Next (RED) cold war fixed wing in DCS

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Iron_Man said:

A big part of the DCS is the Cold War planes lineup, red vs blue. And that’s ok because it’s a sim game. That’s what makes it so exciting to put them one against the other in the simulation in recreation of historically accurate campaigns. Flying mind-blowing high fidelity F-14 with fantastic AIM-54C doing BVR magic on any existing plane in DCS, shooting red units developed in the times of Lock-On sim, and stroking own ego - that’s not how the Cold War really went. 

"Cold War really went"....
F-14A enter on service on 1973 with AIM-7/-9/-54. Fighter with start to turn on multirol. Better maneuver and long range (1312 + 220 + 220 = 1752 Nm + In fly Refuel)
Mig-25P on 72 with R-40R/T Pure interceptor. Poor maneuver and limited range (785 Nm)

F-14A  radar supressed Mig-25P  radar ( / ).

• AWG-9 3rd Gen / 180 Nm vs Large target / engage 6 targets / 120º arc radar.
• RP-SA 2nd Gen / 54 Nm vs Large targer / engage 1 target / 120º arc radar.

On Armament:
F-14A:

• AIM-9H IRH / 2 Gen / 2.5 ATA / 6.5 Nm / Wide Aspect / Dogfight capable
• AIM-7E4 SARH / 2 Gen / 1.5 ATA / 14.0 Nm / All Aspect / No Dogfight capable / 1973 - 79 F-14 only version
• AIM-54A SARH/Terminal ARH/ 2 Gen / 2.0-2.5 (Normal / Magnum) ATA / 48-10 Nm (Normal / Magnum) / All Aspect / Dogfight capable / Home of Jammers

Mig-25P

• R-40R SARH / 2 Gen / 1.0 ATA / 18.3 Nm / All Aspect / No Dogfight capable / Home on Jammers, Must fire on level flight, no dogfight use, Min target altitude band Medium with RP-SA or Low with RP-25
• R-40T IRH / 2 Gen / 1.5 ATA / 8 Nm / Wide Aspect / No Dogfight capable / Min target altitude band Low, Must be fired in level flight. No dogfight use

MiG-25P [Foxbat A] Interceptor
Man Rtng: 2.5/2.0 Damage Value: 38
Size/Signature: Medium/Medium Bombsight: Manual

Counterm: 2nd Gen D Inflight Refuel: N
Sensors: RP-SA Smerch-A radar, Gen 0 RWR, GCI

Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 400 540 650
Med: 560 625 720
High: 560 970 1170
VHigh: 560 1350 1620
Ceiling: 20695 meters Engine Type: TJ
Cruise Range: 785 nmi Int Fuel: 14570 kg

Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 1900 kg
• 2 R-40R, 2 R-40T

Remarks: In Svc: Apr 72 - 84
Export MiG-25P are based on MiG-25PD (see MiG-25PD entry).
• PVO Regiments - seven in 1975, ten in Jan 80.
• 1975: Fitted with RP-SA Smerch-A2 radar. Improved Smerch-A, allows R-40R missiles to attack targets in the Low altitude band.
• 1979 - 84: 370 converted to MiG-25PDS (see MiG-25PD entry).

F-14A Tomcat Fighter
Man Rtng: 4.0/2.0 Damage Value: 37
Size/Signature: Medium/Medium Bombsight: Ballistic

Counterm: 1st Gen J&D Inflight Refuel: P
Sensors: AWG-9 radar, 1st Gen RWR, Link 4/4A data link

Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 410 610 792
Med: 410 616 1000
High: 410 516 1204
Ceiling: 15240 m Engine Type: TF

Cruise Range: 1315 nmi Int Fuel: 7295 kg
Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add.
280 USG drop tank (1980s) 860 kg 220 nmi

Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 6577 kg
Off Guns: M61A1 Vulcan 20mm (3.7)
• 2 DT, 4 AIM-7E4 or AIM-7F (1977) or AIM-7M (1987), 4 AIM-9H or AIM-9L (1979) or AIM-9M (1982)
• 2 DT, 4 AIM-54A (Nov 74 - Jun 97) or AIM-54C (Dec 86), 2 AIM-7, 2 AIM-9
• 2 DT, 6 AIM-54, 2 AIM-9
• 2 DT, 2 AIM-7, 2 AIM-9, and either:
• ALQ-167 ECM pod, TARPS recon pod (1981 - 2004)
• 4 Mk82/Mk83/Mk84 (1992)
• 4 Mk20 Rockeye (1993?)
• 2 DT, 2 AIM-7, 3 AIM-9, and either:
• 2 GBU-12 or 2 GBU-16 Paveway II (May 94)
• 2 GBU-10 Paveway II (1995)
• 2 GBU-24 Paveway III (1995?, by 1998)

