Jump to content

Heatblur - please do this Aircraft


Recommended Posts

On 6/11/2021 at 3:32 PM, ojanim said:

I was wondering about that too for a long time.

It would be rather strange to get the newer typhoon but not be much older tornado.

But then again different companys so everything is possible.

 

 

Don't forget, the Tornado is a nuclear weapon carrier.

You know what that means when replaceing a screw becomes an issue just because you have to ask the US for permission.

 

Any screw^^

 

So unfortunately it means nothing that the Typhoon comes to DCS


Edited by Bananabrai

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2021 at 8:10 AM, Bananabrai said:

Don't forget, the Tornado is a nuclear weapon carrier.

Yeah, but so is basically every BLUFOR 4th gen aircraft, including the F-15E, F-16CM and F/A-18C.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting
  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That fire-breathing dragon from Microprose's F-14 Fleet Defender...

VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants -- this is how I fly. We do not fly at treetop height, we fly between trees(TM)

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc9BDi-STaqgWsjNiHbW0fA

My simple missions: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/284071-vr-flight-guy-in-pj-pants-simple-missions/

NSRI - National Strategy Research Institution, a fictional organisation based on wordplay of Strategic Naval Research Institution (SNRI), a fictional institution appears in Mobile Suit Gundam UC timeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2021 at 3:44 PM, Northstar98 said:

 

Yeah, but so is basically every BLUFOR 4th gen aircraft, including the F-15E, F-16CM and F/A-18C.

 

True, but the bombs are not from the same country as the aircraft, which makes things actually a lot more complicated than with just an F-16, etc.

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2021 at 7:55 AM, Bananabrai said:

True, but the bombs are not from the same country as the aircraft, which makes things actually a lot more complicated than with just an F-16, etc.

Well, meh, not really. The aircraft itself is multi-national - British, German and Italian. The only operator of the Tornado and nuclear weapons is Britain, and so only British Tornado variants can drop them. In this case, the only nuclear weapon is the WE.177, which is also British.

Even so, nuclear weapons are kinda unsuitable at the moment in DCS, not from a moral standpoint, but from an implementation standpoint - not only have you got the graphical effects - there's also the effects from the weapon itself - namely the pressure wave imparting forces to things. Then there's the whole CBRN/NBC aspect which is wholly absent in DCS.

The craters also become worse as they become larger - owing them to being just a flat texture pasted over the terrain.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

The only operator of the Tornado and nuclear weapons is Britain

 

What???

 

Sorry, but this is absolutely incorrect. German Tornados have nuclear weapons too. The Tactical Air Force Wing 33 is currently tasked with this role and has a couple of B-61 nuclear bombs at their airbase. I can't say for sure, but I think the same is true for Italian Tornados of their 6° Stormo.

Britain on the other hand does not operate nuclear armed Tornados anymore, so it's quite the opposite of what you say.

 

In Germany this role of the Tornado is actually causing a lot of political headache at the moment, as our government needs to replace the Tornado and there is a dispute between our two government parties (CDU and SPD) whether the replacement should still be nuclear capable or not. So far they couldn't agree on that, which is why we still haven't decided on a Tornado replacement.


Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 1

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2021 at 9:32 AM, QuiGon said:

What???

 

Sorry, but this is absolutely incorrect. German Tornados have nuclear weapons too. The Tactical Air Force Wing 33 is currently tasked with this role and has a couple of B-61 nuclear bombs at their airbase. I can't say for sure, but I think the same is true for Italian Tornados of their 6° Stormo.

Didn't know that, thank you for correcting me. But it makes absolutely no difference to my point.

And simulating B61s should be easier than the British weapons, if we wanted to even simulate nuclear weapons at all (which at the moment, not really).

EDIT: both of these cases are part of a weapon sharing agreement by the US - Germany and Italy technically don't operate their own nuclear weapons, they operate US weapons, on behalf of the US (AFAIK) as part of a bomb sharing agreement, that's where my confusion arose.

Quote

Britain on the other hand does not operate nuclear armed Tornados anymore, so it's quite the opposite of what you say.

This is a completely irrelevant point.

Firstly, Britain doesn't even operate the Tornado anymore, let alone nuclear armed ones...

