Jump to content

Leatherneck SU-22 poll


badger66

Leatherneck SU-22 poll  

1178 members have voted

  1. 1. Leatherneck SU-22 poll

    • Yeah , I want to see the SU-22
      680
    • No , Im not interested in the SU-22
      297
    • Id like to see something differant from the Russian side ..... mention it .
      204


Recommended Posts

Don't get me wrong, Su-24 is a great aircraft and great idea for dcs module but.... reality. I think she is still too classified and rather no chances for good documentation and approval from Russian MOD. Su-17/22 is still in service in Poland and few other countries, it's much easier find documentation ( even I have few nice "papers" ). Of course lack of radar is some kind of shortcoming, but except this in his time Su-17M4 was really capable aircraft regarding avionics and weaponry. And what is important she had good flight charakteristics, in clean configuration maneuverability like Mig-21, very stable in landing configuration, high AOA etc. In my opinion this is very realistic and practical choice for module for now, in future Su-24M of course is must have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 294
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't get me wrong, Su-24 is a great aircraft and great idea for dcs module but.... reality. I think she is still too classified and rather no chances for good documentation and approval from Russian MOD. Su-17/22 is still in service in Poland and few other countries, it's much easier find documentation ( even I have few nice "papers" ). Of course lack of radar is some kind of shortcoming, but except this in his time Su-17M4 was really capable aircraft regarding avionics and weaponry. And what is important she had good flight charakteristics, in clean configuration maneuverability like Mig-21, very stable in landing configuration, high AOA etc. In my opinion this is very realistic and practical choice for module for now, in future Su-24M of course is must have.

 

i dont think the Su24M ( non M2) is classified. it has pretty old avionics for today standards even if it is still in service. and it went into service before the Su27 or Mig29.

 

Remember that the Su27 and Mig29 are also still in service, not all are upgraded to SM or SMt standards.

 

And jet ED had the necessary information, ( nor any known problems from the MOD) to develop them in flaming cliffs< they had updated thier FM, to meed DCS standards, and has been Remodeling them. While we had a updated Su27 for some time, we did with the release of DCS 1.5 , did had a Mig29A, and G get updated recently , along with new cockpit interiors. with the updates to the mig29S FM and 3D exterior also expected to come.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's not about hers avionics is modern or not, it's about mentality = russian obsession about secrets, especially military secrets. Please remember that Su-27 and MiG-29 are not DCS standard of sim ( with RL connect them only 3D model and partially FM, all systems are ED's "licentia poetica" ). Most complicated and "real" russian plane in DCS is L-39, sorry LN but MiG-21 is for me like FC3 with clickable cockpit.:music_whistling:

 

Regarding to MiG-25: BM variant is still cassified, from fighter's data links are classified, because still in use on older MiG-31 variants.


Edited by foxbat155
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's not about hers avionics is modern or not, it's about mentality = russian obsession about secrets, especially military secrets. Please remember that Su-27 and MiG-29 are not DCS standard of sim ( with RL connect them only 3D model and partially FM, all systems are ED's "licentia poetica" ). Most complicated and "real" russian plane in DCS is L-39, sorry LN but MiG-21 is for me like FC3 with clickable cockpit.:music_whistling:

 

Regarding to MiG-25: BM variant is still cassified, from fighter's data links are classified, because still in use on older MiG-31 variants.

 

But they very much have the knowledge to make a fully fidelty sim, remember they still need plenty of information to simulate radar and other avionics even in FC3 levels.

 

The Animations for FC3 switches are there. Hence why its very likely that at some point in the future we will see Full fidelty version of FC3 aircraft including the Su27 and Mig29. Its part of their roadmap. They just have other priorities as of now ( DCS 2.5, F/A18C, Straight of Hormuz, DCS Normandy)

 

 

But FC3 modules like the F15 still have realistic oriented FM, and Weapons related avonics performance,, they just aren't clickable. Clickable( with working functions) FC3 basically = full fidelity module.

 

i disagree, LN Mig21Bis is well done, especially being thier first module.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Su-17/22 is like Su-25T on steroids, SEAD capable, supersonic, large payload, suitable for CAS, optical targeting system for laser guided munitions + IR missiles for self defense, quite maneuverable. Su-24 is more bomber/strike aircraft + there is a big difficulty properly implementing the second seat. In terms of versatility and gameplay scenarios Su-17/22 is a much better option and easier to implement as a single seater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they very much have the knowledge to make a fully fidelty sim, remember they still need plenty of information to simulate radar and other avionics even in FC3 levels.

