Jump to content

MiG 29S HUD & HDD display the same thing


Recommended Posts

Since this seems to have devolved into a MiG-29 vs Su-27 or F-15 thread, I'll bite.

 

It is appropriate anyway, since this must be at least 5th or 6th thread about HDD only being a HUD repeater :D.

 

MiG-29 is a pretty little thing, very pretty indeed. I tend to think of it similar to a sports car, nice looking, nice to throw around. As a fighter aircraft though, I believe it is probably the biggest flop of all 4th generation jets.

 

Radar isn't up to par, engines aren't as good as neither Su-27 engines nor Western rivals, and they were smokey as hell until very recently. Payload was also meek until recently, and even then it only became decent nowadays. Fuel capacity is woefully small, and engines aren't economic either.

 

It has met with and fought against F-16, F-15, and even the Su-27 in real life conflict . Many vs many in case of Su-27. None of those ended in MiG's favor, and it was in the receiving end in all of them. Since fall of Iron Curtain, there have been many excersises where any type of aircraft have sparred with MiG-29. Even though early on, R-73 and HMD combo proved a nasty surprise, this capability soon caught up and surpassed, and when looking maneuvrability alone, other 4th generation fighters didn't really had too big issues fighting against it on those excersises, über-agile MiG-29 now seems to a myth of 80s.

 

Now, the latest MiG-29K is surely pretty darn good, possibly even latest MiG-29SMT. If MiG-35 ever becomes an actual thing I'm sure it'll be good too, but it would be LATE, as we are in twilight days for 4th generation.

 

Now before anyone brands me NATO fanboy let me say clearly I am not, I've always liked Russian aircraft more, and still do. But liking the aircraft is one thing, objective assesment of it's capabilities against it's peers is another. I am very much looking forward to PFM update for the MiG to explore how it really handles with such a flight model, I am really curious to compare and contrast between F-15, Su-27 and if it's flight model becomes more complete by then, Mirage 2000 too. If I was in such an utopia that I could own an aircraft without caring at all for it's maintenance, I would get myselfs a MiG-29 rather than F-16 to fly around :). But if I was setting up an airforce, MiG would be my last choice.

 

If we look at real world though, Russia herself relegated the Fulcrum to secondary, number filler role long ago, instead updating Flanker line as their primary aircraft, and they have postponed MiG-35 multiple times while having many advanced Flanker derivatives like Su-30SM, Su-30M2, Su-35 and Su-34. If we look at export, almost all the bigger customers went for a Su-30 variant since late 90s rather than any of the updated MiG-29s.

 

If I look at the MiG in context of all other 4th generation fighters, updated and capable variants are far an inbetween, haven't seen much action, and what comes to mind as the Fulcrum instead are MiG-29A and MiG-29S. If, I compare those to anything other in 4th gen, they just fizzle and flop in my opinion.

 

Now just let me don my flame resistant protective clothing :D.


Edited by WinterH

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is supposed to get a cool datalink called "Lazur" (or something close to that, varies), it uses ground radar stations (perhaps AWACS? Ive heard conflicting things) to show the locations of enemies and control some parts of the Radar.

 

Yes it is called "Lazur" - it cannot connect directly to AWACS, but the A-50 can interact with a ground based radar network, so a MiG-29 may get target info obtained by an AWACS indirectly via GCI :)

 

I hope it comes in when the MiG is finished. If it does, it will make the MiG scary dangerous as a short range interceptor.

 

It would at least give us the chance to use it in the way it was meant to be used :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you're right, I should have said that it's a GCI-only datalink and doesn't have the aircraft - aircraft capability that the one in the Su-27 has.

 

It should be mentioned that there is still some uncertainties in regards to the MiG-29 datalink though - there is clearly some differences between the one installed in export variants(for which there is documentation) and the non-export Soviet ones(extra options on the datalink panel as well as on the IPV).

 

What exactly those amount to I don't know, but I guess we cannot completely rule out the possibility that tactical information is displayed separately on the HDD when in GCI regime.


