Aircraft before the 1993 tech explosion for DCS

[Northstar98]

If the 14A has the same unrealistically accurate missiles, then cold war servers are unlikely to be very popular

 

And this is based on what exactly?

[JagHond]

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Thanks a lot for having recalled that, Kev2go, mate!

It's not only speaking, this.

With best regards.

[bies]

Agree 100%

[FlankerKiller]

Moose, you forget something. The jets you want actually fought each other. I can't agree more that we would massively benefit from late cold war era stuff. Look at the popularity of the Tomcat. Its exactly the kind of jet you are describing. Hopefully next year we may see the A-7, F-1, maybe maybe the Mig-23. So there is hope. Honestly I think the online arena would explode in this era. I've made post before about it. All of my favorite jets to fly are from this era.

[bies]

Pre 1993 means high performance sexy jets like F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-29, Su-27 but in best performance / older avionics variants when both air combat and ground attack were far more engaging than "modern" stand off JSOW trucks.

Plus they can be modeled in realistic way.

Plus there can be symmetrical warfare with similar tech NATO and Soviet planes and assets possible to model.

[Fri13]

On 2/14/2020 at 2:01 PM, Jonne said:

Its not only air to air that is more interesting, but also all air to ground stuff. Most of the work was still dumb bombs or primitve missiles, mostly command guided.

 

That is true. The bombs without guidance makes nice "hands on" feelin. requirement to have sights dialed in properly and drooping all from low altitude is far nicer experience. 

[Harlikwin]

On 3/30/2020 at 8:36 PM, Kev2go said:

 

 

 

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

 

Half of that is kinda BS. I've seen the "docs" they based that on. Half the tests in them are "rigged" one way or another. They should have used the "worst case" numbers, but instead they used the "best". The actual "Scientific and engineering "integrity" of those docs is a joke too. For your short range engagment test you have an N of 1. So of course the Aim54 has a 100% PK at short range. Any scientist or engineer is gonna laugh in your face if thats how you got your "number".

 

On 11/26/2020 at 11:17 AM, FlankerKiller said:

Moose, you forget something. The jets you want actually fought each other. I can't agree more that we would massively benefit from late cold war era stuff. Look at the popularity of the Tomcat. Its exactly the kind of jet you are describing. Hopefully next year we may see the A-7, F-1, maybe maybe the Mig-23. So there is hope. Honestly I think the online arena would explode in this era. I've made post before about it. All of my favorite jets to fly are from this era.

 

So, if you actually look at the "old" roadmap, it actually kinda made sense if you can't do "modern red air".... 

 

You had the PG map (which coulda included Iraq...

 

From there you are a hop skip and a fart away from the Iran Iraq war. 

 

Older migs/blue for the iraqis (21/23/25) + mirage F1 

BLUE airforce for Iran. (F5E, F4, F14A)

 

Bold being In game

Green being "coming soon" (tm).... 

 

Literally the only jet that is missing off that list is the F4... The 25's weren't a major factor, more of a nice to have.

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Kev2go]

22 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Half of that is kinda BS. I've seen the "docs" they based that on. Half the tests in them are "rigged" one way or another. They should have used the "worst case" numbers, but instead they used the "best". The actual "Scientific and engineering "integrity" of those docs is a joke too. For your short range engagment test you have an N of 1. So of course the Aim54 has a 100% PK at short range. Any scientist or engineer is gonna laugh in your face if thats how you got your "number".

 

Ok so you think their sources can be subject to scrutiny because theve been skewed  for Idealistic/best case scenario performance. Ok, Great.  Unless you have more reliable and verifiable information on the aim54's that you can forward to hearblur so they could make further refinements to AIm54  for more realistic performance as opposed to just your own personal guesstimates of what you think degradation of PK's should be, i wouldn't be such a smartass.

 

As an aside I doubt ED can find more documentation  on researching more modern missiles that are still in operational use. 

