're not one of the airquake folks.

Are "FBW" aircraft boring in WVR? Yes. Mostly because max-performing the aircraft and not having it depart on you is being taken over a bunch of black boxes. Max-perform a hard-wing F-4 vs a MiG-21 is in a different league of stick-and-rudder game. For both players. The "flying" part of the flight-simulation is much more in the foreground with those CW modules. Fly a road-recce through the hills at night in an A-4, if you want to see what I mean. No, you can't bring your NVGs.

 

[cfrag]

4 hours ago, Hiob said:

I always saw it as the ugly uncle of the F-14, but boy, was I wrong.

You weren't wrong. She still is ugly, and still is the F-14's uncle. 

And I have a special place in my heart for her, for when I was a child, she was the first plastic model kit (a 1/72 scale? Revell kit) that I assembled myself, without my father's help. I marveled at the side-by-side cockpit that could be detached, and the working variable-sweep wings. So she was ugly? Who cares! I still fondly recall her. And I'd love to see her as as a DCS model as well. Especially considering the side-by-side cockpit (which I love, and to my bird-brain's recollection) only too few DCS aircraft have: Huey, Zelle, Mossie and Hip (with the A-6 hopefully coming soon). Does anyone know how duties were shared between pilot and radar officer? Were both crew stations able to fly the plane?

[Northstar98]

29 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Were both crew stations able to fly the plane?

Yes, apart from the EF-111A.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Northstar98

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Is the JDAM boring? Yes. Are there ways to make it more exciting by building a challenging scenario? Yes.

I still can't agree with this. Now of course everyone has their own opinion, and if someone finds JDAM's boring while Mk82's not for whatever reason that's fine. Stating it as objectively true, I don't know how someone can justify that. I mean what I quoted above is almost contradictory. "Is X boring? Yes. Except when it's not."

It's as simple to employ to a Mk82 in a vacuum as it is to employ JDAM. Press the pickle button. Conversely if you get into a complex situation, you can argue that JDAM might require a little more thinking just because it's more capable. What profile should the bomb fly? Since I have so much precision where should I aim to maximize damage? The SAM site I'm trying to destroy outranges my bomb, what is the best way to approach. Etc.

 

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

The scenario will never be as exciting as providing accurate CAS or RESCAP under a 500ft ceiling with dumb bombs and rockets, though. You know, like Vietnam.

Where you have to drop everything in one pass and leave because you're too exposed to ground fire? What if you want to stick around for while and watch how the battle you're supporting on the ground plays out? Again, personal preference but I don't see any objective advantage to the "old ways" which of course used to be modern, cutting edge, and too easy anyway.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

I think (I hope) people will realize this with the arrival of the F-4E.

We've have Fox 1 restrictions since FC3 and currently we even have the weapons that the F-4 would use available on the F-15 and I think the F-14 and F-18. It's not exactly the same granted, but it's not like the F-4 is going to bring something completely new to the sim (and just for additional clarity I don't mean Vietnam era combat is bad or won't be exciting to recreate, I mean that you can get a general idea of what it's like flying 4th fighters already. They're not limited to JDAM and AMRAAM).

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Are "FBW" aircraft boring in WVR? Yes. Mostly because max-performing the aircraft and not having it depart on you is being taken over a bunch of black boxes. Max-perform a hard-wing F-4 vs a MiG-21 is in a different league of stick-and-rudder game. For both players. The "flying" part of the flight-simulation is much more in the foreground with those CW modules. Fly a road-recce through the hills at night in an A-4, if you want to see what I mean. No, you can't bring your NVGs.

 

The point of FBW is to move the pilot workload from flying to fighting. You reduce the risk of departure, yes

Although you don't necessarily remove it:

Now I can of course see why someone might prefer the mechanical aircraft, but I don't see how one could consider the FBW era boring. In a combat sim I'd assume people are here for the combat, at least partially. Tactics and skill matter just as much in FBW as they do in WWII era, the biggest difference is where you have to focus your mind. You're never going to win a dogfight by trying to fly like Maverick did in Top Gun.

