Aircraft before the 1993 tech explosion for DCS

[bies]

When it comes to Air to Air nearly all kills of the Cold War, were within visual range. Even at the very end during Desert Storm nearly all F-15 kills were within 10 miles very much within visual range. People read too much Wikipedia, reality was Sparrow, R-27, R-24 etc. we're useless outside of 10-15nm. 

 

Even at the very end of the Cold War US cutting edge technology F-15C MSIP, with support of the whole technology and war machine and NCTR radar IFF, still had to dogfight Iraqi MiG-25s and MiG-29s, turning and burning, shooting from very close range - this made it so attractive to look at, recreate, listen to the pilots stories. Similar with Sidra or Tobruk battles of the F-14s. Iran-Iraq war, Bekaa Valley Israel-Syria war. 

 

And even is some fighters managed to shoot some 15nm they still needed to guide the missiles all until the hit which meant merge. Not shoot, turn around and RTB.

 

BVR during the Cold War was very far and between, with lots of limitations, in most cases impossible in practice.

[Northstar98]

On 6/10/2021 at 10:22 PM, Furiz said:

I really don't see my self ever migrating to older module, I only have Viper and Hornet, its just not fun for me to fly an airplane with which I can only take off and fight, I like to play around with all those systems that modern jets have, plan a route for SLAMER or wild weasel in the Viper, cant wait for the Viper to get its systems done as well. Plan the routes in the Hornet, make my own waypoints etc etc, so much stuff to do and so much more to learn in modern jets (Hornet or Viper) than in and f-5 for example, that's whats fun for me.

Pretty much every aircraft with an INS allows you to do that, the Viggen even does it for its more advanced anti-ship missiles (the RB 15F Mk. I - which is from 1990).

But the Mirage lets you do that, the Viggen lets you do that, and the Tomcat lets you do that (just with a lower amount of waypoints).

Quote

Most recommendations are for the Hornet cause the plane is very interesting, you can do land or carrier based ops, and there is tons of stuff to explore, tons of systems to study and tons of weapons to employ, it is basically all in one module, why wouldn't it be recommended?

Would you recommend F-5 over Hornet?

The Hornet gets recommended a lot probably because it can do everything, and is easy to learn (especially with regards to actually flying it - which is super easy).

Quote

There is much more tactics involved in modern fighter operation than just tossing AMRAAMS or JSOWs, like bies thinks, it really isn't that boring.

It is in single player, due to issues with the AI. I find them to be more competent if I'm in a more limited aircraft with fox 1 only.

Quote

Maybe its easier in DCS cause the modern SAM systems are not developed that much but ED is getting there and I believe they will get to the point where those systems will be very well developed, recently they improved SA10. More improvements are gonna come, same goes with modern jets, some systems my be lacking but they are gonna improve.

What did they improve with the SA-10? Must've missed it...

Edited August 4, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[kseremak]

8 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

I mean I'm not salty about it, its just kinda boring for me. I tell my noobs to buy the jeff, its probably the easiest to learn, fly and employ IMO. But as I said, for me its all kinda boring. punch in coordinates, picke RTB. Hunt around with TGP find tgt, pickle, RTB. See blip at 30 miles, fire, RTB.

 

It wasn't for you being salty, it was for the folks suggesting modern aircraft are not easier than older ones. Both are nice bu in a different way.

To learn how to fight with modern aircraft yoy need a few days. To learn how to fight with WW2 or cold war jet, months.

[Furiz]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

 

What did they improve with the SA-10? Must've missed it...

 

 

It intercepts incoming HARM now, it didn't do that before, it would only do it if you fire it in HAS mode and from range.

[Northstar98]

On 6/11/2021 at 3:57 PM, Furiz said:

It intercepts incoming HARM now, it didn't do that before, it would only do it if you fire it in HAS mode and from range.

Oh.

Well that's weird, not that fact that it was fixed, but the fact that a missile being fired in a certain mode wouldn't be engaged.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Furiz]

4 hours ago, kseremak said:

 

To learn how to fight with modern aircraft yoy need a few days. To learn how to fight with WW2 or cold war jet, months.

