Jump to content

Please add More Russian missile / Russian jet or Chinese missile / Chinese jet please


Eagle 1-6

Recommended Posts

Disclaimer : In this topic I only want to disguss user experience, DCS, and Technology, if you wanna say something related to politics, nationalists, and even up to humiliation, please leave this topic.

 

I started DCS for quite a while now, I've been a flight simmer for 2 year now, and I Flew J11A, SU27, SU33, F14, F15, F16 and a little bit of F18, and all of them, great planes.  So thanks ED and other third party studios  for making all the planes and terrains.

 

So, as everyone known, In DCS, the most favoured planes of all time are the F16 and F18 and F14, because the have great datalink and Weapons such as AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, Aim-54 ect.  But because ED spent a lot of time on these Blue side Jets and thus, the Red side Jets such as the Chinese J11A, Russian SU27 and SU33 didn't take as much care as the Blue side jets. So this Made the selection of planes very one sided.

 

So In reality, the load out of an J11A or J11B will be the Chinese PL8, PL9, PL12. For J15, armarment will be PL-8, PL-12 and YJ-83 antihip missiles

 

For russian side, SU33 will carry Kh-31A Kh-41 antihip missiles

And SU30 have the ability to carry R27P (passive RDR) and R27EA, R27EM ect.

For SU35 it has the capability of firing R37, long range FOX 3 missile

 

I understand every time ED make a new thing out it takes a lot of time and man our, and I heard ED used 20000 USD just for make a truck for the game. As Gamer, I fully understand all the problems and issue that ED has, but for the missiles for example PL series, it has been already developed, So ED just need to add them to the Planes. For the SU35, SU30, ED can make a completely new module out and with detailed cockpit and have a price around 40-80 USD. Because I still believe a lot of people In this community still want to see more Russian and Chinese Jets come out, and compete with A diverse types of plane Instead just killing people with AMRAAMs and Sidedwinders

 

Specific for R37 long range active Radar homing missile, I know it is a concern that it will break the balance of the game, So ED don't neccesary need to add this to the Game

 

But at last, I want to say, because the diverse collection of Aircrafts and weapons, this game became extraordinary attractive, so I think Add more Russian and Chinese Weapons will actually in prove the user experince for both blue side and red side For red side, it will be more balanced and players have chance to experience more missiles and find more fresh things. For blue side players, it will be a great challenge for them and therefore there'll be more intense engagement, and because the variaty of missile and planes, there will be a variaty of tactics, this might even refresh the entire game.

 

As I said ED need to cost a lot of things for creating a new object, but ED can choose to cooprate with third party or even the DCS community to seperate the work load and let more people dive in to the development.

 

So thanks for reading, feel free to leave comments below, and hope ED will conern about these things, and hope ED for reply that will be massive aprreciated thx 😄

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED and Deka developed the free Chinese Assets Pack, which includes the H-6J, J-11A, KJ-2000 and the WingLoong drone. In addition, Deka developed the JF-17 (which is a separate purchase Module) with the same level of fidelity as the Hornet and F-16.

The pack also includes the 052B, 052C, 054A, 071 and 093 ships ... that's more than what DCS has for countries like UK or France.

Other items are the HQ7 SAM system, the PZL05 howitzer, the ZBD-04A personnel carrier,  and the ZTZ-96B tank; plus a coouple dozens chinese weapons.

So, it seems to me that China is already well represented on DCS, but of course more is always better  🙂

  • Like 1

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eagle 1-6 said:

Disclaimer : In this topic I only want to disguss user experience, DCS, and Technology, if you wanna say something related to politics, nationalists, and even up to humiliation, please leave this topic.

 

I started DCS for quite a while now, I've been a flight simmer for 2 year now, and I Flew J11A, SU27, SU33, F14, F15, F16 and a little bit of F18, and all of them, great planes.  So thanks ED and other third party studios  for making all the planes and terrains.