[Furiz]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I think (well, I hope) people will realize there's fun beyond staring at a TV screen. Is the JDAM boring? Yes. Are there ways to make it more exciting by building a challenging scenario? Yes. The scenario will never be as exciting as providing accurate CAS or RESCAP under a 500ft ceiling with dumb bombs and rockets, though. You know, like Vietnam.

I think (I hope) people will realize this with the arrival of the F-4E. It's basicly a steampunk F-15E. I'll most probably end up buying both, as both have their ways of being fun. It's not like fiddling with JDAMs is bad. It's just a completely different player-experience. Especially if you're not one of the airquake folks.

Are "FBW" aircraft boring in WVR? Yes. Mostly because max-performing the aircraft and not having it depart on you is being taken over a bunch of black boxes. Max-perform a hard-wing F-4 vs a MiG-21 is in a different league of stick-and-rudder game. For both players. The "flying" part of the flight-simulation is much more in the foreground with those CW modules. Fly a road-recce through the hills at night in an A-4, if you want to see what I mean. No, you can't bring your NVGs.

 

Well said, altho I like modern fighters and JDAMs more than cold war planes and dumb bombs, I can agree with you on this, hope @Pikey can draw some lessons here and learn how not to insult people when posting on forum and at the same time express his opinions.

Every bombing mode can fun and boring, it depends on the mission same goes with everything else. Then people have different preferences and likes, some like to actually fly the aircraft while others like to play with the avionics and sensors with help of FBW.

 

 

 

[Bremspropeller]

11 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I still can't agree with this. Now of course everyone has their own opinion, and if someone finds JDAM's boring while Mk82's not for whatever reason that's fine. Stating it as objectively true, I don't know how someone can justify that. I mean what I quoted above is almost contradictory. "Is X boring? Yes. Except when it's not."

It's as simple to employ to a Mk82 in a vacuum as it is to employ JDAM. Press the pickle button. Conversely if you get into a complex situation, you can argue that JDAM might require a little more thinking just because it's more capable. What profile should the bomb fly? Since I have so much precision where should I aim to maximize damage? The SAM site I'm trying to destroy outranges my bomb, what is the best way to approach. Etc

All of those are luxury problems that you can solve by dialling in some parameters. Dial-a-result. I know I'm oversimplyfying, but when a JTAC can tell me to hit a certain spot and give me the exact coordinates, it kind of takes the fun out of it. Yes, I know it's better the new way, but I'm not actually supporting a 18yr old grunt in some god-forsaken land; I'm bombing bits and bytes on a computer screen.

If I can do CAS through a thick 15000ft overcast, just because the JTAC can give me precise enough coordinates, that's a different kind of mission than dropping dummies below a low ceiling in constrained terrain. Naturally, you can do just that in a Viper of Hornet. By why would you want to?

17 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Where you have to drop everything in one pass and leave because you're too exposed to ground fire? What if you want to stick around for while and watch how the battle you're supporting on the ground plays out? Again, personal preference but I don't see any objective advantage to the "old ways" which of course used to be modern, cutting edge, and too easy anyway.

Who says you can't stick around? You just can't do it down on the deck, but up high, flying a racetrack on some fix. CAS with dumb ammo has never really been modern and too easy - it's been kind of hard ever since they first tried it.

24 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

We've have Fox 1 restrictions since FC3 and currently we even have the weapons that the F-4 would use available on the F-15 and I think the F-14 and F-18. It's not exactly the same granted, but it's not like the F-4 is going to bring something completely new to the sim (and just for additional clarity I don't mean Vietnam era combat is bad or won't be exciting to recreate, I mean that you can get a general idea of what it's like flying 4th fighters already. They're not limited to JDAM and AMRAAM).

Sure, but again, why would you want to? You can't hang an AIM-9J on a Viper (unless you mod it) and pretend it's 1981. Also, the Sparrows on the early F-4E (e.g. the E and E-2) were pretty sh!tty. Even by Sparrow-standards. The fights will look a little diferent to what we're seing right now. Mostly rear-quarter shots and some actual maneuvering. In an aircraft that's rather hard to fly well. I'm also looking forward to delivering 1st and 2nd generation PGMs with TGPs that sucked in terms of picture-clarity and constraints like daylight-only.