 

Seriously I don't know where you get these facts, cause that is not true. You need to spend lots of time in modern jet to learn it, and to master all its systems a lot more than in ww2 or cold war fighter.

 

So basically you wanna say that real fighter pilots spend few years of training to even get a seat in their designated fighter for nothing, they can just do 2 or 3 days in a simulator and off they go, is that what you wanna say?

If you look at the history quite the opposite happened, ww2 fighters and cold war fighters took fewer time to learn than modern jet fighters.

 

The problem is that you look at it from a basic point of view, you think flying a jet is just arm and take off and fight? Maybe in a ww2 fighter but not in modern jet, yes you can fly it like a dummy but soon enough you will end up being lost in all those systems and subsystems.

 

[Harlikwin]

8 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

Seriously I don't know where you get these facts, cause that is not true. You need to spend lots of time in modern jet to learn it, and to master all its systems a lot more than in ww2 or cold war fighter.

 

So basically you wanna say that real fighter pilots spend few years of training to even get a seat in their designated fighter for nothing, they can just do 2 or 3 days in a simulator and off they go, is that what you wanna say?

If you look at the history quite the opposite happened, ww2 fighters and cold war fighters took fewer time to learn than modern jet fighters.

 

The problem is that you look at it from a basic point of view, you think flying a jet is just arm and take off and fight? Maybe in a ww2 fighter but not in modern jet, yes you can fly it like a dummy but soon enough you will end up being lost in all those systems and subsystems.

 

 

I think part of the argument is that its harder to do the same thing in older jets rather than modern jets. I.e. learning to get bombs on target manually with a f5 is way harder than say figuring out how to push a series of buttons in a hornet and laze and blaze a GBU onto it. That being said, the F5 cold start is pretty easy, as is "basic" radar, or A/A employment. I mean getting actually kills is probably harder. So its both simpler and harder at the same time. That being said you can get to a very basic level of proficiency in the modern jets pretty easily, but you aren't gonna use them to anywhere near their maximal point of effectiveness for some time. 

[Furiz]

2 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I think part of the argument is that its harder to do the same thing in older jets rather than modern jets. I.e. learning to get bombs on target manually with a f5 is way harder than say figuring out how to push a series of buttons in a hornet and laze and blaze a GBU onto it. That being said, the F5 cold start is pretty easy, as is "basic" radar, or A/A employment. I mean getting actually kills is probably harder. So its both simpler and harder at the same time. That being said you can get to a very basic level of proficiency in the modern jets pretty easily, but you aren't gonna use them to anywhere near their maximal point of effectiveness for some time. 

 

Now that is true,

yes modern jets are more user friendly, but if you wanna exploit their max potential you need to dig deep, and that doesn't take only few days as kseremak said.

And its not just laze and blaze, defenses are much more dangerous. well not if your only going vs defenseless trucks...;P

[Harlikwin]

6 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

Now that is true,

yes modern jets are more user friendly, but if you wanna exploit their max potential you need to dig deep, and that doesn't take only few days as kseremak said.

And its not just laze and blaze, defenses are much more dangerous. well not if your only going vs defenseless trucks...;P

 

Yeah but thats point, I look at how alot of stuff is structured, and in many cases like the online PVE servers it is just tank plinking against minimal defenses. 

And to the point of "dangerous" We don't even have modern SAMs in the game nor is anything approaching a real IADS system with kill boxes and move and displace tactics present in DCS. It can be kinda scripted, but still, the most of the "modern" systems are like from the 70's/80's at best.

[Furiz]

And that's the reason we should have ED and 3rd party developers doing modern stuff as well as cold war and ww2, cause they will research and develop more complex and sophisticated systems rather than sticking only to the cold war, because there is more info about cold war, which already has a nice amount of air frames. Progress cant be made if you don't move forward.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Furiz

[Harlikwin]

Just now, Furiz said:

And that's the reason we should have ED and 3rd party developers doing modern stuff as well as cold war and ww2, cause they will research and develop more complex and sophisticated systems rather than sticking only to the cold war, because there is more info about cold war, which already has a nice amount of air frames. Progress cant be made if you don't move forward.

