announced DCS MiG-29A

[Presing]

I suppose they didnt have much info about this aircraft to make it beliavable. From what I saw on videos, the cockpit was taken from old variants. Real aircraft was based on MiG-29M, so It should have much more advanced avionics.

I think it is other way around. Mig-29m was based on Mig-29k aka MiG-33 frame.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[Seaeagle]

10 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

This discussion is pointless, since your bottom line keeps shifting.

Again, Hypothesis that 9.12 wasn't compatible with the R-27T or R-27ER is wrong since I gave you clear info from the manual that both R-27T and R-27ER are listed both in the weapon load and on the HUD (and no, I am not posting it here since of the 1.16).

Like it was said lot of ppl have older manuals before the weapons existed or/and from air forces that didn't use or have access to the missiles, and they come to the wrong conclusion. 

 

If you follow the Russian missile thread you would have seen also that most of R-27ER range envelop graphs are from MiG-29 manuals.

My botom line has not shifted an inch FoxAlfa - you just interpret it that way. My initial posts in this thread was in response to the notion that a picture of a 9.12 with an -ER is evidence that the weapon is "generic" to that variant, because modified MiG-29s always come with a "hump"....which obviously isn't the case.

 

You will also note that I said "..wasn't compatible with.." - i.e. to begin with. I am not just basing this on the absense of T/ET or ER in early- or export manuals, but also on various other historical accounts for the MiG-29, Su-27 and development of the R-27 "family" in particular - the latter clearly indicates that the IR/long burning variants weren't meant for the MiG-29, but developed specifically for the Su-27 in order to support its wider mission requirements. But it also suggests that the R-27R fell short of expectations(to outperform contemporary AIM-7), so if more recent 9.12 manuals list other R-27 variants as part of compatible armament, I am actually not surprised nor would it be a big deal to backfit it, as the deployment routine for an -ER is the same as for the R-27R.  But I do not believe that it was there all along  as "backward compatible".

 

 

[Seaeagle]

10 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

As far as I recall, it was an abomination of 9.13 cockpit with 9.31 outsides... and weapons loadouts and usages that were not even close to the real thing... so, I guess they didn't want something that arcadey in DCS and the workload was just too big and documentation unavailable to bring it to closer the real thing... 

The exterior and weapon loadouts were quite accurate for the 9.31, but the cockpit was just that of a 9.12 with the addition of an AOA indexter on the HUD....which obviously had nothing to do with the real thing, nor did the onboard system's representation. But then we are talking ancient times, where none of the aircraft in the sim were particulary accurate or detailed anyway - the Su-33 certainly wasn't more accurate.

 

The MiG-29K was dropped in favour of the MiG-29S for Lock-on - i.e. long before DCS.

[nighthawk2174]

Do we have a early to mid 80's manual for the 9.12?

[Airhunter]

2 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Do we have a early to mid 80's manual for the 9.12?

 

We do have those.

[Harlikwin]

4 hours ago, Airhunter said:

 

We do have those.

 

And the late ones too. Fox is right simple as that. 

[WarbossPetross]

4 часа назад, Harlikwin сказал:

 

And the late ones too. Fox is right simple as that. 

I think we're once again reaching the point when the discussion is not really about the plane anymore...

[okopanja]

13 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

But it also suggests that the R-27R fell short of expectations(to outperform contemporary AIM-7), so if more recent 9.12 manuals list other R-27 variants as part of compatible armament, I am actually not surprised nor would it be a big deal to backfit it, as the deployment routine for an -ER is the same as for the R-27R.  But I do not believe that it was there all along  as "backward compatible".

Seriously, do you honestly believe they would not be able to do this? Besides, HUD documentation from manual is quite clear on the R-27T. The reasons for not giving them to the allies is not that they wanted to invade them. Nobody plans eagerly to invade an ally, this only makes you weaker. These things happen when the ally becomes unreliable in your view (Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan all had clear disagreement and considering of switching allegiance, not to mention Yugoslavia, which constantly shifted between 2 sides). Unreliable also means that they can also leak the missile that at that time gave Sowiets the edge in some scenarios compared to what NATO had in the bag. When you get hit next time by IR missile with no warning consider how large this advantage can be.