29 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

The point of FBW is to move the pilot workload from flying to fighting. You reduce the risk of departure, yes

Although you don't necessarily remove it:

Exactly. But sometimes, people like me want to step away from that and actually fly the airplane. There are few things as fun, as wringing out an F-14A at slow speed and ruddering her around in heavy buffet, just because you can.

31 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Now I can of course see why someone might prefer the mechanical aircraft, but I don't see how one could consider the FBW era boring. In a combat sim I'd assume people are here for the combat, at least partially. Tactics and skill matter just as much in FBW as they do in WWII era, the biggest difference is where you have to focus your mind. You're never going to win a dogfight by trying to fly like Maverick did in Top Gun

It's a lack of challenge/ tickle in one way that a Horper just can't replace by dumbing them down artificially. I just don't want tostrap on a Hornet or Viper all the time. A little musky old spice makes things exciting.

I'm here for the flying first, since it's still technically a flight simulator with explosives. The combat part is just another aspect of the game. And especially there I'm wondering why people want to artificially constrain themselves (and others) to the latest & greatest that can be displayed, instead of giving usthe full experience, including CW aircraft.

[Northstar98]

On 7/15/2022 at 2:02 PM, Exorcet said:

We've have Fox 1 restrictions since FC3 and currently we even have the weapons that the F-4 would use available on the F-15 and I think the F-14 and F-18. It's not exactly the same granted

"not exactly the same"?

There's more to an aircraft than just the weapons... Much more.

For starters the F-4E has a fairly short-range, conical-scanning, pulse-only radar with little-to-no LDSD capability, which is a massive difference in and of itself.

All of the aircraft you listed have radars that are superior in just about every aspect by a significant degree, compared to the AN/APQ-120 of the F-4E. For starters they're all monopulse, pulse-doppler radars with full LDSD capability and out of all of them only the Tomcat has a pulse mode available.

All the radars you listed also have TWS modes - the AN/APQ-120 has nothing of the sort.

 

Because the radar is a conical scanning type - it physically cannot guide inverse-monopulse Sparrows like the AIM-7M, M(H) and P. That means the F-4 only has AIM-7F at best (though it's not unthinkable that the early DSCG Phantom will only have AIM-7E-2 at best, given that AIM-7F is later than it).

Only the F-15C has the E currently, though all of them have the F - though again that radar will make a pretty big difference in effectiveness, especially if your target dives.

As for Sidewinders, we're covered, but again, pretty different experience.

On 7/15/2022 at 2:02 PM, Exorcet said:

but it's not like the F-4 is going to bring something completely new to the sim (and just for additional clarity I don't mean Vietnam era combat is bad or won't be exciting to recreate,

Well, in that case, what combat aircraft would bring something completely new to the sim? A bomber? ASW helicopter?

How about getting a laser guided bomb onto a target that has to be designated and tracked manually through a much lower resolution targeting pod (worse than LANTIRN for the Pave Tack, TV only for Pave Spike) which barely provides you with anything more than a crosshair?

How about a hyperbolic navigation suite? No aircraft in DCS has that.

Or how about our first, staple Cold War fighter for the mid-to-late Cold War, that was incredibly widespread and prolific?

Right now we only have the F-5E, which was more intended for export - not really what I'd call a staple Cold War fighter. We're getting (Spanish) Mirage F1s but it wasn't as prolific (especially in your typical NATO vs Warsaw Pact scenarios) and for scenarios where it saw the most action - we lack appropriate maps (or rather maps that adequately cover where it would've operated). The Tomcats we have are very late Cold War for the B (late 80s) and mid 90s for the A (if the C:MO database is to be believed), the early A will more appropriately represent the majority of Cold War As (though 135-GR was mid 80s at the earliest and wasn't a particularly prolific block). The Viggen we have is also from the mid 90s (though is much easier to approximate the earlier AJ 37), but again, we're lacking a map.

I've stuck to more historical stuff here, though mission editors are of course free to make whatever scenarios they please, where they're able to do so.

On 7/15/2022 at 2:02 PM, Exorcet said:

I mean that you can get a general idea of what it's like flying 4th fighters already. They're not limited to JDAM and AMRAAM).

