Leatherneck SU-22 poll

[probad]

I have better idea, we need ALL from tactical aviation from early 70' to late 80', both sides red and blue. :thumbup::pilotfly:

this is why wishlists polls are silly!

[Kev2go]

I personally want all 3 of MiG-23, Su-17 or 22, and Su-24. However, among the 3 I possibly prefer the Fitter the first, and the most.

 

Fast, decently agile, has better range than Flogger, pretty good payload, with many different options to choose weapons from, can do either strike or CAS missions.

 

While Su-24 is very cool, it is predominantly a striker like the Viggen. And I personally prefer single seat aircraft a bit more than two seaters in DCS.

 

Honeslty, I think we need all of them! :D.

 

 

I have better idea, we need ALL from tactical aviation from early 70' to late 80', both sides red and blue. :thumbup::pilotfly:

 

 

 

 

agreed.

 

 

but its just a matter of which comes, first, and which ones are best suited for current ( or soon to be added) scenarios. Hence why i support a particular model to from redforce to be developed.

[probad]

access and licensing isn't a democratic issue

 

virtually the only real point of a wishlist thread is to act as a focal point for fans of a particular airplane to gather and jerk off over it to pass the time waiting

meanwhile you're here trying to crash the su-17 thread with 3 pages of su-24

 

maybe its time you make its own thread

Edited February 2, 2017 by probad

[Kev2go]

access and licensing isn't a democratic issue

 

virtually the only real point of a wishlist thread is to act as a focal point for fans of a particular airplane to gather and jerk off over it to pass the time waiting

meanwhile you're here trying to crash the su-17 thread with 3 pages of su-24

 

maybe its time you make its own thread

 

No ones crashing anything, I can put in my own 2 cents can i not? and last time i checked the thread isnt a mere yes or no, or a standalone thread for purely the su22. There is the 3rd option for "alternative" aircraft from the Russian side in the poll. If you want to have a strict su22 discussion, just call it a su22 discussion thread, without any polls, period. Often when people make polls they forget alternatives. This can be also seen as bringing awareness to another alternative.

 

Since there is no su22 discussion moving forwards it was only fair to discuss an "alternative" Russian aircraft, especially when it suited an already existing environment & theaters ( including WIP one)

Edited February 2, 2017 by Kev2go

[Dudikoff]

Because the Stright of HOrmuz wont include Iraq, Kuwait, or the specific parts or Iran to have Gulf war Scenarios, and or Iran-Iraq War. Iran no longer uses to su22. Neither will syria be included. Remember its not a map of the Entire middle east.

 

I know where the Straights are, but what I don't see are any arguments here that the scenarios can't have Iranian Su-22's, or even Syrian or Iraqi with a little imagination.

 

Now while dual seaters combat aircraft are tricker to create it certainly hasn't stopped leatherneck from doing one. The F14 tomcat in development is a 2 seater.

 

F-14 is primarily an interceptor operating from carrier. It's a bit easier to switch back and forth there compared to when e.g. flying low-level strike missions with the Su-24.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Dudikoff

[probad]

kind of a difference between expressing your opinion and taking over a thread with 3 pages of brokenrecord posting

you've done nothing to address or even recognize the main drive motivating the discussion, which that one of the biggest demands for redfor right now is counterair, and despite the su-17 not being exactly the sharpest tool in the box, has at least historical precedence for it. meanwhile despite iran owning ex-iraqi su-24s, they haven't been involved in any actions, so their historical scenario relevance to dcs is effectively nil.

 

in terms of development:

if nobody has a headstart on either aircraft, then their releases are going to be so far in the future who knows what state the game is going to be in, there's no point pidgeonholing digital combat simulator into digital iran simulator

if anyone has a headstart on either plane, then all this forumwarrioring doesnt even matter because the train has already left the station.

 

you're not even in the loop so why fight so hard over it?

