Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[nomdeplume]

Well, even though the DCS series is aimed at high-fidelity simulation, it's still a game. Things like small fuel capacity can be nullified by cheats such as unlimited fuel or reduced consumption, or an AI helper for air-to-air refueling so it's not such a pain for those who aren't very good at it and don't have the interest/dedication to learn it, etc.

 

Even the lower payload isn't that much of an issue, given that most real-world sorties have pretty specific objectives and only take the required munitions for that. In a previous page someone mentioned how you need to be more 'mission-focussed' if you go from 6 Mavs to 4; and even carrying 4 is pretty rare for real-life A-10 ops (if you need more weapons delivered, you send more planes).

 

There's always that conflict around the 'simulation' side of realistic payloads and mission objectives, and the 'game' side of wanting to blow up everything on the map in a single outing. And this seems to apply even to the more hardcore realism junkies, since you invest a fair bit of time to get the jet up and running and over the target area, and to make a single pass and head home may be completely realistic, but it can feel like a bit of a pointless exercise.

 

That said, an airframe that doesn't have the capability to carry enough weapons to destroy a battalion single-handed in one sortie might encourage more realistic scenario design, and maybe give ED an excuse to focus more on higher-level AI to make it easier to build scenarios that remain coherent and interesting if the player egresses to re-arm and re-fuel several times in the same mission session.

 

Or dare I say it... dynamic campaign. :D Or at least improved 'campaign persistence' - just something to make the more realistic sorties with only a small direct impact feel more 'worthwhile'.

[Hurricane]

What will come next depends on more than just EDs wish list.

F-22 and F-35 are to new and for now are to secret to give us a real simulation. The US Airforce wont give highly restricted informations away, espacialy not to Russians :D

F-15E and F-18E are designed for a Pilot AND a WSO and we all know EDs talent to create verry good AIs so i don't think we will see one of them... So what is left?

F-15C is in my Opinion to much a Fighter... Nearly no real Air-to-ground capacity even if it can carry dump bombs it is not able to deliver Mavericks, HARMs, GBUs and so on...

F-18Cs Payload is to little. Every Player wants to kill anything he can see so we maybe have to start with 5% fuel and refuel after take off from CVN-60...

And last but not least F-16... Multi Role, nice Payload and the only Aircraft wich is abel to carry and deliver ANY USAF weapon but single Engine -.-* F-16 is able to act as a Air-Superiority Fighter, Escort Fighter, Fighter-Bomber, Small tactical Bomber and SEAD-Flight so maybe it's all we need in DCS...

[Zakatak]

If we had carriers close enough to shore, as well as circling tankers, and a Blue coalition airfield with ground maintenance...

 

Plenty of F/A-18 weaponry?

 

Because despite combat range and payload, it would be a blast to fly. 60 degrees angle of attack, catapult launches, etc etc etc. Somebody will say "it lacks speed", but so did the A-10 and I had a blast flying that beast.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Zakatak

[Zakatak]

Another idea I don't think has been mentioned! And I've convinced myself it was the Hornet the whole time.

 

Did you guys forget about the AV-8B?

[Hurricane]

Harrier and A-10 have their own Tasks ofcause but they also have too much identical jobs... Harrier is not as good in CAS as the A-10 but better as a true bomber theirfore the A-10 is more a Tankbuster... But both AA capability isn't really good!

You must think of what do we need? We don't need the Harrier cause the A-10 fits the Air-to-ground part good enough and the Harrier ist not a multi-role or a fighter and we truly need a Fighter/multi-role Aircraft. Also we need a SEAD Aircraft and the Harrier also isn't the best for that job, too. More than the A-10 ofcause but that's obvious^^

[Laud]

Every Player wants to kill anything he can see

 

Uhm... NO! Definately not...

[Hurricane]

Well... We vJaBoG32 not :D But 30 guys are not just 1% of the DCS Community :P

[digitaljjd]

Yeah.. litte too fast. So we can still hope on F-16.

 

I've still got my fingers crossed. I'd prefer a F-16. If you think about it, ED actually released F-16 WIP cockpit images, Olgerd is currently bidding on F-16 manuals on Ebay, so who knows? The F-18C website could be disinformation for competitors, or next, or just on the future list. I still think we won't get a hint about what's next until after X-mas of this year.

[GGTharos]

Not only can the F-18C do all of that, but it can deploy a larger variety of weapons. And likely more of them; the F-16 has zero payload advantage over the F-18C in practice.

 

And last but not least F-16... Multi Role, nice Payload and the only Aircraft wich is abel to carry and deliver ANY USAF weapon but single Engine -.-* F-16 is able to act as a Air-Superiority Fighter, Escort Fighter, Fighter-Bomber, Small tactical Bomber and SEAD-Flight so maybe it's all we need in DCS...

[Frostiken]

At least the F-16 has more power behind it.

[GGTharos]

That it does. With every new iteration of those engines too ... are they putting the 132's in it now? For anything more, they'll have to start going to raptor or lightning engines!

[OB1]

At least the F-16 has more power behind it.

 

Don't these engines have even more power ?

