okopanja

Yes it was a perfect lock and well within the range, the initial turn was there (it did not pass far from actual path of target), only the missile went dead immediately after, despite AB target. My tacview is from GS server, and neither him or me exhibit drops in position updates (usually this indicates that at least one of us has low performance machine or poor network), so I would say this is not a delay induced desync. I was wondering if the net code of older missiles is actually misbehaving. And, btw I am not a beginner and the guy who posted to topic is actually an advanced BF 80s player. If you carefully look at the missile fired by second person you will see it also flies straight just like mine. Another candidate for reason behind the issue are the changes made several releases ago made to fix the issue of PR given even if the missile does not have a PR. That issue was relate more to the front aspect, but it appears that now rear aspect works unreliably.

Not sure, think i got something similar today. Launched R-27ET from read hemisphere with proper PR. Missile made initial turn and stopped dead. (while focusing on my own issue I noticed that barrel roll is an issue again) Sadly TRK is too large so useless. Still:

Slight digression, since Mig-25 is my favorite airplane. The last operator of Mig-25 is Algerian air force. In 2022 they showed the last 3 in the air show. There were supposed to withdraw them from the service. Although: not sure if this actually occurred. https://en.topwar.ru/199817-mig-25-okonchatelnyj-uhod-v-istoriju.html It should be noted that manuals for all variants appeared in internet recently. However, legal status is still unknown. Perhaps shared heritage with Mig-31 could cause still the issues. It would be cool and if ED would in future implement this aircraft.

Not familiar to which requirements APKWS imposes on avionics, but for 29 it's plain and simple. The thing that will be a subject change is they way it guides before the SARH heads become active. Perhaps we do not get instant launch warnings anymore?

LOL Same things were discussed 18 years ago. Some of the community follow the logic of lawyers, insisting on document they may have is a proof of limitations. However they often forget that the manuals are updated, and their own copy may not be up to date. Just to add that ED roughly stated: "R-27 familiy and R-73"... as a part of larger Mig-29 project. I am pretty sure that they have more complete informmation.

You can do 2 things: 1. either fire R-27T first, followed by R-27R 2. or fire R-27R first, wait for burn time to complete and fire R-27T

Nike is mentioned as the most dangerous, soon after it refers to less dangerous emitters There is statically lit scale indicating strength of the emitter, and statement that it can be used to determine the distance. If I read this correctly flashing 2Hz light on the signal strength scale indicates the distance of the zone of the destruction of the main armament. Is this what you meant?

Still no R-60 on ground targets?

According to this book: https://www.vojnaknjizara.com/shop/esalon-istorija-razvoja-sovjetskih-i-ruskih-radara-komandno-informacionih-sistema-i-sistema-automatizacije/ The development of Radars, C3I systems and data links initially occurred within requirements of PVO of territory (Воздушна ПВО), where frontal aviation/troop PVO (Сухопутни) were usually receiving the older stuff from former. The requirements of the first often collided with realities of the later who needed more flexibility and mobility. The book criticizes the concepts forced by the first (richer and more influential group), since reality showed that second group was more pragmatic and often developed better solutions when given freedom and resources. It should not surprise you that second group received often equipment from first after several years. The book specifies the following connectivity paths: Воздух --> Каскад --> Лазур (moved slowly to front aviation) Воздух1М --> Каскад --> Лазур-М (over the time moved to front aviation) Воздух1М --> Каскад --> Бирјуза (only for PVO) Вектор-2 --> Каштан --> Радуга 68 (at early and in Вектор form with Лазур-М) Сењеж --> Каштан --> Радуга 75 (based on the needs combined with Лазур-М) Рубеж-1 --> Рубеж-2 --> Радуга 75 (based on the needs combined with Бирјуза) Еталон --> Сплав (was used only within front aviation and not in PVO) Постскриптум --> Вертикал --> Горизонт In addition the authors state that e.g. Lazur-Birjuza are omnidirectional, while Raduga has directed antennas. It should be noted that authors intentionally removed operational details, so frequency, coding, etc are not available. In some cases it specifies the capacity of the targets tracking, but this is as detailed as it gets. Also, parts of the book are written in a rather difficult to read language. Well from my point of view I would prefer not the generic solution, but more accurate GCI for each specific type and/or even SAM types with multiple seats in future.

