Skysurfer

I have heard quite the opposite. Our Hornet is pretty overpowered in terms of top speed and acceleration in most configurations.

I did read above and your statement makes no sense.

How do you know they are "barely pushing the plane" ?

At this point they have missed every projected release window and promised timeframe for something so I wouldn't be too surprsised to not see said roadmap anytime soon. Getting pretty razbammy vibes from HB lately.

Wings flexing has nothing to do with the plane breaking in any way, it's a function of lift, load factor and vorticity. The JF-17 wing not bending much is probably just an indication about it's structural design and fairly limited airframe life span based on the wingspar and box.

Mainly the clipping gear doors, armament and PBR rework + damage model.

First time?

It's WIP currently. Has been for months now, sadly.

Any mention of the external model improvements and the broken damage model?

Ok but where does he mention it was on par at BVR with that era western jets? I watched this interview in the past and had the impression that he gave basically a fair rundown of the capabilities. Nothing any former GAF guy who flew the 29 won't tell you.

@BIGNEWY @NineLine I saw you guys mention a reworked pilot model for the Hornet in the past but can't find the exact thread and statement anymore. Can any of you maybe ask the team and find out what the status is on that?

А где я высловел свою нелюбов к 29-ке? Я думаю што это прекрасный самолёт с очень хорошыми качествами в БВБ - и с этим никто не поспорит. Он один из моих любимых модулей в ДКС. Я то сам из Германии и знаком с бывшим лётчиком немецких ВВС которий летал на 29-ке. Мы довольно долго и детально общались на ту саму тему, откуда я и имею свою информацию и знаю про его недостатки (по сравнению). Вы то на нём летали? Вы сам лётчик или имеете авиацыонное образование штоби делать такие выводи? По етому я бы вас попросил поделитьса вашым интервью с Хирле и где он сделал эти выводы.

Again, there is no proof of that and former personel will not be able to confirm that. I'm not talking about administrative "adoptation" of a weapon but actual IOC (i.e. seen on patrol aircraft, intel gatherings etc.) Sure, against an F-4 I can see the comparison but an APG-65 on an F-4 will differ from one that is on a F/A-18A etc. A Mig-29A even with the 27R would probably eat any Phantom alive in most areas. If probably not by much it will differ in processing, modes and output power to some extent. The poor man-machine interface and work required to get a lock and maintain it was something I was mentioning from the start when people brought up a full fidelity Flanker or Fulcrum - it would not be as carefree as FC3 no matter how much you'd try to bind to your HOTAS. Also, if you don't mind, do you have a link to said report? I'd love to read it myself.

Also found this interesting reference (video in link) from last year about the refublished R-27's - so it does seem like Russia is indeed modernizing already existing R-27's from it's stock and like in this case selling them to their partners. https://www.tvr.by/eng/news/obshchestvo/30_upravlyaemykh_raket_r_27_klassa_vozdukh_vozdukh_postupili_na_vooruzhenie_belorusskoy_armii/ Don't know the specific IOC's for both out of the top of my head but correct, there is an RMD1 and RMD2, the 2 having better offbore lockon capability. There days there's the R-74M, which has a longer burn time and improved off bore capability and seeker - however, it's still a traditional cooled IR seeker and not an FPA seeker, which is believed to be projected for the further development or straight up replacement of the Archer.

All valid points. There was a 2-3 year transitional period around 90-91. However, the R-27ER entered full service and mass scale production only around 87-88. It did not just come "a little later" - it's a known fact and confirmed by both historians and former crews and engineers. The 77 (RVV-AE) never entered service with the RuAF, only the 77-1 did in 2012-14 (RVV-SD for export). The Mig-31/Zaslon and AA-9 Amos combination was indeed an area where there was some sort of parity, if mostly intended to hit large bombers and AWACS, despite initial issues with its radar and datalink it was the first true PESA radar on a fighter/interceptor. Why don't you reference real world documents such as weapon employment manuals and talk to people who actually flew these aircraft? There are more than enough reports and combat evaluations out there. Especially once the Germans got their hands on the 29A (9.12). Point is, the Mig-29 radar is inferior to any western BVR platform (apart from the 16A with the APG-66). No one is discounting the 29 by any means in the WVR regime, especially when coupled with the Archer - to which the west only had an answer in the early 2000's technologically. Give credit where credit is due but don't just blindly trust or believe all the claims people make just because they want their favorite national plane to be the best thing in existence. Я бы вам очень посоветовал выучить историю и поговорить с персоналом и лётчиками, которых у нас на форуме есть достаточно.

Ok, then you also know that your RWR shuts off whenever you have a STT lock?

And you know this how?

Generally speaking in a non-DFCS jet you would not want to make any control inputs below 100kts as that might induce a departure or flat spin. Potentially compressor stalls with the A.

Sure, I get that but 1) Hornets, especially the C have not used these in combat and were only approved for them. And 2) there are currently far more important aspects to be implemented before any new, old and unused weapons. You will use a Shrike and Walleye exactly once and then never touch it again.

According to some SME's the brakes are like this in real life. Just land on speed and you should be fine. I do think that the ground friction at higher speeds might be a bit too low.

Both are Mach 2 capable, like I said the comparison is a bit more complicated than that. Mig-29 (9.12) doesn't have the radar or range to do literally any BVR to begin with so it's a bad comparison. Well, he does say "данная ракета радиолокационная для уничтожения целей радиолокационных на большом расстоянии" which is an interesting wording to say the least and makes it sound like it's some radar homing missile. Probably a reference to a HOJ function? I do speak russian so I know how to interpret said statement.

Just read up on PESA my dude, don't know what else to tell you. Later dish PD radars can very well engage two targets at a time with a SARH missile, when within parameters.

Depends. Some time a SU-24 will perfectly notch my launches, another time a 4 ship of Flankers fly straight into 4 TWS launched AIM-54's.

At least for a PESA the signal that gets put out does not differ much and there still needs to be a D/L guidence signal for a SARH missile. It's just that the beam is electronially steered rather than mechanically, allowing a greater scan volume and frequency. A PESA radar also required a tremendous power output to work at longer ranges making them very easy to pick up by EW receptors. A PESA does not differ much from your regular dish radar in terms of signal output - you still have one scanning beam within a certain band. AESA on the other hand is a completely different game and allows for much greater agility and true LPI.

A SARH launch will still give you a launch warning from the time of launch. There is an additional signal being fed for targeting - you don't get any indication from the missile as it's a passive seeker and works off of the reflection.