announced DCS MiG-29A

[SovietAce]

13 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

Is MiG-29AS basically an A version with S denoting Slovakia?

Pretty much yes. Its similar to G variant. Just westernized 29A.

[bies]

15 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

Is MiG-29AS basically an A version with S denoting Slovakia?

Yes, this are classic 9.12A (first grade export variant for WARPAC), just like Polish, German etc.

They were bought by communist Czechoslovakia. Today they have some different equipment IFF, radio, navigation. But basically they are classic 9.12A

Edited February 14, 2021 by bies

[Max1mus]

6 hours ago, bies said:

F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, Viggen, Mirage 2000 - are all 1970s/1980s planes.

 

For me it looks like chosing some earlier variants, when this planes were still modern cutting edge technology [...]

 

F-14D, F-15, F-16, F-18, and Su-27 were still cutting edge technology in the 90s.

 

Flankers made their real debut in the 90s when they were mass exported and equipped with better situational awareness (datalink on every jet) and pretty much an equally capable missile mix to the best missiles the west had to offer, perhabs even superior (though limited by the old N001 radar). The F-22 only got into service in 2003.

 

Why always go back to the 80s. If youre worried about fun - i guarantee you that a 90s flanker vs a 90s AMRAAM bus with no Link16 is the most assymetrical and interesting fight you will ever have. Unfortunately DCS AI does not use the flankers very effectively, so this is more true in PvP, but still applies in PVE.

 

MiG-29 9.13S should do as well as Su-27 in a 90s environment if it sticks to its niche point defense role. Su-27/Su-30 was more of an allrounder as thus much more popular on the export market.

 

In short, ED shouldve made 90s hornets and F-16s, as should Razbam with F-15E. They shot themselves in the foot.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Max1mus

[bies]

1 hour ago, Max1mus said:

Unfortunately DCS AI does not use the flankers very effectively

At this moment DCS AI doesn't use any modern fighter effectively, the more modern (more complicated) the less efficient for obvious reasons.

 

When it comes to 1980s vs 1990s, well...

Russian military in 1990s was in massive decline and massively defounded and reduced.

All research facilities working for military lost founds and jobs.

Pilots had reduced training, planes had reduced maintenance, morale plunged, close to no modernisation was employed, close to no development of new devices, pilots and other personnel could sometimes not get their wages for months.

In the 1990s Russian pilots achieved approximately 10% of the flight hours of the United States Air Force - corners were being cut in every possible place.

 

1990s Russia lost not only some ~70% of it's equipment compared to Soviet aviation, but it lost also it's real readiness and was not able to wage any symmetrical conflict.

 

Russian military aircraft industry survived the 15 years of crisis almost exclusively through exports. Only in 2005 did the industry start to receive substantial financing from the state budge.

 

It was only after 2000-2005 when Russian military started to get back on it's feet - not even remotely close to Soviet levels - but at least having real combat readiness with assets which left. 1990s symmetrical conflict between Russia and NATO would be, for many reasons, "Marianna turkey shooting".

 

Obviously we can pretend it's some fictional conflict in fictional reality with kind-of-USSR-like-Russia but it's not going to be as moody as ready to strike Soviet empire with WARPAC (with some 7-10 times more force) - symmetrical opponent to NATO.

 

 

(BTW: Soviet Union operated ~300 Su-27 fighters and ~550 MiG-29.

 

( BTW2: all F-22 Raptor, Eurofighter, Rafale, MiG-1.44 - were meant to start replacing 4th Gen fighters in 1990s but all programs were massively defounded after USSR collapsed due to lack of possibly of real conflict.

It delayed F-22, EF, Rafale programs by some decade due to major reduction of founds and priority and Soviet 1.44 program collapsed completely due to total lack of founds in 1990s Russia. )

Edited February 14, 2021 by bies

[Mars Exulte]

1 hour ago, Max1mus said:

 

In short, ED shouldve made 90s hornets and F-16s, as should Razbam with F-15E. They shot themselves in the foot.

