announced DCS MiG-29A

I would hope a 9.13 would be included, the cockpit has a few added ECM switches that it right? They already have external model. While it would suck to only get 9.12, I would fly the hell out of it all the same

Me too, but ECM is likely to be the very reason that might prohibit the more modern variant. However, it might be possible to port existing ECM mechanic from FC3 MiG-29S to the full-fi MiG-29 9-13, without digging into further details.

Me too, but ECM is likely to be the very reason that might prohibit the more modern variant. However, it might be possible to port existing ECM mechanic from FC3 MiG-29S to the full-fi MiG-29 9-13, without digging into further details.

Yeah, I’m sure that’s the hope among a lot of us

MiG-29A 9.12 had better acceleration, climb rate and sustained turn rate than later heavier variants.

And it was far better in relation to opponents of it's period than more modern variants.

Personally I think ED should focus on late Cold War considering they will not model any modern red for in the future. There would be still the hottest airframes like F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27 - just with less stand off munitions, links and avionics.

And everything could be modeled in realistic manner without intentional dumbing down some systems to not disclose military secrets.

Anyway I'm eagerly waiting for full fidelity classic Cold War bogeyman MiG-29A.

Excellent question, apart from being legendary fighter used by 30+ Air forces including NATO and a long service history it will bring its excellent kinematics and Thrust-to-weight and a new flavor to the MFDs brigade.

 

It will increase the fidelity of all "red" weapons and systems laying ground from for all future "Red-Air" projects.

 

Also getting full-fidelity version would benefit also all GCI assisted aircraft (M2000C has guidance system, F-14, MiG-21, EEL and any future ones) since it would bring more GCI infrastructure APIs and implementation.

 

With GCI modes, EWR modes, auto-target prioritization, correct smoke vs RPM modeling, working NAV panel, controllable Fuel Tank Jettions and CM profiles I think it will only get more effective, not less.

 

Although I understand you hotas concerns, I been flying with RL layout for years and I don't find anything lacking and even find it to be a straight forward one.

 

Embrace the challenge and 29 will reward you.

This are excellent points.

In the late 1980s, when the MiG-29 was deployed in strenght (250 Soviet MiG-29 based in East Germany), it compared quite favourably with the Sidewinder armed F-16A/C, which was he most numerous fighter fielded by NATO in Europe. I think this provides a good basis for the MiG-29 9.12 in DCS.

In the late 1980s, when the MiG-29 was deployed in strenght (250 Soviet MiG-29 based in East Germany), it compared quite favourably with the Sidewinder armed F-16A/C, which was he most numerous fighter fielded by NATO in Europe. I think this provides a good basis for the MiG-29 9.12 in DCS.

But we don't have 1980s nato stuff. And limiting modern 2000s planes in terms of weapons is just not the same as flying 16A

There is the Mirage 2000C though, which is almost a perfect match for the MiG-29 9.12.

Well the actives did change the landscape a lot, but in SARH only environment it is a beast...

F-15 has a disadvantage close in due to R-73 and Шлем

F-16 would lack long range missiles

F-18 speed and power

M-2000 missile number and again Шлем/R-73

It is no wonder why JG73 pilots have very high kill count against other NATO squadrons and very high opinion of the Fulcrum

MiG-29A 9.12 had better acceleration, climb rate and sustained turn rate than later heavier variants.

 

And it was far better in relation to opponents of it's period than more modern variants.

 

 

Personally I think ED should focus on late Cold War considering they will not model any modern red for in the future. There would be still the hottest airframes like F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27 - just with less stand off munitions, links and avionics.

 

And everything could be modeled in realistic manner without intentional dumbing down some systems to not disclose military secrets.

 

 

Anyway I'm eagerly waiting for full fidelity classic Cold War bogeyman MiG-29A.

But A can only have 2 mid range AA missile which is deal breaker for me.

For a 4 gen fighter, its seems really stupid to me to have a 4-2 AA configuration.

Exactly the same thing like MiG-21, F-5, F-86 etc. Interesting aircraft to fly with and fight with. Dont be a sissy. People like challenges and I dont think that Fulcrum will be tougher to learn than MiG-21 or F-14.

