First fighter to be added to DCS: Black Shark?

[msalama]

Hey, a C-130 for us transport jocks pretty please! Or maybe an An-2 :D

 

Yah, I'm lame, I know.

[Thorn]

Personally, I am very depressed that the F/A-18 Super Hornet is not present. I like that plane more than any other (carrier-landings are a blast!), and although F-15 Eagle is there, I still wish F/A- 18 Super Hornet was included.

 

I also like the F-16 Falcon, and got somewhat of an appreciation for the MiG-29A Fulcrum. One I haven't played yet, but from the sounds of it I think I would like it, is the A-10A Thunderbolt. I suppose it's a good thing that is the first one, but I hope and pray that the F/A-18 joins the F-15 at some point (and me, being a carrier landing junkie, would love the F-14 Tomcat as well; love those retractable wings!).

 

AH-64A Apache should be great, too!

 

I would also like to see the F-14 Tomcat get some MUCH needed attention in a modern simulator. Those retractable wings and those AIM-54 Phoenix missles with their superior fire-and-forget 100km distance. Too bad they cost the government too much to operate. Same with the F-14 Tomcat - too expensive for the government. So we had to settle with the F/A-18 which is still a nice little jet - just nowhere near as sexy as the Tomcat was though. :smilewink:

 

I'd also like to see the F-4 Phantom II represented as it has one of the longest military histories ever and could also take off from an Aircraft Carrier. :pilotfly:

 

Plus, it would be nice if there were more map options available so that we could run a historical Vietnam War scenario flying either Phantoms or Hueys over the dense jungle terrain and villages scattered below. :thumbup:

[192nd_Erdem]

Hmm Mig-29A version looks a bit problematic to me. When introduced, Mig-29A will have the worst avionics in the sim(talking about A2A). I don't see people having fun trying to get to WVR range to be effective while dodging helluva AIM-120's :)

 

Is Mig-29S data too classified yet? Probably same on R-77(Although I think it's no different than AMRAAM and F-16's). Mig-29S would be a much more balanced addition to the sim.

[Kula66]

:cheer3nc:SEA HARRIER FRS.2:cheer3nc:

excellent, start production ED.

 

Ahhh ... if only.

 

I guess ED are putting off the difficult task of implementing BVR missiles ... although the terrain modelling and AI need need alot of work for more CAS systems IMHO.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Kula66

[RedTiger]

Hmm Mig-29A version looks a bit problematic to me. When introduced, Mig-29A will have the worst avionics in the sim(talking about A2A). I don't see people having fun trying to get to WVR range to be effective while dodging helluva AIM-120's :)

 

Is Mig-29S data too classified yet? Probably same on R-77(Although I think it's no different than AMRAAM and F-16's). Mig-29S would be a much more balanced addition to the sim.

 

The MiG-29A is one of the planes I'm looking forward to the most, actually. See my little list in my signature? Its the only plane that briefly move the F-15C out of the top spot.

 

Part of the enjoyment of DCS is flying aircraft that are a living part of history. Complaining about the avionics in the Fulcrum is like complaining about having to crank start a Ford Model-T. If cranking the damn thing is such a bother to you, you probably don't own a Model-T in the first place. :D Its all part of flying these aircraft the way they were meant to be flown, which is something I try to do in LOMAC presently, albeit more of an exercise in purposeful limitations. ;) The sad thing is, I foresee most people just sticking some of the stuff on their HOTAS. It won't solve everything, but it will be an unrealistic improvement over what the real Fulcrum pilot has to put up with!

 

In anticipation of having the DCS module one day, I bought two manuals online for the Fulcrum. I found it interesting that two (imagine that! Not just one, TWO) manuals had been published for the general public. Not just PDF files mind you, actual books:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mikoyan-Mig-29-Fulcrum-Operating-English/dp/1430313498/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235901923&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.com/MIG-29-Flight-Schiffer-Military-History/dp/0764313894/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235901923&sr=8-2

 

The first is for the German MiG-29G and reads as a basic operation manual. "This is how you fly this plane safely and not get killed" type of thing. There is no mention of how to operate the radar, IRST, etc. It was still interesting to read, especially since I'm hoping to be able to use it as a direct reference to operating the MiG in the DCS module. Despite the lack of info on weapon systems, there is a table for the MiG-29UB training program built into the aircraft that gives a list of simulated target speeds, altitudes, and aircraft behaviors. These simulated radar contacts are projected on the HUD in the front seat as a training tool for the pilot. They give some idea of the capability the designers expected for the FCR.

 

The second manual looks like a translation or partial translation of the Russian MiG-29A manual I have. The translation is rough and imperfect but it gives a fairly clear description of what the pilot can expect out of the FCR. Two things that are of interest to me are the altitude and look-down performance. The manual states that the normal operating altitude is 12,000m, IIRC. It says that this is the regular operational altitude for the Fulcrum. It also states that the look-down range of the radar is "practically the same" as an aircraft that is co-altitude. This directly contradicts some of what others have claimed on these boards. To be fair, the ranges listed also contradict (as in they are much more optimistic) things I've read elsewhere that were attributed to the German Fulcrum drivers. Maybe the manual just doesn't reflect reality? Perhaps the designers' specifications were a bit too optimistic for reality? On the other hand, it does seem to jive with other things; the Fulcrum's radar is primarily meant to display radar contacts on the HUD for the pilot and to guide missiles to those contacts, not search for them.

