Max1mus

No variant of the fulcrum is particularly more capable than an equivalent variant of a flanker. There is a reason the chinese never bought or copied it, and why it did not make it into the "top 5" of the best fighters ever on a top gun instructors list, while the flanker did. Granted, neither did the F-16, and for multirole and carrier-based operations, i could think of some reasons to pick a modernized MiG-29 instead.

You intentionally do not follow R-27ER documentation, but follow the same R-27R one. What would you call that?

Then why do you ignore the R-27ER documents (while accepting the same ones for R-27R)?

Are you a more trusted source than real fighter pilots with thousands of flight hours? What about the manuals those fighter pilots use? Based on what? A small search on Google (an american company, thus a superior source) tells us that the the Patriot came into service in 1984, not 1982 as you claimed.

Apparently you know better than real life pilots who fly these things. He says that they were evenly matched in BVR. He, and other F-15 pilots have said that there is no superiority in capability, but they would win using better training and tactics. And the USAF is indeed one of the most trained air forces in the world. There was no such thing as the Patriot when the S-300 came into service in 1978. The patriot only came 6 years later, and that variant did not even come with a pulse doppler radar. So if the soviets/russians were always lacking behind, then the HAWK must be a better system. So in both cases, reality breaks your illusion of uninterrupted superiority. Unless you choose to not believe CIA papers and real-life F-15 pilots. And im not even speaking of SMEs from your least favorite country, which also disagree with your perception. I remember the debate you had with the Su-35 pilot here, saying "he does not understand... XYZ". As you can see, there are second opinions, so i think it wouldnt hurt to start viewing evidence objectively. There are people who know much more about these weapons than you, yet you choose to ignore their evidence based on things like 'the diagram looks like an egg'. Politics have no place in a simulator like this.

Your opinion. An F-15 pilots opinion: https://hushkit.net/2019/03/17/f-15-versus-flanker-an-eagle-pilots-view/ Is he also a soviet spy spreading propaganda? What about the HAWK compared to the S-300 system? Was it also superior? Or what about the early F-16 in comparision to the early MiG-29? It had no BVR or Helmet capability. In my opinion, posts like these prove that you are very politically motivated.

The quantitative superiority was changed in favor of matching them with quality in the 80s, with the arguably equally (in my opinion more) potent designs of MiG-29, Su-27 and MiG-31 against sparrow- or just Sidewinder equipped NATO planes. What makes you an SME in the missiles area? You're claiming to know more about their missiles, than the entire russian and soviet VVS and PVO together, since you choose to not follow their documentation. What qualifies you to know better?

Yes, it was inferior in the civilian sector. And to keep up with the US, it ruined itself by investing way too much into the military, ruining itself economically, however producing some excellent designs along the way, like the Su-27 and MiG-31. Of course, its not a secret that you dont like them. But that is your opinion, that many SMEs from both sides (i would argue the majority) disagree with. But how you choose your evidence is up to you, you happen to be in the (for us) unfortunate position of being able to decide how effective each weapon system should be in DCS. Or if some weapons should be added in the first place.

A CIA paper from the 80s claimed the soviets to have superior technology in nearly half of all areas. This is all very subjective and hardly relevant for DCS missile development. At least i hope so...

The russians have made many more weapons and aircraft that were never fully implemented. By your logic, the russian technology is more inventive and superior. Since the SU-47 flew before the F-22, does that mean the russians had a stealth fighter first?

Side-looking radars on american fighters are missing to his day. In an arms race, both sides have their ups and downs. Claiming one missile is "the best in the world" and working with that prejudice is extremely counterproductive.

You have not been up to date on the R-27 then. Chizh claims the real-life documentation to be inaccurate, as such the NEZ of the new missile is even lower than the old one.

I think it would be good to develop a simulator from an entirely non-biased, neutral perspective. Why is it relevant for developing missiles for DCS which one you believe is the best in the world, Chizh?

On the topic of SPO-32, there are SU-33 cockpit images with a clear picture of one (it is turned off though). Not sure if its integrated on the modern Su-30s or if they have it in the cockpit somewhere like the -33.

@Chizh R-27ER_useless.trk Why is the DLZ showing 16km here, when the actual NEZ is one third of that? Is that what the ER should be capable of? The problem is the extreme drag when the missile gets under 3000m or so, as you can see in the track.