 

The Animations for FC3 switches are there. Hence why its very likely that at some point in the future we will see Full fidelty version of FC3 aircraft including the Su27 and Mig29. Its part of their roadmap. They just have other priorities as of now ( DCS 2.5, F/A18C, Straight of Hormuz, DCS Normandy)

 

 

But FC3 modules like the F15 still have realistic oriented FM, and Weapons related avonics performance,, they just aren't clickable. Clickable( with working functions) FC3 basically = full fidelity module.

 

i disagree, LN Mig21Bis is well done, especially being thier first module.

 

Kev I really have hope that someday we will get full MiG-29,Su-27 and F-15 modules and this didn't happen so far only because ED is busy. Now except 3D, FM they have nothing with RL, just read RL manuals. This is like compare chip chinese watch copy from Ebay with real Rolex, looks similar but.....

LN MiG-21 is not good module for now( but with chance to good in future ), low amonut of systems working like should be, FM was changed so many times, even LN lost orientation which is correct, weapon system is half done, navigation system is purely sci-fi. Take one day and read MiG-21 pilot's manual ( lot of copies flying around ) then compare with module and you will see difference. I'm here for fun with "real" aircraft all rest is just time wasting, but I'm enough optimistic to believe that in future many things will change for better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry LN but MiG-21 is for me like FC3 with clickable cockpit.:music_whistling:

 

Regarding to MiG-25: BM variant is still cassified, from fighter's data links are classified, because still in use on older MiG-31 variants.

 

Duuuudddde mig 21 is awesome i like it more than the A10C they did great job with it

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Edited by shab249
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kev I really have hope that someday we will get full MiG-29,Su-27 and F-15 modules and this didn't happen so far only because ED is busy. Now except 3D, FM they have nothing with RL, just read RL manuals. This is like compare chip chinese watch copy from Ebay with real Rolex, looks similar but.....

LN MiG-21 is not good module for now( but with chance to good in future ), low amonut of systems working like should be, FM was changed so many times, even LN lost orientation which is correct, weapon system is half done, navigation system is purely sci-fi. Take one day and read MiG-21 pilot's manual ( lot of copies flying around ) then compare with module and you will see difference. I'm here for fun with "real" aircraft all rest is just time wasting, but I'm enough optimistic to believe that in future many things will change for better.

 

ive seen the manual on avialgs. ( yes english translation)

 

startup procedures, weapons, and avionics like radar are working as it should. FM could use some tweaks( they merely had some problems recently with 1.5.6 beta build) , but its not Chinese Rolex copy. Still looks and feels like a mig, At the end of the day its hard to say whats realistic, because a paper description from a manual isnt the same as flying a Real mig, and getting a feel for it. I think only a former Mig21bis pilot can really make that judgement.

 

That an we dont have any other full fidelity mig21's, from other sims to compare t, so i Think what we have from LN is pretty good work, and will be fully finished once they patch it some more. Remember that all aircraft have begun as early access, and have been updated/ patched over time.

 

 

TBH the only release that ever disappointed me in terms of quality at nitial release ( and the immediate months following release) was the BAE HAWK.

 

Even the M2000C had that early release feel ( some features were not working), when it first came out, but was still very flyable.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

startup procedures, weapons, and avionics like radar are working as it should.

 

I like your optimism, I'm just more demanding.

 

.......and will be fully finished once they patch it some more.

 

I'm impatiently waiting for this, MiG-21 is my favourite Cold War red side fighter.

 

 

I think only a former Mig21bis pilot can really make that judgement.

 

That's true and that's why i'm not judging FM, I just wrote about surprisingly big FM fluctuations. Systems implementation can be rated by anyone who is able read and understand, we have enough documentation for this.

 

Now back to Su-22, all above confirms that is great choice for module. Fitter is much simpler than Su-24, less time for developing, smaller failure risk, less reasons to complain in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your optimism, I'm just more demanding.

 

 

 

I'm impatiently waiting for this, MiG-21 is my favourite Cold War red side fighter.