Secondly, we're mostly talking about Cold War Tornadoes, the Tornadoes that make the most sense, should hypothetically be slightly easier to complete, and would better fit HBs current line up - when talking about Britain, they were nuclear capable up until 1998.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

What? This is a completely irrelevant point.

 

It's relevant as a response to this statement of yours, where you stated, that Britain is the only operator of nuclear weapons on the Tornado:

  

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The only operator of the Tornado and nuclear weapons is Britain

 

Neither is Britain operating any (nuclear armed) Tornados, nor has it ever been the only operator of nuclear armed Tornados. That's the only thing I wanted to clarify with my previous post. It was not aimed at the preceeding discussion on nuclear weapons in DCS. :smile:


Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 1

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2021 at 2:03 PM, QuiGon said:

It's relevant as a response to this statement of yours, where you stated, that Britain is the only operator of nuclear weapons on the Tornado.

How? You said "Britain on the other hand does not operate nuclear armed tornados anymoreso it's quite the opposite of what you say." which is completely and utterly irrelevant, seeing as they don't even operate the Tornado anymore. That's what I was addressing.

Y'know it's like getting into an argument about the G.91 and whether or not it can carry AS.20s, and then chiming in saying "they don't operate AS.20 equipped G.91s anymore, so it's the opposite of what you say" - of course they won't operate AS.20 equipped aircraft anymore if they don't operate the aircraft anymore.

Which raises the question: how can they operate whatever weapon on a particular aircraft anymore, when that aircraft isn't in service anymore?

Talking about who operates what anymore isn't a relevant point to the discussion at all, especially when said discussion mostly concerns historical tornadoes.

Quote

Neither is Britain operating any (nuclear armed) Tornados, nor has it ever been the only operator of nuclear armed Tornados. That's the only thing I wanted to clarify with my previous post. It was not aimed at the preceeding discussion on nuclear weapons in DCS. :smile:

And further to my original post it has absolutely no bearing on the argument I was making. I appreciate the correction, my confusion came because Germany and Italy don't have a nuclear weapons program of their own, and under the NPT they aren't nuclear weapons states, nor have they ever been, whereas Britain is. What I didn't realise is that Germany and Italy (as well as the Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey) participate in nuclear sharing - operating US nuclear weapons. I incorrectly assumed that because they aren't an NWS under the NPT, they didn't operate any nuclear weapons.

This isn't the same as say Trident operated by the UK - whilst Trident is a US made missile, the UK operates it's own warheads .


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

58 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And further to my original post it has absolutely no bearing on the argument I was making.

Oh man, you're making this a much bigger issue than it is. Yes, my comment is irrelevant to the discussion on nuclear weapons in DCS, which I even confirmed here myself:

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

It was not aimed at the preceeding discussion on nuclear weapons in DCS.

 My comment was only aimed at your statement that Britain is an operator of nuclear armed Tornados:

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The only operator of the Tornado and nuclear weapons is Britain

"is" is present, not past, and thus wrong as Britain does not operate nuclear armed Tornados anymore. It actually doesn't operate any Tornados anymore, as you pointed out yourself.

 

The sole purpose of my initial comment was to clarify that:

- other Tornado users do operate them with nuclear weapons and

- that it's not true that Britain operates nuclear armed Tornados (or any Tornados).

 

I don't understand why you make such a big fuss about it? I just corrected a small detail on the sideline of a discussion I was following but not participating in (nuclear weapons in DCS). That shouldn't be a big deal...


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2021 at 3:20 PM, QuiGon said:

Oh man, you're making this a much bigger issue than it is.

And yet, here you are?

My response to Bananabrai was mostly that nuclear weapons carriage shouldn't be a problem for developing aircraft.

My first response was that we already have numerous aircraft that are nuclear capable - it isn't an issue, nukes are kinda unsuitable anyway, and represent a fairly large technical hurdle in effects (both graphical and damage).

My second response to Bananabrai was concerning nuclear weapons on the Tornado and them being different to the country of origin. For the UK that isn't true (though I incorrectly thought Germany and Italy didn't operate nuclear weapons, based on a faulty assumption concerning the NPT and NWSs - something you rightly corrected).

But then, the B61 shouldn't be that much of hurdle - the things we need to know about the bomb is already known (blast yields and operating modes, the intricacies of nuclear authentication and the safety systems are kinda out of scope), but that's only if we wanted to implement them, and if it was necessary to bringing a tornado - which it isn't.