 

So, as everyone known, In DCS, the most favoured planes of all time are the F16 and F18 and F14, because the have great datalink and Weapons such as AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, Aim-54 ect.  But because ED spent a lot of time on these Blue side Jets and thus, the Red side Jets such as the Chinese J11A, Russian SU27 and SU33 didn't take as much care as the Blue side jets. So this Made the selection of planes very one sided.

 

So In reality, the load out of an J11A or J11B will be the Chinese PL8, PL9, PL12. For J15, armarment will be PL-8, PL-12 and YJ-83 antihip missiles

 

For russian side, SU33 will carry Kh-31A Kh-41 antihip missiles

And SU30 have the ability to carry R27P (passive RDR) and R27EA, R27EM ect.

For SU35 it has the capability of firing R37, long range FOX 3 missile

 

I understand every time ED make a new thing out it takes a lot of time and man our, and I heard ED used 20000 USD just for make a truck for the game. As Gamer, I fully understand all the problems and issue that ED has, but for the missiles for example PL series, it has been already developed, So ED just need to add them to the Planes. For the SU35, SU30, ED can make a completely new module out and with detailed cockpit and have a price around 40-80 USD. Because I still believe a lot of people In this community still want to see more Russian and Chinese Jets come out, and compete with A diverse types of plane Instead just killing people with AMRAAMs and Sidedwinders

 

Specific for R37 long range active Radar homing missile, I know it is a concern that it will break the balance of the game, So ED don't neccesary need to add this to the Game

 

But at last, I want to say, because the diverse collection of Aircrafts and weapons, this game became extraordinary attractive, so I think Add more Russian and Chinese Weapons will actually in prove the user experince for both blue side and red side For red side, it will be more balanced and players have chance to experience more missiles and find more fresh things. For blue side players, it will be a great challenge for them and therefore there'll be more intense engagement, and because the variaty of missile and planes, there will be a variaty of tactics, this might even refresh the entire game.

 

As I said ED need to cost a lot of things for creating a new object, but ED can choose to cooprate with third party or even the DCS community to seperate the work load and let more people dive in to the development.

 

So thanks for reading, feel free to leave comments below, and hope ED will conern about these things, and hope ED for reply that will be massive aprreciated thx 😄

Eagle isn't concerned about balance, their main concern is about simulating aircraft accurately, so if an aircraft was OP in real life compared to contemporaries it will be OP in  DCS. The issue with Russian and Chinese aircraft is the available documentation, so we are limited to cold war aircraft. So  if the Flanker that we have what amounts to what ever the Russian term for a block 10  flanker  or fulcrum would be and if the weapons you brought up don't don't get added until the block 40 then we're not going to get them.  One of the mistakes Eagle made with DCS IMHO, was they should have paid more attention to balance when selecting the F-16 or F/A-18 variants as balance would be a side effect of modeling contemporary variants. So unless the weapons in question are used by the older variants we have, the best we can get would be to see them on AI. 


Edited by upyr1
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/2/2022 at 10:18 AM, upyr1 said:

their main concern is about simulating aircraft accurately

The problem with this statement is that skewing the play field between coalitions by limiting one coalition to tech from decades earlier is not an accurate simulation. If they aren't concerned about the balance of content, they are going to limit their product's practical quality to a cockpit clicking experience. As many many others have said, it's otherwise a bit of seal clubbing experience.

A temporary bending of blurred lines, like allowing a few fictional fittings (of which some might not be so fictional) until something more appropriate like a set of full fidelity modules comes around, would be a wise promotion of engagement. It's also an extremely easy fix, or unfix in some cases.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FusRoPotato said:

The problem with this statement is that skewing the play field between coalitions by limiting one coalition to tech from decades earlier is not an accurate simulation. If they aren't concerned about the balance of content, they are going to limit their product's practical quality to a cockpit clicking experience. As many many others have said, it's otherwise a bit of seal clubbing experience.

A temporary bending of blurred lines, like allowing a few fictional fittings (of which some might not be so fictional) until something more appropriate like a set of full fidelity modules comes around, would be a wise promotion of engagement. It's also an extremely easy fix, or unfix in some cases.