 

 

 

 

That's true and that's why i'm not judging FM, I just wrote about surprisingly big FM fluctuations. Systems implementation can be rated by anyone who is able read and understand, we have enough documentation for this.

 

Now back to Su-22, all above confirms that is great choice for module. Fitter is much simpler than Su-24, less time for developing, smaller failure risk, less reasons to complain in future.

 

 

Well Leatherneck is very much capable of doing more complex modules. Note thier taking on a F14A/B project, and how they are the only 3rd perty team to make thier own A2G Radar ( for the Viggen), and not wait for an in house solution from ED.

 

 

 

You have to realize that while there is more development time, more complex and flagship modules sell better. A10C is a very highly regarded module, F/A18C and F-14 are one of the most awaited modules.

 

 

IF developers only wanted to churn out simple aircraft, with less development time, byt that logic, why bother make anything more modern than ww2 or Korean jet era aircraft at all? because it merely depends on the choice the developer makes, it is not merely to churn out modules as fast as possible and opting for the most simplest airframes or systems.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i find the su-22 more compelling since there's historical account of fitters engaging f-5s, f-14s, and f-15s. a su-24 would just be another stand-alone aircraft, disconnected from any other dcs airframes.

 

yes the other aircraft we have/are getting for the most part (ex. oif f-18c, a-10c) aren't much better, but if there's a movement towards creating aircraft environments instead then it can be even more interesting. we already see potential in mig-21 vs f-5, f-86 vs mig-15, and ww2 is pushing in that direction.


Edited by probad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i find the su-22 more compelling since there's historical account of fitters engaging f-5s, f-14s, and f-15s. a su-24 would just be another stand-alone aircraft, disconnected from any other dcs airframes.

 

yes the other aircraft we have/are getting for the most part (ex. oif f-18c, a-10c) aren't much better, but if there's a movement towards creating aircraft environments instead then it can be even more interesting. we already see potential in mig-21 vs f-5, f-86 vs mig-15, and ww2 is pushing in that direction.

 

 

su24 isnt disconnected at all from our current scenarios. Thats the point ive been making. DCS was always to a certain extent aimed at scenarios or comparable enough matchups even as far back as Flaming Cliffs. IE F15 vs Su27 and Mig29 ( though the latter would be more a F16/f18 counterprt) or for ground attack su25 & A10.

 

the Su24 fits into both cold war and Modern days scenarios. It saw use in the 2008 Georgian war ( Fits into Caucasus map) and continues to be serving alongside Su27 and Mig29's to date. It saw combat use as recently In the conflict in Syria, and Su24s have buzzed US ships in the baltic sea.

 

 

We are getting a Straight of Hormuz map and Iran is one of those operators of the Su24.

 

IF you ask me for a modern scenario, US carrier Group sent into in that region with F/A18s , facing against a mixed force of Iranian Tomcats, Su24s, Mig29s, and F5E's will make a very interesting match up especially in Multiplayer.

 

http://www.crimeanairwars.com/Frontpage4/full-24404-87279-hormuz.png


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

su24 isnt disconnected at all from our current scenarios. Thats the point ive been making. DCS was always to a certain extent aimed at scenarios or comparable enough matchups even as far back as Flaming Cliffs. IE F15 vs Su27 and Mig29 ( though the latter would be more a F16/f18 counterprt) or for ground attack su25 & A10.

 

the Su24 fits into both cold war and Modern days scenarios. It saw use in the 2008 Georgian war ( Fits into Caucasus map) and continues to be serving alongside Su27 and Mig29's to date. It saw combat use as recently In the conflict in Syria, and Su24s have buzzed US ships in the baltic sea.

 

 

We are getting a Straight of Hormuz map and Iran is one of those operators of the Su24.

 

IF you ask me for a modern scenario, US carrier Group sent into in that region with F/A18s , facing against a mixed force of Iranian Tomcats, Su24s, Mig29s, and F5E's will make a very interesting match up especially in Multiplayer.

 

http://www.crimeanairwars.com/Frontpage4/full-24404-87279-hormuz.png

 

Su-24 is primarily a long range bomber, nowhere near the versatility of Su-22 and is lot more complex to develop. Su-22 is more something like Viggen in terms of versatility multi role capability and designation.