 

What I'm looking forward to DCS is seeing what ED's take on this seeing as how they're trying to get very close to reality.

Edited March 1, 2009 by RedTiger

[sobek]

Those retractable wings and those AIM-54 Phoenix missles with their superior fire-and-forget 100km distance.

 

AFAIK, the phoenix was meant to intercept bomber-sized aircraft and would hardly have had any chance against a fighter due to it's enormous weight and therefore abysmal turning performance, and while i too like the F14, it's much praised long range interception abilities are IMHO a result of hype and disinformation.

[JKing]

One day, a ground attack plane with a 2 pilot crew would be the ultimate for multiplayer! F-111.

[hawk66]

A tornado would be awesome. I remember playing Digital Intergrations Tornado years ago, my first true flight sim.

 

I fully agree.. I simply love this plane :thumbup:.modeling of a multi-seat aircraft would be really cool.

Of course quite tough to do (AI) although for AH-64 it would be also needed^^.

[Thorn]

AFAIK, the phoenix was meant to intercept bomber-sized aircraft and would hardly have had any chance against a fighter due to it's enormous weight and therefore abysmal turning performance, and while i too like the F14, it's much praised long range interception abilities are IMHO a result of hype and disinformation.

 

 

The AIM-54 was designed to be a long range fire and forget A2A missile and was never really tested in real combat. The AIM-54 was designed to be useful for long range engagements against bombers and/or fighters (especially when they had their backs turned to the incoming missiles). Due to the weight the AIM-54 didn't have great turning performance but the F-14 was able to detect enemy aircraft without the enemy aircraft even knowing they were around and when long-range missles like the AIM-54 start coming at you from nowhere you've got a problem and have to act quick regardless of how poorly the missiles perform.

 

Then if the enemy fighter was foolish enough to head in the direction the AIM-54 missles came from in hopes of finding the F-14 that launched them, he's greated with incoming AIM-7 Sparrow (medium range) and AIM-9 Sidewinder (short-range) missles - both of which have been proven to be very effective killers - especially the Sidewinder.

 

 

The only real problems with the AIM-54 was A) It cost a helluva lot of money per missile B) Could hardly use it in real life combat due to strict "Beyond Visual Range" (BVR) rules that made it impossible for US F-14 pilots to ever use them against enemies that weren't within visual range. These rules of engagement (ROE) were established to prevent pilots from downing any friendlies or innocents that they could not physically see or being able to "identify friendly or for (IFF)" with 100% certainty. C) The AIM-120 AMRAAM was developed and proved to be more effective (better performance) and still had great range that still goes beyond visual range - just not as much as the AIM-54 by about 25km.

 

In realistic terms this makes sense as AIM-120s are a little cheaper and the extra range the AIM-54 offered proved to be pretty much useless in real world warfare due to these strict BVR rules that real life pilots have to take into account. But in a simulator, the AIM-54 is one helluva nice weapon to use as we simmers don't have to worry about friendly casualties and innocent school children like the real pilots do. We can simply sit back and launch missiles and paint the sky and ground with fire without a care in the world! God I love simulators! :joystick: They allow you to do all the "fun stuff" that God and Government forbids!

Edited March 1, 2009 by Thorn

[GGTharos]

Just by 25km?

Estimated AMRAAM-C useful range: 105km.

Recorded drone shoot-down by AIM-54: 263km.

 

B) was quite irrelevant in the naval scenario where they'd be laying 54's down against groups of bombers and incoming ASMs.

[Ramstein]

Please note that anything beyond the A-10C is not completely certain at this point in time, things may change in the future.

 

9-10 months is a rough estimate of the devs, but no promise. ;)

 

I just read this now.. maybe I forgot what was said, after a couple of months..

 

MY mind was running wild of what can/could/should be added. Now,...I had to read that 6x. Guess we need to be happy with what we have.. and don't wish too much..

:pilotfly:

[sobek]

Due to the weight the AIM-54 didn't have great turning performance but the F-14 was able to detect enemy aircraft without the enemy aircraft even knowing they were around and when long-range missles like the AIM-54 start coming at you from nowhere you've got a problem and have to act quick regardless of how poorly the missiles perform.

 

And just how can an active radar seeking missile stay undetected?

 

PS: Damn, i've done it again and hijacked a thread, plz pm me if you want to continue this discussion.

[MBot]

The AIM-54 was designed to be a long range fire and forget A2A missile and was never really tested in real combat.

 

Never tested in combat, except over 40 kills in IRIAF service. Including one triple kill/probable quadruple kill and a couple of double kills (with one missile each). Admitted this was against fighters with no or poor RWR, still it is a impressive achievement.

 

Sorry for going OT, one of my pet subjects... :)

[CE_Mikemonster]

Sea Harrier FRS.2 ('SHar') (to be back on topic)

 

Though really it's a modern single seat carrierborne all weather fighter/bomber - sorry to disappoint..!

