Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Grisleybear]

Are there really that many Viggen pilots that take out the mav as an air to air weapon?......

 

is that the reason it was removed?

[Foka1]

I’m presuming you are talking about the RB74, the 75 is an AGM.

Yep, the RB74 is a pretty good air to air missile, but so is the R60M. This is why we were promoting the rear aspect missile concept for the Cold War server.

Yesterday showed us that it can be even more fun with some good old tail chasing. :thumbup:

 

Also you was promoting era specific restrictions isn't it?

 

Irony is AJS-37 is 1991 plane, and it has no place in such setup then :)

 

With MiG-21BIS from 1975

 

and

 

F-5E from 1973-1975

 

 

Its performance and solutions for modernization were responded by other planes and weapons of early 90-s.

 

First Viggen version was AJ37 and apparently before upgrade in 1991 in could carry only two sidewibders:

 

The upgraded AJ 37, SF 37, and SH 37 machines acquired the new designations of "AJS 37", "AJSF 37", and "AJSH 37" respectively. All had:

 

The new processor and the MIL-STB 1553B databus.

 

A MIL-STD 1760 "universal" stores interface system.

 

An improved RWR system that also had a data recording function, giving it a bit of electronic intelligence capability.

 

A new mission planning system, with mission plans downloaded into a data cartridge that was plugged into the aircraft as part of flight preparations. The cartridge stored flight data during the mission, and was yanked out at the end of the mission for review on a mission computer.

Beyond that, the capabilities of the three types of machines retained considerable differences:

 

The AJS 37 could carry the DWS 39 and the Rb15F, and it could also carry up to six Sidewinders, instead of the two carried previously. Its radar was also upgraded to a similar or identical specification to that of the PS-371/A on the SH 37, allowing the AJS 37 to perform radar reconnaissance flights. However, the AJS 37 could not carry external reconnaissance pods. There were 48 AJS 37 upgrades. ( http://www.airvectors.net/avvig.html )

 

I can technically see that since maybe after upgrade it was upgraded for more cooling systems for all pylons.

 

Also AJ37 couldn't carry RB75 before 1980s upgrade and BK90 before 1991 upgrade.

 

ALTHOUGH at least engine AJS-37 is using is same RM8A from 1970s, so at least i nthat regard it fits.

 

So following your own logic Viggen should be limited to RB-04 RB-05 RB-24s and ability to carry only two RB-24s at the same time.

 

This took me 30 minutes to research and I don't get why everyone can't just stop pretending and just say that they want things for airframe they particularly like at the moment...

 

Just stop and do research for like two hours and you all will see a picture for what it is. You want balance or historical accuracy, there is nothing in between. And if you choose historical accuracy be ready that most likely it will just be F-5E vs MiG-21BIS and that is it...

Edited June 23, 2020 by P61
changed can to can't in one sentence

[Foka1]

Are there really that many Viggen pilots that take out the mav as an air to air weapon?......

 

is that the reason it was removed?

 

Need to stop talking about it and research tacviews to say, but no one will do that and will just continue useless arguments.

 

What I see is needed here is fundamental decision about gameplay first, then every other detail can be researched

[Grisleybear]

Need to stop talking about it and research tacviews to say, but no one will do that and will just continue useless arguments.

 

What I see is needed here is fundamental decision about gameplay first, then every other detail can be researched

 

So what you are saying is that i could make a baseless, under researched (and probably wrong) remark and have it impact the server, either for better or for worse.

 

I think everyone needs to take a step back and realise how lucky we are to even have this sort of server and setup in the first place.

 

If we are going to keep on changing this and that, this and that, we will go around in circles.

 

I remember going to rear aspect only a year or so ago, it was great fun, however, the A10 still had access to the aim9p ( cant remove it otherwise f5 will be left with just gar-8 ). This meant that the SU25 did not have any air to air defence whilst the A10 did... Obviously this lead to people moaning that the SU25 was useless because it couldn't defend itself and such stuff was reverted and we were back at square one.

 

Do you see where i am going with this?

[NELLUS]

Server News:

 

* All missions run under the good old weapons' restrictions *

 

Disabled AA weapons:

- R-60's and R-60M's.

- AIM-9L's, AIM-9M's and AIM-9P5's.

- RB-74's.

Disabled AG weapons:

- All AGM-65 variants except for the AGM-65H.

- AGM-122.

- All BK90 variants.

- Some RB variants (depends on the mission).

- CBU bombs.

- Nuke bombs.

- All AG guided bombs.

