Cold War 1947 - 1991

[MMI_Grim]

14 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

NO!, Remember that not all of us speak English perfectly and it is difficult for us to communicate with SRS.

 

My comment was regarding the AI EWR/AWACS not comms in general.

 

But even for SRS, broken english is enough. Comms should be short anyway, you will get a hang of it for sure.

[rossmum]

On 9/18/2021 at 5:17 AM, Alpenwolf said:

All good on my side and I use some mods for the MiG-21's sound, the trees in Caucasus, etc.

 

F-5 RWR broken, not sure about F-5 radar visuals improvement, I'll have to test it later. Viggen RWR mod broken (though not sure if it's supported anymore, which is a shame, it sounds much nicer to me - and was allegedly more accurate, but who knows). MiG-21 and Mirage sound mods seem fine, shaders and smoke still fine as well.

 

On 9/18/2021 at 5:58 AM, Miccara said:

Only issue with that is the rarity of good Gazelle pilots. Very few and far between. I would rather see less Hinds, or give us something to shoot them down with when they want to float around at 6000 feet. My Huey has to drop 300 rounds into the darn things. But, still fun in any form.

 

I think the Hind can be dealt with a little better now with pylon restrictions and forcing human operators (although Petrovich's aiming ability seems noticeably more similar to a real human now, with his corrections coupling into aircraft oscillations badly enough to make him miss). Giving them a max of 4 ATGMs should force them to work together on single platoons of tanks more often, as well as force more RTBs that will get them away from the front. Totally right about the Gazelle, but for my part, I'm waiting to see what they do with it after the Kiowa. I really like the real thing and I feel like I'd enjoy flying it, but the FM just isn't even close to where it needs to be for me to enjoy at the moment, sadly. Hopefully once they can apply some of what they've learnt with the OH-58, it'll become more popular.

 

On 9/18/2021 at 12:07 PM, Tavo89 said:

Regarding the missile load of the Viggen, F5 and Mig-21:

MiG-21BIS introduced in 1972, Viggen in 1971 and F-5E in 1972, each aircraft has its capabilities, advantages and disadvantages, for example the F5 is very good at dogfighting, the AJS-37 is a ground attack aircraft with a secondary task as fighter, on the contrary the Mig-21Bis is a interceptor and its wing design is not good for dogfighting, it loses a lot of energy with any sharp turn.

 

I fly against the F-14 tomcat with my Mig-21Bis, against a plane that is superior in many aspects and with an artificial intelligence in the back seat ... And I am not complaining, I accept the challenge in a good way.

 

One solution is to ask the developers for variants that work better as fighters, for example the JA-37 which is an interceptor and can carry a greater variety of air to air weapons. Reducing the number of missiles on a plane like the Mig-21Bis doesn't make any sense to me!.

 

The MiG-21 is a frontline fighter, not an interceptor. The MiG-21PF/PFM were interceptor variants and most later 21s also had the option of fitting the ground-to-air GCI datalink, but the aircraft was designed as and mainly used as a light tactical fighter. The idea of it being an interceptor is based on incorrect Western interpretation of Soviet air doctrine as well as the idea that anything that flies fast and climbs well is an interceptor instead of a fighter, when really, almost all fighters of its time were designed for speed and climb as it was seen as the best way to win a fight while also providing interception capability. It's the lesson everyone learnt in WWII and then in Korea: whoever gets above the enemy and can make repeated high-speed passes at him will usually win. The 21's wing is bad for sustained turns (so is the F-5's) but fantastic for sharp instantaneous turns, which translates to being bad for a specific type of dogfighting doctrine which the US adopted in the 1970s and 80s, not being bad at dogfighting overall. Its performance is very similar to the F-5 at low altitude in both parameters.

 

On 9/18/2021 at 5:10 PM, Alpenwolf said:

And that's exactly my concern...

 

Blue Flag has the option of enabling text callouts (I think they're disabled by default?) as well as changing the time between text GCI pop-ups, so people who find them annoying can make them less frequent or turn them off. Their version of the SRS bot also definitely only sees targets the EWR can see, and although I don't think it has quite so many features as the Overlord bot, it works perfectly fine for what it is. It also doesn't require players to change their names, because it won't reply to player communications, it'll just automatically run through callouts for all players currently on its frequency. I'm not sure if it's publicly available though.

[Alpenwolf]

1 hour ago, rossmum said:

 

F-5 RWR broken, not sure about F-5 radar visuals improvement, I'll have to test it later. Viggen RWR mod broken (though not sure if it's supported anymore, which is a shame, it sounds much nicer to me - and was allegedly more accurate, but who knows). MiG-21 and Mirage sound mods seem fine, shaders and smoke still fine as well.

