Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Dudikoff]

I'd make the argument that while you can say they're fairly 'generic' with a few exceptions, the F-15E is the superpowered version of the three

 

Agreed, that's why I separated the F-15E out and in an earlier post mentioned that I hope it's the one coming up next out of the given options.

 

1) Classification level for the F-15E is still pretty high on a few things, as it's still undergoing *very* active modding and upgrading. While the A-10 finally got the A-10C to 'modernize' them, the F-15Es in the past four years have undergone at least two extensive modifications.

 

Well, I guess the precise capabilities and behaviour of some systems are what's really being classified here. The computer simulation can only go so far to approximate the real world conditions as it basically simulates the end result of these systems as presented to the user and not their real life operation (e.g. it doesn't simulate the radar by a real time physics simulation of EM wave propagation in space and bouncing back of in game objects).

 

The potential problem with this classification and the DCS platform selection being based on real world contracts is that we might get an F-15E from 1998 or smth, an A-10C from 2007+, a Su-27 from the late 80s, etc. which IMHO goes against the DCS concept of integrating these platforms in a somewhat realistic multiplayer experience.

 

 

2) The USAF may very well be in need for an F-15E simulator / trainer. I'll mention that the most up-to-date computer-based simulator I've seen and used by the USAF for the F-15E is made by Boeing, and it's extremely poor. There's no cockpit to hit switches, only bare minimum. No emergency procedures or anything, it's basically just a bare-bones drop-bombs-on-Vegas trainer. Given the active development of the F-15E I would not be surprised to see demand for a trainer program.

 

That's a bit odd considering that Boeing seemed to have something much more advanced for the F/A-18E (they had this computer based simulator in Dubai Air Show with a full single seat cockpit and HOTAS and a rounded projector based display covering some 120 degrees or so; unfortunately, I'm only guessing to how detailed it was as I only glanced over it on the way to the flight program outside and they usually closed up the simulator by the time the show was done). It's not that they're not selling the F-15E versions, too.

[GGTharos]

Well, I guess the precise capabilities and behaviour of some systems are what's really being classified here. The computer simulation can only go so far to approximate the real world conditions as it basically simulates the end result of these systems as presented to the user and not their real life operation (e.g. it doesn't simulate the radar by a real time physics simulation of EM wave propagation in space and bouncing back of in game objects).

 

You don't really need to simulate that physics that much. Yes, it gives you 'more', but you can cheat and achieve a reasonable effect anyway. Now, will someone take care to model processing failure rates (which aren't known), ECM/ECCM (which we can guess at, but are complex and will lead to whining), and things like IFF echoes or LOS issues? Maybe. It's just that all this stuff, even when cheating, is complicated. Really complicated.

 

The potential problem with this classification and the DCS platform selection being based on real world contracts is that we might get an F-15E from 1998 or smth, an A-10C from 2007+, a Su-27 from the late 80s, etc. which IMHO goes against the DCS concept of integrating these platforms in a somewhat realistic multiplayer experience.

 

Most of the Su-27's are old 80's Su-27's today, excluding Indian and Chinese flankers (at least a bunch of Chinese flankers, anyway).

A lot of F-15E's are still running around with old hardware or upgraded versions thereof, and since we won't get details on upgraded systems (like ICMS, and even the CMDs) it won't matter much.

[Scrape]

A lot of people say the F 15E is too classified to be an effective sim, but that's not true. The F16 would be harder to model currently than its younger cousin. I'm thinking about SEAD here. The A10C carries modern 'smart' weapons as well as the Striike Eagle. The e model carries so many different weapons if you left out ... SDBs who would notice? The engines aren't classified and there is data readily available from the c model a2a capability. (Note I'm aware they do not fly the same). AG radar would need researching, but Janes did it wayyy back when, so....one would believe its possible.

[GGTharos]

A lot of people say the F 15E is too classified to be an effective sim, but that's not true. The F16 would be harder to model currently than its younger cousin. I'm thinking about SEAD here.

 

What's hard about modeling SEAD?

 

The A10C carries modern 'smart' weapons as well as the Striike Eagle. The e model carries so many different weapons if you left out ... SDBs who would notice? The engines aren't classified and there is data readily available from the c model a2a capability.