 

 

- When The Mountains Cry reenters the server and replaces Once Upon a Time in Abu Dhabi. Will be online tonight around 19:30 zulu.

- The Su-25T has been removed from all missions.

- The number of the available Harriers has been reduced.

- The Harriers will be removed gradually.

- Ground units in the mission Two Towns have been readjusted.

- Some KUB and Hawk sites have been replaced in some missions.

 

 

NOTE:

The weapons' restrictions will undergo multiple changes over the next days as testing and researches are required.

 

Good stuf, saw loads of CAP going on yesterday, had loads of fun, even though I got shot down.

 

Great base for all the future cold war planes and helicopters that are on the horizon.

[Foka1]

So what you are saying is that i could make a baseless, under researched (and probably wrong) remark and have it impact the server, either for better or for worse.

 

Easy. You, me, anyone.

 

Regarding RB75

Here pilot Leech launch RB75 from 5.3 km front aspect against 2IAE CRASH (took me 10 minutes to find it among last days tacviews)

 

 

YOU THINK IT HITS HIM HERE? Oh no why take it that easy, it missed:

 

 

BUT WAIT it has MAGICAL 360 no scope seeker and it does 180 and turns back on poor Crash:

 

 

 

Crash climbing again and it seems that after such turns it shouldnt have energy... pffft.. it has:

 

How many more such launches I find if I take more time to check tacviews? I know I found one couple days ago where I saw Blue Viggen killing BLUE buddy with RB75.

[Foka1]

I remember going to rear aspect only a year or so ago, it was great fun, however, the A10 still had access to the aim9p ( cant remove it otherwise f5 will be left with just gar-8 ). This meant that the SU25 did not have any air to air defence whilst the A10 did... Obviously this lead to people moaning that the SU25 was useless because it couldn't defend itself and such stuff was reverted and we were back at square one.

 

Do you see where i am going with this?

 

Frankly I don't see where are you leading with this... But whole thing sounds amusing yes.

 

Problem I see is people want shit for thing they are currently flying.

 

I on the other hand have concept of care about opponents too, because we are all into this and should care about overall experience not only about your own.If you blinded by things you only want you will end up with flying against AI.

 

Example: by flying mainly MiG-21 I was not noticing problem with its afteburner, but because I always trying to speak with overall community, not only with RED guys, I've noticed complain from F-5 guys that AIM-9P can't sniff MiG-21 when its Afterburning. Which lead to bug reports and pushing resolution of this bug from my side. Thanks M3 guys for finally fixing it month ago which makes scenario with AIM-9P vs R-13M somewhat plausible now. Moreover you can check last page in F-5 manual which I was translating. This is what we need, wear other's man shoes.

[2IAE-CrashBG]

:lol::lol::megalol:

 

:pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly:

[NELLUS]

Easy. You, me, anyone.

 

Regarding RB75

Here pilot Leech launch RB75 from 5.3 km front aspect against 2IAE CRASH (took me 10 minutes to find it among last days tacviews)

 

 

YOU THINK IT HITS HIM HERE? Oh no why take it that easy, it missed:

 

 

BUT WAIT it has MAGICAL 360 no scope seeker and it does 180 and turns back on poor Crash:

 

 

 

Crash climbing again and it seems that after such turns it shouldnt have energy... pffft.. it has:

 

How many more such launches I find if I take more time to check tacviews? I know I found one couple days ago where I saw Blue Viggen killing BLUE buddy with RB75.

 

Wow.. hehe, not sure if you have noticed but the AJ37 is not using the Mavs anymore.. :lol: so this whole presentation should have been presented on another server.. Alpenwolf is changing the mission one by one.

Edited June 23, 2020 by NELLUS

[Alpenwolf]

As always, P61, good input, buddy!

 

I've checked out some of my tacview files and saw Viggen pilots doing or at least trying to do the same with the RB 75. Even found some in the mission Sail Ahoy! from last week.

 

No matter what I do, players will always find a way around. Same thing with not allowing the Cmdr slots in all missions because some players manipulate that as I stated in previous posts.

If I'd start looking for historical accuracy (and I tried that years ago) I might end up having 2-3 modules on the server. And even then some genius will challenge that with a better source on the internet with even more accurate information regarding that era. You can see where this would go, can't you?!

 

The current weapons' restrictions stands! Just like it always did in the past for a while before it gets removed again and we're back at it with almost all weapons being allowed.

 

If I had more tools in the mission editor life would be much easier. I could then disable the R-60M's for all airplanes except for the Su-25's as one example. Such an option is not there among hundred others. And many options are wished for on the wish list of the forums and so far I don't recall ED working so hard on improving the mission editor tool.

