Seaeagle

Hmm - the Jaguar might fit that bill("eagerly awaited") and, as Dragon1-1 suggested, considered a "milestone" as the first European jet by ED......but "very complex"?

Well I don't know - B-1 Lancer?.....SR-71(that would be "mind melting" :D ) . But a "challenge to fly"?. Besides, Dassault has a reputation of being very "tight-lipped" about their products(even old Mirage variants), so I find it a little difficult to believe that ED could get a licence to do a "full fidelity" module of their latest design.

Yes its cryptic and I am sure thats intentional :) . Its obviously just my own interpretations, but to me it sounds as not being old means not a WWII orKorean war era type and "a challenge to fly" as the aircraft itself being demanding on the pilot - as opposed to "a challenge to operate" due to system's complexity or/and need for a co-pilot/RIO. Mind you, they did say that it was "very complex", so who knows :)

Indeed. Yes I agree - you can always find something that someone is awaiting eagerly, so I don't know how indicative that is........could just be PR talk :) . I think the bit about being "a challenge to fly" is a more interesting hint.

I am pretty sure I saw that quoted somewhere(maybe buried in this thread) - something along the lines of "not old, but not the newest either". But it gets a little difficult to keep track of all those hints, so I could be mistaken :) . Ah I wouldn't say that it would make it the only possible candidate, but I agree that it looks like a strong candidate, considering what has been ruled out; anything RedFor, Tornado, F-4, F-15E, F-15C(I think) etc. Yeah I agree.

It looks very different from the IPV. Its larger - as you can see it "sits higher" in relation to the HUD and there is also a cut-out in the TLP panel to make room for it. The visible lower part of the bezel/control dial looks just like the CRT from the early MiG-29M/K, but without the text indications....see attachment for comparison. Are you sure about that?. Not that I necessarily think it couldn't, but all the upgrades I can think of came with a different HDD, which would suggest that the IPV functionality could be a restrictive factor. The MiG-29SM had the further upgraded N019MP radar(also used for early MiG-29SMT) with added A/G modes and IIRC also the OLS-M(from the MiG-29M) to support guided A/G capability. BTW - check out the control stick.

Interesting - I have never seen the MiG-29SM cockpit before. The HDD is not the standard IPV though - it looks like the one from the MiG-29M(9.15).

. I wouldn't be so sure - its actually starting to look like a likely candidate when you take all the teaser tidbits into consideration; - not old(like WWII), but not "new new" either - a challenge to fly(which AFAIK would fit) - very complex - eagerly awaited The "milestone" they talk about could exactly be connected with the multicrew aspect. Don't believe for a second that its something like a F-35 or Rafale - aside from not fitting with several of the things they said about their "brain melter", there simply wouldn't be enough documentation available for a full fidelity module.....probably not even for a reasonably realistic FC3 one.

IIRC they said at some point that it isn't an old aircraft, but not "new new" either and that it was "a challenge to fly" - which would pretty much rule out any recent types(F-35, F-22. Rafale, Gripen etc).

Well that certainly looks interesting.....since the splash screen for the video shows a MiG-29M(9.15). But I doubt that they realised that(and it changes to a baseline MiG-29 in the video) :)

I am a little confused BBCRF. As far as I can see, your reply is all about whether the fuel system can operate and maintain flow to the engines in negative G situations, while in the quote you replied to, yo-yo talks about limitations to the FCS(Flight Control System) and if I interpreted it correctly, what he said was that that while the control system imposes various G/AOA limitations to protect the pilot in positive G regimes, no such assistance is present for negative G flight - i.e. its entirely up to the pilot to avoid exceeding the stated limit for safe operation. Did you mistake "FCS" for "Fuel Control System" or am I missing something? :)

You know thats actually a pretty good way of describing it. I guess part of the rationale was to reduce the complexity(and thus cost) of the individual aircraft, while providing a RIO style support in order to reduce the workload of the pilot. However, large ground based installations have become quite vulnerable to assets like land attack cruise missiles and stealth bombers, so the above philosophy is probably not viable in this day and age - i.e. fighters relying so heavily on GCI support could quickly end up as fish out of water and have a hard time fending for themselves. In the late eighties there was clearly an effort to address this issue - partly by augmenting the network with mobile assets like AWACS aircraft and partly by making new fighters more sophisticated and capable of operating independantly. New datalink systems also made it possible to obtain tactical information directly from a range of individual sources - including other fighters. Yeah but my point with the previous post was, that for a proper representation of the MiG-29/GCI functionality, its not merely a question of making the AI controller smart enough - there is also quite a bit of technical stuff involved in terms of integrating it into the WCS/display routine.

Yes but there is a great deal more to the GCI/datalink system on the MIG-29. It provides you with all parameters of the target(bearing, speed, heading etc) and displays this directly on the HUD as if it was track data obtained by your onboard radar with additional instructions about how to manouver in order to intercept it. In other words, unlike BRA calls, GCI interacts directly with the aircraft's onboard WCS/display system. It can even control your onboard radar remotely - prep it and switch it on(from stand-by state), so the radar can find the target quickly and attack it as soon as its within missile launch parameters. To facilitate this, the radar also operates in a special scan "pattern" when under GCI control.

