Modern eastern planes please

[Void78]

Slight thread drift, but please step down from your realism high horse will you.

 

 

Or have you deinstalled the game after your first crash or first shoot down with loss of pilot?

 

 

Because there is no -try again- in reality either in those cases.

 

 

And regarding mismatches.Asymmetric historic conflicts notwithstanding, why do you assume that people enjoy being being cannon fodder for a technological

far ahead blue side??

 

 

You wouldn‘t even get to the merge in your 70/80s vintage Mig in most cases as you would have been spamrammed out of the sky before you knew what hit you.

Oh and btw you would likely be doctrine-bound to follow GCI orders and not get to make major tactical decisions if you‘d take it to realistic level& could fly DCS only a few hours per month as you don‘t get trained as much as the rw blue force.

 

 

So please cut it down a bit.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Snappy.

Sunshine,i will be on my horse and there is nothing you can do about it.

What is to be cut,is for me to decide,not you.

You have gone out of your way to derail the thread,because you don't approve of my point of view.

If you had something to say to me personally,there was PM for that.

We are done here.

[Mainstay]

A full sim MiG-29S (Fulcrum C) 9.13 would be an instabuy for me.

[Fri13]

Another Joker.

 

Desert Storm,Iraqi Freedom,Merciful Angel,Libya,Syria..etc.

All big mismatches.

 

Afghanistan.... So how well did it go for either one? People living in caves put both sides to get out....

Syria, nothing really happened by USA until Russia came along and cleared ISIS.

 

Even the world largest military can be defeated by hiding in the caves and popping out here and there and flee before targets even realise what happened.

 

It is not about the versions when there is a some kind level, like if both fighters has a RWR it is fight that can end either way. But when it is 8 fighters vs 2 fighters, and if those 2 fighters doesn't even have a RWR, it will be a slaughter. When it is 16 fighters vs 4 fighters, it will be a slaughter, and it is not about that other has a slightly better radar or AIM-120C-5 missile against R-27R, it is simply the overpowered amount and support.

 

It is tactics that matter, not the equipment when they are somewhat par to each other.

 

This is the problem in the DCS, there is no real war, there is no real combat, there is nothing real in the COMBAT part in it. Everyone is there shooting fishes in the barrel. The ground units are there completely unprotected. The radar systems are 1% of what they would reality be. The FLIR systems are clearly OP, the datalinks etc are OP. You are lucky if you have like a 50 soldiers on the map, while it might have a 100-200 armored vehicles sitting completely open to be shot at from as far as the weapon theoretical range just allows.

 

That is the problem in the DCS, just excellent, amazing flight modeling and system simulation inside the cockpit. A fairly beautiful weather and maps. But any combat there is outside the cockpits that is other than a gun shooting is completely lack of the realism.

 

That is exactly the situation where the virtual pilot in its F-16, F-18 etc is there like a God against a ants on the ground.

 

There is a reason why R-60 missile was replaced by the R-73, but wasn't since then for long time. Not because there were no funding, but because there was no need for other than couple upgrades. Same thing is with R-27 family, its major upgrade was the extended addition, because there was no need to replace it with anything else as it was better than what AIM-120 was. There is a reason why AIM-120 has gone multiple big upgrades, and why many nations has developed even new missiles to replace it. Why the AIM-9 has gone multiple huge upgrades, only to be again replaced in some nations by another kind.

And it is not because the money is wanted to be made, but because it has not performed at all as well as claimed.

 

The DCS problem is that people are simply flying the aircrafts completely unrealistic manner. Making completely unrealistic missions. And it doesn't matter that which side the players are flying, almost all do it.

 

And it is not about that BLUFOR fighters are more advanced than REDFOR, but because the scenarios are made so that BLUFOR are the superior power no matter what, and all are flying unrealistic manner how they wouldn't be flying in reality as the scenario wouldn't be a such.

 

There is no server that is placing a 1-2 million soldiers on the one country, that are equipped by a 150 000 MANPAADS, 200 000 HMG's, dozens of long range SAM sites, hundreds of medium and short range SAM sites, all important elements having radios, radars, a proper tactics and strategies etc. Where every single individual soldier from drivers to commander and to squad leader has a sense to survive and basic sense to perform in combat and lead the men and vehicles to cover, conceal their vehicles, to avoid getting shot at etc etc.

 

It doesn't matter what a radar, missile or a datalink a fighter has in DCS, when there is nothing on the ground or anywhere else really.

 

Joking about all the big mismatches? LOL... The typical DCS mission is the greatest of the mismatches...