 

 

I think the Hind can be dealt with a little better now with pylon restrictions and forcing human operators (although Petrovich's aiming ability seems noticeably more similar to a real human now, with his corrections coupling into aircraft oscillations badly enough to make him miss). Giving them a max of 4 ATGMs should force them to work together on single platoons of tanks more often, as well as force more RTBs that will get them away from the front. Totally right about the Gazelle, but for my part, I'm waiting to see what they do with it after the Kiowa. I really like the real thing and I feel like I'd enjoy flying it, but the FM just isn't even close to where it needs to be for me to enjoy at the moment, sadly. Hopefully once they can apply some of what they've learnt with the OH-58, it'll become more popular.

 

 

The MiG-21 is a frontline fighter, not an interceptor. The MiG-21PF/PFM were interceptor variants and most later 21s also had the option of fitting the ground-to-air GCI datalink, but the aircraft was designed as and mainly used as a light tactical fighter. The idea of it being an interceptor is based on incorrect Western interpretation of Soviet air doctrine as well as the idea that anything that flies fast and climbs well is an interceptor instead of a fighter, when really, almost all fighters of its time were designed for speed and climb as it was seen as the best way to win a fight while also providing interception capability. It's the lesson everyone learnt in WWII and then in Korea: whoever gets above the enemy and can make repeated high-speed passes at him will usually win. The 21's wing is bad for sustained turns (so is the F-5's) but fantastic for sharp instantaneous turns, which translates to being bad for a specific type of dogfighting doctrine which the US adopted in the 1970s and 80s, not being bad at dogfighting overall. Its performance is very similar to the F-5 at low altitude in both parameters.

 

 

Blue Flag has the option of enabling text callouts (I think they're disabled by default?) as well as changing the time between text GCI pop-ups, so people who find them annoying can make them less frequent or turn them off. Their version of the SRS bot also definitely only sees targets the EWR can see, and although I don't think it has quite so many features as the Overlord bot, it works perfectly fine for what it is. It also doesn't require players to change their names, because it won't reply to player communications, it'll just automatically run through callouts for all players currently on its frequency. I'm not sure if it's publicly available though.

 

Mods failing the IC was reported and ED is aware of it.

 

I'll have to test both the SRS and text variants of the GCI before I include one of the two. Very busy in real life these days though.

[Tavo89]

10 hours ago, rossmum said:

The MiG-21 is a frontline fighter, not an interceptor. The MiG-21PF/PFM were interceptor variants and most later 21s also had the option of fitting the ground-to-air GCI datalink, but the aircraft was designed as and mainly used as a light tactical fighter. The idea of it being an interceptor is based on incorrect Western interpretation of Soviet air doctrine as well as the idea that anything that flies fast and climbs well is an interceptor instead of a fighter, when really, almost all fighters of its time were designed for speed and climb as it was seen as the best way to win a fight while also providing interception capability. It's the lesson everyone learnt in WWII and then in Korea: whoever gets above the enemy and can make repeated high-speed passes at him will usually win. The 21's wing is bad for sustained turns (so is the F-5's) but fantastic for sharp instantaneous turns, which translates to being bad for a specific type of dogfighting doctrine which the US adopted in the 1970s and 80s, not being bad at dogfighting overall. Its performance is very similar to the F-5 at low altitude in both parameters.

 

 

 

The Mig-21 is an interceptor fighter, its wing design is very good for many things but not for turns, it loses too much energy. The F-5 makes better turns, it's definitely much better for dogfighting, it's its strength.

 

 

Look at the angle of the wings and stabilizers, obviously the F5 will perform better in turns and at low speeds, in low and medium altitudes. The delta wings must be larger to retain energy better, the delta wing of the Mig-21 has a smaller size and an angle of 57 °.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Tavo89

[Zachrix]

7 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

 

The Mig-21 is an interceptor fighter, its wing design is very good for many things but not for turns, it loses too much energy. The F-5 makes better turns, it's definitely much better for dogfighting, it's its strength.

 

 

Look at the angle of the wings and stabilizers, obviously the F5 will perform better in turns and at low speeds, in low and medium altitudes. The delta wings must be larger to retain energy better, the delta wing of the Mig-21 has a smaller size and an angle of 57 °.

 

 

How do you reconcile this with something like the Mirage?

[Alpenwolf]

8 hours ago, Zachrix said:

 

How do you reconcile this with something like the Mirage?