 

 

I mean "modern" in DCS is more or less mud hut bombing simulator since ED can't do modern opfor. That or maybe some hypothetical US vs EU war. I think thats really the Crux of why many of us want more older modules, because in the old days you had some sort of Red/blue balance and parity. Today the most modern "red" plane ED can do is a 1982 9.12 mig29. So for MP, that more less sets the upper limit. I know someone will point out the jeff as "red" but it really isn't its "greenfor" at best and doesn't appeal to alot of people for various reasons. 

[Northstar98]

On 6/11/2021 at 5:54 PM, Harlikwin said:

And to the point of "dangerous" We don't even have modern SAMs in the game nor is anything approaching a real IADS system with kill boxes and move and displace tactics present in DCS. It can be kinda scripted, but still, the most of the "modern" systems are like from the 70's/80's at best.

Absolutely. Though we do have some early 90s air defence systems.

I think the only post 2000s air defence system we have is a single MANPAD (aside from ship based air defences), and it doesn't seem to work properly.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Harlikwin]

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Absolutely. Though we do have some early 90s air defence systems.

 

I think the only post 2000s air defence system we have is a single MANPAD (aside from ship based air defences), and it doesn't seem to work properly.

 

Yeah systems, that really don't work like they do IRL. I don't know what the dispersment limits are for something like an SA10 site in DCS. But universally I see them all parked within 100m of each other.  When in reality you'd have several radars, a bunch of radar decoys and launcher decoys spread around some 50-100km area, along with the launchers/radars well dispersed and connected with directional microwave datalinks. Most likely joe pilot is looking at a BB somewhere 30 miles that away, and all of a sudden the launcher fires and he's 2km from it and deader than a fried chicken because all he gets is bebebebe boom. And 30 seconds after getting that kill that launcher is on the road to its prebriefed backup firing location. 

[Northstar98]

7 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah systems, that really don't work like they do IRL. I don't know what the dispersment limits are for something like an SA10 site in DCS. But universally I see them all parked within 100m of each other.  When in reality you'd have several radars, a bunch of radar decoys and launcher decoys spread around some 50-100km area, along with the launchers/radars well dispersed and connected with directional microwave datalinks. Most likely joe pilot is looking at a BB somewhere 30 miles that away, and all of a sudden the launcher fires and he's 2km from it and deader than a fried chicken because all he gets is bebebebe boom. And 30 seconds after getting that kill that launcher is on the road to its prebriefed backup firing location. 

 

Yep, absolutely agreed.

[Munkwolf]

41 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

I think thats really the Crux of why many of us want more older modules, because in the old days you had some sort of Red/blue balance and parity. Today the most modern "red" plane ED can do is a 1982 9.12 mig29. So for MP, that more less sets the upper limit.

 

Exactly this

[Xilon_x]

the mig 29 and the maximum for dcs?
noooooo.
I expected the following as maximum inspiration:

 

MIG-25 Foxbat 

 

 

or the MIG 31 

 

they are also the most powerful and the fastest.

[bies]

6 hours ago, Xilon_x said:

the mig 29 and the maximum for dcs?
noooooo.
I expected the following as maximum inspiration:

 

MIG-25 Foxbat 

 

 

or the MIG 31 

 

they are also the most powerful and the fastest.

 

Yes. All of them MiG-29, MiG-25, MiG-31 are 1970s to early 1980s Cold War fighters.

 

I hope for full fidelity MiG-25P or PD after the MiG-29.

MiG-31, even from 1980s may be too classified but it would be nice as well.

 

MiG-31 would be similar to analog cockpit powerful radar and weapon F-14 with even more extreme performance, but without maneuver air combat and carrier operations.

 

MiG-25PD would be similar to MiG-21bis on steroids, with analog cockpit, extreme performance, look down radar and powerful weapon.

Edited June 15, 2021 by bies

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, bies said:

I hope for full fidelity MiG-25P or PD after the MiG-29.

