Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HWasp

  1. There are servers, that run a 1980s weapon restriction setup, and still have the JF-17 on. Before jumping to conclusion, maybe check again if the blue side is also restricted to Aim-7s only? The best setup for the MiG-29 is a 80ies scenario, Aim-7 vs R-27.
  2. Wrong, Su-27 and MiG-29 are not all about the low costs at all. Why would you think that? These 2 planes are complex, expensive machines to soviet standards. These 2 are a clear step away from quantity over quality theory. Especially if you check the MiG-29M, that would have been the real deal. Maintenance intervals are not set in stone. It is a lot more about taking responsibility, and the safety of human lives and expensive equipment. In a large scale conlict they won't be stopping a 29 just because it has just run out of hours... It is obviously not a positive thing, but this is something that really would take effect on the long term in peace time. In the 80ies the soviets rather stopped eating and went bankrupt, than to spend less on their military.
  3. Yes, service life was certainly lower, also less time between maint./overhauls I doubt that it would have a serious impact in a 80ies ussr scenario.
  4. Agree, they are close. That first comparison was a bit unfair towards the F-15.
  5. Sorry, if I missed something, but where did you link anything proving your point, that would need to be disproved somehow? You just said, you heard/read somewhere about engine reliability, and you state it as a fact, that it was such an issue, that it would have impacted sortie rate seriously (of the ussr), a fact that now needs to be disproved. Please... https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/MG29 I see there 2 crashes (1978 and 1980) that are engine related, then it's only 15 accidents until the end of 1989, most of which is not said to be engine related (some might be incomplete of course, the page itself says it is incomplete info.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F-15_losses here I see 60+ F-15 accidents between '78 and the end of '89. So the 29 is obviously not perfect, but I don't see a terrible record here either. (quickly before someone jumps at me for the very different number of planes in service at the given timeframe: 1988-89 - both types are already in service in comparable numbers - F-15 7 losses <--->- MiG29 6 losses) So it is not a jumo-004
  6. I meant that about the MiG-23 regarding maintenance, running costs, low service life (as you said). I think later 23 models, ML and after are quite capable, they don't deserve the bad reputation due to the crappy MS version. That being said, I think that the variable geometry design really did not help, as it has become very heavy due to it. If you've ever seen a MiG-23 standing next to a 29, the MiG-23 looks small in comparison, yet their weights are very close. I mean, I know, why they thought it was important, but still, such a complex design for something meant to be mass produced in such scales, as a main workhorse after the MiG-21... Less is sometimes better.
  7. I also think that the 29 is in a strange place regarding the high-low mix. One of the serious issues with the MiG-29 is, that the engines have low service lives and the time between overhauls is also quite low. That really makes the running costs high, having 2 engines. The MiG-23 is also relatively problematic, and costly to run (MiG-21s outlived them in many ex-pact coutries), so while it is true, that more 23MLDs (if upgraded a bit) could take the early 29s role in many cases, that is still not really optimal. My very subjective opinion is, that the soviets got carried away a bit after the MiG-21, and failed to develop a real successor to that fighter, a real simple, no-nonsense, single engine fighter, that is a good platform for future upgrades (has side intakes, so it can carry a proper radar, no swing wing or any other fancy stuff, small, but large enough to carry 2xR-23 sized weapons) imo MiG-29M to 29A is like the F-16C to the 16A. The 29M would be THE MiG-29 if history went a different direction.
  8. Su-27 has never been shot down in air to air afaik. It is only 6:0 though. None of these planes have ever met in a symmetric conflict, where numbers, training, SA, support would be at the same level. Drawing final conclusions from asymmetric conflicts, where the result were already pre-determined makes no sense. It makes absolutely no sense, but here you go : You see? The invulnerable 1999:0 F-15 can be hit by an old russian missile fired way oustide of any design limits. What does this prove? Nothing. Only thing is, that this should be kept in mind, when arguing about that radar detection range and stuff like that.
  9. Hey, everybody knows, that the key to successfully defend objectives is to have your SAMs at a fixed place, so that the enemy can locate their position exactly very easy. Don't ever try to hide them, don't deploy any decoys, just stay there, turn on the radar and take it. Just like in DCS.