 

.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Kev2go

[TotenDead]

9 часов назад, Kev2go сказал:

 

Ok so you think their sources can be subject to scrutiny because theve been skewed  for Idealistic/best case scenario performance. Ok, Great.  Unless you have more reliable and verifiable information on the aim54's that you can forward to hearblur so they could make further refinements to AIm54  for more realistic performance as opposed to just your own personal guesstimates of what you think degradation of PK's should be, i wouldn't be such a smartass.

 

As an aside I doubt ED can find more documentation  on researching more modern missiles that are still in operational use. 

 

.

 

 

 

Oh, there's something. US used Aim-54 in combat and none of them hit their targets 

[bies]

US fired some three AIM-54 in combat but it was around year 2000. AIM-54 were badly worn out at this moment and poorly maintained, low priority, close to retirement and practically purposeless. IIRC their motors didn't even start and missiles simply dropped to the ground like dumb bombs.

 

It was lethal weapon in 1970s and 1980s, property maintained, crucial for fleet defense, but when Soviet Union collapsed danger for US Navy disappeared and systems designed for all out war like Phoenix lost priority and whole F-14 concept lost it's purpose.

 

During the test in 1970s Phoenix missiles fired from one F-14 managed to hit 4 our of 6 drones at the same time, at very long range guided by one APG-9 system. They were tested some 60 times against different targets, very often at extremely long range of around 100nm, some with ECM and achieved high success rate. If they would perform poorly Navy wouldn't order ~2500 of them for very high price.

 

In Iranian service during 1989s AIM-54 were praised for their performance and probably of hit, Iranians claimed 78 enemy aircrafts plus 3 enemy missiles shoot down with AIM-54. Out of this number 62 air-to-air kills is presented in "Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority" document and "Iran-Iraq war in the air 1980-1988" book.

 

For comparison R-27 missiles are cited to achieve 1 kill out of 24 missiles fired during Ethiopia-Eritrea war when Russian mercenaries piloted Su-27 and MiG-29. Does it mean R-27 was useless garbage and only a ballast to decrease fighter performance? No. In combat enemy doesn't want to get hit and tries to evade the missiles.

----------------------------------

Cold War generally means limited BVR and lots of merges, dogfights and manual weapon employment - that's the whole beauty and that is the point of this whole forum thread.

Edited March 11, 2021 by bies

[Harlikwin]

9 hours ago, bies said:

US fired some three AIM-54 in combat but it was around year 2000. AIM-54 were badly worn out at this moment and poorly maintained, low priority, close to retirement and practically purposeless. IIRC their motors didn't even start and missiles simply dropped to the ground like dumb bombs.

 

It was lethal weapon in 1970s and 1980s, property maintained, crucial for fleet defense, but when Soviet Union collapsed danger for US Navy disappeared and systems designed for all out war like Phoenix lost priority and whole F-14 concept lost it's purpose.

 

During the test in 1970s Phoenix missiles fired from one F-14 managed to hit 4 our of 6 drones at the same time, at very long range guided by one APG-9 system. They were tested some 60 times against different targets, very often at extremely long range of around 100nm, some with ECM and achieved high success rate. If they would perform poorly Navy wouldn't order ~2500 of them for very high price.

 

In Iranian service during 1989s AIM-54 were praised for their performance and probably of hit, Iranians claimed 78 enemy aircrafts plus 3 enemy missiles shoot down with AIM-54. Out of this number 62 air-to-air kills is presented in "Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority" document and "Iran-Iraq war in the air 1980-1988" book.

 

For comparison R-27 missiles are cited to achieve 1 kill out of 24 missiles fired during Ethiopia-Eritrea war when Russian mercenaries piloted Su-27 and MiG-29. Does it mean R-27 was useless garbage and only a ballast to decrease fighter performance? No. In combat enemy doesn't want to get hit and tries to evade the missiles.

----------------------------------

Cold War generally means limited BVR and lots of merges, dogfights and manual weapon employment - that's the whole beauty and that is the point of this whole forum thread.

