Wizard_03

In the same interview he talks about how the aircraft still suffers from FOD ingestion even with the covers, and describes a wingman experiencing a damaged engine due to the same issue. Look I'm not saying he's wrong but multiple sources I have read have said the engines are not reliable and we're a constant source of maintenance above that of other aircraft at that time. He claims you can get good reliability out of any aircraft that's maintained well which is certainly true. But these issues are not maintenance related, they are design related. Another issue he describes in detail is smoke.

I am talking about the MiG-29, how do you get higher sortie generation with engines that have a reputation for having really poor service life and a questionable reliability factor by industry standards of the time. It certainly affected both the F-16 and F-15 when the F-100 was first rolled out and couldn't be relied on I can't imagine it was different or better the Soviets. A broke engines is a broke engine. That's gonna down an aircraft regardless of who is in charge.

Maybe not if your in the cockpit and you have a good crew, but they sure are important if you want high sortie rates and aircraft availability from a defense planning perspective.

Ive actually have heard the jet itself is very simple and easy to maintain compared with western aircraft, but those engines are supposed to be very unreliable at least early on, and have a considerably lower service life. considerably, as in like half that of the F-404. What does he/she have to say about that? I can't imagine readiness is high if your having to swap engines twice as much as the other guy.

absolute conjecture on my part but I'd say Prolly poor, with those engines I can't see it being stellar.

TBH I think the possibility of encountering F-15s in a hypothetical war was much much higher then F-16s for the MiG-29 both fulcrum and viper have short range and a defensive mindset so unless both sides air bases are extremely close to each other I don't see it happening as much as dealing with F-15s who like Su-27s are much more suited to OCA and are going to be trying to take control of airspace. Similar situation in Vietnam with F-4s and MiG-21s the real comparison against the MiG-21 should be the F-8/F-100 but because both of those aircraft are basically short range day fighters and have very much the same missions in mind, you really don't see them going up against 21s too much, whereas the F-4 has the range and sensor package to take the fight into the enemies airspace. Which is exactly what happened. Apples and oranges but The comparison is very relevant, in my mind.

I think with all the naval assets in the game being added to the game it makes most sense for a J model. That would nearly fill out the roster for late 70s carrier air wing, and have good synergy. F-4E Is kinda limiting since we don't have any century series assets for it too work with yet.

DCS hornet Game manual. There's lots of documentation publicly available for the A-10, however documentation regarding MIDS and Link16 is not for the hornet, at least I've never seen any. It's not hard to guess how it works but they've also said repeatedly that they will only use publicly available sources.

Have to disagree on the FM. At least for the cat, its in a good place now but its been quite a roller coaster. I suppose they are for everyone ED included but I don't think HB is any better. They do however do a great job with immersion, little touches like buffeting and audio cues in the cockpit really let you feel their products something that you start missing in other DCS modules. Anyways But yeah I hope its HB too it would make sense, don't they still have an unannounced project listed on their public roadmap? I think they have the best art department, certainly better then Raz and ED, However if its them I worry that they have too much on their plate. A-6, F-4, AND Eurofighter is a lot. even if they all are not under active development right now. Certainly gonna take a while for EA let alone Release states based on their track record. Here's hoping its a Navy version!

AFAIK, all DL settings, channels, and options are not implemented due to the sensitivity of those systems. Basically DL will only been on/off because ED doesn't want to cross any boundaries and get in trouble.

With Flaps switch in Full flaps the FCS is seeking on speed AOA, which with full power will obviously result in a pitch up because the aircraft is trying to maintain on speed with a bunch of excess thrust.

Yes, and A big part of the reason its not really around much and never had the success the Su-27 family had is cost, The F-16A was in fact significantly cheaper then F-15 and could reasonably be bought in great numbers and fill the role it was intended for at least out of the box in the cold war. The MiG-29 is not cheap enough in comparison to the Su-27 which begs the question, "why would you buy a MiG-29 when you can get a lot more capability from the Su-27 for only about 25% more money?" So while it is a better jet compared to the F-16 its concept wasn't really reasonable because the Su-27 was very cost effective, and or the MiG-29 was overpriced, overkill, one or both, and IMO twin engines is the number one factor of that, F/A-18 compared to the tomcat has a similar problem. JF-17 gives us an Idea of what a single engine, modern MiG-like lightweight fighter Might look like and its quite cost effective with good enough performance.

Well I wouldn't want to take the MiG up against the F-15 in BVR, amraams or no, Harli is right it's real comparison should be against early F-16s and with that in mind its actually very much the Superior aircraft. It's hands down the better daytime dogfighter. Not only can it straight up out perform the F-16 it can also out weapon it.