Quote

The sole purpose of my initial comment was to clarify that:

- other Tornado users do operate them with nuclear weapons

Yep, which I admitted I was wrong about, and I agreed with you, so...?

You really need to read the responses you're responding to all the way.

Quote

- that it's not true that Britain operates nuclear armed Tornados (or any Tornados).

If this concerns present day, then it's a point I never made, and all this is me using 'is' when I should've used 'was'. 

Again, here we seem to mostly be concerned with the Cold War - not present day. Especially seeing as modern tornadoes are probably a lot harder to make, compared to 80s variants, which is also an era where IMO it was more in its prime, doing what it was mostly designed to do i.e mostly having a mission of low-level interdiction and strike (at least for IDS versions).

Quote

I don't understand why you make such a big fuss about it?

What? I even agreed with this point?

Quote

I appreciate the correction, my confusion came because Germany and Italy don't have a nuclear weapons program of their own, and under the NPT they aren't nuclear weapons states, nor have they ever been, whereas Britain is. What I didn't realise is that Germany and Italy (as well as the Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey) participate in nuclear sharing - operating US weapons. I incorrectly assumed that because they aren't an NWS under the NPT, they didn't operate any nuclear weapons.

Where's the fuss exactly?

Quote

That shouldn't be a big deal...

It isn't!


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

My response to Bananabrai was mostly that nuclear weapons carriage shouldn't be a problem for developing aircraft.

 

My first response was that we already have numerous aircraft that are nuclear capable - it isn't an issue, nukes are kinda unsuitable anyway, and represent a fairly large technical hurdle in effects (both graphical and damage).

 

My second response to Bananabrai was concerning nuclear weapons on the Tornado and them being different to the country of origin. For the UK that isn't true (though I incorrectly thought Germany and Italy didn't operate nuclear weapons, based on a faulty assumption concerning the NPT and NWSs - something you rightly corrected).

 

But then, the B61 shouldn't be that much of hurdle - the things we need to know about the bomb is already known (blast yields and operating modes, the intricacies of nuclear authentication and the safety systems are kinda out of scope), but that's only if we wanted to implement them, and if it was necessary to bringing a tornado - which it isn't.

 

 

To be honest, I don't want to say that a Tornado is not doable and I hope we will get one at some point.

 

But the statement that the B61 is no factor for a DCS developed german IDS is not true.

I cannot speak for a UK version, I would prefer a UK version for various reasons, one of them being this issue.

 

I was working in Tornado deveolpment and all I can tell is that Panvaia makes a real big thing out of almost any topic.

The nuclear function and secrecy has to be guaranteed to the US, ITAR regulations (international traffic in arms) are a peace of cake compared to that.

Convince me that I am wrong, but I think you have no idea how complicated it makes things even for the real aircraft that nuke and ac are not from the same country.

The weapon system is tied around the function of delivering special weapons and the hurdle is to not let anybody find out how that works or ANY data, function or fart relatet to that.

And the manufacturer doesn't care if the Tornado is from the 70s and will be phased out eventually in a not too distant future.

 

It's not that I want a B61 or WE177 in the game by the way, nukes have been ruled out by ED and thats fine by me. 

  • Like 1

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2021 at 8:21 AM, Bananabrai said:

To be honest, I don't want to say that a Tornado is not doable and I hope we will get one at some point.

 

But the statement that the B61 is no factor for a DCS developed german IDS is not true.

I cannot speak for a UK version, I would prefer a UK version for various reasons, one of them being this issue.

 

I was working in Tornado deveolpment and all I can tell is that Panvaia makes a real big thing out of almost any topic.

The nuclear function and secrecy has to be guaranteed to the US, ITAR regulations (international traffic in arms) are a peace of cake compared to that.

Convince me that I am wrong, but I think you have no idea how complicated it makes things even for the real aircraft that nuke and ac are not from the same country.

The weapon system is tied around the function of delivering special weapons and the hurdle is to not let anybody find out how that works or ANY data, function or fart relatet to that.

And the manufacturer doesn't care if the Tornado is from the 70s and will be phased out eventually in a not too distant future.

 

It's not that I want a B61 or WE177 in the game by the way, nukes have been ruled out by ED and thats fine by me. 

