Kev2go
-
Posts
3910 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Kev2go
-
-
IRL maybe. DCS is different. In DCS R-3S outperforms GAR-8 by a lot.
and yet the even in my expereince game the Aim9P still is better than the R3. So hence in such a in such a server I think the Mig21 ought to get its R13's since it seems the Mig19 only ever used the R3.
-
That can be limited by the server. MiG-19 and MiG-21bis armed with R-3S vs F-5E with rear aspect Aim-9P will be a very good matchup I think.
Or rather R3S & Gar8 (aka Aim9B)
Aim9 P vanilla may be rear aspect but TBH its much more effective than the R3S. IMO the R13M would probably closer the the vanilla P.
-
In 1962, Egyptian MiG-19s saw some action in the ground-attack role during the civil war in Yemen during the early 1960s. The first reported air combat in the Mideast with the MiG-19 was on 29 November 1966, when two Egyptian MiG-19 fighters battled Israeli Mirage IIICs. The Israelis claimed two kills and no losses. Around 80 MiG-19s were in service with Egypt during the Six-Day War in 1967, but more than half were destroyed on the ground during the opening Israeli airstrikes of Operation Focus. Israeli pilots, however, did find the MiG-19 a potentially dangerous adversary because of its performance, maneuverability, and heavy armament.
Following the war, the Egyptians organized the surviving MiG-19 aircraft and assigned them air defense tasks of Egypt's interior. The Soviet Union did not supply Egypt with any replacement of the MiG-19s destroyed in the Six Day War, but Egypt might have received some from Syria and Iraq, so that by the end of 1968 there were 80+ MiG-19s in service with the Egyptian Air Force (EAF). The aircraft also saw combat during the War of Attrition; in one engagement on 19 May 1969, a MiG-19 aircraft engaged two Israeli Mirages, shooting down one with cannon fire while the other escaped.[22] Egypt had around 60 Mig-19s in service during the Yom Kippur War of 1973 in which they served as close air support aircraft.
The Iraqis obtained some MiG-19S fighters in the early 1960s, but later sold them all off (a couple remaining in local museums), though the survivors did see some action against the Kurds in the 1960s. It is claimed that the Iranians acquired a batch of their own F-6s.
Source Wikipedia
I dont think anyone here is debating that the mig19 didnt see service or that its somehow a historically irrelevant bird, but thanks for posting anyhow to educate those who may not have any idea on the Mig19.
Great post Prowler111. I think that the MiG-19 will be a great complement to the Mirage-IIIC and DCS world in general. It has been around in many different conflicts and airforces.To the ones that are comparing Mig-19 to current and coming modules:
Many of us thought that the F-5E would be a superior fighter against the MiG21bis in DCS (better guns/sight, great visibility, agility, modern RWR). My point is, when you go old school,
pilot skill matters more. Radar is nearly useless, and it all depends on who sees who first and how good your tactics are. In DCS I would put the MiG-19 in the same league as the MiG21bis or F-5E.
Yes it's older, weaker and lacks countermeasures. But I have no doubt that it will be a good dogfighter.
And besides that, It's not all about multiplayer score. It's about enjoying an aircraft. Another "russian" jet will be welcomed.
Kind of but not really. I never thought it was going to be superior enough to to have a clear edge, however even with the Mig21 vs F5, pilot skill is not at its full play because both still get acess to modernish missiles ( R60M and Aim9P5 respectively) one of which is a limited all aspect seeker, and the other a fully aspect Ir missile. the P may have older design, but it still used a Aim9L seeker. I think when the missiles will be limited to aim9b/R3S and pilot have to rely even more on guns, we will see the Pilot "skill" aspect truly at play. Either way these aircraft are great opponents because they both offer somethting different. F5E has the better radar, and a better RWR, while Mig21 still offers more Missiles, per airframe, and a better P/W ratio.
M3 vs Mig19 will still be a different story because neither have RWR, and will only get rear aspect missiles, so with only a par of unreliable and unmanveruable missiles there should be a greater degree of more old school dog fighting and guns usage.
personally i hope that if in servers Mig19 & MIII gets thrown in with the 21s along witf F5's, that a mission user Disables the R60s and Aimp95s. so the 21 and F5s will actually have to work for a kill, and to lessen the disparity of technology.
