DCS world wishlist

yeah this plane will win their hearts and minds, looking all cute and stuff. And if that fails, 4 sticks of 6 Mk-82 oughta do the job.

5 Likes

I meanā€¦ double the bombload of a B17 with pinpoint precision, all weather AND carrier capable?
Whatā€™s not to love?

5 Likes

I also love it.
The reasons why I think it wouldnā€™t be very successful in DCS are these:

  • I think it needs multi crew to work. And I am not convinced yet that Jester (or similar) will do. I also think switching seats might not be good enough.
  • The A-6 is slow. Painfully slow compared to a Bombcat or Hornet. So while you fly to your target once, the fast guys fly two sorties.

Is it actually? I would risk a bet that when loaded with A-G stores all of these aircraft cruise at about the same speed.

2 Likes

Well, no.
First itā€™s twice as fast than an A10! :rofl:

But seriously, not having afterburners and flying so low (itā€™s still a byproduct of the '60) it was perfect for what it had to do. 560 at NOE are pretty good.

Would it survive all by itself in a modern environment? Noā€¦
But so do all the other same-age-and-time DCS Modulesā€¦

2 Likes

Good question.
I still think that with a usual (not full) bomb load the Hornet can still fly supersonic, and so can the Bombcat.
I do not know, however, how fast the A-6 can fly with a load that is big enough to make up for it being slower. It also depends on the distance to the target of course, especially since the Hornet and Tomcat drivers in DCSW (unlike in real life) donā€™t suffer from lower range and just can burn loads of fuel and fly fast.

So that means:
Someone has to make it a module for DCSW so we can find out! :slight_smile:

@komemiute fair point! It is fast compared to the A-10 and I still love that one. More comparable to a Harrier I guess, which is not bad if you consider that DCSW maps are rather small.

Thatā€™s exactly the point of the Intruder for me.

Its duty was to be the bludgeoning strike to the enemies nape.
Being part of a Carrier Group meant that Fighters would open a channel for them to go, ECM planes would make the enemy slow to prepare a defense, tanker would fillā€™em up on the way backā€¦

The Intruder just had to be there at a preplanned time and bomb the enemy teeth out through their urethra.

Just imagine a package of four or six of themā€¦ Some with Shrikes or betterā€¦ thatā€™s it.

Yeah, I let myself go a bit, thereā€¦ :stuck_out_tongue: Sorry/Not Sorry.

3 Likes

Actuallyā€¦the Drakken might not have been that flyable by Americans.

In 2004, just before CVN-74, at its normal berth at NAS North Island, was about to get underway for COMPTUEX, a couple of civilian-owned Drakken came into land at NAS North Island. They ere part of the ā€œOrange Airā€, the jets that played the bad guys in the COMPTUEX scenario.

One of them did a ground loop and ran off the runway.

I was the Staff N2 aboard STENNIS at the timeā€¦could this have been foreshadowing of Viggen things to come? :grimacing:

2 Likes

Coming from someone who has willingly worked with an aircraft that can only be described as ā€œugly bootleg Rafaleā€, thatā€™s a rather damning indictment. :smiley:

4 Likes

4 Likes

I think there where two schools of thought for the employment of the Intruder. One was the the Alpha Strike, a massed package flown at daylight and medium altitude with heavy fighter, SEAD and jamming support. I think this was generally disliked by the Intruder community as it was considered a waste of the aircraftā€™s unique capabilities, relegating the A-6 to just another daylight bomb-truck. The ill-fated 1983 air strike on Lebanon was such an example. The preferred method of the Intruder community was to strike exclusively at night and at low level. Aircraft would fly individually in some kind of bomber-stream. The 1986 air strike on Benghazi during Eldorado Canyon was flown like that. I think fighters, SEAD and jammer supported the strike from the sea but the Intruders went feet-dry alone.

4 Likes

Agree. However, there was also the War At Sea package-KISS wheel, loaded with AGM-84s, Jamming and HARMsā€¦a jolly bunch of fun.

There was also (theoreticallyā€¦I cannot confirm the existence of nuclear weapons aboard the USS (ship name goes here), nor any other USNavy vessel.) the special mission profiles.

2 Likes

Arenā€™t we all agreeing that in a way or another the Intruder can be a whole heck of fun?

5 Likes

Indeed, and that in many different applications.

1 Like

Iā€™d love to be in a KA-6 too! :smiley:

4 Likes

:flight_departure:----:flight_departure: yay!

5 Likes

I know the Draken has a tailwheel, and a narrow track, but jeezā€¦! :fearful:

I guess that was Draken Intl.
They started out using Drakens, if memory servesā€¦

2 Likes

So if the concern for the AI to be able to hand the right seat duties, or the concern is for having to dual seatā€¦ The obvious answer is the A-7, just saying :wink:

Also a hornet or bombcat running trans or supersonic with any real A2G stores is going go through fuel like a bonfire. Iā€™d hazard the range would be minimal.

4 Likes

Yep. But most DCSW missions are very short range so it might actually work.

I honestly believe that multicrew will be less of an issue in DCS as time goes on. Automating the additional crewmembers isnā€™t rocket science; games have been doing that for a long time now. Itā€™s something theyā€™ll have to tackle one way or another because restricting the game to single seat aircraft isnā€™t a good business plan.

Neither are slow aircraft much of a problem, given the A-10, Su-25, and helicopters. The A-6, A-7, and AV-8B all have comparable maximum speeds; the A-6 has a lower cruise speed, however. Thatā€™s the price paid for the massive amount of stores it can truck around.

Key thing is that the A-6E in particular offers a lot of bang for the buck, because it can do SEAD/DEAD, anti-shipping, ground attack, CAS, buddy fueling, and a whole host of other missions. That means a lot in comparison to light strike like the A-7, which also have a greater dependence on other assets like aerial fuelers.

1 Like