 

Due to the weight the AIM-54 didn't have great turning performance but the F-14 was able to detect enemy aircraft without the enemy aircraft even knowing they were around and when long-range missles like the AIM-54 start coming at you from nowhere you've got a problem and have to act quick regardless of how poorly the missiles perform.

 

They would indeed seem to be coming out of nowhere if you hadn't seen the F-14's radar on your RWR (as far as i'm aware).

 

 

And just how can an active radar seeking missile stay undetected?

 

Yup, it'll be detected when it comes down from the stratosphere - and if you can time it right i'm sure it can be relitively easily defeated by a fighter (after they crap themselves).

 

Now shake hands :) (jk hehe)

 

No definate concrete info on Iranian AF use of Tomcats, but a lot interesting snippets. And of course all those accounts of Iraqi pilots running away when they were bugged by it's radar (Edit: in Desert Storm -- "Aaaaargh!!!! Well maintained big-dogs!")

Edited March 1, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

[MBot]

No definate concrete info on Iranian AF use of Tomcats, but a lot interesting snippets. And of course all those accounts of Iraqi pilots running away when they were bugged by it's radar (Edit: in Desert Storm -- "Aaaaargh!!!! Well maintained big-dogs!")

 

If you are interested on the subject, I can recommend these books by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop:

 

-Iran-Iraq War in the Air 1980-1988

-Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat

 

also very interesting is 'Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat'

 

 

Those were real eye openers for me regarding the Iran-Iraq war.

[GGTharos]

An ARH seeker can stay undetected if your RWR isn't looking for it - or at it. The 54 can potentially come down with a pretty steep angle, outside of RWR limits, but whether it does so is questionable.

 

IIRC beyond 60 or 90nm, I forget which, they had to be launched in STT to hit.

[CE_Mikemonster]

If you are interested on the subject, I can recommend these books by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop:

 

-Iran-Iraq War in the Air 1980-1988

-Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat

 

also very interesting is 'Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat'

 

 

Those were real eye openers for me regarding the Iran-Iraq war.

 

I am fairly interested in the subject, and had heard of 'Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat', but not the other one. I'll Amazon it (thanks!).

 

I respect the sources, just meant it wasn't definate. I mentioned the maintenance on account of the US not providing spare parts following the Revolution (though I believe parts were sourced from middle-men).

Edited March 1, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster
forgot to say thanks lol

[Kula66]

Sea Harrier FRS.2 ('SHar') (to be back on topic)

 

Though really it's a modern single seat carrierborne all weather fighter/bomber - sorry to disappoint..!

 

As far as I know, they are scapped/being scrapped - certainly no longer in UK service.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/07/harrier_jet/

[Mebey]

Please release the Mi-24V in a timely manner. The Nemeth Designs Hind for FS9 is fun and all, but to have this aircraft (my favorite of all time) would truely be a joy for me. Flying insertions in EECH v1.11 is all fine and dandy, but it is hardly a study sim. Evacuating casualties from a FARP to a proper airfield. Unloading rockets into a treeline before evacuating special forces from a compromised position. Deploying special forces for patrol in inaccessable terrain. Listening to the chatter in a coop game as your escort desperately tries to keep you alive to meet mission objectives. Laying down suppressing fire as your wingman descends to recover an ejected pilot that has been avoiding enemy patrols for hours. Descending to rescue an ejected pilot as your wingman provides cover.

I enjoy the flying as much as the exploding of various objects. Additional requests I would make in regards to this helicopter.

1) Good AI on the gunner crewman. The 'WSO' in Hind was superhuman.

2) Variable action. On at least a couple of missions in a campaign, you should complete your task with no enemy contact. Instill a sense of 'you never know what to expect'.

3) Add the Moskova to available ships. I hope I spelled it right, this is the helicopter carrier. Is it called an assault ship or something?

 

I know the thread title was intended for fighters, but seeing as people were sneaking other stuff in there, I thought I would add my feelings. When I get a hang of the abris and flare system, I hope to see some of you in online flights. Thank you for reading.

[CE_Mikemonster]

As far as I know, they are scapped/being scrapped - certainly no longer in UK service.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/07/harrier_jet/

 

Yeah well noticed mate, was hoping that would slip under the radar.. ;) +1 rep

 

On the other hand though, there are only what, 12 Ka-50's? (in the model that we fly - and not many of different models). I'm sure the only reason these have been retained is to justify building them. Basically they are combat prototypes lol

[Krippz]

I would really love to see a flyable F-16 in Black Shark; but we'll see.

[VMFA117_Poko]

I would really love to see a flyable F-16 in Black Shark; but we'll see.

Well I wonder if ED could achieve signing some military contracts for viper desktop simulator in other no-US country who fly F16s...

[159th_Viper]

Taking Bets......£5 says it's a Hornet after the Hog ;)

[joey45]

I doubt we'll see the bug.

[topol-m]

I`ve got news guys. The Bug IS coming in the next DCS module. :cheer3nc: Here`s the first screen:

 

 

Edit: D@mn, it`s pretty. :crazy:

Edited December 13, 2009 by topol-m