Jump to content

Mig-21-93/LanceR/Bison


Cdodders

Recommended Posts

Out of all of them I'm only interested in a MiG-21-93, but the problem here is that they're in more limited numbers, operated exclusively by a single operator, and out of them, none have much in the way of other assets to go with them, let alone maps. It would also be much more work on the avionics side.

Personally, I'm far more interested in Cold War variants - the era where the MiG-21 is much more suited to, where it was much more prolific.

Aircraft such as:

  • MiG-21PFM "Fishbed F" (Izdeliye 94)
  • MiG-21PF "Fishbed D" (Izdeliye 76)
  • MiG-21F-13 "Fishbed C" (Izdeliye 74)

Edited by Northstar98
formatting, corrected MiG-21bis -> MiG-21 and removed Fishbed J
  • Like 10

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, what Northstar said. I'd rather have historically relevant variants than a MiG-21 that's doing its best to be a budget F-16 - you still won't match the newer jets in any respect, but there are also virtually zero scenarios where a LanceR/Bison would fit. They would also take much longer to develop due to complex avionics. Personally I'd like an F-13, PF, or PFM (or some combination thereof).


Edited by rossmum
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2021 at 4:36 PM, Northstar98 said:

Out of all of them I'm only interested in a MiG-21-93

A rather strange thing to say, as 21-93 was basically a tech demonstrator, while Bison is its realized form as far as I know. LanceRs are pretty real too. I'd love either one of them myself.

 

What I'd like most is a late J-7 to be honest. Not overly interested in earlier 21 variants, though an F-13 might be interesting still.

  • Like 1

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

On 3/25/2021 at 2:18 PM, WinterH said:

A rather strange thing to say, as 21-93 was basically a tech demonstrator, while Bison is its realized form as far as I know. LanceRs are pretty real too. I'd love either one of them myself.

Well, I mean I'm okay with technology demonstrators so long as they're a representation of the real thing - the Ka-50 is also basically a technology demonstrator. However I would prefer to get the more prolific variants of the MiG-21 - of which none of them are.

Though I should probably edit my comment above, I'm not really interested in either of them, it's just the MiG-21-93/97 seems to appeal to me more in what-if situations.

Both the Bison and the LanceR are exclusive variants operated by a single operator. The Bison makes more sense from a combat theatre/scenario prospective, only we don't have an appropriate map for it nor do we have much in the way of appropriate assets. The LanceR suffers the same problems, only the combat scenario kinda isn't there. I can't help that say that unless we get 'the rest of the picture' I'm not really interested in such exclusive variants.

If we had a Kashmir/Pakistan/India map then I would be more interested in a Bison, but until then I'm not and I would still put the variants I listed above it for my personal wishlist.

My main reasoning however is that the MiG-21 is best suited to the Cold War/Soviet Union era, where it was much more prolific, more iconic, was more of a real threat and where it makes a lot more sense to me. These variants are also more feasible to develop, alongside their NATO peers, and IMO are better fits for DCS.

They'd also be perfect for my ideal map choices - namely northern/central Germany circa mid-to-late Cold War, they'd also fit on Vietnam as well as Cold War era middle-eastern conflicts.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting
  • Like 5

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, I mean I'm okay with technology demonstrators so long as they're a representation of the real thing - the Ka-50 is also basically a technology demonstrator.

Ka-50 did see plenty of operational testing though, and quite a few airframes were produced, it doesn't compare really.

18 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

My main reasoning however is that the MiG-21 is best suited to the Cold War/Soviet Union era, where it was much more prolific, more iconic, was more of a real threat and where it makes a lot more sense to me. These variants are also more feasible to develop, alongside their NATO peers, and IMO are better fits for DCS.

And what opponents exist for any pre-Bis MiG-21 in DCS? I can only think of upcoming F-8J and EE Lightning, and perhaps the eventual mythical Mirage III from Raz, though as far as I know the Lightning would still be somewhat what if.

 

And even you have said that what-if situations can be appealing. I have no intention of using Bison or LanceR in any potential or (non-existant) historical scenario in their own colors anyway, as they'd make great what-ifs IMO :).

