R-73 missile?

[Cotoi]

Difficulty is irrelevant. History is written.

 

:thumbup: +1

This is a sim, witch is short for SIMULATION, and indicates that it simulates reality. Please don't turn this sim in WarThunder or Battlefield.

[Freeroamer]

It would be a nice addition if they did a 20$-30$ addon for the Mig-21 that brought it up to Mig-21-98/LanceR standards..

[pepin1234]

Is the most easier upgrade you can make to a Mig-21. You don’t need changes in cockpit or avionic.

 

DAAFAR Received the R-73s for the first batch of 12 Mig-29. After USSR break down the Cubans were unable to receive spare parts from Russia. This situation of 12 Mig-29 without spare parts forced the Cubans take half of the Mig-29 for spare parts only. So the amount of R-73 for 6 units only, were not enough for such missile. Thats why they took the APU-73 rail launcher from the spare parts wings to use the R-73 on Mig-21 inner pylon. With one wing set they were able to build 2 Mig-21s with R-73.

 

For some reason we don’t have Cuba as a country in DCS, so we have not a clear reason for such modification.

[Spectrum Legacy]

Optional R-73 without the HMS could be a thing. Much more reasonable than Grom, although I'm happy we have that one too. At least until we get proper Mig variant that could carry Grom irl, or even upgraded 21-98 etc for better missiles. But maybe what ED guys are saying is that it would require additional work to implement boresight mode on 3rd party module?

 

Btw Cuban skin in-game is one of my all time favourite for the 21. Thanks for posting that video and pics earlier in this thread. Love both 21 and 29s in it.

[313_Nevo]

:thumbup: +1

This is a sim, witch is short for SIMULATION, and indicates that it simulates reality. Please don't turn this sim in WarThunder or Battlefield.

 

With all what was written in this thread I would like to add only:

We have Grom for gameplay reasons, so in my opinion addtion of R-73 will make same sense for gameplay reasons.

 

And in the end it is up to devs if they share the same opinion or not.

[Rainbowgeorge]

With all what was written in this thread I would like to add only:

We have Grom for gameplay reasons, so in my opinion addtion of R-73 will make same sense for gameplay reasons.

 

And in the end it is up to devs if they share the same opinion or not.

 

I agree, that it should be added, but there is clear evidence that this can be done without a lot of modifications.

The GROM however cant be used with that Radar.

It would be closer to reality to remove the GROM and add R73s

[Deathbane]

As other posters say, I don't see why r-73s cannot be added considering they seem compatible with the aircraft and theres evidence to suggest so.

 

Its not as much as a leap as the grom, and we have that.

[Fri13]

:thumbup: +1

This is a sim, witch is short for SIMULATION, and indicates that it simulates reality. Please don't turn this sim in WarThunder or Battlefield.

 

What simulation you specifically are talking about?

 

2017 (2018?), or 1975 or 1985 or what?

 

So, here we are again having a simple conflict with the module developments.

• We are flying a aircraft that is serviced 1975 as 1975-1980 era, yet the cockpit textures are from 2015 or so from museum.
  
• We are flying a 1975 aircraft at 2017 with a weapons available 2017, instead 1975
  
• We are flying a 1975 aircraft as 1975 but we have the enemies from the future.
  

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3245644&postcount=5

 

 

If the Cuban Mig-21 without any update past Mig-21Bis can carry and launch a R-73, then that option should be there!

 

The one of the hot topics in simulation is that you either want to simulate as well as possible, or you want to be a politically correct as possible.

 

Meaning, many weapons and systems has been disabled or simply not written to pilots manuals, yet trials and development has been done side by side and found to be possible, but the man with the signature stamp is with the final word to say "Don't print it". So manuals etc can just come out without single mention of the thing as it was not official. Even when the actual engineers would know they can do something, pilots doesn't know it can do something.

 

That is one reason as well why we can't trust just the official flight manuals or on-record statements, as there are many secrets and many features that are even told only for a very few pilots among many, flying the same aircrafts. The manuals are given with a false information officially so the actual information can't be spied on.

