MiG 21 vs modern fighters

[coldViPer]

Good job tsb! I'll put here my first video from 104th server, sorry for bad quality. I don't

know what button I pressed in game, somekind of dark filter was activated :D

 

The first target I chased was F-15, had to break off because another F-15 (checked later from Tacview) was scanning and teasing me with his radar. Also wasted my second R3R but at least I shot the enemy down lol

 

Edited March 8, 2015 by coldViPer

[Ragnarok]

Question!

 

Do you think that is too strong R-3? In relation to the R-27R is significantly better. Is it this normal? R-3 with one mach to more than R-27R? :(

[Hadwell]

The R-3 is nowhere near as good as the R-27R, mostly get kills at 8km or less with the R-3, rarely get kills more than 12km... the R-27R has a 20 some odd km range

[GGTharos]

It is far too fast, has far too wide gimbals, can pull too much G and is very chaff resistant. I'm sure it will be addressed.

 

Question!

 

Do you think that is too strong R-3? In relation to the R-27R is significantly better. Is it this normal? R-3 with one mach to more than R-27R? :(

Edited March 9, 2015 by GGTharos

[mattebubben]

what mods are u using?.

I can see u have the Finnish cockpit but do u have other mods then that or is it all.

[coldViPer]

what mods are u using?.

I can see u have the Finnish cockpit but do u have other mods then that or is it all.

 

Yes I use also SweetFX and Mustang's Sky Mod.

[tsb47]

The R-3 is nowhere near as good as the R-27R, mostly get kills at 8km or less with the R-3, rarely get kills more than 12km... the R-27R has a 20 some odd km range

 

Exactly. But there's no R-27 loadout for the Mig21... right?

[Hadwell]

Exactly. But there's no R-27 loadout for the Mig21... right?

 

right, the launch platform being worse than an su-27/33 or mig-29 makes the R-3 even worse, and would make the R-27 a worse missile than it is if the mig-21 could use it, since the radar on the FC3 planes makes SAR missiles even easier to use.

 

any advantages the R-3 missiles may have at extremely close ranges are negated by the facts that the mig-21 itself is more difficult to use, and they only work at extremely close ranges, unlike the r-27s.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Hadwell

[kmstewart64]

To follow up with what Hadwell said, when you get a kill in the Mig 21 (especially against a fighter) you know you have done something good! The plane is harder to fly (especially land) and the systems & weapons are older. I get great satisfaction with a Mig 21 kill. Not the same shooting an AMRAAM.

 

MORG

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

Sorry, but it's all BS. Not that it's your fault, you don't know, so I'll explain it:

 

There should be zero advantage with any R-3 version at any range. It should be impossible to hit any target performing a 3g maneuver or better. That's how bad those old missiles were.

 

Instead, you have an R-3 that really does fly and behave like an R-27.

[Hadwell]

the R-3R is a far worse missile than the R-27R, and it's not as if someone can go out and fire a few thousand R-3Rs off in real life at targets pulling 3+ G's to see what the missiles can actually do, so they can accurately model them, I'm content with knowing two planes with equal situation, the R-27R will always beat an R-3R, if not because the R-27s range is twice that of the R-3R, then because the planes that can use the R-27s have a radar 100x better.

[Ragnarok]

In fact, the practice has shown that the R-60 much more reliable than R-3. Overcoming missile attack from R-3 was the rule, and almost always entered in opposite passage and classic dogfight.

 

the R-3R is a far worse missile than the R-27R... the R-27R will always beat an R-3R, if not because the R-27s range is twice that of the R-3R, then because the planes that can use the R-27s have a radar 100x better.

I have the impression that you have not tried to test these two missiles.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Ragnarok

[Hadwell]

In fact, the practice has shown that the R-60 much more reliable than R-3. Overcoming missile attack from R-3 was the rule, and almost always entered in opposite passage and classic dogfight.

 

even in DCS the R-60 is more reliable, it's actually a pretty good missile, still the R-13M1 is better than them both, but the R-60M on the mig-29 is totally different, and WAAAY better than the R-60M on the mig-21

 

I have the impression that you have not tried to test these two missiles.

 

i have the impression you haven't looked at my youtube channel.

[Ragnarok]

i have the impression you haven't looked at my youtube channel.

to cut a long story

Tacview - R-3 vs R-27R

Therefore, G limit is a different story but here is the kinetic advantage of R-3!

[Hadwell]

yeah the AA-2 missiles aren't supposed to go much faster than mach 2.5, their the same speed as R-27's, but in that tacview file it's going up past mach 3.5...

