Next aircraft speculation

[Bogey Jammer]

What makes you think they won't announce it the same day as release? Anyone remember Black Shark 2?

Because pre-purchase is the norm now. And LN is not ED.

[OnlyforDCS]

Again this talk of balance, or this aircraft must have this opponent etc.. As if there is balance in the real world. Each aircraft is unique, each has strengths and weaknesses and unfortunately in many if not most cases, the air forces of the world field vastly inferior weapons (including aircraft) to anything that the US or Russian airforce has available at any given time. All possible scenarios are realistic (even if most are one sided and very predictable).

[RaXha]

Again this talk of balance, or this aircraft must have this opponent etc.. As if there is balance in the real world. Each aircraft is unique, each has strengths and weaknesses and unfortunately in many if not most cases, the air forces of the world field vastly inferior weapons (including aircraft) to anything that the US or Russian airforce has available at any given time. All possible scenarios are realistic (even if most are one sided and very predictable).

 

This is so true! A lot of videos has surfaced during the last years from Syria where the Mig-21 is being used in the current conflict, to say that it would be completely impossible that it would face any of the current Russian or American fighters is just ridiculous. Would it be a fair fight? Of course not, but life is rarely fair! :P

[howie87]

I don't understand all this talk of fairness.

 

There's a whole bunch of aircraft I'd love to see in DCS and 'balance' doesn't come into it.

 

I'd snap your arm off for a western multirole aircraft without any Russian equivalent being available.

 

I'm sure most of the people who talk about 'balance' really just have a preference for a different aircraft and if everyone was suggesting their preferred airframe be modelled, you wouldn't hear them saying

"Oh no... We can't have that wihout X, Y, or Z"

[Plushanubka]

I don't understand all this talk of fairness.

 

There's a whole bunch of aircraft I'd love to see in DCS and 'balance' doesn't come into it.

 

I'd snap your arm off for a western multirole aircraft without any Russian equivalent being available.

 

I'm sure most of the people who talk about 'balance' really just have a preference for a different aircraft and if everyone was suggesting their preferred airframe be modelled, you wouldn't hear them saying

"Oh no... We can't have that wihout X, Y, or Z"

Yep. Flying f-15e in multiplayer which will release sometime vs 80's su's and migs would be SOOOOOO fun.

This is only example, but i hope you will get it.

[dartuil]

For me I dont care about balance.

All I care is " FOX-2 , FOX-3!!" "Rolling right" "RTB buddy!!"

F-15C vs mig-21, I dont care.

[OnlyforDCS]

Yep. Flying f-15e in multiplayer which will release sometime vs 80's su's and migs would be SOOOOOO fun.

This is only example, but i hope you will get it.

 

Not as much fun as already flying a Mig21Bis in multiplayer, vs Su27's and F15Cs...This is also only an example, but I hope you will get it.

 

We are getting sidetracked, whatever Leatherneck decides to do I'm sure it will be a great module and will be fun in whatever scenario. (Whether underdog, or top dog)

[Hummingbird]

I most definitely prefer historical aircraft going up against their historical opponents, it just makes it a lot more interesting imo - and usually also automatically quite balanced as major waring parties often fielded comparable equipment, which isnt a surprise as much of warfare is about countering the technical advancements of the opposition with new ones of your own.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Lucas_From_Hell]

If we get do get a Viggen, i would much prefer a ground pounder than another fighter in DCS! :D

 

I don't have a particular preference but this outcome would definitely be awesome. Supersonic attack aircraft make for amazing interdiction scenarios, which should be really fun :pilotfly:

[Bacab]

I don't have a particular preference but this outcome would definitely be awesome. Supersonic attack aircraft make for amazing interdiction scenarios, which should be really fun ilotfly:

I agree, a supersonic attack aircraft is missing in the DCS collection.

[Bogey Jammer]

Again this talk of balance, or this aircraft must have this opponent etc.. As if there is balance in the real world.

