Wo hoo!

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

56 minutes ago, Alexmarine said:

 

If they release a MiG-17F with those features as that post I'll be more than satisfied, especially for the UB-16-57 pods. 

17s served well into the early 80s as fighter-bombers for some Warsaw Pact countries and that's what I am the most interested in playing as in DCS. With hopefully a Su-17M coming one day too we get closer to slowly fill the soviet fighter-bombers aviation cold war line-up (we would need a Su-7 and a MiG-27 though...)

Well, we aren't getting Atolls as that list indicated. They can't find the needed documentation for a 17AS.

Bit of a let down, but oh well.

[Alexmarine]

28 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Well, we aren't getting Atolls as that list indicated. They can't find the needed documentation for a 17AS.

Bit of a let down, but oh well.

Check again their post and what I wrote, I specifically mentioned the 17F over the 17AS as they too differentiated between features that belonged to the specific version

To people who wants missiles on a 17 I say in any case: Skill issue (I have zero-skill too but I content myself with dropping ordnances on enemy ground units )

[Dragon1-1]

That, unfortunately, is also going to be a little difficult, given that the MiG-17 doesn't have much in terms of bombing avionics.  You get the pipper, and that's about it. You can always stick to rockets, though, and it has plenty of those, at least.

That said, I don't think we need missiles on the MiG. Would have been nice to see the AS, too, but the F was the most common version, and also the most relevant in context of other countries. Carrying missiles on it is a fringe case, just like with the Sabre, where the Sidewinders were used mostly on a handful of jets for Taiwan.

[LucShep]

This is an easy day one buy for me  the Mig-17 is my all-time favorite eastern aircraft.

I was hoping also for the AS version, but just the F version is mighty fine.

I don't think I've seen it listed here but the F was also capable of using the K-13A missiles (reverse engineered copies of the AIM-9B).
Hopefully these will be included as available armament in the module as standard.
 

Quote

 For more updates, please visit our facebook page:

• https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=red%20star%20simulations

One request I'll do right away to the devs is, to please bring status updates to these forums, and/or to the official RSR website.
Facebook is an utter blight and too many won't ever go there.

Edited July 20, 2023 by LucShep

[Zpigman]

On 7/19/2023 at 2:17 AM, LucShep said:

This is an easy day one buy for me  the Mig-17 is my all-time favorite eastern aircraft.

I was hoping also for the AS version, but just the F version is mighty fine.

I don't think I've seen it listed here but the F was also capable of using the K-13A missiles (reverse engineered copies of the AIM-9B).
Hopefully these will be included as available armament in the module as standard.
 

One request I'll do right away to the devs is, to please bring status updates to these forums, and/or to the official RSR website.
Facebook is an utter blight and too many won't ever go there.

 

The problem I believe is that the devs don't have access to accurate documentation as to how the k-13 and other missiles were implemented into the aircraft. Examples would be: How was the weapon selected, How long do you have to hold the release button before launch (think mig 19 vs 21), Is there changes to the armament panel or any other panel, etc. Until they can find that documentation I don't think they could add it into DCS even if they wanted to.

[LucShep]

20 hours ago, Zpigman said:

The problem I believe is that the devs don't have access to accurate documentation as to how the k-13 and other missiles were implemented into the aircraft. Examples would be: How was the weapon selected, How long do you have to hold the release button before launch (think mig 19 vs 21), Is there changes to the armament panel or any other panel, etc. Until they can find that documentation I don't think they could add it into DCS even if they wanted to.

Yes, and it's a fair point.
Let me be clear, I'll support whatever decision by the devs, regardless of my opinion in the matter.

That said...
I think depriving this module of air-to-air missiles is not the best solution. It's of importance for how the module would be used and enjoyed.
It's understood that only modified "F" versions would be able to use the K-13 (R-3/R-3S) but surely it happened at some point (conversions or "upgrades"), air-to-air missiles were not restricted to other versions such as the AS or PM.