Again, much bigger difference between Phantom and any of the aircraft you've listed - there's more to it than just weapons. They're not even the same generation...

I'm sorry but there's a myriad of very significant differences that you cannot overcome by simply weapons restricting and taking off JHMCS. Even if you fly the exact same mission, with the same weapons and the same profile won't give you the same experience as it would be like in the Phantom, unless the experience is solely confined to just pressing the weapons release button.

I've already spoken about the radar, what about the HUD? Which isn't really a HUD - a gunsight with small roll tabs is all you get (kinda like the F-5E).

Edited August 4, 2022 by Northstar98
grammar

[Bremspropeller]

Northstar dropping a carpet of truth-bombs

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

All of those are luxury problems that you can solve by dialling in some parameters. Dial-a-result.

Well it's dial a result once you've figured out what the result is, which can take some effort.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

I know I'm oversimplyfying, but when a JTAC can tell me to hit a certain spot and give me the exact coordinates, it kind of takes the fun out of it. Yes, I know it's better the new way, but I'm not actually supporting a 18yr old grunt in some god-forsaken land; I'm bombing bits and bytes on a computer screen.

That's fine from a personal preference standpoint, and I agree there is some oversimplification here. Just by making the information you're given less than infallible (admittedly a problem in DCS, many things are too perfect), you can make things much more interesting. Sure the JTAC may give you the coordinates, but when you check them in the TGP you don't see what you expect. Then what? I think the fun is less about the weapon and more about the situation.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

If I can do CAS through a thick 15000ft overcast, just because the JTAC can give me precise enough coordinates, that's a different kind of mission than dropping dummies below a low ceiling in constrained terrain. Naturally, you can do just that in a Viper of Hornet. By why would you want to?

For me it's the same reason why I'd want to do CAS in a A-7. It's fun. If the Viper and Hornet can carry dumb bombs I'm going to carry dumb bombs some of the time. It's not something that can't be justified in the mission setting either. Perhaps in a long war PGM's have started to run dry, or the last batch had some faults and needed to be sidelined, or in DCS terms you might just be trying to simulate a slightly older variant of whatever plane.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Who says you can't stick around? You just can't do it down on the deck, but up high, flying a racetrack on some fix. CAS with dumb ammo has never really been modern and too easy - it's been kind of hard ever since they first tried it.

I was talking more about threat level in conjunction with low level flying. You're right though, you can come up with a wide range of situations that would change how you'd fly the mission. On CAS being modern/easy what I mean is, everything is modern at some point. If you were flying a F-4 in Vietnam you had the modern, tech assisted super fighter that had just about every advantage imaginable over what pilots were flying in Korea. That didn't mean your job was easy or dull. Eventually JDAM's will be 100 year old tech and people will look back at them as being part of the good old days when you had to deal with more challenges employing weapons. There isn't really a point where things suddenly become trivial, at least not until AI replaces people. As your weapons evolve, so do the threats you face.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Sure, but again, why would you want to? You can't hang an AIM-9J on a Viper (unless you mod it) and pretend it's 1981. Also, the Sparrows on the early F-4E (e.g. the E and E-2) were pretty sh!tty. Even by Sparrow-standards. The fights will look a little diferent to what we're seing right now. Mostly rear-quarter shots and some actual maneuvering. In an aircraft that's rather hard to fly well. I'm also looking forward to delivering 1st and 2nd generation PGMs with TGPs that sucked in terms of picture-clarity and constraints like daylight-only.

I don't see why you wouldn't want to, personally. Especially with FC3 modules that are so generalized that they can represent a wide range of aircraft models pretty easily. AIM-7F's on the F-15 or F-14 aren't too outlandish. We already have the E Sparrow in DCS so we can see how it will perform in the sim. To me, the entire range of aircraft is interesting from WWI to F-22. Ideally I want them all in DCS with every option as far as sensors and weapons.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Exactly. But sometimes, people like me want to step away from that and actually fly the airplane. There are few things as fun, as wringing out an F-14A at slow speed and ruddering her around in heavy buffet, just because you can.