-
If you like at their vital statistics, the MiG-19 and Mirage III are every bit as close in performance as the F-5E and MiG-21. So the MiG-19 and Mirage III should be fun to face off.
I don't think you can define fun with the numbers, but the numbers look good as well. What are your specific objections?
What feature or performance aspect is so superior for the Mirage III or inferior for the MiG-19?
The Mirage III will also bleed a lot more energy than the MiG-19 in turns given the Mirage's delta and lack of relaxed static stability.
-Nick
itsn ot that i dont like the MIg19, but its just not really a Mirage 3 countpart. Its much earlier design. ITs top speed is lower. ( its only mach 1.4 aircraft)
the Mirage 3 not only has a better radar, but Its single engine has a more powerful thrust and a higher top speed. So itl accelerate faster, and climb faster, and is able to reach mach 2.0 hence why Mig21PF is the true Mirage 3 counterpart. again Most Mig19s were gunfighters, save for some models that were R3 capable or had the Rp1/5 radar for intercept ( which agiain has only about 10km range. RP21 SaPhir of the Mig21PF is a closer to the Cyrano radar.
Again its not that a Mig19 wont be able to score any M3 kills. but it certainly see it as a underdog to M3. But il meet you halfway and can very much agree the M3 is still a better suited opponent, than the F5E, which would even further the performance gap. ( primarily due to avionics)
.
and the PF would again also likely get access to not just R3's but also get R3R SARH missiles or even R13s
-
Correct, which is why the USAF and USN DACT focused on facing the MiG-21 as their primary rival until the early 1980s when they began incorporating tactics to counter the MiG-23 and BVR capable opponents. The arrival of the F-16N for the USN and use of F-15s and F-16s as USAF aggressors signaled the need to simulate the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the late-80s.
The F-15 should be carrying AIM-9Ls and AIM-7Fs (and probably be a F-15A), but they are counterparts when appropriately equipped.
Also, because the MiG-19 didn't enter combat in Vietnam until 1969 and the F-100 had been phased out of front-line units well before that time. The ANG continued combat ops till around 1969 before the Hun exited the theater entirely. Part of the issue was that US forces did not regard the F-100 as a frontline fighter at that point, while newly acquired MiG-19s were placed onto the frontline to reinforce the MiG-21s. The MiG-19 had a few ACM advantages over the MiG-21 with its three 30 mm cannons and much better rearward visibility. The MiG-19 and MiG-21 overlapped quite a bit and served as contemporaries during the 1960s. The MiG-21 was produced in far larger numbers and was generally more capable as an interceptor, but the MiG-19 had redeeming qualities as well.
You go to war with what you have, not what you want.
I'll admit, I'm not totally sure what you mean this....
Aircraft are not created or built by specific generations. It is a post-hoc assessment made by a human and therefore an opinion. It can be stated as though it is a fact, but its not. You can present facts, figures, introduction dates, but the classification is a human judgement - an opinion.
Plus....you are :poster_offtopic:
:)
-Nick
says the guy responding. sorry but these things need to be clarified and is relevant to the discussion.
Then again this ultimatley a Simulator but a virtual game notheless. Real life isnt fun. Multiplayer servers for competitiveness ideal should have aircraft that are actual counterparts, not merely agaisnt what they the faced IRL, but more focused on performance towards a comparable counterparts. Again a An F15C is vastly superior to the Mig21BIs, No one would want to play in MP because its very one sided affair.
Hence in reality the Su27 is again the closest Eastern counterpart to the F15 irregardless if they never faced each other In real life.
the viggen never faced off against anything IRL, that doesnt mean its irrelevant in DCS. Again similarly an F100 isnt irrelevant jusut because it dint face against a Mig19 ( or get any official acknowledged a2a kills) doesn't mean it shouldn't in a simulator. The F100 however would have still have been a Frontline fighter from 1956- 1962, which is still very much height of the cold war (* hence what if Fulda gap) And no technically the F100D wasnt pulled fully from active duty until about 1972. It still served in ANG till about 1979.
