okopanja

Dumping of fuel works, be sure not to be in afterburner while doing this. This thing would need visual update, since at present it is barely visible.

Sorry for sounding nitpicking - I kind of wanted to make a joke. Flanker or Rook? I would say Rook easily wins for being less sensitive and more exported abroad (su-27 only Ethiopia, Angola and Indonesia?), but I hope at some point ED manages to find the way to create FF early Flanker.

The point is that this is an 9.12 airframe, carrying R-27ER. I selected the image so the fetter profile of engine section of R-27ER can be properly seen in order to confirm the statement made in the original text. Picture also demonstrates that 9.12 vs 9.13 upgrade path limitation is meaningless (this is too often quoted in this forum so majority of people believe its hard limitation). R-27ER still utilizes the same pylon as R-27R, there is no distinction between guidance of these missiles and they work the same, and are hence compatible with radar we will get in DCS (if I have to guess this will be old export N019 with smaller number of channels). That said the R-27ER still exceeds the range of original radar, so the benefit is not much in terms of the range (which at the end is higher), but rather in the reduced time it would need to reach the target compared to much slower R-27R and along the much better climb performance. In other words: it will not be able to adequately challenge the dominance of AMRAAM teens in DCS, so concerned people should be satisfied (no need to nerf further something that is already limited by the radar with limited range and ECM resistance). The R-77 on the other side did require the radar upgrade and I am not suggesting it should be there in the upcoming module. BTW #18151 in picture was originally 9.12A and you can find the news in 2018 on the same portal you found second image about the upgrade. Personal view on this modernization is lukewarm and I am not impressed at all: I would have preferred if they obtained Dassault Rafale or Viper instead. Not without irony during 80s the Viper was actually evaluated and dispite pilots having very positive opinion, the 29 was selected due to political reasons as a stop-gap before never-finished NA aircraft. This along sanctions is the major reason why the number of these aircraft was small in the the airforce, even when the possibility of obtaining more was still open.

Yes this was one of the things I have noticed when reading Mig-29 manual. It will require the red pilots to relearn the indications. Pros and cons are there, with some more and some less information being available. The manuals still leave a lot for free interpretations, so I am curious how ED will implement it at the end. When you wrote "precision" I thought you were referring to azimuth precision (which btw is ensured due to the lamps). While still in cockpit this is fine, but once you export the values you receive exact bearings (combined with signal strength and certain co-factors per source you can derive exact distance to the decimal meter precision), and this is not good. I was hoping this would indicate that general rework of RWRs of all modules will be there to avoid situations where notching becomes too easy, when RWR displays precise angle without introducing the variation inherent to the RWR designs. Thanks for the link, I will reread and compare with my own interpretation and translation.

You could say Mig-15 was the first, since technically Belsimtek is now part of ED.

R-27ER on 9.12 airframe, just to ensure we do not make incorrect assumptions on missions, weight carrying capacities etc. As I said before: the missiles get primed through side lobs of radar, so "compatibility" issue is strictly weather the avionics could display you proper R values. For R-77 I would say you need an upgrade. I would suggest against making such analogies. AWG-9 and AIM-54 comes from late 60s, with AMRAAMs likely being developer in 80s. That is a very long timespan with different technologies being employed causing these missiles to behave and perform radically differently. I would say you would likely need HB to do F-14D for this. I do believe that matter of historical accuracy (mind not the same as technical accuracy) should be handled by mission designers. They do decide weather or not they want to stick more with timeline or put more emphasis on balancing. E.g. in some cases redfor gets non-E version so the game can be fun for e.g. Mirage 2000C pilots. As for Germans and Polish, again a matter more for mission designers. E.g. in alternative universe if they were still part of Warsaw pact, I am pretty sure they would receive the missiles. Sorry for signaling this out but I take you were tracking this for a longer time than me. Can you tell us more about this? I did read the one of the IRL manual and noted certain inconsistency when it comes to classification and a missing feature on top of it, but I am curious to learn more on this subject.

I think the main reason here would probably be E variants not being exported outside of Soviet union. The R-27 was from the very beginning envisioned as modular missile family, where the guidance sections, warhead, motors and seekers (SARH, IR and passive radar) were be combined (probably to reduce costs). The only difference between R-27ER and R-27R is the larger motor. Everything else is exactly the same, including the same power supply limit of 60 seconds (IMHO: ER/ET would benefit from extra 20 seconds). The missiles even get primed the same way through radar side lobs. The only difference that would cause some issues is the RMax indication, but even if they do not update the radar to take into account this, the pilot could always launch it with launch override.

Technically speaking 9.12 were upgraded to carry R77 IRL, off course this did include both radar and new MFD. However, I agree we would need to keep expectations limitted to IR and SARH missiles. Even present Mig 29 is not at that much of disadvantage, if it gains access to saner AWACS and/or DL. That said Razbam will be delivering in future Mig-23, which in theory should also be candidate for Lazur(this is just my speculation, I really have no clue what they will do). The logic is that if one gets this DL, so should the other as well. Why?

It takes more than one year to develop module from scratch. Since it is still a possibility in 2024, development must have started earlier. At minimum this will require radar updates, since Razbam kind off pushed the fidelity of radar simulation(m2k/f15e) further than ED(phase 3 for hornet and viper not reached yet).

In general built in AWACS is very bad solution. It gives you nearest bandit without any understanding if tactical situation. The mission based 3rd party alternatives are not much better, often ruining the reality while having same issur as built in. For 29 it would be cool to allow another player to sit inside lazur cabin.

To my best knowkedge Polish Mig-21 flight manual describes in details operation of Lazur, HUD symbology as well as ADI/HSI indicators being slaved to DL. For 23/29 this would be likely similar, but more refined due to Lazur-M. Both of these DLs were superseeded by more advanced DLs, and I doubt they are in operational use now.

The airframe #18151 was originally at 9-12A level. Somewhere in 2018 (along #18351) it was prepared for the upgrade to the Mig-29SM+. Apparently radar was upgraded allowing it to carry R-77. In addition it can use Kh-29. The picture was taken in 2022:

Well, ED was denying 29 will be done in the past, so lets wait and see...

I hope they meant Lazur-M

No, we do not, but still we do not know exactly which radar and avionics

Both 9-12 and 9-13 are known to have been upgraded to the level of Mig-29SM, thus making them more capable in terms of air to air and ground to ground.

Lazur-M. It would be call to actually add second seat for GCI operator. The guidance was done thourh HUD indication and HSI/ADI

Dude, lets cut this short: you got all this all wrong. In fact you are arguing with DCS veterans here. I hope this helps.

I think the issue here is 3 signals bring independant and arriving faster than minimal time needed to register event. You might want to try to delay the pulses relative to each other with timers. Also changing the switch type from default one in VKB might provide you with instant solution. My Gladiator is not with me, but I also do not have 3 state switch.

From module to module it depends how the switch/trigger events are registered. Typically there is a minimal amount of time needed to remain at high level, before DCS registers the event. E.g. Ka50, F16. However, there are examples where this is not the case, like JF17, where triggers are instant. For each device the lua declaration provides a variable declaring on how frequently the device is being processed. You might want to play with this and see if it helps, however editing lua will result in integrity check failure. At the moment I am away from home and can not tell you the name of the var.

I think this should be an option. Perhaps experimental?

Ever heard of "lend-lease"?

If you carry vikhrs, the vibrations will commence earlier... Depends on what you carried since you did not provide details. su-25A

On a weapon pannel, front the leftmost switch is labeled with auto. Place the little circle on the target, hit lock. Seaker will start tracking.

I would argue that fastest way to get into position is to go straight to the source of jamming.