Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zerO_crash

  1. Negative, I have never used curves, as it makes the control non-linear. It does not replicate real controls. With that said, this is a specific issue with Ka50 trimming. It has been reported before, and is scheduled for fixing with BS3.
  2. Harlikwin is giving good arguments based om how NVG works. Don't you have anything better to do other than being rude and detaching from a perfectly backed-up point of view? I'd rather see someome here with IRL experience with this equipment, explain everything around it, including why it won't work on our Hind, than your rude remarks. Especially given that he has IRL experience with it and you have not.
  3. Because this is how close one will come to ever flying these aircraft, except of actually being a military pilot. Therefore, yes, we want it to be as realistic as possible. That mindset actually demands progress. With the mindset you present, "it's just a game", you are lowering it, aspiring to less realistic features, less study-sim, less everything that actually defined DCS to begin with. No one says that you cannot have fun with DCS, after all, this is a hobby of many those who are here. The problem however is, when the sim is supposed to start making things gamey because "let's just screw realism, it's already tiring enouh to live as is, so let DCS be the couch game that you can play with a controller and totally not give a **** about anything". It's as mindless as it get's, and this mindset won't get you anywhere. I state again, there is one DCS, however lots of other flight combat games, what's the reason to polute this sim with nonsense? Why not be patient and wait for MAC? What makes you all aspire to ruin the one combat aviation sim that actually tries to SIMULATE? This whole whining about non-existent systems, "backed-up" by non-existent sources, or ones that are completely irrelevant is just getting repetitive. And yet, when no actual argument is made, you default to "let this be a game". When one does not have an argument, it's better to listen and learn. The "I want" does not mean that everyone else wants. A big part of this community is neither on forums, nor online. I bet that they didn't find DCS by accident or searching in google: "Fun air combat games"... This discussion is getting pointless, we are going in circles every 4 pages... EDIT: Also, just because DCS doesn't simulate NVG's well yet, doesn't meant that it won't in the future. Having that defeatist attitude that; "Just because something isn't good today, permits to give up on it completely", is just wrong and won't bring the sim any further. I am more than sure, that somewhere in the cards, everything will get an update, NVG too. However don't put your deadlines on ED. There are other more pressing issues. And in all of this rush and whine, start to respect what we have already achieved as a community, mainly ED though. You wonder what? Search on YT how Lock-on Modern Air Combat looked like back in the day.
  4. Not everything is stated on the product page. I told you what stand ED had on the Mi-24P, and what era it is from. If you need a source, ask for it. It does however state that the model was introduced in 1972, doesn't it? If you continue to refuse acknowledging what's written to you, you will go to ignore-bucket. Suit yourself. Mi-24P is not classified. Information is readily available. What is classified is IFF and a few smaller irrelevant functions (not simulated). I have information yes, where from? For sure not from videos. I got a couple Russian manuals, but I doubt you read Cyrrylic. There are also Ukrainian, Polish (only Mi-24W) and Czech manuals to name a few. If I need any help, advocate, in realising what this sim can and cannot be, I'll tell you. What you link, is a feature meant for people with bad eyesight or other issues with vision. There are quite a few older people flying DCS, so obviously it's meant to help them enjoy the product. It still doesn't provide any more capability to the aircraft, like flying at night. Irrelevant point. And HARM-amount on F-16 was fixed, although western modules are not of my interest, I don't really follow those threads. Yet again, calm yourself down friend, everyone else here is already. EDIT: To the ignore-bucket, you little rebel.
  5. Don't ruin their faith, not everyone received education enough to understand the difference between primary-, secondary-, tertiary-, etc... -source. As is with the quality a "source" presents. It's pointless to explain @Harlikwin.
  6. Pleasing the crowd has its advantages you see.
  7. *you, *your, *crusade. I am not performing any crusade, last I checked. I still see nothing relevant pro-NVG on a Cold War Mi-24P.
