DCS: (Russian 4th Gen Aircraft)

[Kev2go]

Meanwhile the F15 in the simulation has no datalink, Helmet mounting cueing system or aim-9X Vector thrusting high-off boresight locking missile. It also cannot carry a Talon HATE pod to give it IRST capability.

 

I'm all for new russian stuff. I want a full russian dcs module for maybe the su-24, 27 or 34. But I'm afraid if we're going to add new stuff just for the sake of it being more powerful than what the last generation had the simulation may enter a state of powercreep where only the latest stuff is worth having. And soon we'll have F15C2040's with F22's battling it out with PAK FA T50's and HAL FGFA's/AMCA's.

 

because thats more modern stuff, that ED would have to update, if they could get permission to use these more modern things, like off boresight etc.

 

at the time of FC release thats only they could model, so we have a mid 1990s F15C basically, not a 2000s upgraded F15C

 

currently the Su27 is the original su, so realisically it would be as if US only had Early production block F15C without the weapons MCFD display ( similar to F15A) with access to only aim7m sparrow.

 

 

 

 

 

aim9x blk 1 was used as a testing platfrom 2003 and would only really was very limted service. but it still hasnt replaced the aim9m entirely, its still not standard issue or 100% fully operational capacity, because they are instead testing blck 2 and now going on to blk 3 modifications.

 

if you want aim9x you might as well be asking for aim120 C-8/ Aim120D

 

 

current service F-15C dont have thrust vectoring, nor are there any plans to give it that capability ( only possibility for plans on the F15SE) thats what the F22 has.

 

intrestigly enough F22 the most advanced us plane doesnt even have the aim9x in any operational use yet only slated to get it 2017-2018.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Kev2go

[wilky510]

Because the flight sim studio and the flight simmer are all the western military aircraft fanboy, they just like to say F-15 is awesome, F-15 is awesome!

These forums are quite the opposite of what you just explained, so i doubt this is even true. It seems there's ALOT more Russian 'fanboys' on these forums, more than Western 'fanboys' by quite a bit.

 

 

aim9x blk 1 was used as a testing platfrom 2003 and would only really was very limted service. but it still hasnt replaced the aim9m entirely, its still not standard issue or 100% fully operational capacity, because they are instead testing blck 2 and now going on to blk 3 modifications.

 

if you want aim9x you might as well be asking for aim120 C-8/ Aim120D

 

You talk about the AIM-9X/AIM-120D being in limited service and thus shouldn't be accounted in the game, but want the R-77, which hasn't been shown on a Flanker variant since... 2016 on a Su-35?... I can tell you the AIM-9X is quite plentiful in the F-15C squadron community right now.

 

As for the F-22 AIM-9X, there's more pressing matters to worry about in the USAF than an aircraft that can dictate how to enter a merge with it's stealth capabilities instead of worrying about a neutral 1v1 merge where a HMD would probably be more useful.

[Aginor]

I am not going to start any discussion about "fanboys" or not, there are certainly ones for all sides involved.

 

My personal thoughts about the topic are the following:

I'd love to have newer Russian planes in the sim as well, no question. But I want them to be accurate. And that's indeed the problem. You can get quite a bit of info about planes of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation. Info on Russian 4th gen jets is not easy to come by.

 

MiG-23 would be great IMO, we could do lots of stuff with it, and it would be an instant buy for me, almost regardless of the version.

With some upgrades you could get a 3+ generation plane that can probably be a threat to modern planes. Unfortunately those upgraded versions (such as the MiG-23-98 IIRC) are the point at which the lack of info starts to become severe again.

So that wouldn't solve your problem (finding a proper match for a F-15 or F/A-18 ).

 

MiG-27, MiG-25, Su-17, Su-25 (A or T) and a few other ones such as older Su-27 or MiG-29 versions might be doable, but they are either pure A2G or not a match for the modern western fighters.

Those that are already in FC3 are also a bit of a commercial risk to create I guess.

 

MiG-29k would be a dream. Would love to have it. It is unlikely that dream will come true though. :(

[Kev2go]

These forums are quite the opposite of what you just explained, so i doubt this is even true. It seems there's ALOT more Russian 'fanboys' on these forums, more than Western 'fanboys' by quite a bit.

 

 

You talk about the AIM-9X/AIM-120D being in limited service and thus shouldn't be accounted in the game, but want the R-77, which hasn't been shown on a Flanker variant since... 2016 on a Su-35?... I can tell you the AIM-9X is quite plentiful in the F-15C squadron community right now.