Remarks: In Svc: Jan 73 - Sep 04
Cannot land w/6 Phoenix, carries 4 on CAP. Phoenix launch limited to two missiles per increment.
• 1976: Add 1st Gen IRST.
• 1980s: Fitted with 2nd Gen J&D. Drop tanks available.
• 1980-81: Fitted with provision for TARPS recon pod. One squadron on each carrier has 4 pods.
• 1981: Medium PRF added to AWG-9 radar for full performance over land.
• 1984-88: Fitted with TCS vice IRST.
• May 91-Jul 92: 78 fitted as Bombcat. Can carry Mk62 mine or ADM-141 TALD decoy instead of Mk82 bomb.
• 1997: 76 to F-14A Upgrade with 2nd Gen RWR, 3rd Gen D, NVG and provision for AAQ-25 LTS (initially 4 pods per squadron, 6-8 pods by 2003). AAQ-25 replaces one Sparrow in Bombcat loadouts.

Others Mig-25 versions...
MiG-25BM [Foxbat F] Attack
Man Rtng: 2.5/1.5 Damage Value: 38
Size/Signature: Medium/Medium Bombsight: Ballistic

Counterm: 2nd Gen J Inflight Refuel: N
Sensors: ELINT, 1st Gen RWR, Sych-M suite (see Remarks)

Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 400 460 560
Med: 560 625 1084
High: 560 790 1605
VHigh: 560 1350 1605

Ceiling: 20600 meters Engine Type: TJ
Cruise Range: 730 nmi Int Fuel: 14570 kg

Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add.
5300 L supersonic drop tank 4295 kg 310 nmi

Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: e6000 kg
• 4 Kh-58U
• 1 drop tank, 2 Kh-58U
• 10 FAB-250 or 10 FAB-500 bombs
• 1 RN-40 nuclear bomb (estimated)

Remarks: In Svc: 1985 - 1992
Air defense suppression variant. Max speed with drop tank carried is 860 knots; rarely carried in service due to speed restrictions.
Bomb targets must be pre-briefed and stationary - bomb range from VHigh altitude at 1350 knots is 22 nmi, bomb speed is 990 knots. Sych-M (Little Owl) uses modified Kh-58 seeker to detect active radars - treat as 1st Gen ES with LOS range 108 nmi vs briefed targets and 81 nmi against other threats detected inflight in 270° - 90° arc. Painted with false radome to resemble MiG-25P. No radar fitted.
• 1982-85: 40 produced. Each squadron (AE) has 12 a/c - 1st AE Aug 89-Jan 92, 3rd AE Jul 90-1991, 10th ORAP at Schchin, Belarus; 3rd AE, 931st ORAP at Werneuchen, East Germany Jun 86-Jul 90; 3rd AE AE, 164th OGRAP at Brzeg, Poland 1985 - Aug 89; 3rd AE, 151st OAPREB at Schchin, Belarus.
• 1 Jan 92: 26 remain in Belarus. Retired by Belarus 1993. Handful remain in Russia for training.
• 1992 - 95: Remaining Russian retired.

MiG-25PD [Foxbat E] Interceptor
Man Rtng: 2.5/2.0 Damage Value: 38
Size/Signature: Medium/Medium Bombsight: Manual

Sensors: RP-25M Sapfir-25 radar, 1st Gen RWR

Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 400 540 650
Med: 560 625 720
High: 560 970 1170
VHigh: 560 1350 1620

Ceiling: 20700 meters Engine Type: TJ
Cruise Range: 705 nmi Int Fuel: 14570 kg

Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add.
5300 L supersonic drop tank 4295 kg 295 nmi

Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 1900 kg
• 2 R-40RD, 2 R-40TD
• 2 R-40RD, 4 R-60
• Can add 1 drop tank on C/L (overload, maneuver rating 0.5)

