Dudikoff

LOL, that's very funny and right on the mark.

I mentioned this myself as part of the reason, so I'm certainly not ignoring it as a factor. What you're ignoring is the increased requirements put in front of the MiG-29 design (compared to it's predecessors) which made it more expensive compared to its MiG-23 predecessor (which was already much more expensive than the earlier MiG-21). And you can't maintain the production numbers, if the price and complexity jump by that much. Again, if they were asking only for a simple GCI point defense interceptor, why bother replacing the MiG-23 design? They could have just hung the improved missiles and radar on it. It's not like the MiG-29 is much more capable in that role; except for better radar performance due to the bigger nose, it even has a noticeably shorter range. Case in point, there was a stop-gap variant of the MiG-29 called MiG-29A (9.11A) which had MiG-23 avionics and weapons. It was deemed as capable as the full-blown MiG-29 (9.11 back then) to satisfy the original requirements, but then a new requirements directive in 1976 required the new fighters to match or even surpass F-15 and F-16 weapon and radar capabilities, so the weaker variant was canceled. So, it was required from the MiG-29 to match or overcome not only the capabilities of the F-16, but F-15 as well in BVR combat during an interception (hence the new R-27R which was designed to surpass the AIM-7F capabilities). But, they are not a Western country and they are going for superior numbers, not maintaining the technological edge. Why do they suddenly need even newer (and much better) radars, RWR systems, active radar missiles, more fuel, etc. in the MiG-29M if the MiG-29 which just entered service a few years ago matches the GCI interceptor requirements and will be fielded in the ratio of what? Three 29s against every F-16? That's just your viewpoint, which disregards the continued increased sophistication present in their requirements and designs to match Western capabilities in everything from subs, aircraft, ships and even tanks which considerably reduced the production numbers which thus do not support your theory. And, 'Zerg rush' strategy, really?

It's not that unwarranted. E.g. the Su-27 was supposed to have had a much better radar with electronical scanning in the vertical axis, but they failed to develop it at the time so it got an enlarged MiG-29 radar as a stopgap measure. And if they were satisfied with what they ended up with, they wouldn't have invested a lot of money into developing the noticeably better equipped variants as the MiG-29M and Su-27M were. The thing is that the Su-27 and MiG-29 were never produced in such overwhelming numbers (compare the numbers of 29s made vs the number of 23s) that the old story about cheaper airplanes built in large numbers to overwhelm the technologically superior airplanes would hold water here. And IMHO it's not only because the USSR collapsed, but they were also much more expensive as they were designed to be more than simple point defense interceptors (e.g. the 29 was designed to be very maneuverable which is not something required for simply a GCI-controlled point defense interceptor). In Vietnam, the problem was that the US pilots were not properly trained and the early missiles had very limited engagement envelopes (among other issues) that the pilots were not trained to use properly. Once those tactics were improved, the slow guns-only equipped fighters quickly became helpless and the only problem were the GCI guided 21s which would sneak in low from behind the large USAF attack formations and blaze through while firing off its missiles at the closest target and then quickly run away. The US side could actually track them as they cracked their IFF transponders, but didn't make the most of that in practice (besides the few Combat Tree equipped Phantoms that allowed them to shoot-down the MiGs from BVR) as it was a top secret thing so in most cases, the aircrews were more often than not left uninformed that they will be attacked, less the Soviets figure out their tech is compromised.

I wasn't a jerk (on this point, at least), but I still got suckered. Unfair, but I'll let it slide if I can get an advance copy of the manual. Or a chapter? OK, some snippets will do. ;)

I'm willing to help and have spare time, plus love the Tomcat so you can even charge me for it.

Yeah, something that R-27R is apparently lacking, but still, wouldn't hurt to have it, especially for less powerful radars I guess. Though, reading on the 7P Block I low-level fusing and seeker improvements, perhaps the Block II mid-course guidance was added primarily with extending engagement range against low-level targets in mind (or even cruise missiles)? Does the target RCS size play a role in these cue calculations? I mean, if the RCS is lower, the missile might need some time to get close enough during which the target might have changed course significantly enough.

