announced DCS MiG-29A

[Skysurfer]

Would be a very welcome addition to DCS but from a pure "multirole" and capability perspective a Su-27S/P would be much better. One can only hope I guess.

[BlackPixxel]

At least a variant like that 29SM (?) in this video would be nice:

 

Cockpit appears to be more or less identical to the current DCS model, but it supports guided A2G ammunition (KH-29T, KAB-500) by showing their TV image on the HDD.

 

This would give long awaited multirole capablities to red, and it would still not be a modern MiG.

 

[FoxAlfa]

Even early 90's MiG-29M would be great.... 9 paylons, better T/W then A, Much better radar, DL.... OG M was tone down made into SMT....

[Seaeagle]

Interesting - I have never seen the MiG-29SM cockpit before. The HDD is not the standard IPV though - it looks like the one from the MiG-29M(9.15).

[BlackPixxel]

Yes, HDD looks a little different. But even the old one from the early MiG-29 / Su-27 is able to show analog video.

[Seaeagle]

Yes, HDD looks a little different.

 

It looks very different from the IPV. Its larger - as you can see it "sits higher" in relation to the HUD and there is also a cut-out in the TLP panel to make room for it. The visible lower part of the bezel/control dial looks just like the CRT from the early MiG-29M/K, but without the text indications....see attachment for comparison.

 

But even the old one from the early MiG-29 / Su-27 is able to show analog video.

 

Are you sure about that?. Not that I necessarily think it couldn't, but all the upgrades I can think of came with a different HDD, which would suggest that the IPV functionality could be a restrictive factor.

 

The MiG-29SM had the further upgraded N019MP radar(also used for early MiG-29SMT) with added A/G modes and IIRC also the OLS-M(from the MiG-29M) to support guided A/G capability.

 

BTW - check out the control stick.

[Harlikwin]

Probably not going to happen, the 9.12 Fulcrum A is probably the best case scenario.

 

You might be right, and while I generally push for older modules like that, in this case I think ED should do their best to get the most modern/capable one since literally the bulk of the blue plane set is in the 2000+ era. Plus if its multirole it at least satisfies the itch for a fighter/striker. Though I'd love to see dedicated versions of each, and for each rough era.

 

Alternately ED could make A model F18/16's.

 

[Northstar98]

Harlikwin said:

 

You might be right, and while I generally push for older modules like that, in this case I think ED should do their best to get the most modern/capable one since literally the bulk of the blue plane set is in the 2000+ era. Plus if its multirole it at least satisfies the itch for a fighter/striker. Though I'd love to see dedicated versions of each, and for each rough era.

 

Alternately ED could make A model F18/16's.

The problem I think is that the majority of the users just want the latest and greatest, and that's absolutely fine, after all I've purchased most of them; but it creates issues when it comes to era consistency between peer assets.

As it currently stands (especially with yesterdays update), WWII is easily the most fleshed out era of DCS, and I'd argue by a fairly long margin, just think about it. You have a fair number of both BLUFOR and REDFOR modules , you have plenty of ground vehicles that fit, as well as a decent number of air defences. Ships are still very much left in the dark, with the only true surface combatant being a MTB - though that's pretty much par for the course with DCS (mind you the ships do have special functions, such as offensive manoeuvring for the u-boat and MTB). Plus the assets are essentially up to the same standard graphically speaking, it's very consistent in not only era consistency, but also in quality. The same is less true for other assets, which constitute the majority (nearly all are decent enough, the recent ones are better, and at least one is worse).

Fast forward to the early Cold War; you've only got a few modules (F-86F, MiG-15bis and MiG-19P), but essentially nothing else, you've maybe got 1 ground vehicle (T-55A) and there's essentially no air defences (apart from the WWII stuff, though we are getting a ZSU-57-2 at some point, but that's just 1).