 

The Mirage's wings' are way wider (wingspan) and longer (e.g. longer alongside the fuselage). Think of each wing as a right triangle of which all 3 legs are longer with the leading edge being wider. That's a bigger space of the two wings together and thus more lift. And let's not forget the engine with more thrust than the Fishbed's 1,33:1. Other factors are not to be neglected, but that's mainly a reference to the wings you talked about.

[rossmum]

18 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

The Mig-21 is an interceptor fighter, its wing design is very good for many things but not for turns, it loses too much energy. The F-5 makes better turns, it's definitely much better for dogfighting, it's its strength.

 

 

Look at the angle of the wings and stabilizers, obviously the F5 will perform better in turns and at low speeds, in low and medium altitudes. The delta wings must be larger to retain energy better, the delta wing of the Mig-21 has a smaller size and an angle of 57 °.

 

I don't have the charts on hand to compare their turn performance IRL, but I can tell you now that in DCS they aren't very widely separated. The F-5 will sustain around 13.5-14°/s against 12-13°/s from the 21bis. The US used the F-5 specifically to simulate MiG-21s in the aggressor role because at speeds below ~M 1.5, they have very similar performance, particularly for earlier MiGs with a little less engine power to play with than our bis.

 

I can tell you definitively that the MiG-21 is a tactical fighter, not an interceptor by design. It is termed "light frontline fighter" (=tactical fighter) in Russian, "interceptor" to them implies something very different - a larger aircraft, usually twin-engined and with a larger fuel load, and with an even lower emphasis on turn performance in favour of speed, acceleration, and climb. The Su-9 (which does look kind of like a big MiG-21, from a distance) was an interceptor per Soviet definition while the 21 was not. The PF/PFM and later subvariants of MF and bis were adapted to point-defence interception, but the type itself was always a frontline fighter, like the MiG-19 before it and the MiG-23 after it. "Interceptor" in Soviet service means an aircraft was operated by the PVO (air defence forces), not the VVS (air force), and was used in a completely different manner operationally.

  

2 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

The Mirage's wings' are way wider (wingspan) and longer (e.g. longer alongside the fuselage). Think of each wing as a right triangle of which all 3 legs are longer with the leading edge being wider. That's a bigger space of the two wings together and thus more lift. And let's not forget the engine with more thrust than the Fishbed's 1,33:1. Other factors are not to be neglected, but that's mainly a reference to the wings you talked about.

 

The Mirage's TWR is not all that crash hot - it's about equivalent to the MiG-19 and MiG-23 at ~0.9:1. That's not significantly better than the 21bis (~0.78:1) and is actually worse than the 21bis with its additional AB mode enabled (which puts it above 1, up in the realm of F-16s and other such things).

Edited September 20, 2021 by rossmum

[Alpenwolf]

53 minutes ago, rossmum said:

 

I don't have the charts on hand to compare their turn performance IRL, but I can tell you now that in DCS they aren't very widely separated. The F-5 will sustain around 13.5-14°/s against 12-13°/s from the 21bis. The US used the F-5 specifically to simulate MiG-21s in the aggressor role because at speeds below ~M 1.5, they have very similar performance, particularly for earlier MiGs with a little less engine power to play with than our bis.

 

I can tell you definitively that the MiG-21 is a tactical fighter, not an interceptor by design. It is termed "light frontline fighter" (=tactical fighter) in Russian, "interceptor" to them implies something very different - a larger aircraft, usually twin-engined and with a larger fuel load, and with an even lower emphasis on turn performance in favour of speed, acceleration, and climb. The Su-9 (which does look kind of like a big MiG-21, from a distance) was an interceptor per Soviet definition while the 21 was not. The PF/PFM and later subvariants of MF and bis were adapted to point-defence interception, but the type itself was always a frontline fighter, like the MiG-19 before it and the MiG-23 after it. "Interceptor" in Soviet service means an aircraft was operated by the PVO (air defence forces), not the VVS (air force), and was used in a completely different manner operationally.

  

 

The Mirage's TWR is not all that crash hot - it's about equivalent to the MiG-19 and MiG-23 at ~0.9:1. That's not significantly better than the 21bis (~0.78:1) and is actually worse than the 21bis with its additional AB mode enabled (which puts it above 1, up in the realm of F-16s and other such things).

 

 

As far as I always knew/thought, MiG's were primarily designed to intercept American bombers. Quick start up procedure, mostly no alignment needed, one engine preferred over two (again, quicker start up: MiG-15, -17, -21, -23, but in time that had to change to adapt to more developed American assets), etc.

Egyptian pilots had their MiG-21's in ca. 50 seconds ready to go! I remember reading more or less the same about Vietnamese pilots.