 

DCS as a tool to reenact historical conflicts has been, and remains, a distant dream, giving up on it was probably the most liberating thing I've done for enjoying the sim for myself :P. What I personally care about is: a- aircraft/variant being interesting, b- having some performance wise and/OR historically relevant targets/opponents for it within the sim. For MiG-21, anything before Bis is going to be a quite limited aircraft in many ways, and will have no performance equivalent in sim for foreseeable future apart from the MF. But the MF itself would basically be a slightly less capable Bis, wouldn't add a lot in way of interesting differences. F-13 would be cool I agree, as it is different enough, and would be cool to test out its famed nimbleness due to being lighter, and its looks/clearer canopy etc. It would be a novelty module for the most part however, because of not having much in the way of period appropriate opponents with at least somewhat similar capabilities to itself. PFM etc: same limitations, without the cool factor of F-13 to redeem them.

 

So going with this line of thinking, for me personally, the most desirable Fishbed familty variants in DCS, in order, goes something like:

- Late J-7

- Bison, or LanceR variants

- F-13, just a little behind the two above

Anything else, I may or may not end up getting in a sale at some point, probably to play around with for a little and end up retiring it to a virtual hangar that never open its virtual doors again, unless it is a super-crazy high quality module.

 

18 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

My main reasoning however is that the MiG-21 is best suited to the Cold War/Soviet Union era, where it was much more prolific, more iconic, was more of a real threat

 

See that's the thing, there is almost nothing in sim, whether AI or fyable, that old fishbeds would be a real threat against. And very little is coming in future too. Do we have F-104s that MiGs can relatively easily overpower? F-105s to hunt? The A-4 mod is the only currently existing thing that would more or less fit for older Fishbed variants as a playmate. Even against upcoming things like EE Lightning, F-8J, and Mirage III MiG-21F and PF generation would be on the backfoot by some margin. And the MF etc generation is too similar to Bis anyway. They would have barely any more content to play around with than MiG-19 currently has, if that... Despite that, I too would like to get an F-13 at some point, for its coolness and novelty alone, and honestly, not for much else beyond that.

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

On 3/26/2021 at 9:56 AM, WinterH said:

Ka-50 did see plenty of operational testing though, and quite a few airframes were produced, it doesn't compare really.

It's still a technology demonstrator that never entered serious operational service...

Quote

And what opponents exist for any pre-Bis MiG-21 in DCS? I can only think of upcoming F-8J and EE Lightning, and perhaps the eventual mythical Mirage III from Raz, though as far as I know the Lightning would still be somewhat what if.

That's not what I said though, I said this:

Quote

My main reasoning however is that the MiG-21 is best suited to the Cold War/Soviet Union era, where it was much more prolific, more iconic, was more of a real threat and where it makes a lot more sense to me. These variants are also more feasible to develop, alongside their NATO peers, and IMO are better fits for DCS.

 

Quote

And even you have said that what-if situations can be appealing. I have no intention of using Bison or LanceR in any potential or (non-existant) historical scenario in their own colors anyway, as they'd make great what-ifs IMO :).

And I also said that I'm interested in aircraft that were prolific and are of an era that makes more sense for it and neither of them are.

Also, the only thing you can do with the Bison and especially the LanceR is entirely fictional scenarios, if that's your thing fine, but it certainly isn't mine - at least if I can help it.

Quote

DCS as a tool to reenact historical conflicts has been, and remains, a distant dream, giving up on it was probably the most liberating thing I've done for enjoying the sim for myself :P.

I'm not really interested in playing out historical conflicts per se - I'm interested in setting up peer-to-peer missions with era consistent assets on an appropriate map - they'd still be what-if missions just more grounded in reality (such as Cold War gone hot).

It's part of a bigger issue that was discussed here.

Quote

What I personally care about is: a- aircraft/variant being interesting, b- having some performance wise and/OR historically relevant targets/opponents for it within the sim.

Fine.

Interesting is about as subjective and arbitrary as you can get, and many will have different reasons as to why x is interesting them.

Quote

For MiG-21, anything before Bis is going to be a quite limited aircraft in many ways, and will have no performance equivalent in sim for foreseeable future apart from the MF. But the MF itself would basically be a slightly less capable Bis, wouldn't add a lot in way of interesting differences.