Then onto the 70s we only really have again, a small amount of playable aircraft (F-5E-3 and the MiG-21bis with an early A model Tomcat coming too); We do now however, have a fairly large assortment of ground vehicles and plenty of air defences (including the S-75M, S-125, SA-8, MIM-23B I-HAWK and I think even the upcoming S-200(M?), not to mention the M163 VADS and MIM-72 Chaparral), there's a fair few ships (though they're mostly LOMAC (or earlier) REDFOR ships; there are next to no BLUFOR naval assets apart from maybe the Oliver Hazard Perry-class (long-hull)).

80s have essentially everything of the the 70s, plus a few more air defences like the Patriot, Tor, Tunguska and the S-300PS, there's more ground vehicles and now we're on for most of the ships in DCS. No full-fidelity modules, though there is the FC3 REDFOR aircraft, there is the later F-14A coming, which I think also fits the Forrestal Heatblur are doing, as well as the A-6E (if it gets made into a full module).

Fast forward to post 2000s, and we only really have BLUFOR assets (the majority of BLUFOR modules), as well as the GREENFOR JF-17, the rest of the assets are essentially only ships, (Arleigh-Burke Flt IIA 5"/62 (late) DDG and the Chinese asset pack (even if they are graphically questionable compared to other works)) and 3 tanks. There are no peer air defences (like the Tor M2E, Pantsir-S1, S-300PMU - S-400), I think the Tunguska, Tor and S-300PS are mid-to-late 80s to the very early 90s (~F-14B era).

Personally I think that for future modules, excluding WWII, it would be preferable to go from the mid-to-late 60s and stop at the early 90s, as this fits the overwhelming majority of assets very well and better achieves era consistency between the assets. At the moment between BLUFOR and REDFOR, the only missions you can really do are asymmetric against non-peer forces or blue on blue, if you go for full-fidelity fixed wing, the latest REDFOR gets is the MiG-21bis from 1972, meanwhile the latest BLUFOR gets is a post 2010s A-10C, with the F-16CM and F/A-18C Lot 20 being modelled around the mid-2000s, so there's an up to 40 year age gap between full-fidelity fixed wing REDFOR vs BLUFOR, which is like taking a WWII era u-boat up against a Los Angeles class SSN, it's basically the move The Final Countdown at this point.

And FC3 isn't much better, they have the initial production variants of the MiG-29, Su-27 and -33, all are from the mid-80s, there is the 9.13 MiG-29S Fulcrum C, which in DCS is essentially identical to the Fulcrum A, just it gets access to the R-77. That's still a 20 year gap, the same gap between the Bf-109K-4 and the F-4E Phantom II.

Given that comparable REDFOR aircraft are basically a non-starter at this point (not sure about Deka), and the best we'll probably be able to hope for are mid-80s initial production variants of the Su-27, -33 and MiG-29 (even if I would love the MiG-29M even if it was essentially a prototype aircraft (it wouldn't be the first in DCS), though I'd take any variant apart from the god awful looking SMT), I think the best option by far would be to develop older BLUFOR aircraft; Heatblur are doing it twice with an early and late version of the F-14A (as well as the Iranian one). But as you mentioned things like the F-16A Block 15, though you could go right up to a late-80s to early 90s, LANTIRN equipped, F-16CG Block 40, as well as/or any of them in between (or even earlier). There's also the F-18A (any lot) right up to the F/A-18C Lot 10 (?). There's plenty of aircraft within that era that are fairly sought after (at least in the English forums), such as the F-4 (E on hold), F-111F, F-104G and F-100D. There's also an earlier F-15C/E or even A.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[Harlikwin]

Yeah, we're mostly on the same page. I think the 80's are potentially the most interesting era, lots of AC to choose from and really the late 70's and into the 80's saw the transition from dedicated airframes to the multirole fighters, so its an era where you still had both.

 

Really the issue with anything modern "redfor" is mostly not happening for all the reasons stated, aside from the Jeff which is an orphan being a decade newer than the hornet/viper we have, so I'd really rather see some blue 70's/80's assets. Plus in that era stuff was still much more "balanced" capability wise, plus I'm one of those crazy people that actually likes merges and dogfights, not yeeting fox 3's halfway across the map and turning cold and rinse repeat, and the earlier time periods give you that, you get 1 crappy BVR shot, and you merge.