Edited February 2, 2017 by probad

[Kev2go]

I know where the Straights are, but what I don't see are any arguments here that the scenarios can't have Iranian Su-22's, or even Syrian or Iraqi with a little imagination.

 

 

 

F-14 is primarily an interceptor operating from carrier. It's a bit easier to switch back and forth there compared to when e.g. flying low-level strike missions with the Su-24.

 

 

F14 may be designed for that, but is very much capable of lugging unguided muntions. The F14B in turn, since they said are simulating a 90s variant will likely then have targeting pods and PGM's, making it a fully fledged multi role bird.

 

Its not easier at all because backseater still has to operate a complex radar functions for searching out targets and unlike the Su24 the cockpit is seperate and located behind the pilot. an Su24 the weapons officer is seater right next to the pilot in the same cockpit area. IF the jester AI is goood enough there probably wont be a need to switch between cockpits like a madman in the F14, ( or if a similar AI is a applied to say another 2 seater like the su24 assuming LN makes it)

 

AS far as 2 seater, all weather strike aircraft go, id point out the A6 intruder planned by Razbam.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

kind of a difference between expressing your opinion and taking over a thread with 3 pages of brokenrecord posting

you've done nothing to address or even recognize the main drive motivating the discussion, which that one of the biggest demands for redfor right now is counterair, and despite the su-17 not being exactly the sharpest tool in the box, has at least historical precedence for it. meanwhile despite iran owning ex-iraqi su-24s, they haven't been involved in any actions, so their historical scenario relevance to dcs is effectively nil.

 

in terms of development:

if nobody has a headstart on either aircraft, then their releases are going to be so far in the future who knows what state the game is going to be in, there's no point pidgeonholing digital combat simulator into digital iran simulator

if anyone has a headstart on either plane, then all this forumwarrioring doesnt even matter because the train has already left the station.

 

you're not even in the loop so why fight so hard over it?

 

well the same reason you or a few others are being broken records. no one wanted to acknowledge each others points. hence its on the other posters that this has dragged on for 3 pages.

 

Sure the su24 hasn't seen combat service by IRan, but there at least a real map coming to support it. Remember that the way Straight of Hormuz is setup it is a fictional scenario on its own. Guess by that logic, it shouldn't be realated. oh look Nevada is also isnt real. Its just for mock excercises, No real aerial warfare ever took place over Nevada either. Lets remove Nevada too then? However as i pointed out, outside of Hormuz map, it currently fits in the Caucasus Map, because that is a "real" scenario (2008 Gerogia) where it saw combat use.

 

Actually if the underlying issue is( or was) counter air in legacy era, then we shouldn't be discussing a Su22 or su24, but a Mig23 Flogger.

 

So in conclusion you say that assuming if neither have headstarts, its so far to the future is pointless to Discuss? Alrighty.... so then this entire thread is pointless OK, so you want this thread closed then ;)

 

 

 

you're not even in the loop so why fight so hard over it?

 

 

 

niether are you, why fight so hard over the su22? :smartass:

Edited February 2, 2017 by Kev2go

[Dudikoff]

F14 may be designed for that, but is very much capable of lugging unguided muntions. The F14B in turn, since they said are simulating a 90s variant will likely then have targeting pods and PGM's.

 

The F-14A will be a mid-80's one and those never carried any bombs except in some tests. But, even if they did, there are no target designation systems so the pilot would do all the work there. As for the F-14B, they said they might consider adding the LTS and if they do, you'd use it from medium altitudes. So, you'd turn on the autopilot (or let the AI fly to the target point or waypoint or whatever, switch to the back seat and handle target acquisition.

 

Sure, the Su-24 can be used in a similar way, but that's not what it was designed for so you'd be missing out on the module in a way (e.g. a low level deep strike mission at night sounds like a much more tense experience).

 

Its not easier at all because backseater still has to operate a complex radar functions for searching out targets and unlike the Su24 the cockpit is seperate and located behind the pilot. an Su24 the weapons officer is seater right next to the pilot in the same cockpit area.

