vanir

Well the force interdiction role of the RAAF pigs was to pop a vulcan in the bay with iron bombs under the wings and use it for reach, probably similar the lines the thuds were used in vietnam but wider ranging. As far as I know the SuperBugs are going to be shepherded for the same role, in the strike squadrons not meant for air superiority tasks. Say in a conflagurated argument over Timor. So I'm guessing we'd be talking about Flankers on a long range intercept who'd be best off going for the tanker and its JSF escort anyway (superbugs will be doing hi-lo-lo-hi so need a refuel on the way out). But that aside if they want to go the superbugs directly, say preserve a high value target they're going to have to play the superbug's fight. I'd say they'd be at a terrific disadvantage doing that unless they can get them coming in over water, fairly unlikely unless they can do Mach 50. Even one-for-one I think the Flankers have serious problems taking superbugs in this scenario. At best you'd be looking at a mission kill with equivalent losses neither side can afford. And here the saving grace of the superbug is a much higher survivability, Flanker pilots will be trying twice as hard to do the same work. Tharos is right though, I read an RAAF report of major ADF concerns being modern frigates in the equation of any regional conflict. One of these can really change the game in the South Pacific so another primary superbug role is prelimenary anti-shipping before any ground strike missions. On the flipside of that coin I'd say it's fairly likely we'll place a frigate before even thinking about long range air operations, which will undoubtedly act as a datalinked command/controller. I mean we don't have awacs so that's the doctrine, navy/marine style long range aerial operations, air force style home defence.

lol, I was going to post about the OP topic but now I'm wondering if I'll derail where the thread has gone? Is this a Russian vs American doctrinal/technology/political culture thing again? Well if both are patriotic then there's no way to win that argument is there? I was going to say, what I heard from various sources was the SuperHornets were marked by RAAF doctrinal approach as shepherded Pig replacements. Primary role is force interdiction, air superiority will be handed to F-35 when they finally get here, I suppose the remnant old Hornet fleet until then whilst the SuperBugs will probably function as conversion trainers for the JSF pilots in the meantime. Given to the strike sqns rather than fighter sqns. So I shouldn't think the RAAF SuperBugs in a hypothetical 2015 confrontation would be performing the kind of missions to fight the Flankers' kind of fight. JSF will be doing that. I could be way off, but that's what I thought.

Yeah I just got through having a bloke at work yesterday claim absolutely he'd seen alien visitations personally because some object in the upper atmosphere was clearly manoeuvring instead of following a predictable path like satellites or the space shuttle. NASA still operates those TR-1/U-2 over antarctica doing meteorological work don't they? But over there in the US or in Europe, with all the various technologies testing and other programs covert and open, it's no wonder you're all seeing little green men in your closets. I dare say 90% of reported claimed "flying saucers" which aren't hoaxes were objects or phenomenae which were in no way saucer shaped or anything like it. People see Jesus in tea leaves for chrissakes.

Yeah the Red Flag documentary says it's mostly about learning to work with combat related combined operational procedures without having accidents which is what the exercise is all about. Usually pilots are in combat the first time they function as part of strategic sized combined operations and it not only robs a lot of SA but results in a lot of non-combat losses during the early phase of any engagement historically. So the main objective of Red Flag is effective combat capabilites and high survivability to large force combined operations, which is something you can only teach by experience. Most BFM are a part of regular training against aggressors, and dissimilar training doesn't need wargames, again regular pilot curriculum at various stages of career. In the case of the Russians the training doctrine (and operational one) are quite different, although categorically stated as at least equivalent to NATO qualitively. My impressions are that increasing levels of competence in BFM are worked into a unit level awards system where it is more individualised in the west. For best combat preparation a Russian pilot might want to put himself on a waiting list transfer to a Guards unit, and operate in an aerobatics squadron for a time, if he wanted "to be the best fighter pilot in the world" and all that yank stuff we come to love/hate.

Yeah I remember there was a bit of hooha about the MKI datalink, which NATO Intelligence is quite interested in. The US offered to let the IAF use the Flanker datalink, so it could use the command-controller system of mini-AWACS they were designed for, but only if they let USAF engineers inspect it, to make sure it wouldn't interfere with anything important near the airspace they'd be operating the wargames. The alternative was that they could use the NATO datalink for AWACS, but they wouldn't be able to use their system. The IAF chose this option since it regards their datalink as a national security issue. They said their system would've greatly increased their effectiveness over being forced the use the NATO AWACS, which the Flanker isn't really designed to do as well as the latest Eagles (they mentioned some new AWACS datalink USAF has retrofitted to its front line Eagles recently). I just found it all quite fascinating. I'm not really much of an expert on all this stuff.