I completely understand. I do it too. I love the F-14 as long as Jester doesn't mess up too badly because of what it offers, but I wouldn't say that fighting in it is much much harder than fighting in a F-16. It's harder to fly, but conversely you're not dealing with Fox 3 missiles shot at you as often or DL connected adversaries hiding in the mountains to ambush you (if being historical anyway).

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

It's a lack of challenge/ tickle in one way that a Horper just can't replace by dumbing them down artificially. I just don't want tostrap on a Hornet or Viper all the time. A little musky old spice makes things exciting.

In case it's not clear I'm not advocating that 4th gen makes 3rd and previous irrelevant, I just don't understand why people want to label them as objectively less fun. Subjectively, anything goes. I agree that the older aircraft have their own feel and I want that in DCS just as much as I want the modern stuff.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'm here for the flying first, since it's still technically a flight simulator with explosives. The combat part is just another aspect of the game. And especially there I'm wondering why people want to artificially constrain themselves (and others) to the latest & greatest that can be displayed, instead of giving usthe full experience, including CW aircraft.

That makes a lot of sense, and I also agree here. DCS as just a flight sim and not a combat flight sim specifically is a great experience. I totally understand the preference for a mechanical aircraft, and I'd encourage people to at least try something outside of their comfort zone, combat flying or not. It's unlikely that you'll get to fly completely different aircraft back to in reality, so you might as well take advantage of the virtual world where you can do such a thing.

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

"not exactly the same"?

There's more to an aircraft than just the weapons... Much more.

Completely agree. Hence it's not exactly the same. Degrading your weapons does move you down the tech ladder though, I don't think we'd disagree that the pre AMRAAM 4th gen era is closer to Vietnam than the late 2000's era the Viper and Hornet are from. I'm not here to argue that nothing has changed though, I'm trying to understand why people want to label one era as inherently boring. Where is the "boring line" crossed and what pushes us across the threshold?

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

If you're going down that route, what combat aircraft would bring something completely new to the sim? A bomber? ASW helicopter?

How about getting a laser guided bomb onto a target that has to be designated manually through a much lower resolution targeting pod (worse than LANTIRN for the Pave Tack, TV only for Pave Spike) which barely provides you with anything more than a crosshair?

How about a hyperbolic navigation suite?

Again, much bigger difference between Phantom and any of the aircraft you've listed - there's more to it than just weapons. They're not even the same generation...

Well it depends on what's meant by new. The posts I replied too tended to make a clear divide based on weapons, so that's what the discussion tended to be framed around. I agree with you that a lot more than the weapons matter, but I can only really reply to posts that people make, and those posts mentioned JDAM and compared them to pre-JDAM more or less.

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm sorry but there's a myriad of very significant differences that you cannot overcome by simply weapons restricting and taking off JHMCS. Flying the same mission profile with the same mission profile won't give you the same experience as it would be like in the Phantom, unless the experience is solely confined to just pressing the weapons release button.

I've already spoken about the radar, what about the HUD? Gunsight with small roll tabs is all you get (kinda like the F-5E).

All of those being reasons to include CW planes in DCS without the need label more modern stuff as boring. Well said.

[Bremspropeller]

@Exorcet I think we can conclude that we are pretty much in the same team. It's just that different people like different things fordifferent reasons differently - which is natural. Let's see what the F-4E has in store for us. I'm looking forward to more CW aircraft and - hopefully - terrains.

*cough* Vietnam

 

[Northstar98]

On 7/15/2022 at 4:08 PM, Exorcet said:

Completely agree. Hence it's not exactly the same. Degrading your weapons does move you down the tech ladder though, I don't think we'd disagree that the pre AMRAAM 4th gen era is closer to Vietnam than the late 2000's era the Viper and Hornet are from.

While true I'd argue it's fairly insignificant, especially going with our current 4th gen aircraft to say the early-to-mid 70s.

The problem is that there are just so many differences that can't really be worked around.

On 7/15/2022 at 4:08 PM, Exorcet said:

I'm not here to argue that nothing has changed though, I'm trying to understand why people want to label one era as inherently boring. Where is the "boring line" crossed and what pushes us across the threshold?