 

As for the F-22 AIM-9X, there's more pressing matters to worry about in the USAF than an aircraft that can dictate how to enter a merge with it's stealth capabilities instead of worrying about a neutral 1v1 merge where a HMD would probably be more useful.

 

no r77s are used on mig 29s like one we have ingame and on modernized su27 variants as well as export versions and as well as on Su30.

 

 

r77 isnt limited to the SU35 on the sukhoi series. dunno where you hear that from because Su27-SM can use them. r77 ( current one in game) is the equivalent of the aim120b. its not asking to have something vastly better or even next gen.

 

 

all im saying is that 4th gen russian modules would be more appealing if they gave us stuff that had more modern avoinics and mcfd type displays that many western aircraft seem to have( and will be getting to DCS), as well as helped making the flanker more competitive buy giving it an actuall aMram ie the r77, so flankers can have its counterpart to the aim120.

 

It makes more sense for the su27 to get r77s anyways at its more comparable to the f15, whereas the mig29 is a smaller aircraft thats often compared to the f16.

 

 

 

gotta love assuming that anyone who wants to see some additional "comparable" technology for Russia against nato aircraft is automatically a russian fanboy.

 

i play both sides and actually prefer western aircraft yet i still support the idea of this. after all dcs would get boring if we kept just getting modern western aircraft but no russian modules to match.But unfortunately russia isnt as open with thier technology like other nations. ED at some point wanted to make the su27sm and a mig29m, thye had the required data but they weren't allowed.

 

 

Maybe however we could get a Mig29sm. after all its just a mig29S with added ability to launch guided munitions for a2g from the current mig29S we have from FC3.

 

 

Also i do thinks its a mistake not giving f22 aim9x. i mean whats the point of supermanuverability or an internal gun. if your not gonna give it helmet mounted hud and new gen heatseakers. might as well not have bothered with the idea of thrust vectoring, to begin with and keep its entirel stricky BVR.

 

Supermanuverabilty combined with helmet hud and new generation off borsight seekers would be a very deadly combination.

 

its naive to assume WVR would never ever happen or that f22 could never find itself delpeted of aim120. its better to be safe than sorry

 

remeber how the americans thought "oh hey missiles are the future let stop adding guns " in the 60s< ie early F4's??? yea that was not met with criticism at all and it turn out so well right?

Edited March 4, 2016 by Kev2go

[probad]

dcs would get boring if we kept just getting modern western aircraft but no russian modules to match.

 

modern planes are modern planes regardless of east or west. these modern planes are getting more lethal, and one of the best ways to make a weapon more lethal is to make it easy to use.

unfortunately for us, easy tends to get boring.

 

asking for even more faf missiles isn't going to solve anyone's complaints on the tiredness of faf engagements. the flanker will just become an eagle that's better at sneaking up on people, okay. more eagles for everyone! more of the same surely is anything but boring right?

 

i actually have nothing against r-77s on flankers but i just thinking trying to use the boring card isnt a very convincing argument.

[Kev2go]

modern planes are modern planes regardless of east or west. these modern planes are getting more lethal, and one of the best ways to make a weapon more lethal is to make it easy to use.

unfortunately for us, easy tends to get boring.

 

asking for even more faf missiles isn't going to solve anyone's complaints on the tiredness of faf engagements. the flanker will just become an eagle that's better at sneaking up on people, okay. more eagles for everyone! more of the same surely is anything but boring right?

 

i actually have nothing against r-77s on flankers but i just thinking trying to use the boring card isnt a very convincing argument.

 

 

More modern is ambgious, Fancy MCFD diplays and a few better missiles to match already existing tech of nato wouldnt really makes things easy at all, but more apealing. i would honestly much more people into playing russian aircraf if we had something with some MCFD displays not just Radar and hud and everything else is still old school gauges on the instrument panels

 

if you dont care at all about competitive multiplayer fine , but some people do and thats why adding additional counterparts is necessary.

 

and No another F15C eagle wouldnt be boring ie making a full fidelity module is something thst many would wont, i think by this point when ED gets around to making it would give them an opportunity to include Helmet Hud as optional feature.

 

 

so you want dcs to be 50 shades of USA with a sprinkling of older 4th gen Russian aircraft?

