Which aircrafts are actually possible for DCS?

[Vympel]

I suspect that it may be quite some time before we see a contemporary (not necessarily new) fighter aircraft modeled in DCS.

 

The great advantage of helicopters or CAS aircraft is that quite detailed knowledge of the airframe performance or avionics capabilities is only of very limited use to a potential adversary. The same is quite definitely not true of aircraft designed for air-to-air combat.

 

I don't believe it is an accident that the currently modeled aircraft are a semi-obsolete attack helicopter and an old - albeit recently re-furbished - CAS aircraft.

[bumfire]

They catch fire, they can't take off when it's hot, they have no radar, the NAVWAS sucks...on the plus side, the RR Adour engines are good at drying your hair...;)

 

Umm, you quite sure about that ? because if thats true, then they wouldnt of been flying and fighting in Gulf War 1, yes I know, the Desert is a really Cold place :lol:

It was the very early Jags that had difficulty with a *FULL LOAD* taking off in hot weather in Germany, because of their underpowered Ardour engines.

 

Yes, they have no radar, but then again neither does the 25/25t and neither does the A10 and you cant argue that they cant do their job properly ?

 

The nav is better than the su25's, the Jags had a glass MFD cockpit display upgrade which had a moving map display, it had a gps receiver and a terrain comparison system, also it got better ardour 104 engines which solved the problem of the limited payload in hot weather and, then it got better 106 engines.

 

It had helmet mounted sight systems, not exactly shoddy now.

 

The jaguars were pretty decent aircraft and the decision to mothball them early in RAF service was a load of bollocks, they were cheap to build and run compared to other jets and on the whole the jags were reliable and could of easily had a few more years of service before they got scrapped.

 

If they had a couple more hardpoints on each side, they would of been perfect for dedicated ground support role as they had more endurance than the Tonka has without AAR.

 

For something that was meant to be just an advanced training aircraft, it sure turned out to be alot better than that.

 

Nearly all of your post is about the problems the aircraft had after being taken into service, like most new aircraft, once service starts thats where all the problems start to be found because the aircraft are being used and abused daily, but that being said, by the mid 80s all those problems had been fixed.

 

Now leave my Poor Jag alone :cry: :smilewink:

[SUBS17]

Well, most likely last generation of aircraft, like Rafale, F-22, Gripen, F-35 wouldn´t be possible.

I think the more possible planes/helicopter would be those that are still in service, that have been receiving some upgrades but haven´t been greatly redesigned. Like...

 

Mirage 2000

Harrier 2

F-16 block 40 to block 52

F-18C (Not the Superhornet)

Mig-29

Su-27 and 33

Su-25

Super Cobra

 

And probably very few others. I´m talking aircraft and helicopter who main role is combat. Rescue and transport aerial airframes are leave aside because most people are not interested on a combat simulator with them.

 

If a DCS sim wouldn´t be forced to be attached to a military contract, i would be very very happy to have a DCS sim of any plane and chopper with the technology and avionics of the 90´s, or even 80´s, if its avionics its ralisticaly simulated to the level of the Ka-50.

I prefer realistic old technology over unknow unrealistic new technology, everytime.

Even 80´s or 90´s avionics is complex enough to learn and use properly for most of us.

 

Superhornets possible, there is info out there on that and VRS has done a good job of making a decent SH addon for FSX.

[joey45]

Umm, you quite sure about that ? because if thats true, then they wouldnt of been flying and fighting in Gulf War 1, yes I know, the Desert is a really Cold place :lol:

It was the very early Jags that had difficulty with a *FULL LOAD* taking off in hot weather in Germany, because of their underpowered Ardour engines.

 

Yes, they have no radar, but then again neither does the 25/25t and neither does the A10 and you cant argue that they cant do their job properly ?

 

The nav is better than the su25's, the Jags had a glass MFD cockpit display upgrade which had a moving map display, it had a gps receiver and a terrain comparison system, also it got better ardour 104 engines which solved the problem of the limited payload in hot weather and, then it got better 106 engines.

 

It had helmet mounted sight systems, not exactly shoddy now.

 

The jaguars were pretty decent aircraft and the decision to mothball them early in RAF service was a load of bollocks, they were cheap to build and run compared to other jets and on the whole the jags were reliable and could of easily had a few more years of service before they got scrapped.

