AGM-86 240KT Nuclear Warhead

[dpatt711]

When it explodes its a small explosion not big

[Grimes]

There are several weapons in the sim that in reality can be fitted with nuclear weapons. Even some of the in-game encyclopedia entries state that the weapon has a nuclear warhead. However this is not the case, there are no functional nuclear weapons in the game. Any weapon that says it has a nuclear warhead uses a conventional warhead instead.

 

IMO, nukes are OP and not fun...unless you are playing Supreme Commander, then they are fun. But not so much in a flight sim.

[LexiconG2]

There are several weapons in the sim that in reality can be fitted with nuclear weapons. Even some of the in-game encyclopedia entries state that the weapon has a nuclear warhead. However this is not the case, there are no functional nuclear weapons in the game. Any weapon that says it has a nuclear warhead uses a conventional warhead instead.

 

IMO, nukes are OP and not fun...unless you are playing Supreme Commander, then they are fun. But not so much in a flight sim.

 

Might be cool but since this sim does not use our CPU's I am sure FPS would go down to .0000999 on a i7 3770k. I think many elements of chemical weapons should be added as well as nuclear capibility for our own missions. CA should have SCUD nuclear and chemical capibility. Looking at other devloped countries they all have them. Only thing I could ever want is for DCS world (EDGE) to use all CPU cores as well as take full advantage of CUDA.

[LexiconG2]

When it explodes its a small explosion not big

 

240KT is 240,000,000 million pounds of TNT which would be a big boom you can hear from the cockpit. :-) Or maybe I am thinking of MT (Mega Tons) not sure my head hurts.

Edited April 23, 2013 by LexiconG2

[uri_ba]

Hiroshima was 20KT.

 

Besides, Do you really want to encourage people nuking everything?

[K2mil]

Nuke ain't fun. That the last thing I would like to see beeing modeled or allowed ....

[Darkwolf]

War is not fun, still, it is modelized, correct ?

[LexiconG2]

When this simulation is up to par hopefully with the release of Nevada and EDGE I will model weapons of mass destruction. I won't let this simulation be limited by political correctness.

[159th_Viper]

War is not fun, still, it is modelized, correct ?

 

Quite correct.

 

In our particular circumstances it won''t work too well, would it? I hop onto a server hosting a well-structured mission with an excellent mission-briefing, well attended with virtual pilots about to execute their mission plans with utmost skill and professionalism.

 

Oh, have I forgot to mention that this particular mission has been painstakingly planned for weeks and everyone is as excited as a bunch of giggly seniors attending their first wet T-Shirt contest?

 

Me, I'm having a bad day, just caught my stick-and-stones in my zipper after being late on a must-be-done-chore-before -being-allowed-near-PC for she-who-shall-not-be-named. In my irritation I decide to go for broke and drop a nuke or three........

 

BOOM!

 

Map obliterated!

 

Restart, rinse and repeat.

 

Will get pretty old pretty quickly.

 

Our sandbox is too small for nukes.

[bigian]

When this simulation is up to par hopefully with the release of Nevada and EDGE I will model weapons of mass destruction. I won't let this simulation be limited by political correctness.

 

Nevada, OMG don't mention the war !!!

[K2mil]

Quite correct.

 

Our sandbox is too small for nukes.

 

That was my first thought. I started my adventure with A10C in January this year. Just recently I upgraded my logitech joystick into saitek HOTAS. I spend days in creating a profile that would suit me, PURCHASED voice activated software and input all the commands learn and study the manual. Watch hours of you tube read forum all the time. And all this Just for some call of duty fan who drops a nuke on me/us when I'm in the middle or something new I want to learn now that a flight simulator ...o yeah no thank you...

 

And regarding the war is not fun ...... I still think so and I know I came here first for avionics AFM....last for killing

[zaelu]

When this simulation is up to par hopefully with the release of Nevada and EDGE I will model weapons of mass destruction. I won't let this simulation be limited by political correctness.

 

I agree, is not the technology that is bad is what people do with it. Having nukes and not use them will show who's who.

 

From ME point of view we could have interesting missions of interception. With WW2 era planes and Cold War era planes it will make some sense.

 

 

Obviously... some GTA style missions are bound to happen... but...

[twinturbo99]

i remember an f/a-18 hornet sim i had for the mac around 15 years ago which had tactical nukes. It was fun flying through the mushroom cloud especially when nuking your own base lol!

