okopanja

Also a content creator for Mig-29 9.12 should know the technical details before creating content in the first place. If not, better stick to FC3 29.

Clearly the same principle applied to AI: Clearly, the design is non sequential in IRL airplane. While you may use the flight plan and go sequentially on a pre-planned path. Actual flight plan is shaped by what is going on in the air.

In this mode TAS is displayed. In vertical scan mode IAS. In navigation IAS, etc... I suggest you read a bit on how messurement of speed works in aviation.

Ok, I will accept it is not generated by the AI. With proliferation of AI and no direct statement from ED, I had genuine concern which Nineline clarified. It's true: I did go over the line here. But I also think ED should have spoken directly on this topic. I will not comment on contnet of your youtube further, and I am sorry for leaving you feel labeled and angry. On my side I assure you that I did spend large amount of my time researching the topic of 29 flights in 1999. I did try to find out as much as I could, especially due to the fact that the pilots did experience problems whenever they tried to speak out. 26 years after the events we are still learning knew facts and each interview of the pilots from both sides provides additional information. Unlike propaganda narration of media on both sides, I found out that the interviews of the pilots largely matched each other, and that as humans they do respect each other. In some cases I did find out that: parts of their statements were departing from the actually state on the ground, sometimes they avoided telling everything. I would prefer not to use word lie, but simply they can not share everything with us. Each story is time-stamped so English and Serbian speakers can listen themselves potentiality comment on accuracy of translation or provide additional information (reason why forum was chosen in the first place). For each story I provided additional sources(e.g. crosschecked with other branches like VOJIN/EWR) and all information, to my best knowledge are public information with no confidential data. Overall it has been a very satisfying experience for me, I do not feel the effort is wasted. So answer is clear I did do my homework when researching the topic. Your comments are welcome. I do work full time, have a family, go on vacation, and probably do all the things you do as well, and just like you I like having this hobby, and have used my free time and precious vacation days to e.g. visit newspaper archive for one of these stories. If this answer satisfies you I would rather place this topic back to the original track. That said: how do we match the reality with simulated?

E.g. to calculate the distance at which SPO registers his side you had to know the peak output of power if transmitter. The aperature of antenna is easy to assume. And this output had to be strong enough to reach the target, reflect, travel back to seaker, so it can track the target the returned signal of certain level against the noise. This defines earliest time when the missile cam go pitbul. In case of SPO reception, signal needs just to be received and passed through receiving antenna (which has some gain) and pass the threshold needed for SPO to register. In turn the SPO would get much stronger signal than the seaker. Clealrly internal noise and input sensitivities are not the same (as well as antenna gains), but in radar equation distance and output power are the strongest factors.

Yes but given the fact that AIM-120 was practically based on white papers, I assume you have used the conclusions on it, in order to infer on what SPO-15 was capable of?

Will there be a whitepaper?

Looking forward to official statement from ED (e.g. whitepaper) compared to unofficial AI content generated video.

For now I would treat the statements made in this AI generated video as unofficial. Until now we have now actual statements from ED. If indeed they came to such conclusions, then I am wondering they should explain how they made them. On top of it I would expect, is possible able to replicate IRL scenarios with consistent results.

Pilots did get SPO-15 screaming on them with active amraams. There is no doubt of that. It's just enough to read that if anybody is having doubts. In addition, see Mike Shower's interview, on 24.03.1999 he fired: On Nikolic: AIM-120 at 14-15nm, missed Followed by AIM-7, missed, at about 5-6nm Nikolic went into the beam Another AIM-120, once he realized both missed, and that one hit Nikolic (he turned into the Shower) at about 1.5-2nm. On Kulacin ( I will publish this one in a day or 2 but you can hear it in the same interview) AIM-120 at 5nm, missed (on launch both were head to head) and they merged with Shower now in very close proximity to Kulačin Other pilots with working SPOs also reported missiles going active. The only ones that got hit with no reaction were those with failed SPOs. Mainly Iljo Arizanov. See the stories I posted in the sub-forum topics (2nd page) of 29.