Do you say the same about the F-14A? The A-135-GR we have right now is essentially our current B with worse engines, everything else is essentially identical.

It's a very similar situation here.

Quote

It would be a novelty module for the most part however, because of not having much in the way of period appropriate opponents with at least somewhat similar capabilities to itself. PFM etc: same limitations, without the cool factor of F-13 to redeem them.

At least said opponents are typically easier to produce than the opponents of the Bison and LanceR. The Bison at present only has the JF-17 and maybe the F-16CM as an opponent, and who even is the opposition for the LanceR?

Quote

See that's the thing, there is almost nothing in sim, whether AI or fyable, that old fishbeds would be a real threat against.

And again I never said otherwise...

My point still stands that the Cold War era is a much more suitable era for the MiG-21 and where it was much more prolific and where it was much more of a real threat, being involved in very real conflicts as well as potential ones.

Quote

And very little is coming in future too. Do we have F-104s that MiGs can relatively easily overpower? F-105s to hunt? The A-4 mod is the only currently existing thing that would more or less fit for older Fishbed variants as a playmate.

How is this any different for the Bison and LanceR?

Quote

Even against upcoming things like EE Lightning, F-8J, and Mirage III MiG-21F and PF generation would be on the backfoot by some margin.

And?

Quote

And the MF etc generation is too similar to Bis anyway.

Again, do you say the same about the F-14A we currently have?

Quote

They would have barely any more content to play around with than MiG-19 currently has, if that..

But both they and their counterparts are more feasible to create. The same cannot be said for the more modern variants.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting
  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your answer is essentially foot stomping 😄

 

2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

It's still a technology demonstrator that never entered serious operational service...

And it still doesn't compare remotely to what a MiG-21-93 is, even less the 21-97, so the irony is pretty interesting 🙂

 

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

That's not what I said though, I said this:

It is the exact question to ask in response to what you have said exactly in your quote, and it stands

 

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And I also said that I'm interested in aircraft that were prolific and neither of them are.

Yeah, that 21-97 is pretty prolific indeed :)).

8 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Interesting is about as subjective as you can get, and many will have different reasons as to why x is interesting them.

Eh, that I can agree yes.

 

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Do you say the same about the F-14A? The A-135-GR we have right now is essentially our current B with worse engines, everything else is essentially identical.

A retort of questionable relevance at best, but I will answer regardless: Yes and no. Because in the Tomcat's case, the engines do change the way it flies rather significantly with their slow response, and penchant for compressor stalls and failures at some flight envelopes. However, I was expecting the Heatblur to make it a mid 80s bird, so was/am taken aback somewhat to see that it still has the LANTIRN pod for example. But as far as I know they are adding more/older A variants too.

 

MF vs Bis though... it is more or less Bis with a bit weaker engine, and a bit worse radar. But the engine behavior and flight characteristics resulting from that isn't day/night like the TF-30 equipped Tomcat vs F110 equipped one.

 

Greatest difference relevant to development of a commercial DCS product: Tomcat A vs B is addition to an existing module, if someone makes an MF,it will most certainly be a separate module, so it should preferrably bring something different enough from existing modules so that it will sell.

 

I don't see how it is similar at all.

22 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

At least said opponents are typically easier to produce than the opponents of the Bison and LanceR. The Bison at present only has the JF-17 and maybe the F-16CM as an opponent, and who even is the opposition for the LanceR?

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one: If you want to have purely historically/geopolitically relevant rivals, yeah hard to find any. But since I am fine with roughly near performance, I can put them up with and against any 80s-90s-2000s thingie we have. Our definitions of valid rivals do not agree, and that is just fine.

 

27 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And again I never said otherwise...

=>

27 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

where it was much more of a real threat

🤷‍♂️

28 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

How is this any different for the Bison and LanceR?

Answered above already

29 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

The same cannot be said for the more modern variants.

Because they already exist in the sim: I'm fine with modern variants being "somewhat capable but definitely underdogs" against likes of 4th gen planes. Their upgrades are designed to be around with them, fight them if necessary even if the expectation is not necessarily coming up on top often. And any ground targets/threats they can face are already in sim too, so they would already do just fine in strike roles.