In multiplayer, balance is one of the most important factors. In real life, pilot training can balance the situation when the opponent has more advanced equipment. Too bad, we are not real pilots.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Bogey Jammer

[mjmorrow]

Ok, what would the North Vietnamese fly? They don't have a single aircraft in DCS, not even an AI only one. I'm not opposed to adding a whole bunch of Vietnam stuff, I think it would be a lot of fun. Just pointing out that so far, the only Vietnam aircraft we have for DCS or even publicly announced for DCS is the UH-1H.

 

The most representative fighter for the North Vietnamese is most likely one or several Mig-17 variants. As far as fighter or bomber interceptor jets, they also had a really small number of Mig-21s (not bis) and a number of Mig-19's, too. The North Vietnamese also had Mig-15s, but I think they only used the Mig-15 as a trainer for future Mig-17 pilots. As someone pointed out on this forum, the surface to air defenses would present the biggest threat to US air assets. Also, we would really need excellent GCI simulation, to create historically representative scenarios, because North Vietnamese air operations were highly dependent upon GCI, just like RAF pilots in the Battle of Britain. :thumbup: MJ

[Dudikoff]

The MiG-21Bis is quite a bit different from the older MiG-21's the Vietnamese flew. It has 4 missile hardpoints instead of 2, an internal gun (the older ones typically didn't), improved radar, a more powerful engine and a different canopy. It's about like the shift from a Bf-109E3 to a Bf-109K4. Technically the same basic airframe, but you can't interchange them in a historical scenario. They are too different for that.

 

They had a number of MF's (around 60) delivered between 1970 and 1972 (sources vary, but it seems 921st Fighter Regiment was operating them at least starting 1972) which is rather similar to bis (the biggest difference being extra fuel in the enlarged spine and a stronger engine in the bis IIRC).

Edited November 5, 2015 by Dudikoff

[chev255]

Yep. Flying f-15e in multiplayer which will release sometime vs 80's su's and migs would be SOOOOOO fun.

This is only example, but i hope you will get it.

 

Sorry I really don't get your example, F-15E came into service in 1988, I don't see why 1980s MiGs/Sukhois would not be a threat to a bomb-laden Strike Eagle???

[Cool Breeze]

Removing this because it's off topic...

Edited November 5, 2015 by Cool Breeze

[mattebubben]

From what I gather, first Viggen is AJ-37, attack version. Mid 80s it apparently got some upgrades including Mavericks. Also in the 80s JA-37 interceptor came. Later on, both lines got significant upgrades in AJS-37 for attack and JA-37D for interceptor versions, both being pretty advanced and final variants of Viggen.

 

If it's indeed the Viggen, I think a Maverick and anti ship equipped AJ-37 from 80s might be the most likely variant. Of course, like with F-14 A & B, we may get multiple variants, which would be beyond awesome. But, I think difference between attack and jakt viggen might be bigger than two F-14 versions and can be rather significant.

 

 

Probably a bit late for Corrections...

 

But the Mavrick upgrade happend earlier.

 

Sweden orderd the AGM-65s in 1975 (Thus the name RB-75 in swedish service)

 

and we received them in 1977.

 

So its very likley the AJ-37 was adapted to use the Mav in the time between the order and when we had them in large numbers.

 

I know for a fact though that they where in service by 78.

 

And the JA-37 (fighter variant) enterd service in 1979/80.

 

Isn't the Gripen-C equipped with a new datalink today though, or am I thinking of the JAS-39E? I though the JA-37 only inherited some Gripen avionics later in its life, while the base model was relatively simple.

 

On that note, a (very) abridged SAAB PDF on their datalink for the -39: http://sesam.smart-lab.se/seminarier/Hostsem07/Gripen.pdf

 

Well while the AJ-37 might have been "Simple" the JA-37 was no "simple" aircraft for its time.

 

It had a very good Datalink from the start (Amongst the best Fighter datalinks in the world at the time)

 

And with the Major Upgrade in 1997 (making the viggen Aim-120 capable aswell as vastly improving the Datalink) the JA-37 Datalink was very similar to the Datalink in the early JAS-39s.

 

The JA-37 Datalink is not based on the Early Jas-39 Datalinks but the other way around.

 

The Datalink of the early JAS-39As was a continuation of the earlier JA-37 Datalinks.