That said while they are cold war severs they merely pit to gether any legacy aircraft, there is no specifc cold scenario that is attempting to be represented. Theres a reason F5E was added ( cloes enough to a Mig21 rival in both era and Performance)
I'll admit, I'm not totally sure what you mean this....
Aircraft are not created or built by specific generations. It is a post-hoc assessment made by a human and therefore an opinion. It can be stated as though it is a fact, but its not. You can present facts, figures, introduction dates, but the classification is a human judgement - an opinion.
Plus....you are :poster_offtopic:
:)
Its not just an opinion, because these 2 aircraft existed in similar time periods./ Look at the statsheets,and manuals and you can see these are very much comparable counterparts, in terms of performance and YEars of introduction. If cold war had gone hot over Europe in the 60's , these very much would have faced Nato ( thus including French piloted Mirage 3's)
its much closer comparison than the older Mig19. design. It is certianly less judgmental than you saying only aircrarft that faced each other matter.
-
Sa-2 and others old SAMs and old cold war AAA has planned by ED.
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2920107&postcount=761
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2977648&postcount=873
I am well aware however this is very far down thier roadmap, and low priority.
ED has far more on thier plate, than 3rd parties do, which are free to focus =on just development of modules.
-
So like you said, it's a solid counterpart. :P
The F-100 is a bit closer, but the MiG-19 actually splits the difference between the performance of the F-100 and Mirage III (in terms of rate of climb, acceleration, etc - not in top speed).
It feels like splitting hairs to me, but we are all free to have our own opinions. :)
The interest in realistic missions and operations often leaves us DCS players with a quandary: the most closely matched opponent was often not a real opponent. Eg: F-100 and MiG-19 never encountered each other in combat as far as I know. So should a counterpart be realistic or closely matched?
Lets not derail our celebration of the upcoming MiG-19 by debating which is the correct mindset (there is no answer anyway - it's all about preference).
-Nick
well by that logic MIg21bis is a F15 rival, just because they faced them IRL? if you had a entire server of Mig21Bis vs F15 i can bet you your asking for team red to be empty.
No it didn't not but hey thats why Fictional Fulda gap scenario tat the height of the cold war would be even more interesting, It allows a what if scneario and allow the True Counterparts to face offf against each other.
Again it was really just tcircumstance, that prevented them from meeting each other. F100 just like the Mig19 served in the Vietnam war for eg. they jsut never saw combt because F100 was pulled from Northern incurusions because It could not provide proper escort to F105s ( could not keep up with the much faster jet) and because they eventually had the F4 take over exscort role, and fuffill some of the bombing functions along the F105, so the F100 was merely relegated to Fighter-bomber (specifcally CAS) duty in the south for most of the war. but again both aircraft served on that specifc war.
Again its no really opinion its a fact. the Mirage 3 in terms of service date and performance, is really a 2nd generation Mig21 rival ( PF and PFM variants)
-
Mig-19 is a little orphaned, but there were plenty of older soviet partner states with them. The Ogaden war Eithiopia and Somalia had some around F-5 time. It's a well performing aircraft, even if the avionics are like a Mig15 with a bolt on radar scope (dunno the limits) It's good for older scenarios in smaller states and its a good adversary not currently in the DCS repertoire.
However, I'll be honest, I have all the modules and it's not grabbing me as much as the others have. And it will probably embarrass the F-5 again :)
embarass the F5?
please, I know it comes down more to pilot skill, but in this case the Mig19 is the underdog to the F5.
F5 has a better radar, and it actually has a RWR, and A countermeasures dispenser suite plus all aspect Aim9P5, the gunsight solution is better as well. IN addition to having superior avionics, Its flight performance is also better. F5E handling is more forgiving, its maneuverability is also pretty good, and its 2 J85 engines prdouce less thrust than the 19 keep in mind the F5 weighs quite a bit less than the Mig.
The F5E-3 we have is very much the Mig21Bis Rival.
