AI aircraft that are sorely missing.

[John Day]

Anyone can make a wish list of their favourite AI aircraft and to date I have not seen a single one added to the game. Because of this, I am going to approach my request by highlighting the number of current maps and potential maps that these AI aircraft would be suited to. Hopefully, this might highlight how much of an asset each of these aircraft would be for our enjoyment of DCS.

 

General Dynamics F-111 ( Iraq - Top end Australia - Cold War Europe - Nevada - Vietnam )

Harrier GR3 ( Cold War Europe - South Atlantic )

KC-10 ( Cold War Europe - Iraq - Syria - Afghanistan - Nevada - Kola - Caucasus - Persian Gulf - Marianas )

F-105 Thunderchief ( Cold War Europe - Nevada - Vietnam )

Tristar KC1 ( Iraq - Afghanistan - Persian Gulf - South Atlantic - Cold War Europe - Kola )

VC-10 K3 ( Iraq - Afghanistan - Persian Gulf - South Atlantic - Cold War Europe - Kola )

Tornado F3 ( Iraq - Cold War Europe - South Atlantic - Kola - Nevada )

F/A-18E + G ( Iraq - Syria - Kola - Caucasus - Nevada - Marianas )

Sepecat Jaguar GR1/3 ( Iraq - Cold War Europe )

Westland Lynx ( South Atlantic - Cold War Europe - Iraq - Kola - Nevada - Caucasus )

Westland Puma  ( South Atlantic - Cold War Europe - Iraq - Kola - Nevada - Caucasus )

Choctaw/Wessex  ( Vietnam - South Atlantic - Cold War Europe - Nevada - Caucasus - Kola - Top End Australia )

CH-46  ( Vietnam - Cold War Europe - Nevada - Caucasus - Kola - Iraq - Syria - Persian Gulf - Marianas )

 

This list is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to aircraft not represented in game. I hope that by highlighting the theatres that these aircraft have operated in, that it will provide some emphasis on how sorely they are missing.

[draconus]

Ju-87, Il-2 - Europe WW2

F6F, F4U, SBD, A6M, B5N - PTO WW2

A-7, A-6/EA-6B/KA-6 - USN CW

MiG-29K, Su-35S, Su-57, B737, C150 - modern

 

[upyr1]

Anything Korean war and Red For East front. 

[F-2]

Su-30mk

 

old MKI desktop sim developed with flanker engine

https://web.archive.org/web/20030621173542/http://supermaneuver.narod.ru/

flight model code ripped by flanker team

 

https://ryanporto.com/wiki/aerospace/su-37-flight-control-system/
flight control law

 

Quote

 

N011M Bars is an upgraded phased array antenna version of the N011.

 

Under development since the early 1990s, two prototype N011M radars were produced, of which one was flight tested in Su-27M prototype "712". It is now in production, and is currently fitted to the Su-30MKI.

 

Antenna diameter is 1m, antenna gain 36dB, the main sidelobe level is -25dB, average sidelobe level is -48dB, beamwidth is 2.4° with 12 distinct beam shapes. The antenna weighs 110kg. It is both mechanically and electronically scanned to give increased field of view over a fixed phased array antenna and also to allow the radar to be tilted away when not in use, decreasing RCS. Two variants were initially proposed, the first was both electronically and mechanically scanned in azimuth (±30° mechanically plus ±60° electronically, for a total coverage of ±90°) and electronically scanned in elevation (±60°). The second was mechanically and electronically scanned in both azimuth and elevation (±90° in both axes).

 

The N011M fitted to the Su-30MKI was the first type, but in testing the passive phased array proved unable to be electronically steered greater than 40° without unacceptable degredation of performance. Therefore scanning limits are reduced to ±70° (±30° mechanically, ±40° electronically) in azimuth and ±40° in elevation.

 

Peak power output is 4-5kW, average power output is 1.2kW.

 

Ts200 PSP (Programmable Signal Processor) 

Data entry speed: 28 MHz

Peak performance on fourier transforms of "butterfly" type: 75 Million operations per second.