Looks like texture glitch, congrats on finding the first bug in 9.12 module.

Sorry to disappoint you, but we've covered this already on page 1.

In case of the DL-ed shots being that SARH/ARH, the ability to detect the launch depends on information how the DL corrections are transmitted. Provided that such information is available, and that RWR is sensitive in the required band, it would be feasible to detect launch being that ARH or SARH missile, not to mention CW illumination in case of AIM-7, which may help not loose the missile, but would certainly wake up any RWR with the right self respect.

Here is the ejection sequence diagram:

Although this device is important when it comes to separation of the pilot from the ejection seat (past certain altitude), I do not know if this is relevant. It makes more sense to model inflatable dingy which hangs from the back of the pilot once he separates from the seat. E.g. Predrag Milutinović, at first thought he lost a leg( until he remembered the dingy), since the rope kept hitting him from the back.

High Altitude Parachute Deployment Control Unit

29 pilots IRL did get warnings and acted upon them(when SPO was operatuonal). There are some testemomies I alredy posted. I am preparing one with amraam miss at 5nm at the moment. In addition the story of Nebojša Nikolić needs update, since I found later interview and he did not fly in the straight line, but dodged amraam, sparrow and got hit by second amraam at 1.5-2nm range. His description of flight pattern indicates agressive snake-like flight while pushing for the merge.

In DCA, only Mistral will acquire ground target, but will miss. R-73 and R27 you can try already now in longitudal mode. Sufficient to kill airplane on a ground without entering kill zone of most shorad

Just remembered. The manual mentions that ground targets can be targeted with R-60. The warhead is smaller but sufficient against lighter armor. Also R-73, R-27T can be used against aircraft on ground, provided that they have engine on.

"No Mig-21": not true, Mig-21PFM could do it, but clarification should be asked from Magnitude 3 if the other versions of Mig-21 in Yugoslav service had the modifications to carry it, especially since one of the SMEs is an active pilot and instructor on Mig-29 and the Mig-21 airplanes were taken out of the service few years ago. E.g. it's a well known fact that Yugoslavia modified their Mig-21s to level that it could use domestic IADS instead of soviet one, by replacing the DL components on receiving end. Mid 70s this was AS-74, and mid 80s AS-84. Once the GCI officer designates the target, the figher would receive updates automatically. I point you to the book "Nebo na dlanu", written by Rajica Bošković. I also would like to point out that at this time development of domestic guided missile also called Grom was in progress. If you have technical reasons for Mig-21bis not being able to guide it, I recommend you to post a topic in Mig-21 section. Mig-29: true, this missile was never used. The only option for any other precision weapons on 9.12 was the upgrade offered in 1996, as a part of the overhaul, which included Kh-29T, however this upgrade is not modeled for the time being. Source: Mirčeta Jokanović interview at TV Front. However this upgrade never took place due to the internal political factors.

That's the one

Forget the mirrors, what happened with SPO-15? (there was influencer video stating ED made statements in relation to SPO-15)

So what is going on with the new SPO-15 in new module?

P-12/P-18 were also used for SA-3, and in fact P-18 was the one which detected F-117 when it got shot down. Present SA-3 in DCS it totally blind to stealth aircrafts.

Aside of the your proposal it would be interesting to have also P-12, P-18, P-15, P-35/37, P-40 as more mobile variants which were used in combination with different SAMs. Between different SAM sites (e.g. SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-5), some of these EWR radars were interchangeable elements when attached directly to the batteries. Another interesting topic is that better coverage and resilience toward the ECM could be achieved by connecting two different radars (e.g. P-15 and P-18) to the same battery at the same time. In this case the rotation of antenna's were synchronized and picture displayed on the same circular situation display (SNR-125 - SA-3). One such combination was documented to be used by Finland. Furthermore they could have been integrated in IADS as part of larger network, and this way were able to reduce the reaction time of many systems. E.g. SA-3 acquisition of target for SNR-125 could be fed from such system, the elevation/azimuth were slaved, so the operator could lock the target way faster when using normal stand-alone workflow. I assume that benefits only extended to the more advanced SAMs.