 

Really? You got a copy of -34's that are out in the public domain that I'm not aware of? :)

As for the engines, I don't see why that makes a difference for an F-16 ...

And by the way, I'd miss SDBs. They're sort of a big deal.

[Frostiken]

Actually the only avionics systems I can think of where classification would cause problems modeling it 'properly' (ie: missing features) would be AN/ALQ-128 EWWS (which is a black hole of classification, would not even be functional in the sim) and some aspects of radar. ICMS could be dealt with in a 'good enough' fashion with some creative liberty - honestly all I'd really expect, even as an F-15E avionics tech, is the right symbology on the TEWS scope and maybe degradation from part failure / damage. There's plenty of unclassified stuff about ICMS you can find that will give you enough of an idea of how to model both of those.

 

And yeah, SDBs on the F-15E are a must, as technically you would end up carrying more god damn bombs than you could probably find things to drop them on :D I would also royally flip the **** out if we didn't get GBU-15 / AGM-130s.

 

PS: Scrape, some F-15E uses different engines from the C-model, and they all have a different radar package. Basing them off the C-model might be 'good enough', but the AN/APG-70 has better ground mapping capabilities, and the P&W -229s are more powerful. Also the E-models aren't getting AESA anytime soon if you were referring to that.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Frostiken

[GGTharos]

Actually the only avionics systems I can think of where classification would cause problems modeling it 'properly' (ie: missing features) would be AN/ALQ-128 EWWS (which is a black hole of classification, would not even be functional in the sim) and some aspects of radar.

 

You can model it as a generic aspect of the jammer. There is NO information for ANY EW receivers for any aircraft whatsoever, so you assume it picks up everything properly with maybe some small failure rate. It's not an F-15 issue only I think.

 

ICMS could be dealt with in a 'good enough' fashion with some creative liberty - honestly all I'd really expect, even as an F-15E avionics tech, is the right symbology on the TEWS scope and maybe degradation from part failure / damage. There's plenty of unclassified stuff about ICMS you can find that will give you enough of an idea of how to model both of those.

 

There's documentation that is classified but available out there that shows certain TEWS things ...

 

And yeah, SDBs on the F-15E are a must, as technically you would end up carrying more god damn bombs than you could probably find things to drop them on :D I would also royally flip the **** out if we didn't get GBU-15 / AGM-130s.

 

That would just not be an E without'em! :P

 

PS: Scrape, some F-15E uses different engines from the C-model, and they all have a different radar package. Basing them off the C-model might be 'good enough', but the AN/APG-70 has better ground mapping capabilities, and the P&W -229s are more powerful. Also the E-models aren't getting AESA anytime soon if you were referring to that.

 

There's very good documentation for how to model the engines, or at least the aircraft flight envelope, including the -229's I think. Unfortunately as far as radars go, even old -34 fragments are hard to come by, which isn't surprising.

[Jona33]

. Unfortunately as far as radars go, even old -34 fragments are hard to come by, which isn't surprising.

 

Ok then. We don't get the strike eagle. It really needs the radar realistic. Or else what's the point of a training sim that doesn't simulate the radar properly.

[Scrape]

What's hard about modeling SEAD?

 

 

 

Really? You got a copy of -34's that are out in the public domain that I'm not aware of? :)

As for the engines, I don't see why that makes a difference for an F-16 ...

And by the way, I'd miss SDBs. They're sort of a big deal.

 

Ok so SDBs are desired lol. The AGM 130 isnt allowed in the AOR anymore although its still used in training, so leaving it out wouldn't be so bad. Besides the pilots are not too fond of it. When I mentioned SEAD being a problem, I'm talking about AGM 88s and certain avionics functions and weapon capability that got Janes in trouble.

[Scrape]

Actually the only avionics systems I can think of where classification would cause problems modeling it 'properly' (ie: missing features) would be AN/ALQ-128 EWWS (which is a black hole of classification, would not even be functional in the sim) and some aspects of radar. ICMS could be dealt with in a 'good enough' fashion with some creative liberty - honestly all I'd really expect, even as an F-15E avionics tech, is the right symbology on the TEWS scope and maybe degradation from part failure / damage. There's plenty of unclassified stuff about ICMS you can find that will give you enough of an idea of how to model both of those.