 

boring is a valid argument, its good to have some diversity and some full fidelity comparable competing counterpart from team red as well as from other nations, which is why m2000c was a instant buy from me, it wasnt just another american or russian aircraft.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Kev2go

[OrangeFr3ak]

I would definitely love to see the MiG-29SMT, MiG-29K, MiG-31, MiG-35, Su-24M2, Su-25SM, Su-27SM3, Su-30M2, Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35S in DCS!

[unbreakable]

This isn't a request thread or anything. I just wondered what you guys think would be a great competitor to American/European aircraft? Let's be honest with ourselves. Most likely when DCS: F/A-18, F-14, AJS-37, Eurofighter Typhoon, and many more are released the use of the FC3 aircraft will decrease and we will have Western VS. Western, that is not as much fun as Western vs. Russian. So I want to hear your opinions on what Russian aircraft should be introduced to the game. My choice would be an Su-27SM but since ED has said that it is going to be impossible- because of all classified information even though I see nothing special about it's armament- then perhaps a MiG-31 and MiG-27 to fill in the ground attack role, that would be my choice. How about you?

 

first of all, I want to say that MiG-31 and MiG-27 are not exclusively russian planes. They were designed and created in USSR, consisting of 15 present day countries. So it is wrong and disparagingly concerning other 14 countries to say that it was only russian merit...

[King_Hrothgar]

Variety is important. Completely ignoring the MP side of things for a moment, think about the following:

 

DCS F-18 is released to massive fanfare. You, I and everyone else snatches it up in an instant and plays it daily for a year. After that year, the F-14 and AV-8B are released. We grab those too and play them constantly another year with a little F-18 sprinkled in. A year after that, the F-15 (full study sim) is released. It uses the same weapons and very similar systems to what we've been flying the last two years. Are you going to rush out and buy it? It's then followed by the F-16, using the exact same stuff the F-18, AV-8B and F-15 use. I don't know about you, but at some point I'd decide more of the same just isn't worth my time and I'd buy The Elder Scrolls 6 or something instead.

 

Now imagine that instead of an F-15 and F-16, there is a Su-24 and a MiG-31 thrown in. They have completely different weapons and design philosophy behind them. They would be something genuinely different from what came before. Would you be more likely to buy those? I certainly would.

 

And then of course there is the MP side, which currently has a reasonably strong base. The guys at 104th know better than most just how lopsided the current situation is. And it's only going to get worse with the F-18 and F-14. The only remedy they have during side restricted events is to remove the AIM-120 while still keeping the relatively exotic R-27ER.

 

This is not an argument for any specific aircraft btw, I'm merely making the point that variety is important. I think some eastern block 3+ and 4th gen fighters would help in that regard in addition to more than just fighters being added.

[dartuil]

To be honest not t be too enthousiastic I would like:

Mig-29 , Su-27 , F-15 no matter C or E , F-16 no matter the version in full DCS level.

NO FC3 as most of my choices are already in FC3.

Edited March 5, 2016 by dartuil

[Kev2go]

Variety is important. Completely ignoring the MP side of things for a moment, think about the following:

 

DCS F-18 is released to massive fanfare. You, I and everyone else snatches it up in an instant and plays it daily for a year. After that year, the F-14 and AV-8B are released. We grab those too and play them constantly another year with a little F-18 sprinkled in. A year after that, the F-15 (full study sim) is released. It uses the same weapons and very similar systems to what we've been flying the last two years. Are you going to rush out and buy it? It's then followed by the F-16, using the exact same stuff the F-18, AV-8B and F-15 use. I don't know about you, but at some point I'd decide more of the same just isn't worth my time and I'd buy The Elder Scrolls 6 or something instead.

 

Now imagine that instead of an F-15 and F-16, there is a Su-24 and a MiG-31 thrown in. They have completely different weapons and design philosophy behind them. They would be something genuinely different from what came before. Would you be more likely to buy those? I certainly would.

 

And then of course there is the MP side, which currently has a reasonably strong base. The guys at 104th know better than most just how lopsided the current situation is. And it's only going to get worse with the F-18 and F-14. The only remedy they have during side restricted events is to remove the AIM-120 while still keeping the relatively exotic R-27ER.

 

This is not an argument for any specific aircraft btw, I'm merely making the point that variety is important. I think some eastern block 3+ and 4th gen fighters would help in that regard in addition to more than just fighters being added.

 

well i wouldnt remove the aim120 entirley in a server, maybe C model but not aim120b.

 

since mig29s has r77.