OK, I didn't refresh on the Sparrow variants; just presumed since the AIM-7M supports PD illumination that it also has mid-course guidance to make use of the longer engagement range (kind of like the R-27R does). I remember the English bias thing, I guess it's a given for all SARH catapulted missiles, but without thinking about it, it seems somewhat unexpected the M variants were still being launched blind hoping that they'll track once they clear the airplane (i.e. without any follow-up guidance towards the target to ensure the proper seeker lock). Reminds me of the MiG-23M and R-23 missiles where they also had interference problems so their seeker was activated 3 seconds after launch, IIRC. I guess that explains the necessity of the mid-course guidance on the M, but isn't it more susceptible to burning energy due to target course changes using PN all the way? But, related to the earlier posts, I presume the WCS would still calculate a shorter maximum launch range if CW illumination is used for M (as compared to PD illumination), right?

It clearly says "drawbacks of the Mercury TV night-vision system" and not performance drawbacks based on carrying an extra pod. It's a passive light amplification system so by definition it's quite limited in performance and not a reliable solution for engaging targets at night (like e.g. a proper thermal imaging system which was not really available at the time IIRC as the Soviets were quite behind in fielding this technology).

It's implied by the term "module". I mean, what are you suggesting here? That they were announcing a series of standalone single player games when they already had MP in Lock On?

If you can't beat them, join them? :) But, you can try modifying the loadout of the F-15's - replace the AMRAAM's with AIM-7M's, that would put you on an equal footing more or less (single target engagement, no fire and forget).

It wasn't called DCS World back then, it didn't have a name yet. They just announced with BS that it will be a series of modules (called DCS) which would be integrated together (by sharing a common base I guess). I understand that developing those modules took some time and the "base" changed considerably by the time the Warthog was released, but still, needing to pay for compatibility changes ($20 USD for the BS2 "upgrade") which should have been thought out better from the start left a somewhat sour taste (plus the even more numerous FC upgrades). Perhaps this is why they gave all those upgrades to FC3 aircraft for free (FM, 3D cockpits and new 3D models), which, ironically, I feel would have finally been quite worth paying for. :) I did buy a copy of an FC3 for a friend to compensate for feeling guilty about getting all that for free, but I'd prefer if I could have bought all the separate releases back then in a bundle and transfer him my FC3 serial instead (as the UI would be more convenient for me plus all the missing module missions in the FC3 package).

I've managed to find this post from before the BS was released: Q: Your press release indicates that Black Shark is the first in a series of DCS modules, with more aircraft/helicopters to follow. How soon will these new aircraft become available? A: We are already developing the A-10A “Warthog" and AH-64A “Apache” (with planned front-seat / back-seat multiplayer) and other western and eastern aircraft will follow with an approximate interval of every nine months. To annouce these later aircraft now would be premature because plans can often change and lead to delays due to numerous factors such as our work in the equally important military simulation market. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=392208&postcount=21 So, I do remember it correctly that it was advertised as a first module in the series.

Since I noticed that you've written 'from the moment the trigger is pulled' in the quoted part, I've edited the post accordingly; sorry for the earlier snarky remark. I've seen a graph showing different periods for different radar modes. E.g. in search mode, the radar emits pulses with a period of 10.24 ms. Once a target lock is established, it emits the target tracking pulses (which are naturally different and more complex from the search pulses) with a period of 20.48 ms and once the missile is launched, another signal is interleaved with the target tracking signals with a period of 30.72 ms which contains either trajectory correction signal (in case there's an inertial phase) or target illumination pulses for the missile. So, the main point of contention is whether the radar is illuminating the target during the inertial phase (when the radio-correction signals are being sent to the missile) or not. I'll try to analyze the source reference they've used to see if I can dig if these are mutually exclusive or are sent in parallel as I was reading somebody's analysis on how the target illumination works here and the way it was written seemed to indicate it's either one or the other. But, on inspecting one of the used references myself, I'm inclined to conclude that the radio-correction data (or support as you said) is mixed in between the illumination signals of this illumination period. This might have been what you were aiming at, but you did throw me off the point you were making with the "Once you're in STT, the radar is illuminating." remark in the previous post.

Not quite. Yes, once you're in STT, the radar antenna is emitting target tracking signals on one channel to maintain the radar lock on target. For the RLPK-29, this period is 20.48 ms. But, this signal is not illuminating the target for the SARH missile. The target illumination signals (which used to be sent via a separate CW antenna on older systems) are sent via a different channel (which is also used for radio-correction data), but since there's only one transmitter antenna, they are sent interchangeably with the target tracking signals. The radio-correction or target illumination signal is sent with a period of 30.72 ms. During the inertial phase (which happens if the target range is more than 1.5 times of the seeker range), this channel sends out correction data to the missile. Once the WCS determines that the missile should be close enough to the target by now, it switches to sending the illumination data via this channel and radio-correction data is no longer sent out.

