What about Russian jets?

..and this is just a Russian thing? - I mean there are no "Western players" who want an F-16C or an F/A-18C because they are "modern", "iconic" and "kicks ass and will let them rampage across the skies"?!

Oh, definitely - but they will have F-18, F-14 & F-16 before any equivalent Red aircraft arrive, so they'll be able to do just that...

Maybe Chizh just doesn't want the aggravation.

I remember reading Overscan's guide to Russian Radar, and the limitations on the MiG-29 / Su-27 radars.

There was enough baying and whining when the Su-27 PFM came in - can you imagine the noise if the ASM Su-27 or MiG-29 came out, and the aircraft were modelled with realistic limitations on the detection range and time, lock time, gimbal limits, Doppler gate, and lookdown ability - radars that need GCI to operate as intended, and no effective GCI is available ?

edit:

Seriously? - Su-35, Su-30MKx, MiG-29SMT or MiG-29K....no?

Again, yes definitely, but I was just going with the idea that secrecy is part of the reason, so those earlier versions that the West have examples of might be more achievable...

Different subject - Interestingly, I understood Chizh to say that the Russian market account for about 10% of sales.

We definitely need a 4th Gen Russian fighter. This "focus" on "Western" 4th gen jets is irritating for those of us in the East. I mean, come on, the West get DCS: F-14, FC3 F-15C, and DCS F-18. There was once probably a F-22 & F-16 too coming out, but all we get is FC3 Su-33, Su-27 and MiG-29 that are half baked and can't use its designed systems. To ED, we desperately need a Russian DCS level 4th Gen Fighter.

There was enough baying and whining when the Su-27 PFM came in - can you imagine the noise if the ASM Su-27 or MiG-29 came out, and the aircraft were modelled with realistic limitations on the detection range and time, lock time, gimbal limits, Doppler gate, and lookdown ability - radars that need GCI to operate as intended, and no effective GCI is available ?

I happen to think that learning the quirks and complexities of a specific aircraft is what makes DSC great and stand out among other sims, especially in relation with the combat aspects. Despite their shortcomings, both the Mig-29A and Su-27A are still great planes in their own right.

And of course the MiG-29 (and Su-27) also serves in countries where I doubt there is any efficient GCI system in place.

That said, yes, we do need GCI.

Different subject - Interestingly, I understood Chizh to say that the Russian market account for about 10% of sales.

I remember reading Overscan's guide to Russian Radar, and the limitations on the MiG-29 / Su-27 radars.

There was enough baying and whining when the Su-27 PFM came in - can you imagine the noise if the ASM Su-27 or MiG-29 came out, and the aircraft were modelled with realistic limitations on the detection range and time, lock time, gimbal limits, Doppler gate, and lookdown ability - radars that need GCI to operate as intended, and no effective GCI is available ?

Well its a mixed bag Weta - some of the things are already modelled well enough in FC3, some also affect contemporary US radars to some degree, including some that would probably not be useful to model at all(such as processing overload). But I can't imagine a DCS level MiG-29 without GCI - both the system as such(ground network) and the onboard datalink and WCS/radar modes - since, as you said yourself, it played a significant role in how the MiG-29 was intended to operate.

I could imagine that if there is something that would create "noise" as you said, it would probably be the work load involved - having to click switches and dials on various panels to prep and operate the radar(rather than having most on controls on HOTAS). But as Zius said, learning and mastering the quirks and complexities unique to a particular aircraft type is what DCS is about and what makes it attractive :) .

Again, yes definitely, but I was just going with the idea that secrecy is part of the reason, so those earlier versions that the West have examples of might be more achievable...

Yes I think so too, but you said;

It might be that 3 modules - Su-27SM, MiG-29S & Su-25SM would be enough to saturate the market in the West for Red aircraft

Since these also fall into the category for which secrecy could be a problem, I thought you meant that just three aircraft would likely exhaust the interest for modern Russian fighters in the West.

At the risk of necromancing this thread, I think the main thing that would be appealing for DCS are some actual good period Red V Blue match-ups. Currently you have a late gen2 mig21 for "red" air, and maybe the F5E which isn't really iconic, or the Mig15 vs the F86 and thats about it. Aside from that you have a ton of very late model western 4th gen stuff (F18C, M2000, AV8, Viggen, and the upcoming F14) And now to that they will likely add a late model F16.

Out of that I guess I could see F14A's vs Mig21's in the 70's as an interesting matchup, but most of the rest of the plane set starts in the late 80's.

Personally I was super excited by the F4 and the Mig23 annoucments, but I guess the F4 is back burnered for the F16. But at the end of the day you have a ton of late model western air with nothing even remotely 4th gen on the red side.