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 minute ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

As far as I always knew/thought, MiG's were primarily designed to intercept American bombers. Quick start up procedure, mostly no alignment needed, one engine preferred over two (again, quicker start up: MiG-15, -17, -21, -23, but in time that had to change to adapt to more developed American assets), etc.

Egyptian pilots had their MiG-21's in ca. 50 seconds ready to go! I remember reading more or less the same about Vietnamese pilots.

Absolutely.

 

The Mig-21 is an interceptor. That doesn't mean it cannot maneuver because it is actually a very capable opponent.

 

However, it is a classic example of a purpose built interceptor.

 

 

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

- Operation Street Fight has been removed from the server. It's the mission with the lowest population.

- Work on Close Air Support 2 continues (the mission's name will change). It'll take a while to finish, because I'm trying to implement something really challenging, but it's worth it!!!

[rossmum]

It literally isn't an interceptor per the documentation of the country that built it, and that wasn't its primary use. If the MiG-21 was an interceptor by trade it would have served in the PVO, not the air force.

 

The "F" in the first variant's designation literally meant "frontline". Mikoyan's two interceptors were the MiG-25 and 31, Sukhoi primarily built interceptors and Yakovlev and Tupolev also had designs in that role. The Soviets needed larger aircraft with all-weather capability and longer range to serve in the air defence role, and the initial MiG-21 was a clear weather daylight tactical fighter with no radar search capability (only radio-ranging as in the F-86) and very little internal fuel capacity. The Vietnamese used it in an interception role because it was all they had that was really suited to the task, but that was both outside of what it was designed to do and outside of how the Soviets operated it. Pact allies often operated MFs and sometimes the second bis variant (izd. 75B, we have 75A) as interceptors as that's what they had - with the sole exception of the MiG-25, particularly thanks to Belenko, the Soviets never exported any of their actual interceptors to anybody, not even their closest allies.

 

Western lay sources term the 21 an interceptor because they generally lack understanding of how the Soviet military was organised, or apply the same standards to the USSR proper as they do for its allies, but the fact of the matter is that the 21 entered service with two guns, no missiles, and no radar and picked up an interception role later in life. The true, purpose-built single-seat interceptor of the era was the Su-9, while the Tu-128 and Yak-28P covered the more remote border areas due to being larger, longer-ranging, and having more powerful radars. They did pick up adapted frontline fighters (21PF/PFM, 23P) where necessary to fill gaps in capability, but it seems to be the particularly western idea of "fast, high rate of climb, poor sustained turn rate = interceptor" that's been at work in the English-speaking world while the actual Russian nomenclature, let alone doctrine, is rarely even translated properly outside of military intelligence circles.

 

Air defence, particularly Soviet air defence during the Cold War, is one of my primary areas of interest and I will absolutely die on this hill

 

e/ To further expand on the matter, western fighters of the era also had absolutely terrible SA and were entirely reliant on outside control right up until the 70s. American fighters in Vietnam were under the control of either the big radar station at Da Nang, the Red Crown picket ships, EC-121s, or some combination of the above just as much as the Vietnamese were reliant on ground control to find and kill targets (remembering as well that the Vietnamese did not have many MiGs with their own search radars until partway into the war when they received their first PFs). The whole mindset of Soviet fighters being interceptors slavishly following ground controllers' orders while Americans searched the sky independently or coordinating chiefly with other flights is a weird conflation of more modern US air doctrine combined with assuming the Soviet air defence force was actually the same thing as the air force (they were not even the same service branch - the Soviets had five, not three - army, navy, air force, air defence force, strategic rocket force).

Edited September 20, 2021 by rossmum

[Sideburns]

On 9/19/2021 at 1:35 PM, m4ti140 said:

I don't know what they did but negative drag bug is still there.

21 is being worked on too. They just don't spam changelog with irrelevant stuff, like claiming they fixed a bug they had not. Recently afterburner was disabled when SPS is running, forcing pilots to use brain on landing, I'd say that's a welcome change.

 

The negative drag issue has been improved but not gone yet, I think they only ever claimed it was an initial adjustment not a fix. Hopeful the big Oct update for Viggen will include proper fixes for the speed bug.

 

As for the MiG21 the SPS fix was good, had suspected a few were dogfighting with landing flaps and AB and saw a few dropping out of the sky when it was fixed a few months ago. The non flaps/AB related,  general FM low speed handling overperformance has been reported for over a year now. If M3 are fixing things in the background I would be grateful to know what these things are, latest OB updates have been fairly sparse for the MiG21.

[rossmum]

Nobody was dogfighting with landing flaps because the flaps physically cannot deploy fully at the speeds people were dogfighting at. Even pulling to within a hair's breadth of a stall in AB at sea level will leave you too fast for the flaps to come down far enough to trip the SPS microswitches. This is the difference between actually testing things and studying the aircraft, and looking for any excuse to claim an advantage.

