Any chance for a Yak-38 in the future after MiG-29?

[Silver_Dragon]

On rusian forum talk about Yak-58, no plans and low interest to build them.

 

[IcedVenom]

On 7/5/2021 at 12:51 PM, Mars Exulte said:

  I wasn't hostile. What do you want, fireworks and a song?

 

   I responded to the OP, ie what the thread is actually about, I don't really care what 47 other people's thoughts on the same thing are, I was commenting MY thoughts.

I don't care about your thoughts either.

[IcedVenom]

22 hours ago, rossmum said:

 

20 minutes isn't really too bad - that's about my average MiG-19/21 sortie on the Cold War server, honestly (yes, it can stay up for longer, but there's usually no need on there). I'd love to have a 38 regardless of its somewhat unfavourable comparison to the Harrier, it was an interesting little aircraft and would add something genuinely unique to DCS. We might already have a VTOL, but we don't have anything that achieves it with lift jets.

I very much agree with you. I did not want there to be discussion between the two aircraft because it would result in NATO fanboys getting upset by anyone even considering comparing the two aircraft and that they are not meant to fight one another. Yak-38 is more meant to be used to oppose naval units with anti-ship manually-guided missiles and uncontested AWACS. Harrier eventually developed into a much more capable aircraft obviously, but this took time, money, and operated under a very different philosophy. It's like what someone said about Soviet carriers acting as ships first which provide its own anti-air capabilities. It's such a pointless comparison which is why it's just a waste of time for everyone involved. If you are going to make comparisons, make them with the Harrier GR.3, not the much more modern Sea Harrier we have in DCS. There is nothing wrong with getting more opposition to NATO in DCS, even if it's not brand new. But also, there are many people such as myself who are very much interested in Soviet doctrine when it comes to naval-based VTOL aircraft and anti-ship operations. It's something that could be utilized in the brand new Marianas map as well.

[rkk01]

15 minutes ago, IcedVenom said:

If you are going to make comparisons, make them with the Harrier GR.3, not the much more modern Sea Harrier we have in DCS.

OK, so I’d agree that the Harrier GR3 is a close contemporary to the Yak - late 60s / early 70s…

 

The Sea Harrier isn’t that much more modern though - late 70s for the FRS1… but sadly we don’t have the Sea Harrier in DCS, despite Razbam teasing a 3D model and showing off a visually stunning South Atlantic / Falklands map
 

 

 

[Northstar98]

20 hours ago, IcedVenom said:

I very much agree with you. I did not want there to be discussion between the two aircraft because it would result in NATO fanboys getting upset by anyone even considering comparing the two aircraft and that they are not meant to fight one another.

 

Well, we have a sandbox, and the Invincible class and the Kiev are broadly similar in their roles concerning ASW. Though the Kiev puts much more emphasis on ASuW, and is more capable in general. 

 

20 hours ago, IcedVenom said:

Yak-38 is more meant to be used to oppose naval units with anti-ship manually-guided missiles and uncontested AWACS.

 

Meh, I'd say it's a little bit of air defence, mostly ground attack and a bit of anti-ship. But if you're facing off against a ship with Sea Sparrow or better, you can kinda forget about it, unless you're very tactical about it, and rely on EW (which isn't really a thing in DCS, especially against ships).

 

For AEW&C the Soviets didn't have anything, they'd have to rely on land based aircraft, the A-50 came in 1986, before that was the Tu-126, with no look-down capability (an aircraft I would also like to see as an AI aircraft, as it's the Soviet AEW&C aircraft for the mid 60s-mid 80s.

 

Apart from that, they'd have to rely on ships - with the most capable ship based RADAR being the MR-600 "Voskhod" [NATO: "Top Sail"] and MR-710 "Fregat" [NATO: "Top Steer"].

 

20 hours ago, IcedVenom said:

If you are going to make comparisons, make them with the Harrier GR.3, not the much more modern Sea Harrier we have in DCS.

 

We don't have a Sea Harrier in DCS, we have a mid 2010s AV-8B Harrier II (Night Attack). The FRS.1 is 1979, the Yak-38 is 1977, and the Yak-38M is 1986 AFAIK.

 

The only Sea Harriers are the FRS.1 and FA.2 - the former being 1979-1995 and was then upgraded to the latter from 1995 and retired in 2005. Though you can kinda argue that the AV-8B Harrier II+ is essentially a Sea Harrier equivalent for the Harrier II, though that's not the aircraft we have.

 

The GR.3 and the FRS.1 broadly have the exact same A/A capabilities, the FRS.1 just has a RADAR (but would have AEW&C aircraft, and have essentially a ship based GCI).