Remarks: In Svc: 1979 - 94
Max speed with drop tank carried is 860 knots; rarely carried in service due to speed restrictions. Late production have 2nd Gen D. All export have Gen 0 RWR.
• 1978 - 82: 104 MiG-25PD produced.
• 1979: Export MiG-25PDS available with RP-SA Smerch-A radar, R-40R, R-40T to Algeria 16 from 1979, Iraq 25 from 1980, Libya 65 or 80 from 1979 and Syria 16 from 1979.
• 1979 - 84: 370 converted from MiG-25P to MiG-25PDS. Lacks provision for C/L drop tank. Nine ex-Ukraine to Algeria in 1997.
• 1982 - Aug 89: Deploys to 787th IAP at Finow, East Germany to deter SR-71A.
• 1984: Export MiG-25PD available with RP-SA Smerch-A2 radar adds R-40RD, R-40TD. Iraq 30 from 1984 and Syria 15 from 1984. 
• 1987: Commence training against Low and slow targets. PVO has 4 MiG-25PD and 9 MiG-25PDS regiments.
• 1980s: MiG-25PDZ canceled due to lack of air to air tankers, would have added inflight refueling probe. One prototype in 1986.

MiG-25RB [Foxbat B/D] Reconnaissance
Man Rtng: 2.5/1.5 Damage Value: 38
Size/Signature: Medium/Medium Bombsight: None

Counterm: See Remarks Inflight Refuel: N
Sensors: See Remarks

Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 430 540 650
Med: 540 595 720
High: 540 970 1170
VHigh: 540 1350 1620

Ceiling: 23000 meters Engine Type: TJ
Cruise Range: 840 nmi Int Fuel: 13430 kg

Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add.
5300 L supersonic drop tank 4295 kg 385 nmi

Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 5000 kg
• none (recon)
• 1 drop tank
• 4 FAB-500M62T (standard recon/attack)
• 8 FAB-500M62T (First Gen)
• 10 FAB-500M62T (Second Gen)
• 1 RN-40 nuclear bomb (estimated)

Remarks: In Svc: 1970 - 2013
Max speed with drop tank carried is 860 knots; rarely carried in service due to speed restrictions. Can carry special heat-insulated FAB-500M62T bombs, max speed 1350 knots, ceiling 21000 meters. Max speed with Recon and bombing targets must be a fixed point and selected before takeoff. Bomb range from VHigh altitude at 1350 knots is 22 nmi, bomb speed is 990 knots. ELINT is ES recorded for post-mission only. 25 MiG-25R, 196 other versions.
• Export to Algeria, Bulgaria, India, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Bulgaria probably has MiG-25RBT. Remainder MiG-25RBT and MiG-25RBV with Gen 0 RWR and jammer removed.
• First generation with Gen 0 RWR and 1st Gen ECM:
• MiG-25R [Foxbat B]. Cameras, ELINT. Not fitted with drop tank or bombs. In service 1970. To MiG-25RB by mid 1970s.
• MiG-25RB [Foxbat B]. Cameras, ELINT. In service Dec 70. To MiG-25RBV from 1973.
• MiG-25RBK [Foxbat D]. 1st Gen ES with sensor link. In service Dec 70 - 80. Updated to MiG-25RBF.
• MiG-25RBS [Foxbat D]. Sablya SLAR. In service 1973 - 80s. Sablya can only be used from VHigh altitude. Updated to MiG-25RBSh.
• MiG-25RBV [Foxbat B]. Cameras, ELINT. In service 1973 - 80s. Updated to MiG-25RBT.
• Second generation with 1st Gen RWR and 2nd Gen ECM:
• MiG-25RBF [Foxbat D]. 2nd Gen ES and sensor link. In service 1980 - 13.
• MiG-25RBSh [Foxbat D]. Shompol SLAR. In scv 1981 - 13.
• MiG-25RBT [Foxbat D]. Cameras, ELINT. In service 1980 - 13.
• 1971: Six MiG-25RB based in Egypt.
• 1975: Nuclear bomb capability by this date.
• 1980s: MiG-25RBS and MiG-25RBV tested with inflight refueling probe as MiG-25RBSDZ and MiG-25RBVDZ. Program canceled.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Iron_Man]

30 минут назад, Bremspropeller сказал:

What?

Not quite multirole, but multipurpose. It was an interceptor, that could also drop a couple of bombs. Not neccessarily during the same mission. It's more useful than being a single-purpose jet like the Tu-128 or Su-15, though.

I like the Su-15 better, because I like the aircraft better. That hardly makes me a russophobe. But if you want to play the victim-card here, go ahead, whatever you say.