 

 

Yeah, the problem with the Iranian sources is that there is no list of missiles actually fired vs hits. Plus, most of those circumstances were relatively unique, i.e. enemy A/C had no functioning RWR's quite often. You can see the difference in kill rates over the course of the war, high at the beginning, much lower toward the end. To get a decent number for actual pK you can take the 68 claimed kills and divide it by what? They had like what 270 or so missiles total. So did they expend 100 to get 68, that seems reasonable, was it 150, also a reasonable guess. And of course you have to consider the circumstances of each engagement. Per the Iranian Cats book (which reads fairly propaganda(ish)), most of them weren't fired at super long range, but many were fired BVR under pretty favorable conditions. The other  part of that  story  is that no one  really knows exactly how effective the later Iraqi Jammers were against the phoenix (very according to the Iraqis).  Only that the Phoenix got several  ECCM upgrades over its lifetime. Then you have the problem of using a 60's era missile in a 2005 scenario, how  effective should it be?

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Harlikwin

[bies]

No point debating on such specific topic as AIM-54 real life combat effectiveness in this thread.

 

We will probably never know exact hits per missile fired during Iraq-Iran war. Iranian pilots praised AIM-54 as the best and most reliable air-to-air weapon in whole Iranian inventory and this approximation will have to be enough when it comes to it's effectiveness during Cold War days.

 

In ~2005 scenario not only AIM-54 but also whole Tomcat avionics suite, massively underinvested and purposeless after USSR collapse, would be of doubtful value. They still used basically 1970s analog avionics. There were few digital F-14D but Navy didn't modernise the rest because without USSR nobody needed them.

 

F-14 was the definition of Cold War fighter, one of the very best, it did it's job, it performed hundreds of air combat engagements, being a winner in nearly all of them and that's it.

[DaWu]

No we need the opposite.  More modern ac especially in the red side

[TotenDead]

8 часов назад, bies сказал:

F-14 was the definition of Cold War fighter, one of the very best, it did it's job, it performed hundreds of air combat engagements, being a winner in nearly all of them and that's it.

Yes, so Iran says... Iranians claims that they shot down like 10 MiG-25s while Iraq says that only 1 recon MiG-25 was lost. Whose claims are more beliveable?

 

20 часов назад, bies сказал:

US fired some three AIM-54 in combat but it was around year 2000. AIM-54 were badly worn out at this moment and poorly maintained, low priority, close to retirement and practically purposeless. IIRC their motors didn't even start and missiles simply dropped to the ground like dumb bombs.

 

Is US that bad at keeping its missiles operational?  Those missiles must've been produced in the late 80s and through the 90s

[Berserk]

Yes! I'm new to the DCS. I was playing F4.0 for years and i always feel a bit cheated. I enjoyed the dynamic campaign but grew up in the Viper legend as the ultimate dogfighter, and in F4.0 there was a late heavyweight version using the AIM-120 instead of F-16A maneuvering air combat. In practice AMRAAM equalled close to zero dogfights.

 

I often set up scripted fights without AIM-120 against enemy MiG-29 and Su-27 with cannon or short-range thermal missiles, only then did I feel real pleasure!

But fortunately the DCS is different recreating wide timeframe and i don't need to stage or script anything to feel this adrenaline of skill-based air-to-air and air-to-ground, i will enjoy every single Soviet or NATO module!

[rkk01]

OK, so I know I have started a couple of threads about the Sea Harrier / Falklands Conflict... but that seems to fit the general gist of this thread:

 

1982

knife fight ACM

relatively balanced - some strengths and weaknesses on both sides, but specifically no side with the overwhelming technical advantage seen from Desert Storm onwards

[Northstar98]

On 3/12/2021 at 12:25 AM, DaWu said:

No we need the opposite.  More modern ac especially in the red side

Have fun getting any.

On 3/12/2021 at 5:50 AM, TotenDead said:

Is US that bad at keeping its missiles operational?  Those missiles must've been produced in the late 80s and through the 90s

I doubt they were new production missiles, they were probably left over war stock that hadn't been fired - remember these missiles were very expensive.

EDIT: This isn't something new either. When HMS Conqueror sunk the Belgrano in the 1982 Falklands War, it used 21-inch Mk.8 torpedoes - these were new builds of interwar torpedoes, that entered service in 1927! This is despite the Conqueror having a complement of Tigerfish - the modern British torpedo at the time (though was unreliable).