 

For long range interceptions, you can just let the AI or autopilot fly the plane while you handle the target acquisition. After the target is locked, you can engage it with Phoenix missiles or switch forward if you're going for Sparrows. At close ranges, you can use dogfight auto acquisition modes from the pilot's position.

 

Seems a bit less hectic than the Su-24 where you might need to be dodging air defenses while you're searching for targets with the radar or the TV sensor.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done or that I wouldn't prefer to have the Su-24 over the Su-17, it's just that the Su-17, being a simpler module and a single seater, would seem like a more obvious choice to the developers between the two, kind of like I'd expect Razbam to choose to do the A-7 before the A-6.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Kev2go]

The F-14A will be a mid-80's one and those never carried any bombs except in some tests. But, even if they did, there are no target designation systems so the pilot would do all the work there. As for the F-14B, they said they might consider adding the LTS and if they do, you'd use it from medium altitudes. So, you'd turn on the autopilot (or let the AI fly to the target point or waypoint or whatever, switch to the back seat and handle target acquisition.

 

Sure, the Su-24 can be used in a similar way, but that's not what it was designed for so it would be a waste.

 

 

 

For long range interceptions, you can just let the AI or autopilot fly the plane while you handle the target acquisition. After the target is locked, you can engage it with Phoenix missiles or switch forward if you're going for Sparrows. At close ranges, you can use dogfight auto acquisition modes from the pilot's position.

 

Seems a bit less hectic than the Su-24 where you might need to be dodging air defenses while you're searching for targets with the radar or the TV sensor.

 

 

 

WEll id point out neither was the A6 Intruder. Somones gonna have to fly that at low altitude In all weather night time, evne if you can opt for Mid level bombing like the su24.

 

 

If you ask be"harder" than su24.

 

But then again since when is difficulty a reason to exclude an aircraft. AS pointed out F14 2 seater. A6 intruder by razbam 2 seater. They arent opting for easiest options.

 

IN same way as you decribed a jetster esque AI for A6 or Su24 is needed too, and you could then safely conduct your bombing. But then again If you fly in a squadron or some freidns and don't Lone wolf, then youl have a warm body to actually manage weapons and or radar for you. I think these 2 seaters will no doubt be better with a second person via COOP, no matter how good the AI is in either aircraft.

 

Also on the F14B even without LTS or PGMs it still can use unguided muntions. It doesnt matter if it didnt commponly use them. M2000C's didn't commonly fly around lugging Mk82s either. It was meant as a air defence fighter first for France, and 90% of training went to A2A withing the French Air Force. Similarly A10's dont "commonly" fly with 3 mavericks per pylons, but two, yet in DCS we have the freedom of using all 3 without having to worry about the tires burning out.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Kev2go

[iLOVEwindmills]

Su17/22 just seems more sensible. An extremely widespread machine, fast SEAD capable with an exceptionally wide arsenal of both guided and unguided munitions. Su24M would be great as well, but way more work, less accesible in the real world, and just seems less flexible and less suited to the game environment.

[Kev2go]

Su17/22 just seems more sensible. An extremely widespread machine, fast SEAD capable with an exceptionally wide arsenal of both guided and unguided munitions. Su24M would be great as well, but way more work, less accesible in the real world, and just seems less flexible and less suited to the game environment.

 

with the current Caucasus Scenario in the modern day, and upcoming straight of Hormuz i Disagree. There are scenarios that fit the su24 much more than the su22.

 

Su24 also has a wide array of munitions. can do what thee su17/22m4 can and more plus with good range. Even if yo don't plan to fly far, no problem that only means Longer loiter time.

[Buzzles]

They're quite different aircraft for overlapping but not entirely similar things though.

 

Personally, I'd rather have an Su-17/22 because it's a single seater and you should be able to throw it around a bit more. The Su-24 is much more of a precision strike aircraft.

