mattebubben

Probably depends on what is ment with early. In my mind the Basic Su-24 or the Su-24M would be the most likely (since post 2000 upgrades like the Su-24M2 would be less likely as they are more classified) And either could be called an early version by todays standard (with the Base Su-24 entering service in 1974 and the Su-24M in 1983) So an early (as in not the latest) version i think would be the most likely then its just a matter if they go with the Earliest (Su-24) or the slightly later but far more capable variant (Su-24M) Personally i would hope for a Su-24M since its FAR more capable in all areas and most of the capabilities we thinking of when we think of the Su-24 are from the Su-24M and not the base version (Laser/Optical system allowing to self laze,The ability to use TV guided weapons, and most of the weapons it uses like the KH-25 and KH-29 etc).

I very much doubt two devs will do the same aircraft at the same time (Even if they made slightly different variants). Since while it might be possible in theory i doubt it. But if Avio Stops work on their F1 then sure but until then i dont think Razbam will do a F1 (in the nearby future).

The Mirage F1 is already being worked on by Aviodev. They have a Thread on the Forum and some pictures for it.

ohh?. I was simply going by the sources ive been able to find (Including Wiki etc) and they had led me to believe that the first generation Mig-23s (M,MF etc) still used a radar display and that the Bis was the first that ditched the radar display. If i was incorrect then i acknowledge that, i was simply going by the sources / info i had been able to find. Do you know of any Sources in ENG with correct information? since i would be very interested in knowing more about the Mig-23 (as its an aircraft that i like).

Yea same here. a Su-17M4/22M4 or a Mig-23 ML/MLA or MLD would be amazing. Su-17M3/22M3 would also be very nice. Older variants of the Mig-23 would still be nice and interesting just less amazing. For example a Mig-23MF would be nice but it would not be as nice/interesting as something like a Mig-23ML would be since the MF did not have a Hud and used a separate radar display where as the later mig-23s like the Bis,ML,MLA and MLD had a Hud with the radar info displayed on the HUD like was done on the Mig-29 and Su-27. (And the ML,MLA and MLD were just overall superior to the MF on all fronts with better Radars weapons engines and being lighter and more maneuverable etc)

Lightly used Mig-21s in mint condition! Now on sale for just 19.99$ (Transport cost and spare parts not included in price)

Ive had a problem at times that the rocket pods stopped working after i had launched both my aim-9s.

dont really understand what you mean right here =P. What do you mean with missiles do not engage in the sun? Do you mean that the missile seekers dont lock on the sun?

Well we have the F-14s true rival being made. The Backfire!!! (Tu-22M) Since it was pretty much what the F-14 was supposed to counter (since the primary mission of the F-14 was fleet defense and the Tu-22 was the fastest and most powerful of the soviet anti-ship aircraft).

Well the ussr had BVR capable aircraft before the Mig-23. For example the Su-15 predates the Mig-23 by several years (The Su-15 entered service in 1965) and it could (maby)be considered BVR capable. The Su-11 used the same missile as the Su-15 and entered service one year before the Su-15 so its also potentially BVR capable (it depends how you judge whats BVR or not) And the Mig-25 entered service at around the same time. with the Mig-25P and Mig-23SM entering service the same year (1971) (the pre production Mig-23SM being the first Mig-23 variant with the new BVR/R-23 capable radar) but only 80 or so Mig-23SM aircraft were made so its not untill 1972 with Mig-23M that there was a Mig-23 that was being mass produced and it was BVR/R-23 capable etc. Im unsure if the Missiles of the Su-11/Su-15 are truly BVR missiles but the missiles of the Mig-25 is without BVR so either way the Mig-23 was not the First BVR capable eastern combat aircraft even if it was just by a narrow margin ^^. But maby more significantly the Mig-23 was the first eastern fighter with Look Down Shoot down capability (Starting with the Mig-23M). And yea the Mig-23 (MF,ML/MLA or MLD) is near the top of my wishlist as well =). (Together with a Su-17/22 and Mig-27).

Sweden counted on holding for much more then 3-4 days during that time period. (Weeks and Months not days) 3-4 days is a more modern estimate with the state our military has been in for the last few years. Its not the estimate for the cold war when the Swedish armed forces was at its largest. During the cold war Sweden would have been able to hold out for a much longer time (and perhaps even being able to repulse a possible naval invasion outright). But in a modern scenario (today) Sweden would not have Hundreds of thousands of soldiers available to fight of a possible invasion. Today we would most likely not have more then 50,000 or probably significantly less if the attack was a surprise. (without a month or more to try to prepare the defenses) Thats why todays scenario would be no more then 3-4 days since our military is alot smaller while and possible invasion would not be that much smaller then it would have been during the cold war. (and our airforce is also smaller and less ready today then it was during the cold war as well as the coastal defenses being more or less completely gone). But then again its pretty much the same with most of West European nations our Militaries almost vanished after the cold war.