The CWC "strict restrictions" was the necessity of operating Block 50/52 Vipers without kill removal because they simply couldn't compete with the helmet sight/archer combination coupled with a roughly similar performance capability (Viper had the slight edge on sustaining manoeuvres). At the end of one round of sessions only one Viper scored a MiG kill in close combat and it was after that jet received 18 Archer hits. JG73 commander Koeck said the American pilots got up and walked out at the debrief, so upset they were about the dominance of the MiG in close combat DSE. He said, "...even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 the MiG is a superb fighter. This is due to the aircraft's superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside of ten miles I'm hard to beat (normally), but with the IRST, helmet sight and Archers I can't be beat. Period. Even against the Block 50 F-16 the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario." But...here is what he said about the MiG in general combat: "Our navigation system is unreliable with TACAN updates and not very accurate (I'd prefer to call it an estimation system). It relies on triangulation from three TACAN stations and if you lose one you effectively lose the system. We can only enter three fixed waypoints, which is inadquate. For communications we have only one VHF/UHF radio." (which is easily jammed) "The radar is at least a generation behind the AN/APG-65...it has poor display, giving poor SA and this is complicated by the cockpit ergonomics. The radar has reliability problems and lookdown/shootdown problems. There is poor discrimination between targets flying in formation (due to processor overloading) and we can't lock onto the target in trail, only in lead." "We suffer from poor presentation of the radar information (SA and IFF problems), short BVR weapons range, a bad navigation system and short on-station times."

It's only part of the reason for the complex system on the earlier MiG being FOD prevention, it's also a system for variable geometry inlet for improved performance at the mid-alt high mach realm, but has been dropped mostly because as with US design doctrine the primary combat requirement is high transonic performance rather, and none of these aircraft go around in high mach cruise so it was a bit of overkill for, as you say, a sacrifice in fuel space and superfluous complexity. Point is though, designed primarily as a variable geometry inlet system with just an added benefit of shutters. I read well the German evaluation of their MiGs in concert with NATO types and the old Fulcrum really does kick butt performance-wise with some air under its wings, added with its agility it's a formiddable opponent if it wasn't for its useless avionics and high maintenance engines (at low alt the MiG is actually at a marked speed disadvantage vs Viper and manoeuvre one vs Eagle but this changes at higher alt). They did notably say, "The Fulcrum could operate from airfields that you couldn't dream of operating F-16s from." Servicing was an issue but never conditions no matter how harsh or rudimentary. I heard some Rumanian ones were routinely operated from grass fields. When you think about it that's a slightly more mobile tactical air force, albeit troublesome for other reasons and if you're going to use MiGs you really need numbers.

Some of these you can google planview cutaways. MiG-21, some early models don't have guns. The ones you see now do (MiG-21bis) but old photos (MiG-21P I think) don't. When they do it's a belly pack of twin-barrel 23mm roughly under the cockpit. Mirage series single seaters have the DEFA revolver cannon nestled under the inlets just ahead of the wingroots. Rafale same position but only on the port side, just one gun on that. Eurofighter has a 27mm Mauser nestled above the port intake I think. F-35 has a 25mm gatling gun in the same spot.

As I understand it the Su-30MKI is similar spec to the RuAF Su-35 which is in service so that's my premier choice. A Flanker with all the avionics updates, it's a multirole so that suits the sim very well for mud moving or air superiority missions, and according to Su-30MKI performance it should be competitive with current Eagles updates where avionics is concerned. The only real difference is using command-controller system in place of AWACS but it performs a similar function just using the sensor data of the flight itself manually coordinated by the rear seat Su-30 (or MiG-31) operator. On the plus side it's much harder to shoot down an Su-30 than it is an E-3. So Su-35 with the optional Su-30M command-controller system in place gets my vote.

tried that but apparently the parked aircraft on the kuz use tom's su-33 model. I get engines and parts floating with just the kuz files installed.

Only prob I'm having is the parked Su-33 use Tom's model and I'd to replace it when Combatace's is released. I like Tom's aircraft models but the misplaced afterburner just gets to me. When I don't install Tom's Su-33 there seems to be an issue with the parked aircraft. Is there an easy fix for this so that it uses whatever Su-33 model I have installed? Love the Kuz, fantastic model.