Moreover the second cockpit and AI for the second crewman requires nearly as much workload as developing one more aircraft, as far as I know. Maybe one Su-24 equals Mig-23/Su-22 combined workload, is it worth it? Would Su-24 be a commercial success? I don't think so...

A simple trainer like L-39 required more than one year to get it to somewhat functional state as far as multicrew goes and there is no AI for the second seat.

As much as I like Su-24, I cannot see many advantages to developing Su-22. Su-22 is not in service in VVS just because it is a single engine aircraft and all single engine combat air were removed from VVS inventory in the nineties, otherwise it is a highly capable aircraft offering a very interesting mix of possible missions and scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF developers only wanted to churn out simple aircraft, with less development time, byt that logic, why bother make anything more modern than ww2 or Korean jet era aircraft at all? because it merely depends on the choice the developer makes, it is not merely to churn out modules as fast as possible and opting for the most simplest airframes or systems.

 

We need DCS standard ( not FC3 ) capable single seat attacker for red side, that's all. Bench with candidates is short: Su-17/22M4 or MiG-27D/M/K. In my opinion is easier get good documentation for Fitter. This not excludes more complex aircraft in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Su-24 is primarily a long range bomber, nowhere near the versatility of Su-22 and is lot more complex to develop. Su-22 is more something like Viggen in terms of versatility multi role capability and designation.

Moreover the second cockpit and AI for the second crewman requires nearly as much workload as developing one more aircraft, as far as I know. Maybe one Su-24 equals Mig-23/Su-22 combined workload, is it worth it? Would Su-24 be a commercial success? I don't think so...

A simple trainer like L-39 required more than one year to get it to somewhat functional state as far as multicrew goes and there is no AI for the second seat.

As much as I like Su-24, I cannot see many advantages to developing Su-22. Su-22 is not in service in VVS just because it is a single engine aircraft and all single engine combat air were removed from VVS inventory in the nineties, otherwise it is a highly capable aircraft offering a very interesting mix of possible missions and scenarios.

 

 

Viggen is really not that versatile. the Computer gets confused when you mix munitions types, so really a single airframe can only really use 1 type of munition ( apart from IR seekrs for defense) whilst either Su22 or Su24, and other western counterparts can have mixed loadouts.

 

 

you really cannt say if the su24 would or wouldnt be a commersical success. why have you conduced a market research study?

 

 

The excuses dont matter, it just not in service anymore, and the Su22M4 might of been okay for the early 80s, but its still behind in electronics and air frame to any comparable US fighter by the this point. so no that is just semantics the Su22 was an obsolete aircraft by the 90s. The airframe was from the late 60s, by the 90s. There really was no point keeping it around in service.

 

Id be nice to have a legacy soviet aircraft( especially strike) that isn't short legged, compared to western counterparts, which is what the Su24 offers, and as a bonus due to longer service life fits into modern scenarios, including future straight of hormuz map.

 

 

We need DCS standard ( not FC3 ) capable single seat attacker for red side, that's all. Bench with candidates is short: Su-17/22M4 or MiG-27D/M/K. In my opinion is easier get good documentation for Fitter. This not excludes more complex aircraft in future.

 

so a full fidelty Su25 ;)

 

Im guessing what you want if your idea is just to have a full fidelity attack aircraft churned out in the quickest amount of time.

 

Animations are all there. It need not have an entire cockpit done from scratch., let alone needed a massive 3d update (wheras Su22 and Mig27 would need in DCS) Coding is still a large part of the job, but already there is less workload with the 3d stuff, and animations finished.

 

 

 

Also for a updated Trailer of the FC3 Su25, its interesting for the healthy amount of screen time the Su24 is given ;)

 


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that Su-17M4 wasn't a capable aircraft, at service start she had one of most wide weaponry, over 150 external stores variants, several types of AGM's, over 30 types of bombs, clusters, napalm containers, 5 types of FFAR's, each with few warheads modifications, wide reconnaissance capability ( few types of reconnaissance pods: photo, IR, TV, laser, Elint ). Electronics was good, modernized KLEN-54 LRTMS, digital multifunction computer, expanded navigation system ( doppler nav radar, INS platform, RSBN, RSDN, ARK, accuracy without radio correction 0,5% route lenght, with correction 0,2%, the same values like eg. Tornado ). Only shortcoming is lack of radar, but this was because of Soviet doctrine for this aircraft class ( concerns MiG-27 as well ), and last argument: Jaguar don't had radar as well and nobody complained. Most people don't known that Su-25T got autopilot, whole weapon system and navigation system straight from Fitter with HUD and Skhval as addition. What interesting Su-17M4 prototypes flown with HUD borrowed from MiG-27K but in serial production was deleted. All aircrafts from early 80's needed modrnization in 90's not only Fitter, current Viggen module it's modernized variant originaly she had much poorer capabilites.

