DCS: MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM

And yes that would have greatly increased the lethality of the mig23 in WVR ranges in that era.

Still would had need R-73, gimbal EOS, and good maneuverability which doesn't sound like MiG-23-ish. Otherwise vertical radar scan would have been sufficient.

We will make use of this module once its out shame we didnt get MLD version.

While I do want the MLD solely because it would be a bit more capable against other western fighters, the MLA was produced in larger numbers and served in more theaters, and covered a larger time span. Plus eventually we will get the F4E, and the MLA is a good fit for it.

Still would had need R-73, gimbal EOS, and good maneuverability which doesn't sound like MiG-23-ish. Otherwise vertical radar scan would have been sufficient.

Those migs were tested the with R73, and I think the MLD could cary the R73 anyway in normal forward facing mode. Plus the MLA and MLD were both decently maneuverable for 3rd gen fighters. And the mig23 used an EOS, (26SH1) IRST.

We are currently disscusing these matters. We will let everybody know when we agree on the implementation.

Hopefully this will be incorporated with the IADS "upgrade" ED has planned as well.

So how will the interaction with GCI be handled (if any?)

I hope that ED is responsible for that. As it should be for all REDFOR aircrafts (not available for the BLUFOR, as they use AWACS) that will create the whole REDFOR air defence network as one giant intelligence network (updated every 10 seconds at best) that is then available for GCI if they don't have a direct radar coverage.

So it should be a direct radio connection to GCI that is guiding you for all the moves the enemy fighters are doing in dogfight and then delivering you the situational awareness updates as required for your tasks. So it can't be just a "AWACS on ground" but far more accurate and detailed to the point.

And that as well means that the ground units will need to get far more realistic radio communications etc for spotting, reporting all kind units regardless are they Anti-Air or just ground pounders. As if you have a recon team somewhere on the hill, they will radio their spotted enemy aircrafts as well to the air defense network, so you can't go hiding behind the mountains or somewhere where ground troops can spot you and report you.

Yup that would be ideal. But I also wonder how they handle "tactics", that would be the trick. I.e. using fighters to corral enemy fighters into SAM kill box (with its radar off until it was playtime) etc. Or using fighters to plug "gaps" in SAM coverage. Stuff like that. I doubt DCS could make an AI that good.

Yup that would be ideal. But I also wonder how they handle "tactics", that would be the trick. I.e. using fighters to corral enemy fighters into SAM kill box (with its radar off until it was playtime) etc. Or using fighters to plug "gaps" in SAM coverage. Stuff like that. I doubt DCS could make an AI that good.

Those are actually fairly easy things to do.

The tactics. Depend who is the enemy. Hit and run at high speed and low altitude. SAHR missiles were not really good to beat this tactic. Also was expected to be more in unit numbers than the enemy, that’s why Mig keep the single engine cheapest option.

Yeah, actually its a good question on what sorts of tactics an AI from different eras would employ. Speaking more generally than the Mig23 of course. I'm thinking this if implemented will part of the dynamic campaign/IADS system from ED. a GCI would use Mig19s/21s/23's differently. And a 60's era IADS commander would likely use different tactics than a 90's era one.

If Coffee = True then

“110% reaction time” end

Still would had need R-73, gimbal EOS, and good maneuverability which doesn't sound like MiG-23-ish. Otherwise vertical radar scan would have been sufficient.

The EOS ain't required to use HMS to aim seeker around. The seeker follows the HMS itself. This is problem in MiG-29 modules, as well Su-27S as being limitation of FC3. You can read MiG-29 manual how missile seeker is by passing EOS or Radar.

And older MiG-23 was tested with R-73, but it was only MLD that received them.

MLA variant is better than MLD because when MLD entered service in mid 80s it was just a lower capability support fighter in a shadow of modern MiG-29 when MLA in late 70s was top tier Soviet fighter.

I'm glad we are going to have Flogger when it was good capable aircraft and in mid 80s, compared with MiG-29 and Su-27 it was not.

MLA variant is better than MLD because when MLD entered service in mid 80s it was just a lower capability support fighter in a shadow of modern MiG-29 when MLA in late 70s was top tier Soviet fighter.

I'm glad we are going to have Flogger when it was good capable aircraft and in mid 80s, compared with MiG-29 and Su-27 it was not.

With that logic you could fly any old aircraft at its time period and not against anything newer than it.

Like we wouldn't see a F-14B flying against Mig-23MLA and in some extend against F-15C even.

Yeah, actually its a good question on what sorts of tactics an AI from different eras would employ. Speaking more generally than the Mig23 of course. I'm thinking this if implemented will part of the dynamic campaign/IADS system from ED. a GCI would use Mig19s/21s/23's differently. And a 60's era IADS commander would likely use different tactics than a 90's era one.

If ED makes a general AI for all aircrafts, then it will fail.

Of course a general AI is required, but it should have modularization so you can apply different tactics for different aircrafts and even countries / periods. That would take more time to research what are the tactics, than to program AI then to use them.

As in simplest form it is like how to get a AI perform a flight between three waypoints that is easy thing. But then to know how the aircraft AI should react when a threat comes, like perform high altitude intercept, flank first, when to enable radars, when to turn and burn etc.

If you have a good AI framework, you can then program the rules how to operate the assets there are.

And that is what ED really should do, so it is not up to mission designer and their scripting, as that is the achilles heel currently. People just throw stuff around and go blow them up pretending that is the way it is done.

While the AI should not be "all-knowing", every AI unit should have moral, value for their lives, reaction times, situational awareness, visual scanning possibilities etc.