I guess I just don't "get" the "plan" for the DCS planeset.

Well with AV-8B, F/A-18C and F-14 on one side and A-10C, F-16C and F-15E on the other, one could make a USAF vs USN/USMC match up over Nevada.

Strange that JF-17 or the Korean era get so little hype?

Strange that JF-17 or the Korean era get so little hype?

I'd imagine that a lot of the consumer base assumes, quite incorrectly, that warfare is:

-A technological struggle between US and Russian made kit.

-Everyone uses the latest and greatest.

They pay little attention to the realities a lot of nations contend with. It might boggle their minds that your native Finland operated the MiG-21 alongside Drakens and probably Hornets for a limited time.

The JF-17 has me pretty excited since I do love light fighters. It's a logical next step from an F-5 or MiG-21. Still, it seems to me that certain people not only want the latest and greatest, but it needs to come from a, sort of, mainstream. They want to see it branded by Boeing, Lockmart, MiG or Sukhoi. anything else seems to be a waste of time in their eyes.

I think is a pretty unfortunate stance to take as defense infrastructure is determined by the funding that can be given by their respective governments. A nation like the US will have oceans of capital to delve into whereas Bolivia does not.

This is why the US is receiving F-35s and Bolivia just retired its Shooting Stars in 2017. Nations look at what defense needs they have then determine how much of a budget their defense needs. For many nations, this means MiG-21s or nothing at all. If you were to look up the final retirement dates of a lot of the Korean fighters? You'd be surprised.

Bolivia retired the last combat F-86s in 1994. The MiG-15UTI is still confirmed to be used as a trainer for the KPAF and what's stopping them from using their mothballed MiG-15s as light attack birds if push were to come to shove? The Meteor soldiered on well past its prime in Brazil. And, those Bolivian Shooting Stars? They were acquired in the 70s when the airframe was really long in the tooth and they were utilized for combat operations, even as interceptors.

To create accurate missions, a maker will have come to grips with the reality that some nations can't afford the highest end and that a superpower isn't always involved.

I'd imagine that a lot of the consumer base assumes, quite incorrectly, that warfare is:

 

-A technological struggle between US and Russian made kit.

-Everyone uses the latest and greatest.

 

They pay little attention to the realities a lot of nations contend with. It might boggle their minds that your native Finland operated the MiG-21 alongside Drakens and probably Hornets for a limited time.

 

The JF-17 has me pretty excited since I do love light fighters. It's a logical next step from an F-5 or MiG-21. Still, it seems to me that certain people not only want the latest and greatest, but it needs to come from a, sort of, mainstream. They want to see it branded by Boeing, Lockmart, MiG or Sukhoi. anything else seems to be a waste of time in their eyes.

 

I think is a pretty unfortunate stance to take as defense infrastructure is determined by the funding that can be given by their respective governments. A nation like the US will have oceans of capital to delve into whereas Bolivia does not.

 

This is why the US is receiving F-35s and Bolivia just retired its Shooting Stars in 2017. Nations look at what defense needs they have then determine how much of a budget their defense needs. For many nations, this means MiG-21s or nothing at all. If you were to look up the final retirement dates of a lot of the Korean fighters? You'd be surprised.

 

Bolivia retired the last combat F-86s in 1994. The MiG-15UTI is still confirmed to be used as a trainer for the KPAF and what's stopping them from using their mothballed MiG-15s as light attack birds if push were to come to shove? The Meteor soldiered on well past its prime in Brazil. And, those Bolivian Shooting Stars? They were acquired in the 70s when the airframe was really long in the tooth and they were utilized for combat operations, even as interceptors.

 

To create accurate missions, a maker will have come to grips with the reality that some nations can't afford the highest end and that a superpower isn't always involved.

This, this is good :thumbup:

Easy example is Afghanistan, A-29 is everything they need

Maybe it has a bit to do with how development works. From a knowledge base it makes probably sense to develop the US 4th fighters in one push (even if that push takes 4 - 8+ years overall). Devs are just people and probably remember and forget stuff like the rest of us. Thus making the F/A-18....than eastern aircraft in between of same fidelity level and than going back to the F-16, wouldn't make as much sense as developing those back to back with all the research for common systems fresh in devs minds.

And, maybe its even a question of how much research and contract stuff they can devote energy into at the same time. Like if the channels are open with some aircraft manufacturers at a time, and ED has just a few people who can engage in that sort of work, then they might invest all their time on that side.

I'd imagine that a lot of the consumer base assumes, quite incorrectly, that warfare is:

 

 

To create accurate missions, a maker will have come to grips with the reality that some nations can't afford the highest end and that a superpower isn't always involved.

Excellent post!! :thumbup:

Don't EWR units provide that similar-to-AWACS functionality?