 

Full fidelity Su-25 ( especially in SM variant ) is a dream, but ED cannot do this because some licence agreement problem with Ubisoft?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that Su-17M4 wasn't a capable aircraft, at service start she had one of most wide weaponry, over 150 external stores variants, several types of AGM's, over 30 types of bombs, clusters, napalm containers, 5 types of FFAR's, each with few warheads modifications, wide reconnaissance capability ( few types of reconnaissance pods: photo, IR, TV, laser, Elint ). Electronics was good, modernized KLEN-54 LRTMS, digital multifunction computer, expanded navigation system ( doppler nav radar, INS platform, RSBN, RSDN, ARK, accuracy without radio correction 0,5% route lenght, with correction 0,2%, the same values like eg. Tornado ). Only shortcoming is lack of radar, but this was because of Soviet doctrine for this aircraft class ( concerns MiG-27 as well ), and last argument: Jaguar don't had radar as well and nobody complained. Most people don't known that Su-25T got autopilot, whole weapon system and navigation system straight from Fitter with HUD and Skhval as addition. What interesting Su-17M4 prototypes flown with HUD borrowed from MiG-27K but in serial production was deleted. All aircrafts from early 80's needed modrnization in 90's not only Fitter, current Viggen module it's modernized variant originaly she had much poorer capabilites.

 

Full fidelity Su-25 ( especially in SM variant ) is a dream, but ED cannot do this because some licence agreement problem with Ubisoft?.

 

I suppose but by the early 1980s saw the emergence of 4th generation lightweight multi role fighters, By the 1990s the Multi-role concept had very much matured.

 

 

Su22M4 could still never quite compare with the avionics on multi-role fighters like the F-16 or the F/A18, by the late 80s or early 90s. Even during the early 80s the F-16A, whilst lacking some more advanced functions its C model and later blocks would posses ( BVR medium range missiles, targeting pods, Precision guided bombs, SEAD, and anti shipping role for export F16 users), It still had Agm65 mavericks, its had a real HUD that still improved accuracy by providing CCIP for unguided munitions, whilst possessing a A2G mapping mode, along with its primary A2A radar.

 

 

pretty much todays Mig29 (SMT) can very much do the job of the su22 and more, whilst still being a air to air capable. SO even without the single Engine Restriction the Su22s was already past its prime, and a more limited potential for future upgrades.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that Fitter could get any kind of similar systems during modernization but nobody gave her chance. Soviets in 80's had almost 9000 combat aircrafts of all kinds, they simply don't had reason to care about multirole stuff. Their military doctrine had specific tasks for specific types of aviation ( Soviets divided tactical combat aviation for independent parts: fighter, fighter-bomber, attack, reconaisance ). It's no point compare Fitter to F-18 or F-16, different philosophy. Only comparable Western aircraft are Jaguars and fighter-bomber Mirage F1 variants. Finally CFE treaty killed classic Soviet fighter-bomber aviation, they have to cut large amount of aircraft and they pull out all MiG-23, 27, Su-17 not because all them were bad, but in order to save more modern MiG-29, Su-27, and keep all very important for them Su-24. Today is different story, progress in electronics, combat aircraft are very expensive, less aircraft means more tasks for them, no return to specialized combat aircrafts ( except some nostalgic stuff like A-10 or Su-25 ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that Fitter could get any kind of similar systems during modernization but nobody gave her chance. Soviets in 80's had almost 9000 combat aircrafts of all kinds, they simply don't had reason to care about multirole stuff. Their military doctrine had specific tasks for specific types of aviation ( Soviets divided tactical combat aviation for independent parts: fighter, fighter-bomber, attack, reconaisance ). It's no point compare Fitter to F-18 or F-16, different philosophy. Only comparable Western aircraft are Jaguars and fighter-bomber Mirage F1 variants. Finally CFE treaty killed classic Soviet fighter-bomber aviation, they have to cut large amount of aircraft and they pull out all MiG-23, 27, Su-17 not because all them were bad, but in order to save more modern MiG-29, Su-27, and keep all very important for them Su-24. Today is different story, progress in electronics, combat aircraft are very expensive, less aircraft means more tasks for them, no return to specialized combat aircrafts ( except some nostalgic stuff like A-10 or Su-25 ).