Call me weird or whatever, but I want MiG-25PD or PDS + MiG-25RBT + MiG-25BM. (I think look down capability came in PDS after the PD btw, might be wrong, but recall it being that way from some relatively recent reading).

 

Also Su-17M3 or M4, and I'd even be interested in the idea of Su-15. And MiG-27... and Su-24... and, yeah, why not MiG-31 too if possible...

 

Then some Euro goodness like Draken, Jaguar, SEM, Mirage III... then some odd-ball coolness like Kfir and/or Cheetah, and obviously that F-4E Block 58 or at least 53 back in development... EE Lightning, that too, yes...

[Harlikwin]

17 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Call me weird or whatever, but I want MiG-25PD or PDS + MiG-25RBT + MiG-25BM. (I think look down capability came in PDS after the PD btw, might be wrong, but recall it being that way from some relatively recent reading).

 

Also Su-17M3 or M4, and I'd even be interested in the idea of Su-15. And MiG-27... and Su-24... and, yeah, why not MiG-31 too if possible...

 

Then some Euro goodness like Draken, Jaguar, SEM, Mirage III... then some odd-ball coolness like Kfir and/or Cheetah, and obviously that F-4E Block 58 or at least 53 back in development... EE Lightning, that too, yes...

 

IDK I think a later Mig-25 with the look down radar could be a worthy addition. The earlier ones perhaps less so. 

 

1000% on a SU-17 we need an actual soviet era strike fighter. M3 was more common, M4 more capable. M3 looks like they are teasing this, if its polish its likely the M3

 

Mig31 they won't be able to do, no docs, PESA radar is pretty well classified even if its from the early 80's. 

 

Euro stuff:

HB: Draken at some point I'm sure, maybe one of their 2 unannounced modules.

Jaguar: Up for grabs

Mirage3: Razbam

Kfir: being developed

F4E: Who knows, ED or HB or someone

EE Ligtning: Razbam

SEM: Up for grabs

[kseremak]

On 6/15/2021 at 9:06 PM, Harlikwin said:

1000% on a SU-17 we need an actual soviet era strike fighter. M3 was more common, M4 more capable. M3 looks like they are teasing this, if its polish its likely the M3

 

I've heard some 3rd party plans to make full fidelity Su-17 but it's not confirmed yet. It will be very important late Soviet era ground pounder.

 

Flying Su-17 along other '80s Soviet era air force MiG-21bis, MiG-23MLA, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Su-25A, Mi-8, Mi-24P against A-6E, A-7E, F-14A/B, F-15C, A-10A, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Mirage F.1, Gazelle, Huey and so on, promises to be great! 

Edited July 9, 2021 by kseremak

[bies]

1 hour ago, kseremak said:

Flying Su-17 along other '80s Soviet era air force MiG-21bis, MiG-23MLA, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Su-25A, Mi-8, Mi-24P against A-6E, A-7E, F-14A/B, F-15C, A-10A, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Mirage F.1, Gazelle, Huey and so on, promises to be great!

 

It sounds like a perfect choice for symmetrical histologically balanced plane set for the new Dynamic Camping with both sides flyable aircraft from the same timeframe.

[Harlikwin]

47 minutes ago, bies said:

 

It sounds like a perfect choice for symmetrical histologically balanced plane set for the new Dynamic Camping with both sides flyable aircraft from the same timeframe.

 

Well, we are still a ways from that planeset being a reality. I'm hoping for the F1 this year and mig23 "soon" so we get some better cold war representation.

 

But Stuff like the Su-27S we won't see, no F15C is planned, and the 15E is gonna be like an early 2000s one, so... Same problem as the rest of the "teens". M2k is getting "upgrayded" so again, its increasingly irrelevant for CW.

 

 

[bies]

1 minute ago, Harlikwin said:

Well, we are still a ways from that planeset being a reality. I'm hoping for the F1 this year and mig23 "soon" so we get some better cold war representation.

 

Agree, but we may be far from the fully functional Dynamic Camping as well, so it will be the future anyway.

