Any chance of a proper modern Russian fighter DCS ?

[schroedi]

People often forget, that Russia didn't have many modern jets during the late 90s and early 2000s. During that period Russia used there old 80s cold war era planes because of the bad economy after the fall of the soviet union. They simply did not have the money for modern jets in large numbers. Even during the period where "our" F-16 and F/A-18 comes from Russia's main fighers where still early MiG-29 and Su-27 verions.

If you look at today's russian jets, which are intercepting NATO jets/bombers/MPAs have R-27 missiles from the 80s.

So it isn't unrealistic that the red side has inferiour planes compared to blue.

[Northstar98]

People often forget, that Russia didn't have many modern jets during the late 90s and early 2000s. During that period Russia used there old 80s cold war era planes because of the bad economy after the fall of the soviet union. They simply did not have the money for modern jets in large numbers.

 

Sure, but how many they have isn't really as relevant, in DCS we're not bound by the same limitations. For me it's more a matter of what certain aircraft can or cannot do versus what they did or did not do.

 

Even if we have to resort to test aircraft, as long as it realistically represents said aircraft I don't have a problem with it.

 

If you look at today's russian jets, which are intercepting NATO jets/bombers/MPAs have R-27 missiles from the 80s.

So it isn't unrealistic that the red side has inferiour planes compared to blue.

 

This isn't the crux of the issue for me, one side is always going to have the advantage or disadvantage, it's just the nature of how things are.

 

My main point can be summed up as being, if we have 80s REDFOR we should have 80s BLUFOR. Given that BLUFOR > REDFOR for most historically accurate scenarios that DCS is concerned with, giving BLUFOR at best a 15 year head start just makes the problem worse.

 

If we set up a scenario that represents a cold war gone hot from the mid-80s onwards, then apart from suing workarounds and artificially handicapping BLUFOR then we can't really do that and have it realistic. Again, it's like setting up a WWII scenario where you only have BLUFOR post-war jets and REDFOR piston engine fighters.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Northstar98

[Evoman]

Sure, but how many they have isn't really as relevant, in DCS we're not bound by the same limitations. For me it's more a matter of what certain aircraft can or cannot do versus what they did or did not do.

 

Even if we have to resort to test aircraft, as long as it realistically represents said aircraft I don't have a problem with it.

 

 

 

This isn't the crux of the issue for me, one side is always going to have the advantage or disadvantage, it's just the nature of how things are.

 

My main point can be summed up as being, if we have 80s REDFOR we should have 80s BLUFOR. Given that BLUFOR > REDFOR for most historically accurate scenarios that DCS is concerned with, giving BLUFOR at best a 15 year head start just makes the problem worse.

The best we can hope for is the Mig-29A that ED is currently trying to acquire what is needed to do it right.

 

 

If we set up a scenario that represents a cold war gone hot from the mid-80s onwards, then apart from suing workarounds and artificially handicapping BLUFOR then we can't really do that and have it realistic. Again, it's like setting up a WWII scenario where you only have BLUFOR post-war jets and REDFOR piston engine fighters.

 

 

 

 

I understand your concern for wanting a more level playing field. But you also have to understand that in able to produce a high fidelity simulation the developer needs all necessary data and a license. Add to that the complications with the Russian governments restrictions on most of their aircraft from the 1970 + and that makes it almost impossible to do anything newer that would compete with the current BLUFOR fleet. Like it or not it is what it is when doing aircraft at this level of fidelity.

The best we can hope for is the Mig-29A that ED is currently trying to acquire the necessary data to do it right.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Evoman

[Northstar98]

I understand your concern for wanting a more level playing field.

 

It's not even that, my main goal is keeping the era consistent.

 

But you also have to understand that in able to produce a high fidelity simulation the developer needs all necessary data and a license. Add to that the complications with the Russian governments restrictions on most of their aircraft from the 1970 + and that makes it almost impossible to do anything newer that would compete with the current BLUFOR fleet. Like it or not it is what it is when doing aircraft at this level of fidelity.

 

I am all to painfully aware of the issues surrounding more modern REDFOR modules of the same era as current BLUFOR, which is why I heavily sway toward historical variants of current BLUFOR modules from the 80s and early 90s. Such as the F-16A Block 15 / F-16C Block 25, the F-15A and the F/A-18A lot 10(?) / early F/A-18C.

