Had that same thought many times. 
This is timely, towards this subject…
2 Likes
Indeed, but from the looks of the M7 programme every infantryman is going to have a sight on his rifle that’s going to tell him where to shoot to hit a small moving target…
I keep hearing about ‘smart’ rifles, ‘smart’ targeting, etc infantry weapons. Some of them, primarily suppressive fire such as AGLs are already in service, and while they do make those systems more effective, they are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. They won’t and can’t compensate for a ‘dumb’ soldier… and by dumb I mean poorly trained.
Drones (as in the cheap disposable commercially available variety), when it all boils down to it are just the latest game changer in a long line line of W(here)TF did that come from weapons system going all the way back to when English peasant longbow archers invented the ‘two finger salute’ to their French opponents.
And like all things in war it will be a temporary advantage. Drone countermeasures is primarily an EW problem. I would put decent money on any drone operator (as in the cheap disposable commercially available variety) will be doing nothing but painting a big target on their forehead in the not too distant future.
4 Likes
To the completely untrained civilian eye the small drone also seems like a very situational system - great with this slow “street to street” and “trench” fight… but they’d likely have not been much use to the Iraqi army in 1991 were they “Final Countdown’d” across time - while the media focuses on the FPV killer drones because they’re terrifying, the biggest thing I’d guess they do is feeding information up the chain so the enemy’s position and movements are known.
If command and control breaks down (either kinetically or through the application of multiple Growlers) it would seem likely that the drones wouldn’t be the game changer they seem to be?
2 Likes
As either a ‘guided bomb’ or close in ISR asset, they are… For now.
2 Likes
ED has a History of making module selections based on what part of the Sim they could expand with.
Every New Module Expands the DCS Core in one or more ways.
1 Like
With that context, the F-35 makes sense as an effort to expand upon RCS and EW.
Personally, I think I’d have gone with the Nighthawk over the Panther, but it’s not my call.
2 Likes
I don’t blame ED for concluding that DCS: F-35A would pay for more DCS core EW work than DCS: EA-18G Growler, DCS: EA-6B Prowler, and DCS: EF-111A Raven together.
6 Likes
Yep, kids these days see Raptors, Lightning II’s and of course that’s what they want to fly. I grew up seeing the Tornado fly and of course that’s what I want in DCS… I don’t blame them but when I tried the Jeff I wasn’t too keen on these large programmable MFDs. I still might get the F-35, just to try it out, but I can’t imagine myself flying it on a regular basis. Give me Tornado, a Phantom or an Intruder. That’s what I want to fly in DCS.
5 Likes
F-22A Documents will never be public, for the same reason you’ll never see the F-14D Manuals be public.
That being said,
F-35 currently serves with 10+ countries and another 6 or so investing into the program and will operate units within the next 5 years. and another 6 or so still debating.
With the F-35 being exported in the volume it’s in, and the development being a joint effort between over a dozen countries. The data is out there.
There’s enough data for a majority of the systems, and the few systems you don’t have manuals for, there’s visual and descriptive data for.
Most of the manuals are not “Classified”, but are “restricted”, meaning they are available if you can pass the authorization protocol.
is it enough to replicate the aircraft digitally?, Yes.
is it going to be a 100% 1:1 Code Line by Code Line digital replication?, Nope.
is the public, and entertainment market consumers (ie me and you), going to notice that part?, Nope.
As stated by ED already, even the A-10C / A-10C II is not a 1:1 100% Code Line by Cone Line recreation, there was some generalization of some systems.
6 Likes
Totally agree with you!
I will also pre-purchase the F-35A the day they put it up for sale 
3 Likes
This pretty much sums it up nicely,
Cause I’ve been repeating myself to every one the last 3 days regarding the F-35 data.
7 Likes
Me too, but mostly I want DCS core improvements and for the product/platform to succeed.
If DCS: F-35 manages to grow the userbase and get funding in for core improvements, that will also be good for those of us who want to fly the EA-6B someday. Or who just want a realistic EW environment to really let the Mirage F1’s Barrax pod shine and replicate the F-16A stomping they did in exercises in the early 80s. (There will be an F-16A at some point) Or any other thing on that long list of DCS core items that “we really want to do” as Wags put it.
5 Likes
The F-35 really is the opportunity for those improvements.
If they drop it into DCS without them? Congrats, it’s a Hornet without a HUD.
They honestly can’t do that, they need improved RCS/EW from day one.
2 Likes
Sorry it’s late (I work nights) and at the risk of being obtuse, what is the linking factor with those two platforms?
Give me a B to go to VSTOL things in and I will be a happy man.
2 Likes
They are both one off, only served for the USA, Technology ahead of their time.
The USA will never let the AN/APG-71 Data nor the F-22A Systems become public.
There’s nothing that comes close to either of them even now, but they also don’t want another country to access the data to upgrade their Tomcats,
And there’s prolly half dozen F-22A Clones at this point, but what Makes the F-22A lethal is the ECM, Avionics and Weapons systems, those systems on the clones are subpar, or non-existant.
4 Likes
I have never doubted they can make a good module of the F35, just have my thoughts on what this say about some of the much needed core improvements and their current business strategy. But as you pointed out, I’d like to stay optimistic. And I truly hope they sell a gazillion F35s and have a huge increase to the customer base and cashflow, because with those they will eventually have 1) More pressure on them to work on the core 2) More capability to do so.
3 Likes
If the F35 is anywhere close to the F45 we have in VTOL-VR then I’ll be having a lot of fun with it.
4 Likes
There’s some amount of imagination required when using DCS as is (see above a few days); where one falls in that spectrum may relate to the response to the -35.
If they would’ve said something like “we have changed our minds concerning requirements for creating modules; ‘ we won’t do X cos we dont have Y documents’; that will hurt our long term biz outlook” - fine, understood. Let’s move on.
My long running frustration lies within the missing/incomplete parts. My hope too is more funds will help here.
Since it appears, to me, modules are significant to their financial progress (just a guess) it makes sense. The -35 should be a boost for them.
I almost exclusively prefer scenarios (jets) that mimic historical eras so I may not purchase it.
However:
if the Typhoon should drop simultaneously I’m already set as both would slide right into one if my current campaigns - “a historical approximation”.
Just need to move the date ahead about 25 years. 1 hour job. Minor stretch of the imagination only…think I just talked myself into it
-uploaded image goes here-
2 Likes