 

  Yeah, cause we can't restrict weapons or access to certain systems in the mission editor... oh wait. *facepalm* We can.

[*Rage*]

Why would ED make a less modern F18/F16 when they know a later block would sell much more? Do the developers not like paying off their mortgage or putting theirs kids through college?

 

Imagine if somehow they could do a FF Su35s/Su30SM, would you still be clammering for an original Su27/Su30? No.  

Edited February 14, 2021 by *Rage*

[Kev2go]

 

Short answer.

 

. IF ED really wanted to they could still include the AAS38 Nitehawk pod for Lot 20 hornet we already have for a more retro experience. Not simply out of the sake for making those who want older tech happy, but it was realistic for the time frame to still have Nitehawks in operation and not entirely phased out in the "circa 2005" timeframe for Legacy Hornets.

 

 

 

Long answer for historical context:

 

 

Remember than in 2005, the ATFLIR has not yet been acquired in significant enough quantity to replace the Nitehawks.

 

There is an old paper published by the USMC in 2006 : "The Next Marine Corps F/A-18 Targeting Pod: ATFLIR or LITENING?"

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a498288.pdf

 

The USMC was deciding whilst ATFLIR would be purchased for squadrons operating from carriers to have TGP commonality when sharing the deck with USN Hornets, whilst land based USMC Hornet squadrons would be getting Litening 2 AT's purchased.

 

The reasoning for this augmentation of using two pods was that Litening 2's were cheaper than ATFLIR, but were also available to be acquired at a faster pace. At the time the uSMc observed that Raytheon were unable to manufacture and deliver ATFLIRS fast enough pace needed to replace  then very dated AAS 38 Nitehawks.

 

USMC noted that by 2005 ( since 2003 production  of ATLFIRS first began in 2003) only 75 ATFLIR's were delivered by that point in time whereas in 2004 alone Northrup grumman had 400of 500 Litening 2 pods delivered.

Reality was during 2005 timeframe ATFLIR's were prioritized for Super Hornets ( at this point paper cites 250 Super Hornets were available in this year)  whilst legacies were still stuck to rely on Nitehawks since not enough ATFLIR's could be allocated to legacy Hornet squadrons during that timeframe. It is noted as an example in the above linked paper that a commander of USS JOhn F kennedy Strike group had testified to congress , complaining that limited number of ATFLIRS posed a problem. That his strike group of 34 Hornets only had 4 ATFLIRS available in inventory, wheras the rest of pods  in the Strike group had gone to Super Hornets.

 

 

[TotenDead]

39 минут назад, zhukov032186 сказал:

 

  Yeah, cause we can't restrict weapons or access to certain systems in the mission editor... oh wait. *facepalm* We can.

Really? How can we switch off F-16/18 datalink and decrease their radar ranges? 

[Max1mus]

6 minutes ago, *Rage* said:

Why would ED make a less modern F18/F16 when they know a later block would sell much more? Do the developers not like paying off their mortgage or putting theirs kids through college?

 

Imagine if somehow they could do a FF Su35s/Su30SM, would you still be clammering for an original Su27/Su30? No.  

 

 

Because the effort is lower, and it would be done shortly after release. They can then make more modules and make more money.

 

But what does it matter, ED did it and started applying "no more low fi" doctrine, despite knowing the sim does not have the redfor AI units or redfor flyable units for it.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Max1mus

[Mars Exulte]

Just now, TotenDead said:

Really? How can we switch off F-16/18 datalink and decrease their radar ranges? 

 

Ah, the trials and tribulations of airquake servers and their minmax playerbase =D

[*Rage*]

Just now, Max1mus said:

 

Because the effort is lower, and it would be done shortly after release. They can then make more modules and make more money.

You had better fly over and present this epic business plan. 

[TotenDead]

Только что, zhukov032186 сказал:

 

Ah, the trials and tribulations of airquake servers and their minmax playerbase =D

I'm sorry, but how is 1980s scenario equals airquake? Or do you think IT'S realistic to fly in 9.12 vs 2000s aircraft? 

