announced DCS MiG-29A

[Superbug Echo]

Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids...it's the McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle that EVERYONE WANTS! 

 

Hī fəˈdelədē...yeah that's the ticket!

[Harlikwin]

8 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Yes, but I have doubts wrt their sortie generation.

 

 

I mean lets be real, how many sorties would NATO be generating when the OP-plan was to drop nukes on every nato airbase a H hour, with follow up nuclear strikes after that every few hours after. And yeah, those were the real warpac OP-plans. None of this wishful thinking that the war would somehow start conventionally, and escalate. The Soviets did the math and well, if its gonna go nuclear the guy that goes first is gonna likely "win". I'm sure there would be counterstrikes from nato as well. But that gets us way OT for DCS.

 

[GGTharos]

30 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I mean lets be real, how many sorties would NATO be generating when the OP-plan was to drop nukes on every nato airbase a H hour, with follow up nuclear strikes after that every few hours after. And yeah, those were the real warpac OP-plans. None of this wishful thinking that the war would somehow start conventionally, and escalate. The Soviets did the math and well, if its gonna go nuclear the guy that goes first is gonna likely "win". I'm sure there would be counterstrikes from nato as well. But that gets us way OT for DCS.

 

 

I know what the plans were.   Think it would stay confined to Europe?  I mean do you want to talk aircraft or do you want to talk WWIII?

[Harlikwin]

4 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

I know what the plans were.   Think it would stay confined to Europe?  I mean do you want to talk aircraft or do you want to talk WWIII?

 

Lets talk about the mig 29 and its sortie generation rate

[nighthawk2174]

Do we have any sources that actually list numbers of aircraft on both side for some year in the 80's? 

[Harlikwin]

Just now, nighthawk2174 said:

Do we have any sources that actually list numbers of aircraft on both side for some year in the 80's? 

 

Yeah there are a bunch of ORBATs available online. Lots of wargamers researched a ton of stuff in the 90's and dispelled various myths. But lets keep this about the 29. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Wizard_03]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Lets talk about the mig 29 and its sortie generation rate

absolute conjecture on my part but I'd say Prolly poor, with those engines I can't see it being stellar. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

absolute conjecture on my part but I'd say Prolly poor, with those engines I can't see it being stellar. 

 

 

And the mig29 mechanic I know would say otherwise. 

[Wizard_03]

9 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

And the mig29 mechanic I know would say otherwise. 

Ive actually have heard the jet itself is very simple and easy to maintain compared with western aircraft, but those engines are supposed to be very unreliable at least early on, and have a considerably lower service life. considerably, as in like half that of the F-404.

 

What does he/she have to say about that? I can't imagine readiness is high if your having to swap engines twice as much as the other guy.

[XPACT]

3 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

but those engines are supposed to be very unreliable at least early on, and have a considerably lower service life.

 

Engines are one of the least things you would worry about in MiG-29A. Radar reliability well that's another story.

[Harlikwin]

21 minutes ago, XPACT said:

 

Engines are one of the least things you would worry about in MiG-29A. Radar reliability well that's another story.

 

Supposedly the earlier radars weren't very reliable, but that got solved with the later ones. Not that we actually have to worry about anything like that in DCS. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Wizard_03]

1 hour ago, XPACT said:

 

Engines are one of the least things you would worry about in MiG-29A. Radar reliability well that's another story.

Maybe not if your in the cockpit and you have a good crew, but they sure are important if you want high sortie rates and aircraft availability from a defense planning perspective.

[Harlikwin]

32 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Maybe not if your in the cockpit and you have a good crew, but they sure are important if you want high sortie rates and aircraft availability from a defense planning perspective.

 

Lets talk about carter era "hollow force" readiness rates elsewhere  I have links... But its not the topic of the mig29...

 

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Harlikwin

[nighthawk2174]

6 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Lets talk about carter era "hollow force" readiness rates elsewhere  I have links... But its not the topic of the mig29...