-
tbh it doesnt matter if we dont have the exact iddity bitty variants. Mig21Bis is close enough to the Vietnam war in terms of year ( and even performance), at least for late nam circa 1972 Operation Linebacker.
taking into considering that in 1972 the North Vietnamese did receive & operate the Mig21MF ( all pilots of the 921st squadron)
There really isnt much difference between the MF and the Bis except, that the bis has a slightly higher fuel capacity, and a more powerfull R300 tumansky engine. The MF still uses the same RP22 saphir radar, and the Spo 10 RWR. it has same amount of hardpoints and still could use all the same ordinance the BIS could.
Similiarily there is not much difference between the early 70s F4E phantom ( wing slatted) with a late 70s version except for a newer RWR ( IP1310/ALR i believe) and newer added ECM flare/chaff dispenser suite. There is no exact information on which varaints the A6 being made.. with the A7 they just said they were aiming for eiter a D (USAF) and/or E ( US navy) versions, which did actually see use in late part of the Vietnam war, and did take part in Operation Linebacker
Also to note we do have the F5E tiger 2. South vietnam got the F5A's but again was also one of the first customers of the F-5E. Granted this would have been the F5E-1 without a RWR, and a with the weaker An/APQ 153 radar, but, meh, close enough.
So We are not that far away from Vietnam in terms of aircraft as some would like others to believe.
-
I am genuinely happy that you chose the MiG-19P! It is an aircraft that interests me, but I did not expect it to find its way into DCS (at least for quite a while).
It will have a solid counterpart in the Mirage III, but I do hope that real consideration is put into the best scenario for using the aircraft prototypically. As a developer, you may know much more about what is coming down the road than I do, but hopefully there will be opportunities to create realistic scenarios for this module with the maps and assets that are available.
Either way I'll buy it. :) But it would be nice if it can offer that "complete experience".
-Nick
PS -
Actually that is a Su-7B, looks similar with the highly swept wing. :)
not quite. yes historically some Mig19s went up against Mirage 3's in the 1967 6 day war, however in terms of performance its no real counterpart. Truth be told the Mig21PF & PFM are close counterparts to the Mirage 3.
F100 super sabre is closer Mig19 Counterpart.
+1.Looking purely from the module perspective - MiG-19 is extremely welcome, especially that at the moment there is a big disproportion between western and eastern full fidelity modules. Apart of that MiG-19 is a great plane, first supersonic mass produced Soviet aircraft. It should also fit nicely between MiG-15 and MiG-21. :thumbup:
On the other hand, when looking from the overall perspective there is a big problem. Due to close to none content for 50's there is a close to certain risk that apart of flying the plane itself, there will be not much to do with it. Like with MiG-15 or Sabre being a great modules on their own, there is close to nothing available for them in terms of MP servers or SP missions (apart of really great Museum Relic DLC campaign).
I'm not even talking about the map. Openning a mission editor and trying to setup a mission for MiG-15 will make you hitting a wall. There are no units in core DCS to create a mission that would pretend to be even close to 50's. For example, the Tu-95 bomber has only a low-poly model and besides of that can’t even drop bombs. The list can go quite long, starting with AI fighters, attack planes, bombers, air defense systems - S-25, S-75, ground units. etc, etc…
IMO the success of MiG-19 will rely mostly on ability to persuade ED into providing more AI units in core DCS so that 3'rd party and community can start creating content for it.
agreed the Mig19 will be a orphan aircraft for some time, and we dont have older cold war Ai assets like SA2's for eg.
-
Awesome! Now we just need an F-8 Crusader or EE Lightning to match it up against! :D
Or rather the HUN, that would be the Mig19's closest counterpart from the USAF ( especially against the radarless Version)
-
If you were wanting a 50s era aircraft that isn't a hunter, may I recommend an early generation lightening? That could be a great crossover between the mig-19 and mig-21 timeline of aircraft. Plus the radar and missile capabilities would be comparable
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or an F100 super sabre, closest counterpart to the Mig19. Both were the first supersonic fighters of thier respective nations
-
Well, all I want is a-6a and f-4b; Early models for the navy and we have ourselves a decent era opponent for the mig-21 (and possibly the Mig 15 or 19 could sub for the 17) for Vietnam era combat.
