A-7D

[upyr1]

I know the planned variant is the A-7E however is there any chance of getting the A-7D?

I know there is some difference in the cockpits and the refueling systems are different. I understand if there are no plans to  have the D in this module but I'd be interested in another

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, from what I found out the differences are minimal, they're basically the same airframe with the same engine. There are some differences in the antennas they fitted, so the bulges on the fuselage are in different places, and there's some other small details (the launch bar is gone, for one), but besides the AAR system I couldn't find anything so different that it would affect the FM. I think it could be less work than going from F-14B to A.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[western_JPN]

External shape's differences are almost so.

When A-7D will be made as flyable, cockpit instruments positions are quite different between D or E.

[Dragon1-1]

Positions, yes, but don't they basically work the same? Comparing to coding and FM development, artwork is easy. 

[felixx75]

14 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Actually, from what I found out the differences are minimal, they're basically the same airframe with the same engine. There are some differences in the antennas they fitted, so the bulges on the fuselage are in different places, and there's some other small details (the launch bar is gone, for one), but besides the AAR system I couldn't find anything so different that it would affect the FM. I think it could be less work than going from F-14B to A.

 

If there are nearly no differences, why would you want to have a "D"...?

Edited January 20, 2023 by felixx75

[Exorcet]

26 minutes ago, felixx75 said:

If there are nearly no differences, why would you want to have a "D"...?

 

So that I'm not bothered by seeing the Air Force flying a Navy plane out of airbases.

[felixx75]

10 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

So that I'm not bothered by seeing the Air Force flying a Navy plane out of airbases.

Just use an Air Force skin...
 

[Fromthedeep]

5 minutes ago, felixx75 said:

Just use an Air Force skin...

Lipstick on a pig.

[Dragon1-1]

Mostly for boom AAR, TBH, and for flavor. It'll work the same, but look slightly different. A skin would almost work, except it won't be able to refuel at an AF tanker. 

It works out that way because the A-7E, as mentioned earlier, was pretty much a Navy A-7D. This is a remarkably rare situation.

[Spurts]

A-7 as a whole was still a Navy plane first.

[AG-51_Razor]

So was the F-4 Phantom, what's your point?

[felixx75]

1 hour ago, AG-51_Razor said:

...what's your point?

 

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

because the A-7E, as mentioned earlier, was pretty much a Navy A-7D

It was the other way around.
This is his point 

Edited January 20, 2023 by felixx75

[Dragon1-1]

Well, you could say the AF stole it from the Navy, fiddled with it and the Navy liked that so much they stole it back.  

[upyr1]

11 hours ago, felixx75 said:

If there are nearly no differences, why would you want to have a "D"...?

 

If they are almost identical except the refueling system then why not make it a twofer pack?

[Stackup]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

If they are almost identical except the refueling system then why not make it a twofer pack?

You can always ask the same thing in their Discord, not sure how active they are on the forums.  It would still be a decent amount of work to get it correct as the exterior model and the cockpit layout would need to be altered, not just the refueling system.  Also, this is their first DCS project and they may not want to expand the scope right now as they also have a lot of other planes they are working on for MSFS as well so it's not like this is the only thing they are doing.  Maybe we'll see it in the future, but I don't expect an A-7D to be announced before the release of the A-7E.

[Andrew8604]

If the A-7D & E are so close to the same, it should be easy to release both, or the "D" closely following the "E".  Looks like there are difference in instrument panel arrangement, and of course the in-flight-refueling receptacles.

I'd like a version of the A-7B, with the TF30-P-8 engine and a pair of MK-12 20mm cannons (like the A-4 Skyhawks had).  But I don't figure that will happen, so I'll be contented with the "E" model.

[Stackup]

4 hours ago, Andrew8604 said:

If the A-7D & E are so close to the same, it should be easy to release both, or the "D" closely following the "E".  Looks like there are difference in instrument panel arrangement, and of course the in-flight-refueling receptacles.

Remember, this is DCS.  "Soon" could mean years if they even decide to do a D model.  Look at the F-14.  It took about a year after initial launch to finally release the first iteration of the F-14A.  Basically all the A model changed in its initial implementation was the engines.  It released as essentially just the F-14B we already had, but with TF-30 engines.  Of course the B now has it's digital engine tapes and there are more differences but we're going on 4 years since release.