 

20 hours ago, IcedVenom said:

There is nothing wrong with getting more opposition to NATO in DCS, even if it's not brand new. But also, there are many people such as myself who are very much interested in Soviet doctrine when it comes to naval-based VTOL aircraft and anti-ship operations. It's something that could be utilized in the brand new Marianas map as well.

 

Absolutely agreed.

 

Personally, I don't really care about balance or capabilities, I'm much more interested in having assets that are contemporaries of each other, on maps that and fit, preferably to within ±5 years. And seeing as my preferred era is the mid to late Cold War (which I define as the early 70s - late 80s), the Yak-38/38M gets my vote.

 

That said, it doesn't sit particularly highly on my list as far as a FF module is concerned - I'd rather have other Soviet Cold War aircraft (like MiG-23 variants, Su-17, Su-25 etc) and Cold War BLUFOR aircraft (F-16A Block 15, F-111F, Phantom FGR.2, Buccaneer S.2B, Tornado GR.1, Sea Harrier FRS.1). Plus, the Yak-38 doesn't make any sense IMO without the naval assets. Most importantly, the Pr. 1143 [Kiev class] heavy aviation cruisers, as well as most of the other ships I mentioned here.

 

That and improvements to the whole naval environment as a whole.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Northstar98

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

A Forger would be awesome. It's a paradoxical aircraft in that for every serious shortcoming it had in performance, it had some neat trickery about it else where. It really lacks a lot of comparison. However, a Yak-38 is a tall order since an accurate representation and authentic experience hinges on the inclusion of a Kiev class, as well.

[reichenwald]

I’m glad the Yak-38 is in the works and I would definitely buy it. @cubanaceDo you have access to a museum pice or something similar for things like the cockpit? 

[cubanace]

1 hour ago, reichenwald said:

I’m glad the Yak-38 is in the works and I would definitely buy it. @cubanaceDo you have access to a museum pice or something similar for things like the cockpit? 

Yes We found one and have access to the cockpit as well the only problem is that i live in the United States and i have to travel to Russia to meet up in the museum,i already had plans of visiting russia so im excited about this opportunity. 

 

Here are some preview pics of the exterior modeling.

[cubanace]

some progress.

[upyr1]

29 minutes ago, cubanace said:

some progress.

I hope this can go official as I would love to hand you my money

[BalticDude]

On 5/27/2022 at 7:55 AM, upyr1 said:

I hope this can go official as I would love to hand you my money

The cockpit glass and model are blatantly wrong. I'm afraid we might never get a proper Yak-38 because of this clown.

[Cab]

35 minutes ago, BalticDude said:

I'm afraid we might never get a proper Yak-38 because of this clown.

Wow, that seems needlessly harsh. It’s not like anyone’s making you pay for it, or even use/see it. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Cab

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, BalticDude said:

The cockpit glass and model are blatantly wrong. I'm afraid we might never get a proper Yak-38 because of this clown.

what changes should he make?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

3 hours ago, BalticDude said:

The cockpit glass and model are blatantly wrong. I'm afraid we might never get a proper Yak-38 because of this clown.

Thank you, very cool.

[Sneethe]

Yak would be an instant buy from me, especially with the upcoming Kola map. But its experience really depends on a lot of extra stuff like high quality ATC, a supercarrier level Kiev-class, cold war naval assets, possibly ASW etc. Since the yak is weak on its own compared to non-vtol contemporaries it really needs the full package and context to shine so I doubt we'd ever see it, even if I wish we did.

[F-2]

So I tried to see if the government had anything on the Yak-141 and by extension the Yak-38 from the JSF deal. But it seems they only have sim technical briefings. It seems you would have to get in contact with Lockheed.

[BalticDude]

Maybe because American companies have info on the Yak that ED could find a way to bring it to DCS. We have a blue VTOL but no red VTOL jet idk why not yet.

[cubanace]

On 7/5/2021 at 10:32 AM, drPhibes said:

Don't hold your breath. His track record is not particularly good (to put it mildly). He has announced, and then cancelled, too many projects to count.

 

I was inexperienced and way over my head thinking I could tackle any aircraft by my self and no team, my apologies.

 

On 7/7/2021 at 6:15 PM, reichenwald said:

I’m glad the Yak-38 is in the works and I would definitely buy it. @cubanaceDo you have access to a museum pice or something similar for things like the cockpit? 

Yes I already gathered all data and pictures necessary, I am now in the process of translating all documents from Russian to English for programming purposess.

Edited July 8, 2024 by cubanace
Edit