Excellent question, apart from being legendary fighter used by 30+ Air forces including NATO and a long service history it will bring its excellent kinematics and Thrust-to-weight and a new flavor to the MFDs brigade.

 

It will increase the fidelity of all "red" weapons and systems laying ground from for all future "Red-Air" projects.

 

Also getting full-fidelity version would benefit also all GCI assisted aircraft (M2000C has guidance system, F-14, MiG-21, EEL and any future ones) since it would bring more GCI infrastructure APIs and implementation.

 

With GCI modes, EWR modes, auto-target prioritization, correct smoke vs RPM modeling, working NAV panel, controllable Fuel Tank Jettions and CM profiles I think it will only get more effective, not less.

 

Although I understand you hotas concerns, I been flying with RL layout for years and I don't find anything lacking and even find it to be a straight forward one.

 

Embrace the challenge and 29 will reward you.

We already have a FC3 one, which is probably the best aircraft in that package, fidelity wise. Flight model is kinda wonky but that's every module made by ED. If we had a full fidelity 29 it would be a pain in the butt to use in combat - definitely not as effective as the magic radar and magic IRST lockon of the FC3 one. There is literally nothing contentwise that would add to DCS. I'd much rather have them do a 25-PD, Mig-27, Su-24 etc.

For a 4 gen fighter, its seems really stupid to me to have a 4-2 AA configuration.

Let me remind you about F-16A...

Well the actives did change the landscape a lot, but in SARH only environment it is a beast...

F-15 has a disadvantage close in due to R-73 and Шлем

F-16 would lack long range missiles

F-18 speed and power

M-2000 missile number and again Шлем/R-73

It is no wonder why JG73 pilots have very high kill count against other NATO squadrons and very high opinion of the Fulcrum

Those were the 90's, hobs and the 9X weren't really a thing in the west yet. Also, all JG73 pilots said the 29 would get absolutely destroyed and stood no chance in a BVR engagement against a 16, 15 or Hornet. Not even close. The only advantage the 29 had was a quick HMD engagement if you somehow managed to get close or a guns only scenario where the other guy sucks. It's a decent scramble type interceptor but that's about it.

You can't just cherry-pick some statements out of context and say the 29 was the way superiour plane, because it absolutely wasn't. In an agreed upon merge scenario that technically never happens in a real modern era conflict, sure, it can be dangerous.

west yet. Also, all JG73 pilots said the 29 would get absolutely destroyed and stood no chance in a BVR engagement against a 16, 15 or Hornet.

Against... Amraams

But A can only have 2 mid range AA missile which is deal breaker for me.

For a 4 gen fighter, its seems really stupid to me to have a 4-2 AA configuration.

Between 1980-1989 only 30% of air kills had been achieved with BVR AAM and 60% with VVR AAM.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/190269/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxrc2o-YPrAhVw-SoKHdQuBvgQFjACegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1mSp4Lo2iApoT6tJect2RI

In this light 4-2 AA seems perfect. Especially for short range interceptor with only one BVR engagement before VVR combat and return home on fumes.

Also, all JG73 pilots said the 29 would get absolutely destroyed and stood no chance in a BVR engagement against a 16, 15 or Hornet.

That is not what they said. They had remarks regarding situational awarness and cockpit ergonomics, but never did they say they would get absolutely destroyed in bvr.

In an agreed upon merge scenario that technically never happens in a real modern era conflict, sure, it can be dangerous.

In the context of a large scale East-West war, for which the MiG-29 was designed and fielded, where hundreds of aircraft would have opperated in a very small space and both sides would have employed very heavy jamming, I think it is at least debattable whether IFF and BVR combat would have been possible at all.

BVR worked very well during Desert Storm because only a hand full of Iraqi aircraft were airborne at a given time, which could be kept track of by AWACS. Now imagine the confusion that would have happened if the Iraqis could have launched hundreds of aircraft which would have intermingled with the hundreds of allied aircraft. This would have been the situation over Germany. No, I don't think BVR would have been a significant part of air combat. For this kind of combat, the MiG-29 (and the F-16) was very well suited.

