Now that we're about to have a WW2 2-eng frontline bomber...

[WarbossPetross]

...can we have a Cold War one? Or more? I'm not talking B-52 and such since they would look awkward on our teeny-tiny maps (within the scope of their range) and would be very complex to model, but, say, Il-28 would not be much different from the Mossie within its intended purpose and stuff. It also had a lot of export sales and plenty of action from the Suez Crisis to Afghanistan (even had a sortie in Vietnam). Another option might be Tu-16, lots of action as well and the ability to carry a FAB-over9000. And of course there is Yak-28, not used in action but capable of supersonic flight and carrying air-to-air missiles (as a dedicated interceptor variant). As for Bluefor, I'm sure a case can be made for EE/B-57 Canberra. I know we're getting A-6 Intruder, but I don't know if it's a Vietnam or Desert Storm variant.

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, WarbossPetross said:

...can we have a Cold War one? Or more? I'm not talking B-52 and such since they would look awkward on our teeny-tiny maps (within the scope of their range) and would be very complex to model, but, say, Il-28 would not be much different from the Mossie within its intended purpose and stuff. It also had a lot of export sales and plenty of action from the Suez Crisis to Afghanistan (even had a sortie in Vietnam). Another option might be Tu-16, lots of action as well and the ability to carry a FAB-over9000. And of course there is Yak-28, not used in action but capable of supersonic flight and carrying air-to-air missiles (as a dedicated interceptor variant). As for Bluefor, I'm sure a case can be made for EE/B-57 Canberra. I know we're getting A-6 Intruder, but I don't know if it's a Vietnam or Desert Storm variant.

How about the A-3 Skywarrior? I'd love to have the B-66, but I could only see that happening as an AI asset. I hope the A-6 is a twofer 

[WarbossPetross]

25 минут назад, upyr1 сказал:

How about the A-3 Skywarrior? I'd love to have the B-66, but I could only see that happening as an AI asset. I hope the A-6 is a twofer 

Carrier-based bomber, are you kidding me?! That would sell like hot cakes!

[upyr1]

Just now, WarbossPetross said:

Carrier-based bomber, are you kidding me?! That would sell like hot cakes!

 I know I'm buying it.

[Tank50us]

We're also getting A-6 remember.

[Silver_Dragon]

 

9 hours ago, WarbossPetross said:

...can we have a Cold War one? Or more? I'm not talking B-52 and such since they would look awkward on our teeny-tiny maps (within the scope of their range) and would be very complex to model, but, say, Il-28 would not be much different from the Mossie within its intended purpose and stuff. It also had a lot of export sales and plenty of action from the Suez Crisis to Afghanistan (even had a sortie in Vietnam). Another option might be Tu-16, lots of action as well and the ability to carry a FAB-over9000. And of course there is Yak-28, not used in action but capable of supersonic flight and carrying air-to-air missiles (as a dedicated interceptor variant). As for Bluefor, I'm sure a case can be made for EE/B-57 Canberra. I know we're getting A-6 Intruder, but I don't know if it's a Vietnam or Desert Storm variant.

 

ED dont make a Mosquito bomber (B) version , has making a Figther Bomber (FB) version. To a "real" bomber need a bomber cockpit with associate sight and launch systems and more weapons (4000 lbs bombs). Heatblur confirmed a A-6 module (E surelly), but that has the last of news three modules to 2022 and after. Actually has none WW2 or early / Med Cold war module confirmed by ED or 3rd parties.

[Ikaros]

12 hours ago, WarbossPetross said:

I'm not talking B-52 and such since they would look awkward on our teeny-tiny maps (within the scope of their range) 

 

Range doesn't matter. I hate how that gets brought up all the time. You can flip that argument so many different ways. Imagine if we lived in alternate reality where the first module released wasn't the Blackshark but people on the forums said, "We don't need helicopters because the Caucasus map is too big compared to the range of most helicopters."

 

While I love the realism of the flight models and systems in DCS and that's why I buy these modules to begin with, if I want to fly a B-52 module to a target 75 miles away or closer from where I took off from that's fine as far as I'm concerned. Most people do not have the time, energy, or interest to do a live action roleplaying 8 hour bombing mission. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a B-52 or other bomber modules though. It's a sandbox simulation.

 

P.S. - There has been B-52's at Red Flag in the past. What do you think the range and flight time for those B-52 missions was?

 

 

[WarbossPetross]

10 часов назад, Silver_Dragon сказал:

 

 

ED dont make a Mosquito bomber (B) version , has making a Figther Bomber (FB) version. To a "real" bomber need a bomber cockpit with associate sight and launch systems and more weapons (4000 lbs bombs). Heatblur confirmed a A-6 module (E surelly), but that has the last of news three modules to 2022 and after. Actually has none WW2 or early / Med Cold war module confirmed by ED or 3rd parties.

Well, that's why I'm posting in the wishlist forum The fundamental bomb sight mechanics are already present in the game, and WW2 bomb sight systems were not all that complicated. A bigger dumb bomb should not be terribly hard to make either. And it's not like it won't have demand seeing how the Spudknocker poll showed that players like to do pure A-G more than pure A-A (multirole is still more popular though, and the Mossie is actually in a great place in that regard).

 

 

6 часов назад, Ikaros сказал:

 

Range doesn't matter. I hate how that gets brought up all the time. You can flip that argument so many different ways. Imagine if we lived in alternate reality where the first module released wasn't the Blackshark but people on the forums said, "We don't need helicopters because the Caucasus map is too big compared to the range of most helicopters."

 

While I love the realism of the flight models and systems in DCS and that's why I buy these modules to begin with, if I want to fly a B-52 module to a target 75 miles away or closer from where I took off from that's fine as far as I'm concerned. Most people do not have the time, energy, or interest to do a live action roleplaying 8 hour bombing mission. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a B-52 or other bomber modules though. It's a sandbox simulation.

 

P.S. - There has been B-52's at Red Flag in the past. What do you think the range and flight time for those B-52 missions was?

 

 

Yeah, sorry, might be some sort of perception bias on my part. Rest assured I would jump at the chance to try it out thanks to the trial period program!

[Silver_Dragon]

30 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

Well, that's why I'm posting in the wishlist forum The fundamental bomb sight mechanics are already present in the game, and WW2 bomb sight systems were not all that complicated. A bigger dumb bomb should not be terribly hard to make either.

 

A Nordem, Lotfernrohr 7, Stabilized Automatic Bomb Sight, Low Level Bombsight, Mark III or Mark XIV bomb sight require extensive research to build them. Has none a easy task. The same situation with a propper radar bombing.

[Northstar98]

+1

Il-28, Yak-28I, Canberra B.6/B(I).6/B(I).8 and a B-57B would be great, even as AI aircraft, and would fit the current early Cold War jets, though the era is poorly fleshed out. 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
spelling

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

+1

 

Il-28, Yak-28I, Canberra B.6/B(I).6/B(I).8 and a B-57B would be great, even as AI aircraft, and would fit the current early Cold War jets, though the era is poorly flushed out. 

The fact the era is poorly fleshed out, is a great reason to have them as well as a host of other aircraft and assets