 

Cold War Su-27, F-15, A-10 and Su-25 will be FC3 for the foreseeable future. True to timeframe FC3 are still ok, better than nothing i guess considering limited number of platforms in DCS. And MiG-29A is planned as full fidelity. 

 

It would be ~20 modules, most of them full fidelity, modeled as one coherent 1980s timeframe set, with both sides having comparable amount of flyable platforms.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, bies said:

 

Agree, but we may be far from the fully functional Dynamic Camping as well, so it will be the future anyway.

 

Cold War Su-27, F-15, A-10 and Su-25 will be FC3 for the foreseeable future. True to timeframe FC3 are still ok, better than nothing i guess considering limited number of platforms in DCS. And MiG-29A is planned as full fidelity. 

 

It would be ~20 modules, most of them full fidelity, modeled as one coherent 1980s timeframe set, with both sides having comparable amount of flyable platforms.

 

TBH I think the following "cold war set" in the next 2-3 years is possible

 

F14A, F5E, Mirage F1, A6 (might be too modern), A7, F8. (I'm purposefully leaving out the M2k, and the other "teen" fighters, as really they are too modern). 

 

Red

Mig19, Mig21, Mig23, Mig29, 

 

So really we need some FF red strike stuff, I guess till then the su-25 will have to soldier on.

And if we Get like an F4E, that pretty much covers blue 70's and 80's for a great many countries and scenarios.

 

Essentially for the maps we have, an F4E would fit both the PG map and the Syria map really really well. And with the above planeset you can do the Iran/Iraq war, as well as parts of the arab israeli wars in 73.

 

So you could concivably do:

 

PG: 80's era

Iran: F14A/F4E/F5E (if only we could gimp the rwr)

Iraq: Mig21, Mig23, Mirage F1, Hind, Su-25

 

Or early 70's

Syria: Mig21, Mig15 (also pretending to be mig17)

Israel: F4E, A4 (mod), 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Baaz]

On 6/10/2021 at 3:37 PM, Furiz said:

 

Oh riiiight, so the people that like modern jets are newbies and no skill people and the cold war crew are the pros ;D

Not to speak for Harlikwin, but you do have to admit that modern jets are far easier to use.  Not just in terms of flying either.  I'm not dogging on anyone who wants to fly modern jets; even I do enjoy flying the F/A-18, but lets be honest, there's not much to it once you learn the systems.  Wanna drop a JDAM, JSOW, punch in a few coords, hit pickle and drop from 30,000 with not much to worry about.  Do it a hundred times, and you've done all there is to do, kind of boring if you ask me.

 

Personally, I don't want to see any birds post 1970, but that's just me.  Why you ask?  

Because I like having to calculate on the fly.  I like having to navigate via beacon or dead reckoning.  I like having to practice constantly to be able to put bombs effectively on target; not by just going CCIP or CCRP and having a computer tell me when to drop; but by having to watch approach angles, dive angles, air speed, wind drift, launch heights etc.  I started my DCS career in the A-10; a complicated bird for sure, but it does a lot of the calculations for you.   

 

I didn't feel like I really started to learn anything until I started flying in the F-5.  Navigation was lot harder as knowing your exact position means knowing how to triangulate, finding a target a lot harder because if your navigation is off by 1 degree, over a period of mins it means your miles off course and nowhere near your target.  Managing your weapons systems are easier, because you're only throwing a switch to arm or disarm the ordnance, but putting that ordnance on target is a LOT harder.  Dive angle too shallow, and bomb may go long or short depending on speed.  Speed too fast, and bomb may go long or short depending on dive angle.  And that's not even considering yet a change in elevation of terrain, or if the target is moving.  Again, it's far, FAR more than just putting a pipper on a target and squeezing a trigger or button.  

 

DCS is a game, so you're free to do what you want with it.  Even I will recommend an F/A-18 to a new player because it is easier to learn and capable of doing it all.  But I will also tell that same new player that if he/she really wants to appreciate what the modern bird is doing for them, then learn to fly something less modern as well; any WWII, Korean, or any bird up to 1970.

Just my $0.02.