Harlikwin

Probably not. It likely required additional features like an A/G weapons computer, possibly different hud etc. I.e. all the stuff the M got.

In that case I'd stick to US made ordnance for the F1, it carries both sidewinders and the various MkXX series of bombs as well as GBU's, which Iran did get some early GBU kits that they put to use during the iran/iraq war.

I'm not disagreeing with you. But I'm saying ED won't make a realistic naval sim because its too much work. I mean take a look at all the half done stuff that they have introduced and has fallen by the wayside. WW2 damage models, how many planes actually got one? Realistic bomb fusing? Again what % of even the WW2 stuff has this working? And my favorite, clouds and weather.

Yeah fox1 fights will be interesting. The Mig should be able to see the F4 from a pretty good distance, 70+ km is a detect distance for 3m2 target for the N003, and of course the F4 has a larger RCS 6-10m2. As for the fuel situation its interesting, the 23 had pretty good range performance especially up high, and given that it could very rapidly accelerate I don't forsee too many "bingo" problems for it. But yes only 2 big sticks means the most likely tactic will be 1 pass haul ass.

I mean honestly while I hate the fact the naval model is bad, I also have done the mental excersize of what a decent "naval" damage/missile/radar model would entail, and then multiply that by the 50 or so ships we have in DCS, so its no small task. OOF thats bad, I haven't tried bombing submarines...

Lol no it doesn't at least not for the MLA/MLD. And certainly not in look down. Also don't forget the flogger has decent IRST set as well so depending on the speed of mr Phanter and aspect it could see it from quite a ways away.

LOL none of that applies to the 23 that we will get in DCS. The MLA was 8G capable and turned better than a slatted phantom. The 23MLA handles better in terms of BFM than a 21bis.

I mean given how sporadically and generally badly modeled DCS naval stuff is, IDK that I care too much. You still have the Rb-04 and Rb-15 basically being laser guided to this day. And there is huge variability in damage done by anti ship missiles, despite relatively similar warhead sizes etc.

Nope, never used on any of the models they are developing. We'd need like an EQ-4/6 versions that iraq operated for that. Either one of those would be super based as well as they got all the goodies.

They concluded that it was better than the phantom, which also had poor cockpit visibility, poor ergonomics etc. And also the 23 had a better radar in terms of look down at least. The interesting bit there is that at higher altitudes they concluded it wasn't so bad vs a viper which is interesting. I mean in its context of gen3 vs gen3 the 23 seemed to do fine vs the phantom. And obviously neither did well vs gen4 stuff. Clearly the south African F1 and other pilots shot down by mig23s were crap then, by western standards at least. Also the Angolans weren't exactly using peak soviet GCI/lazur at that time. Yeah, aside from Smyh's acceleration diatribe, there is no actual mig23 EM data there. Unless I'm blind, but I went through it 3x looking for it.

Yeah, its outdated, but well its china... So we don't get a real J-8 either.

Cool. No worries, you guys will get there. I also hope that eventually the radar model also is world class.

Be cool if they got their heads together with Aerges and Razbam, then we would at least have a few planes with working transponders. All of DCS MP would implode if it were to be actually used though.

The Iraqis had pretty much whatever they wanted from the french. When the Mirages fled to Iran IDK what they took with them. In theory Iran has sidewinders (9J/P) so that would get you covered for the basic AAM's. But I doubt they copied the 530's at all.

Are you guys going to implement the "smaller" search pattern for the magic1, it had the larger one by default and then could be set to a smaller "point" scan by using the "uncage" button. Welcome to DCS, where we actually like realism instead of warthunderisms. And yes its lame that there is alot of variability in missile modeling, especially for the older ED modules like the F5 and F86 that never seems to get fixed even when its been reported for years. With the aim9B it basically needs to see up the tail pipe. The9J/P are somewhat more forgiving but still very much rear aspect. I suppose, be glad that ED doesn't model any of the problems with the SARH missile seekers. Otherwise you'd cry alot about the 530EM.