 

I realize su27sm or mig29m would be to recent for ed to get permission to develop..

 

but i think Mig29SM ( 9.13m) isnt too out of the question as its a mig29S (9.13) with added capability to use guided munitions such as Tv missiles and or guided bombs, to compliment the already existing capability from earlier model to arm uniguided munitions.

 

so really one should think of it as a multirole fighter that would be closest to the F16C or f18c.

 

 

that fact that some aircraft have different philosophies or design isnt an excuse not to add, them. its a good thing to try learning something different once in a while. It would be a positive thing, vs similar things over and over.

 

i consider mig31 to be unique a pure bred interceptor, within the 4th gen era, , but I would consider su24 pretty much the Russia's F-111 albeit cheaper to operate as most of thier airplanes are.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Kev2go

[GGTharos]

Remember how the conclusion was actually 'we need to train pilots better', and the gun was not a factor in getting more kills? No, you don't, because few people bother to read the real analysis :)

 

In any case, no R-77's on Russian jets. Indian, Chinese (+PL-10/12), sure. Russians didn't use them and didn't appear to even train with them.

 

remeber how the americans thought "oh hey missiles are the future let stop adding guns " in the 60s< ie early F4's??? yea that was not met with criticism at all and it turn out so well right?

[probad]

That's where I'm finding the contradiction in your argument. Philosophically, the R-77 is the same as the AMRAAM. So in the interest of variety, wouldn't it make sense to not promote the "nato-ization" of Russian planes? I would sooner the server admin ban AMRAAMs than promote Flanker R-77s (basically op Bison) if MP gameplay was the issue here.

 

I'm all for more Russian planes, but I'm more interested in more "exotic" ones like the Su-15, Su-17/22, MiG-23/27 (not even remotely exotic but nevertheless doesn't get attention), Yak-38.

 

I'm so tired of the whole concept of multiplayer "balance" and parity, too often it's just a slide into homogeneity. If you want your arena game that's geared towards making you feel good about yourself as some kind of xXx High Skill Player xXx there are a lot of more purist arena games out there for you.

And if you really insist on playing your balanced DCS, you can always go host your own mirrormatch server.

[Chrinik]

Meanwhile the F15 in the simulation has no datalink, Helmet mounting cueing system or aim-9X Vector thrusting high-off boresight locking missile. It also cannot carry a Talon HATE pod to give it IRST capability.

 

These are all late-upgrades to the F-15. Nobody talks about those.

 

The F15C we have in DCS is a weird, pre-MISP II but still kinda MISP II F15C that can carry Amraams somehow...Or it is just visually misrepresented.

The APG-70 Radar and Color MFD were never mentioned anywhere in DCS. The MFD seems to only be used for stores display.

In any way, we have a destinct time period F15 (ca. mid 90s) going up against destinct time period SU-27S´s (ca. 1980ish) and that is why people complain...10-15 years is alot of time in aviation tech and despite the fact that older SU-27s are still in russian service, so were older F15Cs at that time.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Chrinik

[FeistyLemur]

I see a problem with a solution. ED just needs enough money to buy an SU-35 for testing. I mean hey if they'll export them to china and other countries. Get a kickstarter going, I'm sure Putin will go for that.

[GGTharos]

The DCS F-15C is intended to be post-MSIPII, but that's obviously not so well represented. There are no pre-MSIPII aircraft with an MPCD AFAIK.

 

That has little to do with 4th gen Russian fighters though.

[Kev2go]

:doh:

Remember how the conclusion was actually 'we need to train pilots better', and the gun was not a factor in getting more kills? No, you don't, because few people bother to read the real analysis :)

 

In any case, no R-77's on Russian jets. Indian, Chinese (+PL-10/12), sure. Russians didn't use them and didn't appear to even train with them.

 

 

 

 

right and that why to this day they still add add internal cannons to planes even though missiles & avionics have become vastly better.

 

 

 

 

Proper training was only part of the factor at a time when missiles were stil lfairly primitive guns were much more nessary then than today.

 

gladly the lesson was learnt from nam save for a few internet armchair generals trying to argue otherwise.:smartass:

Edited March 5, 2016 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

I see a problem with a solution. ED just needs enough money to buy an SU-35 for testing. I mean hey if they'll export them to china and other countries. Get a kickstarter going, I'm sure Putin will go for that.

 

 

 

 

im sure most realize that even countries with more open information flow wont allow for 5th generation or even many 4.5 gen aircraft to be simulated even if u could get the necessary data.