I'm not going to argue that balance isn't a problem with DCS, I'm critical of this aspect of DCS as well. However I don't believe the answer is sacrificing realism. Instead the answer is three fold

  • Add more cold war modules. 
  • Add new RedFor in as AI. 
  • support the modding community

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2022 at 5:07 PM, Eagle 1-6 said:

So, as everyone known, In DCS, the most favoured planes of all time are the F16 and F18 and F14, because the have great datalink and Weapons such as AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, Aim-54 ect.

That's not the only reason why these planes are well liked.

On 6/2/2022 at 5:07 PM, Eagle 1-6 said:

 But because ED spent a lot of time on these Blue side Jets and thus, the Red side Jets such as the Chinese J11A, Russian SU27 and SU33 didn't take as much care as the Blue side jets. So this Made the selection of planes very one sided.

The Su-27S and Su-33 come from FC3, which is essentially LOMAC FC2 ported and upgraded to DCS. The J-11A was more or less a third-party mod, based off of the Su-27S.

These aircraft are low-fidelity by design, which is why there wasn't as much "care" taken with them.

The reason it went a bit one-sided is because ED seems to go with developing the latest and greatest modules they feasibly can. However, it's going to be very hard to near impossible to get contemporary Chinese or Russian aircraft, but this has more to do with a lack of accessible documentation and legal reasons - those 2 alone are pretty big showstoppers for developing a module and unfortunately they're unlikely to change any time soon.

Deka was looking at doing a Su-30MKK, but a lack of documentation meant that it couldn't be done. The latest full-fidelity Russian, fixed-wing aircraft planned is the 9-12 MiG-29 from the early 80s (which IRL only has the R-27R, R-60M and R-73), but even that is in a 'hope-to' state.

On 6/2/2022 at 5:07 PM, Eagle 1-6 said:

So In reality, the load out of an J11A or J11B will be the Chinese PL8, PL9, PL12. For J15, armarment will be PL-8, PL-12 and YJ-83 antihip missiles

The J-11A we have right now best represent the initial variant, which more or less has the capabilities of the Su-27SK. As far as air-to-air missiles go that means R-27 series (i.e R-27R/ER/T/ET)

That means R-27 series (R/ER/T/ET) and the R-73. It's been given the R-77 (which it kinda shouldn't have for the version its supposed to be), but uboats has said no to adding the PL-12).

We don't have a J-11B or a J-15.

On 6/2/2022 at 5:07 PM, Eagle 1-6 said:

For russian side, SU33 will carry Kh-31A Kh-41 antihip missiles

Source? Because the only things I can find are what our module currently has.

There are airshows with a Kh-41 hanging underneath it, but as I understand it the Kh-41 was never operational and the images from airshows depicting one hanging underneath one is a mockup.

See here.

On 6/2/2022 at 5:07 PM, Eagle 1-6 said:

And SU30 have the ability to carry R27P (passive RDR) and R27EA, R27EM ect.

IIRC our Su-30 is a Su-30KN and the weapons it has available look fairly accurate from the limited information I can find.

On 6/2/2022 at 5:07 PM, Eagle 1-6 said:

For SU35 it has the capability of firing R37, long range FOX 3 missile

Yes, but again, we're very unlikely to see a Su-35 any time soon.

On 6/2/2022 at 5:07 PM, Eagle 1-6 said:

For the SU35, SU30, ED can make a completely new module out and with detailed cockpit and have a price around 40-80 USD. Because I still believe a lot of people In this community still want to see more Russian and Chinese Jets come out, and compete with A diverse types of plane Instead just killing people with AMRAAMs and Sidedwinders

Can they though?

Again, the latest aircraft planned is a 9-12 MiG-29 from the early 80s and even that is in a hope-to state.

Deka did kinda tease a J-10, which would be brilliant, but I'll believe it when I see it.