I might've misunderstood you, it just came across to me as minimising the differences or beating about the bush - if that wasn't the intention we're all good.

As for what's boring or not - I wouldn't go that far, I don't think it's inherently boring and it's purely subjective.

To be perfectly honest with you I don't really care which era you go for, I have my favourites (mid-to-late Cold War) but I'm open to a wide range.

On 7/15/2022 at 4:08 PM, Exorcet said:

Well it depends on what's meant by new. The posts I replied too tended to make a clear divide based on weapons, so that's what the discussion tended to be framed around.

Well, if you want to solely confine us to weapons - there is the AGM-45 Shrike (which I guess can be thought of as a Sidearm and a HARM mashed together), if HB goes with realistic seeker implementations, that would mean you'd have to pick a specific missile version (preferably selectable via the bomb configurator we'll be getting for fuse selection) to target specific radars - you just equip an ARM and fire it at whatever radar you see fit - you're essentially locked in to a pre-planned target. This is something completely new as far as ARMs go and the limitations here are unique. Of course, if we get the AGM-45A-10/B-10 this won't apply (though that'll probably be too new for the DSCG Phantom).

The other thing is the GBU-15, depending on versions available that might mean EO or IIR seekers and either BLU-109/B or Mk 84 warheads. The Walleye II ER/DL is fairly similar, yes - but it doesn't provide as many options as the GBU-15 does.

But even with the exact same weapons there are stuff that's "new".

For instance, the Phantom does have a more quirky way of going about performing bombing calculations for CCIP (in the later DMAS version), like needing to program the drag coefficient of the bomb.

There's also a quirky delivery mode where bombs release once the current measured slant range matches some predicted value (kinda like a weird hybrid of manual and auto/CCRP).

On 7/15/2022 at 4:08 PM, Exorcet said:

I agree with you that a lot more than the weapons matter, but I can only really reply to posts that people make, and those posts mentioned JDAM and compared them to pre-JDAM more or less.

Well, the only thing I'll say here is that IMO, the delivery of the JDAM is less dependent on the launch platform - purely because it's guided and can compensate for errors. The Mk 82 however is more dependent on the launch platform and how exactly you deliver it - you can't treat the weapon in a vacuum.

 

Yes, you can dedicate yourself more to tactics with a JDAM - but all of that still applies to just about any mission profile against just about any target + all of the extra workload from having to more precisely fly your aircraft to hit the target.

I personally don't think that's enough to make the JDAM boring, but I do find the approach of say, the Viggen, more appealing. Especially when the Phantom can carry as much as 24 Mk 82s.

My main issue with the modern era is that aircraft are generally more difficult to produce and especially to get finished - bear in mind there's a fair few features aircraft like the Hornet should get, that is absolutely accurate for it (in some cases more accurate than what we have currently), but is otherwise unplanned. That and it's fairly poorly fleshed out - people have been talking about things like missions being more exciting with targets under the umbrella of the SA-10 - we have the SA-10b from the 80s, so that exact SAM system is still absolutely relevant to the Cold War

The Cold War era is slightly more fleshed out, but I'd argue it's also easier to flesh out the remaining bits and is easier to get modules and assets developed. That's by no means a rule sure, but generally speaking it seems to be the case.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Northstar98
grammar

[Fromthedeep]

Taking a facetious song from a band that's built around humorous lyrics and trying to use it to prove what real pilots think about the modern combat environment is hilariously short sighted. What you guys don't realise is that not 1% of the actual complexity and decision making is recreated in DCS when it comes to JDAMs. Neither the planning, nor the weaponeering and certainly not the limitations.

 

A GWOT era CAS sortie is a fluid, complex environment that requires fast decision making, multitasking ability, on the fly adjustments and very ensuring that you're adhereing to the rigorous legal limitations. Even during OIR not every CAS tasking will be a BOC, and the legal, SA draining swamp of working around the different factions, complex ROE limitations and political boundaries while minimizing collateral damage and avoiding frats should be fairly challenging, just in a very different way. But the issue here isn't trying to take a video game's limitations and applying it to real life but rather trying to learn what the inaccuracies are and asking for a fix.