Every project and company is different, but don't expect that minimal changes makes it quick and easy to release a different variant of an aircraft.  There could be difficulties in changing things such as the refueling system that we don't know about and it's not as simple as just changing some numbers around.

[FlankerKiller]

Let's just get the Eco first. But IN THE FUTURE a Delta would be sweet. The biggest difference I think was the ability to carry the USAF Maverick for AT use. I think it was basically in the same role that was later filled by the A-10. It would be a cool nich jet. But the Eco saw way more late cold War action. 

[Spurts]

42 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

I think it was basically in the same role that was later filled by the A-10. 

Eh, an A-7 driver I know who was around for the A-10 eval would say otherwise.  Remember the A-10 was slower than a P-47 and had about as advanced of a cockpit.  A-7 had color moving map navigation, great range, and precise bombing capability.

[FlankerKiller]

4 hours ago, Spurts said:

Eh, an A-7 driver I know who was around for the A-10 eval would say otherwise.  Remember the A-10 was slower than a P-47 and had about as advanced of a cockpit.  A-7 had color moving map navigation, great range, and precise bombing capability.

  How many A-7Ds are currently in service? How many Iraqi tanks were killed by A-7Ds?

  I agree with your friend. I actually think the A-10 was a mistake. ED I love your A-10, but I'm speaking of IRL. Most of the A-10s tank kills were with Mavericks. The A-7D carried Mavericks. The A-10 has a better gun that is devastating against infantry, trucks, and light armor. But the F-16 has made good use of its gun against the same targets. The F-16 dose kinda plug the same role as the A-7, but I don't think it has the legs, or the carrying capacity of the A-7. Ultimately the Air Force had the F-15E, and the A-10 which they saw as superior in their respective roles to the A-7D. But the A-7 Could do both close air support and deep penitrateing ground attack roles do a fairly decent degree. Unfortunately for the A-7 while stull effective there were other aircraft that were ether more generalized, or more specialized its role. Now most CAS gets carried out with bombs. Could you imagine A-7 we will call it a G. One upgraded with GPS/INS, a targeting pod, data links, and 15,000lbs worth of laser JDAMs. 

[Spurts]

Funny you mention CAS being done with bombs.  An A-10 driver I spoke to talked about how in the recent conflicts A-10s were just slow F-16s.  They did CAS with JDAMs from 15,000ft using a TGP.

[Spurts]

Here is a recent quote on the A-10 from that A-7 (and A-37, F-101, F-102, F-16 pilot)

[Bremspropeller]

I think Gums also once wrote and linked an article on why the A-10 wasn't a good replacement for the SLUF but rather a good companion. It's got to be somewhere on the net. Was in an old Air Force magazine IIRC.

[FlankerKiller]

On 1/25/2023 at 8:09 AM, Spurts said:

Funny you mention CAS being done with bombs.  An A-10 driver I spoke to talked about how in the recent conflicts A-10s were just slow F-16s.  They did CAS with JDAMs from 15,000ft using a TGP.

Exactly my point. You can even see it here on DCS. By far the best AT weapons are the Mavericks, and CBU-97/105. If you can be High, and get closer, or have a JTAC the good old GBU-12 is a good option. I'm using the A-10C here as it fits into the 2005ish time frame of most of the modern DCS units. You can build a CAS mission, fly it with both the A-10C and F-16, then work out which one you think is the best bird for the job. In vary high threat environments I definitely prefer the F-16. It's speed let's me release weapons from farther away from the threat, and beat it out of there. The SLUF was only slow compared to super sonic fighters. It could still toss a bomb pretty far. With the upgrades the A-10C got it would have been pretty useful in both the high threat arena that is was made for. And the coin low threat arena the A-10 exelled in. Even in Desert Storm I believe it would have out performed the A-10. I'm talking about the D model. It was about twice as fast as an A-10, so it could have made more runs into Southern Iraq to launch Mavericks against Iraqi tanks. Something the A-10 did not perform as well at as many people think. There was a reason the F-111 had to be pushed into the tank killing role. And for all of those reasons I do hope that one day they will consider a late A-7D. In a Red Storm Rising scenario it would definitely have been a key player. 

[Spurts]

I didn't know if anyone else here would know who Gums was.