  10. Ah, ok I guess it was stricty forbidden for soviets to move their air defenses around, especially since most their 1980s stuff was mobile, even the SA-10 has a deployment time of 5 minutes. But I guess they'll just use them as static defense in depth, because reasons... They certainly did not think about trying to make highly mobile and redundant systems, like the SA-11, all the launchers having their own fcr. Just everything static.
  11. Well, I think that is the point here, that they were able to adapt to the situation, use their equipment the best way possible. In those other often mentioned conflicts it is usually the opposite, like not moving a mobile SAM unit for days, firing a lot of missiles on fake drone targets, shooting down their own aircrafts all the time, etc... Maybe there was a bit of difference in training standards, who knows? Telling mobile SA-6 units to just stay there and form a wall is not something I would consider very clever.... Also being able to set up a SAM trap means, that they knew where to look and when (they allowed themself 20 seconds of radar emission at a time, then relocate as fast as possible afaik), so NATO wasn't really able to completely disrupt their "system". In 1999.
  12. It's a bit off-topic, but I think it might be important to keep in mind, when those middle-east conflicts are quoted as proof for total western superiority, that while syrian mobile SA-6 systems were destroyed with ease there in the 1980s, much more recently, in 1999 a shitty old SA-3 unit managed to stay alive with no losses in the NATO-Serbia war and scored 2:0 with all the ECM and harms flying around. I think that should be kept in mind before going to the very convenient conclusion that it would have been an easy fight in the 1980s in Europe
  13. The initial claim here, that I jumped on was that Su-27 vs F-15 the exchange ratio would be 6 to 1 in favor of the F-15. Now we are talking about SPO-10 and MiG-21/23. Going 6:1 against the 21 and 23 sounds realistic and tbh it is close to the minimum requirement for an F-15 (or 14) given the numbers and the price difference between those aircraft. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that about a half squadron worth of 23s could be bought for the price of the F-15. And production numbers reflect that. (Let's not even talk about 21s) In DCS a 15 nm Sparrow shot from 20k ft is absolutely no reason to splitS or break lock in any way. If you claim, that missile kinematics are modeled wrong for aim-7, then please post report to have them fix it. I have only seen charts for the 7F. It might be considered otherwise IRL because, well it is IRL and they would respect any weapon launch much much more as it life or death. But that also means, that an R-27 launch would be treated with much more respect, as well, and could cause the enemy to break lock. (BTW I've read it here often, that the R-27 is considered a shit missile because it scored almost 0 in the Ethiopia-Eritrea war without anyone knowing what happened there. Never read anyone thinking about the possibilty, that maybe those mercenary pilots did not want to press a deadly head-on and rather broke lock trashing both missiles. It's easy to turn a 100% pk fox1 to 0% if they break lock....)
  14. Ok, so WW3 over Europe were to be nice, clean 4v4s, with perfect picture, it is no problem that they loose a bit of SA and can only engage one target at a time, from a rather close range, against an enemy with superior numbers... there are tactics to deal with all that, easy 6:1 kill ratio. Sure. I'm talking talking about the threat of the all aspect IR missiles at close ranges, because (US) experiments have shown that when they are used by both sides, exchange ratio tends to gravitate towards 1:1 regardless of the aircraft types. That sounds like a very realistic expectation to me, and it is the reason the US went really heavy on BVR. My point is that the Aim-7 is not enough (the 120 is). There are flares in DCS and IRL. Question is: do you have perfect SA to notice the launch or not? So the reason I think 1:6 or 1:4 is ridiculous is that I suspect the fight to get close and chaotic, simple as that.
  15. How do you clean up BVR with Aim-7s (or R-27R) ? At medium altitudes any shot beyond 10 nm with either of those has around 0% hit chance (unless the target flies like a target drone just straight into the missile...). If you have data, that the DCS Aim-7 is completely wrong, please share. I get it, the F-15 has a very good radar, and that gives good SA, but if the weapon is the Aim-7, they'll have to get quite close to actually kill something, and that good SA will degrade quickly as they need to stay in STT to guide the missiles. At those 20-10 nm ranges where the real fight starts both 29/27 or even a MiG-23 should be able to get a lock on the F-15 and shoot missiles with comparable range, that are even faster. Are the F-15s going to just stay on target all the way, while their Aim-7s finally hit, hoping that the R-27 is just a shitty missile, and won't hit them anyway? Because if both break lock fearing the enemy missile at some point, then the F-15s just found themself somewhere less than 5 nm to those IR missiles, and their superior radar does not do much at those ranges. And btw, what about the numbers in the 1980s? It would be quite realistic to have something like a 4v1 against GCI guided MiG-23s. How were they going to manage that if the range of their primary weapons are that close? So I think, that 1 to 6 ratio sounds like whishful thinking.