I doubt it would be possible without significant modifications done to the aircraft (in the way or pylons / wiring etc). Since the F-5E (we have) is not even capable of carrying the Aim-9L/M Let alone the Aim-9X so i doubt it could carry the IRIS-T. And the Iris-T is not just plug and play with any aircraft that can use the Aim-9. It can be made to be carried by most Aim-9 capable aircraft (especially those that can carry the later Aim-9M/Aim-9X generations of Aim-9) but it cant carry them out of the box. Any new weapon type will usually need changes. In hardware in software or in both. So while it would probably not be impossible to arm a F-5E with the IRST it would certainly be ALOT more work then simply mounting it on the pylons and off you go.

Well you can always ditch the Chaff for the extra flares. 30 flares deployed one at a time should be enough.

... He means you cant effectively use the Brakes of the F-5E using the Keybinds... And if you dont have a pedals with toe brakes then you have to use a Wheel Brake key bind... And thats pretty hard to do atm since as soon as you touch the button the wheels lock up and you start skidding all over the place as well as not slowing down quickly enough.

The problem is that without toe breaks it becomes very hard to break in the F-5E. The smallest activation of the breaks will lock the wheels and cause it to start skidding. Thus making it difficult to control and to keep straight. I have rudder Pedals but they are VKB pedals without Toe breaks. And this problem forces me to pretty much 100% rely on the breaking chute.

It was probably something that could had been done (Since the AJS 37 already had the same unused stations that the Boy 401 was attached to on the JA 37) But it was probably considered that it was not needed and that such a modification would have been an Unnecessary expense. And they would still have had to keep the Pod that the AJS 37 already used since it had other uses that a smaller chaff dispenser could not fulfill. And giving up 1 pylon was not considered any significant problem. Especially since it was usually only 1 aircraft in each flight that would carry the Chaff/flare pod.

It was not. The only Pod the AJS 37 can carry will take up one of the wing Pylons. The JA37 got some different countermassure devices in the Late 80s and 90s but the AJS 37 never got any of those (to my knowledge atleast). I guess they could add them in the game as a potential modification but i would be against that.

Interesting read =). And it also strengthened my Belief that the Aim-9P in DCS is very much under performing. Since several times he said the Aim-9P had high maneuverability etc. And this is very much not the case with the 1.5.4 state of the Aim-9P/P4 where its at Aim-9B levels of performance when it comes to maneuverability (and over all) But then again hopefully that was fixed in the latest 2.0.3 update so it should be there in this Friday update. Since the Aim-9P was not a bad missile (it was not the best missile for long but it was not a bad missile either). And will also be interesting to play around with not caging the missile in the next update. Since ATM with the bugged Seeker Lock FOV uncaging the seeker is more or less required to maintain any lock for more then a fraction of a second.

If people whine now about Devs making aircraft like the F-5E,Mig-21 or the different trainer aircraft Imagine if some of the Devs decided to module Experimental aircraft with no combat capability what so ever xD.

How is the F-5E a Training aircraft?... Its a "multirole" combat tested fighter aircraft that has seen use with a large number of airforces and in some cases been their main fighter. Its a Decent little ground pounder aswell and can carry a decent load of bombs and rockets. the F-5E can be used and its a great little aircraft. Can it tangle on even terms in open air with 4th gen fighters? no but then again few aircraft (that are not 4th gen fighters) can and very few aircraft of the same Generation of the F-5 would do any better then it does. And also please stop talking like everybody in the DCS forum thinks like you. Yes some only want modern aircraft and thats ok (as long as they dont harass those that think differently) But plenty of others want a wide range of aircraft including 1970s and 1960s aircraft why should ED and the 3rd Party Devs "get organized" and focus only on the aircraft types and you personally think deserve being added to the game?... And its also the fact that something like the F-5E is both easier to make and easier to get proper information on. As well as the fact that limitations in DCS would make it difficult to make many aircraft. For example the F-16 would require Air-Ground radar to be fully modeled or you could only use a fraction of its abilities / capabilities and i dont think any of the Devs would be willing to make a aircraft in such a way. And many other aircraft are also dependant on air-ground functionality in order to be fully modeled. And that Functionality is coming pretty soon (together with the F-18 ) so at that point devs will be able to make Aircraft that need Air-Ground Radar functionality to work properly. Another area that limited possible aircraft was the lack of a system for Two seat combat aircraft (like a F-4 etc were both seats are equally important in order to have a combat capable platform) but that is also something that is getting closer and closer to being finished / implemented into the game. Alot of the reasons for the Aircraft that have been made so far is not that they dont want to make other aircraft but that they simply cant. Either by lack of information/Permissions needed or simply because the tech/systems needed in the games to make such and aircraft is not available yet. But as the game gets more and more mature with more and more functionality added we will see that the 3rd party devs will be able to make more and more advanced aircraft. There is always a reason for the choices ED and 3rd party devs make and that reason is not just to Spite you... Atleast im pretty sure that is not the reason.