[Apok]

Rossmum, the interceptor or fighter confusion comes mainly from whats USSRs concern was. And that was bombers. You must look at requirements given to plane designers to know what its meant for. Until MiG29 it was mostly climb high as fast as you can. 25 was for dealing with XB70. 31 was for bombers and thier low flying cruise missiles. Vietnam used 21 as its supposed to be used - textbook GCI intercepts.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Apok

[rossmum]

Everyone's concern until 70s was climb as high as you can as quickly as you can, US fighters were the same. F-104 is in the same boat as MiG-21 - a fighter that gets called an "interceptor" based on the perception that it can't do backflips or sustain 20d/s turns, so it can't be a "real" fighter. It's an anachronistic view from applying modern standards for a fighter to aircraft designed 70 years ago and drawing on experience from WWII and Korea, where boom-and-zoom attacks were common and so pulling hard turns was less desirable. Real interceptors all share universal common traits - they're generally larger aircraft, with longer endurance, more powerful radar sets, and usually some form of ground-to-air datalink that in many cases is capable of controlling the aircraft via its own autopilot. For the Americans this means the F-101B and F-102/106. For the Soviets, it means Su-9/11/15, Yak-28P, Tu-128, and MiG-25P/PD and 31. The PVO also ended up employing pretty considerable numbers of MiG-23P (basically a PVO-tailored ML modification with some changes made to avionics) because all their interceptors at the time proved unsuited to low altitude work and lacked LD/SD, which the 23 did not. Later the 25PD came along which was essentially a MiG-23 avionics set scaled up and stuffed into a MiG-25P airframe.

 

What Vietnam was doing was using the best plane they had for air defence, but it wasn't strictly what the aircraft was designed for and nor was it any different to how the Americans would've used their own aircraft in a defensive situation. By necessity aircraft of that era had to be vectored to targets because none of them were capable of independent search, and there's no reason to mount standing patrols if you have early warning radar available. Basically, if you apply the logic that gets the MiG-21 called an interceptor, every single fighter aircraft until the 1970s is an interceptor as well, and the term becomes completely meaningless. The 21 was intended to support air operations over the frontline, hence its classification as a frontline fighter and its short legs. That would involve some interception at a tactical level, but it would also involve offensive sweeps, ground attack, and (if necessary) standing patrols. At the time of the MiG-21's introduction to service, the Soviets were finalising development on the Su-9, whose role was explicitly air defence of the Soviet Union against incoming bombers or recce aircraft.

[Alpenwolf]

On 9/21/2021 at 12:00 PM, Apok said:

Rossmum, the interceptor or fighter confusion comes mainly from whats USSRs concern was. And that was bombers. You must look at requirements given to plane designers to know what its meant for. Until MiG29 it was mostly climb high as fast as you can. 25 was for dealing with XB70. 31 was for bombers and thier low flying cruise missiles. Vietnam used 21 as its supposed to be used - textbook GCI intercepts.

 

 

Exactly. And that's where the nature of Soviet Military doctrine is perceived. Ever since WWll it has been the Americans who often knocked on Russia's door: Korea, Vietnam, Laotian Civil War, Korean DMZ Conflict, Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine, etc. (did I forget something?). From a geographical point of view that's literally crawling up on Russia or trying to get within range for further and more expanded military operations. While it sounds all political now, but that's not my point here. The point is, Russia is more or less forced into the role of a defender! Hence the need for interceptors. And there's what rossmum wrote which also makes sense, but doesn't necessarily suspend What you or I just wrote.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Alpenwolf

[Alpenwolf]

10 minutes ago, rossmum said:

Everyone's concern until 70s was climb as high as you can as quickly as you can, US fighters were the same. F-104 is in the same boat as MiG-21 - a fighter that gets called an "interceptor" based on the perception that it can't do backflips or sustain 20d/s turns, so it can't be a "real" fighter. It's an anachronistic view from applying modern standards for a fighter to aircraft designed 70 years ago and drawing on experience from WWII and Korea, where boom-and-zoom attacks were common and so pulling hard turns was less desirable. Real interceptors all share universal common traits - they're generally larger aircraft, with longer endurance, more powerful radar sets, and usually some form of ground-to-air datalink that in many cases is capable of controlling the aircraft via its own autopilot. For the Americans this means the F-101B and F-102/106. For the Soviets, it means Su-9/11/15, Yak-28P, Tu-128, and MiG-25P/PD and 31. The PVO also ended up employing pretty considerable numbers of MiG-23P (basically a PVO-tailored ML modification with some changes made to avionics) because all their interceptors at the time proved unsuited to low altitude work and lacked LD/SD, which the 23 did not. Later the 25PD came along which was essentially a MiG-23 avionics set scaled up and stuffed into a MiG-25P airframe.