Edited July 22, 2022 by Northstar98

[TotenDead]

1 минуту назад, Northstar98 сказал:

 

Have fun.

 

 

I doubt they were new production missiles, they were probably left over war stock that hadn't been fired - remember these missiles were very expensive. 

If you're going to war you take all the best, and what's old and rusty leave for training at best

[Northstar98]

On 3/12/2021 at 10:16 AM, TotenDead said:

If you're going to war you take all the best, and what's old and rusty leave for training at best

Read my edit.

Edited July 22, 2022 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

11 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

EDIT: This isn't something new either. When HMS Conqueror sunk the Belgrano in the 1982 Falklands War, it used 21-inch Mk.8 torpedoes - these were left over interwar torpedoes, that entered service in 1927! This is despite the Conqueror having a complement of Tigerfish - the modern British torpedo at the time (though was unreliable).

 

Fired three torpedos, two hit the target and fourth missed target but collided without exploding to escort ship (so Pk at 0.6, fairly high for it service history being unreliable to sink ships - hence launching three instead one).

 

But those are still in service and production even today. So they are not so bad, but just dummy ones without advanced features that modern ones has. 

 

The thing is that even the old designs can do their purposes correctly in optimal cases. Like listen the latest fighter pilot podcast about F-106 and you hear pilot praising the AIM-4 Falcon for it accuracy and effectiveness, why it doesn't need a proximity fuze as it will hit the target. But.... There are other side of the missile service history....

 

Like the R-27 that is still in production, in service as primary missile for most modern fighters... 

 

The truth is usually between the "trash" and "near perfect".

 

Missile performance can not be determined by the service history numbers, nor it specifications or some tests. 

Every single historical launch would need to be analyzed like manufacturers would do....

 

When the DCS doesn't model ECM, chaff and flares, and nothing about the radars proper functions, it is almost dream to make missiles so effective as they are right now...

 

And all the claims that phoenix is so great because iranians, or it was specialists fault that the three USA launches failed.... There are so many stories that it just symbols they can't be trusted. When it was that phoenix wings separated, guidance system broke, the missiles were dropped before installation, the rocket motors didn't even ignite.... Yeah, the specialists were total morons on the duty.... But if it would be question about the famous phoenix missile being not so amazing against everything, carrier by one of the most hyped fighters ever... It is pitchfork time against anything that is critical about either one...

 

Lets first get the IR signature, flares and IR jammers work properly at 50% level, then try to get radars operate even at 20% of their functions... Then we could get somewhere.

 

Or we could go to blind one and zero game by today's standards.

In service = good, worth to use.

Out of service = bad, not worth to use.

 

 

 

 

[kseremak]

I would love to see F-16A or F/A-18A from '80s in lightweight versions and manual close range weapon.

Or any other fighters or strike aircrafts from this era, dumb bombs and rockets, winders, guns and dogfights (instead of spaming AMRAAMs or JSOW without effort) is my type of fun!

Edited June 5, 2021 by kseremak

[Harlikwin]

4 hours ago, kseremak said:

I would love to see F-16A or F/A-18A from '80s in lightweight versions and manual close range weapon.

Or any other fighters or strike aircrafts from this era, dumb bombs and rockets, winders, guns and dogfights (instead of spaming AMRAAMs or JSOW without effort) is my type of fun!

 

 

Yeah, the more I play DCS the more I agree with this line of thinking. Fox3 combat is boring as hell at some point, and it 100% devolves to a which missile is better, not a which pilot is better discussion, which is what it really should be. And even more so for the hordes of modern standoff stuff that is used incorrectly 90% of the time, and too much of it.

 

I like the ideas of an earlyish 80's focus because, the multiroles were still not the "optimal" platform, but master of none. The F16A/18A were mostly dumb bomb trucks, but were also good dogfighters and could do BVR in a pinch for the hornet. Compared to the more dedicated airframes, which were certainly better at their intended role, be it A/A or A/G i.e. F18 vs the F14 or A6E or A7E in that era for example. Plus no one expected to use high end ordnance on killing tanks or APC's rather those GBU's were intended for high value targets. 