The MiG-25 couldn't intercept the SR, because it evidently didn't. Had they been able to squash a Blackbird, they'd done it and we'd know about it as they'd have run the propaganda game, thumping their chest over that achievement. There's only two reasons why they'd not shoot somebody down:

1) They legally couldn't. Ask KAL how well that rule turned out.

2) They physically couldn't. Like Mr. Rust in his R172, who wasn't shot down because "he wasn't deemed a threat" and yet PVO proceeded with some personnel-shuffling in the aftermath.

Everybody who wasn't in their airspace by invitation, got an explosive memo.

Intercepting an enemy with an aircraft that's slower than the target and with missiles that are only for a fraction of their flight-time faster than the target itself isn't quite a child's play. It requires an orchestra of GCI and command-control assets to work just right. It only takes one person to mess up and the intercept goes to hell.

Just look how much of a clusterduck the KAL007 intercept was - and that was a plain vanilla 747-200, not trying to evade anybody, jamming or chaffing.

Still not convincing…  You are pushing your rhetoric here for the sake of the argument itself… You like the Su-15? Great, your choice.  Yes, the 25 was multipurpose, my typo. As for playing the victim card and phobias - your criticism is aimed at diminishing the strength of the red air defense by bringing only negative examples, has nothing to do with the Su-15. Moreover, SR-71 and U-2 stopped trying to fly over the USSR after the 25s were deployed in PVO. The 25 wouldn’t be produced in large quantities if SAMs were the only tool in Soviet air defense. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Iron_Man

[Silver_Dragon]

5 minutes ago, Iron_Man said:

Still not convincing…  You are pushing your rhetoric here for the sake of the argument itself… You like the Su-15? Great, your choice.  Yes, the 25 was multipurpose, my typo. As for playing the victim card and phobias - your criticism is aimed at diminishing the strength of the red air defense by bringing only negative examples, has nothing to do with the Su-15. Moreover, SR-71 and U-2 stopped trying to fly over the USSR after the 25s were deployed in PVO. The 25 wouldn’t be produced in large quantities if SAMs were the only tool in Soviet air defense. 

 

As I put on previous post, Mig-25 was specialized versions, never was Multirol as a F-14.

[WinterH]

Ah yes... always love how these threads tend to de... eeerr I mean evolve

[Iron_Man]

Yes sir! It just getting more obvious that the western DCS community is still very biased and apparently has a ton of reasons to criticize the capabilities of the MiG-25, out of all planes. Yea, like, the worst interceptor ha ha. Sure, we got some attention here. Haters will hate

[Silver_Dragon]

7 minutes ago, Iron_Man said:

Still not convincing…  You are pushing your rhetoric here for the sake of the argument itself… You like the Su-15? Great, your choice.  Yes, the 25 was multipurpose, my typo. As for playing the victim card and phobias - your criticism is aimed at diminishing the strength of the red air defense by bringing only negative examples, has nothing to do with the Su-15. Moreover, SR-71 and U-2 stopped trying to fly over the USSR after the 25s were deployed in PVO. The 25 wouldn’t be produced in large quantities if SAMs were the only tool in Soviet air defense. 

 

USA dont overfly URRS russia from 1960 U-2 incident... 

Quote

Interestingly, no Blackbirds ever flew over Soviet airspace, because the U.S. stopped Soviet overflights after the 1960 U-2 incident. However, SR-71s were used over Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Vietnam, North Korea, and locations that have yet to be declassified. No Blackbird was ever lost to enemy fire.

from them... RC-135, U-2 and SR-71 has propper recon suite with never need overpass a target (overpass was make by HK and others recon satelites series).

SR-71A Blackbird Strategic Recon
Man Rtng: 0.5/0.5 Damage Value: 44
Size/Signature: Large/Medium Bombsight: None

Counterm: 1st Gen J&D Inflight Refuel: B
Sensors: LOROP camera or GA-531 PIP SLAR, ELINT or cameras, 1st Gen RWR

Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 470 640 --
Med: 500 570 --
High: 500 540 650
VHigh: 1720 1830 1920

Ceiling: 25840 m Engine Type: TJ
Cruise Range: 3385 nmi Int Fuel: 37430 kg

Remarks: In Svc: 1968 - Mar 90
Uses special JP-7 fuel - can only be refueled by KC-10A or KC-135Q/T. Engines operate as ramjets at Very High altitude.
• Jun 73: Fitted with CAPRE vice GA-531 SLAR.
• 1974?: Fitted with 2nd Gen J&D.
• 1980 - 85: Fitted with 3rd gen J&D, more accurate ELINT.
• 1983: Fitted with ASARS-1 vice CAPRE SLAR.

