? North American A-5 Vigilante

[toni]

Do you see any sense to a module like this ?

 

[sirrah]

An iconic aircraft for sure, but personally I think I'd get bored fairly quickly in it, considering its reconnaissance role.

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by sirrah

[Northstar98]

Personally, not for the time being, though I don't think I would say no (it's probably better off as an AI aircraft though, but in that case, I think I'd rather get a proper E-2C, EA-6B and SH-3H as core units).

• It predates all of our aircraft carriers (it was retired in 1979, our Forrestal at the earliest is post SLEP i.e ~1984 - 1993, CVNs 71-75 are from the mid-to-late 2000s). Of course nothing stopping you from using them but it wouldn't fit very well (and there are no other appropriate aircraft from the era yet to go with it).
• For the A-5A, it was primarily a nuclear strike aircraft - nuclear weapons aren't really supported in DCS (and so far only the RN-24 and 28 are implemented, but no differently to a conventional explosive, albeit a very large one). AFAIK the A-5A and RA-5C, did have conventional capability (though never utilised on the latter).
• As the RA-5C (far more common) its primary role (reconnaissance) isn't really supported all that well in DCS.

[Exorcet]

I've always liked the aircraft, would love to have it as a module. Would also be interesting to land something so large on a carrier.

  

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

• As the RA-5C (far more common) its primary role (reconnaissance) isn't really supported all that well in DCS.

 

The most common model doesn't have to be one chosen for DCS though, if we're choosing to model a specific aircraft a rare one is just as good as a mass produced version.

[Northstar98]

6 hours ago, Exorcet said:

The most common model doesn't have to be one chosen for DCS though

I never said modules have to be the most common, but the RA-5C also saw the most action, it's by far the most applicable variant to Vietnam for instance.

6 hours ago, Exorcet said:

if we're choosing to model a specific aircraft a rare one is just as good as a mass produced version.

Only if you ignore historical context.

Not the case here, but also a more common aircraft might have better potential to be used as a stand-in for other operators (F-4E is an easy example).

Of course, users need not care about any of that - I don't think any particular scenario is necessarily more valid than any other. You're quite right that an aircraft doesn't have to be the most common to be chosen (hell, there's hypothetical/paper stuff I'd be interested in, though I'd prefer operational types). But there absolutely is an argument for developing a more common variant over a rare one.

I personally am someone who likes to have scenarios historically coherent (which in practice means having modules and assets that are contemporaries that fit with each other, on historically relevant theatres where they were based/saw action or at least visited IRL), so that's why I brought it up.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Northstar98

[Exorcet]

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I never said modules have to be the most common, but the RA-5C also saw the most action, it's by far the most applicable variant to Vietnam.

 

Oh I know, and I didn't mean to insinuate that you did, just electing to point it out.

15 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Only if you ignore historical context.

 

The way I look at it, the niche models are just interesting historically. They may not have had as much of an effect as a more common one, but they played their own role which can be just as interesting to explore - especially in the context of DCS where we can very easily get into hypotheticals.

16 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Not the case here, but also a more common aircraft might have better potential to be used as a stand-in for other operators.

 

That is very true and I think it can be an important consideration in choosing a DCS module.

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Of course, users need not care about any of that - I don't think any particular scenario is necessarily more valid than any other. You're quite right that an aircraft doesn't have to be the most common to be chosen (hell, there's hypothetical/paper stuff I'd be interested in, though I'd prefer operational types). But there absolutely is an argument for developing a more common variant over a rare one.

I personally am someone who likes to have scenarios historically coherent (which in practice means having modules and assets that are contemporaries that fit with each other, on historically relevant theatres where they were based/saw action or at least visited IRL), so that's why I brought it up.

 

I definitely understand the appeal of historical accuracy. I'm willing to make concessions, but for the most part I stay close to real world or plausible situations. I won't disagree with someone seeking to add more historic options to the sim, I just don't think the most common model is always the automatic or superior choice.

[Silver_Dragon]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Personally, not for the time being, though I don't think I would say no (it's probably better off as an AI aircraft though, but in that case, I think I'd rather get a proper E-2C, EA-6B and SH-3H as core units).

• It predates all of our aircraft carriers (it was retired in 1979, our Forrestal at the earliest is post SLEP i.e ~1984 - 1993, CVNs 71-75 are from the mid-to-late 2000s). Of course nothing stopping you from using them but it wouldn't fit very well (and there are no other appropriate aircraft from the era yet to go with it).
• For the A-5A, it was primarily a nuclear strike aircraft - nuclear weapons aren't really supported in DCS (and so far only the RN-24 and 28 are implemented, but no differently to a conventional explosive, albeit a very large one). AFAIK the A-5A and RA-5C, did have conventional capability (though never utilised on the latter).
• As the RA-5C (far more common) its primary role (reconnaissance) isn't really supported all that well in DCS.

Nuclear, Biological and Chemical attacs and bombing has banned by ED on DCS World. The RN-24 and 28 has only big High Explosive bombs... with a abysmal explosion effect, never get implement any nuclear effects on them outside a funny effect and "server killer". The problem of the A-5 was A version never was implemented as a conventional bomber. The same situantion with RA-5C... the DCS recon funcionality has implemented, and only some stubs by Heablur, and lack any use on the core. Others bombers on a similar situation was the B-58 and Mirage IV.

[BomberEW]

I love this jet.  I agree with some of the post on having other assets of the time period for historical accuracy.  With a Vietnam map coming, that will be even more important.  I think DCS can expand to include aircraft like this with the dynamic campaign.  If you can simulate taking photos or SAR maps in a way that this aircraft performed them and make that contribute to the battlespace development and target generation then I think it would be great especially as MP/multi-crew grows.  It would be awesome to fly a sortie in a RA-5C taking photos and radar imagery, and then that being turned into targets for the next campaign event.  Then doing a follow-up sortie to assess the damage.  Even better if a friend or AI version could do it for you too.  I think tactical reconnaissance should be explored.  I would love a RA-5C or RF-4 one day. 

[sirrah]

4 hours ago, BomberEW said:

...  With a Vietnam map coming, that will be even more important... 

Off topic, but can you please share a link to this news? 

 

(Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right.. maybe something for the upcoming "2024 and beyond" video teaser)