As someone who wants this module to succeed (in its quality, and its subsequent popularity), I feel a bit concerned it might make curious people look at the DCS MiG-17F module like it's "just a hot-rodded MiG-15 with radar gun-sight, same limited A-A functionality" and dismiss it, which is not fair either to the module or its creators.

Complete and accurate documentation is certainly a usual requirement for the foundation of any DCS modules systems but, sometimes, some liberties should be allowed (and always are somewhere in the creation of any module, but I digress), to make the aircraft believable enough for what it is supposed and expected to do. 

Should the early K-13 (R-3 and later R-3S) "Atoll" missile lock and launch systems applied on the MiG-17F, be like an iteration of what's in the F-86 module? (being mostly developed over a reverse engineered AIM-9B)  ....or, instead, of what's in the MiG-19P module?  I really don't know that far. 

My guess is the devs are in the know and have already been well into this but, perhaps the best idea is to dig into the K-13 full story, as it may lead to how it all came down to be, how it was initially used in the MiG-17 models (including the "F"?), also in the forces or conflicts where the aircraft was involved? 
Unfortunately that may lead into a rabbit hole of books and documentation (of which I confess having none atm).

Some very quick search examples from the interweb may give some pointers for that:

- https://en.missilery.info/missile/r3c
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-13_(missile)

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by LucShep
spelling(?)

[foxbat155]

I have bad news for you. 99,9% MiG-17/MiG-17F never had ability to carry R-3S missile. Only few locally modified cuban MiG-17 sans suffixe were equipped with those. Other thing is that R-3S in not reverse copy of AIM-9B Sidewinder, this is independent Soviet construction based on ideas borrowed from Sidewinder.

[LucShep]

13 hours ago, foxbat155 said:

I have bad news for you. 99,9% MiG-17/MiG-17F never had ability to carry R-3S missile. Only few locally modified cuban MiG-17 sans suffixe were equipped with those. Other thing is that R-3S in not reverse copy of AIM-9B Sidewinder, this is independent Soviet construction based on ideas borrowed from Sidewinder.

Yes, only modified versions of the "F" could use the K-13 (R-3/R-3S) but, even if the odd example, it would still be valid to have K-13 missiles in this DCS module.

AFAIK, Cuba never received the MiG-17 (Fresco A), only the MiG-17AS (in 1964), which were multi-role and characterized for being produced "from factory" to also be capable of shooting air-to-air missiles. Were those the post-1975 Angolan MiG-17 (Fresco A) or MiG-17F also flown by Cubans? (Angola was assisted by the USSR, Cuba and East Germany)
- https://urrib2000.narod.ru/EqMiG17-e.html
- https://www.laahs.com/the-cuban-migs

About the R-3(C) and its further updated R-3S version, while they were not simply "re-labeled" AIM-9B, the reverse engineering is blatant and aknowledged.
 - https://en.missilery.info/missile/r3c

Edited July 21, 2023 by LucShep

[Zpigman]

21 hours ago, LucShep said:

Yes, and it's a fair point.
Let me be clear, I'll support whatever decision by the devs, regardless of my opinion in the matter.

That said...
I think depriving this module of air-to-air missiles is not the best solution. It's of importance for how the module would be used and enjoyed.
It's understood that only modified "F" versions would be able to use the K-13 (R-3/R-3S) but surely it happened at some point (conversions or "upgrades"), air-to-air missiles were not restricted to other versions such as the AS or PM.

As someone who wants this module to succeed (in its quality, and its subsequent popularity), I feel a bit concerned it might make curious people look at the DCS MiG-17F module like it's "just a hot-rodded MiG-15 with radar gun-sight, same limited A-A functionality" and dismiss it, which is not fair either to the module or its creators.

Complete and accurate documentation is certainly a usual requirement for the foundation of any DCS modules systems but, sometimes, some liberties should be allowed (and always are somewhere in the creation of any module, but I digress), to make the aircraft believable enough for what it is supposed and expected to do. 