[captain_dalan]

Yeah, we're mostly on the same page. I think the 80's are potentially the most interesting era, lots of AC to choose from and really the late 70's and into the 80's saw the transition from dedicated airframes to the multirole fighters, so its an era where you still had both.

 

Really the issue with anything modern "redfor" is mostly not happening for all the reasons stated, aside from the Jeff which is an orphan being a decade newer than the hornet/viper we have, so I'd really rather see some blue 70's/80's assets. Plus in that era stuff was still much more "balanced" capability wise, plus I'm one of those crazy people that actually likes merges and dogfights, not yeeting fox 3's halfway across the map and turning cold and rinse repeat, and the earlier time periods give you that, you get 1 crappy BVR shot, and you merge.

 

 

......

 

 

Personally I think that for future modules, excluding WWII, it would be preferable to go from the mid-to-late 60s and stop at the early 90s, as this fits the overwhelming majority of assets very well and better achieves era consistency between the assets.......

 

And FC3 isn't much better, they have the initial production variants of the MiG-29, Su-27 and -33, all are from the mid-80s, there is the 9.13 MiG-29S Fulcrum C, which in DCS is essentially identical to the Fulcrum A, just it gets access to the R-77. That's still a 20 year gap, the same gap between the Bf-109K-4 and the F-4E Phantom II.

 

 

Given that comparable REDFOR aircraft are basically a non-starter at this point (not sure about Deka), and the best we'll probably be able to hope for are mid-80s initial production variants of the Su-27, -33 and MiG-29 (even if I would love the MiG-29M even if it was essentially a prototype aircraft (it wouldn't be the first in DCS), though I'd take any variant apart from the god awful looking SMT), I think the best option by far would be to develop older BLUFOR aircraft; Heatblur are doing it twice with an early and late version of the F-14A (as well as the Iranian one). But as you mentioned things like the F-16A Block 15, though you could go right up to a late-80s to early 90s, LANTIRN equipped, F-16CG Block 40, as well as/or any of them in between (or even earlier). There's also the F-18A (any lot) right up to the F/A-18C Lot 10 (?). There's plenty of aircraft within that era that are fairly sought after (at least in the English forums), such as the F-4 (E on hold), F-111F, F-104G and F-100D. There's also an earlier F-15C/E or even A.

 

I'm with you on this one guys. This period should allow for the most time-period parity in terms of what could be modeled for both sides with any degree of authenticity and on top of that, should provide the tech-y guys with at least some semi-modern sensors and targeting pods-smart ammunition. The problem seams to be that so many multi-role-ers today, insist on having the latest and greatest tech available, despite the total lack of context in which we can employ it :(

[Harlikwin]

 

 

 

I'm with you on this one guys. This period should allow for the most time-period parity in terms of what could be modeled for both sides with any degree of authenticity and on top of that, should provide the tech-y guys with at least some semi-modern sensors and targeting pods-smart ammunition. The problem seams to be that so many multi-role-ers today, insist on having the latest and greatest tech available, despite the total lack of context in which we can employ it :(

 

Yeah... I mean the modules that will IMO give the best coverage and are 100% doable are:

 

Red:

Mig-23MLA (and MF really if it can be done) Most proliofic mig of the 70s/80's

Su-17M4 <---- This is the only one not annouced by someone (yes I know there is a mod)

 

Blue:

F4E (and TBH a naval phantom) Literally the most needed blue module since its multirole.

A7E Good representative striker

Mirage F1 Something for the euro guys.

[Northstar98]

 

Yeah... I mean the modules that will IMO give the best coverage and are 100% doable are:

 

Red:

Mig-23MLA (and MF really if it can be done) Most proliofic mig of the 70s/80's

Su-17M4 <---- This is the only one not annouced by someone (yes I know there is a mod)

 

Blue:

F4E (and TBH a naval phantom) Literally the most needed blue module since its multirole.

A7E Good representative striker

Mirage F1 Something for the euro guys.

 

Totally agreed, I would love an MiG-23M/MF/ML/MLA/MLD, Su-17M4 would be great for ground attack.