 

You can even get this from the actual pilots, they say you "No" but they shake their head vertically (silently "Yes") as they can't say anything. So even when a official flight manual say "X is not possible" the truth can be that it is totally possible and done, but not publicly.

 

We are anyways talking about Cold War era Military Defense Aircrafts that any intelligence agency would have killed for just a few decades ago... And people think that all the secrets and all the procedures were just printed on pilots manuals? There is a reason why test pilots has the highest security clearance for the whole project, as they know the whole aircraft better than any individual engineer. They know it even better than the designers itself, as they are there to fly it. They go through every second detail. And they can't say anything really.

 

The reality is that most pilots in service or after service, has no information of all the features in the aircraft. Even after years of service etc.

 

We are in the golden era of Cold War era military aircrafts and tech, because they are now mostly obsolete or unclassified and we can start to get information about them, but we are in short time as people actually knowing the stuff, are dying for age. So lots of silent information and experience is gone, that you don't find from pilots flight manuals or other official sources.

 

Even a simple basic things can never been trained nor even understood. Like think about this:

 

Like seriously, we can't just read documents and say "It was never authorized, so no go!" as if it was technically possible, then it should be in the DCS. It is the mission designers own task to control what is included and what not!

It goes as well otherway around. You might not find anything about topic in official documents, but you find very interesting things from the other countries intelligence reports and test reports that reveal something was possible, because either they tested them or they were about to buy those products so they needed to know as much unofficial information too. And that causes conflict with the information that official can say "No" but truth is "Yes".

 

That is as well reason why we need to have multiple cockpit textures from developers, a) clean one like aircraft is just mint from factory or just few months old. b) A weathered version for what ever decade they want.

Like look now the Mig-21Bis, it is from museum! Not a "In Service" aircraft condition in the Cold War era where it should be positioned just as a fresh fighter.

[Fri13]

Its not as much as a leap as the grom, and we have that.

 

Breaking one time a rule, doesn't make it O.K to break it a second time....

 

If GROM can't be used, launched etc, then it should be removed. If it could be, but it was not used, then it can stay.

 

If R-73 can be used, launched etc regardless it wasn't used, then it should be added. If not, then it shouldn't be added.

[Dudikoff]

I'd have to agree here. Using R-73's probably requires only a slight update to the WCS and the APU-73 launch rails, while it would make the MiG-21bis more flexible in modern scenarios.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Dudikoff

[Northstar98]

Breaking one time a rule, doesn't make it O.K to break it a second time....

 

If GROM can't be used, launched etc, then it should be removed. If it could be, but it was not used, then it can stay.

 

If R-73 can be used, launched etc regardless it wasn't used, then it should be added. If not, then it shouldn't be added.

 

Absolutely this

[miromurin]

I like cold war era aircrafts. Don't understand why you need R-73 on MiG-21. You can fly Su-27 or Su-33 with that missile. I would even prefer MiG-21 F-13 or PFM insteed of Bis

[Hayden28]

I like cold war era aircrafts. Don't understand why you need R-73 on MiG-21. You can fly Su-27 or Su-33 with that missile. I would even prefer MiG-21 F-13 or PFM insteed of Bis

 

There is a difference between have the option to use it and really use it.

If the Bis can use it, it should be added. It is your/server admins choice if you/he use the weapon or not.

 

I like also the idea of the R 73 for the mig. A more capabel aircraft is always better.

[Tread_Head57]

Can we just get the damn plane fixed/debugged before we worry about adding new weapons?:doh:

[Fishbed-21]

Can we just get the damn plane fixed/debugged before we worry about adding new weapons?:doh:

 

+1 :thumbup:

[Rainbowgeorge]

Can we just get the damn plane fixed/debugged before we worry about adding new weapons?:doh:

 

Im sorry but the Mig-21Bis module is currently in a really good state.

Implying that it is broken is not reflecting reality.

Most systems work as intended and M3/Leatherneck is pushing updates fast

and is also to close contact with the community via the bugtracker.

 

Back to the topic:

 

What we really need is a reliable source that states what the Cubans exactly did.

If they managed to install the R-73 rails with minor modifications (maybe a modified plug for the pylon) i think it should be added.