 

Although I initially believed that hump can be used to reliable distinguish between early versions (9.12 and 9.13), it seams that the hump is low cost "mod" to produce more space for ECM and tanks. The lines there indicate the place where the old hull was cut/modified, as they aimed at minimal changes compared to 9.12. If they aimed at full departure from 9.12 airframe, they would have much more streamlined solution.

 

In fact they had to convert large numbers of already-in-production 9.12 airframes and added tanks in hump had to be removable in order to access already existing systems. You can see the similar approach the above fat F-16 was "modified", without changing the original frame radically.

 

[WarbossPetross]

22 минуты назад, okopanja сказал:

Although I initially believed that hump can be used to reliable distinguish between early versions (9.12 and 9.13), it seams that the hump is low cost "mod" to produce more space for ECM and tanks. The lines there indicate the place where the old hull was cut/modified, as they aimed at minimal changes compared to 9.12. If they aimed at full departure from 9.12 airframe, they would have much more streamlined solution.

 

In fact they had to convert large numbers of already-in-production 9.12 airframes and added tanks in hump had to be removable in order to access already existing systems. You can see the similar approach the above fat F-16 was "modified", without changing the original frame radically.

Also seen in MiG-21 that went from no hunch (early versions) to big hunch (SMT version) to a bit smaller hunch (Bis version that we have now).

[Seaeagle]

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

Seriously, do you honestly believe they would not be able to do this?

They would be able to make provision for it, but for proper employment the WCS needs the missile parameters in order to compute a firing solution for it and these would only be available when the missile was ready.  Besides, as I mentioned before, accounts of the R-27 development indicate that only the R-27R was intended for the MiG-29, which in turn doesn't suggest  that they made provision for the other versions. But they could of course have changed their minds and backfitted them later.

 

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

Besides, HUD documentation from manual is quite clear on the R-27T.

Apparently in the manual FoxAlfa referred to, but not in other MiG-29 manuals - only the R-27R.

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

The reasons for not giving them to the allies is not that they wanted to invade them. Nobody plans eagerly to invade an ally, this only makes you weaker.

Exactly - I was not the one claiming this.

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

These things happen when the ally becomes unreliable in your view (Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan all had clear disagreement and considering of switching allegiance, not to mention Yugoslavia, which constantly shifted between 2 sides).

Yet the Soviet Union exported(if you can call it that) a MiG-29 version practically identical to their own to their Warsaw Pact allies, but a different less capable version to other nations...such as Yugoslavia. Hungary was a Warsaw Pact member, but they only got their MiG-29s after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved(1991) and the version they got was the downgraded MiG-29B.

 

I have no idea why Afghanistan was brought into this discussion, since they weren't a Warsaw Pact member, didn't have any MiG-29s and the Soviet Union only reluctantly intervened militarily after several direct requests to do so by the beleaguered communist regime that ruled Afghanistan at the time, so techically not an "invasion" either.

 

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

Although I initially believed that hump can be used to reliable distinguish between early versions (9.12 and 9.13)...

You can reliably distinguish between a 9.12 and a 9.13 that way - 9.12 has no hump, while 9.13 does.

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

...it seams that the hump is low cost "mod" to produce more space for ECM and tanks. The lines there indicate the place where the old hull was cut/modified, as they aimed at minimal changes compared to 9.12.

Yes it was introduced because it was the only way of increasing the internal fuel capacity on the "baseline" MiG-29 design. It was further employed(bigger hump) for later upgrades like the SMT 9.17(prototype SMT), 9.19 and MiG-29UPG(9.20) for India.