 

And yeah, SDBs on the F-15E are a must, as technically you would end up carrying more god damn bombs than you could probably find things to drop them on :D I would also royally flip the **** out if we didn't get GBU-15 / AGM-130s.

 

PS: Scrape, some F-15E uses different engines from the C-model, and they all have a different radar package. Basing them off the C-model might be 'good enough', but the AN/APG-70 has better ground mapping capabilities, and the P&W -229s are more powerful. Also the E-models aren't getting AESA anytime soon if you were referring to that.

 

I'm aware of the differences between 220s and 229s. I'm a 2W1.

[Jona33]

So the F-15E is going to be to classified for DCS to model properly by the sound of it. Ah well.

[GGTharos]

Pre-briefed, target of opportunity and self-defense modes. Knowledge of these is available in public at this time. You'll notice that JDAMs aren't exactly perfectly modeled either, at least AFAIK ... such things will naturally have to be simiplified for reasons of either secrecy, or just not really being useful in a sim.

 

Ok so SDBs are desired lol. The AGM 130 isnt allowed in the AOR anymore although its still used in training, so leaving it out wouldn't be so bad. Besides the pilots are not too fond of it. When I mentioned SEAD being a problem, I'm talking about AGM 88s and certain avionics functions and weapon capability that got Janes in trouble.

[Jona33]

Fair enough. But the SDB's are important. They're a useful weapon. SEAD can be an interesting mission.

[Laud]

SEAD is only interesting, when your weapon has aprox the same range as the SAM (or even a bit less)! ;)

 

With the A-10 it's kinda boring for example, to kill Strelas with GBU-38s from 20k ft...

[Jona33]

It's a good point that. Destroying Shilka's is hardly a SEAD strike but SEAD isn't the only mission type you have in the game.

[sobek]

SEAD is only interesting, when your weapon has aprox the same range as the SAM (or even a bit less)! ;)

 

I disagree. If you don't have preprogrammed SAM site locations, you may need to bait the radar so you can send a HARM at it. A HARM is no good unless the radar is active, at some point.

[asparagin]

I disagree. If you don't have preprogrammed SAM site locations, you may need to bait the radar so you can send a HARM at it. A HARM is no good unless the radar is active, at some point.

 

This and also there is also alternating radar sources..SEAD is a lot of fun anytime!

[Frostiken]

SEAD

HARM

SEAD

SEAD

SEAD

 

How cute :)

 

[Laud]

You talk about a lot of "if"s. So it needs "if"-conditions to be added for SEAD-Missions to become fun! ;)

 

So the mission design leaves also a lot of room for boring SEAD-Missions.

;)

 

SEAD can for sure be big fun! ... as long as the mission is well designed.

 

And yes, working with the AGM-88 ;) would of course be fun!

 

:)

[Frostiken]

Well... sort of. I mean fundamentally the AGM-88 is 'Oh look, a radar spike' *pickle, turn away*. It's even easier than a Maverick.

[GGTharos]

AFAIK Self-Protect mode can even launch it automatically, though given the amount of 'd'oh' that could cause, I doubt they use it that way :P

 

Well... sort of. I mean fundamentally the AGM-88 is 'Oh look, a radar spike' *pickle, turn away*. It's even easier than a Maverick.

[Frostiken]

Didn't a Patriot radar get demolished that way?

[GGTharos]

I don't know the details, but something along those lines. AFAIK the pilot wasn't punished, and I heard a couple interesting things, such as the signal being interpreted as an SA-2 by the RWR ... which is possible, but again .. unconfirmed details.

[Frostiken]

For what it's worth, that's fairly plausible - RWR systems have to be incredibly sensitive to very minute signals, so damaged coaxial wiring could cause enough attenuation of a signal for it to be mistaken as something else.

 

 

 

Or some boob loaded the wrong OFP into the pod XD

[nomdeplume]

My favourite is the B-52 that was accidentally hit by a HARM that homed on the fire-control radar of its tail gun.

[RoaringBones]

I really want to Fly The Tornado,Eurofighter and Saab's and also just for Kicks Mitsubishi F1 and F2 gotta thrown Japan after all :).