If mission designers dont want it, they could just remove the capability like the RWR on the MiG-19P.

[Airhunter]

I mean, judging by this picture they have a new or modified inboard pylon/rail.

 

[Hiromachi]

I think out of the few missile "upgrades" conducted by various countries, it's installation of Magic I on Iraqi MiG-21s that is more viable. Of course in the same manner a question about the exact pylon installation for the Magic remains.

[Rainbowgeorge]

I think out of the few missile "upgrades" conducted by various countries, it's installation of Magic I on Iraqi MiG-21s that is more viable. Of course in the same manner a question about the exact pylon installation for the Magic remains.

 

Thats an interesting point, i have read that the Magic missiles are sidewinder rail compatible.

Given that the Mig-21bis is basically able to shoot Aim-9s (K-13/R-13) it probably wasnt that hard to modify.

Do we have any Data on how the Iraqis did it?

 

I think this is an Indian MiG-21, but i dont know what version.

Edited June 17, 2020 by Rainbowgeorge

[Hiromachi]

There is clearly visible some form of extension or connection between the 21 wing pylon and missile rail. 21bis is capable of shooting similar missiles by design (mentioned R-3S being a copy of AIM-9B), but they might not have same attachments as APU-13 or APU-60 / -60-II.

[Zius]

I think out of the few missile "upgrades" conducted by various countries, it's installation of Magic I on Iraqi MiG-21s that is more viable. Of course in the same manner a question about the exact pylon installation for the Magic remains.

 

 

The "problem" with the Magic I would be that I think it is not a major improvement over the R-60.

 

 

The R-73 on the other hand would make the MiG-21 more competitive vs modern fighters.

 

 

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I don't really see how the pylon integration matters so much. I think that the integration in the targetting system is more important, especially considering the wide angle gimbal of the R-73 compared to the narrow angle gunsight of the MiG-21.

 

 

P.S., just found below on Wikipedia which illustrates my point:

The government of India maintains that on February 27th, 2019 a MiG-21 Bison of Indian Air Force successfully engaged a Pakistani F-16 block 50/52+ with an R-73E missile during the 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes.[14] Pakistan denies both the use of an R-73 missile and the loss of an aircraft. [15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-73_(missile)

[rinkerbuck]

I'm not really sure why the R73 would be needed. The R60M is already all aspect and a pretty good missile.

[pepin1234]

I think taking account the great history of MiG-21 and all the upgrades have received in real life as Rumania, Cuba, India etc. did. Why not add R-73 or Israely armament. We will still stay in real life.

 

We already have example in our Ka-50 to add igla missiles. What hurt to Magnitude-3 do the same with R-73.

Edited June 17, 2020 by pepin1234

[Hiromachi]

R-73 doesnt make MiG-21 competitive against modern jets. It merely provides it with more capable missile despite ancient avionics in comparison to anything else flying.

 

As for Magic I being or not being more capable than R-60. That might be right. But I'm looking at it from historical scenario. If you want any historical and realistic middle eastern mission involving Arab states and Israel, for instance on the upcoming Syria map, than you have to consider that there were no R-60s. Primary missiles available to Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq and Libya in 1973 were mere R-3S which almost half a decade earlier proved to be near useless in any dogfight. Some R-13s were also available, but its not a huge improvement. So Magic I that Iraqi managed to attach becomes a lot more impressive missile as it essentially evens the ground with potential opponents (F-4Es had AIM-9D and later AIM-9G even, but not many of those. Mirage III had the same Magic I. And of course Israeli jets had Shafrir missile).

 

As for pylon integration. Well, for one it would be nice to have a closer up picture showing how it is attached. You dont expect Rudel to jam that APU-73 or Magic pylon into 21s wing ? Electric schematics would also be nice, though its more in case additional lights were installed in the cockpit to indicate seeker acquiring target. Those are details that do not prevent any addition but certainly in DCS are important.

[Airhunter]

Well as for the 73, most planes like the SU-25 or Mig-31 can only mostly boresight launch the 73's. Even then it does add a significantly better and more lethal missile to the Mig-21. I do agree though that it would be a pretty "exotic" option and not exactly historically accurate.