U-2A/B/C/E/F/G Strategic Recon
Man Rtng: 0.5/0.5 Damage Value: 17

Size/Signature: Medium/Medium Bombsight: None
Sensors: Cameras (not search sensors)

Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 400 430 --
Med: 400 430 --
High: 400 430 --
VHigh: 400 430 --

Ceiling: 21340 m Engine Type: TJ
Cruise Range: 3210 nmi Int Fuel: 2370 kg

Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add.
100 USG slipper tank (1957) 305 kg 485 nmi

Remarks: In Svc: 1956 - ?
Uses special LF-1A/JP-TS fuel.
• U-2A has J57-P-37 engines. U-2E has inflight refuel B (May 61). U-2G fitted to operate from aircraft carriers (Mar 64-73), does not require catapults. One U-2G with carrier and inflight refueling quickly retired as combined weight of modifications reduced maximum altitude.
• U-2B has J57-P-31 engines, ceiling 22680 m, 4040 kg fuel, 3400 nmi range.
• U-2C has J75 engines, ceiling 24380 m, 4155 kg fuel, 3285 nmi range, 1st Gen IR jammer, Gen 0 RWR. Later fitted with 1st Gen J. U-2F has inflight refuel Y/B.
• 1957: Fitted for air sampling. Slipper tanks available, reduce altitude by 365 m.
• 1962-63: Fitted with Gen 0 RWR.
• 1964: Fitted with 1st Gen J in empty slipper tanks.
• 1968: SIGINT operational.

U-2R/S Dragon Lady Strategic Recon
Man Rtng: 0.5/0.5 Damage Value: 19
Size/Signature: Medium/Medium Bombsight: None

Counterm: 1st Gen J Inflight Refuel: N
Sensors: RWR, see below

Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 375 430 --
Med: 375 430 --
High: 375 430 --
VHigh: 375 430 --

Ceiling: 24385 m Engine Type: TF
Cruise Range: 4615 nmi Int Fuel: 9010 kg

Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: --
• Air sampling equipment or SIGINT equipment or IRIS camera
• SIGINT equipment with Senior Stretch SATCOM sensor link
• Senior Glass: Senior Ruby ELINT, Senior Spear COMINT, Senor Span data link
• ASARS-2 SLAR, Senior Spur sensor link
• SYERS camera, Senior Spur sensor link

Remarks: In Svc: 1967
Can carry sensors in nose, internal Q-bay and wing pods (see above for operational loadouts). Due to crew endurance, missions usually last 9.5 hours (max 12 hours by USAF regulations) Sensor information cannot be used by the pilot, systems not fitted with sensor link, must be processed post-mission (24 hours delay). Sensors are not accurate enough for targeting weapons, can cue platforms to general target location. Two SYERS and two ASARS ground stations. LOS sensor links limited to 190 nmi, must record and can download after in range or use SATCOM. If U-2R outside of LOS range, records data for later download. Estimated all cameras cover 3500 x 3500 yard image.
• Air sampling equipment: Returns air samples to determine nuclear explosion types.
• ASARS-2 SLAR: Range 160 km either side with SAR mode (also as 270 km). MTI added from 1995 to three a/c in South Korea only.
• IRIS: Images 16 nmi either side of track.
• SYERS: Senior Year EO Relay System. Originally EO camera (72 km), with IR capability (36 km) added 1991.
• Systems: Story Book SIGINT (1970), Senior Ruby (1977), Senior Spear (1979), ASARS-2 SLAR (Jul 85), three Senior Span sensor links (1989), SYERS (1990), Senior Spur sensor link (1993), ASARS-2A (early 2003, MTI mode and can provide co-ordinates for GPS weapons), ASARS-2B (FY23). Senior Span and Senior Spur sensor links are LOS and operate to 190 nmi.
• Nov 69: One aircraft carrier trials with folding wings to fit in hanger. Capability removed 1974.
• 1994: 31 converted to U-2S with new engine, 3rd Gen J, Ceiling 27430 m, Cruise Range 5570 nmi.
• 1995: MTI mode added to ASARS-2 - only fitted to only three operating from Osan, South Korea.
• 1996: Gold Strike Rapid Target System (RTS) links to ground then to attack aircraft (9 minute delay).
• Feb 97: Last operational sortie for U-2R.
• Apr 02-May 07: U-2S Block 20 update with glass cockpit and 3rd Gen J&D.
• Oct 05: U-2S fitted ALQ-221 defensive suite - ES and 4th Gen J&D(?).
• Dec 16: Senior Glass retired. Replaced by ASIP COMINT.
• 2023?: Link 16 and ASARS-2B in service. ASARS-2B is AESA, has maritime mode and twice range (estimated as 170 nmi)