  8. I am condescending because you are rude in being non-receptive to what is being written to you. Your whole post is about "wanting". You present nothing factual, except an article from 2020!, that is talking about "testing" the NVGs on the helicopter. 2020! I refuse to believe that you work with what you state, because even when "switching off", one doesn´t go completely "off". Your grammar makes me doubt it even more, but that is neither of my interest nor on topic. The Mi-24P that we have, is not from this millennium, I hope that you can comprehend that. Thus, that is not an argument at all. More so that I stated explicitly the following: "ED stated that they are making the most common variant of the Mi-24P. The most common variant of Mi-24P never had NVGs." - Coming back in 2021 and talking about tests being done with NVG in 2020!... (actually, NVG has been used before already on these helicopters, but newer versions, the article talks about adapting NVG to Mi-24P, but it´s again, 2020! some 42 years later than our simulated Mi-24P). You haven´t proved anything, only that you are oblivious to what is being told to you. You are flat out refusing to acknowledge the fact that the Mi-24P that we have, being simulated from a specific period, never had the capability for NVG. Your stubbornness is that of a masochist. You have presented nothing but a whole wall of text written in the format of "I want". There is no proof in that. It´s you who is rude, to even make a statement that you have decided for yourself and nothing is going to change that. What are you doing here with that attitude?! "Do i even read whats written? What?!?" - Read above, your link of a webpage regarding tests being done in 2020 does not happen to show any relevance to a helicopter simulated from the period of 1979´s. Do you understand what is being written to you, or are you flat out "shutting off"? You are not arguing with anyone, you have nothing to argue with, because you haven´t presented anything relevant so far. There is not one source showing that the Mi-24P in 1979-1980s was using NVG as standard. Having repeated myself 4 times in the single response, I hope something gets through. "Moreover, the "WZL 1" has "modified" the following helicopters to enable them performing a broad variety of missions" What does this have to do with our Russian version of the Mi-24P from 1979-80s? No one is arguing that one couldn´t install lasers, but we are talking about representing a helicopter from a specific period. Why post something on Polish helicopter modifications, and from way later? What is your argument?
  9. b) A dream is an aspiration, an ambition, not a measure of whether it is a success or not. Currently, there are things waiting to get fixed in DCS from long ago, before one can as a whole say that it is a quality product. Furthermore, if english was your native language, you´d understand that it´s a dream because it´s a constantly evolving product. It never get´s finished, thus it`s a dream for the future of this software, to stay as realistic as technology and information permits it to be. c) Does it not seem like I am relaxed?! If I wasn`t, you`d be receiving a whole different tone. I suppose with what MAC wants to represent, it suits you more than me. It´s simpler and less realistic, which is what you are looking for. Your whole response made no sense whatsoever, think, then write, not the other way around. I do however see why writing is such an issue when you delegate most of your time to videos, instead of practicing the skill of reading and writing. Then what are you doing in a Hind-thread arguing for something that you haven´t tried?! Your prerogative is complete nonsense. ED stated that they are making the most common variant of the Mi-24P. The most common variant of Mi-24P never had NVGs. Done, discussion closed. I can find it and link, if you have trouble believing what you just read, if you read at all (it would be easier to communicate with you through video). You just proved how limited one can be, when discussions get nowhere because that individual has taken a stand and nothing will change his/hers mind. Why are you even in the forums other than to spread misconception and demagoguery? Obviously you will never learn anything, because you chose a side and no amount of logical arguments will change your POV. That´s when you know that you found someone "on level", when the discussion bears impact on both sides. You have presented nothing but BS all the way, only your points of view, there is nothing factual nor specific in what you write. "If someone else wants it, and its capable.. Then sure lets have it.." - No, it´s not capable, because the lightning in the cockpit is not correct for NVG, something that would result in shimmering, over-saturation and over-exposure, therefore "let´s not have it". Yet again a BS statement. Do you even read what´s written, or did you come to troll for the lack of meaningful activities in your life?
  10. a) Read what DCS stands for - Digital Combat Simulator. Don´t read too much into semantics, ED has never been very consistent with their language. I suppose it has to do with the studio not being of US/British-origin. b) Read the part in the next paragraph below the one you outlined, specifically the first sentence of it. It says it all. There really isn´t much to argue about. c) ED is making MAC - Modern Air Combat, which is supposed to appeal to the crowd that wants less realism and more air-time, simpler. Consider FC3.