 

 

 

From what i've read the biggest reason for these rates was not the jets themselves but a significant lack of spare parts that had been allocated for.

[Harlikwin]

14 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

From what i've read the biggest reason for these rates was not the jets themselves but a significant lack of spare parts that had been allocated for.

 

If there is one thing the soviets had plenty of it was spare parts. And the guys to swap em out. So many spare parts in fact that it kept the US space launch business in business for decades after they bought spare soviet rocket engines. Engines the west said couldn't exist because their engineers said so. But once again we digress, so back to the mig29.

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Wizard_03]

13 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

If there is one thing the soviets had plenty of it was spare parts. And the guys to swap em out. So many spare parts in fact that it kept the US space launch business in business for decades after they bought spare soviet rocket engines. Engines the west said couldn't exist because their engineers said so. But once again we digress, so back to the mig29.

 

 

I am talking about the MiG-29, how do you get higher sortie generation with engines that have a reputation for having really poor service life and a questionable reliability factor by industry standards of the time.

 

It certainly affected both the F-16 and F-15 when the F-100 was first rolled out and couldn't be relied on I can't imagine it was different or better the Soviets. A broke engines is a broke engine. That's gonna down an aircraft regardless of who is in charge. 

[FoxAlfa]

3 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

I am talking about the MiG-29, how do you get higher sortie generation with engines that have a reputation for having really poor service life and a questionable reliability factor by industry standards of the time.

 

It certainly affected both the F-16 and F-15 when the F-100 was first rolled out and couldn't be relied on I can't imagine it was different or better the Soviets. A broke engines is a broke engine. That's gonna down an aircraft regardless of who is in charge. 

https://hushkit.net/2019/08/12/flying-fighting-in-the-mig-29-interview-with-indian-air-force-fulcrum-pilot-air-marshal-harish-masand/
   

Tell me something I don’t know about the Fulcrum?
“Well, in a lighter vein, I can’t do mind reading, particularly from a remote location. What is it that you don’t know but would like to know? Perhaps, you don’t know that, with the reliability and redundancy in almost all systems, the MiG-29 can be recovered with almost any in-flight failure. In all my time with the MiG-29 as a squadron commander and, later, as the base commander, we didn’t lose a single aircraft or pilot.”

Indian Air Force ‘Fulcrum’ pilot Air Marshal Harish Masand

[HansPeter1981]

Yes indeed. One of my favourite episodes: https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/060-mig-29-fulcrum/

After listening to him I bacame an even greater fan of the Mig-29

 

 

19 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

https://hushkit.net/2019/08/12/flying-fighting-in-the-mig-29-interview-with-indian-air-force-fulcrum-pilot-air-marshal-harish-masand/
   

Tell me something I don’t know about the Fulcrum?
“Well, in a lighter vein, I can’t do mind reading, particularly from a remote location. What is it that you don’t know but would like to know? Perhaps, you don’t know that, with the reliability and redundancy in almost all systems, the MiG-29 can be recovered with almost any in-flight failure. In all my time with the MiG-29 as a squadron commander and, later, as the base commander, we didn’t lose a single aircraft or pilot.”

Indian Air Force ‘Fulcrum’ pilot Air Marshal Harish Masand

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by HansPeter1981

[Wizard_03]

59 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

https://hushkit.net/2019/08/12/flying-fighting-in-the-mig-29-interview-with-indian-air-force-fulcrum-pilot-air-marshal-harish-masand/
   

Tell me something I don’t know about the Fulcrum?
“Well, in a lighter vein, I can’t do mind reading, particularly from a remote location. What is it that you don’t know but would like to know? Perhaps, you don’t know that, with the reliability and redundancy in almost all systems, the MiG-29 can be recovered with almost any in-flight failure. In all my time with the MiG-29 as a squadron commander and, later, as the base commander, we didn’t lose a single aircraft or pilot.”

