Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Frostiken]

Every plane has classified info. The A-10 just has fewer than most due to its lack of frills and advanced avionics (relative to say, an F-15E), but it still has an EW system which is fairly classified.

 

 

For the most part, classification levels wouldn't hinder most aircraft much, as the meat of most of it is unclassified as well as basic operation.

 

For example, the specific behavior of jamming radar and the odds of decoying IR SAMs are known to me, but these results are all in a Secret / NOFORN book so ED has to make their best guesses about it. The thing is, since almost nobody but me has access to this, you all wouldn't know any better, so who cares?

 

Secrets are hard to miss when you don't even know they're missing :) Obviously problems would occur where secret information interferes with basic operation, such as the ALQ-128.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Frostiken

[Eddie]

That's cool, I'll cover you from all those nasty migs. Just call the 44th! :P

 

Oh god no, the thought of you guys getting a DCS Eagle scares me. It'd be like giving a 14 year old his very own team of strippers, he'd be dead in an hour from over excitement.

[EtherealN]

Dammit Eddie, I can't rep you. :(

 

That's so funny, and so true. :D

But it would be a good death. :D

[GGTharos]

... you're the one who made this one up. The scary one is you ;)

 

Oh god no, the thought of you guys getting a DCS Eagle scares me. It'd be like giving a 14 year old his very own team of strippers, he'd be dead in an hour from over excitement.

[GGTharos]

Only for you weak people :D

 

That's so funny, and so true. :D

But it would be a good death. :D

[Weasel]

Every plane has classified info. The A-10 just has fewer than most due to its lack of frills and advanced avionics (relative to say, an F-15E), but it still has an EW system which is fairly classified.

 

 

For the most part, classification levels wouldn't hinder most aircraft much, as the meat of most of it is unclassified as well as basic operation.

 

For example, the specific behavior of jamming radar and the odds of decoying IR SAMs are known to me, but these results are all in a Secret / NOFORN book so ED has to make their best guesses about it. The thing is, since almost nobody but me has access to this, you all wouldn't know any better, so who cares?

 

Secrets are hard to miss when you don't even know they're missing Obviously problems would occur where secret information interferes with basic operation, such as the ALQ-128.

 

But I can't imagine that there are enough classified information available for example of the Superhornet or the F-35 to make a Sim on the A-10 level.

[Bumbblbee]

But I can't imagine that there are enough classified information available for example of the Superhornet or the F-35 to make a Sim on the A-10 level.

 

The ANG needed a procedural trainer to allow their pilots to learn all the new changes to the systems of the A-10C in an economical manner. Who's to say that the Navy didn't regard the product that ED/TFC/DCS (whatever the company is that provides software to the military) made a great trainer at a substantially less cost to help their pilots learn the new suite upgrades to the Superhornet? I heard somewhere that it is on average of $9000/hr to operate a fighter. Therefore it could be probable that enough information could be procured by ED to make a sim at the same level of fidelity to A-10C.

For the F-35, don't think you can look in it's direction without some sort of classified clearance.

 

B

Edited September 8, 2011 by Bumbblbee
editing

[Laud]

The ANG needed a procedural trainer to allow their pilots to learn all the new changes to the systems of the A-10C in an economical manner. Who's to say that the Navy didn't regard the product that ED/TFC/DCS (whatever the company is that provides software to the military) made a great trainer at a substantially less cost to help their pilots learn the new suite upgrades to the Superhornet? I heard somewhere that it is on average of $9000/hr to operate a fighter. Therefore it could be probable that enough information could be procured by ED to make a sim at the same level of fidelity to A-10C.

For the F-35, don't think you can look in it's direction without some sort of classified clearance.

 

B

 

It could well be that ED gets a contract by the navy to do a Super Bug Training Sim. Unfortunately that wouldn't neccessarily mean they get the permission to also make a free market sim out of it.

[Sov13t]

Just call the 44th! :P

 

Whos that?