  11. No, not because you chose to play it a certain way, but because you make a claim on "core values" yet don't adhere to them. This is not a game in the sense of being explicitly made for fun, it's a simulator that is trying to replicate something in a digital format. If you'd follow on, then you'd know that ED was making money before now as well. And yes, someone who has been with the community longer understands what we are all on about here, why DCS has become so popular and fantastic, for the moment at least. The experience of seeing it evolve from the start, gives one insight into what issues should be solved, what has been missing, and that is not NVG on the Hind. Understanding this sim makes one understand why we can't have the newest and best (Ka52, Mi28, Mi35, etc...). It would make it unrealistic, and thus few want it. Gazelle is a good example, how few people fly it? Why? Because of the lack of realistic features like a proper flight model that replicates physics and real world aspects of a rotorcraft. A DCS manual, although made for DCS, does include much info that can be found in the IRL manuals, NATOPS for example. Therefore, your idea of studying a "book built around a game" is a really shallow understanding of the situation. The fact that you can open a NATOPS manual on F-16, F-18 for example and find relevant info, in fact info that can be used within DCS directly is the pride of this sim. You apparently don't understand that. Not everything is Chuck's manual or even ED-manuals. There really is no other sim that replicates the physics and systems as well as DCS. Therefore, adding unrealistic stuff is ruining the sim. Choosing how you fly is one thing, but trying to make changes to the sim by requesting unrealistic features is something completely different. I can infer that it's more giving for you to watch a video as opposed to reading "a manual" or "a book", and judging from previous responses I don't need to ask why. Go ahead and learn it the way you want, but you do not understand the apparent value of this sim, if videos is all that you are judging this sim from. Those who use DCS as a sim, do not want it to become a "game" as you view it, ruining authenticity. This discussion bears no value whatsoever, because as I pointed out earlier, our concepts of what constitutes a good simulator are worlds apart, judging from your responses, which I might add are neither presenting anything concrete nor logical. It's all based on what "I want and how I play". I won't waste my time on this nonsense. Besides what "I want", there is also the "what's realistically logical within the realm of a SIMULATOR".
  12. You should reconsider your choices in life. It is obvious that you landed at the wrong door. Those who are serious about flying use manuals. Also those who wish to learn their module fully, and those who can and are willing to read and study it. And finally, those that don´t come here and claim something is a bug just because they aren´t invincible or that something is "missing" on their aircraft, like LWR, RWR or NVG. My position is quite clear, if you cannot infer my standpoint from what I wrote, then I understand why you prefer Grim Reaper´s videos to reading the manual. As to money, they´ve been bringing it in since before you came. But greed becomes a factor at some point, when the money flows in, it´s hard to take a definitive stand and say; "no, we are detaching ourselves from our core-values".
  13. Because a simulation is a piece of software that is meant to represent something real, not fulfill dreams or add imaginary items/systems at the behest of the "crowd". This is sadly a big issue when something becomes popular to the point where people with completely different ideas come in and want theirs first, without understanding the origins of the product. Back in the day, when there were barely people on the forums, and 95% of the people participating here now didn´t know that DCS existed, we at least had realism. Now, stuff get´s added because it brings $$$ and the western crowd pays as long as they get the newest, best, fastest and the most one-man-army-like. DCS has evolved in many good ways, without a doubt, but there are drawbacks as well. There was for example much more IRL army/air force/navy personell here before, and they would always chime in with good input and insight on design, practices and ideology behind certain aspects of these modules and warfare. Sadly, being met with growing stupidity, arrogance and ridiculous statements here, most of all, arm-chair commandoes, more and more have moved into closed enclaves and clans. It just gets tiring to talk with mindless who have no aspect of realism, and cover themselves behind the slogan of "game" or whatever idiotic reasons they have. So to answer you simple, no, you shouldn´t simulate things as far as going to the hospital because you got shot down in DCS and are simulating an ejection with a broken leg upon landing in the virtual world. We are however for simulating aircraft, systems and the whole eco-system as closely to reality as possible, because those are the roots of DCS and why us old dogs initially joined. Besides, don´t you have a lot more games out there (ACE Combat to name one) to pollute with your nonsense? You already got F-22 and F-35 there, why bother stirring things up here? It sure cannot be for cockpit and switches, because you already want non-existing systems in certain modules, so why even bother clicking and going to these lengths with studying manuals in the first place?
  14. There have been some info in the previous newsletters, but seeing how little, I suspect that the project is now behind the AH-64D in making?