On 6/2/2022 at 5:07 PM, Eagle 1-6 said:

Specific for R37 long range active Radar homing missile, I know it is a concern that it will break the balance of the game, So ED don't neccesary need to add this to the Game

DCS World doesn't really have balance as part of its design.

On 6/2/2022 at 5:07 PM, Eagle 1-6 said:

But at last, I want to say, because the diverse collection of Aircrafts and weapons, this game became extraordinary attractive, so I think Add more Russian and Chinese Weapons will actually in prove the user experince for both blue side and red side For red side, it will be more balanced and players have chance to experience more missiles and find more fresh things. For blue side players, it will be a great challenge for them and therefore there'll be more intense engagement, and because the variaty of missile and planes, there will be a variaty of tactics, this might even refresh the entire game.

I'm sure it will, but the likelihood of us actually getting contemporary Russian and Chinese aircraft is pretty much close to zero.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FusRoPotato said:

The problem with this statement is that skewing the play field between coalitions by limiting one coalition to tech from decades earlier is not an accurate simulation.

It's not exactly an artificial limitation - for the overwhelming most part it's because it simply isn't feasible to make Russian and Chinese modules that are contemporaries with our more modern US modules.

This does highlight one of the more major grievances I have with DCS - that it's kinda a mile wide but an inch deep. I won't go into it here, but if you're interested, see this thread.

5 hours ago, FusRoPotato said:

If they aren't concerned about the balance of content, they are going to limit their product's practical quality to a cockpit clicking experience.

I don't agree, I'd much rather have modules, assets and maps that are coherent. Any form of balance should only exist as a byproduct.

While there is a running joke that DCS should stand for 'Digital Cockpit Simulator', it's not because of a lack of balance and more to do with core game functionality (though recently there has been major improvements to the AI, but so far only 1v1 BVR and BFM).

5 hours ago, FusRoPotato said:

A temporary bending of blurred lines, like allowing a few fictional fittings (of which some might not be so fictional) until something more appropriate like a set of full fidelity modules comes around, would be a wise promotion of engagement. It's also an extremely easy fix, or unfix in some cases.

Well, this is a quote from DCS' product description:

Quote

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.

While they're not always successful at achieving this goal, it is the name and the game here.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think stuffing an SD-10 on a J11A or an R77-1 on a Su-33 is a drop in the bucket compared to FC3 as a whole, AI coms, the coms menu, RCS, AI awareness, AI flight, radar penalties, and IR signatures... That fictional fitting might not be real lipstick, but it is lipstick. The rest of those issues are just problems only.

The mistake here is framing it as a commitment to balanced gameplay. It could also be framed as committing to a realistic experience for the types of combat these modern modules might face. To get that experience, we must pit JF-17's against JF-17's, cuz we aren't allowed to pretend a J-11A is actually a J-11B. That's kinda the whole purpose of a simulator, to pretend experiencing something real lipstick with some trickery and hand-wavium where necessary.


Edited by FusRoPotato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FusRoPotato said:

I think stuffing an SD-10 on a J11A or an R77-1 on a Su-33 is a drop in the bucket compared to FC3 as a whole, AI coms, the coms menu, RCS, AI awareness, AI flight, radar penalties, and IR signatures... That fictional fitting might not be real lipstick, but it is lipstick. The rest of those issues are just problems only.

The mistake here is framing it as a commitment to balanced gameplay. It could also be framed as committing to a realistic experience for the types of combat these modern modules might face. To get that experience, we must pit JF-17's against JF-17's, cuz we aren't allowed to pretend a J-11A is actually a J-11B. That's kinda the whole purpose of a simulator, to pretend experiencing something real lipstick with some trickery and hand-wavium where necessary.

 

As I said earlier if we can't get a module we should be happy with mods and AI. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2022 at 6:26 AM, upyr1 said:

As I said earlier if we can't get a module we should be happy with mods and AI. 

Yep, we have to work with what we have. We can't make every possible scenario like most modern Blue vs Red right from the box but we can make many others, mostly solving it in the ME. What if the 80s Redfor has tight impenetrable IADS and send more seals than you're able to club?

