Wizard_03

Each ED employee should be issued a go pro camera and a shock ankle bracelet so we can make sure they aren’t waisting time working other projects, spending time with their families, or drinking to much coffee. I know the hornet is setting a new bar for simulation products in general and is the greatest representation of the jet available now and probably will be for the next 30 years, and there’s nothing like it on the market to even compare it too, except other ED products. But dammit that’s not good enough, work harder. Seriously though, it’s been a long road for the community can’t imagine what it’s been like for staff so hats off, if I could buy it again I would.

This!

If we use the gross weights listed on Wiki both MiG-29A and F-16CM Blk50 have: 1.11 T/W

Empty T/Ws with AB F-15C - 1.69 X2 F100-PW-220 @ 47540lbs combined empty weight - 28000lbs F-16C BLK 50 no CFTs - 1.58 X1 F110-GE-129 @ 28984lbs empty weight - 18238lbs F/A-18C - 1.53 X2 F404-GE-402 @ 35400lbs combined empty weight - 23000lbs MiG-29A - 1.51 X2 RD-33 @ 36680lbs combined empty weight - 24251lbs Sources: wiki/F-16.net Take these with a grain of salt but it seems I was wrong the MiGs perceived performance advantage may have a lot more to do with lift then thrust. Very interesting. (F-15 though lol)

If we're talking big girls lol:

I actually prefer 9.13 looks wise, she needs a few curves IMO.

Well in any case it seems ED already made the determination because we have them for the 29A now.

Never heard of 9.13 without the hump.

Can't imagine the new missile comes out and they DON'T port it too whatever they have in active service at the time. Maybe they don't have many at first but the modifications can't be that hard to give the jet the ability to carry it. Probably something that could be done at the squadron level. Same story with the R-77 they may not have had the weapon available but it was definitely intended for the 29S and they had provisioned for it from the get go.

It's not that unless, you can fire and defend at the same time and that's a big deal because even though It has lower PK it helps you tick the range down and get up in people's faces where you have the advantages. If I can get someone into the WVR without being totally defensive I have a lot of confidence I can Finnish them off In the MiG. MiG-29S loadout is perfect for me, with 27ET/77/73 and center tank plus ECM I have pretty much every tool I need to win. More SA is always helpful. Not knowing what's going on is pretty much the only way to die in the MiG, you can out perform everyone else in most cases. The problem is you OFTEN don't know what's going on. The radar dosent tell you anything about contacts except range, bearing, and direction + IFF but only if you go STT, and This all assuming they're in range, not notching, too look down. Ect. Ect. And also your radar is actually on and your not emcon trying to sneak up on people with IRST which is the better tactic IMO if your going up against spamraamers. And RWR is basically useless, just let's you know that your about to die haha Apart from what we have now I just want to be able to ask AWACS what the contact is. In the hornet Link 16 or NCTR tells me, in the Viper and eagle you can figure it out with RWR nails, knowing what the target is allows me to set my game plan up early on. Right now I have to assume everyone is an F-15 and treat them that way until I know otherwise because that's the biggest threat they could be. If I knew they weren't at BVR I could put myself in much much better positions.

In any case I'm happy we're getting something I just wish I didn't have to play the whole peak a boo, hide and seek game with f-15/16s in the MiG-29A and Su-27/33 When they added the J-11A and R-77s it was a game changer for me. The MiG-29S is pretty equal IMO if you know what your doing too. The biggest problem at the moment for me is trying to figure out what I'm shooting at. Big difference in tactics between F-15/18 but with the MiGs radar/RWR gear you can't tell. So I also want them to add that as an option for AWACS/GCI calls.

haha agreed, well it would certainly make a big difference in game play value. A little more fuel and active missiles is literally all it needs IMO to be competitive.

Yeah idk about this thread, for me when I'm cooking along at max AB I need almost full forward trim and some forward stick deflection just to keep it from going into orbit. Seems like it has the best T/W in the game from where I'm sitting. F-14A/B, 15, 16, 18, su-27/33, and mirage don't even come close, in the acceleration department. So if it is under performing I don't think it really matters all that much you still have power in spades. Doesn't seem underwhelming for me at all.