  15. There is an issue with Ka50, a bug that has been there since introduction of BS2. The bug being that there are recoil counter-effects built into the autopilot. When you use rockets for example, ED wanted to create recoil when firing them, and thus the AP of the Ka50 would counter them with opposite input. The problem is that the recoil effects were never implemented in e.g. the rockets because they don't have any IRL. The tubes are open at the rear. Thus, the AP is countering a recoil effect yhst doesn't exist. The cannon however does have recoil, but because of faulty AP programming in that, it behaves the way it does. The current fix is to use FD-AP as it doesn't have the countering-force in the AP implemented. It was promised to get fixed with BS3, at which point it will behave properly. Otherwise it's s really stable helicopter, but the cannon is enormous, in size and recoil. Try practicing with lower rate of fire, it's really stable.
  16. When in TS-mode, the firing solution will be updated when using the laser. It will work just as in AT-mode, but won't slew the cannon. In other words, you get a firing solution, but the pointing of the cannon (boresighted) is your job. Pointing of the cannon is then done by pointing the whole helicopter. As to the cannon-settings knob, that only controls how the cannon behaves, as opposed to the AT/TS-switch which controls the K-041 Rubin firing computer. In other words, setting the AT/TS-mode to AT and cannon to FIX, means that you will get automatic firing solutions and tracking for all other weapons (missiles, rockets, bombs, cannons, etc...) except the cannon, which will remain fixed. If you however set the AT/TS-mode to TS and the cannon-mode selector to "MOV", it will set the whole targeting computer as for a manual firing solution, meaning you will need to point the whole helicopter for firing all the weapons, cannon included.
  17. You have a really strange logic. Whether an aircraft is called a high altitude fighter or a low altitude one, fighter, bomber or surveillance aircraft has nothing to do with what other aircraft are or their competitiveness. They were built with a specific mission in mind, and that's why they are called one or the other. Just because Me262, Gloster Meteor or DeHavilland Mosquito performed better at high altitude, doesn't change one inch the designation of the former aircraft. Just because a Mig31 can cuddle at 25km altitude doesn't automatically make every other interceptor/fighter in history a low altitude one. Doras were high altitude fighters whereas Antons were low altitude. They still are, although museum relics. How competitive they were and how that changed with time is a whole different discussion, but it doesn't change their purpose one bit. Luftwaffe and Nazi Germany needed far more than Ta-152 or D-9 in 1944. They needed more manpower, more soldiers, more resources (water, food, gasoline, ammunition), and most of all, more time. Ta-152, D-9, Me262 or Eurofighter Typhoon would not change the outcome of 5o.ooo+ oncomming T-34's and a couple million strong Red Army. That's only half the story, what about western front?! Germany lost in 1939, it was just that very few minds paid attention. How anyone ever figured out that "little" Nazi Germany was enough to conquer and resettle the world is beyond me. They never had the numbers to back up their ambitions to begin with, no technology would change that (except the atom bomb, but it was too far off, and would be meaningless - "Lebensraum"). And trust me, bombers were not what Nazi Germany lost to. Carpet bombing has only attributed to extending each war that it has been used in.
  18. Wrong. Mig-29 was a point defense fighter and was supposed to go up against everything that entered its defense area that was hostile. That means everything. With F-15 operating in its area, the F-15 would be over hostile territory and thus, would not only be up against Mig-29 with GCI support, but effectively any ground AAA and SAM system. Therefore, you bet your ass that the F-15 would be out of luck in both a numerical count as well as a tactical situation, sport. Worse yet, for the price of one F-15, 2-3 Mig-29's could be bought. At that point, it's a matter of numbers vs. technology. And just about every single time, numbers prove the winning factor, if tactics aren't counted. That can be seen everywhere throughout history. That's also why statements like "no F-15 has to this date been lost in air battle" (they have been lost to ground fire!) are absolutely idiotic to make. Why? Because not once in its career, has the F-15 ever entered a conflict in unfavourable numbers. It has had numerical superiority just about every single time, and that in low-intensity conflicts (air-wise). The F-15 has never been tried in war in the concept of 1 vs X (X > 1) that is often quoted as its field of play. All this stuff related to F-15 is a marketing technique designed to increase the budget spending of the air force. The idea of 1v1 is naive, especially when looking at how many F-15s there have been vs. how many "Cessnas" of the opposing force (far more F-15). Not even the Air Force believes in that scenario, its pure neccessity and desperation. At that point, a cheaper fighter would do. Ultimately, just to coffin this whole discussion of "how the F-15 should still be great, when Mig-29 ASM comes", even most military pilots and commanders, when asked what they would prefer: the technologically advanced F-35 vs. more, newer and cheaper F-16/-18, they vouch for the latter. Numbers gentlemen. Additionally, there is the question of reliability in actual conflict, where the maintenance is according to war-time schedule. In war, you do not get asked if you "want" to go. There are orders, and you are to obey. As has been shown before, technical innovations don't matter a least bit overall. If even to trade a Mig-29 for a F-15, it would be a decent trade, cost-wise. I see however that there are very few strategic heads in these forums, so I guess the tactical analysis is a foreign language to most here. Let this remain a Mig29 thread, as the title implies.