 

So whether it's the product of DCS World itself or some party crashing players or the lack of modules or the lack of weapons or whatever comes to your mind, with all these permanent factors out there all/most mission designers will always have to deal with that and it will never be perfect. Not even close. NEVER! Maybe sometime in the future. But I said that to myself years ago and here we are in the future.

 

... and I can smell the shitstorm coming from afar once the Syria map is available. Historical accuracy debates will be all over the forums, I recon. As if we had all the necessary tools for that. Check out the paragraph above this one.

[Alpenwolf]

As always, P61, good input, buddy!

 

I've checked out some of my tacview files and saw Viggen pilots doing or at least trying to do the same with the RB 75. Even found some in the mission Sail Ahoy! from last week.

 

No matter what I do, players will always find a way around. Same thing with not allowing the Cmdr slots in all missions because some players manipulate that as I stated in previous posts.

If I'd start looking for historical accuracy (and I tried that years ago) I might end up having 2-3 modules on the server. And even then some genius will challenge that with a better source on the internet with even more accurate information regarding that era. You can see where this would go, can't you?!

 

The current weapons' restrictions stands! Just like it always did in the past for a while before it gets removed again and we're back at it with almost all weapons being allowed.

 

If I had more tools in the mission editor life would be much easier. I could then disable the R-60M's for all airplanes except for the Su-25's as one example. Such an option is not there among hundred others. And many options are wished for on the wish list of the forums and so far I don't recall ED working so hard on improving the mission editor tool.

 

So whether it's the product of DCS World itself or some party crashing players or the lack of modules or the lack of weapons or whatever comes to your mind, with all these permanent factors out there all/most mission designers will always have to deal with that and it will never be perfect. Not even close. NEVER! Maybe sometime in the future. But I said that to myself years ago and here we are in the future.

 

... and I can smell the shitstorm coming from afar once the Syria map is available. Historical accuracy debates will be all over the forums, I recon. As if we had all the necessary tools for that. Check out the highlighted paragraph above this one.

[NELLUS]

As always, P61, good input, buddy!

 

I've checked out some of my tacview files and saw Viggen pilots doing or at least trying to do the same with the RB 75. Even found some in the mission Sail Ahoy! from last week.

 

No matter what I do, players will always find a way around. Same thing with not allowing the Cmdr slots in all missions because some players manipulate that as I stated in previous posts.

If I'd start looking for historical accuracy (and I tried that years ago) I might end up having 2-3 modules on the server. And even then some genius will challenge that with a better source on the internet with even more accurate information regarding that era. You can see where this would go, can't you?!

 

The current weapons' restrictions stands! Just like it always did in the past for a while before it gets removed again and we're back at it with almost all weapons being allowed.

 

If I had more tools in the mission editor life would be much easier. I could then disable the R-60M's for all airplanes except for the Su-25's as one example. Such an option is not there among hundred others. And many options are wished for on the wish list of the forums and so far I don't recall ED working so hard on improving the mission editor tool.

 

So whether it's the product of DCS World itself or some party crashing players or the lack of modules or the lack of weapons or whatever comes to your mind, with all these permanent factors out there all/most mission designers will always have to deal with that and it will never be perfect. Not even close. NEVER! Maybe sometime in the future. But I said that to myself years ago and here we are in the future.

 

... and I can smell the shitstorm coming from afar once the Syria map is available. Historical accuracy debates will be all over the forums, I recon. As if we had all the necessary tools for that. Check out the highlighted paragraph above this one.

 

We will for sure miss the RB75/AGM65 on the Viggen, but if this means that we can have a better balance and less of those RB75 air to air guys out there then so be it. Bottom line is that your server is a place of balance and fun, which I think you have nailed with your last weapon spread sheet.

 

[DEVILS] NELLUS

[m4ti140]

I’m presuming you are talking about the RB74, the 75 is an AGM.

Yep, the RB74 is a pretty good air to air missile, but so is the R60M. This is why we were promoting the rear aspect missile concept for the Cold War server.

Yesterday showed us that it can be even more fun with some good old tail chasing. :thumbup:

 

 

No, he's talking about RB75. Mavericks can track aerial targets, they home on contrast, they couldn't care less what produces that contrast. Of course they should be atrocious against aerial targets, but not the Heatblur RB75, nonono, this one is like something out of Ace Combat. It's superior to dedicated AA weapons.