  16. That exchange ratio is just ridiculous. With Sparrows? Really? Even if we consider Su-27/MiG-29 radar and R-27 trash, they would have to get close to get the kills, and then anything can happen with all those deadly all-aspect IR missiles flying around. I'm not talking about 1v1 obviously.
  17. My speculation is, that if the G vs AoA in DCS was closer to what is shown in the video (17,4 vs 23 AoA seems too much for me even with all the unknown variables), that would mean that both the lift vs aoa and the drag vs aoa curves would get a little flatter, and that would cause, I think, a decrease in sustained turn rates, but increased nose authority, and that would be in line with their feedback. Do you have any links to where this was discussed?
  18. Your original post is unfortunately quite pointless, because there is no way to accurately measure and test dynamic things like speed loss in a turn based on that couple of seconds of hud footage, where they fly with all kinds of attitudes, but the video is very good, thanks for posting that. What we can easily match to DCS are values on the HUD in a given situation, and that shows that you get more Gs for the AoA in DCS There is one point in the video at 7:50 where the instructor takes over and pulls 5.2 Gs max at 15 degrees pitch down at 310 kts, and ends up at 260 kts a bit later as he pulls on target. You can certainly do better in DCS with around 7000 lbs of fuel on board. You get 5.2 Gs in that situation in DCS just for little over 17 degrees AoA and you can almost sustain it. Track included this time F-18min15degturn.trk
  19. Where did I say I was sustaining it?? lol These are 2 separate subjects. The screens simply show the plane in a situation, that matches a screen from the video. Simple as that.
  20. IRL if an aircraft registers an exceedance, there is usually some explaining to do by the crew later on, and people tend to try to avoid that. Are you sure, that it is a common occurance that F-18 pilots exceed the FCS limiter by accident? Do you have any source on that?
  21. I checked with your fuel values, then its is 3Gs at 250 kts horizontal at 10k feet With that much fuel max G is limited to 6.5, but in the video they have max G of 7.3, so they must be lighter We really can't measure speed loss form those vids, but what we can see, is that they certainly get less Gs for a given AoA, so there is a clear difference between DCS and the videos, but in this case DCS is clearly overperforming not under. this certainly depends on weight, but they can't be too heavy if max G shows 7.3
  22. at 300 kts 4,6 Gs horizontal at 250 kts 3,4 Gs horizontal that it what the 18 sustains for me with 2x aim9s center tank and pylons on with total fuel of 7000 - 6000 lbs in horizontal flight at 10000 feet
  23. Managed to get a screen at exactly AoA= 22,4 in DCS (3 kts slower though) config : 2x AiM-9s + 1 center tank, no pylons, total fuel : 7000 lbs Video : 4,6 G DCS : 5,5 G (with the pylons it is only 5,4G at 293 btw)
  24. I could not open your track for some reason, but for me the F-18 can sustain 4,6 G in horizontal flight at 10000 feet easily with a center tank (total fuel between 7000 and 6000) (and around 3,8 Gs at 20000 feet horizontal ...) What altitude did you try that? Also comparing the DCS AoA vs G and the video's AoA vs G, it turns out they get less Gs for the AoA compared to DCS: Video: 290 kts at 13800 feet ---- AoA 22,4 degrees ----> 4.6 G (or 4,8 its blurred) DCS: 290 kts at 13700 feet ---- AoA 20,4 degrees ------> 5,3 G This can vary with weight a lot of course, but they can't be too heavy in the video since they have 7.3 as max G on the hud
  25. Ok, so here is the old, already reported thread about the problem. Is there any way to fix this without complete redesign? One idea: What if chaff would disappear in 0.5 to 1 sec after release? This would simulate stationary chaff being filtered out. Chaff would still have an effect but missiles would not do such large turns away from the target. After how much time does chaff disappear in game currently?
  • Create New...