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, draconus said:

Yep, we have to work with what we have. We can't make every possible scenario like most modern Blue vs Red right from the box but we can make many others, mostly solving it in the ME. What if the 80s Redfor has tight impenetrable IADS and send more seals than you're able to club?

I wonder why would we stay at that?

I see no reason why not getting 77-1, it will be no less realistic than AMRAAM.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would tell everyone that I want more advanced red aircrafts and missiles, as well as telling everyone who also want those, that it's impossible. I know the legal and confidential problem maybe more than most guys opposing the thought, but I have to say, having these desire is nothing strange. That's not originated from unrealistic greed but natural thought.

Balance is not always necessary but there's no need to oppose it. Realistic first, but we still want something to fight against when flying in the more and more blue aircrafts, or to fly against the blue guys, especially with the supersonic cruising toys with ram-jet missiles coming in years. Surely you can admit the unbalanced situation and just fight with it, or set homotype combats, or just ban it to make PvP possible. But it would be better to have a double-pulse missile as its counterpart, to make the tactical experience more spectacular and practical. The realistic tactics is also realistic, while not having the red counterparts would transfer more difficulties to the mission makers. 

And I would never agree that if we can't get a module we should be happy with mods and AI. We can't command ourselves to be happy when we are actually not. If we should be happy with anything we have when we want something more, then we can stop the updates right now. What we have should always be thought as enough, right? In my missions I would still try to make best use of what we have, and I would try to use what I have to fight against any strong opponents, but that doesn't prevent me to hope for more and better. We know it's hard but we still hope something better.

Again I'm sure it's impossible in any near future and it may not be suitable to appear in the practical wishlist. But I'm still wishing a way to lawfully change the situation.

Human allowed, demon allowed, Deka never allowed.

Distort allowed, provoke allowed, fight back never allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also note, in circa 2005 timeframe (where most of our advanced blue assets belong) the red forces were behind the times, with latest tech being scarce and most common gear stuck in the 1990s. China was still deep in the catching up phase back then, and Russia still didn't shake off the fall of the USSR. The most advanced Russian equipment actually ended up in India, hardly a "red" country at that time.

Myself, I'd rather have a proper 80s-90s lineup. Top Gun, USSR as a real threat, plenty of actual and potential flashpoints to fly in. Plus, WVR combat was the rule, not the exception at the time, though you could still get Fox 1 kills in BVR, or fly the Tomcat and shoot AIM-54s.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Also note, in circa 2005 timeframe (where most of our advanced blue assets belong) the red forces were behind the times, with latest tech being scarce and most common gear stuck in the 1990s. China was still deep in the catching up phase back then, and Russia still didn't shake off the fall of the USSR. The most advanced Russian equipment actually ended up in India, hardly a "red" country at that time.

Myself, I'd rather have a proper 80s-90s lineup. Top Gun, USSR as a real threat, plenty of actual and potential flashpoints to fly in. Plus, WVR combat was the rule, not the exception at the time, though you could still get Fox 1 kills in BVR, or fly the Tomcat and shoot AIM-54s.

I don't see Eagle going back and doing the As and early Cs (except maybe with the F-15) however could we at least have a historical mode applied to the weapons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the F-16A doesn't need to be ED, it's different enough that it might well be made by someone else. Systems in particular are nothing alike, it had a HUD from the A-7, a weird segmented display for the SMS system, a radar scope not unlike the Mirage, no DED and a TACAN panel where the Block 50 has an IFF panel. Basically, after finishing the A-7, Flying Iron will have as much background needed to make it as ED does. Weapons are easy, too, basically the gun, dumb bombs, heaters and maybe buddy-lased LGBs. 

Hornet, well, I'll manage, we have the Tomcat. 🙂 The A is not that different, anyway. And early F-15C might be on ED's radar. Would love the A model, but meh. We're getting (eventually) a MiG-29A. Given the other modules already in, a pretty nice lineup.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not get me wrong, but I would say this topic is about mostly modern stuff for red side, which is under-represented, not about blue-fore aircraft 70s bluefor aircraft.