 

Radar control processor 

Number of processors: 3 

Processor RAM (or possibly Flash memory): 16 Mb 

Processor ROM: 16 Mb

 

Weight of complete radar system is 650kg.

 

Initially India were supposed to construct both programmable signal processors (PSP) and data processors (RC) under project "Vetrivale" to replace the original Russian components. Unfortunately, LRDE expressed their inability to develop the system within the envisaged time frame, especially in view of the non-finalisation of the required technical specification by NIIP. The project therefore reverted to the Ts200 PSP originally designed for the Su-27M's N011. The initial radar data processor delivered was also Russian.

 

The contract for the N011M radar has three stages. The initial MK1 software was tested in 2002 and supplied with the first Su-30MKI deliveries. NIIP were finalising the 2nd stage (MK2), still using the Russian data processor, in October 2003, while testing on the final (MK3) revision had also begun. MK3 incorporates the Indian-designed Vetrivale RC (radar computer) based in the i960 architecture. Currently in 2004 MK3 is still in testing. While MK2 implements most of the modes above, full capability will only be met with the 3rd stage radar.

 

The construction, the operating system and the applied ”Bars” radar control system software support fully are compatible with Western standards, which allows their upgrade without changing the logic of the radar control system’s operation.

 

The computer technology is executed in Western military standard form factor (Compact PCI).

 

A Bars' test radar is said to have detected Su-27 fighters at a range of over 330 km, tracked several targets while volume scanning, and correctly identified aerial targets.

 

Air to air modes

 

Velocity Search

Range While Search

Detection range in headon engagements: 120-140km

Detection range in tailchase engagements: 60km

Track While Scan of 15 targets

Precision Tracking up to 4 targets for engaging targets while continuing volume search.

Scanning zone while tracking is given as 5,500 square degrees in one document, while another says targets can be tracked anywhere in the 80° tracking zone of the radar while continuing to scan. A ±40° azimuth by ±40° elevation scan area like this suggests would be 6,400 square degrees.

Target Illumination; generation of radio update commands for BVR AAMs.

Track ECM source

Raid Assessment while scan

Target Identification while scan

On switching on of this mode, the “Bars” radar control system determines the type of aerial target detected through the parameters of the signal reflected from the target. Identified generic target types include “large target,” “medium target,” “small target,” “group target,” transport airplane, helicopter, and jet airplane. Upon introduction into the database of the appropriate spectral characteristics, this mode can identify exact aircraft types. The technique is thought to be based on on identifying engine type from the signal modulation induced by rotating engine compressors. 5 targets can be identified in 1 second, while the radar continues to volume scan and track other targets.

Several close combat modes for search, lock-on and tracking of a single aerial target in close-in maneuvering combat.

Limits:

Azimuth: ±3° or ±10°

Elevation: -15/+40° or ±7.5°

Air-to-ground modes

 

Real beam mapping

DBS mapping

SAR mapping

Moving ground target selection

Measuring of ground target coordinates and tracking up to 2 ground targets

Range, a railroad bridge: 80-120km

Range, group of tanks: 40-50km

Best resolution in SAR mode: 10m

Anti shipping modes

 

Long range detection of huge sea targets

Sea surface scan and detection of sea targets

Range against a destroyer sized target: 120-150km

Moving sea target selection

Measuring of coordinates, tracking up to 2 sea targets, moving or stationary

Naval target ID

Mixed modes

 

Search air-to-air targets while tracking ground or sea targets

Track one ground target while simultaneously firing at an aerial target in long-range combat"

 

Bars N011M info

 

 

I think an AI asset is possible 

 

[smoking_ace420]

F-111, this is probably more important to have for late Cold War missions than any on that list. Why did they even remove it?

[Northstar98]

• EA-6B Prowler ICAP II
• E-2C Hawkeye Group 0
• SH-3H Sea King
• S-3A Viking
• EA-3B Skywarrior

Preferably, in that order - then alongside Heatblur’s AI A-6E and KA-6D Intruders (if they ever materialise), the early F-14A-135-GR and FlyingIron’s A-7E Corsair II we’d have a complete air wing for the Forrestal’s (and fleshing out late Cold War USN aviation nicely).