 

What Vietnam was doing was using the best plane they had for air defence, but it wasn't strictly what the aircraft was designed for and nor was it any different to how the Americans would've used their own aircraft in a defensive situation. By necessity aircraft of that era had to be vectored to targets because none of them were capable of independent search, and there's no reason to mount standing patrols if you have early warning radar available. Basically, if you apply the logic that gets the MiG-21 called an interceptor, every single fighter aircraft until the 1970s is an interceptor as well, and the term becomes completely meaningless. The 21 was intended to support air operations over the frontline, hence its classification as a frontline fighter and its short legs. That would involve some interception at a tactical level, but it would also involve offensive sweeps, ground attack, and (if necessary) standing patrols. At the time of the MiG-21's introduction to service, the Soviets were finalising development on the Su-9, whose role was explicitly air defence of the Soviet Union against incoming bombers or recce aircraft.

 

If that's the case then I guess we're maybe just blinded by what we see, in terms of how specific aircraft are used and for what purposes, rather than what they were designed for. Any particular books you read in that regard?

[rossmum]

Yefim Gordon (while he sometimes flubs on technical details) is good for an overall view of the design and operational history of a type, and I also impulse-bought Mikoyan's official history when that released, since it was very limited print and I didn't want to risk them deciding not to print an English edition. I've been working my way through Gordon's Sukhoi Interceptors and there's quite a lot of good stuff in there - the Su-9 really is underappreciated, I think. Worth note that it was still another ~2 years before the MiG-21 even received a search radar, because they had to figure out how to cram the TsD-30 into its nose, and it was even longer before it got radar missiles.

 

In addition to the actual academic stuff, there are clues in the wording of pilots' handbooks and technical documents as well, and the overall organisation of the armed forces. What we think of as "interception", this monolithic all-encompassing thing where if you're steered onto an intruder by ground control, you're an interceptor, is a lot more nuanced. Most fighters will perform interceptions during their service, but an interceptor is a much more specialised aircraft optimised exactly for the role. The MiG-21 versus Su-9/11/15 example (and F-104 versus F-106 for NATO) is probably one of the best, because not only is there that distinction in role and specialisation, but in both cases you have minor partners in the alliance using a modification of the fighter to fill the interceptor's role. The two major powers never exported their actual interceptors even to allies, as they were too sensitive for homeland security (again the MiG-25 is the exception thanks to Belenko's antics). Getting any kind of primary documentation on PVO assets versus VVS assets is an absolute pain for that reason, even for retired ones - probably the main reason we aren't likely to see my dream module any time soon.

[rogorogo]

vor 33 Minuten schrieb rossmum:

Yefim Gordon (while he sometimes flubs on technical details) is good for an overall view of the design and operational history of a type, and I also impulse-bought Mikoyan's official history when that released, since it was very limited print and I didn't want to risk them deciding not to print an English edition. I've been working my way through Gordon's Sukhoi Interceptors and there's quite a lot of good stuff in there - the Su-9 really is underappreciated, I think. Worth note that it was still another ~2 years before the MiG-21 even received a search radar, because they had to figure out how to cram the TsD-30 into its nose, and it was even longer before it got radar missiles.

 

In addition to the actual academic stuff, there are clues in the wording of pilots' handbooks and technical documents as well, and the overall organisation of the armed forces. What we think of as "interception", this monolithic all-encompassing thing where if you're steered onto an intruder by ground control, you're an interceptor, is a lot more nuanced. Most fighters will perform interceptions during their service, but an interceptor is a much more specialised aircraft optimised exactly for the role. The MiG-21 versus Su-9/11/15 example (and F-104 versus F-106 for NATO) is probably one of the best, because not only is there that distinction in role and specialisation, but in both cases you have minor partners in the alliance using a modification of the fighter to fill the interceptor's role. The two major powers never exported their actual interceptors even to allies, as they were too sensitive for homeland security (again the MiG-25 is the exception thanks to Belenko's antics). Getting any kind of primary documentation on PVO assets versus VVS assets is an absolute pain for that reason, even for retired ones - probably the main reason we aren't likely to see my dream module any time soon.

even for the bisSAU (aka the DCS module, although as usual.. somewhat), compare deployment to the VVS and to pact-allies (example NVA der DDR, Fliegerkräfte)


but apart from anything else... elegantly hint about what no one dare mention - the Elephant in the room.. when it comes to actual market-sensibility, franchise cohesion.. or purely technical franchise core standardization and technical and methodical due-dilligence... which is an Elephant akin to a Apatosaurus excelsus.
And has and will be hampering many things - among them most unexpected ones (cough.. multiplayer... cough) far more and far longer than most "engineered" to be still present in the official communications challenges as pure consumptors will be capable to perceive in all its sombre to melancholic aspects....