 

F-4E will supposedly come some day... Hopefully... Though I'd love to see the F-4J/S/K (or hell even B/C) - only thing is mostly a total lack of naval assets, we're missing a fair mount on both sides, especially if we go for 60s/70s/80s, I mean the number of up-to-standard assets really is pretty thin, there is a fair number of REDFOR, but most are the tired LOMAC models in dire need of a major overhaul).

 

A-7E we're getting, but still early days yet I think (let's hope FlyingIron can deliver), and aren't AvioDev working on a Mirage F1?

[Harlikwin]

 

Totally agreed, I would love an MiG-23M/MF/ML/MLA/MLD, Su-17M4 would be great for ground attack.

 

F-4E will supposedly come some day... Hopefully... Though I'd love to see the F-4J/S/K (or hell even B/C) - only thing is mostly a total lack of naval assets, we're missing a fair mount on both sides, especially if we go for 60s/70s/80s, I mean the number of up-to-standard assets really is pretty thin, there is a fair number of REDFOR, but most are the tired LOMAC models in dire need of a major overhaul).

 

A-7E we're getting, but still early days yet I think (let's hope FlyingIron can deliver), and aren't AvioDev working on a Mirage F1?

 

Yeah everything is "planned". So eventually it will hopefully deliver. My worry is that Flying iron will be razbam 2.0, as literally every post of theirs suggests. And yes Aviodev have been doing the F1 for "years". So who knows when.

[Northstar98]

 

Yeah everything is "planned". So eventually it will hopefully deliver. My worry is that Flying iron will be razbam 2.0

 

Oh, what makes you say that?

 

I know they're another party that did do works for other sims, though they still don't have a dedicated subforum (unless I'm being blind).

[Harlikwin]

 

Oh, what makes you say that?

 

I know they're another party that did do works for other sims, though they still don't have a dedicated subforum (unless I'm being blind).

 

Raz started the same way. And based on their comments they seem like 3d model guys not coders. So lots of similarities there. Hope im wrong, but its what it looks like to me.

[Top Jockey]

Hello everyone,

 

I do like what I've been reading here about the 80's; I do, afterall I'm from that time.

But it seems to me there's a catch:

 

In order the 70's and 80's era to be reasonably realistically featured in terms of 'hardware', (and I'm not talking about whishful "balance" while playing DCS), it would be ideal to have some more fighter / interceptor models for REDFOR.

 

From quick recall I would say MiG-25, MiG-31, Su-15... because from the BLUEFOR there are several models already featured:

- we have the US teen series complete already for instance, altough not exactly all the versions from the 80's era, but that's a start;

- Mirage 2000C;

- and there's the F-4 Phantom II and the Mirage F-1 coming eventually.

 

On the other hand I feel the REDFOR only has the MiG-29 and Su-27 which make it under represented in the 80's era on DCS.

I also know the MiG-23 Flogger will eventually arrive, but still.

[Skysurfer]

We need a full fidelity Flanker, Mig-25 and Su-24 ideally. The 29A would be nice from a pure flying perspective but combat wise it wouldn't be much more effective than the 23MLA/D.

I'm all for a full fidelity 27S/P Flanker though, which is 100% possible and either ED or some other reputable 3rd party simply need to commit on it and do it.

[captain_dalan]

 

Totally agreed, I would love an MiG-23M/MF/ML/MLA/MLD, Su-17M4 would be great for ground attack.

 

F-4E will supposedly come some day... Hopefully... Though I'd love to see the F-4J/S/K (or hell even B/C) - only thing is mostly a total lack of naval assets, we're missing a fair mount on both sides, especially if we go for 60s/70s/80s, I mean the number of up-to-standard assets really is pretty thin, there is a fair number of REDFOR, but most are the tired LOMAC models in dire need of a major overhaul).

 

A-7E we're getting, but still early days yet I think (let's hope FlyingIron can deliver), and aren't AvioDev working on a Mirage F1?