 

COIN's unique challenge lies in the simple fact that identifying enemy combatants is inherently more challenging since they hide among the civilian population. It's also politically problematic since if the ROE is restrictive enough, the enemy can play around it and make it very difficult to successfully achieve any kind of results with the jets. Due to the constantly growing need of minimizing collateral damage and the dynamic flexible set of targets, weaponeering on the fly were the norm. In a preplanned environment, you can find what fuse setting you need in advance depending on the characteristics of the target and you can calculate it with software while you're 1G 0 kts. In a modern environment, you need to tailor the JPF not only to a flexible set of drastically varying targets but also to minimize collateral damage while also achieving desired weapon effects. 

 

If you need to designate your own target for whatever reason (remember, JTAC may not always be able to provide Cat 1 coordinates), you're contending with TLE. That also requires a complex set of rules to mitigate. The modern, network centric battlespace also requires you to be able to properly configure, troubleshoot and reliably utilize all these modern systems, whether you're talking about datalink, the aforementioned JDAM or other IAMs, radios and so on. While the required skillset is closer to a systems operator than a conventional pilot, it's undeniable that the level of technical understanding and expertise that's required for a modern jet on a modern battlespace is enormous. Just because everything works in DCS and most of the setup and complexity is abstracted away it doesn't mean they don't exist. And we're only touching the surface, we haven't even talked about any kind of GPS degradation, actual coordinated CAS TTPs or how LGBs (which are still prevalent) are used and those can be incredibly challenging and complex to utilize.

 

The big issue, of course is that none of this stuff can be simulated in the game but that's due to simplification, not because a modern battlespace is inherently simple. It can be boring for people who want to be challenged in the stick and rudder department but there still should be plenty of depth in a modern environment as well and the issue should be revolving around carefully examining which of these missing aspects and nuances can and should be simulated in the game.

 

This also comes with the assumption that you only simulate real life conflicts, which is very limiting because there are very few historical conflicts where we have the required AI assets, player modules and maps. And if you allow theoretical scenarios, the complexity in a modern war goes up even higher. So the conclusion here is that modern era cannot at the moment be faithfully recreated, but saying that it's inherently boring and unchallenging (even if all the missing aspects were simulated) is simply incorrect. It would only offer a very different type of challenge compared to a Korean War scenario that many here actually enjoys.

[Harlikwin]

11 hours ago, Hiob said:

I saw a little "documentary" about the F-111 Aardvark yesterday. I always saw it as the ugly uncle of the F-14, but boy, was I wrong.

The longer I look at it, the sexier it becomes. Looking badass both with swept wings and spread wings. It would be an interesting addition for DCS for a couple of reasons I think.

It is old enough, for data to be easily obtainable. It saw plenty of action. It has some interesting technologies - e.g. ground following radar guidance. It has a tandem cockpit like the Intruder or the Mosquito.

 

Never ever assume that. Its actually pretty hard to find any relevant info on several of the century series of fighters. Docs get lost, binned, burned, or otherwise destroyed. Literally the F14 exists in DCS today because of a single ebay auction for a manual that shouldn't have been there. 

We literally are not getting a Sea Harrier, because Razbam cannot find any info on the actual radar used and the MOD has classified it because it might give hints about what replaced that radar. Or if we do end up getting it, the radar might be entirely made up. 

So just cuz something is "old" doesn't mean its easy to get docs for. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

As for Sidewinders, we're covered, but again, pretty different experience.

Well, DCS modeling of various fox2 is just kinda bad overall. I don't think ED is gonna improve it much or accurately given the current level of DCS radar modeling or the FLIR model. 

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, Harlikwin said:

Well, DCS modeling of various fox2 is just kinda bad overall. I don't think ED is gonna improve it much or accurately given the current level of DCS radar modeling or the FLIR model. 

Radars (particularly the Tomcat), are modelled more decently though - so I'd argue the result is similar.

[Harlikwin]

48 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Radars (particularly the Tomcat), are modelled more decently though - so I'd argue the result is similar.

Well the M2k and tomcat radars seem decently well done. However alot of other modules namely the F16/18 leave a good amount to be desired.