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

On 3/26/2021 at 11:05 AM, WinterH said:

So your answer is essentially foot stomping 😄

Brilliant argument there WinterH  :doh:

I mean I guess if you say so, whatever helps you sleep better at night etc.

I get that you don't like the older variants - that's absolutely fine! Only you seem pretty averse to addressing the points I'm actually making.

You've brought up something that's absolutely valid, and I agree with, doesn't actually address anything I've actually said, and worse is that your point stansd for the Bison and definitely the LanceR. And even worse is that if we wanted to address that, it would be more feasible for the Cold War variants than the modern variants...

I don't know, just seems like kinda shooting an own goal.

Quote

And it still doesn't compare remotely to what a MiG-21-93 is, even less the 21-97, so the irony is pretty interesting 🙂

Not really, as I said, I'm not interested in either of them and I certainly didn't cite the MiG-21-93/97 as being prolific as why I prefer it - I don't know why I prefer it, it just appeals to me more and I don't really have a reason why - just one of those weird things I guess.

I say the same about a MiG-29M as opposed to a MiG-29SD for example.

But my preference for it compared to the variants I listed isn't even close.

Quote

It is the exact question to ask in response to what you have said exactly in your quote, and it stands.

I mean it stands... But doesn't it also stand for the Bison and especially the LanceR, in anything but completely fictionalised scenarios?

I think it's clear we differ here, as you maybe don't see that as being applicable to you - so it's kinda pointless debating it.

Quote

Yeah, that 21-97 is pretty prolific indeed :)).

Funny, didn't see a quote from me saying it was... How odd.

I mean are you seriously point scoring against something I never said?

I never said that I have an interest in the 93/97 for reasons of being prolific - I don't know what it is they just appeal to me more, and I can't really say why - it's very odd I'll give you that.

Quote

A retort of questionable relevance at best, but I will answer regardless: Yes and no. Because in the Tomcat's case, the engines do change the way it flies rather significantly with their slow response, and penchant for compressor stalls and failures at some flight envelopes. However, I was expecting the Heatblur to make it a mid 80s bird, so was/am taken aback somewhat to see that it still has the LANTIRN pod for example. But as far as I know they are adding more/older A variants too.

Interesting, where is the goalpost exactly? At what point does an aircraft pass the 'different enough' to be interesting threshold?

Quote

MF vs Bis though... it is more or less Bis with a bit weaker engine, and a bit worse radar. But the engine behavior and flight characteristics resulting from that isn't day/night like the TF-30 equipped Tomcat vs F110 equipped one.

So it should be fairly easy to develop? Much more so than the LanceR/Bison? Hey! that was one of my points!

But anyways, I'm more interested in the generation 2 PF/PFM and generation 1 F-13, I can do without the SM/MF.

My personal wish is more like so:

  1. MiG-21PFM (Izdeliye 94) preferably circa late 60s/early 70s (i.e w. Kh-66 compatibility), not sure what the difference would be between a mid 60s PFM.
  2. MiG-21PF (Izdeliye 76) circa early 60s.
  3. MiG-21F-13 (Izdeliye 74) circa early 60s.
  4. MiG-21SM (Izdeliye 95M) circa late 60s/early 70s.

Also the PFM is the actual variant to employ the Kh-66 - unlike our current bis AFAIK.

Quote

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one: If you want to have purely historically/geopolitically relevant rivals, yeah hard to find any. But since I am fine with roughly near performance, I can put them up with and against any 80s-90s-2000s thingie we have. Our definitions of valid rivals do not agree, and that is just fine.

Fine, and yes, I'm much more in favour of alternate history missions that are grounded in reality, and I simply think the Cold War is the more feasible option...

Quote

=>

🤷‍♂️

:huh:

Quote

Because they already exist in the sim: I'm fine with modern variants being "somewhat capable but definitely underdogs" against likes of 4th gen planes. Their upgrades are designed to be around with them, fight them if necessary even if the expectation is not necessarily coming up on top often. And any ground targets/threats they can face are already in sim too, so they would already do just fine in strike roles.