 

 

Yeah... I mean the modules that will IMO give the best coverage and are 100% doable are:

 

Red:

Mig-23MLA (and MF really if it can be done) Most proliofic mig of the 70s/80's

Su-17M4 <---- This is the only one not annouced by someone (yes I know there is a mod)

 

Blue:

F4E (and TBH a naval phantom) Literally the most needed blue module since its multirole.

A7E Good representative striker

Mirage F1 Something for the euro guys.

 

I fear though, that we'll never get a naval Phantom of any kind. If or when the F-4 gets made (by anyone), the powers that be in DCS most likely will expect and demand it would be the F-4E, or something along those lines. :( Most likely the most modernized version too, so that i can carry "4 HARMs" if you know what i mean. Aside from that, yeah, i would gladly see al the other planes of that list in DCS. The 23MLA and the F1 are probably insta-buys for me. Would love to try some old fashioned air superiority-intercepts (pre-F-14/AWG-9 tech).

[Harlikwin]

Hello everyone,

 

I do like what I've been reading here about the 80's; I do, afterall I'm from that time.

But it seems to me there's a catch:

 

In order the 70's and 80's era to be reasonably realistically featured in terms of 'hardware', (and I'm not talking about whishful "balance" while playing DCS), it would be ideal to have some more fighter / interceptor models for REDFOR.

 

From quick recall I would say MiG-25, MiG-31, Su-15... because from the BLUEFOR there are several models already featured:

- we have the US teen series complete already for instance, altough not exactly all the versions from the 80's era, but that's a start;

- Mirage 2000C;

- and there's the F-4 Phantom II and the Mirage F-1 coming eventually.

 

On the other hand I feel the REDFOR only has the MiG-29 and Su-27 which make it under represented in the 80's era on DCS.

I also know the MiG-23 Flogger will eventually arrive, but still.

 

Well the problem with doing the 80's or even the 90's with the current 2000 era models you REALLY have to gimp the 2000's era planes, and currently it cannot be done, though I think ED could pretty easily add a few "options" to the plane, maybe server side. Basically you have to turn off the HMCS/NVG, and Datalink (both from the Awacs and Fighter to fighter) to get anywhere close to a 80's or 90's plane capability wise depending on which one. And get rid of the TGP's. Otherwise weapons are already banable so thats easy enough to do. The radars/RWRS will still be "too good" as are the engines but we have to live with that.

 

Realistically, the SU-27 wasn't really even available during most of the 80's in any real numbers, which for die hard flanker fans is a disappointment. Though the mig29A was however. Though as pointed out above, its basically a somewhat improved mig23.

 

I think the best case for 70's 80's currently is:

 

Mig23 coming soon (Q2 next year at the earliest IMO)

Mirage F1 (who knows, maybe next year, no news in forever).

A7E again, no clue maybe next year.

Kfir (again no clue).

 

And for FF we have the F14A, M2k (minor nerfs needed), Mig21 and F5E which all fit the 80's as well. And FC3, mig29 su27, and F15C, Su25's and A10A.

 

So its not as grim as it seems. But the main thing that needs to happen are the "nerfs" of being able to server side kill HMCS/NVG/and DL's/MIDS.

 

IMO whats really needed for blue in this case is the F4E. It was utilized by literally almost everyone for everything. I know "its coming" but who knows when.

 

However the really big things that need to happen for DCS is some sort of halfway decent AI GCI system. Migs basically are fighting at 30-50% effectiveness without it, and it was integral to how they were to be used. And really same for NATO jets.

[Schmidtfire]

I think there is a firm place for a full fidelity MiG-29A. "Balance" is only a concern in multiplayer, but as we know, the M-2000C is still very popular even going up against the most modern threats that DCS has to offer. Not everyone is interesting in min-maxing to be competitive, there are plenty of other pc games that offer that.

 

Mission makers need to understand that there are ways to create missions that put older Redfor aircraft on the same playingfield against the modern Bluefor fighters. Give them better GCI and let them fly close to SAM and AAA coverage. They should try to balance the missions, not the jets.

[SovietAce]

 

Realistically, the SU-27 wasn't really even available during most of the 80's in any real numbers, which for die hard flanker fans is a disappointment.