[Mars Exulte]

Just now, *Rage* said:

You had better fly over and present this epic business plan. 

 

  I don't know why they bother with marketing and CEOs, when they could just take advantage of all this free talent on the forums! They constantly think of things that nobody else would possibly ever dream up!

[Gierasimov]

Proper austere operations modeling would give even the current DCS MiG-29 an interesting edge...

[Dudikoff]

13 minutes ago, *Rage* said:

Why would ED make a less modern F18/F16 when they know a later block would sell much more? Do the developers not like paying off their mortgage or putting theirs kids through college?

 

Imagine if somehow they could do a FF Su35s/Su30SM, would you still be clammering for an original Su27/Su30? No.  

 

Balance is not the main reason when asking for older F-16/18 variants. Some people would enjoy late Cold War scenarios where the airplanes were not that multi-role (so, single-role aircraft still existed), the weapons were less smart and missions were probably more adrenaline inducing.

 

Thus, IMHO, it would be great if ED would offer some older variants of Falcon and/or Hornet (kind of like A-10C II or the now defunct Ka-50 BS3).

Edited February 14, 2021 by Dudikoff

[Max1mus]

 

7 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

 

Ah, the trials and tribulations of airquake servers and their minmax playerbase =D

 

There are settings in the editor to disable Link16, blue flag does it for their 80s server.

 

But other than that, yes you cant change the radar, and removing JHMCS doesnt work properly. Airfield weapons and numbers of those also reset back to no restrictions every few patches, making restricting weapons impossible, without using scripts. And lets be real, is the average singleplayer dad simmer going to look up how to install scripts?

Edited February 14, 2021 by Max1mus

[Kev2go]

39 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

 

 

There are settings in the editor to disable Link16, blue flag does it for their 80s server.

 

But other than that, yes you cant change the radar, and removing JHMCS doesnt work properly. Airfield weapons and numbers of those also reset back to no restrictions every few patches, making restricting weapons impossible, without using scripts. And lets be real, is the average singleplayer dad simmer going to look up how to install scripts?

 

 

 

luckily for you the F16CM circa 2007 uses the same APG68 V5 radar that the F16C block 50 had they day it rolled off the production lines, which IIRC is also the same radar that the block40/42 had when they came out. AS for  the Hornet APG 73 vs  a 1980s era  APG65 im not sure if ED would be able to model the nuanced differences that pertain to A2A  to be noticeable apart A/G aspects of the radar by removing EXP 3 SAR mapping.

 

Becuase the APG73 is only a product improvement of the APG 65 and not a new next generation radar.  to quote Raytheon's product page " It is an upgrade of the APG-65 that provides higher throughputs, greater memory capacity, improved reliability, and easier maintenance without associated increases in size or weight."

 

I recall reading a paper of av8b harrier plus remanufacture program that noted eventually once spare parts ran out for APG65's since it already shares 3 module sets in common with new APG73., once apg65 spare parts ran out, there was an option to move to using APG73 logistics of replace the other 3  components of the APG65  ( the exiter/reciever, target data processor, and computer power supply )  in the future would put those  APG 65 produced radars on par with new APG73 productions.

 

 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/222126.pdf

Edited February 14, 2021 by Kev2go

[*Rage*]

28 minutes ago, Dudikoff said:

 

Balance is not the main reason when asking for older F-16/18 variants. Some people would enjoy late Cold War scenarios where the airplanes were not that multi-role (so, single-role aircraft still existed), the weapons were less smart and missions were probably more adrenaline inducing.

 

Thus, IMHO, it would be great if ED would offer some older variants of Falcon and/or Hornet (kind of like A-10C II or the now defunct Ka-50 BS3).

 

I agree. I love the 3rd gen cold war stuff. 

 

I'm just saying between a block 15 and block 50 or a Su27s and a Su35s I know which is the more appealing to the greater audience and ergo the development time. 

