Su-25 tailhook

We have the carrier playground of the Marianas coming out and the super carrier module with an upgraded Kuznetsov but only one aircraft to fly from it that can't do much in the way of air to ground. I think it is extremely unlikely but it would be great if we could get the Su-25 upgraded to the carrier variant. I would gladly pay for it.

I recognize though that the biggest problem is it seem the carrier version was just a trainer and I don't know if it could carry any weapons. But if it was possible it would be nice to have Su-33 escorts for it so it can make attacks on Anderson field.

Su-25UTG was unarmed trainer, without any weapon, with arresting hook.

And Su-25 overall, with it's tiny range and no air refueling wouldn't be useful as carrier aircraft.

A better option would be fleshing out the 33's weapons to include the full list, rather than developing a half-baked naval Frog.

A better option would be fleshing out the 33's weapons to include the full list, rather than developing a half-baked naval Frog.

Agree on the limited Russian carrier-launched air to ground capabilities in the current state of DCS. Needs to be expanded.

Half-baked naval frog. THAT had me cracking up! Thanks for that.

Did a quick search and found this gem.

https://images.app.goo.gl/7EA63HbyTt41bciE6

Ok, it was bad idea...

A better option would be fleshing out the 33's weapons to include the full list, rather than developing a half-baked naval Frog.

Let me guess?? You saw the erroneous list of A/G stuff listed on Su33 Wikipedia ?

Current Su33 is fine as as is. Wikipedia is misleading because it only applies to recent modernized variation perhaps.

it only applies to recent modernized variation perhaps.

and Airshow static displays:megalol:

Just make a J-15/liaoning... Its better for that map anyway. Kuzenekow isn't sailing halfway around the world to drop bombs on guam ;)

Su-25UTG was unarmed trainer, without any weapon, with arresting hook.

And Su-25 overall, with it's tiny range and no air refueling wouldn't be useful as carrier aircraft.

From what I read the UTG could carry weapons and the UB from which it was derived was used as weapons trainer and the UTG did deploy on the Kuz. I'm not saying its some great carrier aircraft.

I would think a Frog would make a terrible carrier aircraft with those high, narrow gear. It's a bit unstable on solid ground, much less on a heaving ship.

@Kev2Go

Yes, as in ''expand and fill out and/or update'' what's hard to understand? Irrelevant whether it's newer or older. An even better idea would be a MiG-29K that has seen much wider service than the semi-prototype 33, but that's pretty improbable.

Let me guess?? You saw the erroneous list of A/G stuff listed on Su33 Wikipedia ?

 

 

Current Su33 is fine as as is. Wikipedia is misleading because it only applies to recent modernized variation perhaps.

Cause we have the russian fire bombs, isn't it?

I would think a Frog would make a terrible carrier aircraft with those high, narrow gear. It's a bit unstable on solid ground, much less on a heaving ship.

 

@Kev2Go

Yes, as in ''expand and fill out and/or update'' what's hard to understand? Irrelevant whether it's newer or older. An even better idea would be a MiG-29K that has seen much wider service than the semi-prototype 33, but that's pretty improbable.

Look just accept the fact that Ed is not going to further develop currently existing fc3 aircraft, Or offer modernized versions of them.Especially not if they do,nt have the documentation to confirm such features or understand how they procedurally are implemented on such airframe.

Cause we have the russian fire bombs, isn't it?

There aren't any firebombs on any aircraft in dcs

period. This has been discussed countless of times.

I would think a Frog would make a terrible carrier aircraft with those high, narrow gear. It's a bit unstable on solid ground, much less on a heaving ship.

 

Look just accept the fact that Ed is not going to further develop currently existing fc3 aircraft, Or offer modernized versions of them.Especially not if they do,nt have the documentation to confirm such features or understand how they procedurally are implemented on such airframe.

What the hell are you on about? This is a wishlist for a Naval Frog. I said a better option would be expanding the already in game aircraft, or adding an actually used combat aircraft. This ain't rocket science. Whether it's feasible or not is irrelevant in the context. No ''facts'' needing to accept, chuckles.

What the hell are you on about? This is a wishlist for a Naval Frog. I said a better option would be expanding the already in game aircraft, or adding an actually used combat aircraft. This ain't rocket science. Whether it's feasible or not is irrelevant in the context. No ''facts'' needing to accept, chuckles.

Now you change the goalpost. You complained about the su33 lacking ordinance. You yourself brought it on yourself to go OT, so dont think you can just pull the OT accusation card just because someone else rectified some other claims made.

I didn't say you were off topic. You're ranting about ''just accept FC3''. I SAID, originally, I thought a naval Frog of questionable value was a bad idea (despite being a Frog fan myself), and suggested an updated 33 as a better more practical option, or even better the 29K as it is seeing at least some service and production beyond ''glorified prototype' including foreign service with India if I remember.

All three are in the ''not going to happen'' category, so go drink a beer and unknot your knickers.

There aren't any firebombs on any aircraft in dcs

period. This has been discussed countless of times.

Sorry? Just cause ED can't, don't want to make fire bombs we need to be happy?

Sorry? Just cause ED can't, don't want to make fire bombs we need to be happy?

Thats your belief, and you said it not I. All i said was not to get into that to avoid going OT on a single muntion type when plenty of text has been typed on the matter in other threads. You dont need to be happy, but there is no need to beat a dead horse ..... again.

Besides who said they can't or wont at some point? After all Mk77 was ( and still is) planned list for the Hornet. If ED develops the nessary engine effects for simulating them im sure theyl be added accordingly to other aircraft eventually.

Sorry? Just cause ED can't, don't want to make fire bombs we need to be happy?

Last I heard they're planned.

I would think a Frog would make a terrible carrier aircraft with those high, narrow gear. It's a bit unstable on solid ground, much less on a heaving ship.

And yet they were made and operated (at least very limitedly).