bies

Interview with F-16 pilot, here comparing early F-16A and later F-16 variants maneuverability, but the whole interview is very interesting, F-16 developement and changes, flying MiG-21 Fishbed and MiG-23 Flogger BFM against NATO fighters etc.:

What we have is FC3 is original Soviet Union 1980s Su-27S, VVS variant, with additional capability to carry 1990s post-Soviet introduced R-27ER/ET. Before first post Cold War modernisation called Su-27SM. Contract for Su-27SM modernisation has been signed in 2006 and the first squadron became operational in 2010. Contrary to our Soviet era variant Su-27SM had MFDs, new radar, ability to use guided air-to-ground ordnance, including Kh-29 and Kh-31 missiles, and laser-guided bombs, as well as the R-77 air-to-air missile. Contrary to our 1980s variant Su-27SM used Pastel RWR instead of 1980s Beryoza we have and wingtip Khibiny ECM instead of 1980s Sorbtsiya we have. Yes, FC3 modules are simplified and doesn't model many RL limitations of Su-27S and MiG-29 9.12.

Cold War 1980s MiG-29 and Su-27 IRST was usefull only in high altitude, good weather, interception. According to fighter pilot Lt.Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton with 510 hours in F-5, 900 hours in F-15, 2030 hours F-16 and 500 hours in MiG-29 - MiG-29 IRST was useless in tactical air to air combat, on the other hand he praised ZSh-5 / Shchel-3UM helmet sight. He fought the biggest amount of simulated air combat engagement flying MiG-29 against all NATO fighters between 1996 and 1998 during evaluation program in many different tactical scenarios using both WarPac and NATO tactics. There are two great interviews with him, when he is talking about very interesting details, one written, one video. There is also great interwiew with Russian Su-27 and Su-35 pilot in Russian part of the DCS forum - Russian language is required. According to him 1980s Su-27S/P would be badly beaten by NATO fighters in tactical air combat as pilot's situational awareness was far worse in dynamic situation, it was good for predictable interceptions. cheers

Comparing number of F-14 alone to number of whole USSR fighter fleet is like comparing 300 Su-27 in 1990 to 2,893 USAF fighters alone (without US Navy fighters) in 1990. BTW: You did include ONLY ONE SMALLER of two Soviet air forces - VVS. Soviet Union had also huge air defence fighter and rocket forces PVO with additional interceptors, better founded than tactical aviation you mentioned, but contrary to VVS, PVO pilots were trained to perform ground guided straight line interceptions, not trained to perform air combat: PVO had in 1990 additional: 500 Sukhoi Su-15 850 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 350 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 210 Sukhoi Su-27 (yes, Su-27 was in biggest part produced for Air Defence in Su-27P variant, not for tactical aviation) 360 Mikoyan MiG-31 Which gave USSR combined fleet of 3,545 fighters (1,275 fighters in VVS. And 2,315 interceptors in PVO) roughly 2/3 trained to perform interceptions in PVO and 1/3 to perform air combat in VVS for combine numbers: 50 MiG-21 500 Sukhoi Su-15 1445 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 350 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 300 Sukhoi Su-27 900 Mikoyan MiG-31 Overall USSR operated roughly 11,500 combat aircrafts in late Cold War plus roughly 2,500 in satellite states in Europe for combined 14,000 combat aircrafts in Warsaw Pact, compared to 12,000 combat aircrafts in NATO (Excluding Naval Aviation) (Additionally Warsaw Pact had 1253 Naval aviation combat aircrafts when NATO 4890 Naval aviation combat aircrafts) - not included it the chart below. For comparison today's Russia has 912 fighters and roughly 3,500 main battle tanks - 16 times less tanks than 1980s USSR which operated 54,300 deployed tanks in active units, and additional 15,000 in depot reserve.

Still way more Chinese than Su-30. J-8II PP is Chinese airframe with foreign avionics, when Su-30 is foreign Russian airframe with foreign Russian avionics.

There will never be any realistic simulator covering strictly classified modern military equipment due to obvious reasons. And there is nothing wrong about it. When it comes to experience of realistic battlefield of the past (~1944-2006) Dynamic Campaign and air defence overhaul hopefully improve the situation significantly.

Both are different, southern region with so called Fulda Gap consist of mountain corridors and passes and big elevation amplitudes, northern region is basically flat North German Plain.

It was working only in F-15A with PW-100 engines, PW-220 incorporated a digital electronic engine control (DEEC). F-15A and F-15C manual for both PW-100 and PW-220 with performance in different conditions and configurations, including PW-100 VMAX switch, is available publicly on Aviation Archives page.