And thus no more shall be spoken but refering to a recent statement that "the mentality (sic: pariticpation profile outline) is changing and is changing fast" - and looking at those very aspects... and recent examples in other places....  "we" as in "anyone sensible" should murmur a not so quiet "bbbbBBRRRRRRRRRAACCEEE!" while hunkering down...

[rossmum]

...I mixed up 75A and B. Too many izdeliye codes

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, rossmum said:

Yefim Gordon (while he sometimes flubs on technical details) is good for an overall view of the design and operational history of a type, and I also impulse-bought Mikoyan's official history when that released, since it was very limited print and I didn't want to risk them deciding not to print an English edition. I've been working my way through Gordon's Sukhoi Interceptors and there's quite a lot of good stuff in there - the Su-9 really is underappreciated, I think. Worth note that it was still another ~2 years before the MiG-21 even received a search radar, because they had to figure out how to cram the TsD-30 into its nose, and it was even longer before it got radar missiles.

 

In addition to the actual academic stuff, there are clues in the wording of pilots' handbooks and technical documents as well, and the overall organisation of the armed forces. What we think of as "interception", this monolithic all-encompassing thing where if you're steered onto an intruder by ground control, you're an interceptor, is a lot more nuanced. Most fighters will perform interceptions during their service, but an interceptor is a much more specialised aircraft optimised exactly for the role. The MiG-21 versus Su-9/11/15 example (and F-104 versus F-106 for NATO) is probably one of the best, because not only is there that distinction in role and specialisation, but in both cases you have minor partners in the alliance using a modification of the fighter to fill the interceptor's role. The two major powers never exported their actual interceptors even to allies, as they were too sensitive for homeland security (again the MiG-25 is the exception thanks to Belenko's antics). Getting any kind of primary documentation on PVO assets versus VVS assets is an absolute pain for that reason, even for retired ones - probably the main reason we aren't likely to see my dream module any time soon.

I think its mostly you confusing terminology for whatever purpose.

 

An interceptor, in its original understanding, is a fighter designed to react quickly to an incoming threat. Interceptor designs prioritized, speed, climb and maneuverability over all other considerations. They had to reach the threat and destroy it before it reached the target.

 

Clearly, the original design of the Mig-21 fits this classic definition, with many design decisions being made based upon the need for the Mig-21 to serve as a maneuverable, fast, hard climbing short range daylight interceptor.

 

Obviously, as technological capabilities of the threats developed, the need arose for all weather, long range interception. Russia, with its vast land mass, would have a great need to be able to defend against US bombers at a greater distance and in poor weather. The US had the same need.

 

Consequently, there arose aircraft designs to fulfill both needs. The original interceptor role became known as a point defense interceptor to differentiate it from the all weather, long range interceptors.

 

Russia's nomenclature of Фронтовая does not transform the Mig-21 design into something other than a classic interceptor design nor does the Russian compartmentalization of the all weather, long range interception duty into a separate service.

 

Today, point defense interception is mostly relegated to missiles.

[Hiromachi]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Clearly, the original design of the Mig-21 fits this classic definition, with many design decisions being made based upon the need for the Mig-21 to serve as a maneuverable, fast, hard climbing short range daylight interceptor.

It clearly fits an arbitrairly taken "classic definition" which does not account for different requirements for the design stipulated by party requesting new type of fighter, nomenclature existing at a time and other factors such as technical solutions and evolution of designs throughout decades of aviation. Original MiG-21F did not have a radar (rangefinding radar doesnt count here) nor any guidance system (ARL-SM was added in later variants) that would make it even remotely useful in interceptions, particularly at night. With F-13 were missiles added (a pair of heat-seekers which is an equivalent do what later Sabres could carry). Implying that design armed with two 20 mm cannons, having no radar and no guidance other than radio can pass for an interceptor is a bit too much. Or to reverse the point, many other jets at a time that were not inteceptors, prioritized things like speed and climb. Including F-104, which also was not considered interceptor (especially after failure to include SAGE).

Now MiG-21PF received a radar - RP-9, later modernized to RP-21. But it could not guide any missiles. Only with introduction of MiG-21PFM and modernization to RP-21M standard would RS-2US missiles appear in service. And PF / PFM were an actual attempt to adapt MiG-21 as interceptor.