[Bremspropeller]

17 minutes ago, Iron_Man said:

Moreover, SR-71 and U-2 stopped trying to fly over the USSR after the 25s were deployed in PVO. The 25 wouldn’t be produced in large quantities if SAMs were the only tool in Soviet air defense.

The SR didn't stop because of the Foxbat. It stopped because better assets vs. cost vs. risk were available.  Sending an SR meant also sending support aircraft like KC-135Qs with the special JP-7 fuel. If anything, the Foxhound put an end to the SR overflights. Even that jet had low chances of killing a Blackbird unless you're sending an entire PVO district going after a single jet.

The U-2 was a comparatively easy target for any M2.0 class interceptor.

20 minutes ago, Iron_Man said:

your criticism is aimed at diminishing the strength of the red air defense by bringing only negative examples,

Not really. I'm arguing that trying to shoot down a target that comes over the horizon at up to Mach 3.2 to 3.5, above 80000ft, is excessively hard with the assets at hand. Doesn't matter which colour your air defenses are.

[Iron_Man]

The funny part is, it’s like as if we got 3rd party developers lined up waiting for us DCS simmers, like “come on guys, make up your mind so we can make you a cool plane” - the whole point of this thread, and particularly me advocating for the Foxbat is creating a unique module with one of a kind capabilities. This will bring more diversity among the redfor jets and be beneficial for Sinai and Syria maps and all the relevant campaigns that can be created upon. 
So it’s worth bringing it into DCS, and that’s something they can at least consider a bit more thoroughly than before.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Iron_Man

[Silver_Dragon]

22 minutes ago, Iron_Man said:

The funny part is, it’s like as if we got 3rd party developers lined up waiting for us DCS simmers, like “come on guys, make up your mind so we can make you a cool plane” - the whole point of this thread, and particularly me advocating for the Foxbat is creating a unique module with one of a kind capabilities. This will bring more diversity among the redfor jets and be beneficial for Sinai and Syria maps and all the relevant campaigns that can be created upon. 
So it’s worth bringing it into DCS, and that’s something they can at least consider a bit more thoroughly than before.

 

The philosophy of aircraft construction in the USSR was to create specialised versions according to the needs of the front, not "multi-roles" as in the West. That began to change timidly in the mid-1980s when the Mig-29s arrived. You continue to insist that the Mig-25 is a single aircraft, and we have shown you that there are three different aircraft, in their specific versions: an interceptor, a ground attack aircraft and a reconnaissance aircraft. All three are different in systems, engines, performance, capabilities and flight models. None of them are interchangeable.

[Iron_Man]

I see your point. Please explain how Aerges’ F-104 that they recently announced, will fit in the current lineup of the DCS Cold War jets? 

[Keith Briscoe]

Firefox!

"Fire rearward missiles!"  (Must think in Russian...)

 

++Sorry, couldn't help myself ++

[Iron_Man]

3 минуты назад, Keith Briscoe сказал:

Firefox!

"Fire rearward missiles!"  (Must think in Russian...)

 

++Sorry, couldn't help myself ++

I don’t think you can think in Russian unless you are native Russian, which I doubt

It’s more like Яussian you’re talking about

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, Iron_Man said:

Yes sir! It just getting more obvious that the western DCS community is still very biased and apparently has a ton of reasons to criticize the capabilities of the MiG-25, out of all planes. Yea, like, the worst interceptor ha ha. Sure, we got some attention here. Haters will hate

If we wanted to be brutally honest, we could just that the MiG-25's greatest contribution was giving TsAGI the ability to develop the methodology and facilities to eventually create the MiG-29.

Edited September 28, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Nipil]

On 9/27/2023 at 11:36 PM, Logan54 said:

Anyway we have some real work on Su-22M4 by SVK Sniper.

We don't know if it's going to be an official module yet. And without SDK, to which extent it would be possible to model? A-4E, for one, isn't able to use guided munitions except for Shrike due to the SDK's unavailability. I would be glad to see it come out. But for now it's still not comfirmed.