 

I'm under no doubt that if, if, ED could model a Mig35 over a Mig29A they absolutely would. 

[dundun92]

@Kev2go I think that was a reference to how badly over performing the DCS F-16/18 radars are. APG-68 should not use HPRF in RWS/TWS (only in VS), yet it does and has nearly double the detection range it should because of it; the DCS APG-73 radar is better performing than the much newer and more powerful PESA N011M Bars IRL. The RL APG-73 was said to have less range that the AMRAAM, as in AMRAAM range was outside max radar range; even using Rmax, this is nowhere near the case in DCS.

Edited February 14, 2021 by dundun92

[Kev2go]

13 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

@Kev2go I think that was a reference to how badly over performing the DCS F-16/18 radars are. APG-68 should not use HPRF in RWS/TWS (only in VS), yet it does and has nearly double the detection range it should because of it; the DCS APG-73 radar is better performing than the much newer and more powerful PESA N011M Bars IRL. The RL APG-73 was said to have less range that the AMRAAM, as in AMRAAM range was outside max radar range; even using Rmax, this is nowhere near the case in DCS.

 

 

 

yeah in detection ranges the APG 68 V5 seems to perform better than the APG 68 v9 would. since ive seen calculated estimates say air target  with an RCS of 1m^2  for the v9 would be around 35-40nm at best if memory served me right. Indeed  IRL between two  APG73 > APG68 v5. 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Kev2go

[dundun92]

35 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

 

yeah in detection ranges the APG 68 V5 seems to perform better than the APG 68 v9 would. since ive seen calculated estimates say air target  with an RCS of 1m^2  for the v9 would be around 35-40nm at best if memory served me right. Indeed  IRL between two  APG73 > APG68 v5. 

 

Yep, according to this paper the V9 range is 38nm vs 1m^2:

 

Factor in that the V9 had a claimed 33% improvement in detection range over the V5, and using 5m^2 target, you get a 43nm detection range vs 5m^2 for the V5. Thats considerably less than in DCS, where youd be detecting a 5m2 at 65+nm.

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by dundun92

[Kev2go]

10 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

Yep, according to this paper the V9 range is 38nm vs 1m^2:

 

Factor in that the V9 had a claimed 33% improvement in detection range over the V5, and using 5m^2 target, you get a 43nm detection range vs 5m^2 for the V5. Thats far, far less than in DCS, where youd be detecting a 5m2 at 60-70+nm.

 

 

 

 

ahh yes that was the paper. 

[bies]

1 hour ago, *Rage* said:

Why would ED make a less modern F18/F16 when they know a later block would sell much more?

1. Because it would sell exactly the same. 99% of the people don't have even slightest idea what is the difference between "F/A-18C Lot 20" and "F/A-18C Lot 10". They simply buy Hornet. Lot 10 and Lot 20 would sell the same.
2. Because to model Lot 20 ED needs ~4 years of development and to model Lot 10 some ~2 years of development.

[bies]

2 hours ago, *Rage* said:

Imagine if somehow they could do a FF Su35s/Su30SM, would you still be clammering for an original Su27/Su30? No. 

 

I would buy original Su-27S (just like MiG-29 9.12) in a blink of an eye for whatever price they would choose.

 

Su-35? Guestimated, unrealistic with fictional, made up strictly classified avionics, simplified systems, with boring BVR-truck combat identical with every other AMRAAM+datalink aircraft, not seeing any enemy just the blip on the radar? Meh, I'm wouldn't be interested.

Edited February 14, 2021 by bies

[dundun92]

14 minutes ago, bies said:

I'm wouldn't be interested.

Granted you wouldnt, and thats fine. To each their own. But im not sure the majority of DCS players would say the same. Personally, I find AMRAAM BVR to be rather interesting in a coordinated NvN (e,g 2v2, 4v4, 6v6 etc), but thats just me. But I think we all know that something like a Su-35 would sell really well