Dudikoff

http://toad-design.com/migalley/index.php/jet-aircraft/mig29/mig29-variants/

OK, so three 9.13's. But, they were donated last year, no? And then were immediately sent back for the refurbishment and upgrade? So, what I was trying to say, the 9.13 which would match the in-game cockpit was not really operated by Serbian Air Force. Right? Unless of course it can be disregarded and flown with the old cockpit, like e.g. the MiG-29G is.

I know you've said graphical presentation only, but making all those changes in the cockpit and not to have them functional seems like a wasted effort. Yeah, but there's more than just TACAN. There's the new IFF panel, new radio panels, anti-collision lights, etc. Too much work, IMHO. More likely they'll just keep it as it is or ditch the separate G variant and add an early Luftwaffe skin for the 9.12. Yeah, you're probably right. I quick checked on some webpage and got the information that it was retroactively fitted to some 9.12's and 9.13's..

Weren't the 9.13's donated only recently as part of the six aircraft (not sure how many of those were 9.13.. one? two?)?

Yeah, that bottom video was posted already. So, you see, there's a navigation display plus the MFD, totally unlike the cockpits in the game.

Are there any cockpit photos? I'm pretty sure those refurbished 9.12/9.13's have MFD's now which wouldn't match the in-game cockpit at all.

There could be a new tab in the mission editor for the airports or perhaps on the kneeboard page if that's required for MP sessions. Perhaps you're right and hard-limiting the waypoints to three would be too much. They could use the similar approach as for the Su-25T - the buttons for waypoints are animated (like, 3 of them), but if you use more, you won't have the visual indicator for them. So, the missions won't be broken, but you would be enticed to use the realistic number in the future.

Interesting. Most of the switches are not activated so I'm not sure what to make of that. If they wanted to add this, they wouldn't say that they will put it on HUD. And if they planned to do a full module, I'd expect most of the switches to be animated. Could it be like a new MAC feature? Like, FC3 functionality, but switches matching certain key controls would also get animated?

That sounds a bit too comprehensive for an FC3 add-on, especially the navigation add-ons. Not likely to happen, IMHO. I'd presume these modifications were done in phases? Perhaps they could represent some phase of the conversion to MiG-29G, definitely before the TACAN add-on. But, they could easily add the 9.13, as well. Same external model as the 9.13S, ECM yes, wing drop tanks no, no extra A2A weapons over the 9.12.

The LTS pod had a GPS receiver so that's not the reason and it also had a digital bus. As far as I can tell, it was integrated and tested on the F-14B through a software update. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3487&context=utk_gradthes

And they had those MiG-27's and Su-17's just as targets for NATO strikes, I guess. While the Frontal Aviation did have a secondary ground strike mission, AFAIK, only one of the three squadrons in a fighter regiment would have trained for that and would have been used in such a way.

Is such data you expect readily available on western prototypes? E.g. YF-23? :) I mean, I don't see who would release such information. Prototypes belong to private companies AFAIK, why would they release any info at all?

It's not really a relevant comparison, IMHO. Those are prototypes that weren't even used, let alone exported so there are no operational manuals anyway. Plus, they're Russian prototypes where the radar system, WCS, etc. are probably closely related to those used on newer variants, plus the weapons are still used as well. Why would they release any information on those? Compared to e.g. Polish and Slovakian MiG-29's which are in NATO so once no NATO nation is operating them, they don't really need to care if some pilots with operational experience talk about the capabilities and weaknesses of the radar and the weapons. Nice link, though. If somebody could only be bothered to translate it to proper English..

Hmm, so you mean it couldn't track the targets, hence why it wasn't an IRST system? You might be right as it seems to be described as an IR-detection set, not an IRST. It was called AN/ALR-23, but I'm not sure of the exact capabilities, just that apparently it wasn't very reliable as there were lots of false targets detected.

Sure, but those same F-15's and F-16's relied heavily on the E-2C control, so the problem is not with relying on guidance, but of technological superiority, tactics and pilot training of the opposing side. The Syrian Army apparently couldn't even handle basic armor tactics, so they would have probably lost the war even if you switched the equipment around.

Hmm, adding it to the HUD is a bit lazy. I'd prefer the animated buttons like on the Su-25T even if it would mean less waypoints to be available. They could have reworked the whole system and e.g. limit the programmed airport list you toggle through to 3 and the list of waypoints to 3 as in the real thing (not sure how many can e.g. the Su-27 NAV system support). Then you would assign the airports in the mission editor and perhaps you would have some kneeboard page to list the assigned airports so you know which one is selected.