 

Ceri

[LexiconG2]

The current map is a bit to small for nukes. It's real terrain though however if you look at the real map some airport and bases don't exist. Nukes on these small cities would be overkill. But if I were to Dev a nuke I am hoping I could slave most of the effects to the GPU and limit physics and damage to a set level everything with in 60 miles would be on fire. I have flown around the entire map. There is a lot of miles on this map for sure. But with a nuke in MP it would be a case of ground forces disabling it in a set amount of time. Or aircraft destroying disabling it. Other wise it might as well be a cut view of the bomb exploding. Dropping or firing a missile at a target with a nuke would kill you also. 240KT would be enough along with the EMP (electro magnetic pulse) that goes along with nuclear fusion of this kind. It would disable your aircraft so you would crash. Maybe with a F-15E, F-18E, F-22, F-35, or F-16C at high altitude you could get away with dropping and at fast speed be at a safe altitude and distance. With the A-10C though it's far to slow and its hard to get at altitude. I could also use B-1's which the user would not have control over.

With chemical Weapons I could use the cloud effects and study how these explosions look. It could be a small but fun and interesting project to do.

[beczl]

The current map is a bit to small for nukes. It's real terrain though however if you look at the real map some airport and bases don't exist. Nukes on these small cities would be overkill.

The current map is more than enough for tactical nukes. Mostly these tactical nukes between 5-30kT and it has a limited capability.

 

But if I were to Dev a nuke I am hoping I could slave most of the effects to the GPU and limit physics and damage to a set level everything with in 60 miles would be on fire. I have flown around the entire map. There is a lot of miles on this map for sure. But with a nuke in MP it would be a case of ground forces disabling it in a set amount of time. Or aircraft destroying disabling it. Other wise it might as well be a cut view of the bomb exploding.

An 5kT nuke create a 9,5m x60m hole and destroy persons at 1,2km diameter, damage airplanes at 1,03km, tanks at 0,55km. At distance in 2,5km has no effect for persons and other equipments. EMP diameter is 1,35km max.

At 30kt the effects are multiply by 1,75.

At 240kt the effects are multiply by 2,90.

 

It would disable your aircraft so you would crash. Maybe with a F-15E, F-18E, F-22, F-35, or F-16C at high altitude you could get away with dropping and at fast speed be at a safe altitude and distance.

The safe distance and level for your aircraft to avoid 30kT effects is distance: 25km and altitude: 700m. This more than enough due nukes delivered by 45°/110°toss bombing always...

So if we want to simulate any battlefield at 80-90's this is more than a valid option. Mostly planned to use against command post, airports, tank columns, etc... Also ALL Russian fighter (figter-bomber also) at this time capable to use tactical nukes.

[112th_Rossi]

240KT is 240,000,000 million pounds of TNT which would be a big boom you can hear from the cockpit. :-) Or maybe I am thinking of MT (Mega Tons) not sure my head hurts.

 

240KT is kiloton. Which is the same as 240,000 tons of TNT.

 

MT is megaton which million tons of TNT. Such as the Tsar Bomba which was the worlds largest nuclear detonation at 57MT.

[hegykc]

When it explodes its a small explosion not big

 

Haha this sounds like a remark a depraved dictator would give his lab scientists. Before sending them to the mines of course.

 

"Hey you in z white coat? Z nuclear warhead you made... When it explodes its a small explosion not big."

[Exorcet]

What is wrong with nukes? They are only "overpowered" if you send 50 bombers carrying them into airspace that is only defended by MANPADS. More options are always better. Let the mission designer choose what is good and what's not.

[whiggy]

B86 is an criuse missle. This one would be nice:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83_nuclear_bomb

[112th_Rossi]

Nukes, hmm. Might be good in the context of a 'stop the terrorists' campaign but I fail to see where they are relevant since they've been only used once.

 

Also you could never make them realistic enough. The devastation and the after effects are probably too great for the sim to manage effectively.

 

I would prefer a fuel-air bomb instead?

[Impact]

[ApoNOOB]

I wan't them! If only to have my "Fly 2 hours in direction X and bomb the shit out of Y without dying!" mission. 5 minutes away from the target I will die to human error. GIEV NAO!

[Mt5_Roie]

i remember an f/a-18 hornet sim i had for the mac around 15 years ago which had tactical nukes. It was fun flying through the mushroom cloud especially when nuking your own base lol!

 

Ceri

 

I remember that too... If you were too low on the drop you got vaporized.

[seikdel]

I'm more interested in the AIR-2 Genie and the AIM-26 Falcon. These would definitely liven up dogfights, would they not? And if you thought the SPAMRAAM was annoying, wait until all the F-15s on the 104th start lobbing guided nukes at P-51s and Ka-50s!

[Para_Bellum]

There is a ton of interesting and cool stuff I'd love to see in DCS. Nukes are not one of them.