[Teknetinium]

Void78, you can simulate Uganda vs Nato and fly it if you like. If we want to play competitively in DCS we have to strip down Nato aircrafts weapons to same era. Not fun but not all want to fly Uganda vs Nato. Thats why all models are welcome. J-11A/B,Su-27S/SM.

[Void78]

@Mainstay

Any Soviet era fighter would be instabuy buy for me.

Especially 3rd gen fighters/fighter bombers.

They have certain charm in my eyes.

[Kev2go]

Afghanistan.... So how well did it go for either one? People living in caves put both sides to get out....

Syria, nothing really happened by USA until Russia came along and cleared ISIS.

 

Even the world largest military can be defeated by hiding in the caves and popping out here and there and flee before targets even realise what happened.

 

It is not about the versions when there is a some kind level, like if both fighters has a RWR it is fight that can end either way. But when it is 8 fighters vs 2 fighters, and if those 2 fighters doesn't even have a RWR, it will be a slaughter. When it is 16 fighters vs 4 fighters, it will be a slaughter, and it is not about that other has a slightly better radar or AIM-120C-5 missile against R-27R, it is simply the overpowered amount and support.

 

It is tactics that matter, not the equipment when they are somewhat par to each other.

 

This is the problem in the DCS, there is no real war, there is no real combat, there is nothing real in the COMBAT part in it. Everyone is there shooting fishes in the barrel. The ground units are there completely unprotected. The radar systems are 1% of what they would reality be. The FLIR systems are clearly OP, the datalinks etc are OP. You are lucky if you have like a 50 soldiers on the map, while it might have a 100-200 armored vehicles sitting completely open to be shot at from as far as the weapon theoretical range just allows.

 

That is the problem in the DCS, just excellent, amazing flight modeling and system simulation inside the cockpit. A fairly beautiful weather and maps. But any combat there is outside the cockpits that is other than a gun shooting is completely lack of the realism.

 

That is exactly the situation where the virtual pilot in its F-16, F-18 etc is there like a God against a ants on the ground.

 

There is a reason why R-60 missile was replaced by the R-73, but wasn't since then for long time. Not because there were no funding, but because there was no need for other than couple upgrades. Same thing is with R-27 family, its major upgrade was the extended addition, because there was no need to replace it with anything else as it was better than what AIM-120 was. There is a reason why AIM-120 has gone multiple big upgrades, and why many nations has developed even new missiles to replace it. Why the AIM-9 has gone multiple huge upgrades, only to be again replaced in some nations by another kind.

And it is not because the money is wanted to be made, but because it has not performed at all as well as claimed.

 

The DCS problem is that people are simply flying the aircrafts completely unrealistic manner. Making completely unrealistic missions. And it doesn't matter that which side the players are flying, almost all do it.

 

And it is not about that BLUFOR fighters are more advanced than REDFOR, but because the scenarios are made so that BLUFOR are the superior power no matter what, and all are flying unrealistic manner how they wouldn't be flying in reality as the scenario wouldn't be a such.

 

There is no server that is placing a 1-2 million soldiers on the one country, that are equipped by a 150 000 MANPAADS, 200 000 HMG's, dozens of long range SAM sites, hundreds of medium and short range SAM sites, all important elements having radios, radars, a proper tactics and strategies etc. Where every single individual soldier from drivers to commander and to squad leader has a sense to survive and basic sense to perform in combat and lead the men and vehicles to cover, conceal their vehicles, to avoid getting shot at etc etc.

 

It doesn't matter what a radar, missile or a datalink a fighter has in DCS, when there is nothing on the ground or anywhere else really.

 

Joking about all the big mismatches? LOL... The typical DCS mission is the greatest of the mismatches...

 

 

YFR

 

The real real reason better strides have been scarce in certain areas of Russian military tech isnt because they are so good and dont need improvement.

 

it's because russia had $$$ issue post cold war, and to this day even after recovering from the collapse of ussr, still cant expect to go back to an arms race against the usa. They just dont have the economy, and they damn well know this no matter how much thier current leader wants to look tough by challenging us in the international stage. Unlike china which is world's current biggest economy ( having overtaken usa) and thus is in much better position to do so, as the are the 2nd largest military spender next to usa ( although still currently behind)

 

 

War isnt meant to be fair. You want to fight one with an advantage(s) if your only fighting on equal terms someone screwed up.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Kev2go

[Teknetinium]

YFR

 

The real real reason better strides have been scarce in certain areas of Russian military tech isnt because they are so good and dont need improvement.

 

it's because russia had $$$ issue post cold war, and to this day even after recovering from the collapse of ussr, still cant expect to go back to an arms race against the usa. They just dont have the economy, and they know this no matter how much thier current leader wants to look tough by challenging us in the international stage.

 

 

War isnt meant to be fair. You want to fight one with an advantage(s) if your only fighting on equal terms someone screwed up.