But all of this only applies if we wanted to do nuclear weapons in the first place, which is kinda a meh. Plus they represent a feasibility hurdle as is (even before we delve into how aircraft operate them).

To my original point - we already have modules that have nuclear capability, including the B61 - it is no factor whatsoever. The development of an aircraft module does not necessitate implementing nuclear weapons, unless of course the aircraft was solely a nuclear delivery platform, which the Tornado isn't.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

But all of this only applies if we wanted to do nuclear weapons in the first place, which is kinda a meh. Plus they represent a feasibility hurdle as is (even before we delve into how aircraft operate them).

 

To my original point - we already have modules that have nuclear capability, including the B61 - it is no factor whatsoever. The development of an aircraft module does not necessitate implementing nuclear weapons, unless of course the aircraft was solely a nuclear delivery platform, which the Tornado isn't.

 

 

It does unfortunately not only apply if a B61 would be included in a DCS german IDS.

I was trying to say that it applies to nearly everything in the real aircraft regardless of its proximity or interaction with the nuclear systems.

 

If a german IDS is modeled, the developer would have to guarantee that no related data or anything close is included in the model.

 

 

During the Tornado development the nuclear strike capability was the main driving factor, it replaced the UKs V bombers and it's nuclear strikiing role.

In germany the main purpouse was to replace the F-104G's nuclear strike capability. 

"A solely *insert specific role* platfrom" is a hard sell for the scale of european projects but you should not forget that nuclear was its main thing.

 

Which platforms are really developed for solely one purpouse anyway, it doesn't happen very often. 

B-52 was also developed for conventional bombing, so was the B-1.


Edited by Bananabrai
  • Like 1

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2021 at 10:16 AM, Bananabrai said:

I was trying to say that it applies to nearly everything in the real aircraft regardless of its proximity or interaction with the nuclear systems.

I don't get that whatsoever.

I get Panavia classifying anything and everything and being tetchy about it. The UK does exactly the same regardless of how much sense it actually makes.

On 7/6/2021 at 10:16 AM, Bananabrai said:

During the Tornado development the nuclear strike capability was the main driving factor, it replaced the UKs V bombers and it's nuclear strikiing role.

The planned aircraft to replace the V-bombers in the nuclear strike role was the TSR.2 and then the F-111K - both never materialised, so the RAF Phantom FGR.2/FG.1 and Buccaneer S.2B assumed the role, though it was far from the only role. The Phantom still had its air defence role, and both still had their conventional roles, including maritime strike for the Buccaneer.

The Phantom in the strike role was replaced by Jaguar, and then both the Buccaneer, Jaguar and Phantom were replaced by the Tornado.

Apart from the Phantom, all of the above were designed for low-level strike, either using nuclear or conventional weapons (the Buccaneer also placing emphasis on maritime strike, though that role also had the Nimrod MR.2P, firing more capable anti-ship missiles, at least from the mid 80s and onwards AFAIK).

Operationally, the Tornado in British service is probably best known for it's OCA strike role, with the JP223 anti-runway, munitions dispenser. But had the Cold War gone hot, there probably would be more focus on nuclear strike.

However, given that the scenarios we make in DCS are our own, and are basically entirely fictional (even if heavily inspired by real world events), it's up to the ME what aircraft do. And there are popular Cold War gone hot scenarios, that don't necessarily involve nuclear weapons - such as Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising.

But again, all of this is only relevant if we wanted to do nuclear weapons in the first place, which is kinda a meh on the side of users, and a no on the side of ED.

And even if we wanted to, there are more fundamental things that are missing that make nuclear weapons kinda a non-starter in the first place, beyond implementing them as really large, purely conventional bombs, with effects (both graphical, and in terms of weapon modelling) that aren't very accurate with RL at all.

On 7/6/2021 at 10:16 AM, Bananabrai said:

In germany the main purpouse was to replace the F-104G's nuclear strike capability. 

That maybe, but it's far from the Tornado's only role.

I thought the program for the Tornado was to deliver a multi-role combat aircraft - at least that's what the Tornado was first referred to.

And the whole point of the Tornado IDS in general is low-level penetration strike with either conventional or nuclear weapons. Seeing as we'd only get a conventionally armed Tornado if one were to be considered, I don't understand the hang up on nuclear weapons.