Indian Air Force ‘Fulcrum’ pilot Air Marshal Harish Masand

In the same interview he talks about how the aircraft still suffers from FOD ingestion even with the covers, and describes a wingman experiencing a damaged engine due to the same issue. Look I'm not saying he's wrong but multiple sources I have read have said the engines are not reliable and we're a constant source of maintenance above that of other aircraft at that time.

 

He claims you can get good reliability out of any aircraft that's maintained well which is certainly true. But these issues are not maintenance related, they are design related.  

 

Another issue he describes in detail is smoke. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Wizard_03

[XPACT]

I am trying to figure out what is the point of your posts Wizard_03, you've been disproved few times that engines are unreliable, they were fine. Radar had issues that were fixed in later variants but was still fine as guided interceptor.

 

First of all engines are easily accessed and if swap is needed can be done faster than any western design at the time. They do produce smoke and they have lower fuel efficiency compared to western counterparts that is correct and that is design trade off. Yes, it's much cheaper to produce.

 

Foreign object ingestion can happen to any aircraft and will cause catastrophic engine failure most of the time anyways. Also covers on MiG-29 close below 200km/h so correct procedure if landing on a bad runway with various debris is to keep nose up and open chute than immediately pull the stick aft as much as needed to not slam the front gear down, by the time jet is down on all "three" wheels you are already below 200km/h and doors are closed so risk of ingestion is minimal.

 

MiG-29 also has two engines compared to his F-16 rival which is a big plus considering it can fly and land with only one engine.

 

Reliability of ejection system was proven to be very good and safe from both high/low altitudes and high speed. Not to mention all the other systems that are redundant.

MiG-29 was a huge step up in terms of ergonomics, sensors and safety compared to previous designs, for example jet it replaced MiG-21.

It is a great aircraft that is constantly underestimated and put aside because of its engagements in wars where it had almost no chance of success in the first place.

 

[Wizard_03]

1 hour ago, XPACT said:

I am trying to figure out what is the point of your posts Wizard_03, you've been disproved few times that engines are unreliable, they were fine. Radar had issues that were fixed in later variants but was still fine as guided interceptor.

 

First of all engines are easily accessed and if swap is needed can be done faster than any western design at the time. They do produce smoke and they have lower fuel efficiency compared to western counterparts that is correct and that is design trade off. Yes, it's much cheaper to produce.

 

Foreign object ingestion can happen to any aircraft and will cause catastrophic engine failure most of the time anyways. Also covers on MiG-29 close below 200km/h so correct procedure if landing on a bad runway with various debris is to keep nose up and open chute than immediately pull the stick aft as much as needed to not slam the front gear down, by the time jet is down on all "three" wheels you are already below 200km/h and doors are closed so risk of ingestion is minimal.

 

MiG-29 also has two engines compared to his F-16 rival which is a big plus considering it can fly and land with only one engine.

 

Reliability of ejection system was proven to be very good and safe from both high/low altitudes and high speed. Not to mention all the other systems that are redundant.

MiG-29 was a huge step up in terms of ergonomics, sensors and safety compared to previous designs, for example jet it replaced MiG-21.

It is a great aircraft that is constantly underestimated and put aside because of its engagements in wars where it had almost no chance of success in the first place.

 

Yeah so its still a Design issue, they can mitigate it with operational practices according to the air marshal, but never the less FOD is and was a major concern. (It is for the F-16 too) Being able to swap engines easily does not take care of the cost and resources associated with replacing an engine. Sure if a war breaks out, I guess it doesn't matter but if the world keeps spinning it puts a big drain on your supply lines and aircraft availability is low. 

 

I've yet to be disproved at all, I'd be happy to hear sources saying that the engines were in fact reliable compared to their western equivalents and that they were not a factor in sortie generation for the VVS. That doesn't appear to be the case. All I've heard so far is pilot testimony saying the engines worked well enough in flight and it's evidently easy to maintain, both of which don't tell us about the service life/reliability of those engines and how that comes in to play for it's overall employment. Because IRL if you have a bad engine a good plane captain doesn't let the aircraft fly and you get another plane or the sortie gets scrubbed. Which is the real issue I'm getting at. That must happen a lot, maybe too much in comparison to it's likely enemies. That's the point of my above posts

 

We've already talked in length about Soviet doctrine regarding it's deployment and the advantages and drawbacks of that particular system.