 

In 90s there were more Modern Su-30s then most EU countries have, why do you compare Russia to States and that there must be 1000 of one type to be counted.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Teknetinium

[Harlikwin]

Yeah. The issue is there are no older blue fighters. Or newer red fighters. Honestly i was far more excited by an 80s era phantom than the viper because it would make the mig21 and 23 more useful on cold war servers. In terms of online balance its up to the server owner, its easy enough to restrict weapons and airframes. But what i have noticed is that many if not most online players will mostly fly whatever uber fighter of the week so they can be competitive.

[Fri13]

Actually, a lot of FC3 Flankers and Fulcrum even now hold their own in MP environments, imagine if they had full working DL(flanker) automatic guidance (fulcrum), update missiles, CM programs etc... so even older stuff although not perfect is more then usable...

Regarding more precision AG stuff, and Sukhoi fast attacker or the new MiG-27 would come in good there!

 

If the FC3 aircrafts like Su-27S and Mig-29S would get update that adds even 50-75% of the functions of their weapons systems and gets their missiles fixed, and all missiles would get corrected (currently all are flying and guiding way too perfectly) and all the navigation, datalink etc systems would get as well even half way there, the capabilities of those two would dramatically increase. There are lots of functions and features in those aircrafts that are not in the DCS.

 

I don't care if I can't flip a switch to turn some electricity On/Off or push a button in cockpit to release landing chute. If I can bind the important functions to HOTAS and use a keyboard, that is just fine.

 

The main greatness in DCS is all in the cockpit functions and simulation, not in the combat. But FC3 level aircrafts would benefit the upgrade to their weapons systems, and bring them more out of the Lock-On era.

 

But we are getting there once we get Mig-23MLA, as that alone is going to be a very important fighter for the REDFOR side by its popularity. Problem just is that we are going to see it put against a 2019 configuration of the BLUFOR, in its 80's configuration itself. At least we are going to have a change to fly a F-14A and maybe F-5E vs Mig-23MLA, leaving F-16's and F-18's completely out of the scenario.

 

Of course if someone could do a Su-35M and Su-57 to the DCS, we would see that F-16 and F-18 fans would be screaming how unbalanced the combat is.

[earnil]

Just here to add to popular demand - +1 to eastern planes!

[Fri13]

Yeah. The issue is there are no older blue fighters. Or newer red fighters. Honestly i was far more excited by an 80s era phantom than the viper because it would make the mig21 and 23 more useful on cold war servers. In terms of online balance its up to the server owner, its easy enough to restrict weapons and airframes. But what i have noticed is that many if not most online players will mostly fly whatever uber fighter of the week so they can be competitive.

 

I think that ED should implement a time era feature to all weapons, aircrafts and even aircrafts individual modules/panels.

 

Meaning that it would be easy to mission designer to set the year of the mission (the date setting) and that would automatically disable all the units and weapons that were not available, and then if the aircraft was etc, but disable some of its functions (like Link-16 if using F/A-18C Hornet as it would be F/A-18A Hornet).

 

That would make a big difference already to the mission creation, but it would as well mean that ED needs to make more weapons and their versions from various generations.

[Harlikwin]

I think that ED should implement a time era feature to all weapons, aircrafts and even aircrafts individual modules/panels.

 

Meaning that it would be easy to mission designer to set the year of the mission (the date setting) and that would automatically disable all the units and weapons that were not available, and then if the aircraft was etc, but disable some of its functions (like Link-16 if using F/A-18C Hornet as it would be F/A-18A Hornet).

 

That would make a big difference already to the mission creation, but it would as well mean that ED needs to make more weapons and their versions from various generations.

 

Yeah but an f18a is way more than an f18c with link 16 turned off. Even an early 18C circa the early 90s still has a way more limited radar compared to the current 18C. That said Id happily pay for "downgrades". Same for the viper.

[Void78]

Void78, you can simulate Uganda vs Nato and fly it if you like. If we want to play competitively in DCS we have to strip down Nato aircrafts weapons to same era. Not fun but not all want to fly Uganda vs Nato. Thats why all models are welcome. J-11A/B,Su-27S/SM.

All models are welcome...exactly

You people are persistent in your intention to not get my point,so i will draw it down for you.

How capable aircraft is should not affect decision will it be made in to DCS module or not.

[Fri13]

it's because russia had $$$ issue post cold war, and to this day even after recovering from the collapse of ussr, still cant expect to go back to an arms race against the usa.

 

USA never left the cold war, rest of the world did.

And Russia never stopped being a shared position with the USA in the "arms race".

 

 

They just dont have the economy

 

USA lost the economy war... Russia won.