 

The best we can hope for is the Mig-29A that ED is currently trying to acquire the necessary data to do it right.

 

Which is fantastic, anywhere is a good start. But ideally we'd need a BLUFOR contemporary for it, basically any mid-to-late 80s aircraft - I guess the F-14A is a good start.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Northstar98

[TotenDead]

People often forget, that Russia didn't have many modern jets during the late 90s and early 2000s.

 

Serial production (modernisation) of su-27SM started in 2003 so you know, there's something capable and not really new that could be possibly added in the future

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I certainly think a Su-27SKM or Su-30MKK could be possible as Deka has documentation on the later and it seems its detailed enough to have at least an FC3 rendition of it

 

 

Who knows, its been the most popular Export Su-30/27 and pretty dated technology being an MLU programme from about 2000 really

 

 

I'd also like to say that problems persist with our current FC3 fighters if they wont add FF versions of those they could at the very least fully model their capabilities in the sim

[nessuno0505]

ED always stated THEY can't do a modern redfor, now they say maybe a mig-29a is possible and that's a good thing, but they never said a 3RD PARTY can't do a early 2000 redfor. We only need a 3rd party with the knowledge, the data and the will to do it. Is there any?

[=4c=Nikola]

It would be much easier to just make 80s and 90s versions of currently available bluefor aircraft and sell them as 10$ DLC for the addon per version.

Edited September 21, 2020 by =4c=Nikola

[TotenDead]

It would be much easier to just make 80s and 90s versions of currently available bluefor aircraft and sell them as 10$ DLC for the addon per version.

 

I'd say that F-16A could be the main aircraft and 16C as DLC. Extremely popular imo:)

[Seaeagle]

People often forget, that Russia didn't have many modern jets during the late 90s and early 2000s. During that period Russia used there old 80s cold war era planes because of the bad economy after the fall of the soviet union. They simply did not have the money for modern jets in large numbers. Even during the period where "our" F-16 and F/A-18 comes from Russia's main fighers where still early MiG-29 and Su-27 verions.

If you look at today's russian jets, which are intercepting NATO jets/bombers/MPAs have R-27 missiles from the 80s.

 

All correct and valid points, but..

 

So it isn't unrealistic that the red side has inferiour planes compared to blue.

 

No but using Lot 20 Hornets with 2005 upgrades or F-16C Blk. 50 for 80'ies(even 90'ies) scenarios certainly is. The US military didn't spend $ billions on upgrading these aircraft across the board just for the bling, so no - just removing the most modern weaponry won't do the trick, just as sticking an R-77-1 on a baseline MiG-29 or Su-27 won't do it for present day scenarios.

 

People often forget that it takes two to tango and the present situation means that few people can be bothered to take the "red side" in multiplayer missions - the "casual player" because they are faced with a massive handicap from the outset and the "purists" because they cannot be bothered with FC3 level aircraft.

 

So what you end up with are missions with blue aircraft on both sides, which certainly is unrealistic - even more so than early nineties' Russian test aircraft.

[Northstar98]

No but using Lot 20 Hornets with 2005 upgrades or F-16C Blk. 50 for 80'ies(even 90'ies) scenarios certainly is. The US military didn't spend $ billions on upgrading these aircraft across the board just for the bling, so no - just removing the most modern weaponry won't do the trick, just as sticking an R-77-1 on a baseline MiG-29 or Su-27 won't do it for present day scenarios.

 

This.

 

And just in case it gets missed, the problem (for me at least) isn't that we have to resort to workarounds to try and make things sort-of-ish fit, it's that this is the only option while trying to keep it realistic. I'm fine with people setting up missions however they want, but the problem is that it's currently the only way of doing it, because our aircraft are largely so pick 'n' mix when it comes to era.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Northstar98

[Mike_Romeo]

It looks like DEKA is interested in doing the Su-30 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4495642&postcount=4

[Pikey]

It looks like DEKA is interested in doing the Su-30 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4495642&postcount=4

The Su-30 has more variants than export countries customers. And they all complain that one has more than the other... e.g. https://investforesight.com/china-comments-on-su-30sm-fighter-deliveries-to-kazakhstan/ but no one really knoiws the real differences. if maybe someone in ALgeria or Venuzuala or even India can unleash some docs and be an SME... we could have an awesome plane in 3 years.