  19. It´s not only MKI eyeball IFF, but EO, pods, etc... If not visual, then you really have to be sure that it is an enemy, before pulling the trigger. Be it info from multiple sources that interrogate the target, but still then, its typically not always easy to determine. When pilots make such basic mistakes as sometimes dropping bombs without arming them, you can imagine how much room there is for human error in all of this. And yes, it is the case. Once again you are talking about perfect scenarios: "Let´s just talk this through, beside a coffee and a biscuit and then we´ll go to war". It doesn´t work this way. There is stress, excitement, there are many factors involved. There is a whole study done on the physical effects of adrenaline alone in such stressful situations. There were many cases of perfectly briefed battle plans, that still ended up with friendly casualties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_incident Here are three examples. I mean, they did have IFF back then, and it was supposed to work. Why didn´t it?! Regardless, there are not many cases where you could fire BVR. Esp. the type of scenario we are talking about, both in magnitude and position in the world. We are not talking about a conflict in the desert where the AWACS could extrapolate which airfield the aircraft are coming from. In Sweden for example, they had the "BAS 60" airfield system. It was a system centred around dispersing Viggen-aircraft around the country by using highways as runways in the event of Soviet invasion. That is just Sweden, what about UK and US with their Harriers, taking off from all the random places around?! I say it again, war is a mess, nothing is as organised as on your exercises. This is not Red Flag, this is real. There is confusion, and over central Europe, it would be a complete mess.
  20. In case of F-35, yes, they can use it as A-G, especially since that plane doesn´t manoeuvre too well compared to some of its contemporaries. But still, it relies on not getting seen before it´s too late, and the cannon is of course dual use. As to why they carry MRM´s, it´s because at low altitude, you need much propellant in your rockets if you do high speed fights. Also, vertical launches and potentially interception, which is a low threat scenario, with high level of confidence that your target is enemy. Don´t get me wrong, it doesn´t have to be a "dogfight" per se, but rather a close fight, often dictated by visual IFF. Remember that back in the day, for example Vietnam, it was US doing the war. Nowadays, everything is an international venture, where different countries have different equipment, sometimes even from the "opposite" side. Poland uses Mig29´s, I assume they have IFF, but still, if a malfunction occured, or simply an issue with the transponder on the aircraft that interrogates, you would have a serious problem, because your hornet identifies it as a Mig29 if seen from the front hemisphere. If Ukraine would join NATO, they would have both Mig29 and Su27 without transponders that cooperate in the NATO system, at least to begin with. But still, many countries even within NATO, don´t have IFF on everything they fly or operate. Those aircraft have to be IFF´ed by radio transmission. No one has time for that in a high threat, crowded scenario. What about civilian aircraft? What about drones? Etc... It´s just not as easy as it seems. And in top of that, you get secret missions, which are not shared with anyone except those involved. No datalink, not even the AWACS knows about them. Imagine a B2 getting shot down due to human or equipment error...
  21. No, it is you who do not understand it. Reduced visibility is a measure to permit these planes to operate closer to SAM-areas and hostile fighter zones in order to get closer to the target. If it was all BVR, you wouldn´t need "stealth" as you would fire all your missiles from outside the range of many SAMs. Apparently you don´t know how "stealth" is used by the west. Let me crack your nut a bit more. Tell me, why does F22 and F35 have cannons if BVR is all they will do? Have you ever seen a F22 do ground attack with a cannon? I will link you a video later of a F22 IP who mentioned that F22´s gun will be one of the most used weapons, due to the nature of the modern battlefield and IFF. He states that when you use up your missiles, typically after having adhered to strict ROE, you will have to potentially use the cannon, since you will be so close anyways. Also, not to open weapon bays, in order to increase your signature. Everyone is training for BVR, but IRL, it does not get used much, very very seldomly, and in case of a intruder in the airspace. That´s because the possibility of confusing targets is small. If the conflict would be of greater magnitude, forget it. Remember Vietnam and F-4, when it didn´t have a cannon. Trust me, failures still occur with equipment, and trust me, IFF is still not 100% proof, it will never be. I know that military might seem crazy sometimes, nuclear weapons and all, but they are not that crazy, so as to permit a greater risk of friendly casualty.