Like I would love to see a LOS implemented to all AI units. So when a vehicle crew is buttoned up, their vision cones are limited to specific ways. If they can't look up to sky, they can't aim at you. They can't react to you up in the air! If they want to have some change to spot where you are attacking for, someone needs to get out to do that, unless a commander or gunner tracks you through optics all the time. And as soon LOS is broken (by building, other obstacles) their capability find you again should be near zero.

Same thing with the fighter pilots, simulate the AI head turns, their 2° where they can identify and easily spot target, otherwise having just wider that requires clear motion to spot something. And that would turn how a AI pilots would fly, as they could lose you, requiring them to acquire again after turns and loops etc. And visual clutter like clouds, ground etc can make you difficult to spot and so on they could fly past you.

And now you would have big change to have different AI on different aicrafts. F-16 pilot having a great scanning possibilities and capability observe the ground as well. While Mig-23 pilot having very limited visibility to rear and even front.

Add there the simulated radio communications delays etc, the AI would receive assistance same way and same speed as anything else. As there would need to be AI that is simulating the radio communications same way to all, be receiver a human or AI.

Such things would as well allow finally disable the camera zoom functions from cockpit, so people wouldn't use magical 10x binoculars. As well big requirement would be to limit the virtual head movement speeds etc with TrackIR so they can't look at six so easily, but more like VR users does.

Many things that many would get angry for, but it would start to be the "HC" servers options in server.

Lots of flying tactics would need to be changed and would change by the AI getting own limitations and benefits. Be it then how to perform a high speed intercept and then run away after missile run, or how to patrol in area that GCI told by altitude, heading and speed, without any waypoints etc information. Just blindly there trusting that GCI knows what they are waiting you to be there.

MLA variant is better than MLD because when MLD entered service in mid 80s it was just a lower capability support fighter in a shadow of modern MiG-29 when MLA in late 70s was top tier Soviet fighter.

I'm glad we are going to have Flogger when it was good capable aircraft and in mid 80s, compared with MiG-29 and Su-27 it was not.

I agree, plus the MLA was also exported a bit more widely than the MLD. But we won't have a near-peer opponent for the MLA until the F4E shows up. I mainly want to see more 60s/70's/80's era western aircraft. Since thats currently where the migs are at. Instead we have the F86/F5 and can "sort-of" pretend that the viggen can also fit (even though its a 90's upgrade version).

You also have the Mirage 2000C. A bit updated, but also a viable option. Viggen’s 90s updates are kind of minimal if you remove Rb-74, Rb-15F and BK-90. F-5E is ok, but is a rare version with RWR.

Well supposedly the Mirage 2000C we have is minimally mid90's vintage (in terms of radar/avionics) and with 2015 era lighting/NVG upgrades so its a bit of a stretch for the cold war... The 530D is also mostly post cold war being introduced in 88. Magic-2 is also post cold war being introduced in 85, but not sure on which airframes it worked on original, for example it was integrated into some F16's in 1990. If Razbam wanted to I guess they could add Magic-1's and earlier versions of the 530. But still the 2000-C RDI has a more capable 90's era radar.

With the Viggen I think the other major improvement was the Ternav, which you can't exactly disable easily.

The F5E is certainly cold war, even with the rare RWR. I think it has alot of SA advantages over the mig21 because of that, plus its better radar on the online PVP servers.

You can also sort of toss in the harrier we have, though again with its improved NAV systems and weapons its not particularly representative of the original harrier 2 that came out right at the end of the cold war. You can get it roughly right by prohibiting the TPOD, and if you can damage individual systems I'd say you knock out the GPS nav or not use it, and limiting some of the PGM's as I don't think they were all initially integrated in the 87 version. But despite all that its VERY capable for a end of cold war era plane.

So again, "at best" you currently have late 80's and really mostly "90's" era blue air going up against early 70's era red air (mig 21). Even with the MLA it will be late 70's vs late 80's-90's at best. About the only blue planes that will worry about the mig23 will be the F5E.

We need the Sea Harrier that had a literal moving map!!

We need the Sea Harrier that had a literal moving map!!

The old school microfilm map? Yes please.

The Aviodev F-1 will be a great opponent for the 23 when it’s released

The Aviodev F-1 will be a great opponent for the 23 when it’s released

Totally agreed provided its the 70's/80's version, as will the F4E.

I think we are getting four F-1 variants, with F-1M coming last

Good thing is that F-4E has been added to the USA forces in mission editor. It can also carry old AIM-7 and AIM-9 variants. AI only, but could be used as a supporting bluefor jet in PvP missions.

Heatblur might release the F-14A (been rather quiet lately) if thats the case there you have another opponent.

If mods are okay, the A-4 is also a viable opponent.

By the way Syria have Mig-23MLD. Seem they are the only country with MLD version up to date.

What do you think guys, add R-73 in the MLA (as an exemption) versión to close it a bit to the MLD version in a Syria map or Soviet 80s map. That’s ok for you?

By the way Syria have Mig-23MLD. Seem they are the only country with MLD version up to date.

 

What do you think guys, add R-73 in the MLA (as an exemption) versión to close it a bit to the MLD version in a Syria map or Soviet 80s map. That’s ok for you?

Yup, they operated both MLA's IIRC and MLD's now. In fact the VVS MLD's were upgraded from MLA's not new built, so possibly just upgraded their old ones.

I'm not sure what exactly would be involved in re-wiring the FCS for the R73 vs the R60m, but I don't imagine it was all that complex, and the R73's were tested on MLA's initially so it "might" be pretty easy to do. So I'd be ok with it as long as it was a MP server configurable thing too.

The MLD had avionics and aerodynamics upgrades over the MLA as well. So I'm not sure using an MLA+R73 would really be a great "model" of an MLD though.