[Daze]

[power5]

Every aircraft has flaws. I don't understand this ridiculous idea that modern aircraft fly themselves and shooting down baddies and dropping bombs is little more than a matter of putting the thing on the thing and the computer does the rest.

 

I would say that compared to an F4 an F22 is that easy. Not that I have ever flown either or talked to pilots of either but I would hope that all the advanced avionics and sensor suites have a reason for existence.

[thaisocom]

It could well be that ED gets a contract by the navy to do a Super Bug Training Sim. Unfortunately that wouldn't neccessarily mean they get the permission to also make a free market sim out of it.

They should be able to use that sim as a base to develop free market sim. I'm sure that not everything is classified, right?

[159th_Falcon]

They should be able to use that sim as a base to develop free market sim. I'm sure that not everything is classified, right?

 

Question is, how much of a realistic Super Bug is left if you take all the classified stuff out.

And does that still fits in ED's quest for full realism.

[Eddie]

Question is, how much of a realistic Super Bug is left if you take all the classified stuff out.

And does that still fits in ED's quest for full realism.

 

Would you, or most people here for that matter, have any idea any of the 'classified' stuff was missing? I'd say almost certainly not.

 

As has been said before by many people, something being classified isn't necessarily a block to developing a sim. Quite often it's the 'how' that's classified, not the 'what'. In other words what a system does may be perfectly open and almost common knowledge, however how it works may be very much secret.

 

For example, what systems such as Radar, ECM, RWR (and other defensive aids systems) do is pretty much common knowledge (excluding the more gucci and technical stuff). But a large proportion of HOW they do it, in terms of both what's visible to the pilot and the software that isn't is highly protected.

 

Now when it comes to making a sim, in most cases you don't need to know HOW for example, a Radar tracks and classifies a target. You only need to know what information is shown to the pilot, after all as long as you can reproduce what the pilot sees with reasonable accuracy you have a good sim.

[159th_Falcon]

No, question still stands though.

If ED needs to take something out because its classified your ending up whit a less realistic superbug. Wether i would know it or not is not relevant here.

Point was, and still is, how much can ED leave out and still be able to release something they are happy whit.

 

Never said or implied it was necessary for a system to be unclassified completely to be able to model it.

Merely that ED needs to make compromises on this subject and that it is part in the decision of whether they can make the module or not.

 

So again, just pointing out its one of those things that ED considers.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

No need to go on the defensive.

 

~S~

 

(and yes, a different formulation may have been better. I'm far from perfect.)

[Eddie]

No, question still stands though.

If ED needs to take something out because its classified your ending up whit a less realistic superbug. Wether i would know it or not is not relevant here.

Point was, and still is, how much can ED leave out and still be able to release something they are happy whit.

 

Never said or implied it was necessary for a system to be unclassified completely to be able to model it.

Merely that ED needs to make compromises on this subject and that it is part in the decision of whether they can make the module or not.

 

So again, just pointing out its one of those things that ED considers.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

No need to go on the defensive.

 

~S~

 

(and yes, a different formulation may have been better. I'm far from perfect.)

 

Nothing defensive about my post, not sure where you got that from.

 

My point is, realism is relative. There are quite a few things missing from A-10C realism wise (some due to classification, some due to contract restrictions and some due to the build standard modelled in the sim compared to what's in use by the USAF). But people who even have any idea what those things might be are by far the minority.

 

So I don't see why (in theory), ED couldn't model a superbug (or anything else for that matter)to DCS standards, provided they have the requried information to start with and any govt contract they had permitted them to do so.

 

The thing is, people automatically assume that just because the superbug is reasonably new the level of classified information would in some make it harder to model than say a Tornado GR4, or F-16C for example. When in fact it is not the case. The number of classified systems, and other restrictions on a 20 year old aircraft in many cases isn't that different to a 2 year old aircraft, at least as far as would be applicable to the development of a sim.

[159th_Falcon]

Looks like were agreeing after all, just things get lost in translation.