  22. Well expanded point, only goes to show how irrelevant the discussion of "my aircraft is better than yours" is, given how little it affects the overall outcome. Pretty interesting with your experience on those three SAM/AAA´s as well
  23. I know how it works, but heading, speed and altitude give you little when you have a) fast moving jets, b) again, crowded airspace. And again, do not compare exercises. It is something completely different to actually be in war and feel the stress mount up due to potential casualty vs. getting "shot down" digitally and then debrief it. Exercises are good, but they are nowhere near a real conflict. Everyone will tell you that. Exercises are orchestrated and prepared, they are planned and followed through within boundaries. It is something completely different when you go to war and as soon as the conflict erupts, all the briefings and plans go to hell because your enemy is smart and counters, forcing you to counter again. Couple that with lack of supplies, sleep deprivation, all the possible emotions because of loss of fellow mates and friends and feeling of powerlessness. Add to that complete chaos, because war, and you are starting to understand a part of it. Let me put it this way, an exercise is better than doing nothing. There is a reason why "Stormin´ Norman" - Gen. Schwarzkopf stated that the low casualties on the coalition-side during Gulf War were a miracle. It was a miracle and it was thanks to Saddam Hussain interfering with the decision of his generals without having any knowledge of warfare. If the contemporary would be schooled in warfare, it would be a whole different outcome. That and the morale of the army. And keep in mind, even then, Iraqis were combat hardened after 7 years of having fought Iran and occupied Kuwait. They had far more than just "training" in a synthetic setting. You want to see what fighting is like, trained or not, vs. someone half-competent in warfare? Battle of Mogadishu anno 1993. To this day, it is a disgrace to USA that Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison was treated the way he was in the aftermath. Soldiers under his command themselves stated that they would go to war under his command any time. The loss of life was inevitable, and they fought against somalis with AK´s and RPG´s. Didn´t help to have helicopters, armored vehicles, convoys and fully geared troops. That gives you an idea what it is to fight against someone who knows a bit more about tactics than Saddam and how irrelevant technology can be, compared to reliability, morale and all the aforementioned factors. Trust me, IFF and ROE is not what you think, even today. Even the militaries with the biggest budgets in the world, have boundaries as to how advanced equipment they can operate, and how much advanced. Precisely that
  24. Absolutely not, counting everything from civilian flights, through unidentified aircraft (different affiliation) to finally a defect IFF-module. I´d like to see a source showing where BVR has been used, esp. in a bigger conflict. Even a pilot making a human error and choosing a wrong IFF code. The risk is too high, and it´s there. EDIT: I see you mention "exercise", yeah well... Let´s not compare exercises to real war, shall we?
