The suite of the A-10C that is modelled in DCS was already ~8 years old when DCSWH came out. At that point, the A-10Cs in service were a few suites further with their upgrades. That much has been repeatedly confirmed by people working on real A-10s.



It's not such a black and white issue really. It always depends on what is classified. In the A-10C e.g., AFAIK the RWR symbology had to be altered. Well, hardly anybody knows the real symbology anyway, so who cares? You can have a somewhat realistic working RWR without the RL symbology. The limitations of the RWR are not modelled (false positives, false negatives, etc.). These would actually matter, but are very hard to simulate either way. Similar thing for the TGP, some aspects of it are classified, but none bar an at least somewhat realistic depiction in the sim. On the other hand, if you have no clue of what the Strike Eagle radar is capable of and what display and operating modes it has, then simulating a Strike Eagle involves a disproportionately bigger amount of guesswork.

That's not all though, you have to secure the rights from the manufacturers to use that plane in your sim so as to not make yourself liable. Even if the manufacturer might not in principle be opposed to having a plane modelled in your sim, the legal proceedings involved in keeping the trademark rights secure are most likely complicated and therefore costly. Then there's the matter of having to find subject matter experts that are willing to support you on building the module (which is walking a thin line for somebody with intricate knowledge of such a weapon system, i can imagine that not many are willing to do that).

There's a lot going into a module, if one doesn't get made, it's most likely a combination of several factors instead of just one.

Nothing in the A-10 is 100% accurate. The defensive aids suite has essentially nothing in common with the real thing. In fact DCS is less accurate than other sims in this area.

For the most part people don't actually want 100% accuracy, even if they think they do. Personally I just want representative capability/functionality, sadly that is something that's lacking in modules so far.

Well, some has argued that "this year" may be like a fiscal year, ie April 2017-March 2018....



The A-10C may be accurate, but out of date, as others have mentioned. Which is, again, just shooting themselves on the foot regarding their excuses.



Yeah, but "big amount of guesswork" on a ground radar is still much better than no ground radar, right?



So we can have the F-15C, but not the F-15E because of licensing issues? How did Heatblur/LN/whatever it's called now secure the license for a Tomcat before ED? Or was ED even interested in the Tomcat in the first place? How much of the Tomcat's radar capabilities do they know?

What a swiss cheese of an excuse.



A combination of factors, fine. A combination of excuses is a different thing altogether.

Also, I might be completely wrong and there might be pink bunnies jumping over the radar screen / HUD in the actual F-15E, like in Hot Shots, but I really think that Jane's F-15 had a reasonably accurate representation of the F-15 A-G radar. I mean, where do people think they got that from? You think they just pulled it out of their ***? It is a "well-known" fact e.g. that the F-15 A-G radar has the capability of creating High Resolution Maps of selected areas on the A-G radar screen. It's also no secret that you have a cursor on the screen with which to designate target positions / select areas for creating the HRM. In fact, I saw a youtube video once where you could see the Strike Eagle's A-G radar in operation, and it looked exactly like what Jane's did: You could see how the guy switched to a High Resolution Map and you could see there was an airfield on it by the distinct image of two runways crossing each other. I think Jane's F-15 (and in fact F-15 Strike Eagle III before that already, which had some of the same developers!) was pretty darn accurate there. The thing that is usually unknown about such systems is their operational limitations. Like, how does it degrade in weather, what's really the range, what's the signature etc. And there might be 2 / 3 / 5 gizmos in these planes that no one really knows about unless you fly it, but oh well, if you don't know what you don't know...you would never know, even if you thought you did.

Now, the latest version of the F-15E? Might well have nothing to do anymore with the first versions other than the wings. But we are not talking about the latest versions, rather the one that flew in 1991. Surely secrecy can't really hold up as an excuse there when they have no problem modelling an A-10C that is just ~8 years old.

Sorry, I think the A-10C "version" **WAS** 8 years old then DCS A10C came out 7 years ago... so wouldn't that mean it's 15 years old now?
Or was that "version" 1 year old when DCS A10C came out so it's 8 years old now?

I would think it's the first one... I can't imagine them upgrading the innards of an aircraft that they're trying so badly to mothball and replace.

I share your view.
I personally dont mind the guess work if it can get closer(than not having it at all) to what fighter pilot is actually having.

What we currently have in, so called, modern combat sim gotta be very barbarian when you actually see document or hear from what fighter pilot is experiencing(advanced datalink, advanced information helmet visor provides like putting labels on in the game is more realistic)

Hopefully DCS F/A-18C(2003 MLU build?) might change that and give us new gameplay which im really hoping.