The one thing I don't get, is why go for a MiG-21 Bison when the only operator of it already operates the MiG-29 and Su-30? Wouldn't those 2 aircraft make much more sense for post 2000s? And wouldn't the MiG-21 make much more sense in a Cold War setting, the setting where it was much more prolific, spent most of its life in and was much more iconic? I keep bringing the 2nd point up but it never seems to be acknowledged...


Edited by Northstar98
formatting
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2021 at 4:56 AM, WinterH said:

For MiG-21, anything before Bis is going to be a quite limited aircraft in many ways, and will have no performance equivalent in sim for foreseeable future apart from the MF. But the MF itself would basically be a slightly less capable Bis, wouldn't add a lot in way of interesting differences. F-13 would be cool I agree, as it is different enough, and would be cool to test out its famed nimbleness due to being lighter, and its looks/clearer canopy etc. It would be a novelty module for the most part however, because of not having much in the way of period appropriate opponents with at least somewhat similar capabilities to itself. PFM etc: same limitations, without the cool factor of F-13 to redeem them.

 

So going with this line of thinking, for me personally, the most desirable Fishbed familty variants in DCS, in order, goes something like:

- Late J-7

- Bison, or LanceR variants

- F-13, just a little behind the two above

Anything else, I may or may not end up getting in a sale at some point, probably to play around with for a little and end up retiring it to a virtual hangar that never open its virtual doors again, unless it is a super-crazy high quality module.

 

This is really the best point. The MF would see some very minor performance advantages over the bis but also lose out on endurance. In as much as the MiG's flight time can be referred to with the term "endurance." So logically, the way forward with a new -21 would be to include the marks you included.

 

Go way back or go forward. The Bison's air-to-air performance or the later J-7 and LanceR-C capabilities in strike would be a nice augmentation. Going back to the MiG-21F-13 would provide a pretty noticeable jump in flight performance and other interesting quirks.

  • Like 2

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2021 at 3:36 PM, Northstar98 said:

Personally, I'm far more interested in Cold War variants - the era where the MiG-21bis is much more suited to, where it was much more prolific.

 

I agree with that all. But I do as well like the idea of the most modern MiG-21-93/Bison/Lancer as it opts out the experience to see that what a old airframe can do when forced to go against 4th generation fighters, but with upgraded avionics and sensors. 

 

That is reason why I would take both variants as extra, something very old (MiG-21F-13) for the Cold War early days, but as well post Cold War would be interesting as well.

Sure it becomes more like any other 4th generation fighter than like Bis is, but it is still the same old airframe with new toys, and at least 21-93 and LancerC would still be considerable as "RedAir" fighters and with a Metric instruments (instead imperial).

 

 

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Funny how everybody wants to see a different early Balalaika...

 

My preferences would be:

 

1) MiG-21F-13 (with the later R11F2-300 motor)

2) MiG-21PFM or FL (with the big tail)

3) MiG-21PF (with the F-13 tail)

4) MiG-21MF or SM

 

The U/ US/ UM are also interesting, despite a relatively low combat-value. There's something about those Mongols...

Here I'd like to see a UM or maybe the early "U-400" with the narrow F-13 tail.

 

And talking about the J-7: The kinked delta versions with the FCR are very interesting. They'd combine a somewhat modern aircraft with most of the sleek lines of the F-13.

  • Like 3

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2021 at 2:04 AM, Bremspropeller said:

My preferences would be:

 

1) MiG-21F-13

 

F-13 the was the lightest, the most maneuverable and with the best cockpit visibility having completely different bubble canopy. My choice as well.

Adding to that it was the best in relation to it's opponents in late 1950s early 1960s when later variants became somewhat obsolete and surpassed by more modern technology in 1970s.


Edited by kseremak
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LanceR will never happen.
NEVER!
At this moment even if it is a ridiculous franken Mig-Sixteen is considered precious secret by RoAF. This combined with standard time on project of Lethearneck... which is around 10 years minimum.... 
Later.... when probably we will have a AI program that would compile a believable Mig21 LanceR from available info on internet in 20 seconds... we will be either dead or the whole plane will be as interesting as the double fuselage P51. 
A mere oddity.
I am a romanian, I would like a LanceR, and an IAR93, or IAR99/SOIM but no... it is worse than Russian planes as full fidelity modules. Far worse.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A,

Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Am 20.3.2021 um 15:34 schrieb Cdodders:

I wonder if any of the upgrade packages for the MiG-21 are on the cards, such as the -93, LanceR and Bison. Would be a good way to represent MiG-21s being used in more modern settings


Agree — a MiG—23—93 would be awesome!! And reasonable against those F-14/15/16/18 with their AMRAAMs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the LanceR and Bison saw service. 21-93 or 23-98 were upgrade packages that never found any buyers and were not produced beyond single demonstrators - they have even less place in the game than the Ka-50 (low double digit production, used in combat) or Su-25T (single digit production, from memory). Let's avoid turning DCS into War Thunder, please... or at least if we do, give me something actually interesting like Ye-2, Ye-8, Su-19, or Ye-150 series.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2021 at 12:24 AM, zaelu said:

LanceR will never happen.
NEVER!
At this moment even if it is a ridiculous franken Mig-Sixteen is considered precious secret by RoAF. This combined with standard time on project of Lethearneck... which is around 10 years minimum.... 
Later.... when probably we will have a AI program that would compile a believable Mig21 LanceR from available info on internet in 20 seconds... we will be either dead or the whole plane will be as interesting as the double fuselage P51. 
A mere oddity.
I am a romanian, I would like a LanceR, and an IAR93, or IAR99/SOIM but no... it is worse than Russian planes as full fidelity modules. Far worse.

I am Romanian too btw , I'd love for the LanceR , the IAR-99 and so on...but what was your point? Saying that the LanceR would never happen? Why? It's literally the MiG-21 , with avionics in the cockpit like the F-16 just in different places really....that's not all tho . And info on the LanceR isn't that hard to find , you can literally spend some hours researching and you will find a lot of stuff which can help for a MiG-21lanceR Module.
Long story short , a MiG-21LanceR module is easily possible , i would see it as letherNeck taking the current MiG-21 module , making a new 3d model for the new cockpit , making the avionics and so on. Then adjust the flight model here and there...
Anyways , im more so confused by what was your point...saying that the lanceR is so complex that info on it will never be found or what lol??
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making the avionics is the complicated part. There is a reason the Hornet took like 3+ years before being considered complete. Any aircraft with modern avionics is going to take an enormous amount of time to develop, and even if you use an existing airframe, it isn't going to save you much time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to have an F-4, but the Terminator 2000 version with the HUD, upgraded radar and INS. But I know most hardcore users would prefer to have a more common version such as Mig-21Bis and the Mi-24p we have.

 

At this point if you are not a prop head only thing you can hope to have from M3 is the F-8 as they already secured it. Sad but yea oh well..


Edited by Maxthrust
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maxthrust said:

I would love to have an F-4, but the Terminator 2000 version with the HUD, upgraded radar and INS. But I know most hardcore users would prefer to have a more common version such as Mig-21Bis and the Mi-24p we have.

 

At this point if you are not a prop head only thing you can hope to have from M3 is the F-8 as they already secured it. Sad but yea oh well..

 

we are talking about Mig-21 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2021 at 6:34 PM, AviaAlex12 said:

I am Romanian too btw , I'd love for the LanceR , the IAR-99 and so on...but what was your point? Saying that the LanceR would never happen? Why? It's literally the MiG-21 , with avionics in the cockpit like the F-16 just in different places really....that's not all tho . And info on the LanceR isn't that hard to find , you can literally spend some hours researching and you will find a lot of stuff which can help for a MiG-21lanceR Module.
Long story short , a MiG-21LanceR module is easily possible , i would see it as letherNeck taking the current MiG-21 module , making a new 3d model for the new cockpit , making the avionics and so on. Then adjust the flight model here and there...
Anyways , im more so confused by what was your point...saying that the lanceR is so complex that info on it will never be found or what lol??
 

My point is about RoAF. LanceR as a mod... yeah... sure... maybe. But as an official module? Nope... Secret! LanceR is housing the 60's lasers in its belly or something...


Edited by zaelu

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A,

Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, zaelu said:

My point is about RoAF. LanceR as a mod... yeah... sure... maybe. But as an official module? Nope... Secret! LanceR is housing the 60's lasers in its belly or something...

 

Hmm i mean an official module... i dont see anyone even wanting lol. but a mod , prob. yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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