 

The JAS-39C has a very much different datalink tough.

 

Its Link-16 capable for nato compatibillity (though the JAS-39 Datalink probably had some advantage over the Link-16 but it was easier for sweden to use link-16 then to get Nato to use the Swedish datalink system xD)

 

 

The The Ja-37 was also interesting in that even the early models with only SARH missile could engage several targets at the same time.

 

It Could launch its Skyflashes at 2 different targets at the same time.

 

Wich is something not very common when it comes to Semi active missiles.

[SPIKEN]

I can confirm what mattebubben is saying. In the mid seventies I was working for SAAB as a project leader for the integration of the electro-optical Maverick into the AJ37 Weapon system. In the cockpit there is a circular CRT mounted to the right of the HUD and the missile seeker head movement is controlled via a pilot stick "look-alike" mounted on the right hand side of the pilot, with a button for commanding lock on to the selected target. 1978 I left SAAB for other missions and one of the last things I did was checking out the prototype installation in the cockpit of the selected AJ37 (On the ground). It all worked fine and it was quite a stimulating experience. Guess twice if I want LN to bring me the AJ37??

[CoBlue]

Kimmo is angry

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...postcount=1475

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2520168&postcount=1573

[BravoYankee4]

a a pilot stick "look-alike" mounted on the right hand side of the pilot

Isn't the extra joystick on the left side?

[Krieg]

I also thought it was the black joystick, next to the throttle.

[Radbes]

Yes, it is on the left side.

[sim_guy]

I beg to differ with that F-15 vs SU 27 remark, as I fly into the F-15s ballpark and blow it out of the sky regularly.... ;)

 

What server? Time? I would like to witness you doing this regularly :thumbup:

[Hook47]

What server? Time? I would like to witness you doing this regularly :thumbup:

 

Be on the 104. That's the problem with you F-15C guys, you think it's all about the plane, and it ain't... You forget our handy little advantages like IRST and the fact that WVR a F-15 is in big trouble.

 

Actually I'll demonstrate that in my MiG 21! I've been having lots of luck with her since 1.5 and the new contrails came about. Lots of F-15 jocks up high with their heads buried in sensors.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Hook47

[Nerd1000]

Be on the 104. That's the problem with you F-15C guys, you think it's all about the plane, and it ain't... You forget our handy little advantages like IRST and the fact that WVR a F-15 is in big trouble.

 

Actually I'll demonstrate that in my MiG 21! I've been having lots of luck with her since 1.5 and the new contrails came about. Lots of F-15 jocks up high with their heads buried in sensors.

 

Those sensors are pretty handy if you employ them correctly.

 

I've gotten used to flying the MiG-21 in MP. Yesterday I watched Ralfidude's MiG-29 video... And realized that compared to modern fighters the 21 is half-blind. The new scaled sprites have made it a lot better though, I can actually see planes beyond my radar range if the weather is clear.

 

Sadly my only encounter with a hostile fighter on the 104th since 1.5 came out was with (I think) a Su-27 at low altitude in the mountains. I'm pretty sure he went to IRST or HMS and splashed me with a heatseeker, as I spotted the incoming smoke trail with nothing on the RWR. In spite of popping flares, the missile smacked right into me- This not only obliterated my MiG but caused DCS to crash (Dying now has consequences!).

 

I also tried attacking the Hawgs on the operation leopard mission. I got nailed by a SAM for my trouble- seems that their second ground attack waypoint is in range of the Maykop air defenses.

[SPIKEN]

Krieg, Radbes and BravoYankee4,

 

I think you got me there! My memory tells me the right hand side. On the other hand it is a 37 (not AJ37)year old memory so I could be wrong and thinking operational- wise. If you shall leave the HOTAS state, better choose the left hand first, so my memory must have let me down. On the other hand when I fly a Maverick attack with the masterpiece DCS A10C, I always engage the autopilot for the last part of the attack. It is not that easy to find the target and get a lock-on, with limited time available, working the maverick seeker. So from an "autopilot" point of view it could have been placed on the right hand side as well.

 

Maybe we should ask Cobra847 for help and thus get a revealing answer?