As I understand it, it was 8 years old when ED modelled it, so would be 15 now or whatever. Doesn't really matter though to my argument, since even if it was 8 years old, there would still be guesswork involved. I believe only planes as old as early Phantoms / MiG17s maybe don't have any secrets left nowadays.

@nadal: Yeah, I think so, too. It's one of the known features of the F-35 for example that its sensor suit will mark aircraft and even ground targets with icons / boxes on the HMD even when below the airplane, when blocked by the aircraft frame itself etc. But that's not really news either, because such concepts already existed earlier and were already simulated in DiD F-22 and EF-2000 sims. I could imagine that this capability might already exist to some extent even in older airframes when upgraded with such a sensor suit or could be retrofitted. Not as perfect as with a plane built around such a system from the ground up, but probably in degrees.

That brings up another point though I find worth mentioning here: Imho the latest and greatest tech does not always translate into good gameplay. Especially when the opposing sides capabilities become too dissimilar, you will quickly end up with a boring game. I doubt many people would find it fun to pilot a Reaper drone firing Hellfires into individual personel from an orbit at 40,000 feet over Pakistan. To make such gameplay fun at all, you would have to include the intelligence gathering process, sophisticated AI for personel movement etc. and would end up rather with an RPG / Deus Ex / MGS than a flightsim.

In my opinion already the A-10C was a poor choice. The A model in a late 80s Cold War gone hot scenario for high intensity and / or over Cuba, Iraq for a mid-low intensity scenario would have been much better. The A-10C is a Hero a Zero airplane: Has no real place in a high threat environment with theater ranged SAMs like SA-10 and enemy CAPs still active, but is overpowered when those threats are gone, since it will just drop smart munitions from 20,000 feet like that Reaper drone. If you model the latest planes like the F35 and F22, you would also have to provide a high-end opposing force.
With the A-10A you could model interesting scenarios with its natural enemies like the ZSU-23, SA-8, SA-19. Similar with the Hornet. I'm glad they are modelling (well, if it ever comes out) the C version and not the Superhornet for that same reason, and I think the earlier the version, the better. Besides the fact that it also looks much better than the F-18E. While not a beauty, I can live with the looks of the F18C, but the "Superbug" to me looks just plain fugly. Too stretched in its length, ugly rectangular air intakes, and those broad leading-edge extensions really makes it look like a squashed bug. Too bad that the old adage of "When it looks good, it probably flies good" is no longer very relevant these days thanks to advanced computer controlled flight systems. Same with the F-35. I honestly believe that is one of the reasons it is getting so much flak, haha. The pilots just don't want to fly such an ugly stub through the sky. The Russians are doing much better still with their great Sukhoi lineage, though seem to be slowly switching over to the darkside when looking at the PAK FA.

I cringe every time I hear this argument about the A-10. The A-10 was designed to operate in the world's highest threat environment. Doctrine dictated that it operate there, and TTPs were developed in order to help it survive there. Do you realize that the SA-10 was fielded in 1978? Did you know that the A-10's life expectancy above 200' AGL was on the order of tens of seconds? Did you know that NATO planners expected to lose something like one-quarter of the A-10 fleet per day during combat with the Soviets in eastern Europe?

How much higher can the threat be? And if you think any other Gen 4 fighter has a better chance of surviving a double-digit SAM encounter, you're wrong. The simple fact is that nobody - not A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, B-1s, or even B-2s go anywhere near an SA-10/12/20/21/23 threat ring without on-axis jamming and dedicated SEAD/DEAD efforts against the threat.

There is nothing off limits to a Hawg that is not also off limits to a Viper or Hornet.

I think it's more the fact that an F-16 has a better chance of surviving an SA-10 shot than an A-10. There is a reason the F-16 can be a Wild Weasel but the A-10s cannot... or at least would be limited to the "killer" aspect.

I know about the life expectancy of A10s (or pretty much any frontline planes for that matter) in a WWIII scenario. If you read again what I wrote, I was more describing a scenario with the SA10 and enemy air defeated with only mobile frontline air defense left. There the A10A would still be interesting, while the C is rather boring.

But no, I don't think fighter bombers like the Strike Eagle or Tornado would have stood as bad a chance against the SA10 or enemy air as a Warthog would, because of their speed giving them more play energy wise to try and disappear again if they got shot at and their systems having better targetting capabilities to not f*ck around unecessarily long when in the threat zone. But their mission would have been more Interdiction type against logistics / known stationary targets. I know the A10 would still have been fielded to slow down the onslaught of the massive tank armies of the Warsaw Pact and was built for that purpose, but would still have been just chewed up from all sides, SHORAD, SA10 and Fighters while possibly still taking a bunch of tanks with them thanks to the Maverick. I'm not saying fast movers would have had a good chance to survive, but surely a better one than the A10. Also makes a big difference whether we are talking about a 70s or an 80s scenario.