 

 

As for RB74/AIM-9L vs R60M - R60M is a steaming pile of garbage compared to AIM-9L. It sits somewhere between RB74 and RB24J in terms of capability, probably closer to the latter.

[Hiromachi]

I'm not sure about exact specs of AIM-9P (not disabled P5) since I havent looked into my F-5 papers but R-60 (not M) is comparable to it missile, with shorter range but a bit greater maneuverability.

The R-13M1 is much inferior missile to AIM-9P, as although it has better than R-60 range, its very heavy (four R-13s make you dump energy faster in maneuvers than six R-60s). I'm contemplating taking only two of them since four make me waaay too slow, while it has limited "advantages". R-13M1 has mere 3.7 G launch limit (R-3S has 2 G, R-60 has 7 G), so its - as pointed by m4ti140 a missile comparable to AIM-9D which we dont even have on Blue side.

 

The other thing I'm contemplating is taking R-55 which has 5 G launch limit but it also has abysmal range so ...

 

Thing ultimately is that US simply had superior missile designs to what USSR brought to the table. In reality this was a problem, for example during Yom Kippur war where AIM-9D armed F-4E fought Egyptian / Syrian / Soviet / Iraqi aircraft armed mostly with R-3S (save for a few R-13Ms). By the end of Yom Kippur war, Israel received another generous gift from U.S. in form of AIM-9G. But we also dont have realistic advantages in form of multiple redundant EWRs and sophisticated GCI network, which allowed to lure targets and bait them for someone else to take rear aspect shot. Yesterday combat clearly has shown that when RED EWR was disabled in first 15 min of the game and for the remainder of it RED was blind.

 

So most of our fights that comprise dog fighting render R-13M and R-3S useless. And added drag / weight of R-13Ms poses problems in dogfights. In fact its better to dump them when entering turnfight. At the same time you dont have to make any sacrifices with F-5, as even though you have less capable 9P variant, its still superior to anything RED has.

[NELLUS]

I'm not sure about exact specs of AIM-9P (not disabled P5) since I havent looked into my F-5 papers but R-60 (not M) is comparable to it missile, with shorter range but a bit greater maneuverability.

The R-13M1 is much inferior missile to AIM-9P, as although it has better than R-60 range, its very heavy (four R-13s make you dump energy faster in maneuvers than six R-60s). I'm contemplating taking only two of them since four make me waaay too slow, while it has limited "advantages". R-13M1 has mere 3.7 G launch limit (R-3S has 2 G, R-60 has 7 G), so its - as pointed by m4ti140 a missile comparable to AIM-9D which we dont even have on Blue side.

 

The other thing I'm contemplating is taking R-55 which has 5 G launch limit but it also has abysmal range so ...

 

Thing ultimately is that US simply had superior missile designs to what USSR brought to the table. In reality this was a problem, for example during Yom Kippur war where AIM-9D armed F-4E fought Egyptian / Syrian / Soviet / Iraqi aircraft armed mostly with R-3S (save for a few R-13Ms). By the end of Yom Kippur war, Israel received another generous gift from U.S. in form of AIM-9G. But we also dont have realistic advantages in form of multiple redundant EWRs and sophisticated GCI network, which allowed to lure targets and bait them for someone else to take rear aspect shot. Yesterday combat clearly has shown that when RED EWR was disabled in first 15 min of the game and for the remainder of it RED was blind.

 

So most of our fights that comprise dog fighting render R-13M and R-3S useless. And added drag / weight of R-13Ms poses problems in dogfights. In fact its better to dump them when entering turnfight. At the same time you dont have to make any sacrifices with F-5, as even though you have less capable 9P variant, its still superior to anything RED has.

 

I’m pretty sure you have some great data here, but I can tell you one thing, that what ever the Mig21 launched at me on yesterday Desert has Eyes mission, chased me down, and I was going 800km/h pulling straight up, and it still hit me. This kind of maneuver of mine could have worked on a R60. One thing is real life data and another is DCS environment.

Edited June 23, 2020 by NELLUS

[Hiromachi]

Check Tacview. Since there are no R-60s its either R-13M1 or R-55 (only two possibilities). Plus, what I brought up as numbers is related to launch limit, not missile tracking limit. Maybe he had a better angle ?

 

And yes, real life and dcs despite sincere attempts are all too often still far apart. I for one cant score a hit with missiles on helos. Launched R-13 on Huey that was floating over the ground (not even flying, he was just hovering over some base) and it still missed.

[NELLUS]

Those Mig19’s have suddenly become pretty hard to shoot down hehe.. one hell of a turner I must say..