 

and you're not supposed to launch them over 2Gs, though they can pull 4-10G (depending on the altitude) turns but i bet they'd run outta fuel or energy almost instantly after that.

 

still, that head-on situation is super rare, as i've said, the R-27 has a much longer range, and the FC3 planes radar is much better, making it all a moot point, if someone is gonna be stupid enough to wait till their in R-3R range before they launch, they deserve to be shot down.

 

it's not accurate, but it's not so far off to be unreasonable, and it's only overpowered compared to itself in real life, and maybe the r-60.

 

I never denied the R-3 not being right, but it is NOT better than the R-27.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Hadwell

[OnlyforDCS]

Isn't it kind of beside the point to discuss any specific missile modeling since ALL the missiles in DCS are modeled so poorly? I think we can all agree that the performance of all the missiles in the game leaves a lot to be desired, so that when someone (like Leatherneck) comes along and gives us a weapon system that is actually FUN to use it's probably better to shut up about missile modeling and just have fun instead.

[Hadwell]

Isn't it kind of beside the point to discuss any specific missile modeling since ALL the missiles in DCS are modeled so poorly? I think we can all agree that the performance of all the missiles in the game leaves a lot to be desired, so that when someone (like Leatherneck) comes along and gives us a weapon system that is actually FUN to use it's probably better to shut up about missile modeling and just have fun instead.

 

ahaha, after all the time I spend actually playing DCS, sometimes coming to resolutions on the forums here are a nice change of pace :D

 

What you're saying is the point I'm trying to make too.

[tsb47]

Or we could just jump in f15s and shoot aim 120cs at each other from way bvr... That would be fun (not)

[GGTharos]

No, because these missiles can be modeled correctly. Realism is a priority for the DCS title, and should be taking a back-seat to 'fun'.

 

If you believe for a moment that you did something great by using a MiG-21 to shoot down a 'modern' fighter, let me divest you of that delusion right now:

 

- You have a radar that will lock onto a modern jamming fighter. Your chances of doing that should actually be nil.

- You can get within 5nm of a slammer platform AND avoid the slammer. Your chances of doing that should also be nil.

- Ditto for Sparrow and consequently R-27.

- You have missiles whose speed, range, g capability and gimbals are far wider than they ought to be. They also don't lose speed in turns because they're using the old FM.

 

On the other hand, you're up against 'superior' platforms that:

- Lose target track easily despite what should really be happening

- Carry missiles that peter out past 5nm

- Carry missiles whose maneuverability is equivalent to late vietnam era capability, and not that of a modern missile

- Carry missiles that lack any type of memory function that they ought to have

 

 

To put in another way, your 'ground sniffing ways' should be ended by one of those aircraft shooting a missile down from 10000m, negating any terrain cover and there should be next to nothing you could do about it, except hope to correctly jump in the notch and cower in it.

 

This isn't the case currently. And no, you shouldn't get what you have now for 'fun', not when 'realism' is supposed to be a staple of DCS.

 

Isn't it kind of beside the point to discuss any specific missile modeling since ALL the missiles in DCS are modeled so poorly? I think we can all agree that the performance of all the missiles in the game leaves a lot to be desired, so that when someone (like Leatherneck) comes along and gives us a weapon system that is actually FUN to use it's probably better to shut up about missile modeling and just have fun instead.

Edited March 10, 2015 by GGTharos

[OnlyforDCS]

GGTharos I think you missed my point. I wasn't even trying to make the point that the Mig somehow needs 'crutches' in the current DCS environment. (I can see that it probably came across as that way, but I was trying to be diplomatic :))

 

I agree 100% that realism should be the number 1 defining factor with regards to the modules and systems in DCS, Im just not sure that ED does.

 

The point I was trying to make is that it's kind of hypocritical to single out a single missile as being unrealistic when ALL the missiles in the game (TBH Ive noticed this only with BVR missiles) are so off base with regards to their RL performance.

 

Leatherneck is doing a great job with what they have at their disposal, should they thrive for more realism? Absolutely! Should ED strive for more realism? Absolutely! Are ED doing everything they can to achieve that goal with regards to the missiles as they are currently modeled in the game? I wont go too far off topic but just look at the efforts IAGTSG, you yourself and others have made, for the answer to that question.

Edited March 10, 2015 by OnlyforDCS

[drhyed]

Realism is a priority for the DCS title, and should be taking a back-seat to 'fun'.