Edited by Seaeagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...all the versions in DCS do. Which he was referencing.

We don´t reference super mega awesome MiG-35s with new, less smokey engines.

 

The smokey MiG-29 Engines are a commonly known part about it.

 

Well I recently attended an airshow featuring both the MiG-29 and Su-27 going through pretty much the same flight routines and the MiG-29 didn't smoke more that the Su-27 - if anything it was more the other way around. But in both cases it was nothing like the big fat black trails sometimes seen in videos :)

 

I don't know that the deal is with the smokey engines - I have heard an explanation that it is down to the design of RD-33's combustion chamber, but I suspect it may also have a lot to do with tuning or/and fuel type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a DCS perspective, the main disadvantage appears to be the cripplingly small fuel capacity. It can obviously take some tanks but that then further limits weapon capacity. As a point defence interceptor it probably has few if any rivals in the game, but I'd never use it as an air superiority or escort fighter, which in fairness it was never designed to be.

 

I should also say that ED have done an amazing job with the new 3D model. It's really pretty, as is the cockpit.

System Spec: Cooler Master Cosmos C700P Black Edition case. | AMD 5950X CPU | MSI RTX-3090 GPU | 32GB HyperX Predator PC4000 RAM | | TM Warthog stick & throttle | TrackIR 5 | Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 4 SSD 1TB (boot) | Samsung 870 QVO SSD 4TB (games) | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

 

Personal wish list: DCS: Su-27SM & DCS: Avro Vulcan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a DCS perspective, the main disadvantage appears to be the cripplingly small fuel capacity. It can obviously take some tanks but that then further limits weapon capacity. As a point defence interceptor it probably has few if any rivals in the game, but I'd never use it as an air superiority or escort fighter, which in fairness it was never designed to be.

 

I should also say that ED have done an amazing job with the new 3D model. It's really pretty, as is the cockpit.

I beg to differ. The MiG is a great superiority fighter within the limits of its range. I call it "Frontline Superiority" as it really can only operate around its base or the FLOT. From there it really cannot go as an escort unless enemies are expected behind lines.

 

The MiG-29A is more poor in this respect with its lacking BVR armament and electronics, so I would say the MiG-29A is mostly a "Point Intercept Fighter" while the MiG-29S is a combination of that and "Frontline Superiority".

 

But despite what I personally say, all MiGs do interception best. Flying off of co-ordinated networks in likely low-hi-low attacks on enemy formations and with deadly efficiency using IRST and DL.


Edited by TheFurNinja

In-Game Handle: Lutrafisk

She/Her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this seems to have devolved into a MiG-29 vs Su-27 or F-15 thread' date=' I'll bite.[/quote']

 

I don´t know how you came up with that conclusion unless you like such comparison wars.:smilewink:

 

If it wasn't a small difference it would be relevant' date=' fact is in DCS it is a very small difference.[/quote']

 

When talking about DCS you´re right, I was referring to RL.

 

The smokey MiG-29 Engines are a commonly known part about it.

 

I allways thought it had to do with engine tuning. When the engines are tuned for peace operations they are more smokey then they are tuned for war operations.

 

I don't know that the deal is with the smokey engines - I have heard an explanation that it is down to the design of RD-33's combustion chamber, but I suspect it may also have a lot to do with tuning or/and fuel type.

 

The engines (early) will only release smoke when the throttle is moving, because of a design characteristic when adjusting combustion increases/decreases. If the throttle is steady or changing between AB regimes, it will be smokeless.

 

Also, smokeless engines are available years ago and can be mounted in any MiG-29 variant.

 

I believe it is probably the biggest flop of all 4th generation jets.

 

I´m sure it´s not.

 

engines aren't as good as neither Su-27 engines nor Western rivals

 

Can we agree that you know as much about article 88 engines as I know about CPUs interconnect design?