Try 6000m against a target at 50m and mach 1.3 running away (like F-16). The ER launch permission shows at 15km+, the real range is somewhere between 8-9km. Nonmaneuvering target, perfect shot conditions.

The Su-33? What? Its the least capable of the modernized flankers. In general, RuAf flankers were inferior to their exported variants until the very late 2000s. For 10-15 years, they could essentially keep building and upgrading them with profits from the export market, but they did not introduce them into their own service. The original R-77 is another example. A modern counterpiece would be the chinese Su-30MK2 or one of the Su-30s with N011M radar exported in the early 2000s, like the MKI. The latter is being developed by a very talented modder team, they have a lot of information on MFD pages, have already finished the cockpit textures and are working on the flight model. They are going for a full fidelity implementation like the A4 mod.

I did. They kindly told me that they want to drop realism where fun/"content" is due. And updated their FAQs to include that.

The Meteor was put on Eurofighters in 2019, on german Eurofighters in 2021. The older ones with MESA dont have the necessairy software to fire it. If you want to use it as an unguided rocket, sure thing, then you might be able to introduce it to DCS. If you still have the same opinion, then you should ask for R-37M and R-77-1 on the flanker. The necessairy info for those is out there too, then. And if a 2003 aircraft can generate the required signals for a 2019 missile, then a Su-27S can generate the necessairy signals for R-37M and R-77-1, without a doubt. Infact, R-77-1 and R-77 share the same pylon. Which means the soviet MiG-29S can carry a 2012-2014 missile.

That sort of stuff is the environment the missile works in. Heavily jammed. And the meteor can only be fired from Eurofighters with AESA radars. Its a rhethorical question, because all that info that drives 4++ and 5th gen combat, is not public. Thus a realistic implementation of Meteor in DCS is not possible. Unless you want to just point and click 1980s MiGs. But might aswell shoot down airliners then, the level of resistance is about the same. Infact, the time difference between an older F-16 with sidewinders with and the BF-109 is lower, than the time difference between the Meteor and the introduction of the DCS red aircraft.

Which DRFM jamming modes can interrupt the datalink of that missile? What happens when the fighter AESA looses track for 20 seconds and then finds the target again? What happens if it is launched from slow speed? What are the seeker gimbals? What is the seeker range, and how does that change against DRFM jammers?

Its equally useless as a DCS MiG-29A would be, but it at least would offer something new. And as long as we´re not getting a modern MiG-31, might aswell have this.

What about AI? What prevents you from increasing the radar gimbals of the Su-30 (to 100-115) and giving it the MiG-31 PESA code and TWS? You would be turning it into an MKI/MKM from the early 2000s without any classified info needed. Add an AI Su-30MK2 for China with the PL-12. Balance or imbalance is up to mission makers, right? In that case, if you really want to allow for challenging scenarios, add aircraft with the R-77-1 like an AI MiG-29K. The missile should be around an AIM-120C in terms of range and AIM-120D technologically, should not be too hard to add. On a side note, please make sure multiple people in ED design these missile/aircraft capabilties and not just one person.

The ER is supposed to be very competitive with the early 120s. As stated by american red flag controllers, a real ex-F-14/15 pilot and by the russian Su-27/Su-35 pilot on these forums. The latter even said: "Plus minus parity" when asked about it. Regardless, DCS has the Charlie AMRAAM, 9X and Link16 and is coming out with the 2019 Eurofighter with Meteors. Redfor needs at the very least an early 2000s Su-30 with N011 (or a Chinese one with PL-12). Against the Eurofighter, more like a Su-35 and a chinese one with PL-15. If not in full fidelity, at least for the aggressors in FC3 and as AI.

You are completely wrong. The Su-27SM is from 2003, with dozens produced until the 2010s and the Su-30MKI from 2001 was quoted to be superior to the american 4th gen planes during red flag. The Su-30MK2 from China carries russian missiles and the very capable PL-12. The J-11B is good, any exported Su-30 with N011 (MKA, MKM) is very good. The list goes on and on. MiG-29M and K from 2009 are good, especially when fitted with the slightly newer R-77-1.