 

But its not really that low cost as it still requires structural changes, which is why not all upgrades have them. Early on there was an export variant of the MiG-29S without the hump(9.12S) and as mentioned earlier, also a more recent SMT (9.18) based directly on the 9.12 airframe as well as countless more or less "indigenous"(with or without MIG involvement) upgrades of 9.12 airframes involving onboard systems and sometimes also expanded weapon's compatibility.

 

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

If they aimed at full departure from 9.12 airframe, they would have much more streamlined solution.

Yes the initial MiG-29M(9.15) and MiG-29K(9.31) multirole versions from late 80'ies didn't have a hump nor do their current derrivatives.  But these versions were a case of a complete redesign, so the solutions for increasing the internal fuel on those can obviously not be applied to old baseline airframes.

 

 

[Seaeagle]

On 9/16/2021 at 7:31 PM, Presing said:

I think it is other way around. Mig-29m was based on Mig-29k aka MiG-33 frame.
 

No the MiG-29K(9.31) was based on the MiG-29M(9.15) - "MiG-33" was an export designation that MIG applied to the MiG-29M for a short while in the nineties.

 

For the new versions it is the other way around - the MiG-29K/KUB came about in connection with the Indian order and then later became the basis for the new version of the MiG-29M -> MiG-35.

[nighthawk2174]

On 9/16/2021 at 4:33 PM, Airhunter said:

 

We do have those.

Interesting! you wouldn't happen to have a link to somewhere their hosted would you?

[Airhunter]

5 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Interesting! you wouldn't happen to have a link to somewhere their hosted would you?

 

I'll send em your way tomorrow. 

[CORMAC ogaruu]

On 9/18/2021 at 4:39 AM, Airhunter said:

 

I'll send em your way tomorrow. 

Could I be CC'd on that, please?

Edited September 27, 2021 by CORMAC ogaruu

[jackmckay]

I feel that some discussions on this forum are going in direction of "nerving" the combat opponent by unconfirmed arguments that can't be officially confirmed in a first place. Technically, any manufacturer can make any missile fit on any large enough airframe. Question is what version of MiG29 DCS wants in based by their choice and their manuals selected. Nerfing the module for some players to feel more comfortable in dogfight is counterproductive. Are we looking for technological supremacy or flying skills uplift. Selecting the "weaker" opponent is not going to make you better pilot, right? Do you want to push the button and chew the popcorn while watching the scoreline or really learn something new by getting in trouble?

[WarbossPetross]

2 часа назад, jackmckay сказал:

I feel that some discussions on this forum are going in direction of "nerving" the combat opponent by unconfirmed arguments that can't be officially confirmed in a first place. Technically, any manufacturer can make any missile fit on any large enough airframe. Question is what version of MiG29 DCS wants in based by their choice and their manuals selected. Nerfing the module for some players to feel more comfortable in dogfight is counterproductive. Are we looking for technological supremacy or flying skills uplift. Selecting the "weaker" opponent is not going to make you better pilot, right? Do you want to push the button and chew the popcorn while watching the scoreline or really learn something new by getting in trouble?

AFAIK we're getting the 9-12 home version. As for nerfing airframes to balance the multiplayer, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever of ED doing this at any point. I get what you're saying, but this one is on the players and server hosts more than anyone else. The problem is that the MiG that Russian law allows us to have is from 1983 while our existing F-16C and F/A-18C have a decade's worth of avionics over it (and upcoming Typhoon and F-15E will only make it worse). On the other hand the earlier Cold War has a much closer match-up. That's why a lot of people are advocating for more airframes from Vietnam general timeline that are not classified anymore, so that we can finally balance apples by apples and have a ball.

[Harlikwin]

55 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

AFAIK we're getting the 9-12 home version. As for nerfing airframes to balance the multiplayer, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever of ED doing this at any point. I get what you're saying, but this one is on the players and server hosts more than anyone else. The problem is that the MiG that Russian law allows us to have is from 1983 while our existing F-16C and F/A-18C have a decade's worth of avionics over it (and upcoming Typhoon and F-15E will only make it worse). On the other hand the earlier Cold War has a much closer match-up. That's why a lot of people are advocating for more airframes from Vietnam general timeline that are not classified anymore, so that we can finally balance apples by apples and have a ball.

