Alfa

Yes of course. I didn't see any reference to a narrow "TP" search mode in the MiG-29 manual - only a +/- 30 degree(azimuth), +/- 15 degree(elevation) displayed scan(search) area and a +/- 30(both azimuth and elevation) display area for the reticle(locked target). See attachments. AFAIK the wide/narrow search modes only exists in the Su-27 "OLS" mode. I have no idea what you are referring to :huh: I thought Frostie said that the target cursor couldn't be moved in elevation("no height control"), but I realise that he meant that the actual scan zone cannot be moved in elevation - this confused me since the scanzone cannot be moved at all(fixed forward). Yes thats what I was talking about - as you can see in the first attachment, the cursor is shown as a 6 by 4 degrees box and I was wondering about what this(the degrees) signifies.

No I am obviously not implying that. Then I misunderstood what you were saying - I thought you meant that the target cursor was fixed to center in elevation. Yes and what I was implying(theory) is that the shape of the cursor (6 by 4 degree box)might have something to do with the immediate FOV of the sensor.

The EOS mode("OLS") looks different in the Su-27 - there is first a large box for "large area search" followed by a narrower one for "small area search". The target cursor is marked as a 6 degree(vertical)by 4 degree(horisontal) box - so I guess it represents the immediate FOV of the sensor.:hmm:

Yes there is no scanzones other than center, but.. ...it doesn't look that way if you look in the MiG-29 manual(RL russian) :) In "TP" mode, the cursor can be slewed +/- 30 degrees in azimuth and +/- 15 degrees in elevation.

Sounds about right yes :) Well the "Night Attack" version entered service already in 1990, so it could have been involved in a conflict in 1993 - but then if you have evidence that the ones involved in that particular strike were As, then thats sort of a moot point :) . I cannot really answer that(I am not that well versed in the -A/B version), but I still think you are reading too much into the quote. It could simply be that having to mix F-18 strike packages with different supporting assets was seen as impractical - i.e. not a case of the F-18s being incapable of delivering the LGBs as such, but just that having to coordinate with other assets for designating the targets for them complicated matters and the F-18s therefore were tasked with attacking targets that didn't require the use of PGMs, while the ones(targets) that did, were assigned to assets that could deliver them autonomously. Understood :) .

"little" :)

But it Hornets could deploy LGBs(albeit with assistance from A-6s) in 1991, then surely that capability also existed in 1993...no? :) .

Heh yeah.

P-700 "Granit" comes to mind - not so very new a thing :)

Thats precisely my interpretation as well :) . Namely: - AN/AAS-38: only FLIR and required AN/ASQ-173 to track an external target illumination. No possibility for self-designation. - AN/AAS-38A: FLIR with laser designator/tracker - could designate/track own illumination, but required AN/ASQ-173 for tracking an externally designated target. - AN/AAS-38B: FLIR with laser designator/tracker capable of tracking both own and externally designated target(AN/ASQ-173 no longer required) + IRST(air-to-air) functionality.

Don't think thats quite right - see Mbot's post :) Please read it again ;) . I agree that its not very well written, but while it refers to Bosnia, it compares the self-designation capabilities there to previous experiences in the "Persian Gulf war against Iraq", where "F-18 pilots relied on A-6 Intruders to designate targets for their laser guided bombs"and then continues to say that this is no longer necessary.

Well its been a very long time since I have been doing any modding, so I don't know the structure of the current sim version. But I could imagine that you could find the sound files and replace them with your own recordings. That would be Farsi or arabic I think :smartass:

Yup it does :) . However, there was also an intermediate AN/AAS-38A variant. It looks like this could also independently laser designate a target, but apparently still needed the ASQ-173 spot tracker - at least for an externally illuminated target. I have attached an account for the different variants(not sure about the source). See second attachment - it looks like at least the F-18s did, but required those A-6s to designate the targets for them.

Ah ok - well I don't know anything about that. Well I think it was just a matter of squeezing in whatever amount they could without having to make major changes to the airframe. There was no need for that - the (much)extra internal fuel was achieved by the re-design of the FOD system. Don't know anything about that - sorry :) Well on the MiG-29M most ot the extra internal fuel capacity was down the removal of the over-wing auxiliary intakes - tank no. 1 grew to some 1710 liters(!) - i.e. almost twice the size of the one in the 9.13.....and no hump :) . The rest was down to larger internal wing tanks(from 650L to 800L) and tanks 3A(300L to 530L) + an extra tank 3b(130L). Yeah agree - its fine for the two-seater and certainly much better than that initially proposed stepped canopy arrangement(like on the MiG-25) :wacko:, but the old single seater looked much better IMHO. Seriously?! :D Well I guess dividing the tasks between two crew members helps :)

What Weta43 and Pasquale1986 said :)

Well that fits exactly with the 240L extra. In the 9.12 tank no. 1 holds 650 liters, so expanding it with another 240 liters means that tank no.1 in the 9.13 has a capacity of 890 liters. :) Not sure why the author seems to think that it corresponds to an increase of "110 -180 liters".