For the airforce, an A-1 and an f105g would make my bucket list too, but I'd take the f-100 if BST want a successor for their f-86 ;)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
well thw 21 we have is BIS which did not enter production until 1972, nor was this variant used in the vietnam war. SO personally i think for flexibility, we ought to have the A6E ( at minimum A6B, so we have a Sead capable intruder.)
-
I totally agree. I'm sure Hawker Hunter would appeal to many pilots in here. I hope it's their next project.
i dont think so. the Hunter is still a transoinc plane, and while iconic, itl be in quite an awkward position. Its performance ( especially late model like the Mk6) exceed performance of korean era F86F and Mig15his fighters, ( even the mig17F in some aspects) and yet its still be inferior to supersonic designs ( it be eating the Mig19's exhaust fumes, as it speeds away at ease)
Mig 19 in turn has afterburners and its a supersonic aircraft. the P model will also have a IZumrud search radar albiet short range( 10-12 km) , itl still make it better for high altitude interceptions. Mig19 also fits into more scenarios TBH.
-
Hello all,
First of all, I would like to apologize to all those who where waiting for a DCS MiG-23 really hard. You can be sure I was one of them.
As the MiG-23 was not authorized, we started to push our second project which is the MiG-19. I´ve been swiming in MiG-19s and MiG-19 documentation for the past two months as at the beginning it was supposed that we would have more time to gather all the necessary data and as a consequence, some info is still missing.
We appreciate any help.:D
A new historically acurrate MiG-19P model is being made. I will be posting some work in progress pictures of the new MiG-19 model around next week.
ok just to clarify, ED has allowed you guys at Razbam for a license for you guys to create a Mig19P within DCS correct? SO mig19P development will 100% happen and it will go for sale as a module when complete?
-
The bombs release they just continue to show as being attach to the pylons. TC
exactly so its a bug.
-
I'd love Bison or LanceR, infact I'd take it over many planes, but I don't really see it happening, for a multitude of reasons.
Some of the reasons I can think of are:
- Even if they would be built upon MiG-21Bis (and in case of LanceRs even the base variant is not Bis), it would still be a big effort with 3D models, cockpits, especially the systems and even the flight model to some degree. It wouldn't be a trivial task to create it.
- Most people would prefer to have different airframes for diversity, rather than variants.
- Considering the two above together, it would probably be a financial risk for a dev studio to take it on, and if said dev studio would be someone other than Leatherneck, it would be even more of a colossal risk since they would have to do everything from scratch.
I'd also enjoy playing around with a MiG-21F13 but that'd honestly be mostly for curiosity's sake. MF or PFM? Well not sure I'd be too interested in them. I'd possibly get them in a sale as I love the Fishbed and would like the idea of collecting them :P but even I wouldn't justify getting an MF or PFM full price unless there are more 60s era stuff at the time.
In my opinion, the aircraft that would round out things nicely and give many scenario possibilities would be a RED attack aircraft like Su-17 or MiG-27, or Su-24 or maybe A5C.
Theoretically, we may be getting a MiG-23 from someone, as the cancellation of Razbam's attempt eventyally led to reason being a conflict with a future plan. MiG-23 itself is interesting, and if we get one, I would like seeing it also leading to MiG-27, even if it would still be big effort to change a MiG-23 into a MiG-27, I think their roles are so distinct, they would probably both sell nicely.
BTW, while I understand people being enamored the Vietnam idea, 60s birds would be competitive between only each other and there currently is zero of them in the sim. I just don't see DCS: Vietnam becoming a thing in at least a pretty long term. So Vietnam era MiG-21s would mostly be a curiosity, perhaps only possibly interesting for a Middle East scenario after Razbam release their Mirage III.
well to be fair we have close enough variant to have DCS vietnam.
South vietnam used F5A's and F5E's ( albeit E1 without rwr, and the earlier An/APQ 153 radar)
I think Mig21bis is close enough to fill in for earlier mig21 variants, coupled with a potential Mig19 from razbam. Eventually id say having a USAF F4E phantom, coupled with carrier A6 intruder and A7 corsair (planned by razbam), its close enough to fit late vietnam period Circa late 1972 operation linebacker 2.
similarly some potential assets that were used in that could be to be used in the 1973 October aka YOm kippur scenario ( mig21bis, Mig19 F4E, MIIII)
-
Hello.