 

Yup thats the issue. DCS for MP PVP is totally a hodgpodge and most server owners are desperately trying various things to make up that gap. Unfortunately ED doesn't seem to care much about it. So we are stuck just asking for modules that are more ish balanced to what can be "nerfed" currently. 

[okopanja]

21 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

AFAIK we're getting the 9-12 home version. As for nerfing airframes to balance the multiplayer, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever of ED doing this at any point. I get what you're saying, but this one is on the players and server hosts more than anyone else. The problem is that the MiG that Russian law allows us to have is from 1983 while our existing F-16C and F/A-18C have a decade's worth of avionics over it (and upcoming Typhoon and F-15E will only make it worse). On the other hand the earlier Cold War has a much closer match-up. That's why a lot of people are advocating for more airframes from Vietnam general timeline that are not classified anymore, so that we can finally balance apples by apples and have a ball.

 

1. main topic is to get at least one Full Fidelity model for RED side that is post 80s, which as side effect will allow for more accurate modeling of the weapons and gaining actual support for them. Feel free to search on R-27s, R-77 and similar ignored bug reports.

2. supported modules often get over-engineered (e.g. ability to easily do things normally not possible or highly impractical/improbable). Typically file a bug claiming to low RCS sensitivity, get some Star Trek capabilities. Money pays, money plays.

3. changes in avionics actually span across 2 decades, since there is no singular baseline within "avionics" era you are referring. The baseline block 50/52 is provided in 1991, with features being added over at least next 10-15 years. In DCS you get the instant upgrade to the latest & greatest block revision (post 2000) and get to play against someone who remains on 80s level. Since nobody wants to be a targeting drone, soon you end up with 3 solutions:

- missions adjusted to provide at least some chance to inferior airframes (hunt in the mountains), which restrict significantly the scenario.

- have Blue vs Blue fights (F-16c vs F-16c, F-14A vs F-14B)

- add modern, but otherwise historically irrelevant Green module (except in relation to how this airplance came to be in the light of Chinese-Indian-Pakistani frozen conflicts) to the Red coalition.

4. The Russian laws are frequently given as the reason, but I find it odd that I could not find the reference to the actual law(s). Any chance on sharing the links?

5. 9-12 seems to be suspended work... Waiting to see any kind of confirmation.

[Harlikwin]

22 minutes ago, okopanja said:

 

1. main topic is to get at least one Full Fidelity model for RED side that is post 80s, which as side effect will allow for more accurate modeling of the weapons and gaining actual support for them. Feel free to search on R-27s, R-77 and similar ignored bug reports.

2. supported modules often get over-engineered (e.g. ability to easily do things normally not possible or highly impractical/improbable). Typically file a bug claiming to low RCS sensitivity, get some Star Trek capabilities. Money pays, money plays.

3. changes in avionics actually span across 2 decades, since there is no singular baseline within "avionics" era you are referring. The baseline block 50/52 is provided in 1991, with features being added over at least next 10-15 years. In DCS you get the instant upgrade to the latest & greatest block revision (post 2000) and get to play against someone who remains on 80s level. Since nobody wants to be a targeting drone, soon you end up with 3 solutions:

- missions adjusted to provide at least some chance to inferior airframes (hunt in the mountains), which restrict significantly the scenario.

- have Blue vs Blue fights (F-16c vs F-16c, F-14A vs F-14B)

- add modern, but otherwise historically irrelevant Green module (except in relation to how this airplance came to be in the light of Chinese-Indian-Pakistani frozen conflicts) to the Red coalition.

4. The Russian laws are frequently given as the reason, but I find it odd that I could not find the reference to the actual law(s). Any chance on sharing the links?

5. 9-12 seems to be suspended work... Waiting to see any kind of confirmation.