That is not what they said. They had remarks regarding situational awarness and cockpit ergonomics, but never did they say they would get absolutely destroyed in bvr.

https://migflug.com/jetflights/german-luftwaffe-mig-29-fulcrum/

https://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm

In the context of a large scale East-West war, for which the MiG-29 was designed and fielded, where hundreds of aircraft would have opperated in a very small space and both sides would have employed very heavy jamming, I think it is at least debattable whether IFF and BVR combat would have been possible at all.

 

BVR worked very well during Desert Storm because only a hand full of Iraqi aircraft were airborne at a given time, which could be kept track of by AWACS. Now imagine the confusion that would have happened if the Iraqis could have launched hundreds of aircraft which would have intermingled with the hundreds of allied aircraft. This would have been the situation over Germany. No, I don't think BVR would have been a significant part of air combat. For this kind of combat, the MiG-29 (and the F-16) was very well suited.

Who launches hundreds of aircraft? There has to be some form of communications and if the enemies EW is jammed (lazur system for example), good luck with those 29's. You'd have strikes on the infrastructure first before you'd launch a full on air campaign, amongst other things, it is not all black and white and who really knows what would happen in a full on peer war. If anything, look at Allied Force and any other engagement where the 29's faced NATO aircraft. BVR wasn't a huge part or not very effective in the 80's to early 90's. The only airframes capable of BVR were the 14 and 15 and the Mig-31, which wasn't really specialised against fighters.

Who launches hundreds of aircraft? There has to be some form of communications and if the enemies EW is jammed (lazur system for example), good luck with those 29's.

That's where OLS comes into play

That's where OLS comes into play

Good luck with that.

Good luck with that.

Well, F-16 wouldn't be able to use any targeting systems in such circumstances due to a weaker radar and lack of ols

Well, F-16 wouldn't be able to use any targeting systems in such circumstances due to a weaker radar and lack of ols

Weaker radar than the 29? Nice one. The 16 also has Link 16 and at least the newer models the JHMCS and 9X, since we are kinda comparing it in the DCS World. Optionally a missile launch warning system as well.

The 16 also has Link 16 and at least the newer models the JHMCS and 9X

We're talking about reality here, not our game. But yeah, F-16A defenitely had better radar, amraams, link 16, jhmcs and 9x in 1980s

Who launches hundreds of aircraft? There has to be some form of communications and if the enemies EW is jammed (lazur system for example), good luck with those 29's. You'd have strikes on the infrastructure first before you'd launch a full on air campaign, amongst other things, it is not all black and white and who really knows what would happen in a full on peer war. If anything, look at Allied Force and any other engagement where the 29's faced NATO aircraft. BVR wasn't a huge part or not very effective in the 80's to early 90's. The only airframes capable of BVR were the 14 and 15 and the Mig-31, which wasn't really specialised against fighters.

Please, not this again. Just yesterday I had similar conversation on how "crappy" 29A is going to be, because some "clever"article on internet said so. Want better information about this topic, here you have it: https://ru.scribd.com/document/60545155/MiG-29-Midland

EW is very simplified in DCS, and it will stay like it for very loooooooooong time. Radar technology is simplified as well, even on FF modules. So no problem here. As for combat use, you clearly dont know all the facts. Main reason why 29s did not do well was mainly because of bad strategy, lack of proper training and poor maintenance. Even some generals said that if both sides switched armament, the results would be same.

Please, not this again. Just yesterday I had similar conversation on how "crappy" 29A is going to be, because some "clever"article on internet said so. Want better information about this topic, here you have it: https://ru.scribd.com/document/60545155/MiG-29-Midland

EW is very simplified in DCS, and it will stay like it for very loooooooooong time. Radar technology is simplified as well, even on FF modules. So no problem here. As for combat use, you clearly dont know all the facts. Main reason why 29s did not do well was mainly because of bad strategy, lack of proper training and poor maintenance. Even some generals said that if both sides switched armament, the results would be same.

I think most of Mig 29s bad rep is that it was used by the opposing force or axis force ( whatever we call them these days). The thing is...their opponents have always had intel advantage like AWACS. The Mig 29 users never had AWACS advantage or C4ISTAR assets much.

The wars before...even allies had so much casualties and losses. Today, technology on intel gap is intense.

The allies have yet to face Migs aided by AWACS at the very least...