B-1B Lancer

[DarkSideMaster]

There are no bombers in the DCS. There are fighters, attack aircraft, multi-purpose aircraft. But why is there not a single bomber? In the video 2023 and beyond, this aircraft (B-1B) was shown.

Does it know that it is planned to be implemented in the simulator? 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by DarkSideMaster

[Silver_Dragon]

8 minutes ago, DarkSideMaster said:

There are no bombers in the DCS. There are fighters, attack aircraft, multi-purpose aircraft. But why is there not a single bomber? In the video 2023 and beyond, this aircraft (B-1B) was shown.

Does it know that it is planned to be implemented in the simulator? 

 

 

By Wags on FB, missing the Weapon and System manuals to build them. The B-1B, B-52 and S-3B show on "2023 and Beyond" has only AI updates from old LOMAC/FC on progress by ED.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Probably not. They're a bad fit for the present size of DCS maps and probably are missing major information to effectively make.

[Tank50us]

And before someone chimes in with a wiki article or Global Security link, here's a thing to remember... we may know what weapons the BONE can carry, but what we don't know is how the Lancers crew interacts with those weapons, and how those weapons are properly employed.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Tank50us

[Vampyre]

From Growling Sidewinders video about 2023 and beyond-

Matt "Wags" Wagner

19 hours ago

Thanks for the video, GS. A few comments:

While we’d love to do a bomber like a B-52H or B-1B someday, the required reference materials are not available. While the basic aircraft operations covered in a TO -1 are, the sensor, weapon, defensive systems, datalink, comm, etc. systems covered in a TO -34 are not publicly available. So, at least for now it can only be an AI.

 

The original comment can be found here- F-4 Phantom Soon ?? | DCS WORLD | 2023 AND BEYOND | Breakdown | - YouTube

 

 

[Gorn557]

Oh I so desperately want multicrew bombers...

[Yuri909]

On 1/6/2023 at 12:39 AM, Tank50us said:

we don't know is how the Lancers crew interacts with those weapons, and how those weapons are properly employed.

 

Several B-1B crew members have popped up on reddit and stated even if it could be modeled - the systems would not be fun to operate as a multicrew because of how complex they are. And I think that's a pretty compelling argument against it and a major reason why multicrew bombers will likely fail conceptually for a long time. I know there are people who would try - I would be one of them - but it probably wouldn't be a financial success. 

 

20 hours ago, Vampyre said:

the required reference materials are not available. While the basic aircraft operations covered in a TO -1 are, the sensor, weapon, defensive systems, datalink, comm, etc. systems covered in a TO -34 are not publicly available. 

I'm personally a huge fan of the B-1B, but the fact that so much of it is still classified means it's just not going to happen.

 

 

[Fromthedeep]

6 hours ago, Yuri909 said:

Several B-1B crew members have popped up on reddit and stated even if it could be modeled - the systems would not be fun to operate as a multicrew because of how complex they are.

Same thing was said about the F-111.

[Gorn557]

5 hours ago, Fromthedeep said:

Same thing was said about the F-111.

Anybody could make this claim about any aircraft. For some, learning the complexity IS the fun. 

[Silver_Dragon]

5 hours ago, Fromthedeep said:

Same thing was said about the F-111.

The F-111 has on the same situation with a A-6E

[Rick50]

Well there IS the Mosquito for bombers! Not exactly heavy though, nor moderrn.

From the point of view of DCS modules, I think some bombers are likely to eventually appear, and other bombers are NOT likely. The B-1B and B-52 are on my "probably not likely" list because you'll need 4 to 6 crew stations to properly operate them. Developers looking to code such beasts would have a steep uphill climb, and a lot of buyers might be put off by the reality of those crew stations that don't have large windows. Same for a Bear or Backfire, Hustler.

 

Bombers that will probably be developed, eventually? A-6 Intruder, F-111 Aardvark... at least there, both will have a view of the action, and two buddies doing a mission coop multiplayer could be great fun, and a nice way to initiate non-pilots into enjoying a flight sim. 