If you would personally have a 15 million dollar debt, no one would call you a successful in economics. But if you manage to threaten others to give you more loans so your total debt would be in future a 15 billion dollars... You wouldn't be even then a successful in economics.

 

Just my $0.02.... Sorry, $23,000,000,000,000... and counting...

 

ps. Can someone be a too fat to die?

[Fri13]

Yeah but an f18a is way more than an f18c with link 16 turned off. Even an early 18C circa the early 90s still has a way more limited radar compared to the current 18C. That said Id happily pay for "downgrades". Same for the viper.

 

Yes, but that was just an example. It would of course include the radar "nerfing" like the emission power and speed etc, so on calculation of detecting the targets at range, maintaining lock etc etc.

 

If it would be possible to adjust some of the core parameters (like emission power, sweep speed etc) then it would effectively do such simulation (in a simulation...) for balancing reasons. But it would be just easier maybe see a F-4 :-P

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

It's about war being unfair. Enemies usually don't agree on what weapons to use in a war and so DCS should not cater to some fair play balance things. But I get that it does limit what can be done in MP.

 

Exactly.:thumbup:

 

Yes it is a game.A game that simulates war machines and war as close as possible.I could play I-16 vs F-16 scenario,that is true,but i wouldn't do it because it is not realistic now ..is it?

 

I would fight everyone!!!It is challenging,and above all realistic.

 

So according to you exported variants of MIG 29 shouldn't be made because they would be weak?

You have got to be kidding me.

 

Another Joker.

 

Desert Storm,Iraqi Freedom,Merciful Angel,Libya,Syria..etc.

All big mismatches.

 

God forbid if conflict between North Korea and NATO happens;

sky would be filled with rust collectors as you have put it.

FYI...the term arms race does not apply to third world nations.

 

This is unbelievably naive and stupid, you mean to tell me in a modern conflict taking place in the 2000s and 2010s Russia and China would only use 70s and 80s era fighters with no 4+ gen planes of their own? That's why people want these planes they don't want to partake in these turkey shoots in boring 3rd world countries people want to also be able ot simulate great powers going at it. And not to mention its more realistic to have a 4+ gen flanker as your OPFOR plane when you cosplay invading a puppet state given the popularity of Su-30MKKs and MKIs abroad

[Snappy]

Sunshine,i will be on my horse and there is nothing you can do about it.

What is to be cut,is for me to decide,not you.

You have gone out of your way to derail the thread,because you don't approve of my point of view.

If you had something to say to me personally,there was PM for that.

We are done here.

 

:) Fine, have it your way.Just please don‘t post on forums if you can‘t handle people pointing out deficiencies in your perceived concept of realism..

No need to go PM for that.You blasted us with your imbalance theories as well without asking ..talk about derailing.

 

 

Maybe ask yourself why people persist in not getting your point would help?

 

 

Anyway, keep playing pseudo-realism,whatever makes you feel better.

 

 

Snappy

[Void78]

This is unbelievably naive and stupid, you mean to tell me in a modern conflict taking place in the 2000s and 2010s Russia and China would only use 70s and 80s era fighters with no 4+ gen planes of their own?

Nope.They will use nukes.

My mind does not wonder to those type of conflicts.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Nope.They will use nukes.

My mind does not wonder to those type of conflicts.

 

Ah yes a nation like Venezuela or Algeria wouldn't send up Su-30MKAs or MK2s

They'd use their WMDs the same WMDs Saddam used huh

Or would they hide them like Saddam did :lol:

[Void78]

Ah yes a nation like Venezuela or Algeria wouldn't send up Su-30MKAs or MK2s

They'd use their WMDs the same WMDs Saddam used huh

Or would they hide them like Saddam did :lol:

They would probably hide them.Too many NATO bees.

Although their strike aviation may do some damage.

Ours certainly did(Tigers of 98.strike regiment using J/22).

Anyways,we do not have any eastern block plane in the works,apart from the MIG 23.All i have got to look forward to is Mil 24.

[Kazansky222]

I'd love a Mig-29SMT or Mig-29K or any modernized Mig-29, or Flanker, or Mig-25 or Mig-31 literally annything.....

[sylkhan]

Mig29K for the futur "Admiral Kuznetsov" carrier

[MegOhm_SD]

Agree, we need more Eastern aircraft to target and dispatch from the skies.

 

<S>

[*Rage*]

I'd love a Mig-29SMT or Mig-29K or any modernized Mig-29, or Flanker, or Mig-25 or Mig-31 literally annything.....

 

Except Mig23 ofcourse . Let's be reasonable here. That thing is ugly as sin and much less capable.

[Teknetinium]

I like Mig-27, get in and out fast.