I have noticed when carrying 6 Mk 82's, I can only launch the first two. After that, the remaining 4 bombs will not release.
Is this just me or a small bug?
Cheers.
David
yes this has a been bug since its initial release, sadly still not fixed yet.
-
personally id rather see a mig23 ( ML/MLA/MLD), than yet another mig21 variant.
-
Please tell me there is a way to download manuals from there without paying
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
you dont need to download it when you can just read it online.
# put link in favourites in your given Internet browser.
Its not hard.
THANK YOU!It will be rude to ask you for more links? (F-4E F-104 F-105 F-106) i want to read it on my phone but the website is annoying in mobile chrome
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
might want to browse that site some more. there are indeed manuals for all those given aircraft you listed.
-
if only milviz put their f-4 into dcs :(
sadly i dont think they will based on what i read.
Both FSX fliers and even dcs users wanted milviz in the past to opt for a 3rd party license but..... this was a statement given from milviz ( shared on these forums)
-
-Nick
yes so do i think it will be part of the game in the future. That was part of my point., i was just countering SD's bleak points., the process does not make it impossible to add aircraft. \
whilst it would ideal to get multiple versions fro both Navy and land based AF versions from a within a single pack from a developer., I wouldn't hold my breath because it may be some extra work involved, but we will just have to wait and see.
-
One of my nightmares is what we would do if ED goes bankrupt ... even tough DCS is installed on my hard drive, it depends so much on ED's server (for license checking, file repairing, downloading when installing on a new PC, etc) that I guess after a while it wouldnt work anymore.
:D
what could happen? id think it get picked up by modding community, and maybe we would see a similar situation to Falcon 4.0 and its evolution into falcon BMS. perhaps we would not see new modules, but what already existed could be revived by the modding community.
I mean dont get me wrong I don't want that to happen, but if it did it would not be the end of the world. I honestly don't think ED will go bankrupt anytime soon though, they still have roadmap of future developments, a cut of $$ from 3rd party devs ( they get a license from ED to create modules here) plus even they can continue to stay afloat with Gov/Mil contracts.
-
1
-
-
The F-4 was property by McDonnell Douglas, the same of A-4 (When Douglas join McDonnell), you require talk with the actual owned rights (Boeing or others) to simulate proper ASM.
Different manufacturer or not, you require the IP, required by ED to get a 3rd party module license, and of course a official announce by a 3rd party and ED. We can open one hundred post require a F-4, but meanwhile ED or a 3rd party not confirm them, only can wait.
Yes , McDonnell joined Douglas, however It waas a merger. The A4 was designed and put into production before the merger, and as a division of the company they may have had different legal policies applying to thier respective aircraft. That being said it was still more of a price point issue (rather than a flat out denial or refusal for the company to cooperate) for VEAO being a newcoming to the DCS 3rd party development with smaller pockets. McDonnell Douglas outside of the F4, also owned the F15 Eagle design and the F18 Hornet before Boeing bought them. F15 is in DCS as a FC3 aircraft ( and a full fidelity version is in the roadmaps), whilst the ED has the License to develop the F18 obviously since its well into WIP stage, so i guess a bigger team Like ED has been able to afford these licenses.
As such the F4 it is also also realistically possible to have license purchased as indicated by another developer forFSX (milviz) which did so.
Again this is a moot point to repeat. we get it. This process and steps have applied to all modules that currently exist. No one on here is saying the F4 is confirmed, but that its a desired aircraft ( well what do you expect from a poll), and one that is reasonable to have within the DCS environment, and able to be developed.
Just for fun. Wishlist for future RAZBAM projects
in RAZBAM
Posted
well if we were getting a first generation sea harrier.
The harrier in development by razbam is the Av8B Harrier 2. Its practically a entirely different beast. Its avioncis are much newer, ITs got a HUD, MFD's, targeting pods and PGM's,
The Yak 38 is still oldschool like the original harrier with mostly unguided muntions for ATG, and relies on many analog display & functions.