 

Does that mean I spend a few years training before I even sniff firing a weapon, get to fly 3 days a month if I am lucky, sit through hours of briefs before I fly, take a break from flying for a few years to do time in a staff position and then if I am lucky when I come back from my staff job I wont get transitioned to some cargo aircraft? All these people cry for "realism" but have little clue what that actually means... O and dont forget that 99.8% of your "combat" deployments will involve sensor work while burning holes in the sky just praying some one finally approves a request for kinetic authority so by all means I really hope they model in a minimum of 500 hours of flight time before you can load out your aircraft with weapons! There is nothing fun about spending the free time I do have only to get shot down at BVR, if there are a few small advantages given to the Mig-21 most will be all for it. Remember if you suck all the enjoyment out of this developers wont be able to afford to offer realistic aircraft because no one will buy them and we will be left with FC3 type. aircraft

[GGTharos]

The point I was trying to make is that it's kind of hypocritical to single out a single missile as being unrealistic when ALL the missiles in the game (TBH Ive noticed this only with BVR missiles) are so off base with regards to their RL performance.

 

SRMs have some issues too, but at least SRMs are 'easily' corrected. BVR missiles not so much, because changes to guidance are also required. Pretty much everything the MiG-21 carries is an SRM.

 

And I'll explain why a 'single missile' is being singled out (Actually, all the missiles you use on the MiG-21 have this behavior AFAIK): These missiles are using the old FM. Old FM is very advantageous, incredibly so in fact, to the point where it levels the playing field with the slightest mistake. And this should not be a level playing field.

 

I wont go too far off topic but just look at the efforts IAGTSG, you yourself and others have made, for the answer to that question.

 

We will see how this goes. As far as the MiG-21 armament, I prefer to believe that LNS is striving to make things more realistic.

[GGTharos]

Does that mean I spend a few years training before I even sniff firing a weapon

 

No, it means your aircraft shouldn't fly at M3 at sea level if it can't, just as an example.

 

There is nothing fun about spending the free time I do have only to get shot down at BVR,

Then fly a platform that isn't in quite as much in danger of this happening to it ... or on a server that doesn't put you against such platforms.

 

Remember if you suck all the enjoyment out of this developers wont be able to afford to offer realistic aircraft because no one will buy them and we will be left with FC3 type. aircraft

BS. There will be plenty of enjoyment left to have without giving capabilities to things that shouldn't have them. It is so very amusing that you make this argument - perhaps P-51's should gain a radar and some AIM-9Cs to level the playing field for them, too? Maybe we should be arming F-86's with AIM-9Ms and heck, 9Xs when/if they come around? :D Yes, the 'little advantages' you speak of are on that level.
Edited March 10, 2015 by GGTharos

[OnlyforDCS]

Old FM is very advantageous, incredibly so in fact, to the point where it levels the playing field with the slightest mistake. And this should not be a level playing field.

 

Thanks for that info. Well I certainly hope this gets addressed, and that we see improvements to the missile AFM in general. Fingers crossed.

[otto]

 

If you believe for a moment that you did something great by using a MiG-21 to shoot down a 'modern' fighter, let me divest you of that delusion right now:

 

- You have a radar that will lock onto a modern jamming fighter. Your chances of doing that should actually be nil.

- You can get within 5nm of a slammer platform AND avoid the slammer. Your chances of doing that should also be nil.

- Ditto for Sparrow and consequently R-27.

- You have missiles whose speed, range, g capability and gimbals are far wider than they ought to be. They also don't lose speed in turns because they're using the old FM.

 

On the other hand, you're up against 'superior' platforms that:

- Lose target track easily despite what should really be happening

- Carry missiles that peter out past 5nm

- Carry missiles whose maneuverability is equivalent to late vietnam era capability, and not that of a modern missile

- Carry missiles that lack any type of memory function that they ought to have

 

 

To put in another way, your 'ground sniffing ways' should be ended by one of those aircraft shooting a missile down from 10000m, negating any terrain cover and there should be next to nothing you could do about it, except hope to correctly jump in the notch and cower in it.

 

This isn't the case currently. And no, you shouldn't get what you have now for 'fun', not when 'realism' is supposed to be a staple of DCS.

 

So what you're saying is stop playing DCS .It's not realistic.

Maybe they should whait 8 years or so untill a mig 21 theatre with planes from that era is developed and than play it.

 

"If you believe for a moment that you did something great by using a MiG-21 to shoot down a 'modern' fighter, let me divest you of that delusion right now"

 

Of course they achieved something .Even if the mig 21 is more capable than it should they won vs a far more capable fighter in DCS and that's hard to do in my view.