That was always the threat in such a scenario anyway: That the conventional exchange would be over in a few days for lack of anything left to go on, and then turn nuclear if people didn't come to their senses.
BTW, I also don't buy that the sudden Apache losses during "training flights" short before / during Allied Force were really losses on training flights. I believe they were lost during armed recon missions or whatever and suffered from SHORAD in a wooded mountainous terrain which is much different than the flat desert plains of Iraq where you can fire your Hellfires from max range.

The biggest threat against Pact tank armies would have probably come from army fielded AT missile systems just like portrayed in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising.

Edit: I should not say "better targetting capability" for the fast movers, but rather having a more favourable mission profile than the A10 which was expected to pick out tanks right over the FLOT. Though Harriers and Jaguars wouldn't have been much better off there either, maybe worse.

OMG! There's actually something worth reading here besides the usual garbage.

Please folks, continue with your eastern Europe cold war scenarios.

lol
Feel free to contribute .

To extrapolate a bit further on what I said on the Apaches: I know that when you watch the McDonell Douglas advertisement videos from the 80s / 90s, the Apache is usually portrayed in mountainous terrain with huge emphasis on pop up tactics and stuff. But presented there is always the "ideal" scenario with the targets just sitting there in some spot and the Apache moving freely around them. In reality though I think that type of terrain works both ways, with Shilkas and Sa7 / 14 lying in wait in forrest lines etc. Add to that towns and villages, including "early warning" by civilians living there, and it gets more ugly.

1v1 a HARM shooter has 0 Pk against an SA-10; roughly the same chance as an A-10.

I can believe that, though I think the Pk of the SA10 against the HARM shooter would be worse than against an A10, if the latter stumbled into its engagement envelope / line of sight.

Curious why you said the Harrier wouldn't survive. (binned the same as a Jaguar)

Considering that Russian shot doctrine calls for an intercept range well inside Rmax, I'm not sure what advantage any Gen 4 aircraft might have over another against an SA-10? Neither can go "out" to kinetically defeat the shot. Neither a 300 knot Hawg, nor a 500 knot Viper can out maneuver a GRUMBLE/GIANT/GLADIATOR missile. They both have SPJs and towed decoys, but the best chance of survival is direct terrain masking. So, which one is "better" at that? It depends...

Because right over the FLOT with all kinds of IR and radar guided missiles / guns directed at you from multiple directions, the speed advantage those planes have over the A-10 probably wouldn't make much of a difference and the A-10 might actually stand a better chance when taking a hit than those planes because of its robust design / fairly far (is that a term?) separated engines. But I'm not saying it wouldn't survive, we are talking in terms of chances.

Noodle: Well, when well within range of the SA10, one of the advantages of the fast movers goes of course right out the window, but then the chance would still be better simply because it might be able to get behind terrain more quickly than an A-10. But yeah, the SA10 is pretty bad, I never said anything different. But I really would rather be in a Tornado that goes, I dunno, 800 knots on the deck IF getting into SA10 territory than in an A10 that goes 350 at best.

I don't mean to belabor the point, but arguably, a 700 knot Tornado/Bone/'Vark would have a much more difficult time staying low, even on TF Hard Ride, because its essentially limited to a wings-level bunt when crossing a ridge. A Hawg can take a ridge crossing at 120 degrees of bank, pull down the back side of the ridge and never get higher than 300 feet AGL.

It's a contrived example, but it illustrates my earlier point which was despite first impressions, the A-10 is not really any more vulnerable in a "high threat" scenario than any other non-LO platform.

Sure, in the 1v1 against a single missile example I'd rather be in a fast jet too, because why not? But the real world isnt in such a vacuum; it's 4/8/12 jets against 6/12/18 TELs with 24/48/72 missiles and 3/6/9 acquisition/engagement radars, protected by 12/24/36 anti-ARM/PGM capable TELARs and 120 MANPADS.

A rather inhospitable environment regardless of what you're flying.

Yeah. The picture I had in mind was when the missile is coming at you and there would be a ridge, but damn, it's a few miles out, now try get behind it with 350 knots or with 800. I get your point though.

BTW, cool low level vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEe5UTt6H3I

(GAF Luftwaffe) Phantom, judging from the nose. He's hiding behind the trees.