Thinking about war...

[robmypro]

With so many new aircraft in development, I am thinking about force on force / Cold War encounters. What mix of aircraft would we need on both sides to provide good balance, and avoid that one dominant aircraft that everyone is forced to fly to have a chance of survival.

 

I am thinking real world situations.

 

For example, if the U.S. has the F-15E, what would the Soviets need? Would the Mig 29 counter this threat? What about the Mig-21? If the admin wanted to limit aircraft choices to a fair fight, what would the U.S. need?

 

Having plenty of choices is great, but I think attention needs to be given to reaching balance. I am sure ED is thinking about it, but will we get any sort of balance on the path we are on?

[JABO2009]

I think the "correct balance issue" is a good point for the devs to keep and eye on...

 

I know CA and World are still beta and theres alot of change and improvements to come, but I also think, that specific scenarios should be only availbale for the proper aircraft to be flown...

 

So when we get the Mig 21 fastmover, which will add a great surplus to DCS, this a/c should have a proper counterpart, I woulndt be too happy with taking off in an Mig 21 and getting engaged by an F15C with Aim120, which is about 80miles away... :-)

 

(I know the mig 21 still serves in serveral Air forces though)

 

 

but the more realistic scenario would be the mig 21 vs F104 or F4

 

hopefully this will be thought of by ED...

 

by the way: had to smile the first time I went on a CA MP server and saw A10C flying together with P51s on the same battlefield ;-)

 

dont get me wrong, its fantastic to have the P51 in DCSW, but this beast should be seperately treated in a kind of "DCSW WW2 module" ;-), not getting shot down by a tor M1 f. ex.

[falcon_120]

The balance you want in the air,maybe difficult to achieve,given the superior technology advantage the us has right now.On the other hand,soviet side has probably an advantage in ground combat,and in SAM systems,this with Combined arms in beta can lead to some interesting escenarios.In the end,US side will have to make a huge effort in CAS mission to not loose the ground war,and off course you also have su30s which can ruin an F-15 day :).

Anyway the future ahead is quite interesting ,don't you think? :)

[robmypro]

Good points, guys. The future is interesting!

 

ED has been doing a great job, so we know they are well aware of this pitfall. And balance also means having a/c realistically modeled (aka the Mig 21 has no chance against an F-15). They need to make sure strange anomolies don't occur. At least some QA to verify the plane matches real world specs.

 

Challenging...but also exciting.

[OutOnTheOP]

...I would contend your assertion that the Russians have a qualitative advantage in ground forces right now- or indeed, at any point since about 1985.

 

The M2 Bradley is a superior vehicle to the BMP series, both in armor, sensors, fire control, and armament (the 25mm M919 rounds have CONSIDERABLY more penetration than the 30mm BMP2 rounds).

 

The M1A1(HA) and newer models, and the entire M1A2 line have vastly superior armor to the entire T72/T80/T90 line, and again have vastly superior thermals and fire control, in addition to much better post-penetration survivability (armored ammo storage rather than a centrally located, unprotected carosel loader), and the human loader on the M1 series gets rounds up much faster than the T72/T80/T90 series autoloader. Additionally, the M483A1 and A2 are much, MUCH better penetrators than the short-rod penetrators used in the Russian 125mm. T72/T80 isn't really able to fire effectively on the move (certainly not nearly so as the M1 series), and while the numbers on the AT11/ 9M119 are impressive, they are SACLOS rounds that require full-time-of-flight guidance, and require the launching vehicle to be stationary to employ with any effectiveness- so their practicality is minimal. To be honest, I think the AT11 was developed less as an overmatch capability than as a solution for the inferior performance of the 125mm sabot rounds and fire control. The T-series also doesn't carry vary damned many of them in onboard stowage. ...also, lest anyone think I'm just being nationalistic here, I'll point out that every advantage listed for the M1-series also applies for the Leopard II and Challenger II (penetration doubly so for the latest marks of Leo II, with the 120mm 55 caliber gun).

 

The Russians have done pretty well in man-portable AT weapons, though I would argue that AT-4, AT-5, and AT-14 are qualitatively equivalent to similar-generation TOW, though with slightly greater range (the utility of that extra range in anything but the most favorable terrain is questionable, though). The Russian systems do have an advantage in higher airspeed, though (which more importantly means lower time of flight). I don't have the precise velocity numbers handy at the moment. The Russians really don't have a good answer to the capabilities of the Javelin, though- and it's a HUGE capability; unlike AT-4/5/14 or TOW, it's readily man-portable and can essentially be fired from the march with no set-up. Not to mention the top-attack profile can easily defeat any tank out there (and considering the location of the T-72/T-80/T-90 ammo stowage, will almost certainly result in a total catastrophic kill), and the fire-and-forget capability means a lot for the survivability of the missile team.

 

In individual infantry kit, the Russians are lagging a fair bit in night-vision. Not that they don't make good NODs, they just don't issue them nearly as universally as the US (I would assume the Brits and Germans also issue on a much wider scale than the Russians as well, but I haven't got that on good authority). The US hands them out like candy. Literally EVERY infantryman in a company will have a set; PVS-7s with upgraded imaging tubes at a minimum; more likely they'll have PVS-14s. Of course, there will always be the eternal argument over whether the AK47 or M16 derivatives are superior- I have shot both extensively, and I'd throw my lot in with the M16 camp (including superiority in durability- though not in ease of maintenance. At any rate, stamped receivers bend out of true too easily, so the claims the AK47 is somehow indestructable make me laugh). Either way, rifles don't make a huge difference in a conflict, unless they're of totally differnt generation (like bolt actions versus autoloaders)

 

Probably the most important (and most underrated) advantage the western nations (US in particular) has is in C4I (command, control, communications, computing, and intelligence. Most armchair generals don't really take this (or logistical trains) into account, but they honestly make more difference to success in a campaign than thicker tank armor or higher cyclic rates. Ultimately, the US side is can exploit a huge amount of ISR assets to spot the enemy, bring extremely accurate and lethal deep and close fires on them, and move maneuver forces into a position of advantage to engage or disengage almost at will. Without equally responsive ISR and communications systems, any foe is going to be stuck trying to just keep up with the pace of operations, and will never have an opportunity to sieze the initiative.

 

 

....I will admit the Russians have way (WAY!) better mobile SAMs, though.

Edited July 17, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

... and back ON topic, I'd say that QUALITATIVE parity in available modules for each side isn't as important as having FUNCTIONAL parity. That is to say, even if the western side has late 90s-era F-15Cs and the WP/ eastern side has mid-80s MiG23s, that's not a game breaker, as the mission can be designed with numerical superiority to offset qualitative inferiority.

 

What matters, though, is that both sides can conduct the same missions: if one side has an interceptor, the other side needs an interceptor. If one side has a CAS aircraft, the other side needs a CAS aircraft. If one side has an MBT, the other side needs one too. And so on.

 

...obviously, there can only be SO much qualitative disparity, though. MiG15s against F-22s wouldn't be a whole lot of fun. And I hate to think how much numerical superiority that'd take to even out!