I agree and yeah definitely need GCI if we're getting a first generation MiG-29 I just question the entire RW tactic as a whole, and its my opinion that they choose to design their air forces like that because of a lack of parity in the electronics department not the the other way around. In other words if they had access to quality radars at that time. Things like IRST and GCI integration wouldn't be nearly as necessary as they are for those aircraft. I see those things as workarounds not advantages.

Yeah if it works, if it doesn't, for any reason your I'm trouble because F-15 doesn't need a data link/GCI or whatever. F-15 only has to worry about itself doesn't need a huge IADS around it to work, its nice to have but it's certainly not relying on it like 27/29. You take them out of their element and all of a sudden it's very difficult to build SA with just onboard sensors. So yeah that's what I would call an explotable tactical weakness. On their own the F-15 has all of the advantages. In the 27/29 your depending on someone, somewhere else to give you the information you need to win. Not the case with F-15. Comparing the 27 to 15 The radar is way more powerful, can do more, and is less resistant to EW, it's also got a dedicated scope instead of cramming it all on the HUD so you can actually use the radar to search. There's more but that's the big stuff. It's got onboard jamming equipment, and much better RWR gear. All of which a quite important for modern air combat. Not to mention it can do AAR and carry drop tanks. It was evidently designed to operate without a ton of support from the ground over enemy territory. So maybe with GCI running 27 is comparable or may even have the advantage in some situations (of course this in assuming we're in the 80s) But certainly not on its own. Fighter to fighter, eagle has it beat in the electronics department hands down.

Even if IFF was totally dependant on visual IDs in all practicality like your saying which it's not, modern EO pods can see targets well into BVR ranges anyway. Also there's this new fangled thing call intelligence that helps your determine what you might run into and who it belongs too before you even get in the cockpit. That way you can make sure your friendly MiGs in this case are no where near where the bad ones are or they get told in their briefings to clearly ID themselves because they don't want to accidentally get shot down either, or cause confusion. All of which can be done with a phone conversation, or better yet ahead of time in war games.

Only the F-35A has an internal gun and it's an A2G weapon the same one from the harrier. And in fact they do not even have the ability to carry SRMs In stealth configurations at this time. Why is F22As and F-15s standard load out two SRMs and six MRMs if dogfighting is so important?

Idk about all that, but your statement that modern IFF techniques are not reliable enough to do BVR is straight up false. You don't have to agree but pretty much every modern AF does, and trains under assumption they are. Including the Russians. Hence the shifting emphasis on low observables, advanced sensors, and longer ranged weapons. None of which are necessary or even desirable for dogfighting. In other words they wouldn't be building fighters the way the do today if BVR was not the dominant form of air combat.

IFF and ROEs are used together, and there's quite a bit more to it then simply entering the right code. You can determine a lot based on just heading speed and altitude before we need to even worry about positive IFF responses. Never the less That exact problem is why they have large scale exercises involving multiple air forces, so that people can coordinate in fog of war conditions.

That goes against what pretty much every large scale excerise involving modern air combat in the last 30 to 40 years has shown. Go ahead and flip that, if a near peer conflict broke out you'd have next to zero dogfighting and almost exclusively BVR combat. IFF has come along way since the 70s at least in the west. It's fairly straightforward to determine if something is hostile at range now.

A hell of a lot more susceptible then F-15s Radar, (its a two way data link?! ), what they call an advantage, I call a weakness. If all of your fighters require a data link to know whats going on, what do think is target number 1 for the enemy? Wouldn't it be better to have each fighter able to work independently in case you know there's a war on and things aren't hunky dory for GCI, or you know you don't have one because your not over your own territory? Depending on a data link for SA is a HUGE weakness.

I get sideways when people present that and GCI as an advantage. As If, number 1 F-15C couldn't receive vector information over voice from an IADS just like the red team (granted not on a full blown data link during the cold war) and Number 2 those systems are not HIGHLY susceptible to EW. Meaning fundamentally that the red side is at a disadvantage when those systems don't work or can't work, because F-15C has a big ole radar it can use to search and track independently, where as 29/27 Depend on them working and rely heavily on off board donors for the majority of their SA.

So for 15 degrees down the normal detection range is roughly cut in half. On top of RCS checks, aspect, scan volume, ect. Gonna have a hard time in that scenario.

Unbox sequence

Let see... outperform every flyable aircraft in the game, in almost every metric, yeah yawn I guess haha Seriously though very confused, because IMO air combat is way more engaging then any A2G mission. Maybe that's just me.