Even those might run into issues for Devs, needing documents to be available and legal for public use outside the USA. And the rights holder to the original aircraft might deny a licensing deal or permission to depict the aircraft.

I also think that WW2 era bombers are probable soon. B-17's, B-29 Superfortress... I think those are quite doable for DCS, because the workstations are somewhat simple compared to the jet heavies, and often revolve around manning a gun station.

[Fromthedeep]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The F-111 has on the same situation with a A-6E

Not really and even the A-6E is a great example, Cobra said that they placed it towards the end of their current roadmap because it has very unique features that they have to develop before they can actually work on the systems of the module.

 

32 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

Even those might run into issues for Devs, needing documents to be available and legal for public use outside the USA. And the rights holder to the original aircraft might deny a licensing deal or permission to depict the aircraft.

 

Absolutely, and it's a great challenge with the A-6 as well. I do agree with you that a B-17 or something like that would likely be the easiest way to tackle this problem, virtually no issues with sensitive data, relatively simple systems compared to even an A-6 or F-111 (let alone a B-1) and it would be fun for sure.

[BuzzLine]

We could do with older Cold War bombers, like a B-47 or an Avro Vulcan. I'm not sure the B47 ever carried conventional bombs so it's probably out, but we all know the Vulcan did ! And ... we do have a South Atlantic map

[Exorcet]

On 1/5/2023 at 11:40 PM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Probably not. They're a bad fit for the present size of DCS maps and probably are missing major information to effectively make.

Map size isn't really a reason to keep them out. Plenty of people play fly compressed missions, it wouldn't be any different with a bomber. Besides they don't just use their fuel for range, but also for endurance.

15 hours ago, Yuri909 said:

Several B-1B crew members have popped up on reddit and stated even if it could be modeled - the systems would not be fun to operate as a multicrew because of how complex they are.

That's what a lot of people say about the simulation genre in general. The people doing it for a living might be more likely to call it boring than someone looking from the outside. The module also doesn't have to be strictly multicrew. Give it AI like the F-14. The player can stick to mostly flying and employ other systems when they want.

[Gorn557]

On 1/7/2023 at 7:59 PM, BuzzLine said:

We could do with older Cold War bombers, like a B-47 or an Avro Vulcan. I'm not sure the B47 ever carried conventional bombs so it's probably out, but we all know the Vulcan did ! And ... we do have a South Atlantic map

And whoever said it's out if it's not conventional? Like it or not, nuclear tactics were the backbone of huge swaths of both the USAF and Soviet Air Force for the better part of half a century - it's high time someone simulate it! Imagine the possibilites- flying low over the pole at Mach 2 in your B-58 in the dead of night, praying you won't be detected by the Tu-128s as you skim along at 100 ft above the water...

I realize this will never be in DCS because much of the relevant data has never been declassified. 

[F-2]

4 minutes ago, Gorn557 said:

And whoever said it's out if it's not conventional? Like it or not, nuclear tactics were the backbone of huge swaths of both the USAF and Soviet Air Force for the better part of half a century - it's high time someone simulate it! Imagine the possibilites- flying low over the pole at Mach 2 in your B-58 in the dead of night, praying you won't be detected by the Tu-128s as you skim along at 100 ft above the water...

I realize this will never be in DCS because much of the relevant data has never been declassified. 

Well supposedly ED doesn’t want nuclear in DCS. But if said bomber has conventional capabilities maybe?

[Gorn557]

9 minutes ago, F-2 said:

Well supposedly ED doesn’t want nuclear in DCS. But if said bomber has conventional capabilities maybe?

Understandable- it doesn't make for great gameplay when you have a weapon which would be the chess equivalent of kicking over the table with the board on it (although the DCS MiG-21 has nuclear weapons, though it's not an ED plane and they're not very realistic at all).

[F-2]

4 minutes ago, Gorn557 said:

Understandable- it doesn't make for great gameplay when you have a weapon which would be the chess equivalent of kicking over the table with the board on it (although the DCS MiG-21 has nuclear weapons, though it's not an ED plane and they're not very realistic at all).

I believe the Mig was either before the police change or possibly inspired it. I might be misremembering too but I think it’s the case.