 

Anyways I have nothing but respect for the MiG-29 it's probably my favorite Russian aircraft in the game but a super-hyper-wonder jet it certainly is not. 

[Cmptohocah]

5 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Anyways I have nothing but respect for the MiG-29 it's probably my favorite Russian aircraft in the game but a super-hyper-wonder jet it certainly is not. 

 

That depends on what is your definition of "syper-hyper-winder jet".

Is it a capable airplane? - it most certainly is.

Can it be compared to any equivalent US fighter? - I don't think so, as IMHO it sits somewhere betweem F-16 and F-15.

Does it accelerate like a rocket? - Oh, yeah.

Is it a hell of a dogfighter? - You bet.

And most important of all: Does it look just awesome? - Yes!!!

Edited September 9, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[okopanja]

I think the point here is to get full fidelity RED aircraft from ED or third party.

 

The more I read the forum its more hear-and-say and plain lobbying. This goes from radar, EOS, R-27ET (I gather combination of two annoys them to large degree, and yes performance of both are hindered by poor weather conditions) to the engine. According to them Mig-29 could not actually take off and when it does it can not see nor land, but than the ejection seats do not work .  On the opposite side actually has a fairly large documented failure incidents for F-15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F-15_losses. It is worth to note that these incidents occur over decades in both piece and war conditions, which further proves that this is difficult airplane to master and fly, irrespective of decade and country.

 

I think what maters is is that there is more than interest to buy those RED modules, so it is up to ED or one of the partners to address the market demand.

I read lots of comment about russian laws (where in fact nobody provided the link to the actual text).

 

On the other side, they have published Mig-29 as part of FC3 which is something they cashed on almost 10 years ago. Although many newbies would still buy them as a startup pack (e.g. me, although I started with their products when they were still DOS/Win95 based), it is quite obvious on the public servers that people are willing to invest in more expensive single airplane modules. We would have not been seeing so many F-14A and F-16C on those servers if there was no interest for the REDs. In fact on today's servers the true RED airplanes are minority. BLUE airplanes are being flown by RED pilots almost 2 to 1. Just look at the nicknames at the growling sidewinder's server 1, and you will get the idea. I would say it is pretty trivial for them to collect those stats and estimate how many potential customers they could have.

Edited September 9, 2021 by okopanja

[HWasp]

12 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

 

I've yet to be disproved at all, I'd be happy to hear sources saying that the engines were in fact reliable compared to their western equivalents and that they were not a factor in sortie generation for the VVS. That doesn't appear to be the case. All I've heard so far is pilot testimony saying the engines worked well enough in flight and it's evidently easy to maintain, both of which don't tell us about the service life/reliability of those engines and how that comes in to play for it's overall employment. Because IRL if you have a bad engine a good plane captain doesn't let the aircraft fly and you get another plane or the sortie gets scrubbed. Which is the real issue I'm getting at. That must happen a lot, maybe too much in comparison to it's likely enemies. That's the point of my above posts

 

We've already talked in length about Soviet doctrine regarding it's deployment and the advantages and drawbacks of that particular system.

 

Anyways I have nothing but respect for the MiG-29 it's probably my favorite Russian aircraft in the game but a super-hyper-wonder jet it certainly is not. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by HWasp

[GGTharos]

44 for the MiG-29 between 84 and 95, an equivalent 'in service' time to the F-15's 78-89 timeline, and that page doesn't say what types of losses it includes where the F-15 lists losses on the ground as well.

 

They're about equal in accident rates.  Fly a lot, get a lot of opportunities for accidents.

Edited September 9, 2021 by GGTharos