In both SP and MP equally. In MP flying against human piloted 1985 Su-27S, in SP flying against AI piloted 1985 Su-27S. trevoC and Exorcet argument are valid as well since IRL most Russian aircrafts in mid 2000s were barely modernized 1980s Soviet built ones. Russian "modern" 2000s aircraft will not be possible in th future due to Rssian law. Soviet era 1980s MiG-29 9.12 - ED stated they are not allowed to make it, but maybe some 3rd party could. Still we are talking about Cold War era 1980s Soviet MiG-29. That's why i think F-15A/C should include Cold War variants and probably also 2000s for collection as well. It would be simply more fun to fight RED force in F-15 last time they were competitive and posed a danger or challenge for USAF. Shooting down hopelessly outdated Su-27 and MiG-29 becomes chap and boring fast, maybe Dynamic Campaign would make "seal clubbing" more fun overall. IRL US pure air campaign in 2000s against Russia would be nearly as one sided as Gulf War - Raptors, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s having big numerical advantage, cutting edge technology, maintenance, training, support - against barely modernized Su-27s and MiG-29s firing R-27R/ER, massively underfounded, with barely any flight hours pilot training, extremely lacking maintenance, logistics, guided weapon, organisation, support etc. PS: Su-35 entered service in 2014 and in very small numbers. A decade later than our F-16C, F/A-18C, AH-64D etc. So yes, surely 2000s F-15C wouldn't meet them since Su-35 didn't exist back then. For comparison F-22 entered service 2006.

We have F-16C, F/A-18C, F-15E from mid 2000s, but no opposition. F-16C, F-15E and F/A-18C suffer less since then can forget about A-A and just perform A-G. Contrary, 2000s F-15C, pure A-A platform, without any 2000s opposition in the air, wouldn't have anything to do. At most fight 1985 Su-27S. Or completely fictional and stupid to be honest USAF vs. US Navy scenarios. At the same time Cold War F-15 fighter variant from mid 1970s F-15A or mid 1980s F-15C MSIP II would have plenty of period correct opposition and real air wars to recreate, Bekaa Valley battle, Desert Storm etc.

I agree. I was always wondering why "Persian Gulf" in DCS means peaceful 2018 Hormuz Strait with artificial palm tree islands - and not either Gulf War 1991 full scale war zone over Kuwait/South Iraq. Or full scale war zone 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war over Iraqi-Iranian border. Or at least 1980s "Tankers war" in Hormuz Strait. Especially we have in DCS nearly all modules for all this 3 conflicts, for both sides, flayable. But no, instead modern day peaceful Burj Khalifa and palm tree islands Hormuz Strait which would fit civilian flight sim well, not really combat simulator. PS: our F-15E RAZBAM is making is going to be 2003-2015 variants. Unfortunately no F-15E from Gulf War with original engines, pre AMRAAM, at least not now, but they announced both engine types so maybe in the future.

Agree, during 1970s/1980s F-15 was in its prime and nearly all of 104 F-15 air kills achieved in 1975-1991 Cold War era with Sparrows/Sidewinders/Gun, before AMRAAM. In 2000s F-15 modernisation has been neglected as USAF pushed all the money to save F-22 program. F-15 became cheap old substitute of the Raptor when Congress didn't allow to replace all 700 Eagles with Raptors in mid 2000s, but only 190 high tech F-22. Still neither F-22 nor F-15 was needed, when USSR collapsed there was no air threat anymore in the world and both fighters didn't have opportunities to fight and shoot down enemy aircrafts. BTW: MSIP came online early on, still during Cold War, since 1985 MSIP was becoming standard in USAF squadrons in Europe - exactly when first Su-27P/S started to appear in Soviet squadrons in 1985. That's why all F-15C in Gulf War 1991 were MSIP standard (electronic display for weapon control, NCTR, internal ECM, some new radar functions etc.) I think 2 variants would be ideal, 1975 F-15A, with all 1970s DCS F-5E, MiG-21bis, Mirage F.1, F-14A, F-4E etc. And 1985 F-15C MSIP for late Cold War/Gulf War, with Su-27S, MiG-29A, F-14B, Su-25A, Su-17M, Mi-24 etc. It was used in 1990s as well with AMRAAM. The more variants the better, since 1979 it was just adding electronic devices to F-15C airframe so it wouldn't be time consuming.

This one would be fun, even take off and landing would be a challenge. It had tandem cockpit arrangement like a fighter and it looked awesome.

Yes and "Improvised" is just a buzzword for totally unrealistic, fictional and made up, working completely different than real counterpart. What's more late MiG-29 like SMT are overweight, underpowered, poor performance dogs, literally the only interesting thing would be their avionics - strictly classified, which would be, by far, the least realistic and most made up part of the module. Far cry from powerful, nimble original lightweight MiG-29 9.12 with great kinematic performance at the pick of MiG-29 era.