 

Disclaimer: I don´t know anything about CPU design.:D

 

It has met with and fought against F-16' date=' F-15, and even the Su-27 in real life conflict . Many vs many in case of Su-27. None of those ended in MiG's favor, and it was in the receiving end in all of them. Since fall of Iron Curtain, there have been many excersises where any type of aircraft have sparred with MiG-29. Even though early on, R-73 and HMD combo proved a nasty surprise, this capability soon caught up and surpassed, and when looking maneuvrability alone, other 4th generation fighters didn't really had too big issues fighting against it on those excersises, über-agile MiG-29 now seems to a myth of 80s.[/quote']

 

Yes, you can get all that info on the internet these days. Pretty good reads.

 

But if I was setting up an airforce' date=' MiG would be my last choice.[/quote']

 

Any country will need a good analisys of the supossed ToO, parts availability, upgrades cost, "customer support", supposed adversaries, etc, to determine that.

 

Russia herself relegated the Fulcrum to secondary' date=' number filler role long ago, instead updating Flanker line as their primary aircraft[/quote']

 

Part of it is Budget. Su-27 variants are about 1/3 of the AF. It´s less expensive to update them while MiG-29 updates can go at a slower pace and with less units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was designed to fullfil both roles as a matter of fact including a bit of ground pounding.

Agreed, the only stipulation is that the MiG can only do such things close to base (due to payload and range). But that is okay because with base so close by, turnaround times at base are low and you can cycle in and out masses of MiGs in no time.

 

All of this forms the "MiG Screen" that is constantly prodding at the enemy lines all the while providing security and superiority over friendly lines. All in all a very very strong strategy.

In-Game Handle: Lutrafisk

She/Her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The engines (early) will only release smoke when the throttle is moving, because of a design characteristic when adjusting combustion increases/decreases. If the throttle is steady or changing between AB regimes, it will be smokeless.

 

That is in stark contrast to any footage from MiG-29s flying around, and the characteristic, reddish-hued smoke can clearly be seen.


Edited by Chrinik

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

GCI: "Control to SEAD: Enemy SAM site 190 for 30, cleared to engage"

Striker: "Copy, say Altitude?"

GCI: "....Deck....it´s a SAM site..."

Striker: "Oh...."

Fighter: "Yeah, those pesky russian build, baloon based SAMs."

 

-Red-Lyfe

 

Best way to troll DCS community, make an F-16A, see how dedicated the fans really are :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a fighter aircraft though, I believe it is probably the biggest flop of all 4th generation jets.

 

When the F-16 came out, it wasn´t much to look at, either. When the MiG-29 came out, western observers where shocked it came with the capability to mount Medium Range Missiles, when the F-16 only had Sidewinders. That was actually one of the driving forces to upgrade that capability into the F-16 family very early.

 

And to believe the MiG-29 was once a CONTESTER to the SU-27...

 

It´s just that Soviet upgrade doctrine, especially around the 1990ies, was lacking behind western countries, upgrading most of their arsenal to multi-role, PGM capable jets irrelevant of initial design specification, while the Soviet plan was "we build it for this job, lets make it better at it´s job" when it came to upgrades. Better engines, better avionics, sure, but expanding capabilities in terms of multi-role..."dumb bombs and rockets will do" seems to have been the philosophy, atleast in terms of the cold war.

When a dedicated ground attack version was made of a fighter, it recieved a different designation and was then, in fact, specilized for ground attack. XD

 

It´s only after the tumult of the 90ies settled, that russia has been investing into their arsenals again.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

GCI: "Control to SEAD: Enemy SAM site 190 for 30, cleared to engage"

Striker: "Copy, say Altitude?"

GCI: "....Deck....it´s a SAM site..."

Striker: "Oh...."

Fighter: "Yeah, those pesky russian build, baloon based SAMs."

 

-Red-Lyfe

 

Best way to troll DCS community, make an F-16A, see how dedicated the fans really are :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The engines (early) will only release smoke when the throttle is moving, because of a design characteristic when adjusting combustion increases/decreases. If the throttle is steady or changing between AB regimes, it will be smokeless.