Should the early K-13 (R-3 and later R-3S) "Atoll" missile lock and launch systems applied on the MiG-17F, be like an iteration of what's in the F-86 module? (being mostly developed over a reverse engineered AIM-9B)  ....or, instead, of what's in the MiG-19P module?  I really don't know that far. 

My guess is the devs are in the know and have already been well into this but, perhaps the best idea is to dig into the K-13 full story, as it may lead to how it all came down to be, how it was initially used in the MiG-17 models (including the "F"?), also in the forces or conflicts where the aircraft was involved? 
Unfortunately that may lead into a rabbit hole of books and documentation (of which I confess having none atm).

Some very quick search examples from the interweb may give some pointers for that:

- https://en.missilery.info/missile/r3c
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-13_(missile)

 

 

If the Cuban data could be found legally I am sure that there would be some intrest with the devs in creating what is needed for them to utilize them, maybe a slight change that only is implemented when you have missiles attached. I don't know how good that would be though. The 17 we seem to be getting also appears to be heavily suited to air to ground combat than the mig 15.

[foxbat155]

21 hours ago, LucShep said:

Yes, only modified versions of the "F" could use the K-13 (R-3/R-3S) but, even if the odd example, it would still be valid to have K-13 missiles in this DCS module.

AFAIK, Cuba never received the MiG-17 (Fresco A), only the MiG-17AS (in 1964), which were multi-role and characterized for being produced "from factory" to also be capable of shooting air-to-air missiles. Were those the post-1975 Angolan MiG-17 (Fresco A) or MiG-17F also flown by Cubans? (Angola was assisted by the USSR, Cuba and East Germany)
- https://urrib2000.narod.ru/EqMiG17-e.html
- https://www.laahs.com/the-cuban-migs

About the R-3(C) and its further updated R-3S version, while they were not simply "re-labeled" AIM-9B, the reverse engineering is blatant and aknowledged.
 - https://en.missilery.info/missile/r3c

 

Nope, we will get MiG-17F and this variant never had any AAM missiles, Cuban aircrafts were MiG-17 sans suffixe, they couldn't have AS variant because this machine...... didn't exist in 1964. AS was created in half of 70's and there is no proof that was exported anyware outside USRR. AS wasn't "from factory", all of them were rebuilt old aircrafts from survived MiG-17 or MiG-17F. Here you can see all possible external stores variants for AS wariant:

About R-3S, only part which was reverse engieneered was IR seeker, construction is almost identical with only increased field of view, rest is almost completely different, engine size and fuel, rollerons different construction, rollerons bloking system which don't exist in original AIM, completely new gas generator, front rudders control system had different layout, 4 impact fuses added (no on AIM), Soviet missile is longer about 4 cm. Original R-3 missile which was exact copy of original AIM-9B was produced only in low number for test, first real serial variant was improved R-3S (K-13A). Of course without Sidewinder R-3S could never materialized but cannot be called reverse engieenered due amount of changes and massive improve of capabilites. "Inspired by" or "based on" is a proper claim.

[LucShep]

46 minutes ago, foxbat155 said:

Cuban aircrafts were MiG-17 sans suffixe, they couldn't have AS variant because this machine...... didn't exist in 1964. AS was created in half of 70's and there is no proof that was exported anyware outside USRR. AS wasn't "from factory", all of them were rebuilt old aircrafts from survived MiG-17 or MiG-17F.

I left a couple of links in the post you quoted.

I'll quote the relevant bits from them:

https://urrib2000.narod.ru/EqMiG17-e.html

Quote

The first MiG-17AS arrive at Cuba at the beginning of 1964, destined to Santa Clara, and they substitute the MiG-15bis. Its main mission was to fight as fighter-bombers.
In spite of what some sources say, they were not received the version MiG-17F or MiG-17PF.
The fighter-bombers MiG-17AS were characterized for being capable of shooting air-air missiles.

https://www.laahs.com/the-cuban-migs/

Quote

The first fighter-bomber MiG-17ASs arrived in Cuba in 1964, destination Santa Clara Airbase, where MiG-17s replaced MiG-15s little by little.
This workhorse was operationally employed primarily as a fighter-bomber.
Known serials include 101, 215, 216, 230, 232 and 237.