Not seeing any 23ML data in that thread, just F4 vs 104. The revised STR on the phantom is 14dps tho vs another chart I have so the two are basically the same if the 23 is 14.5dps at the same alt. It might do better or worse at higher altitudes tho, for which I haven't seen numbers. Its interesting because the israeli commentary made it sound like it outperformed their F4 by more than a hair. I wonder if theirs was heavier or if they flew the 23 clean, cuz I'm sure the R23/24 is draggy as hell. Alternately they used the 33 degree wing sweep which reputedly bumps the STR up to ~16dps. Or the rather unlikely possibility it was an actual MLD with the additional Aero refinements. Then there is this gem from a former Viper pilot that flew the MLD that was quite impressed with its performance. null

So, honestly I'm no AeroE, nor do I particularly care to debate you on this. Maybe you're right maybe not. What I do know, and what makes sense is that the 23 is a pointy low drag dart thats been described by everyone that flew it or flew against it as having amazing acceleration. Meanwhile the F4, while having lots of thrust, also had a ton of drag and was described as a flying brick. On the maneuverability question I've seen charts (no, not gonna post em sadly because they way the are made I think violates rule 16) that put the mig23MLA STR at ~14.5dps, and ITR at like 19dps at like 5k alt (28k lbs, 2R23R, 50% fuel). Looking at phantom charts for the same alt at around 12-13 dps STR and ~19dps ITR(4x Aim7, 41k lbs) So not a huge difference, but slightly in the migs favor with a 45 deg wing sweep. I assume it gets somewhat better with the 33 deg sweep, but I've not seen any aero data for that. Yup, I agree with you here, you need accurate evaluations. All I know is that the Israelis got their hands on Syrian MLD (which in reality is aerodynamically an MLA, with MLD radar/fcs). And they concluded it outflew their slatted F4E's across the envelope. Sadly that report doesn't have any actual flight data, just the conclusion.

It was only used by ground crews. In DCS its an exploit to use it.

Yeah sadly DCS navy stuff is just really badly done, its just hitpoints and a few bandaid fixes like the radar turns off, or fewer weapons fire after so many hitpoints are depleted. But at the same time, I think the amount of work to even do it halfway decently would be large. Just from the basic "SAM" perspective you'd have to model differences for search/track/guidance radars for one (and alot of that is poorly known). And then from the attacking them standpoint, things like ECM, countermeasures like chaff or flares for IR guided ASM's etc. (which is basically unknown) And THEN an actual damage model (also large gaps in knowledge there). And now multiply that by all of the ships in DCS (which of course have gaping holes in the ship-set). Even for a small subset like the USN stuff in there, its a perry (Dear ED these used SM-1 not SM-2 btw), the burke, and a tico. So thats 3 major surface combatants right there, and then you have to actually try to model AEGIS and datalinks in how all that works from an air defense standpoint... The simplest stuff, frankly would be the Falklands ships. Far simpler systems and radars for the most part, and even they are badly done in various regards, i.e. (sea-cat reload times) though the wibbly wobbly guidance with them is kinda fun. But then again systems like Sea-dart did actually have drawbacks, and weren't always quite the murder-death-kill machines that they are in DCS.

Why do you hate realism

Cubans also strapped R-73's to their Mig21bis. Seems like they were an enterprising lot when it came to these sorts of things.

Yeah the 1948 air war was something else. Lots of cool stories about how the IAF begged, borrowed, or stole and airforce.

Honestly the best historical map for this would be circa ~1970. I'm sure there is a ton of declassified Corona imagery of the area due to the fact you had 2 wars there 67/73 in very short order so while not quite "google" maps ease of access, the actual imagery does exist to pretty good levels of resolution (6 foot resolution). https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs-eros-archive-declassified-data-declassified-satellite-imagery-1 And aside from doing the airbases, you'd basically just be deleting most of the cities on the map and maybe adding farms, as the were like 1/5 the size or something like that in terms of population. Yuup... Here are some "large" area photos, there a ton more in more detailed resolution too. Like 37 pages worth with IDK how many images per page 50? null