That Paintscheme has to be included. If only to prove that the show must indeed go on. [ame] [/ame]

The Drakens missiles are not that bad though. The Swedish Drakens carried RB24Js in their late careers (Aim-9J/P) and while not an all aspect missile it was still decent. The Finns used both Aim-9s and K-13Ms on their Drakens and the Austrians Acquired All aspect Aim-9P5s for use on their Drakens in the 90s. In general the Draken has no worse missiles then the Mig-21 has. Since the Draken has a Radar guided missile that is pretty comparable to the R-3R performance wise (RB27) and it has Aim9s (Both Older Aim-9Bs and the newer RB 24J which is a member of the Aim-9J/P Family of Sidewinders) And also the Aim-4 which has gotten a bit of a undeservedly bad rep (Swedish RB28/Aim4s were also modified and should be better then the US onces used in Vietnam) But a large part of why it the Aim4 got such a bad rep was due to being used outside of its envelope and for things it was not ment to do so it would be interesting to have as well. And the Swedish J35J (J35Fs upgraded in the 80s) could carry 6 missiles (Either 6 Aim-9s or 2 Radar guided RB 28/Aim-26 and 4 Aim-9s) so it has comparable carrying capacity as the Mig-21 (If the Mig-21 uses R-60s) So over all it has no worse missiles then most other aircraft of the timeframe. And it should be able to match the Mig-21Bis and F-5E without to much trouble (even though the Draken is a bit earlier with the Last New built J35s were delivered at the same time as the First Mig-21Bis and F-5Es) Also depends on the variant etc. But the Draken generally had no worse missiles then other comparable aircraft of the timeframe. Sure by the 90s the missiles of the Swedish Drakens were no longer top of the line but they were not the worst either and the Austrian Drakens with their Aim-9P5s were "Ok".

I would be happy to help but sadly i think the time zone difference would make it difficult. (seeing as im 9h ahead of you)

Basically the Seeker in the Aim-9 (And most other IR guided missiles) are able to look around to some degree. By Default the Seeker is fixed looking directly ahead (towards the boresight giving only a limited FOV) but Mid-late Era Aim-9s (and most other modern IR-missiles) have the ability to uncage the seeker head allowing it to swivel around more thus giving it a larger area where it can track a target without looing lock etc. So after the seeker has seen a target (giving you a good tone) you press the uncage button which will let the missile seeker swivel around to maintain lock on the target (instead of you having to keep the target on the boresight) and after you have the tone and the seeker is uncaged that lets you maneuver to a good firing position and then launch the missile. (Ps a missile is automatically uncaged after launch to allow it to maneuver for a intercept even if it was no uncaged prior to launch).

I dont have all of the specifics but i will answer what i can from what my understanding of reading the parts of the Manuals we have available is. Lets start with the Nr.1 There are multiple different range modes available for the display. Ranging from 15km to 120 km (with the different ranges being 15,30,60,120) Though the effective range most likely depend on what the radar is used for. For example terrain scanning (of significant changes in terrain) and spotting larger ships should be possible at long ranges (100km + depending on weather etc) Where as spotting smaller details and Aircraft would most likely be limited to shorter ranges. And for the Nr.2 This would depend on the radar elevation or depression used. For all the search modes there were standard elevations / depressions depending on exact modes / altitudes but it was also possible to manually elevate or depress the radar antenna. The standard antenna elevation settings according to the manual for air-ground search modes were between -3,0 and -0,5 degrees depending on the range selected and the altitude flown amd can be found on page 28. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8bCDRcq9BVeNzI2a3laZnBiZXM/view So since the default antenna elevations are pretty shallow even at lower altitude a reasonable amount of sky will be scanned (if the terrain is flat enough) and any RWR within that area will likely be pinged.