 

 

The thing is, people automatically assume that just because the superbug is reasonably new the level of classified information would in some make it harder to model than say a Tornado GR4, or F-16C for example. When in fact it is not the case. The number of classified systems, and other restrictions on a 20 year old aircraft in many cases isn't that different to a 2 year old aircraft, at least as far as would be applicable to the development of a sim.

 

 

Found that last part particularly interesting, didn't know that.

(and yes assumed newer aircraft were "more" classified then older)

[Eddie]

Found that last part particularly interesting, didn't know that.

(and yes assumed newer aircraft were "more" classified then older)

 

Just to add more confusion, it depends how you look at it. As far as what you'd need to know/see to make a sim then there won't be much difference in most cases (there are always exceptions to the rule).

 

But if you look at it from other viewpoints, for example, how many physical components are classified. A new aircraft will generally have a lot more than an older one (Typhoon vs Tornado, Raptor vs Eage for example). But the thing is, to build a sim you don't need to see what's inside all those black boxes or have access the computer code for the software that runs them. And it's those things that are classified, but as all you need to know is what the pilot sees/experiences that stuff is irrelevent.

[thaisocom]

Just to add more confusion, it depends how you look at it. As far as what you'd need to know/see to make a sim then there won't be much difference in most cases (there are always exceptions to the rule).

 

But if you look at it from other viewpoints, for example, how many physical components are classified. A new aircraft will generally have a lot more than an older one (Typhoon vs Tornado, Raptor vs Eage for example). But the thing is, to build a sim you don't need to see what's inside all those black boxes or have access the computer code for the software that runs them. And it's those things that are classified, but as all you need to know is what the pilot sees/experiences that stuff is irrelevent.

With that information they'll be able to provide us a decent sim. :D

[Frostiken]

If ED needs to take something out because its classified your ending up whit a less realistic superbug. Wether i would know it or not is not relevant here.

It kind of is, since they could tell you anything and you'd have to believe it :p

 

Point was, and still is, how much can ED leave out and still be able to release something they are happy whit.

The thing is - I wonder how much, if any, classified material ED has access to. Given that their developers are Russian, probably none, but since they are making a product for the military, it is possible.

 

It's funny that people consider older airframes 'less classified'. I suppose the amusing part of that is that it's a testament to secrets that you don't even know some of these secrets exist.

 

You may know that the TEWS system's actual threat characteristics are classified, but did you know that on the F-15E: [s/NF] One of the ######REDACTED####### #####REDACTED##### #####REDACTED##### #####REDACTED##### moist throbbing!

[hog_driver111th]

The new aircraft will be either the F-16 or F-18 according to Wags new Avatar. I'm thinking they should do both to make everyone a little happy, but there should still be 2-seater and single seat variants.

[VincentLaw]

Not until after DCS: AT-802U, Leclerc, Arleigh Burke, F-86 Sabre, and F8F Bearcat though.

 

Since his latest avatar has two aircraft in it, my only assumption following this logic is that it will be "DCS: F-18 vs. F-16"

[EtherealN]

The thing is - I wonder how much, if any, classified material ED has access to. Given that their developers are Russian, probably none, but since they are making a product for the military, it is possible.

 

Most ED staff is russian, yes. (Teams in Moscow and Minsk, though the correct eponym for the latter team is probably byelorussian.) However, there is also staff in the United Kingdom and the United States, including key staff. Serves to reason that sensitive information might be compartmentalised. (I also guess it could be solved through engaging a third party of the same nationality as the contracting military if there's need, I wouldn't know how they handle such things.)

[digitaljjd]

The new aircraft will be either the F-16 or F-18 according to Wags new Avatar. I'm thinking they should do both to make everyone a little happy, but there should still be 2-seater and single seat variants.

 

 

(chuckle) -That's just wrong of him.

[Wags]

For the record, any avatar image I have is only based on a vehicle I personally like. It has nothing to do with future Eagle products.