The Israelis evaluated a captured MLA vs slatted phantoms and came to that conclusion, they also concluded the 23 could keep up with vipers in certain parts of the envelope (high alt mostly). Doctrinally the Soviets fully expected the 23MLA and MLD to go against vipers and win. The Aero stuff I've seen suggest that the 23 and the slatted phantom have very similar STR, maybe 1-2 dps in the floggers favor for most of the flight regime. Absolute ITR might be a tossup. But the 23MLA typically outflew mig21's as well and those are certainly within the F4's ballpark. As for acceleration, LOL, you have guys that flew against the red eagles overwhelmingly state that even the MS "walked away from them". And one of the Red eagles that Flew F-22's state that the 23MS would out accelerate it. Mind you the MS is over a ton heavier, and has a ton less thrust vs the MLA. And lol, no one is gonna dogfight in the 16 degree position, 45 was standard and what most of the charts are based on for the MLA, then they discovered 33 was the superior sweep which was utilized. Does the 23MLA have weaknesses with its aerodynamics, without a doubt. But its basically a totally different jet than the MS, which is where the bulk of western "aero" mig-lore comes from, and that was literally the worst model of 23 that ever flew. Which is <drum roll> why they sold them to the arabs (and where the US got them). Systems wise same thing. The MS was basically trash in terms of radar, lacked and IRST, no Lazur system and so forth. The MLA radar is more advanced than the F4 radar, no doubt there. It may be a misunderstood whacky engineered piece of sovietium, but from what I have read on it, it should perform quite well in lookup, and while it has its issues with lookdown, it will actually work unlike the APQ-120. Moreover its integration with the IRST will give the sensor advantage to the MLA even if its modeled right with its deficiencies (Though I have near zero confidence a good IRST model can be made in DCS at this juncture without a heavy lift from ED, which may or may not happen). Add to that an actual Lazur model (no idea if it will have this on release, but Razbam said they will try) then the advantage is firmly in the floggers court SA wise versus the phantom. BVR wise again, the MLA should have an advantage over the phantom due to the radar and the same assuming period correct missiles (i.e. R-23 vs 7E's), or later (R-24 vs 7F). But really given the fact that seeker performance differences for either IR or Radar guided missiles aren't modeled in DCS this will take away alot of that flavor. As for DCS, its just down to how well this stuff gets modeled by either party. DCS devs, both HB and Raz have had their historical issues getting things modeled right (the F14 flaps fiasco for example, among many others) but both parties have eventually gotten there IMO. The F14 of today is vastly better than where they started off. Same for most of the Razbam jets. My general hope for the Phantom is that the radar model is at least on par in terms of "limitations" of the APQ-120 as it is "performance" and this goes 5000% more true for how jester actually handles it, if he can just easily dig out targets from the clutter the rest of the radar model is pointless IMO. Same goes for him running the TGP and other systems. HB's areo modeling, I generally like, but the F14 went through IDK what 2 or 3 major revisions, and the flap exploit till they clamped down on it was the bane of fighting in MP. And then there were the famous Phoenix revisions. For the F4 I really hope "early sparrow" problems are actually modeled, but I have my doubts. The one potential upside we've seen is the new physics based RWR, so that gives me hope for a decent EW simulation, though given how the rest of DCS works I have questions on how they managed to do it. As for the 23, I hope the radar model is good, and if Galinette is doing it, I'll give Razbam the benefit of the doubt since he did a great job with the eagle radar. As I mentioned earlier I think the IRST will likely be a major problem to get right/realistic given the existing IR modeling in DCS or rather lack therof, but I hope they figure out something better than what they did for the Harrier. Lazur again a toss-up as to how its done, if its like the TAF for the M2k it won't be very realistic, but at least it will be easy to implement. If they go whole hog and actually try to model "tactics" for the GCI it could end up being decent. The FM is the other big question IMO, I've never really cared for Razbams FM's in the past, but the Eagle is actually pretty decent in book, and more importantly in the book of guys that flew em, so that gives me hope.

Problem in MP is that its not coalition based and he will call all "blue" jets friendly, while he calls "red" jets enemy. Which can be rather confusing when the F14 becomes a red (IRAF) jet.