 

Yes thats clear, but doesn't explain why they are sometimes seen trailing a big fat plume of jet black smoke, while on other occasions only a small puff followed by a short and barely visible trail :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by WinterH;

Russia herself relegated the Fulcrum to secondary, number filler role long ago, instead updating Flanker line as their primary aircraft.

 

Part of it is Budget. Su-27 variants are about 1/3 of the AF. It´s less expensive to update them while MiG-29 updates can go at a slower pace and with less units.

 

I don't see how it would be less expensive to upgrade the Flanker fleet. Anyway, Russia already has upgraded MiG-29SMTs in service and in fact opted for MiG-29K/KUBs for the navy instead of deep upgrade/expansion of the Su-33 fleet. They have also ordered the MiG-35.. although the planned configuration sounds more like the MiG-29M/M2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how it would be less expensive to upgrade the Flanker fleet. Anyway, Russia already has upgraded MiG-29SMTs in service and in fact opted for MiG-29K/KUBs for the navy instead of deep upgrade/expansion of the Su-33 fleet. They have also ordered the MiG-35.. although the planned configuration sounds more like the MiG-29M/M2.

 

Anyone know why they went with the MiG-29 for the Navy instead of an upgraded Su-33? I would imagine that a fleet defence fighter needs range, a-la the F-14, which is one area where the MiG conspicuously struggles. Was it simply a case of being able to carry more of them on a medium sized "Kuznetsov" type carrier?

System Spec: Cooler Master Cosmos C700P Black Edition case. | AMD 5950X CPU | MSI RTX-3090 GPU | 32GB HyperX Predator PC4000 RAM | | TM Warthog stick & throttle | TrackIR 5 | Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 4 SSD 1TB (boot) | Samsung 870 QVO SSD 4TB (games) | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

 

Personal wish list: DCS: Su-27SM & DCS: Avro Vulcan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have also ordered the MiG-35..

No, they didn't.

 

There is no signed contract yet.


Edited by Darkbrotherhood7

Mission: "To intercept and destroy aircraft and airborne missiles in all weather conditions in order to establish and maintain air superiority in a designated area. To deliver air-to-ground ordnance on time in any weather condition. And to provide tactical reconaissance imagery" - F-14 Tomcat Roll Call

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone know why they went with the MiG-29 for the Navy instead of an upgraded Su-33? I would imagine that a fleet defence fighter needs range, a-la the F-14, which is one area where the MiG conspicuously struggles. Was it simply a case of being able to carry more of them on a medium sized "Kuznetsov" type carrier?

Probably several reasons, the MiG as well as being smaller is also more versatile and better suited in multirole plus the KUB adds more into the op. They may even keep the 33's to complement or alternate.


Edited by Frostie

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably several reasons, the MiG as well as being smaller is also more versatile and better suited in multirole plus the KUB adds more into the op. They may even keep the 33's to complement or alternate.

 

That would make sense. I could see good arguments for upgrading the 33's to a more advanced pure fighter level, maybe something like the -35, and then using the upgraded 29's in a multi-role capacity.

System Spec: Cooler Master Cosmos C700P Black Edition case. | AMD 5950X CPU | MSI RTX-3090 GPU | 32GB HyperX Predator PC4000 RAM | | TM Warthog stick & throttle | TrackIR 5 | Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 4 SSD 1TB (boot) | Samsung 870 QVO SSD 4TB (games) | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

 

Personal wish list: DCS: Su-27SM & DCS: Avro Vulcan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone know why they went with the MiG-29 for the Navy instead of an upgraded Su-33?

 

They didn't - they went for both :) .

 

The Su-33s will be upgraded(although probably only moderately) and continue to serve with the 279th regiment, while a newly formed 100th regiment will operate the 24 new MiG-29K/KUBs.

 

I would imagine that a fleet defence fighter needs range, a-la the F-14, which is one area where the MiG conspicuously struggles.

 

I wouldn't say that the MiG-29K struggles in this area - it can carry a lot more fuel(both internally and externally) than the old baseline MiG-29. It also has in-flight refuelling capability and can carry a "buddy-refuelling" pack.