 

perhaps some earlier type 4.5 like F18E/F can happen being represented , but 4.5 + upgrades for them or newly built 4.5++ and or 5th generation are obviously not going to be expected.

 

 

Besdies ED doesnt send pilots to fly aircraft they just use manuals, data and stat sheets to design the models. I dont think actually having to send someone from your development team to actually fly in the thing is a pre requisite or even necessary.

[ekg]

I'll settle for authentic 80s 4th gen planes on both sides. Seriously I don't care about the bleeding edge since it's basically impossible. I'll take what I can get and am willing to pay for it.

[Drag0nWIng]

yeah, 120 is the deadly weapon. the russian, indian and chinese made missiles are the poor plastic stick toy, the pilot of these country only use it as the dead loaded. dcs should remove the missiles on su-27 and mig-29, they are totally baseball bat with incorrect performance. Gsh-30 is totally enough for mig fanboy.

for great f-15.

[wilky510]

Also i do thinks its a mistake not giving f22 aim9x. i mean whats the point of supermanuverability or an internal gun. if your not gonna give it helmet mounted hud and new gen heatseakers. might as well not have bothered with the idea of thrust vectoring, to begin with and keep its entirel stricky BVR.

It is getting the AIM-9X, it's just not as pressing as other issues. 2023~ all the Raptors should have a helmet and AIM-9X capability.

 

 

remeber how the americans thought "oh hey missiles are the future let stop adding guns " in the 60s< ie early F4's??? yea that was not met with criticism at all and it turn out so well right?

I remember missiles being in their infancy and missiles still dominating the majority of the kills in Vietnam even after the guns were added. What was missing was BFM from pilots. Which are still taught today.

 

Missiles have evolved alot since the 1960's and not really going to go into it because it's off topic.

 

 

PS, i am fine with newer variants of Russian aircraft. The question is, is the Russian government fine with ED developing these aircraft?

Edited March 5, 2016 by wilky510

[Kev2go]

It is getting the AIM-9X, it's just not as pressing as other issues. 2023~ all the Raptors should have a helmet and AIM-9X capability.

 

 

I remember missiles being in their infancy and missiles still dominating the majority of the kills in Vietnam even after the guns were added. What was missing was BFM from pilots. Which are still taught today.

 

 

From an earlier post to another person

 

:doh:

 

 

 

 

right and that why to this day they still add add internal cannons to planes even though missiles & avionics have become vastly better.

 

 

 

 

Proper training was only part of the factor at a time when missiles were still fairly primitive, guns were much more necessary then than today.

 

Gladly the lesson was learnt from "nam" save for a few internet armchair generals trying to argue otherwise.:smartass:

[GGTharos]

Proper training was the vastly major factor. All you have to do is look at air to air weapon use trends. Yep, they put the gun on there ... and gun kills have been 1% or less of all kills since then.

 

You're seriously misunderstanding the lesson while accusing others of being arm-chair generals ... how are you any better? You just read some stuff on the internet. So did the rest of us, but apparently from less arm-chairy sources :)

 

From an earlier post to another person

[Kev2go]

Proper training was the vastly major factor. All you have to do is look at air to air weapon use trends. Yep, they put the gun on there ... and gun kills have been 1% or less of all kills since then.

 

You're seriously misunderstanding the lesson while accusing others of being arm-chair generals ... how are you any better? You just read some stuff on the internet. So did the rest of us, but apparently from less arm-chairy sources :)

 

my opinion isnt armchairish because i agree with original idea that it was wrong to begin with to remove guns at the time period, and guns being reinstalled on fighters since then. Dunno but provding all you can for the servicemen to be at thier best potential and not have to be at risk because of armchairs without commons sense or practical experience.

 

im glad you weren't ever in a civilian overseer of any air force. I wouldnt want my pilots to be without backup guns back those times, Even today where they are just backups and less necessary, but are still nice addition to have.

 

again if guns werent really necessary then they wouldn't have been added after being removed.

 

it doesnt really matter because even experts in thier field can have out borderline outlandish, outdated, opinions and become Armchairsh, E.G Pierre Sprey, Mike Sparks.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Kev2go

[GGTharos]

Pierre Sprey is all about the gun as well. It's really funny how you're trying to sling personal insults at me, but you're just flat out not getting it :)

 

Still, this doesn't have anything to do with Russian 4th gen DCS fighters.