 

And at the end of the day the best times I've had in DCS are with the older jets dogfighting WVR, or dropping dumb bombs, because that took some actual skill to do. 

 

[Northstar98]

20 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah, the more I play DCS the more I agree with this line of thinking. Fox3 combat is boring as hell at some point, and it 100% devolves to a which missile is better, not a which pilot is better discussion, which is what it really should be. And even more so for the hordes of modern standoff stuff that is used incorrectly 90% of the time, and too much of it.

 

If I might add, it's especially bad in single player, where you fly like like you're a smaller, faster airliner, press the push-to-win button and RTB.

 

It's only more difficult due to errors; AI taking defensive action straight away, missiles not using proper mid-course guidance, and poor/no implementation of gating, among other things. 

 

20 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

I like the ideas of an earlyish 80's focus because, the multiroles were still not the "optimal" platform, but master of none. The F16A/18A were mostly dumb bomb trucks, but were also good dogfighters and could do BVR in a pinch for the hornet. Compared to the more dedicated airframes, which were certainly better at their intended role, be it A/A or A/G i.e. F18 vs the F14 or A6E or A7E in that era for example. Plus no one expected to use high end ordnance on killing tanks or APC's rather those GBU's were intended for high value targets.

 

Agreed.

 

Also, let's face it, if we want a coherent peer-to-peer setting, the mid-to-late Cold War is probably the most feasible bet. At the moment, the most coherent era (by a fairly significant margin) is WWII.

 

20 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

And at the end of the day the best times I've had in DCS are with the older jets dogfighting WVR, or dropping dumb bombs, because that took some actual skill to do. 

 

Yeah, plus, to me at least, they have more 'character' (idk what to call it) compared to modern stuff. 

[Harlikwin]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

ors; AI taking defensive action straight away, missiles not using proper mid-course guidance, and poor/no implementation of gating, among other things. 

 

 

Agreed.

 

Also, let's face it, if we want a coherent peer-to-peer setting, the mid-to-late Cold War is probably the most feasible bet. At the moment, the most coherent era (by a fairly significant margin) is WWII.

 

 

Yeah, plus, to me at least, they have more 'character' (idk what to call it) compared to modern stuff. 

 

I mainly play MP these days due the DCS AI, or lack therof. 

 

But yeah mid to late cold war you have alot of inherent "balance" between red and blue. Which basically vanished after 89. I mean I get the "cool factor" of using a TGP to drop bombs (and the ease of it), but there were dedicated A/C on both sides of the late cold war that could do it too, they just couldn't then go full air-to-air, and that made them unique and cool. I mean the viggen is as good as we get for that "uniquness factor" in DCS, and I think it could be far more with like the A6E/A7E and Su-17M4/Su-24 (doubt they can do the latter) but you get the idea.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Harlikwin

[WobblyFlops]

Very strange thread. You people are talking about WVR combat and lack of sensors and EW, even though the US doctrine heavily utilized (and in fact relied on them) ever since Vietnam. The VID requirement was a doctrinal issue that didn't allow the US fighters to utilize the long range advantage that they enjoyed. The current radar simulation is incredibly highly simplistic (and it would be true for all the older radars), the EW/ECCM performance of the old systems are just as classified as that of the new ones, and if you were to simulate any kind of realistic Cold War gone hot scenario, you should most definitely utilize the BVR capabilities from both sides.

 

 

What you're describing isn't the 70-80s era at all, it's the 50s. In reality, you guys describe Banshees, Skyknights, F-104s and other early jets. Even the currently available F-14 (which is the quintessential Cold War fighter alongside the F-4) extremely heavily relies on superior sensors, weapons and in reality, the ability to deal with jamming. With a less restrictive ROE the engagements would heavily revolve around Fox Ones, not guns only dogfightin. It's fine if you want that kind of gameplay but 70-80s Cold War is not what you want. For that matter, the same can be said about Vietnam as well.