[Frostiken]

No, because the F/A-18 weighs significantly more.

 

Maybe in terms of total thrust, but a thrust/weight ratio greater than 1 is what's desired, which the F/A-18 cannot do.

[GGTharos]

You can take one of those hornet motors and shove it into an F-15/F-16 motor and still have quite a bit of room left ... does that answer your question? :D

 

And no, actually, the MiG-25's engines don't provide more thrust (or a whole lot more thrust) than the F-15's engines ...

 

Don't these engines have even more power ?

[Shinigami]

Well I don't know what's the fuzz with tiny payload in F/A-18, if the more important issue is if it going to be carrier op or not. :D

 

Shinigami Out...

[Shinigami]

Also if the Israelites are right a Mirage couldn't catch a Mig-25 first gen so I'm guessing that and F/A-18 is more like the coyote and the roadrunner version with a Mig-25

:D

 

Shinigami Out...

[GGTharos]

MiG-25's are made to go fast. That's all they do. Go fast. As has been proven this shrinks SAMs WEZ's and Fighter WEZ's, making fast aircraft good for reconaissance in certain places.

[Shinigami]

MiG-25's are made to go fast. That's all they do. Go fast. As has been proven this shrinks SAMs WEZ's and Fighter WEZ's, making fast aircraft good for reconaissance in certain places.

 

So they have more thrust/weigh ratio than a F/A-18 right, cause I doubt that a F/A-18 is heavier than a Mig-25.

[GGTharos]

Actually they have less ... their engines put out about 45000-50000lbs thrust on afterburner, the empty MiG-25 weighs in at 44000lbs. That is the weight of a loaded F-18, which has about 35000lbs of thrust on afterburner, IIRC.

[OB1]

Im a noob when it comes to aircraft and how they actually behave but just grabbing some quotes off the wiki..

 

"With a top speed of Mach 2.83+" and.. "The MiG-25 could reach Mach 3.2, but resulted in the destruction of the engines"

 

assuming those statements are true ? I don't think an F-A/18, F-16 or F-15E would match.. or would it ?

[Haggart]

Yeah, it could, but only if someone's there to pay parts, fuel and pilot to do so.

[GGTharos]

The MiG-25's engines were based on single-use supersonic cruise missile engines. That's where this self-destruct issue comes from ... if you drive them past a certain RPM, they 'run away' and keep increasing the rpm and there's nothing you can do to stop them. You can pull the throttle back, it won't help :)

 

As for other aircraft matching the speed? No. Their aerodynamics are not made for that - more specifically, neither the F-18 or F-16 are meant to operate at such high supersonic speeds, nor are their engines. First of all, they have fixed intakes, which means supersonic air cannot be slowed down to recover thrust at high speeds ... so the faster they try to go, the less thrust they get.

 

They're also both pretty draggy. ;)

 

F-15E? ... uh, why even mention that? Unless you want to strip it of all the A2G stuff ... specifically the CFTs. /Could/ an F-15 match those speeds? Yes. But the engines won't make it. They aren't made to run at the temperatures required, and will melt down once you pass about M2.3 - after this, you have a limited time of operation before you render the engines either unmaintainable or destroy them outright.

 

The F-15 with its superior TWR would probably out-accelerate a MiG-25 though.

 

Im a noob when it comes to aircraft and how they actually behave but just grabbing some quotes off the wiki..

 

"With a top speed of Mach 2.83+" and.. "The MiG-25 could reach Mach 3.2, but resulted in the destruction of the engines"

 

assuming those statements are true ? I don't think an F-A/18, F-16 or F-15E would match.. or would it ?

[Haggart]

The MiG-25's engines were based on single-use supersonic cruise missile engines. That's where this self-destruct issue comes from ... if you drive them past a certain RPM, they 'run away' and keep increasing the rpm and there's nothing you can do to stop them. You can pull the throttle back, it won't help :)

 

And it reached this speeds by a "normal" built engine, to add this. No Ramjet-tech! (Which would be an kinda interesting technology mix... anyone an idea for a fighter with a turbo fan- AND an ramjet-drive?

[OB1]

Always enjoy reading your posts GGTharos, very informative :D

[GGTharos]

Yeah, it's called a turbojet ... which is what the MiG-25's engines are - IIRC!

 

The rear part - your afterurner, really - is the ramjet part.

 

The more bypass - the more turbofan-like your engine becomes. The less by-pass, the more turbojet-like. It depends on what you want out of the engine. Turbofans provide a lot of power and economy in the subsonic range, and recently became capable of supercruising. Ramjets (and by some extension, turbojets) operate best and more economically at supersonic speeds (compared to turbofans - except for them dang supecruisers) - but don't quote me on this, I'm not really an engine expert. A lot of old planes used to use turbojets, and the truth is that supersonic fuel economy is worse than subsonic fuel economy usually.

 

And it reached this speeds by a "normal" built engine, to add this. No Ramjet-tech! (Which would be an kinda interesting technology mix... anyone an idea for a fighter with a turbo fan- AND an ramjet-drive?

Edited June 27, 2011 by GGTharos