AFAIK carrying the AN/ASQ-173 did not provide the F-18 with the ability to designate targets independently - its a laser spot tracker used in combination with the FLIR(AAS-38 ), but AFAIK it required the target to be "illuminated" by an external laser source - i.e. it didn't have a laser designator of its own(only able to track the reflected energy). I am not sure, but I think the paragraphs you quoted in my post is what you are looking for - i.e. the integration of the "AN/AAS-38B advanced FLIR" with Lot 17, which IIRC came with a laser designator/tracker sub-system, so the aircraft was able to designate a target by itself. Lot 17 was introduced with FY-95(i.e. from October 1994). Well I don't know about that - precision guided munitions are a heck of a lot more expensive than "dumb bombs" :) . I guess it depends on whether the particular type of target and the environment it is located in calls for it. But I think you are right that we tend to look at US capabilities with a rather short perspective. Well there are other types of PGMs than LGBs - e.g. the Russians have a wide array of such armament, but many tactical aircraft(multi-role fighters) still cannot deploy exactly LGBs independently(lacking a targeting pod for the purpose).

Well I am seriously out of the loop concerning the sim - I haven't got a PC capable of running current versions of DCS. But isn't there still 3 variants of the MiG-29 in FC-3?. Yes and with the high-fidelity 3D pits, you cannot do this by textures alone :) . I cannot remember the exact number - IIRC tank no. 1 was increased in size from some 650L of the 9.12 to around 900L, so 240L might be right. The 75 liters is clearly a mistake and I think I know the cause - i.e. that someone converted the liters to gallons and then someone else thought "hey it must be liters because the Russians don't use gallons" etc....well you know the internet :) . No and besides, even if there were problems with it at some point, it doesn't mean that it remained so.....ECM is the sort of equipment that tends to be continuously upgraded(even if it always worked as it should). Thats where it came from - it was developed for the MiG-29M :) . Yes I think so - I remember talking to a former Romanian MiG-29 technician, who said that the Romanian airforce got one 9.13 from Moldova as a present - they were very interested in the jammer, but when they looked inside, it had been removed and replaced by a counter weight. I have seen R-27 on middle wing stations mentioned on a Ukrainian website(think it was the Ukrainian arms export agency), but I have never seen it on an actual aircraft. Don't know :) I would think so - the tank itself weighs 83 kg, the suspension adapter 59 kg and the fuel contained in the tank some 920 kg.....so over a ton in total. Yes thats another advantage of the R-77. Yes but I think that proposal was somewhat contradictory to the philosophy of a cost effective upgrade. Yeah and the MiG-29K without that silly twin canopy on the single seat version :D

Then you could say the same about the Su-27/Su-33 or Su-25/Su-25T....don't see why not having accurate cockpits for each MiG-29 version is more acceptable. No it couldn't. The community does not have the MiG-29 pit in an open format to work on - ED does. Well.. IIRC its some 250-280 L extra - perhaps not much in the grand scale of things, but good to have. Who says the jammer is "not so useful"?.....some guy on the internet? :) . Considering the weight and drag, wouldn't it make more sense to make another pair of stations compatible with the R-27 though?

I was talking about the real aircraft :) .

The control system adapts the limit depending on loaded weight. The 7.5 G-limit is the max and only for a very light load, so in most cases the limit is lower. The override provides some 33% extra to whatever limit the FCS imposes, so the max is about 10 Gs for a very lightly loaded aircraft.

The MiG-29(9.12) has the N019 "Rubin" radar, while the MiG-29S(9.13S) has the upgraded N019M "Topaz".

:huh: - then you could say the same about the current pit...no? When you have the pit as such, those modifications are not that hard to do ;) . The 9.13 had the new fuel gauge and wing tank addition from the production line. It was an integral part(along with the increased internal fuel capacity) of the modifications from 9.12 to 9.13 in order to address the "short legs" of the MiG-29. It (ext. wing tank modification) was back-fitted to a few 9.12ss - I don't know how many, but at least I remember a 9.12 and a 9.51 that went abroad for airshows in the early nineties - thats probably where the Luftwaffe got the idea for theirs :) .

Yeah for post production upgrades, you would probably need to know the BUNO to tell the exact features.

Not sure what you are talking about Dudikoff. If you are referring to my "other equipment modifications", then I explicitly said "(graphic representation)" - as in just alternate 3D representation in the cockpit....not the associated functionality. The rest - imperial read-out, German voice warnings are(or were) already there. Thats what I am suggesting - hence my "either fuel gauge/with or without ext. tanks" - i.e. before or after the ext. wing tank modification. But again - doesn't really matter with the TACAN add-on since it would only be a 3D modification to the cockpit. Eagle have already said a hundred times that they won't consider any further system's implementation/additions unless a full fidelity module is pursued(and that they have no current plans in that regard), so it would be pointless to suggest functional additions. Wing drop tanks yes :) - these were introduced with the 9.13 along with the extra internal fuel capacity. The only difference between the 9.13 and the 9.13S had to do with the modified WCS and extra air-to-air armament.