 

Was it simply a case of being able to carry more of them on a medium sized "Kuznetsov" type carrier?

 

The MiG-29K/KUB is a brand new aircraft, while there is really only so much you can do in terms of upgrading the Su-33 - especially considering the age of the airframes.

 

The MiG-29K production line was already in place with the Indian order(s), while there are no export customers for the Su-33. So designing, testing, certifying and setting up a production line for a new upgraded version just for Russian navy, would likely not be economically feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they didn't.

 

There is no signed contract yet.

 

No that right, they haven't signed the contract yet, but they intend to:

 

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150812/1179340533.html

 

There is initial approval of the type by the Russian MoD, prototypes are being built for state acceptance trials and if completed according to schedule, they plan to sign a contract for some 30 aircraft in 2018.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is in stark contrast to any footage from MiG-29s flying around, and the characteristic, reddish-hued smoke can clearly be seen.

 

Most of that footage is taken in air shows or while flying in formation. The throttle needs to be adjusted constantly in those cases.

 

There are plenty of videos out there that show smokeless MiG-29s. I think I remember two 29s flying alongside a Su-26. That video is a good example.

 

followed by a short and barely visible trail

 

If you look well, even the F-22 has this trail. It´s common to almost every aircraft. Depending on RPM you will have more or less smoke.

 

I don't see how it would be less expensive to upgrade the Flanker fleet. Anyway' date=' Russia already has upgraded MiG-29SMTs in service and in fact opted for MiG-29K/KUBs for the navy instead of deep upgrade/expansion of the Su-33 fleet. They have also ordered the MiG-35.. although the planned configuration sounds more like the MiG-29M/M2.[/quote']

 

I did say "part of it", isn´t it?:)

 

There´re about as twice as much MiG-29 than there are Su-27s. Less planes, less money.

 

The MiG-35 contract is not that clear yet as Darkbrotherhood7 said. Also, you need to take into account the MiG-31 updates as well. These ones have a greater impact on homeland defense.

 

About range, with a single bag the combat radius of the MiG-29 is really great, and you hardly loose any performance. To sum it up, it´s not awesome, but good enough.

 

I think we have taken this too off-thread.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of that footage is taken in air shows or while flying in formation. The throttle needs to be adjusted constantly in those cases.

 

If you look well, even the F-22 has this trail. It´s common to almost every aircraft. Depending on RPM you will have more or less smoke.

 

Yes but that was the point I was making - i.e. that in some videos the MiG-29 is seen to smoke a lot, while in the airshow I was at, it didn't really smoke more than the other aircraft and certainly not more than the Su-27 did.

 

There´re about as twice as much MiG-29 than there are Su-27s. Less planes, less money.

 

Ok I see what you mean, but the choice is not necessarily to upgrade all of one type and none of the other :) .

 

The MiG-35 contract is not that clear yet as Darkbrotherhood7 said. Also, you need to take into account the MiG-31 updates as well. These ones have a greater impact on homeland defense.

 

I was responding to the notion that domestic and export customers only went for upgraded/new versions of the Flanker, while no one has shown any interest in MiG-29 derivatives, which is clearly false. Considering that the MiG-35 is a newer development, you cannot support that claim just because the Russian contract for it hasn't been signed yet - what matters is that they(Russian MoD) intend to sign it once state acceptance trials have been completed. Besides, they already purchased both upgraded MiG-29SMTs as well as MiG-29K/KUBs for the navy.

 

On the export markets, India already purchased the MiG-29K/KUB(16 units initially followed by 29 more) and is in the process of upgrading 69 of their baseline MiG-29s to MiG-29UPG standard(sort of SMT+). Additionally Egypt has recently signed a contract for 50 MiG-29M/M2s.

 

About range, with a single bag the combat radius of the MiG-29 is really great, and you hardly loose any performance. To sum it up, it´s not awesome, but good enough.

 

Its nothing compared to the new MiG-29K/KUBs though - with 3 bags it has the same range as the Su-33 and can also be refuelled in the air :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...