 

1. Most likely It won't be post 80's sadly. And really 80's is what alot of people want because "eventually" we will have a decent plane mix FOR the 80's. And really this is fine because this is the last time some sort of "natural balance" existed between blue/redfor.

 

2. Yup

3. Yeah this is the main issue. One solution would be to have  certain systems like JHMCs, DL, etc turned off at the server level by an admin. As for the Jeff, well people wanted modern and "red-ish" I pretend its an export J-10. 

 

4. Its real, there were links to it, it mainly deals with where the info is coming from so,  lets say info flowing into russia isn't an issue, info flowing out of russia is. So like a mig29G or cuban 9.12 for example is feasible. A su35 is not.

 

5. Yeah, we will see, BS3 is trial balloon on that. 

[jackmckay]

Take this view for example. MiGs are deigned to work with ground GCI assistance in RL. If there's no DL on 29 export version, why wouldn't a module developer "invent" the GCI AI that comes along with the module just as 14 has Jester in back seat? AI is not a thing really. Add some Russian accent and there you go. Things balanced. I mean, the lone module thing is not self sufficient in Red side by design, so why not introduce that RL approach around the module in DCS?

[okopanja]

8 hours ago, jackmckay said:

Take this view for example. MiGs are deigned to work with ground GCI assistance in RL. If there's no DL on 29 export version, why wouldn't a module developer "invent" the GCI AI that comes along with the module just as 14 has Jester in back seat? AI is not a thing really. Add some Russian accent and there you go. Things balanced. I mean, the lone module thing is not self sufficient in Red side by design, so why not introduce that RL approach around the module in DCS?

I would welcome the implementation of real GCI, but warfare constantly evolves. Over the last 40 years the combined usage of AWACS + independent SA proved itself to be more powerful than GCI interception. You can just compare the experiences in Israeli-Arab conflicts, Gulf war and Yugoslavia. GCI you are talking about has the importance as historic accuracy, and perhaps some 10% improvement over the present state in DCS. With datalink deployment and fusion of different sensors on the battlefield the traditional GCI is even more obsolete. Within such systems GCI may still have the role in allocating better allocation of targets (e.g. screen in a command center where you operate with the click of a mouse with large multiple screens, is much better than tiny screen in a cockpit + HOTAS).

[Kilo]

While the usefulness part might be true, GCI is still central to the Soviet interception doctrine. Take off, be directed by datalink/voice commands to the target (sometimes you might just be a passenger in a remotely controlled plane, as in the Su-15), turn on your radar, shoot the target and RTB. No own SA, little to no decisions taken by the pilot. So I'd wager getting a proper GCI would be fairly important to use the MiG-29 effectively and to have a realistic experience.

[okopanja]

13 minutes ago, Kilo said:

While the usefulness part might be true, GCI is still central to the Soviet interception doctrine. Take off, be directed by datalink/voice commands to the target (sometimes you might just be a passenger in a remotely controlled plane, as in the Su-15), turn on your radar, shoot the target and RTB. No own SA, little to no decisions taken by the pilot. So I'd wager getting a proper GCI would be fairly important to use the MiG-29 effectively and to have a realistic experience.

By GCI I meant voice interaction mostly on pilot side + F10 equivalent interface for GCI controller for tracking the situation based on tracking available from EWR/search radars. E.g. this would allow the team to have true dedicated GCI controllers.

 

Datalink is something totally different.

[Harlikwin]

14 hours ago, jackmckay said:

Take this view for example. MiGs are deigned to work with ground GCI assistance in RL. If there's no DL on 29 export version, why wouldn't a module developer "invent" the GCI AI that comes along with the module just as 14 has Jester in back seat? AI is not a thing really. Add some Russian accent and there you go. Things balanced. I mean, the lone module thing is not self sufficient in Red side by design, so why not introduce that RL approach around the module in DCS?

 

Many of the "export" nations used one sort of DL or another on their 29's. 

[Airhunter]

To get back on track and stop arguing about missiles again, hopefully we'll see something on the 29 at the end of the year.