[Kev2go]

On 1/6/2023 at 7:19 AM, Vampyre said:

From Growling Sidewinders video about 2023 and beyond-

Matt "Wags" Wagner

19 hours ago

Thanks for the video, GS. A few comments:

While we’d love to do a bomber like a B-52H or B-1B someday, the required reference materials are not available. While the basic aircraft operations covered in a TO -1 are, the sensor, weapon, defensive systems, datalink, comm, etc. systems covered in a TO -34 are not publicly available. So, at least for now it can only be an AI.

 

The original comment can be found here- F-4 Phantom Soon ?? | DCS WORLD | 2023 AND BEYOND | Breakdown | - YouTube

 

 

B52H manuals are about as  "publicly available" as F16 manuals they used for the viper. Unless they have a different definition of what that means.

 

wish ED would just admit they dont want to do a B52, thats its too much effort for too little $$$ return. Kind of how they beat around the bush with not wanting to admit Lantirn existed for the F16C circa 2007, instead of just trying to explain they didnt want to spend resources trying to model an older targeting pod. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Kev2go

[F-2]

https://www.scribd.com/document/639334350/kuchinski1984
 

paper on apg-66 family with some good basic info on APQ-164.

[Vampyre]

If you have about two hours its a pretty good watch. There are a few redundancies between the presenters but the cockpit parts were interesting... The B-one can give fuel back to the tanker. 

 

[mkellytx]

On 6/11/2023 at 7:17 PM, Kev2go said:

B52H manuals are about as  "publicly available" as F16 manuals they used for the viper. Unless they have a different definition of what that means.

 

wish ED would just admit they dont want to do a B52, thats its too much effort for too little $$$ return. Kind of how they beat around the bush with not wanting to admit Lantirn existed for the F16C circa 2007, instead of just trying to explain they didnt want to spend resources trying to model an older targeting pod. 

 

ISTR that several years ago there were B-52 AMI manuals posted, some were even -34’s, but those were taken down, so they likely weren’t supposed to be out there.  There’s also the problem of the EW station, which had classification markings as of the last time I flew the jet.  Then there’s also the strat radar, which while old school is still THE strat radar on the most numerous SIOP platform.  Who knows after they get the new radar and engines maybe they could do a 2005ish BUFF except for the upper two rear stations.

[Kev2go]

3 hours ago, mkellytx said:

ISTR that several years ago there were B-52 AMI manuals posted, some were even -34’s, but those were taken down, so they likely weren’t supposed to be out there.  There’s also the problem of the EW station, which had classification markings as of the last time I flew the jet.  Then there’s also the strat radar, which while old school is still THE strat radar on the most numerous SIOP platform.  Who knows after they get the new radar and engines maybe they could do a 2005ish BUFF except for the upper two rear stations.

 

all aircraft that are currently in DCS, their IRL counterparts have classified supplements for EW suites. ED or all 3rd parties just use non classified docs to model EW suites in airframes.  you don't need any classified supplements for what is done in dcs.

The manual pertaining to the EWO station ( TO- 1B-52H-1-13) is about as accessible as the other dash 1's.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Kev2go

[mkellytx]

7 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

all aircraft that are currently in DCS, their IRL counterparts have classified supplements for EW suites. ED or all 3rd parties just use non classified docs to model EW suites in airframes.  you don't need any classified supplements for what is done in dcs.

The manual pertaining to the EWO station ( TO- 1B-52H-1-13) is about as accessible as the other dash 1's.

 

Indeed, I have a copy of it.  Quite notably there are things left off of the line drawings that are at the station.  I’ve sat at that station, and the equipment has classification markings on it.  FWIW, when I flew BUFF’s we discovered that a NATO TPS student did a quail eval flight without the station being hidden by a curtain which resulted in a major pain in the @$$ security investigation.  That was 15 years ago so things may have changed…

[Silver_Dragon]

The last video of Sinai, show more B-1B new IA, with details of countermasure launchers. Waiting to see progress on the bomb bays. Not bad that model will be use to a "pilotable" module or someone start to build a "cockpit" for tersting.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Silver_Dragon