Yes, of course, I rmember reading that the Russians removed the datalink and IFF and such (like e.g. nuclear weapon arming panels for the types that could carry them, not sure if the 9.12A had those?). I was just wondering what were the concrete differences in systems between 9.12A and B. I remember there was an export version of the Ts100 processors and of course, there were no WP IFF systems nor the GCI Lazur datalink. Was the downgrade of the radar performance just due to the weaker processors/software or were there some other differences in the equipment that you're aware of? Classified as in e.g. classified in the German Air Force (who has such documents) due to other NATO countries operating them? So, for instance if Poland and Slovakia replace them in the near future, could such data be declassified or not? Or there are some worldwide considerations involved as well?

I hope it also has an on/off switch or a circuit breaker implemented in case BST implements the Combat Tree system on their F-4E's :)

Great post, thanks. I presume that before the aircraft were taken over by the GAF, that the datalink and IFF panels for WP were removed, right? Would that make it closer to 9.12B then or there were some radar differences between 9.12A and B (like ECCM and such)? It's a shame that nobody's developing a DCS: MiG-29 (9.12A or B) module as I'm sure that ex-pilots like yourself could help them a lot to get it as right as possible (especially regarding the flight and radar model). I doubt that any performance details on the Soviet systems inside them would be classified still, right?

Yes, it was, together with PTID displays which went to A's and B's. D's only got them later on (as they could use their MFD's for LTS picture) when some of these got retired (there was a limited number of PTID screens purchased so they kept shifting them around when some planes went for maintenance, etc.).

Ah, OK, I wasn't thinking that the old stocks needed replacing and that there might have been subsequent purchases (e.g. from Ukraine which manufactured those). So, it wouldn't have been possible to carry R-27's (1,2), R-73's (3,4) and R-60's (5,6)? I understand it's a two-way switch, but some older translated manual mentions that it defines the order of selection of pylons for the firing (i.e. inner - 1,2 then 3,4 then 5,6, outer - 5,6 then 3,4, then 1,2). Thanks for all the details. I'm not really asking directly about the APG-65 (which is still classified, I guess), but I'm more interested in just how much worse the N019 was and what issues it had (I mentioned the APG-65 as it's roughly from the same period as the N019 and you might have had experience with it in the GAF). E.g. 5-8 kms resolution sounds pretty bad; so, on an intercept it could only lock on to the first contact in the group? Did the resolution improve as the distance got closer? How usable was it in look-down mode regarding the lock range and stability? I remember reading that its Ts100 computers couldn't really handle the TWS mode and would frequently overload and that this was corrected later on with Ts100M computers which were first introduced with the 9.13S, but were supposedly installed in the older variants later on during those big overhauls.

So, if I understood correctly, you're trying to say that if salvo mode is used there won't be any problems regarding missile interference? It says: "The launch of the following missile with an IR-seeker (pair of missiles) is to be done 4-7 seconds after launching the first or after the first missile flies beyond the target to avoid locking of operating engines of the previously launched missiles". It's not really written clearly.

Which part of "my mistake" didn't you understand? I said I mistook the timing for holding the trigger in case of a failed launch for the automatic delay in salvo mode. If your comment was referring to the launch delay amount for the R-27R1, this is what I have: And I asked specifically what would happen in a mode where both R-27 and short range missiles are supported (so all three types are valid), not a close combat mode where obviously the switch could toggle between the two outer pylon pairs only. But I guess I could spin the same problem to a close combat mode as well. E.g. if you had R-60MK's on both the outermost and innermost pylons (i.e. 5,6 and 1,2) and R-73's on the middle pylons (3,4), how would you select the latter?

The manual for the Yugoslav MiG-29 actually states 0.25s for the R-27R1 missile, but I'm convinced that I've read something about not firing the heat-seekers immediately one after another. I'll check the other manual. Edit: The manual does say that the second missile SHOULD be launched after 4-7 seconds after the first one for the reasons I mentioned earlier. It's just that the system won't provide this function automatically. It says that you have to hold the trigger for 3.5-4 seconds to launch the second missile IF the first one fails to launch; I thought this time was regarding the salvo launch for IR missiles, my mistake. But, according to the same manual, I guess it's possible to mix R-60MK's (and I guess R-73 missiles as the manual doesn't mention any other type than R-60MK) as it states it's possible to have different types of "self-guided" missiles as long as the same types have are on the opposite pylons. I see now the inner/outer selector function description. It basically just selects the order of selecting the pylons (inner towards outer ones or the other way around) rather than pylons themselves. But that makes me wonder if you had a mixed R-60 and R-73 loadout together with two R-27R's in some mode where both short range and long range missiles could be selected, how would you select the type on the mid pylons to fire first?

Yeah, but it's worth adding that they're not launched both immediately. There's a certain delay (3-4 seconds at least, IIRC) added to avoid the engine of the first missile interfering with the seeker of the following missile.