  25. There are so many wrong assumptions here, that it´s completely crazy. I see people here are hung up on scenarios you find in an average bad scenario in DCS in MP or simply tied up comparing apples to oranges. First and foremost, there would be little to none BVR if a conflict would erupt in Europe. The ROE would be a complete nightmare in such a crowded airspace as well as a scenario of this magnitude. The whole idea of BVR has been often proved wrong, as for example allies will not have the same IFF codes in all of their aircraft, and thus you can forget those imaginary 60nm shots that you so bluntly state here would save the day. There would be too big of a chance of Blue-on-Blue, therefore it would probably come down to visual identification, hence why Russians still believe in the dogfighting skills. That´s for one. Two, you are comparing different aircraft meant for different roles and tactics, thus equipped with different equipment. It is not a an even race where everyone plays by the rules. Russians have always relied on GCI-controlled interception and airspace and thus one cannot talk about differences between an SPO-10/15 and a AN/ALR56, especially when US/Western tactics relies more on the individual performance. One of you can claim that one is better than the other, but frankly you have no idea. The western model is good in some ways, such as having a rather rapid nature of engagement, but on the other side, imagine how weak SA one pilot has in the west with his own aircraft compared to a soviet one, which must rely on the GCI, but the GCI then sitting with the picture of a couple hundred kilometres. Those are different ideologies, and one cannot say that one is better than the other, because if that was the case, then both sides would be using the same tactics. They are not sleeping over in the HQ´s. You cannot compare equipment directly because its not meant to be used to the same degree, or with the same priority. This whole point bears no value whatsoever. Everything is built to fit a specific tactic and that stands. You are all also underestimating the very important point of reliability. I don´t care how good your aircraft is, the more technology, the higher the chance that it breaks. That´s a statistical fact. Furthermore, analogue is maybe less "advanced" than digital, but do not make the mistake of thinking that it is necessarily worse. That is not always the case. Spec Ops from US often use AK´s in Afghanistan and other "dusty" climates due to reliability. ACOG and a laser will help you little when your gun jams and you are about to breach a door. Same goes for aircraft. (I have IRL accounts from military personal of varying military grades as to them often disliking western weapons due to reliability issues and malfunctions). Three, you are locking the outcome of a whole conflict based on a couple of aircraft that you are mentioning in an isolated event which would never happen. There would be jamming from both sides, probably no satellites (because war), therefore back to EGI, and other doppler systems. There would be aircraft such as Mig25/31´s with far greater missiles and range. Same goes for the west, F-22/35, etc. There would be SAM´s, MANPADS, there would be electronic and digital warfare. The conflict you are trying to decide based on a couple of aircraft is just stupid as these aircraft would be a negligible fraction of theatre and all the parties involved. And the point still stands, what is the actual objective. Its great if you manage to win the air war, but what does that matter if all your aerodromes are bombed and you have nowhere to land. Or nowhere to come back to. And then, as a final cherry on the cake, in case of a potential defeat of either side, let me remind you of the funny amount of nuclear weapons we got in the world. Enough to decimate the earth a couple times over. Do you really want to talk about who´s RWR is the best? To sum it all up, and prove to you all how your faith in technology alone and better equipment or training is the secret winning ingredient, well, no one has ever managed to seize Afghanistan. Guys running around with turbans, praying, eating and sleeping. No fancy-schwancy equipment, no airforce to speak of, not even a unified chain of command like the most powerful militaries in the world have; Russia, USA and China. Just splinter groups detached from each other, fighting between each other, as well as against foreign forces and still win by kicking US out after 20 years. Same fate as Soviets, same as Napoleon. That´s how much your fancy equipment matters on a battlefield, where guerrilla warfare so far is unstoppable. Reprise from Vietnam, reprise from WWII, where germans invaded USSR with more advanced equipment, but ended up having Soviet flag hung down from the Reichstag in the end. The equipment was so advanced that it broke down under itself, because of too much technology and too little reliability. This all comes down to one thing, tactics and morale of your army, their incentive to fight. If the cause is just, SPO-10 or not, they will go to war and die if necessary. A AIM120C will help you little, if your pilots feel they have no business being in a country fighting a war and giving away their life for something they don´t believe in. @GGTharos Its great that you are always a firm believer of western superiority, and an eternal lover of F-15, but trust me, it doesn´t matter one bit in the grand scheme of things. Neither Apaches, nor F-15C secured US anything in the latest conflicts they have fought. In the end, if even a battle was won, the war was ultimately lost. So much for your fantastic futuristic tech. Mind you, when going to Iraq or Balkans, US brought more fighters with them than the enemy had troops on the ground (exaggeration, but you get the point). It wasn´t about equal 1v1´s to see who´s better, but rather about making the fight as unfair as possible, because that´s what a smart strategist would always do. It´s the tactics and strategy that wins you the war. Arguing like kids over who´s aircraft is better leads nowhere. Worse yet, the misconception of applying western tactics to aircraft from the east, or vice versa. It´s a wrong assumption to make. Also, whoever disrespected their enemy has lost to them, that´s a fact. You better assume that your enemy is competent and can do more than you, cause that way at least you have a chance. If you want to test yourself, go into DCS with a different mindset. Give yourself one life, as a real pilot would have, and see how long you will live. I can guarantee you that you won´t be thinking of Mig`s or Sukhois as carelessly, and vice versa.
  • Create New...