[NELLUS]

Check Tacview. Since there are no R-60s its either R-13M1 or R-55 (only two possibilities). Plus, what I brought up as numbers is related to launch limit, not missile tracking limit. Maybe he had a better angle ?

 

And yes, real life and dcs despite sincere attempts are all too often still far apart. I for one cant score a hit with missiles on helos. Launched R-13 on Huey that was floating over the ground (not even flying, he was just hovering over some base) and it still missed.

 

Just some info: the R13M1 is basically an aim-9G/J hybrid, has a bigger rocket motor for longer range, and a better tracker than the aim-9B(R3S, RB24), has the same control fins(canards) as the aim-9P... so that's why it has a 7G limit and 7KM range.

[Brown Floyd]

Server News:

 

* All missions run under the good old weapons' restrictions *

 

Disabled AA weapons:

- R-60's and R-60M's.

- AIM-9L's, AIM-9M's and AIM-9P5's.

- RB-74's.

 

Just pulled a muscle sprinting to my computer to see if I could sneak a quick C-101CC CAP mission in before anybody noticed, but no dice: the Magic 2 is already gone as well. :cry:

 

If I had more tools in the mission editor life would be much easier. I could then disable the R-60M's for all airplanes except for the Su-25's as one example. Such an option is not there among hundred others. And many options are wished for on the wish list of the forums and so far I don't recall ED working so hard on improving the mission editor tool.

 

Of all the minor little nagging issues with DCS World that will likely not be fixed within the next 10 years, none is more vexing than the inability of the mission editor to lock down and limit weapons loadouts on individual aircraft slots, because that's a basic function that happens to almost literally every single military aircraft sortie every day around the world. I'm sitting here imagining a O-2 Hornet pilot saying "Hey skipper, I know the strike planners and the weaponeers and the ordnance guys have been working hard on today's mission, but I'd really rather swap out all these Mk82s for Mavericks. I've been practicing with them and I really think they'd work a lot better." The guy would get murdered.

 

I know that this a game and in most cases we'll want to let the pilot choose whatever they want for fun, but the option for the loadout to be constrained should at least exist. Other multiplayer servers do it using bespoke code that validates your loadout before you takeoff but they're all very kludgy, often-broken workarounds for something that should be in the base game.

[Alpenwolf]

Just pulled a muscle sprinting to my computer to see if I could sneak a quick C-101CC CAP mission in before anybody noticed, but no dice: the Magic 2 is already gone as well. :cry:

I don't own the C-101. Didn't know the Magic 2 missiles are there for it. I'll fix that.

[Brown Floyd]

I just checked the C-101s on Swedish Delivery and the Magic 2 is not listed as an option for them now.

 

And the Mirage 2000 of course carries them as well.

[Alpenwolf]

Forget about the Mirage and the Fulcrum. I'll fix the C-101 when time allows it.

[Foka1]

I just checked the C-101s on Swedish Delivery and the Magic 2 is not listed as an option for them now.

 

And the Mirage 2000 of course carries them as well.

 

Mirage 2000 carry MATRA Magic 2 (DCS name) which is not the same that C-101 carries.

 

C-101 carries R550.Magic 2 (DCS name)

 

Are they actually same?

 

I did a quick check. C-101 R550 launched from platform at 700 KPH tops its speed at 2.2 Mach

 

M2000C MATRA MAgic 2 launched from platform at 770 KPH tops its speed at 2.73 Mach.

 

So whatever their names are IRL, in DCS those are different missiles even at first glance.

Edited June 24, 2020 by P61

[Foka1]

I don't own the C-101. Didn't know the Magic 2 missiles are there for it. I'll fix that.

 

You don't need to own module to know its weapons actually. Just place plane in question in editor and check its loadout tab. Click on any pylon and see all available weapons for it. They are same if you own module or not.

 

Example of C-101CC missile pylon:

 

[Alpenwolf]

I know that, P61, but when someone reports something, then I trust it's trustworthy. Looking between the lines costs only time.

 

No offense, everyone, but please try and be more accurate when reporting small issues like that so that I don't end up wasting unnecessary time when so many other issues need checking and fixing. It's actually superfluous to start doing it the way P61 described it above and waste that time when it could be reported more accurately. Which is why I put it aside first and said "I'll fix the C-101 when time allows it".

 

S!

 

 

EDIT:

The C-101 can carry the AIM-9P. So why is the Magic missile needed? Is it a better rear aspect or what?

Edited June 24, 2020 by Alpenwolf