As such, I would've thought the main problem with doing a Tornado, is modelling the sensors and EW systems, as well as how the cockpit systems work, and how information is displayed/what the symbology is.

Fortunately though, in early IDS/GR.1s that should be easier compared to later versions.

On 7/6/2021 at 10:16 AM, Bananabrai said:

"A solely *insert specific role* platfrom" is a hard sell for the scale of european projects but you should not forget that nuclear was its main thing.

 

Which platforms are really developed for solely one purpouse anyway, it doesn't happen very often. 

But this doesn't apply to the Tornado, it isn't single role (nuclear strike) - it's main role is low-level penetration strike with either conventional or nuclear weapons. Same as the Jaguar (-ish), same as the Buccaneer S.2B (well, + maritime strike), same with F-111.

On 7/6/2021 at 10:16 AM, Bananabrai said:

B-52 was also developed for conventional bombing, so was the B-1.

So was the Tornado?


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you were brining up that it was not solely developed for nuclear strike and I think you were assuming that that makes a difference for DCS development.

But frankly it doesn't matter, because nuclear strike was part of the requirement.

 

Even though the TSR2 didn't make it, ideas of it then materialized in the Tornado.

So it doesn't matter what should have replaced the V bombers, the Torndo did in the end. That's at least what the V-bomber pilots tell.

 

I value your knowledge but you seem to know everything. And that is not true, other people do know stuff as well.

From my point of view, out of the company keeping the german IDS up and runnning, my knowledge tells me: a Tornado development is possible, but with the normal hurdle plus the nucelar topic making it more complicated than the modules we have to this date.

 

You can believe that or not.

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2021 at 7:42 AM, Bananabrai said:

Well you were brining up that it was not solely developed for nuclear strike and I think you were assuming that that makes a difference for DCS development.

But frankly it doesn't matter, because nuclear strike was part of the requirement.

Which curtails right back to my initial point - nuclear strike is part of the requirement in pretty much every BLUFOR aircraft there is from countries that operate them. Meanwhile, in DCS, said aircraft aren't fitted with nuclear weapons, and nothing relating to nuclear weapons is simulated for any of these aircraft, and nor does it need to be IMO (and it's unfeasible as it stands anyway).

The F-16CM and F/A-18C at least, have nuclear strike as part of their role, not a main part of the role, but it is something they can actually do. But in DCS, neither in DCS have anything implemented, well unless you count the modelling of the nuclear consent switch - which does absolutely nothing and isn't even clickable or animated in the F-16CM.

On 7/8/2021 at 7:42 AM, Bananabrai said:

I value your knowledge but you seem to know everything.

Ha ha what!? 😄 FAR from it I'm afraid. The actual truth of the matter is that I'm a closet dumbass.

On 7/8/2021 at 7:42 AM, Bananabrai said:

And that is not true, other people do know stuff as well.

Both things I couldn't agree more with. What are you even trying to do here?

On 7/8/2021 at 7:42 AM, Bananabrai said:

From my point of view, outw of the company keeping the german IDS up and runnning, my knowledge tells me: a Tornado development is possible, but with the normal hurdle plus the nucelar topic making it more complicated than the modules we have to this date.

And again, if we ignore everything nuclear (y'know like in every module but the one that has nuclear capability) where's the problem?

I understand Panavia classifying everything - that would be the main hurdle for development, particularly the RADAR and RWR (EW is kinda an absent concept in DCS, so I don't think we need to worry about that at this stage in the game).

What I don't understand is this: nuclear strike was part of the role -> nuclear strike isn't feasible for xxxx reasons (all completely valid, and half of them I even brought up) -> therefore the aircraft isn't feasible.

If I've got your argument wrong, and you in fact mean that because nuclear strike was part of the role, everything about the Tornado is classified, regardless of the relation to the nuclear strike role, then I understand what your saying.

On 7/8/2021 at 7:42 AM, Bananabrai said:

You can believe that or not.

Yes, I do believe that nuclear stuff is a no go, are you even reading my posts?

I don't accept it to be a hurdle in module development, because the whole nuclear aspect can and has been ignored in every case but one (where it's poorly implemented for reasons above). If I'm misinterpreting your argument, then please by all means, correct me.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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