 

exactly my point Russian philosophy has evolved, its more similar to western one as in embracing the idea behind multirole aircraft. It would have occurred sooner had the Soviet Union not fallen apart. many projects were put on hold due finanical restriction in the 90s, and yes in part the advance in electronics did alot to move towrds this direction.

 

You have to realise that even with a massive budget, even if you can afford A large air force, it still makes more sense to have more multi role aircraft, than single role aircraft. it simplifies logistics, and you can still have not only a capable but massive force anyways.

 

 

Again its a good thing they didnt waste money on upgraded the Su22. I mean similarly Sure the F4 Phantm was fantastic for its time, but there was no point keeping this old cold warrior in front line service along the F15s and F16s or F/A18s, even though it could potentially have had updated avoincs to keep it relevant into the 21st century. However Still the F/a18 and especially the Superhornet are Just better airframes, in the same way the Mig29 is overall a better airframe to expand capabilities on to the Su22.

 

Similarly even the specialized strike F111 was replaced by the F-15E, even though it too could have been updated to meet more modern standards, but in this case F15E easily wins in verstility department too. Much better air frame for air to air, and unlike the F111 has a AIr to powerful air search radar, that can make use of Medium range Missiles.

 

Similar with the F16, there will be a point not that far in the future were we will begin to say goodbyes to this iconic aircraft. and the F35 will begin to replace this old multirole workhorse as time goes on. The F16 has still been upgraded oer the years, especially by Foreign users, but its airframe just doesn't have the upgrade potential as the F35, especially since an F16 would never have the stealth capabilities as a 5th gen aircraft.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you really cannt say if the su24 would or wouldnt be a commersical success. why have you conduced a market research study?

 

Id be nice to have a legacy soviet aircraft( especially strike) that isn't short legged, compared to western counterparts, which is what the Su24 offers, and as a bonus due to longer service life fits into modern scenarios, including future straight of hormuz map.

 

The problem with the Su-24M is that it's a two-seater so it's much trickier to operate it alone which is certainly a limitation.

 

Why couldn't Su-22M4's be used on the Hormuz map? Iraq got 36 of them (besides other variants) and during Desert Storm some of them (around 15 supposedly) fled to Iran which supposedly refurbished them recently. They were given to IRGC though, who gave some of them (10?) to Syria it seems.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the Su-24M is that it's a two-seater so it's much trickier to operate it alone which is certainly a limitation.

 

Why couldn't Su-22M4's be used on the Hormuz map? Iraq got 36 of them (besides other variants) and during Desert Storm some of them (around 15 supposedly) fled to Iran which supposedly refurbished them recently. They were given to IRGC though, who gave some of them (10?) to Syria it seems.

 

Because the Stright of HOrmuz wont include Iraq, Kuwait, or the specific parts or Iran to have Gulf war Scenarios, and or Iran-Iraq War. Iran no longer uses to su22. Neither will syria be included. Remember its not a map of the Entire middle east.

 

The map will only include United Arab Emirate , A portion of iran and Oman, and from the screens provided it looks to be based on modern era time period.

 

 

See this:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=129972

 

and the map area

 

 

http://www.crimeanairwars.com/Frontpage4/full-24404-87279-hormuz.png

 

 

 

Now while dual seaters combat aircraft are tricker to create it certainly hasn't stopped leatherneck from doing one. The F14 tomcat in development is a 2 seater.

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally want all 3 of MiG-23, Su-17 or 22, and Su-24. However, among the 3 I possibly prefer the Fitter the first, and the most.

 

Fast, decently agile, has better range than Flogger, pretty good payload, with many different options to choose weapons from, can do either strike or CAS missions.

 

While Su-24 is very cool, it is predominantly a striker like the Viggen. And I personally prefer single seat aircraft a bit more than two seaters in DCS.

 

Honeslty, I think we need all of them! :D.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...