Revisiting my phantasies

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Western

#1 Jaguar

#2 Tornado

#3 AMX

#4 A-4M

#5 Hunter

#6 OH-6

#7 AV-8B+ (SNIPER pod, radar, JHQMS, AIM-120C, AIM-9X, and IRIS-T) as add on to AV-8B/NA

#8 Weapons update to Mirage 2000-C. Mica, Iris-T, Exocet, MK-20. Damocles T-POD

#9 Grippen (any)

#10 Super Etendard

#11 F-8P Crusader

#12 A-7E USN, and USANG

 

WWII

P-38

 

East

Mig-29SMT/K high fidelity

MI-28

J-10

JH-7

YAK-38 VSTOL

Edited September 13, 2020 by DmitriKozlowsky

[MustangSally]

Have to say it.....It's Fantasies

[AeriaGloria]

Have to say it.....It's Fantasies

 

I was expecting F-4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Not really a fan of two seaters. Even with AI. Friendly AI, wingmen and RIO/WSO, in DCS, IMHO, kind of suck. Thats the start and end of it. Wingmen who dont do what they are told or doing something else. Tell Mirage AI wingman to attack, and his reply is "unable" or "RTB". Or making an attack run, and not drop weapons. Or drops only a single bomb instead of multiple, as defined in ME. AV-8B wingmen cannot takeoff or land without crashing.

So I avoid F-14, and not expecting anything useful from future F-15E module.

[Furiz]

For more dreams here you go:

 

 

I like gen4 planes so I'd love MIG29 SMT or an Sukhoi of the same gen.

[G.J.S]

Tonka is twin tub, so is Mi-28.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I can make exceptions when it comes to helicopters. UH-1H AI crew is 'OK' in regards that they shoot, once given permission to do so. But Gazelle WSO and door gunner is not so well implemented. Attack helicopters take all concentration of pilot to fly at tree top, between trees, behind building,s and hovering during attack, so an AI or human WSO is required.

 

For fixed wing fast jets, I prefer single seaters. Which is why I'd prefer Jaguar module to Tornado.

[G.J.S]

I was just a little confused, it’s an impressive list for sure in the first post, some quite tasty types. But you state an aversion to twin crews, yet your number two is a twin tub?

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Thats why its #2. Not #1. I like the Tornado, as my favorite sim environment time line is late Cold War through Allied Force. 1981-2000. Heart of 4th Gen and 4+ Gen. I just dont like simming in twin seats. Jane's F-15E from 1998 did a great job. WSO would call out SAMs, and Migs. Great for SA in fight. But in DCS, the experience of AI WSO has been a disappointment for me. AI wingmen also. AI wingmen reactions to commands is just maddeningly confusing. Tell him to attack, his responce is "RTB":, or "Unable". DCS, is much better with friends. Alone without buddies, its OK as flight sim. But you cant train tactics and combat leadership with AI wingmen in DCS. Prepare3D is so much better for that.

I want the Jaguar, and Hunter, becouse I have an interest in somewhat forgotten chapters of Cold War. That is British, South African, and European Out Of NATO operations in Africa and MidEast from 1960's to 2000. Angolan Civil War only ended in 2002. Security operations in Oman in 1970's-1990's. North and South Yemen Civil War. Australian operations in PNG.

 

If I could add one more that would be British Electric Lighting F.2, Missile, gun, and 'pregnant' belly tank equipped Lightning. They had a reputation as difficult aircraft to fly, becouse it was F-22 of its day, sans stealth. It could climb straight up. But its performance was hampered by its high speed landing, high AOA landing, and really long run. It was retired in 1988, after serving as reece variant. As an American, I can tell you, we would never stand for the ultra tight side by side offset seating of Lightning trainer. Seating cheek by jowl like sardines, wondering if the ejection of your buddy will rip your limbs off, or burn you instead. Seating that close has an uncomfortable homoerotic air to that. Just like the designers of MG Midget roadster, and Morgan ThreeWheel, were raised without concept of personal space. You have to be really secure in yourself, and like the other person a lot, to spend hours with his face only three to five inches away from yours. US, Americans, have defined comfortable personal space, in tactical settings, of arm's length. At minimum, elbow's length. Look at side by side seating arrangement of American Cold War aircraft. B-52, F-111, A-6. The front office is wide.

 

There is something really special about the way British approached military aviation during Cold War. From absurdly small Gnat trainer-fighter, to very modern stealth look Victor, to Harrier, to Hunter which served forever, to Jaguar with overwing AIM-9 pylons. Seeing British and French pilots practicing landing and take offs of Jaguars from grass fields, bouncing and shuddering on that fat heavy gear. Something that would make F-16 and F-15 pilot shudder in fear of gear collapse. Or the sheer horror of Jaguar cockpit filled with dials, switches, buttons, to no end.

[Baco]

Well acording to Decoy you mightr get the AMX next year or so...

 

I really really like your list pal!

Love the Jag for sure.

I would kill for an A-4M

And the Super Ethandart its an amazing palne and its carrier born too.

 

Im pretty sure the Corsair II and the Crusader are also definately comming...

[Evoman]

Nice list but you seem to be behind on the latest news. I recommend following RAZBAMs facebook page for the latest updates because some of the aircraft on your list is currently planed by RAZBAM like the AMX and English electric lighting.

RAZBAM stated in the comments that the AMX, EEL and Sea Harrier can be expected after the F15, Mig23 and Super Tucano.