 

Rossmum is right, Soviet Union had a dedicated lineup of interceptors which included radar, dedicated type of missiles, autopilot and guidance system (ARL of some sort, with later designs connected to autopilot). MiG-21 could perform interceptions. In fact it could do so very well due to mentioned speed and rate of climb. But it was by design and requirements a light frontline fighter.

[Conker4]

@Alpenwolf 

 

With the new pylon limiting feature, it would be cool if you could make the Viggen an interceptor and attacker. For example you can have a couple slots as a pure fighter, allowing it to carry the sidewinders and rocket pods while giving it access to a proportionate amount of missiles when compared to the Migs and f5. For the attack aircraft you could now just limit it to wingtip missiles allowing for the separation of roles and controlling the amount of planes being used as fighters.

 

 

I appreciate that this would take some time to implement, just an idea.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Conker4

[rossmum]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I think its mostly you confusing terminology for whatever purpose.

 

An interceptor, in its original understanding, is a fighter designed to react quickly to an incoming threat. Interceptor designs prioritized, speed, climb and maneuverability over all other considerations. They had to reach the threat and destroy it before it reached the target.

 

Clearly, the original design of the Mig-21 fits this classic definition, with many design decisions being made based upon the need for the Mig-21 to serve as a maneuverable, fast, hard climbing short range daylight interceptor.

 

Obviously, as technological capabilities of the threats developed, the need arose for all weather, long range interception. Russia, with its vast land mass, would have a great need to be able to defend against US bombers at a greater distance and in poor weather. The US had the same need.

 

Consequently, there arose aircraft designs to fulfill both needs. The original interceptor role became known as a point defense interceptor to differentiate it from the all weather, long range interceptors.

 

Russia's nomenclature of Фронтовая does not transform the Mig-21 design into something other than a classic interceptor design nor does the Russian compartmentalization of the all weather, long range interception duty into a separate service.

 

Today, point defense interception is mostly relegated to missiles.

 

Considering almost nobody builds deliberately slow fighters, I still don't see how that interpretation has any meaning beyond reducing almost all fighters ever built to "interceptor", regardless of the other roles they were expected to perform. Interception is a single role among several that the aircraft has to accomplish, and at times is even performed by fighters which aren't particularly fast or good at climbing, particularly during air policing. It also ignores the fact that being fast and having a good climb rate is not an exclusively interception-oriented goal, it's been known since WWII that whoever is faster, higher, and climbs better will general hold the initiative during WVR combat (and particularly at the time of design, there was no other form of aerial combat). Reducing anything with above-average speed and climb performance to "interceptor" is absolutely pointless and actively misleading about its operational use, particularly if you're trying to apply US definitions to a country who didn't fight like the US, didn't design aircraft with the same goals in mind, and doesn't even speak the same language.

 

This is turning into petty semantics but at the end of the day, the nation of origin and design bureau of origin are the ones who decide what an aircraft is, and the 21 is not an interceptor per the Soviet definition nor operational use.

[Koty]

If anyone is confusing definitions, it is not Ross.

 

In air to air sense:

MiG-21's primary role was air superiority. It was meant to tackle enemy fighters and fighter bombers, including enemy interceptors.

MiG-21's secondary role (and I am talking strictly about original design specification) was day-fair weather air defense.

 

It was built around its primary role, and used in its secondary role only whenever dedicated PVO units weren't available. In Warsaw pact countries, 21F's were often introduced into regiments that acted as part of PVO (alongside interceptor variants of the 21 - PF, PFM). But again, this was a secondary role, it was not designed for intercepts, it was built for air manoeuvre combat - hence focus on light weight, high speed and fast climbs - practical ceiling of the MiG-21 isn't even that great compared to aforementioned Su-9, which was a dedicated interceptor, or the Su-15 used since 1960s. Think of the large clear canopy - the F variant had excelent visibility exactly for that reason.

 

Now, after it was in service the bureau decided to introduce a dedicated interceptor variant. Changes included adding a radar and removing guns. Reason for creating this was simple - there was not enough purpose built interceptors.

 

In short, this is the same stupid argument as people claiming F-104 was designed as an interceptor, because it does not turn as tight as an F-16. F-104 was, just like MiG-21, designed to fight other fighters (not bombers). It was then, just like the F-15, procured by interceptor squadrons for service evaluation. By the way, FIS reports state that as an interceptor, the F-104 was terrible, unsuited even, thanks to its atrocious radar, limited fuel reserve and missile armament relying solely on the GAR-8. Pilots however liked it as they had a "real fighter" (unlike the F-102, or later the 106).