Russian ones will not we possible in the future due to Russian law. But many Soviet Union ones are in DCS right now like MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Czechoslovakia L-39 and more Soviet modules are in development like Su-17M, MiG-23MLA, La-7, possibly MiG-29 9.12, possibly MiG-17. In helicopter department there is parity right now with 3 eastern Mi-8, Ka-50 and Mi-24 and 3 western Gazelle, AH-64 and Huey.

Just good to remember they are talking about using AIM-9X Block II produced since 2013, with lock-on after launch and datalink. In DCS we have Block I produced since 2003 without this new capabilities, this is proper for our DCS 2004-2007 timeframe F/A-18C, F-16C.

What you propose is contradictory - it's impossible to code realistic flight model or systems of classified aircraft with no data. It's not DCS or MAC or other sim which has realistic FM or systems, it's developer who can code it in realistic way if he has data, SME cooperation, aircraft producer license etc. Or unrealistic, made up, fictional if data are classified and not available, SME won't say anything, produced won't sell license. Tools are already in DCS. You won't make realistic i.e. Raptor regardless of simulator environment available.

FC3 is simplified - not straight up unrealistic, fictional or made up. FC3 is just low fidelity standard the best ED could do in year ~2003. You can't take classified aircraft without data and make it in FC3 standard, becuase it will be pure fiction, working completely different than real counterpart, contrary to rest of FC3. What is more "modern" means glass cocckpit, it's impossible to make FC3 glass cockpit aircraft without making whole avionics ridiculous. What you propose is amateur made MOD and we have some for DCS, Raptors, Rafales, Sukhois, everything.

Russian aircrafts won't be possible due to their law, but Soviet ones are being developed like Su-17M, MiG-23MLA, possibly MiG-17 and many are already in DCS like Mi-24P, Mi-8, MiG-21bis, MiG-19P, MiG-15bis. L-39 was used as combat trainer in Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet Union in huge numbers. ED was trying to make early 1980s MiG-29 9.12 but it became impossible. PVO Strany interceptors were more classified than others, some MOD group tried to obtain data necessary to make 1970s MiG-25PD, but they've concluded it's impossible right now even after all this years. When it comes to Soviet aviation MiG-25P/PD/RB, Su-25A, Ka-26 are on my wishlist as well. Maybe some day. There is Caucassus map and Kola Peninsula is being developed.

They know that very well.

Divided Germany Fulda Gap map, between Frankfurt, Kassel and Erfurt.

It would be great for sure, if well made, but it is incomparably more time and resurce consuming than most people think since it would require total enviroment overhaul to be worth. 1) It would require far more complex infantry AI, animations, wehicles AI, artillery, mines etc. 2) It would require overhaul of ground physics, tanks don't swim like ships, cross country terrain changes tanks capabilities to a big degree. 3) It would require far more detailed terrain mesh and overall level of detail which could be impossible without dramatic preformance decrease or special far smaller and more detailed map specially made for tanks. Investing big amount of time, money, resources to make realistic tank module with fire control system, interior for at lest 3 crew members, crew AI, transmission, gearbox, engine, suspension, periscopes and optical devices, armor penetration models and armor models - making all of that without the whole tanks enviroment overhaul would be kind of wasted effort. DCS engine has been created as aircraft simulation so absolutely necessery compromises has been made accordingly - not to make it unplayable maps have ground mesh, ground units AI, infantry, terrain modeling etc. very much simplified. It would be fantastic, an ultimate experience to have ArmA3 level of detail and DCS scale and realism at the same time, but it is probably impossible with todays technology. Driving high fidelity very well modeled expensive tank module on table-flat terrain without hull down position, with asphalt grip everywhere, empty and low detail, against wastly simplified AI infantry, other ground vehicles and many other simplifications may not be the best experience. Time will tell, if someone would like to make it i support the idea if technically possible.

Both cockpit view and low altitude rockets and gun fire in hover. Note their control in low altitude maneuver, maintaining perfect hover, tight finger four formation, not afraid of any rotor collision, great pilots skill and very stabe helicopter quickly compensating for gun recoil, very stable in direction as well for rocket firing.

Dedicated anit-air I'm not going to argue, but non AAA i agree completely. Definitely both - ability to locate air targets by non dedicated AAA, without radar, often without optics, inside a noisy tank or IFV, at first pass when it was impossible to even hear aircraft coming, - and accuracy of non-dedicated anti aircraft fire, like small FoV BMP main canon sight, hand operated tank MG on turret roof etc., with no proper optics, inadequate turret traverse speed, are order of magnitude grater than in real life. Adjusting non-dedicated AAA accuracy can be simple. Adjusting perception, ability to instantly detect air threats at all directions, may be more tricky.

I think it should be a compromise: Real life historical liveries should be downloaded with the module - when fictional ones should be optional, selectable in module options, man could skip them if he wants to i.e. save space.