Its too bad they can't do both the MiG-29S and 29A, I'm not holding my breath but in the past ED has initially choose a early version and during the research phase to keep expectations under control and then later, assuming they found more documentation, upgraded it to a more advanced version. They did that with both the F-16 and hornet. It would be nice to have the extra fuel, ECM, and at least some Fox3 capability. With a little practice you can make the current FC3 29S a pretty big threat against the teens. Sure Amraam is still flat out better then R-77 but just having a fox 3 and the ability to shoot and defend at the same time does let you at least play the game with them in BVR not too mention you have some trump cards that they don't have like T/ET. Combine that with GCI implementation and all of a sudden the shoes on the other foot.

I don't think so, apparently we don't need evidence anymore. You can't prove to me that we can't rivet things to the jet.

We need DCS rivet gun, then we can put anything we want on the jet. Run out of stations under the wings? no problem just put 10 more mavericks on the top Wanna sling load cows with an F-16 no problem just rivet the sling to the stabs and Boom. and they could have done all that if they needed too in wartime it's just not in the stores manual because they forgot and they don't even use those anyway. So it's realistic.

Well nothing matters if war had broke out. Air battles in western Europe certainly wouldn't have mattered either if the all of the airbases, factories, supply chains, and personal responsible for the jet get annihilated 2 hours into the conflict. But yes exactly and it did have an effect there is no more Soviet union. Excessive defense spending which the MiG-29 is apart of lead to where we are today. Obviously the MiG and other large scale projects were unsustainable which is bad. You want to be able to keep paying for your weapons so that if you need them you have them. If you overextend your resources like that you run the risk of defeating yourself.

Oh I think it sure does, the whole point of the 29 is low cost, and a numerical advantage. Number one it's not that low cost and number two the most expensive components, the engines need to be changed out about twice as much as it's rival the F-16 which only has a single engine. That means it takes 4 times as many engines to keep the MiGs readiness up compared to it's equivalent. Even if the engines are a lot cheaper then the PWs/GEs in the viper that's still critically higher in overall cost and resources. (Not too mention having to run two supply chains for them since the Su-27 uses a different powerplant. Compared to F-15/16 using the same one.) That's a pretty significant factor, and in mind there's no way that DOESN'T affect sortie generation. So while the MiG is certainly superior the the viper in just about everyway, it comes at a higher cost. Both out of the gate and in maintaining it. Now whether that higher cost is justified, I'm not making a statement on. That's more of a political question. I'm just straight comparing it too other aircraft at the time.

It does look the part, and I would actually go ahead and say it is the best dogfighter.

Yeah once again not talking about reliability from the pilot's point of view I'm talking about the service life of the engines. That is a logistics concern not a flight safety one.

Yeah so its still a Design issue, they can mitigate it with operational practices according to the air marshal, but never the less FOD is and was a major concern. (It is for the F-16 too) Being able to swap engines easily does not take care of the cost and resources associated with replacing an engine. Sure if a war breaks out, I guess it doesn't matter but if the world keeps spinning it puts a big drain on your supply lines and aircraft availability is low. I've yet to be disproved at all, I'd be happy to hear sources saying that the engines were in fact reliable compared to their western equivalents and that they were not a factor in sortie generation for the VVS. That doesn't appear to be the case. All I've heard so far is pilot testimony saying the engines worked well enough in flight and it's evidently easy to maintain, both of which don't tell us about the service life/reliability of those engines and how that comes in to play for it's overall employment. Because IRL if you have a bad engine a good plane captain doesn't let the aircraft fly and you get another plane or the sortie gets scrubbed. Which is the real issue I'm getting at. That must happen a lot, maybe too much in comparison to it's likely enemies. That's the point of my above posts We've already talked in length about Soviet doctrine regarding it's deployment and the advantages and drawbacks of that particular system. Anyways I have nothing but respect for the MiG-29 it's probably my favorite Russian aircraft in the game but a super-hyper-wonder jet it certainly is not.

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.