RAZBAM is gauging the interest for an IA58 Pucará

See the thread here

RAZBAM has an ongoing poll if you would like to see the IA58 Pucará in DCS world. It sure isn’t an aircraft you would see in a typical simulation. It’s a two-seat, twin turboprop, light ground attack aircraft from the Falklands war era.

A variant was rushed but eventually did not make it in time for the Falklands war that was capable of torpedo bombing. Not sure if this is something RAZBAM would consider doing but that would sure pique my interest

[ ] is carrier capable
[ ] is multi role
[ ] is supersonic

twin turbo prop bonus round:
[ ] is OV-10


I am sure I don’t understand the whole “poll if you would like this aircraft” thing. I assume they are trying to gauge forum interest (???) in their plans? If you can only model aircraft that you have access to, as well as the pilots who flew it, then go ahead and do it. If those are the constraints, then fine. But I can tell you right now, the Pucara, while a nice aircraft, is nowhere near my top 100 I would like to see in DCS. That’s not even true. If I started verbally listing aircraft I wanted and eliminated breakfast breaks and ate granola bars for lunch it would still be two weeks before I said the word Pucara.

If your intention is to model the air forces of South America in DCS then go ahead, you don’t need to poll me.

But…now that you are asking: I would rather have a Jaguar.


I think the top response on the forums frames things up nicely.

Voted no. I am all for more planes in DCS, but IMO we have more than enough light attack aircraft. C101CC/EB, HAWK, L39C/ZA and of course your upcoming Tucano.

Older jets and WW2 prop aircraft would be more suitable for less complex modules. Think Dassault Mystère IV, F9 Cougar, F-84, F-105 etc. With the F-86 v MiG-15 and MiG-21 v F-5, more stuff fleshing out these eras would be well received, without going into incredibly complex aircraft of the A-10C/F/A-18C variety. Although I am sure that more complex stuff is always welcome.

Alternatively, more specialized aircraft might be a good idea.
-“OxideMako, DCS Forums”

Instead of more light attack/training aircraft I think fleshing out DCS’ selection of high fidelity 2nd and 3rd gen fighters would be insanely popular.


This is exactly why they are doing this. I for one would like to see it. I’d buy it. It wouldn’t be the end of the world for me if they choose not to do it. But I think it would be a cool aircraft to fly. RAZBAM has acces to some Argentinian aircraft at the moment. Apperently to a Pampa would probably take a lot more granola bars before you’d mention it as it would just be another jet trainer. And to a Pucará. But at the end of the day, RAZBAM is still a business. And they need to move a certain amount of units to get enough of a return on their investment to make it worthwile. And if the poll proves it’s not worth it let’s hope they choose another aircraft that everyone can be excited about.

1 Like

I voted yes simply for the reason that if it is an aircraft in the lineup for an eventual Falklands type campaign - I’d love to see some steps made in that direction. For me personally, there are really three major conflicts that interest me:

  1. Gulf War
  2. Vietnam
  3. Falklands War

In my dream scenario, you’d have a full Falklands map with a portion of the east coast of Argentina modeled, all of the Falklands, and enough sea-room out to the east to provide for the British fleet. There, of course, you’d have Harriers (both FRS.1 and GR.3) operating from their ski-jump carriers…maybe even have the transfer ships. Later, you could even model the immediate post war F-4s flying from that very short 6,000’ Port Stanley. Plenty of action for ferrying supplies from ships to shore and insertions/extractions.

On the Argentine side, obviously you’d have the Pucara, A-4s, Mirage, MB-339A, and T-34 among others. Some of those operated from Port Stanley (Pucara, MB-339A, T-34)…which was a very challenging environment to fly from given the 4,000’ initial length. A2G, anti-shipping, Exocets, dumb bombs, CAS, fighter sweep, CAP…it is all in there. And if you build Falklands scenery/terrain…you can always do Falklands 2.0 with more modern aircraft. (Tornado, Harrier GR.7/9, etc…)

Anyway - it is a long reach to envision all that. But I think it is a map that would be awesome. Personally, I’m completely uninterested in WW2 stuff, but get that people would be into it. Just isn’t my thing. I like those 80s-90s era aircraft that require putting the nose down and doing traditional bombing and strafing instead of just TGP’ing from 20,000’ (not that that can’t be fun either though…). Also, I’m very much into the “mission experience” and think that the combat should only make up a small percentage of the fun. I think taking a Pucara on a CAS mission, getting dinged up and losing an engine, then having to shoot an NDB approach down to minimums on a single engine into Port Stanley would be a really immersive experience. It would be nice if lots of these campaign missions would include more failures (radar, autopilot, hydro, weapons release) because a lot of real missions is dealing with mechanical issues and the unexpected (weather).

So this turned into a longer post than I intended. LOL.


It really strikes me as odd that developers still need to gauge the interest of the customers and don’t understand that if they produced a Vietnam scenario they would literally have endless money forever.

Any simulation forum is figuratively filled with people dreaming and begging for a Vietnam map/planes…
Yes there are a lot of WWII guys too but, let’s be honest, they have more than enough “toys” as of now! :smiley:

It’s time for some Vietnam Apocalypse. Now.
(or… like in three years I’m totally ok too. Just saying)


Kind of my take on it too. I mean, there are still a half a dozen (or more) viable WW2 flight sim titles out there ranging from brand new to decades old. But so little in the way of Vietnam. My best approximation thus far has been a heavily modded Strike Fighters 2…

1 Like

@BeachAV8R Heh, don’t start me on that… tears rolls down my face

Vietnam/Korea would be great!