Rumors were around that the GCI could directly control the aircraft, but I have not found solid proof of that. Biryuza E502-20 is used frequently along Lazur/Lazur-M names, I have a feeling that they not describe the same things. I have a book where both are mentioned, so I will check exact formulations and context. Mig-23 is in the works as well as Mig-29, and they by shear coincidence share a piece of tech.

Not sure if DCS is able to model the effects of Tropospheric/Ionospheric reflections. Depending on the radio type used this may bring the signal further even without direct line of sight. I think it's pilot's task to do that.

I would not thouch neither HARM nor Kh-25, but there are 2 interesting things there: 1. KABR mode 2. R-60 for hitting ground targets with thermal signature (in the background mi-24 crowd jumps on their feet)

I hope that people will forgive digression: Well I would say it depends. The manpads have a rather limited employment time window. If they are not networked they tend to be rather ineffective in the first pass due to the reaction time and need to activate cooling, acquire, track and launch (older generation of manpads not requiring cooling could be used continuously as detectors, but newer ones require time to be prepared, which is not surprising to you since I noticed you are big fan of IR tech). Second pass is another thing, operator is more than alert . Already in 80s the soviets were equipping them with radio link fed by Bernaul T, which could give up to 4 targets to the operator + rough azimuth and distance of the target. Also I would say that relatively good flat ground performance we witnessed in 2022 is a bit different from valley crawl. I do not think that the manpad datalink would be as effective as on flat ground, where there are plenty of opportunities to pick up the target in ground clutter. The modern tendency is to provide the manpad with thermal scopes in addition to the DLs, which can be used for prolonged periods of time to assist acquisition and tracking. As for HF radios, not sure what you aim at, signal reflection for better coverage?

Already now if the aircraft is close enough to the ground. One thing is for sure: RWR, radar and EOS, as well as ground modes will have to be relearned. It will be familiar but in some cases surprisingly different environment.

Small correction: HMS is not a sensor, so therefore it does not lock anything, it just cues: radar, EOS or a missile seeker. Regarding the DCS FC3 they do have the penalty when flying lower than 1500m

Well even export version of 9.12 had it, so I would pretty much consider it incomplete without it.

From what I have read even the export versions had GCI link integration: either through indication which would show you the target with smaller circle in HUD, along it's altitude or traditional through voice communication.

Dude I can confirm to you that HDD and HUD show exactly the same picture, based on the Yugoslav manual. The reason for HDD was to ensure readability when the sun rays are too intense for HUD to be readable, and no this is not a waste. This display likely is the same one as in Su-27SK. Likely reason: component reuse and cost saving. Unlike more capable Su-27, Mig-29 was from the very first version developed to be guided by GCI for a limited amount of time, which meant it did not need more comprehensive SA, but rather help from GCI officer who had access on information about targets from multiple sensor sources. For this reason even in the earliest version, both automatic guidance (through Lazur) and verbal communication were provided. We do know that experience will be different than current FC3 Mig-29A, despite perhaps keeping similar flight model. The pilot will have to learn way more, and will have a higher work load. In some cases this will lead to better capabilities and in some to worse. At minimum: - Navigation system will be updated (I hope that ED integrates the ability to update it from ground at least) - EOS will be somewhat weaker - Helmet will be reworked, and finally will give you additional visual and audio information presently not available with our "green" circle. - RWR will have some advantages/disadvantages, compared to the current SPO-15LM - DL will have to be an integral part of the module. Just for the hint: it will also indicate redirection to alternative target, something we do not have at the moment which makes it very difficult to use AWACS calls under conditions of multiple maneuvering targets. Last but not least: even if you disagree with someone on a subject, please keep the communication civil and constructive. Next time people will be more forgiving in cases where you are proved wrong and forthcoming to help you in areas where you may not be so strong.

BTW: the manuals for all versions of Mig-25 have been "published" recently. The only operational Mig-25s were 3 airframes of Algerian Air Force, and I think they were supposed to stop flying by the end of 2022 or 2023.

I think I will attempt self-punishment after this

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.