On 9/27/2023 at 11:36 PM, Logan54 said:

How to fight with attack aircraft against dogfighters?

That's where MiG-23MLA comes into play, doesn't it? With R-24, R-60M and decent flying perfomance. Not as unique as 25, but it can get the fighter's job done. But no Red jet can do SEAD and PGM strikes, or even simply carry a decent bombload. That's why Su-22/MiG-27 is a priority for me.

All of this is not to say MiG-25 is unwelcome. It sure is very interesting and capable. But I find it a "good to have", not essential, unlike an 80's fighter-bomber.

[Iron_Man]

26 минут назад, MiG21bisFishbedL сказал:

If we wanted to be brutally honest, we could just that the MiG-25's greatest contribution was giving TsAGI the ability to develop the methodology and facilities to eventually create the MiG-29.

 

Totally useless plane otherwise

[Cab]

2 hours ago, Iron_Man said:

The funny part is, it’s like as if we got 3rd party developers lined up waiting for us DCS simmers, like “come on guys, make up your mind so we can make you a cool plane” - the whole point of this thread, and particularly me advocating for the Foxbat is creating a unique module with one of a kind capabilities. This will bring more diversity among the redfor jets and be beneficial for Sinai and Syria maps and all the relevant campaigns that can be created upon. 
So it’s worth bringing it into DCS, and that’s something they can at least consider a bit more thoroughly than before.

 

There is plenty of appetite for REDFOR aircraft in DCS. The Mig-19 and Mig-21 show that, and the WIP Mig-23 is highly anticipated. So, if a developer believed they could produce the Foxbat at the level of quality required AND that it would sell enough to be a worthwhile return on investment (I think people forget this part), they would do it. Plain and simple.

[Iron_Man]

There are plenty of examples developers chose a module out of their own preferences, both for planes and maps. Besides, some teams are small even to develop any redfor jet. There are plenty of other reasons than ROI.
Also, if you only restrict yourself to low to 12km altitude level, your idea is understandable and it’s a common concept for any type of a jet, it’s just a very competitive niche.

But If we talk about flying over 20km, where you can maintain up to 3000 km/h and cover long distances quick, being relatively safe from air defense of that time and most lower altitude jets, then you may have an upper hand. Not sure if anyone tried that in DCS yet. There you can intercept, zoom climb to avoid missiles, drop bombs. 

[Cab]

3 minutes ago, Iron_Man said:

There are plenty of other reasons than ROI.

Each module takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to develop, then they're sold as individual products for a profit. ROI can't be discounted.

[Iron_Man]

24 минуты назад, Cab сказал:

Each module takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to develop, then they're sold as individual products for a profit. ROI can't be discounted.

Of course. But we shouldn’t forget that striving for a full fidelity stretches the timeline for years. Some projects never happen because of that. So the solution is to create a module and develop it in beta access. People will buy them knowing that the product is improved continuously. Otherwise we’ll end up getting jewels like MiG-21 or F-14 once every decade. That way is also not very productive for any dev team. 

Now, to comment myself above - I don’t mean less fidelity, maybe partial fidelity plus modeling the rest using something like CATIA simulation software, reverse engineering the flight model and systems based on what’s already available. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Iron_Man

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Su-24 has very unlikely, by russian secret laws. 

I don't think it would be either. It would be nice if we could get some retired version. Out of the su-2_ I think the 26 aerobatic plane  is the most likely followed by the 25 though way off. 

As for the list I can't argue except I would love to see Cuban Ace deliver on the yak-38. As I have said before my preference with Red modules and assets are ones that can pull double duty for WWII and early cold war followed by the strike planes. 

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

SCW-WW2

• Ilyushin DB-3
• Ilyushin Il-2
• Ilyushin Il-4
• Ilyushin Il-10
• Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3
• Lavochkin La-5
• Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1
• Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3
• Petlyakov Pe-2
• Petlyakov Pe-3
• Petlyakov Pe-8
• Polikarpov I-15/Bis
• Polikarpov I-153
• Polikarpov Po-2
• Polikarpov R-5
• Polikarpov R-Z
• Sukhoi Su-2
• Tupolev SB
• Tupolev TB-3
• Tupolev Tu-2
• Yakovlev UT-2
• Yakovlev Yak-1
• Yakovlev Yak-3
• Yakovlev Yak-7
• Yakovlev Yak-9