 

https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/

 

 

ED said they are looking at the possibility of doing a MIG-29A.

 

 

The A-7E is currently under development by FlyingIron Simulations

https://flyingironsimulations.com/blogs/news/dcs-a-7e-corsair-ii-by-flyingiron-sims

Edited September 14, 2020 by Evoman

[G.J.S]

If I could add one more that would be British Electric Lighting F.2, Missile, gun, and 'pregnant' belly tank equipped Lightning. They had a reputation as difficult aircraft to fly, becouse it was F-22 of its day, sans stealth. It could climb straight up. But its performance was hampered by its high speed landing, high AOA landing, and really long run. It was retired in 1988, after serving as reece variant. As an American, I can tell you, we would never stand for the ultra tight side by side offset seating of Lightning trainer. Seating cheek by jowl like sardines, wondering if the ejection of your buddy will rip your limbs off, or burn you instead. Seating that close has an uncomfortable homoerotic air to that. Just like the designers of MG Midget roadster, and Morgan ThreeWheel, were raised without concept of personal space. You have to be really secure in yourself, and like the other person a lot, to spend hours with his face only three to five inches away from yours. US, Americans, have defined comfortable personal space, in tactical settings, of arm's length. At minimum, elbow's length. Look at side by side seating arrangement of American Cold War aircraft. B-52, F-111, A-6. The front office is wide.

 

Hi there, just a little info about this passage.

The B-52, F-111 & A-6 were all designed spaciously, well, the B-52 started off with a completely different cockpit, but was tandem, not "cheek to jowl".

The Lightning was designed as a single seater first, the trainer happened much later! So it was that in order to keep a minimum change ethic with the airframe, the seating was . . . . intimate!

Also, the bit i highlighted in red - Lightnings were never used for reconnaissance, although they did complete their service in 1988.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I got the recce mission at retirement, from documentary on Lightning. Don't recall if it was Wings or from BBC. But I can accept that error.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I could handle that intimate side by side IF IF IF. My instructor, student, co- was Ms. Peele from original BBC Avengers. Riding with her male partner in his ultra-rare Bentley 6 (Blower?).

Just like taking your GF or wife out in MG Spitfire or MG Midget, or Morgan 3 WHeel, out for a Sunday drive in the country. But two men in a Morgan looks just plain wrong, and as a un-progressive , conservative, heterosexual from Midwest, I find it worrying.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Found the Lighting doc

 

 

 

The first one is where, I think, I got the idea that Lightning served as reece in late 1980's.

Edited September 14, 2020 by DmitriKozlowsky

[G.J.S]

Found the Lighting doc

 

 

 

The first one is where, I think, I got the idea that Lightning served as reece in late 1980's.

 

Yeah, good documentaries.

 

I can assure you though, the RAF didn’t have a dedicated recce aircraft. In the ‘80’s, the aircraft that had a secondary recce role, were the F-4, Tornado, and Harrier.

Tornado variants were the GR.1A, and later GR.4A. Cameras and IRLS systems were internal.

Phantoms? Really only with II(AC) Sqn, although in the 1980’s they were on Jaguar. The Phantoms used a podded system.

The Harrier used a podded system also.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

So could a clean Lightning super cruise at altitude. Say angels 35-45 or higher for intercept mission? Or is that just old wives tail, as Cold War engines didn't have the juice to push airframe through air at Mach 1.0+ without afterburner (or reheat in British language).

Docs didn't quite sort out the selection process for RAF Lightning air crew qualifications. Was it as tough as USAF U-2 selection?

 

In an old British doc on Valiant crew training, flight officer students talk about Charlie and Johnnie getting 'The Chop' as if they are talking about their squadron mates who went into the water in his Spitfire in 1939-1940 BOB.

[G.J.S]

Very doubtful. The Lightning “could” probably just tip M1 at altitude without augmentation as long as it was in a shallow dive, but straight and level I really doubt it. It would probably run out of fuel anyway!

As for the selection process of new aircrew, I would say that the U-2 likely had the more intensive deal as the nature of the mission would require it. But it would be relative. They are two entirely different disciplines.

As for the “getting the chop” comment, probably only refers to someone getting “washed out”, or not good enough to complete training.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I know what The Chop meant. I am commenting on a British attitude of loss of fellow aviator, a friend, as if lost in combat action, instead of spirit of competitiveness, in having one's odds of success increasing, even if it is left unsaid. I am former US Army Res. Field Artillery officer (13A), and my class of 2nd Lt.s (O-1) at Ft. Sill had attrition rate of 15%. Math, physics, ballistics, survey, land nav, artillery engineering were brutal. I was appalled at how fast the material was rained down.

[Andartu]

Not really a fan of two seaters. Even with AI. Friendly AI, wingmen and RIO/WSO, in DCS, IMHO, kind of suck. Thats the start and end of it. Wingmen who dont do what they are told or doing something else. Tell Mirage AI wingman to attack, and his reply is "unable" or "RTB". Or making an attack run, and not drop weapons. Or drops only a single bomb instead of multiple, as defined in ME. AV-8B wingmen cannot takeoff or land without crashing.

So I avoid F-14, and not expecting anything useful from future F-15E module.

 

Not a popular opinion, but I share it. No interest in two seaters in cause of this. Without any disappointment only usable with a real RIO/WSO.

 

The AI is another topic though :noexpression:

[upyr1]

I was expecting F-4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Same here

[AeriaGloria]

Eph-Phour