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by LucShep

[foxbat155]

Well, looks like you have to choose sources more carefully.

First of all, "new Soviet MiG-17" didn't exist in 1964 because production of this aircraft was stopped generally in USSR in 1957 (altough in 1960 was produced extra 40 aircrafts for special order, 38 MiG-17F and 2 MiG-17PF, 1958 - 0, 1959 - 0) , from half of 1955 in production was exclusivelly F variant and her derivatives (PF, PFU ). In 1952 works were started over fighter-bomber variant, there was at least 5 prototypes with different pylons and weapons layout. Finaly 170 aircrafts was produced as quite simple variant with additional pylon located between main landing gear and external fuel tank station:
This variant didn't had dedicated name.

Later in late 60's idea of fighter-bomber MiG-17 back. In 1969 prototype was built but due of few mishaps she conduct first flight in 1972. Aircraft got modified BD3-60-21 pylons borrowed from MiG-21, about 150 MiG-17/MiG-17F aircrafts were rebuld to this standard. Official name in VVS documents was MiG-17AS, no matter on which variant based on, 17 or 17F:

Now look on the Cuban aircraft. Do you see differences?

Conclusion is very simple, Cubans got used aircrafts from Soviet Union, and those aircrafts were rebuilt into fighter-bomber variant locally. It is rather certain they got Soviet help in that matter, firstly because they didn't had own aircraft production/modification experience, second Cuban solution is very ressemble to one of Soviet fighter-bomber prototypes, only pylons were moved more outward from the axis of the aircraft:

From modified aircrafts, Cubans were adapted few of them to use R-3S missiles, how many? Hard to say but looks like no more like 10 aircrafts were modified, Soviet aircrafts wasn't able use them.

I think, source of most confiusions is a fact that with the time all fighter-bomber variants were start called AS in many books. Other thing, many people believe that Soviet production aircrafts, Chinese aircrafts, or Polish, Czech production are the same, but unfortunately is not. In module we will have MiG-17F and those aircrafts never had any AAM. DCS is a simulation game, developers choosed one variant with all cons and pros. Demanding some never existed frankensteins is wrong.

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by foxbat155

[Stackup]

9 hours ago, foxbat155 said:

Well, looks like you have to choose sources more carefully.

As I've said previously, I don't care that we won't get missiles and am fine with only getting the MiG-17F. 

That being said, "trust me bro" is not a valid source either.  You gave a nice and thorough explanation as to why this variant doesn't get missiles, but like so many other people not a single source for anything you've said has been given, yet you expect everyone to accept it as fact.  To me, providing outside sources such as where you got your own knowledge is especially important when you are saying someone else's sources are invalid.

[foxbat155]

Don't be offended only because MiG-17F didn't had R-3S missiles. This is still great aircraft, just achieve good result will be a bit harder, more training, more tacticts, more thinking.
Source of my knowledge? Books, manuals, photographs and ability to critical thinking. We living in times were you can find a lot of content on the internet but unfortunately many of those is just a rubbish. If you cannot find info confirmation in the form of photo evidence, that means most likely info is fake. You don't have to trust me, you can dig on your own.

Long story short, I have not seen any manual which says about missiles, no russian/english language book mention about that, there is no photo which are able prove that.
Only exception are those few Cuban MiG-17 sans suffixe.