Heh yeah :) Come to think of it - instead of a very long "early access" development of the most modern and complex version, it could have been cool with a gradual approach, where you start out with a simpler eighties version, then a nineties one and then finally upgrade the latter to a mid-2000 version. That way you could possibly get feature complete modules faster and at the same time have era specific versions that fit the DCS inventory better and provide for wider scenario possibilities, while ED could milk these "most desirable" types all the way......everyone wins :D

Yes but wasn't that exactly his point? :) . Yes but I read the OP as a gripe about how the MiG-29 is being assessed in general - i.e. critisised for various shortcomings in comparison with heavily upgraded versions of its western adversaries without taking the off-set time frame into consideration. Or alternatively until someone does contemporary(older) versions of the F-16 or F-18......which is probably more achievable :)

It did not. Radar capabilities aside, F-16s weren't made compatible with the AIM-7 and as such first gained actual BVR capability with the advent of the AIM-120 in the early nineties. The only exception was a single F-16A variant(ADF) upgraded to use the AIM-7 in the late eighties - i.e. only a couple of years before the AMRAAM was introduced.

No it was really just an "update" to address a few of the most glaring shortcomings - i.e. lack of ECM and short legs. Why would anyone think that the MiG-29 was a match to Tomcats and Eagles in BVR? - these belong to a different class of fighters. In the case of the Hornet, its APG-65 was a much better(and more modern) radar than the N019, but they were at least of similar size/power. Sure, but I think the point of the OP was that the AMRAAM wasn't available at the time the MiG-29 entered service - i.e. that always spouting the BVR advantage of the F-16 when comparing the two designs seems a little odd when you consider that for a long time it really didn't have any. Thats a mixed bag - the MiG-29(which we are talking about here) was not compatible with the "Alamo C"(R-27ER) and despite having datalink, the "short burn" version(R-27R) wasn't a "longer stick" than the contemporary AIM-7M. The "Amos"(R-33) and AIM-54 are in a class of their own and both narrowly associated with a particular fighter/weapon's system.

No in general F-16s weren't compatible with the AIM-7 missile - the only exception I know of, was the F-16A ADF variant(operated by the US ANG), which was a Block 15 upgraded for the purpose around 1989-90. The AIM-120 wasn't applied to F-16s until 1991-92. Yes but that was much later(late 90'ies IIRC).

I looked around for the different service introduction dates and what I found was that, - the MiG-29 was first delivered to operational units in 1983(not 1982 as you said and not 1984 as I said). - the F-16A Block 15 entered service in 1982(not 1984 like I said). - the F-16C Block 25 was first delivered to an operational unit(in the US) in 1986, while 1984 was the year of the first flight(and operational testing). In regards to the early MiG-29 variant you mentioned, I am pretty sure that this was a prototype(or at least a pre-service test) kind of thing and as such doubt it was built in the numbers you said.

But we do have the 9.12 in DCS :huh:(or did you mean the MiG-29S?). The MiG-29(9.12) entered service in 1984, which IIRC was the same year that the F-16A Block 15 entered service, and being primarily a "counter-air" fighter with a limited A/G capability, its IMO a closer match to the MiG-29. As far as I remember(could be wrong), the first F-16C(Block 25) entered service a couple of years later(in 1986), But like you said, this doesn't make much of a difference in terms of being comtemporary, but the -C version is a different type of aircraft(multirole strike fighter) more comparable to the MiG-29M.

One reason might be because F-15Cs in Desert Storm and Yugoslavia weren't in their 1979 configuration - MSIP, MSIP II, AMRAAMs etc.

It depends on what you mean by it. The first MiG-29 version was the 9.12 and the first upgrade was the 9.13 version(introduced in ~ 1987), which had; - a modifed fuel system with a little more internal fuel(enlarged fuel tank no 1) and ability to carry wing drop tanks. - built-in ECM suite (L203 "Gardeniya-1FU) - enhanced flight control system - uprated payload capacity(weight) and IIRC also some extra types of unguided A/G munitions. The MiG-29S(9.13S) is basically the same as the above, but with a modified WCS/radar(N019M) with R-77 compatibility. It came about a few years later(some claim as early as 1989, others around 1991). Confusingly both the MiG-29(9.13) and MiG-29S are called "Fulcrum C" by Nato. But Interrestingly, the development of the much more radical MiG-29M(9.15) and MiG-29K(9.31) started already in the beginning of the eighties even before the initial MiG-29 version entered service(in 1983-84). They were developed in parralel with the 9.13 upgade and were close to IOC already by the late eighties/early nineties. So they were just as much "Soviet era" aircraft and just as early as the MiG-29S. Of course you could argue that they didn't enter production/service due the the fall of the SU, but then the situation concerning the MiG-29S is very unclear - i.e. whether this aircraft ever became operational or just existed as a few prototypes for testing the R-77. Hard to say - at least there isn't much open source information available on the WCS/radar modifications other than what is already implemented in DCS.

I wouldn't be surprised if some mild form of it like e.g. Caffeine tablets would be used. I read somewhere that it wasn't uncommon for pilots in WWII to use Amphetamine to fight fatigue and stay alert.

I know mate :) . But there are plenty of other single-role aircraft in DCS including "pure fighters" and I fail to see how an iconic and well known platform like the F-15 could ever be considered a "low demand product".....same goes for the MiG-29 and Su-27.

It did not. It did not - MiG-29K is rated at Mach 2.3 just like the baseline version. The MiG-29K is using the same improved wing design(aerofoil) as the MiG-29M - the larger cord of the outer wingpanels had more to do with improving low speed controllability than dealing with extra weight....the empty- and loaded weight of the MiG-29K is practically the same as the MiG-29M.....which didn't have the extended cord outer wing panels. It did not - the empty weight of the MiG-29K(9.31) is some 12700 kg. Good for you.