Not quite. Sure they came out bit latter than 29s, but once first ones were put in active service in 1985, the rearmament went pretty fast. By year 1990 there was around 467 aircrafts in service, including two regiments in Poland. Production was stopped soon after in 1992 with around 600 Su-27S,P and UB variant with around 180 aircrafts built.

 

I think that REDFOR 80s are represented well in DCS. We already have all the neccesary types, Even though some of them are AI only like Su-17, MiG-27 etc. I quess thats work for 3rd party developer, because Iam doubtfull that ED would want to do those. If there Is any side that need units from 80s, then Its Blue one.

 

[Harlikwin]

Not quite. Sure they came out bit latter than 29s, but once first ones were put in active service in 1985, the rearmament went pretty fast. By year 1990 there was around 467 aircrafts in service, including two regiments in Poland. Production was stopped soon after in 1992 with around 600 Su-27S,P and UB variant with around 180 aircrafts built.

 

I think that REDFOR 80s are represented well in DCS. We already have all the necessary types, Even though some of them are AI only like Su-17, MiG-27 etc. I quess thats work for 3rd party developer, because I am doubtful that ED would want to do those. If there Is any side that need units from 80s, then Its Blue one.

 

I mean, yes there were some in service before the end of the cold war in 89. But not exactly in huge numbers either relative to mig29's 23's etc, and 85-89 covers like 3-4 years at best depending on if they entered service in early or late 85. And yeah the main issue in doing the 80's for DCS is actually "blue". We have a decent amount of red FC3 modules, though a decent striker like the su-17 would be nice. But really the main missing blue modules are F4E, Early F16A/F18A. You can kinda pretend the vastly more capable 2000's era 18/16 can stand in, but they vastly more capable than they should be, even if you nerf them in ways (DL) you currently cannot they would still be aerodynamically better than the A models, not to mention the vastly better radars/RWR/ECM etc.

[Wizard_03]

Notably, this way of doing things also make the problem of IFF significantly easier, since the GCI system would be aware which aircraft are under its control, it would have a much easier time assuring they don't shoot each other down than a pilot of any single one of them.

.

 

​​​​​​Yes everyone that you don't know is your enemy, that pretty much sums up Soviet strategy for IFF lol

 

Seriously though it may work great in wartime but that is a fail deadly system, and ensures that accidents/failures are meet with tragic results like Korean flight 007. Multiple correlated IFF responses and sources are essential to preventing mishaps like that in peacetime.

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, wouldn't have helped, because the problem was elsewhere. Soviets could be really paranoid, and as far as they were concerned, "with us or against us" nature of their system was a feature, not a bug. There was another, earlier airliner shootdown (KAL 902) where the Su-15 pilot clearly stated he was chasing an airliner, and GCI insisted he should shoot it down (and then sent another Su-15 chasing a piece of its wing that looked like a cruise missile on the radar). Most of the passengers ultimately survived the resulting crash, but either way, it wasn't the system that failed, but the people giving orders. KAL 007 was similar in that regard.

 

I think it's an unfortunate side effect of Soviet style of deception warfare. When your "maskirovka" is that elaborate, you're inclined to think that so is the enemy's might be, too (and given some of CIA's actions, it wasn't even that far off mark). There's a fine line between proper caution and paranoia, and things like this happen when you're too far off on the latter side.

[bies]

Soviet Air Force (VVS) captain Aleksandr Zuyev who defected to Trabzon Turkey in 1989 with it's MiG-29 wrote a book titled "Fulcrum: A Top Gun Pilot's Escape from the Soviet Empire".

 

He wrote about circumstances of Korean flight 007 shoot down, it was mostly due to an attempt to cover the incompetence of the air defense unit responsible for the damaged far east radar system which they lied to repaired prior to the accident. The fear of their superiors in Moscow was stronger than that of triggering an international crisis.

Author and his comrades generally despised the PVO (Soviet Air Defence) pilots flying like robots with airplanes steered by ground systems autopilot and blindly obeying orders without any reflection.

 

This book has also very interesting description of machines, air combat training flying MiG-29s with specific tactics, parameters, maneuvers, weapon envelope etc.