[Volator]

access and licensing isn't a democratic issue

 

virtually the only real point of a wishlist thread is to act as a focal point for fans of a particular airplane to gather and jerk off over it to pass the time waiting

meanwhile you're here trying to crash the su-17 thread with 3 pages of su-24

 

maybe its time you make its own thread

 

Well said.

 

No ones crashing anything, I can put in my own 2 cents can i not? and last time i checked the thread isnt a mere yes or no, or a standalone thread for purely the su22. There is the 3rd option for "alternative" aircraft from the Russian side in the poll. If you want to have a strict su22 discussion, just call it a su22 discussion thread, without any polls, period. Often when people make polls they forget alternatives. This can be also seen as bringing awareness to another alternative.

 

Since there is no su22 discussion moving forwards it was only fair to discuss an "alternative" Russian aircraft, especially when it suited an already existing environment & theaters ( including WIP one)

 

This thread is called "Leatherneck Su-22 poll". How much more does it need to be specifically labeled an Su-22 thread for you not to fight every point made here with one for the Su-24? I admire how much effort and time you put into this though.

[frodrigues2016]

Su25T and Mig21

 

Hi all..... i have both the Su25 and the Mig 21 and i think they fly in a very realistic maner and i can say that not every blue side aircraft flyies like them.

 

The Su25T flyies perfectly.

[Kev2go]

They're quite different aircraft for overlapping but not entirely similar things though.

 

Personally, I'd rather have an Su-17/22 because it's a single seater and you should be able to throw it around a bit more. The Su-24 is much more of a precision strike aircraft.

 

 

it depends tbh.

 

 

If the goal is to have a legacy era striker, than i think su17/su22 vanilla would be great, complimentary soviet striker to the Mig21bis which is oriented towards air to air, and Strike as a secondary option. But when it comes to the more upgraded su17/22 M4 from the 80s, then that's when i think the Su24M is suited better for the scenarios we currently have ( Team red needs a striker with Precision capabilities). Its more modern looking airframe, that serves to date. I mean all things considered su24M is still kinda old school ( even the M2 update fro mthe 2000s was very modest) compared to modern avionics, but i guess the Russians still keep them around because they dont have the $$ to produce any more Su34s atm as a full out replacement for the su24.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

Well said.

 

 

 

This thread is called "Leatherneck Su-22 poll". How much more does it need to be specifically labeled an Su-22 thread for you not to fight every point made here with one for the Su-24? I admire how much effort and time you put into this though.

 

Sorry i just wanted to present a different view, and bring awareness to the other alternatives because of the given poll options.

 

ON topic stuff, I actually Le crappy Pic, i took of a Sukhoi from a Gas station from a trip to Poland from a couple years ago. It was a night time, I was returning on a tour bus, heading back to Warsaw, and I saw it took a picture of it, because thought,.. ooo a military jet by a pit stop. from a distance in the dark it looked like a Mig21, but when i got closer i noticed it looked a bit different. I have that picture somewhere,. Though it looks a bit different from the su17/22 (downgraded export/) or its a Su7 .

Edited February 5, 2017 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

Here are the crappy quality pics from last post that i promised to find:

 

 

 

[foxbat155]

It's a Su-20, export variant of Soviet Su-17M.:thumbup:

[tzetz]

Id like to see Mig-23 MLD, my favourite plane! It is so neglected both in term of Diecast models - cancelling the best projects, and good videos pics from its age... So I hope it will see light at least in DSC.

[Trueno]

Any news by the leathernek devs? I love the the Fitter. The shape of the plane is very sexy.

[Silver_Dragon]

None has confirmed a Fitter module to DCS World by LNK or other 3rd party.

[Trueno]

None has confirmed a Fitter module to DCS World by LNK or other 3rd party.

 

None is a usaer? or is "No one"..?

[Buzzles]

None is a usaer? or is "No one"..?

No-one.

No 3rd party has hinted at plans for a Su-22 or related aircraft.

[Ronin14]

I would rather see an SU24.