 

If they had a couple more hardpoints on each side, they would of been perfect for dedicated ground support role as they had more endurance than the Tonka has without AAR.

 

For something that was meant to be just an advanced training aircraft, it sure turned out to be alot better than that.

 

Nearly all of your post is about the problems the aircraft had after being taken into service, like most new aircraft, once service starts thats where all the problems start to be found because the aircraft are being used and abused daily, but that being said, by the mid 80s all those problems had been fixed.

 

Now leave my Poor Jag alone :cry: :smilewink:

 

Another Jag lover, I'm not alone..:thumbup:

[CAT_101st]

Any US air fraim is good with me

[bumfire]

Another Jag lover, I'm not alone..:thumbup:

 

Hallelujah Praise The Lawd :thumbup:

[pyates2104]

Umm, you quite sure about that ? because if thats true, then they wouldnt of been flying and fighting in Gulf War 1, yes I know, the Desert is a really Cold place :lol:

It was the very early Jags that had difficulty with a *FULL LOAD* taking off in hot weather in Germany, because of their underpowered Ardour engines.

 

Yes, they have no radar, but then again neither does the 25/25t and neither does the A10 and you cant argue that they cant do their job properly ?

 

The nav is better than the su25's, the Jags had a glass MFD cockpit display upgrade which had a moving map display, it had a gps receiver and a terrain comparison system, also it got better ardour 104 engines which solved the problem of the limited payload in hot weather and, then it got better 106 engines.

 

It had helmet mounted sight systems, not exactly shoddy now.

 

The jaguars were pretty decent aircraft and the decision to mothball them early in RAF service was a load of bollocks, they were cheap to build and run compared to other jets and on the whole the jags were reliable and could of easily had a few more years of service before they got scrapped.

 

If they had a couple more hardpoints on each side, they would of been perfect for dedicated ground support role as they had more endurance than the Tonka has without AAR.

 

For something that was meant to be just an advanced training aircraft, it sure turned out to be alot better than that.

 

Nearly all of your post is about the problems the aircraft had after being taken into service, like most new aircraft, once service starts thats where all the problems start to be found because the aircraft are being used and abused daily, but that being said, by the mid 80s all those problems had been fixed.

 

Now leave my Poor Jag alone :cry: :smilewink:

 

 

Oh contrare, I was on Jags in the mid 80's and they were still underpowered and had problems taking of in hot weather with a full load. The micro turbo did explode every now and again, and the wet starts were spectacular if the seat stick interface got the fuel switches wrong. But hey, it WAS the best AC I ever worked on, and the best sqn too....:pilotfly:

[pyates2104]

Bunch of clowns:

[bumfire]

Bunch of clowns:

 

 

LOL :megalol:

 

I can just imagine, one of them clowns in the pit flying it for charity or something.

Edited June 8, 2010 by bumfire

[Eddie]

LOL :megalol:

 

I can just imagine, one of them clowns in the pit flying it for charity or something.

 

 

Not likely, aircrew have no known sense of humour. You'll only ever see us groundcrew/support crew showing such joviality.

[joey45]

But I would still luv it to be immortilised in DCS though.

[bumfire]

Not likely, aircrew have no known sense of humour. You'll only ever see us groundcrew/support crew showing such joviality.

 

Obviously, for safety reasons if not anything else.

 

It was just me saying that I could just "Imagine" them jumping into the pit and going for a joyride dressed as a clown for charity, obviously it wouldnt happen/be allowed, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the pic.

 

Keep up the Joviality, its sorely needed in the RAF ;)

[dooom]

DCS:Arrow

 

or how about DCS: Harrier?

 

on the other hand, the series has so much fidelity in it, that it would be amazing to see a Korean air conflict worked on

[bumfire]

If they ever do the Harrier, then it HAS to be the Sea Harrier with the Blue Circle, I mean Blue Vixen Radar :p.

 

No other model will suffice.

[Shadow060]

Gotta put the OH-58D in there...'nuff said!

[sobek]

Plz don't turn this into another whishlist, it was such a nice thread until recently.

[RipKirby]

Hallelujah Praise The Lawd :thumbup:

 

+1

[hassata]

I agree with the poster re the Hornet. Probably enough in the public domain, and carrier ops are carrier ops since Vietnam