Hitting F-16 with another F-16 is neither realistic nor fun. This dis-balance needs to be fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. Or rather, we should get more older stuff for the blue side. In the mid-2000s era, truly modern red stuff for most part didn't exist. For those few aircraft that did exist, no information is available, because "red" countries are not forthcoming with the data. Even then, these aircraft were in short supply back then. Even the Su-30MKK is a 1997 design, though it's somewhat fancier than what the Su-27S started with in the 70s. Yes, it would be nice, but the data is classified. It's not possible for us to get modern-ish red aircraft. I suggest you embrace the 70s. 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like a nice balanced opposition in DCS just like everyone else. But I am also well aware of the limitations that come with a full fidelity simulator where the required licenses and data play a big factor in the development of new modules. So the best realistic option to lawfully change the situation would be to focus on older aircraft which are typically are unclassified or the aircraft origin.

Just the other day there was post asking for more UK aircraft. That reminded me that the UK has produced several aircraft like the Hawker Hunter that were used by several middle eastern air forces. Which would make great redfore aircraft alternatives.  Alternatives like that may very well have to be the next best thing.

Anyone else have some other alternative redfore suggestions that are not Russian or Chinese built?

 

 

712-jordan-0605.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Well, the F-16A doesn't need to be ED, it's different enough that it might well be made by someone else. Systems in particular are nothing alike, it had a HUD from the A-7, a weird segmented display for the SMS system, a radar scope not unlike the Mirage, no DED and a TACAN panel where the Block 50 has an IFF panel. Basically, after finishing the A-7, Flying Iron will have as much background needed to make it as ED does. Weapons are easy, too, basically the gun, dumb bombs, heaters and maybe buddy-lased LGBs. 

Hornet, well, I'll manage, we have the Tomcat. 🙂 The A is not that different, anyway. And early F-15C might be on ED's radar. Would love the A model, but meh. We're getting (eventually) a MiG-29A. Given the other modules already in, a pretty nice lineup.

I think Eagle is the most likely to do a early Falcons and Hornets. As they have those modules to start with. The main reason I think they are unlikely to do them for a while is I expect them to work on other things first.

Just ask yourself if you had the choice between let's say the Tornado and the F-16A or an early C, which do you get?

How about the F-16A and F-105 and F-84?

Interest in the early f-teens would be inversely related to the price.

 

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

No, it doesn't. Or rather, we should get more older stuff for the blue side. In the mid-2000s era, truly modern red stuff for most part didn't exist. For those few aircraft that did exist, no information is available, because "red" countries are not forthcoming with the data. Even then, these aircraft were in short supply back then. Even the Su-30MKK is a 1997 design, though it's somewhat fancier than what the Su-27S started with in the 70s. Yes, it would be nice, but the data is classified. It's not possible for us to get modern-ish red aircraft. I suggest you embrace the 70s. 🙂

 (Cranking up black Sabbath and Lead Zeppelin)

Give me a century fighter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Yes, it would be nice, but the data is classified. It's not possible for us to get modern-ish red aircraft. I suggest you embrace the 70s. 🙂

No sorry 70s will just not do it, besides the "missing" aircraft did exist and fly in modern timeframe. As for building something that there is no documentation for look no further than AMRAAM. By using the same principles 77-1 can be included as well.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

No sorry 70s will just not do it, besides the "missing" aircraft did exist and fly in modern timeframe. As for building something that there is no documentation for look no further than AMRAAM. By using the same principles 77-1 can be included as well.

 

Can you tell me what versions of the Flanker and Fulcrum carry the R-77? The issue is documentation on the aircraft. I think we have enough information to do AI versions 


Edited by upyr1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Can you tell me what versions of the Flanker and Fulcrum carry the R-77? The issue is documentation on the aircraft. I think we have enough information to do AI versions 

Mig-29SM for instance, mind that is one old airframe, one of those claimed in this forum to be "unupgradable".

null

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...