[Red_Pilot]

I don't think R3 will make the gameplay more interesting. After all, we already have a MiG 19 with K 13. The conditions for using K 13 in dogfight are so limited that I would prefer not to take K 13, but to have a more agile plane. By the way, I can't find a single truly dedicated mission for the MiG 19 on the DCS servers. There are many identical Cold War servers where there are MiG 19 and MiG 21 or more often MiG 19, MiG 21 and MiG 29. That is, the MiG 19 in the role of an outdated aircraft. I'm afraid the MiG 17 will suffer the same fate, and MiG17 will simply compete with the MiG 21 in missions designed for the MiG 21 and F5 (and the phantom in the near future)

[Stackup]

11 hours ago, Red_Pilot said:

There are many identical Cold War servers where there are MiG 19 and MiG 21 or more often MiG 19, MiG 21 and MiG 29. That is, the MiG 19 in the role of an outdated aircraft. I'm afraid the MiG 17 will suffer the same fate, and MiG17 will simply compete with the MiG 21 in missions designed for the MiG 21 and F5 (and the phantom in the near future)

I'm sure someone will make an early Cold War server that will allow it to not be outdated.  The Skyraider, F-100, and F-8 are all coming as well which, in addition to the already excellent A-4 mod, gives us a decent early Bluefor lineup.  Then we have the MiG-19P(maybe S at some point if RB is still doing that?), MiG-17F, and possibly some kind of Fitter(OctopusG or Mag3?) to round out Redfor.  Maybe add in the F-5, F-4, and MiG-21 depending on time period and with a little imagination you can do missions on the Sinai and Syria maps and use Caucuses or Marianas as a quasi-Vietnam.  It won't happen quickly as that's a lot of modules yet to release but they are at least coming and the 17 isn't out yet anyways so plenty of time for one or more of them to finish up.

[LucShep]

16 hours ago, Red_Pilot said:

I don't think R3 will make the gameplay more interesting. After all, we already have a MiG 19 with K 13. The conditions for using K 13 in dogfight are so limited that I would prefer not to take K 13, but to have a more agile plane. By the way, I can't find a single truly dedicated mission for the MiG 19 on the DCS servers. There are many identical Cold War servers where there are MiG 19 and MiG 21 or more often MiG 19, MiG 21 and MiG 29. That is, the MiG 19 in the role of an outdated aircraft. I'm afraid the MiG 17 will suffer the same fate, and MiG17 will simply compete with the MiG 21 in missions designed for the MiG 21 and F5 (and the phantom in the near future)

The thing is, the F-86F Sabre sees fairly decent numbers on CW servers, and is far more popular than the MiG-15Bis there.
People manage to use the Sabre's ancient AIM-9Bs to good effect - it presents itself as the better "underdog" alternative choice (between those two) in such scenario.
The MiG-17 with K13 missiles would be really interesting and a lot of fun also there.

The MiG-19P hasn't seen popularity in DCS not because the real aircraft itself isn't interesting or capable in a CW setting/scenario.
It has to do with the noticeably lower quality of that module, compared to the few other (and better made) "red" CW aircraft modules that you have in DCS.
 

4 hours ago, Stackup said:

I'm sure someone will make an early Cold War server that will allow it to not be outdated.  The Skyraider, F-100, and F-8 are all coming as well which, in addition to the already excellent A-4 mod, gives us a decent early Bluefor lineup.  Then we have the MiG-19P(maybe S at some point if RB is still doing that?), MiG-17F, and possibly some kind of Fitter(OctopusG or Mag3?) to round out Redfor.  Maybe add in the F-5, F-4, and MiG-21 depending on time period and with a little imagination you can do missions on the Sinai and Syria maps and use Caucuses or Marianas as a quasi-Vietnam.  It won't happen quickly as that's a lot of modules yet to release but they are at least coming and the 17 isn't out yet anyways so plenty of time for one or more of them to finish up.

Yeeaah!  That can't come soon enough.
I'm sure there are many users who have been patiently waiting through the years, for such an aircraft line-up to exhist in DCS.
I don't hate the modern stuff and setting but, in my experience, DCS is far more interesting (and feasable to produce content) in a CW setting, 20th century Asian, African and Middle-East type of conflict based scenarios.

Edited July 23, 2023 by LucShep

[Grimleo]

I think the F-86F versus MIG-17F match-up is interesting as you have the Sabre with two AIM-9Bs but no afterburner against the MIG-17 without missiles but with an afterburner. This matchup happens in history in the Taiwan Strait.