Beyond that:

Tu-16 family (chiefly the Tu-16K-26P [Badger-G Mod], Tu-16K-10-26P [Badger-C Mod], Tu-16P Buket [Badger-J] and Tu-16RM-1 [Badger-D]), preferably in that order.

These aircraft would do wonders for fleshing out Cold War - Soviet VMF aviation on the Kola map.

Then to flesh out Cold War-era maps and aircraft carriers.

• Sea Harrier FRS.1 - HMS Invincible, South Atlantic
• Harrier GR.3 - South Atlantic, Germany
• A-4Q Skyhawk - ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, South Atlantic
• Super Étendard - South Atlantic
• F-4G Wild Weasel V - Germany, Iraq

The Invincible and Veinticinco de Mayo are completely devoid of applicable aircraft, so getting at least one AI type for each would be fantastic. The Harrier GR.3 would work wonders on the Germany map (particularly if we get RAF Gütersloh) and would fit very well on the South Atlantic map.

The Super Étendard on the South Atlantic map was one of (and if it weren’t for limited quantities of AM39) the primary threat facing the Royal Navy task force. The AM39 would also fit Iraqi Mirage F1EQ-5/6 aircraft (and Aerges already have an AM39 Exocet model).

The F-4G would also be a great addition, though probably for Heatblur - making alterations to the F-4E model (hard wing, AN/APR-38/47 antennas, Heatblur already have an AGM-78 Standard ARM model)

Edited January 24 by Northstar98

[bies]

And in my opinion AI assets shouldn't be made in such extremely detailed way. Except for YT video external view you will never be able to see them so closely to even notice such details.

And super detailed models cost ED whole lot of money and time.

To be fair every AI air/ground/navy asset (except for aircraft tankers and aircraft carriers) should be just high quality - good enough. Not phenomenal, close to flayable module quality. As 10 good quality assets are better then 2-3 super high quality which in practice player will never be able to see anyway.

Edited January 24 by bies

[draconus]

4 minutes ago, bies said:

in practice player will never be able to see anyway.

I see them every mission very close on the carrier deck, or the apron, then in flight in formation. Some helis land on the ships and close to other assets at FARPS. We also have CA, drivable units. There's no going back in fidelity, it's 2025. But I agree we don't need multiple variants of every unit (for now) if some important others are missing entirely.

[bies]

25 minutes ago, draconus said:

I see them every mission very close on the carrier deck, or the apron, then in flight in formation. Some helis land on the ships and close to other assets at FARPS. We also have CA, drivable units. There's no going back in fidelity, it's 2025. But I agree we don't need multiple variants of every unit (for now) if some important others are missing entirely.

I agree and all you've described require just high quality. Not full fidelity-like quality. Full fidelity-like extreme detail are visible only from ~5m where you're observing the object from external camera. It just kills the graphic card memory, causes micro-freezes during merge, generating big cost and time for the developer. Some reasonable high quality compromise should be found. Especially for the ground unnits.

Better optimalization and big battles are more important, realistic and engaging -  than every single antenna and hand handle of the single Tiger tank being modeled.

[upyr1]

 

23 hours ago, draconus said:

There's no going back in fidelity, it's 2025. But I agree we don't need multiple variants of every unit (for now) if some important others are missing entirely.

The real question is how many variants do we need of a given unit? That would need to be dictated by  whatever the minimal number to cover the service period and major weapons changes  For example let's take a look at the B-5 .

Only 3 B-52 variants saw combat the D, G, and H. I have the H in a modern configuration which will only be correct for scenarios before 1992 when they removed the tail gun. 

I believe when the H had the gun the only noticeable difference between the G and H were the G had .50 calibers while the H had a vulcan. The D had a different vertical stabilizer. I think if we went by the "good enough standard" So at a bare minimum the only additional Buff we would need is the G as we would get the tailgun which be necessary for a period correct cold war B-52.