Cold War

• Ilyushin Il-28
• Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9
• Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23B
• Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25
• Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-27
• Sukhoi Su-7
• Sukhoi Su-9
• Sukhoi Su-15
• Sukhoi Su-17/22
• Tupolev Tu-4
• Tupolev Tu-16
• Tupolev Tu-22
• Tupolev Tu-95
• Yakovlev Yak-25
• Yakovlev Yak-28

 

[WinterH]

9 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Out of the su-2_ I think the 26 aerobatic plane

Almost forgot! Call me crazy or whatever, but I'd love a well made Su-26M 

[Silver_Dragon]

3 hours ago, Iron_Man said:

I see your point. Please explain how Aerges’ F-104 that they recently announced, will fit in the current lineup of the DCS Cold War jets? 

Looking to troll? Aerges (a Spanish 3rd party) is looking to make aircraft that were active in the Spanish air force, as they did previously with the C-101EB/CC and Mirage F-1BE/CE/EE/M, including that the F-104G/TF-104G Starfighter was a mythical fighter from the middle of the cold war. If that were the case, it would not be unusual to see a Mirage III, Ha200, C212 or F-4C. RAZBAM makes Latin American/US aircraft, and so on and so forth.

Every 3rd party has its plans, just as many started with trainers to learn how the SDK works. And as you don't seem to get it through your head, the Mig-25P/PD/BM/RB as a whole, making a version at a time as has been done before in the past (which is what I have tried to explain), can be done in DCS, with subsequent documentation, SME, wind tunnel data, etc.... just as others have made different versions as Aerges and others have done.... but each version has its differences.

The problem is that it seems that some believe that there are "super aircraft" here and then the reality is very hard, as has happened with the Mirage F-1 that has its "peculiarities" to believe that it was one way and then has led to "heated debates in the forum" because it is not what they thought, and has fallen a Myth. And yes, it has its problem that the Mig-25, was already being outclassed by the F-14 on its way out, but that doesn't mean in a late cold war scenario, you don't have to make PVO forces, because they are necessary from how the USSR air defence system worked, just as others are already planning to make Su-17 and other Soviet hardcore modules, however much there is a Su-25, Mig-29A/S, Su-27P or Su-33 in FC-3 out there (that someday ED and/or 3rd parties will also make hardcore modules, with different versions).

[Iron_Man]

I’m honestly not trolling anyone here. Being trolled - that’s very likely. I appreciate your input sir! Moving on. 

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, Iron_Man said:

There are plenty of examples developers chose a module out of their own preferences, both for planes and maps. Besides, some teams are small even to develop any redfor jet. There are plenty of other reasons than ROI.
Also, if you only restrict yourself to low to 12km altitude level, your idea is understandable and it’s a common concept for any type of a jet, it’s just a very competitive niche.

But If we talk about flying over 20km, where you can maintain up to 3000 km/h and cover long distances quick, being relatively safe from air defense of that time and most lower altitude jets, then you may have an upper hand. Not sure if anyone tried that in DCS yet. There you can intercept, zoom climb to avoid missiles, drop bombs. 

Another myth has fallen. Aircraft and helicopter modules in DCS World, are chosen by the available information not by a theme, era or community preferences... ED and 3rd parties have their own research, that is a requirement of ED, confirmed by Wags in interviews (data, EMS, wind tunnel, etc). If you can't find the necessary open information to make a module, it's a "Not Go"... and we already know the problem to find information about a Mig/Su/Tu in Russia and even more in these moments that 3rd parties like RAZBAM, for example, had to go to Cuba to make their Mig-19P or Mig-23MLA modules, or to Poland like Red Star Simulations for the Mig-17F.

On maps, we are the same, each 3rd party that has a map team under the TDK (Terrain develop Kit) chooses which map they are going to make according to their preferences, they are not looking at the forum to see which one is the most wanted by the community.

You keep repeating the mantra that the Mig-25 can do all that, when we have shown you that there are 3 different versions of the same aircraft, with their capabilities,  performance, peculiarities, sensors and equipment, they are not an integrated whole in the same model. We will have to wait for someone to do it, to show why NATO and PacVar had different design and manufacturing philosophies.

[Iron_Man]

Lots of diminishing rhetoric here. A myth? Are you a community myth buster? Clearly you are trying to dissuade us all here. What’s at stake? Are you afraid that some third party developers are going to read that and may be interested in one of the redfor planes, God forbid the MiG-25! Oh no! Come on, take it easy