I get the feeling Razbam is gauging interest in the Falklands though, a Argentinian COIN ops aircraft, a Harrier in the works. What else would they need? AI Vulcan bombers and a few of those cute Skyraiders?

Short of the map offcourse, although they have no interest in building the map, perhaps they would outsource that part? Perhaps E.D.'s project after Hormuz?

1 Like

well VEAO has a Falklands map planned. Although they have only recently received the DevKit for producing maps and are still learning how it works. Don’t forget the USMC McDonnel Douglas Harrier II AV8B-NA is a long way off from the Hawker Siddeley Harrier GR.3 and the BAe Sea Harrier FRS1 that was used in the Falklands war. The latter being more of a strike-fighter than a ground attack platform and producing 20 kills in the war.

I don’t need to deny I’d be all over 'nam stuff though! F-4? YES PLEASE.

1 Like

Well, VEAO hasn’t proven yet that they can even do it so I’m not putting any money on them producing any maps until I see it done and finished.

You are correct about all the different version though, then again I am a ■■■■ for VTOL so I’ll take what I can get!

1 Like

Just so happens my next PC Pilot article is on F-4s and Harrier FRS.1 and GR.3 operating out of the extended runway at Port Stanley…pretty fascinating how they operated those F-4s there using five arresting cables for landings…


lol! True! Even if it was a Yak-38 they would make I’d buy it in a heartbeat!

@BeachAV8R I guess I have to read that then! Is it for the website or the magazine? It always looked very cool but it seems aimed more at civvie simulations and while I occasionally steer a plane in FSX it doesn’t have that much appeal to me.

About your earlier point. Yeah it’s a shame there’s such a draught for Vietnam games. The only thing that comes to mind from recent times is Air Conflicts Vietnam. Not is it only not a sim, it was garbage as a game as well. The only other thing I have on the scope right now is Rising Storm 2. We have seen some helicopters in that game but I don’t know if they will be player controllable. Those developers had some cool stuff going on with tanks back in Red Orchestra (2) and Rising Storm ( The latter is a pacific war era game). Tanks needed a crew of atleast 2 and preferably 3 to operate. Sighting, ranging, aiming and driving was a lot more realistic than something like battlefield. WoT or even War Thunder. To give an idea, the gunner had a sight that he could rotate so he could dial in a range for a specific weapon, be a Pzgr-39, Pzgr-40, aGr-34 or the Machine gun. So I am curious if they will take on and attempt to model an era specific AH-1. However at any rate I don’t think we’ll see a pedal requiring simulation. And fast-movers are likely out of the question.

That post was a lot longer than I expected too :innocent: I am doing a good job of dragging things off topic today :stuck_out_tongue:


So, we had a thread a while back that talked a lot about the difficulties of a Phantom module. Not saying I wouldn’t react to one with, “Buy, Buy, BUY!!!” but there’s other aircraft of the era without absurdly diverse varieties of configurations/modifications.

Highlights I think would be:

  • Literally any of the century series, especially the Hun, Thud and Starfighter (in that order)
  • Jaguar GR1
  • F-8
  • A-7
  • A-4

Edit: And on the Russian side:

  • MiG-23
  • MiG-25 (P or RB)
  • Su-15

Don’t get me going on the Phantom. If Milviz can build an F-4, for the love of humanity, why can’t a DCS third party do one? Complexities? Pick one. I mean if you can pick a specific Spitfire or Bf-109 to represent the breed, and you know how many versions that there were, one would think that it wouldn’t be that hard with the Phantom. It’s not a Tomcat for Pete’s sake (no offense Peter). Slapping my head over not having this iconic fighter bomber with such a rich combat history flyable in a good sim. Sure SF2 Vietnam was entertaining (great video Beach), but the pits and systems, not to mention that blasted bobbing up and down, became very long in the tooth compared to modern flight simulations. Every time someone announces a new DCS aircraft it’s like your mother setting you up on a bind date and finding out that she’s a devote >fill in the blank<

Taking a deep breath and a long walk to cool down.

I’d happily buy most planes on that list. Matter of fact the SEPECAT Jaguar, MiG-25 and F104 are all in top 20 positions on my personal wishlist. I’m sure most of those modules would commercially be more succesful than a Pucará.

However the developer who, however hard it may be, develops an F-4 like the F-4D, F-4E or F-4G will swim in money and develop their next module aboard a personally owned space shuttle if they can be bothered to skin for every nation the Phantom II was exported to.

The thing is too…I wouldn’t get hung up on non-model specific stuff. Like for me, the MiG-21 sorta represents ALL MiG-21s in my untrained eye. Likewise…any model F-4 (as long as it has a tailhook option) could represent all F-4s for me. Obviously there are HUGE differences over the several decades of production and modification…but I don’t need every button, switch and weapons system to be modeled to exacting specific model types. I know there are people that will disagree with this…and will want all the blocks of F-16s ever made…but I’m OK with some concessions.

@BeachAV8R It’s not like I would not take any other model. The first two are the most produced, the ones that produced the aces. The F-4G is the wild weasel and even if you don’t know anything about phantoms you probably know the wild weasel anyway. I think the naval/marine versions where actually the A,B,H,J,N and S. I’d happy take one of those too.

I would honestly not be surprised if some sort of vietnam/Korea project is already in the works for DCS, including a selection of fighters. They do not share everything and the lack of news on this from a third party makes me wonder.

1 Like