I'll have to search for those references again to refresh my memory, perhaps I remember it wrongly.

I never suggested the F-4 was shot down due to the inter-service rivalry; it's quite clearly spelled in the article what happened and why. It was simply a joke at the idea of some higher echelons of the Navy mocking the incident amongst themselves as a win or even giving the admiral's son a pat on the back or whatever (e.g. a situation which would fit movies Hot Shots or Pentagon Wars). All I suggested was that such a situation might not have been that far fetched given the rivalry context, but I didn't add a smiley at the end as it seemed bad taste given the later fate of the poor USAF guy.

Yes, BS1 was standalone initially, but AFAIK (can't really find those old announcement articles now) it was advertised as a first in a series of modules which would be integrated together. Then DCSW came together with the Warthog, but instead of the expected integration of BS1 with the Warthog, there was a payware upgrade to BS2.

Yeah, his stupidity ruined another man's life and he got away with it. But, the poor pilot was technically from the Air Force and he survived the incident, so perhaps it wasn't considered exactly as shooting down a friendly in some of the higher Navy circles at the time given the rivalry and the budget wars, especially for an admiral's son.

I wonder what was this huge amount of content? IIRC, when BS1 came out, it was advertised as being the first modules in the series which would integrate together. Then, when Warthog came out as part of the now common DCS World, they had to adjust some things in the BS to fit the changes in the common base made in between, which they decided to charge for, even though (again) the original BS was announced as a module which will be integrated with any future modules. Yeah, the DCSW development dragged on for years and the amount of compatibility changes required to BS was probably quite significant, but speaking strictly from the BS owner's perspective, the only obvious new BS specific content (ignoring the changes made to the common base and BS AI improvements) was a new campaign and the majority of the new base features were already paid for with the Warthog in a way. But, you were OK with paying for that. Now, besides releasing the Hornet, they also keep adding stuff to the base game (not to mention the reworked free map and all the FC3 aircraft improvements they gave away for free), but this time it's not OK to charge for all these parallel developments somehow? It's just that such a view feels a bit inconsistent from my perspective, but then again I didn't like paying for mostly compatibility changes back then which I felt weren't supposed to have been necessary given that the module was sold with that feature in mind. But, regarding BS3, I'm not proposing that they should charge money for just fixing whatever the issue is with cockpit textures. I'm not sure how much work in fixing it is required, but if it's in any way significant, perhaps it's even a waste of time given that they do seem to plan to make a new cockpit and a new 3D model (among a few other system updates supposedly). And that's certainly worth charging some money for, won't you think?

Looks like a kneeboard feature or something so technically you don't have to bring it up just to bring yourself down. Great idea, HB, BTW.

That's what I thought, thanks. But, then, the maximum launch range should be shorter as the seeker needs to get a lock on before launch, which begs the question if this could (and would) be simulated in DCS? :)

Do your assigned keys work e.g. in Notepad? If your profile is active, it should type something (e.g. empty space when you press a trigger). If it works there, but not in DCS, then besides assigning the axes in DCS, you must also delete any key assignments for your controller in DCS (e.g. select any row under your controller column, select entire category, delete).

Yeah, I'm aware that AIM-7 requires an STT lock (except in FLOOD mode), but I specifically stated seeker lock before launch (LOBL) which is a different thing. So, just to reiterate, if I launch an AIM-7M in CW mode, I presume there would be no mid-course updates sent via PD mode and the missile seeker would then require a direct lock to target (which shortens the launch range to e.g. 20 km for a fighter sized target)? Because, normally, AIM-7M flies to an intercept point and receives corrections until it reaches the estimated seeker range where it activates the seeker and tries to lock on to the illuminated target (so, the seeker is in LOAL mode at ranges beyond its lock range), but I'm wondering what happens with it in CW mode.

If the switch is in the NORM position, does the WCS always trigger CW illumination no matter the AIM-7 variant carried? I guess the monopulse seeker in the later Sparrow variants can lock on to CW illumination as well, but if the WCS follows the same CW illumination/launch logic, does e.g. the AIM-7M seeker then needs to be locked on to the target before it can be launched (as this would shorten the maximum launch range)?

Thrust Vectoring? Of course not, that's on the MiG-29OVT which is the converted MiG-29M prototype fitted with thrust vectoring and the only MiG-29 variant to have had those. T in SMT most probably does stand for extra fuel, e.g. like MiG-21SMT with it's grossly enlarged spine containing extra fuel compared to the originating MiG-21SM variant.