What I read at one of the current-news aviation sites around the place was that in service, following continuing military reorganisation, being in smaller numbers but with greater capabilities and the two-man crew the Mi-28 is ideally used as a controller aircraft for flights of Ka-50 during significant commitments. So they'd be used together, you might have 4-6 Ka-50 under a Mi-28 which will be flying at a higher altitude as a combat equipped command unit. Helicopter units are such a major feature of the Russian army's combat force this wouldn't surprise me, closest NATO parallel would have to be the USMC air forces, I get the impression the Russians think of their helicopter force, formerly "the independent air units" in the same way as the US Marines with their Hornets and Harriers.

Yeah I know the F-16 uses FBW both analogue and digital, the context of fighting the limiter was used for the MiG, though you could also continue AoA increase in the F-16 (to something like 28 AoA iirc) after the limiter started kicking in, but I assume it was working by control interpretation so "fighting the limiter" wouldn't be the best way to describe it as it would with the MiG. Overall the point he was making was pilot workload increased as you approached envelope limits, so the F-16 was easier to fly at extremes but the MiG could pretty much match performance, not as easily.

:D you actually have to laugh sometimes at technical nomenclature, "AoA limiter" can sometimes mean "a mechanical hand that tries to take the stick from you" haha gotta love russians.

He described it as while flying the MiG a rod would push against the stick but you could still out-muscle it, it would try to jab it back forward, increasing pressure the more you increased AoA so it became hard work if you were trying to sustain something like 30 AoA. What you could also do is just switch the control system off, but this was not an acceptable pilot procedure (though oddly the feature existed). Probably like the engine management override for an Eagle to exceed 1.78 Mach, "you're never allowed to touch this switch here" which is placed handy for you to switch if you need to. But the engines will require a complete tear down overhaul if you do so you might need a really good reason.

I should look up the post at F-16.net again because paraphrasing memory can sometimes be awry, but I'm pretty sure the guy mentioned you could fight the limiter (I inferred with the early analogue F-16 you could switch it off temporarily but with the digital you couldn't or shouldn't, no idea how accurate that is), still he said something of the outright AoA capabilities of the MiG being a good 5-degrees or so better without departure in any case. The MiG safety system is just a hydraulic rod that pushes against the stick iirc, which pilots could fight anyway, where the F-16 limiter is an increase in stick pressure? I'm really not sure what I'm talking about here so forgive me if I'm remembering this whole thing all wrong or just got the wrong impressions. But the thing was the MiG limiter didn't start until 28 AoA while the F-16 starts at 24 AoA so there's that, and then the MiG one could be safely disengaged because of the inherent stability of the design, where the F-16 under digital FBW needed the control system at all times. I think that was it. So you had an advantage there, if you were prepared to increase the pilot workload and really govern yourself once you disabled the control system. But he said whilst prohibited to do, a good MiG pilot should and would if pressed in CWC with a late Viper and it can be very competitive.

Yeah the lecturer was pretty specific about the limiter, which he said became an issue with the digital FBW in the later vipers. The MiG, if the pilot disabled the safety system could pull higher AoA more readily and easily during combat maneouvres, but the Viper made up for it by being so much easier to fly at the same kind of overall extremes. His conclusion was that a Block 50 was superior at all altitudes, mainly for this reason and the earlier (eg. Block 30) F-16 was slightly superior at low alt but the MiG was slightly superior at higher alts. Overall the F-16 can sustain better turns and is quicker down low (by quite a margin at intermediate thrust settings), but the MiG is ridiculously agile and seriously narrows the gap as altitudes rise, or a really good pilot is in the seat and works hard. He said the Eagle was superior at low alt in close combat, is just infinitely tougher structurally for it, but unless you BVR the MiG has the goods as altitudes rise because of how quickly it can bring the nose around at speed. Combined with the Archers it made a very deadly combination. The Luftwaffe had to actually change the rules for dissimilar training against the MiG even for Vipers when using Archers in close combat, and had to operate without kill removal because the Vipers never stood a chance. Complete reverse of the situation with BVR. At the end of one early training series in the 90s a whole room full of USAF pilots got up and walked out in frustration during the debrief, which made the JG73 Luftwaffe commander laugh. The only hit in close combat they scored was by one F-16 after it had taken 18 Archers. He did say they couldn't get in close enough for this advantage if facing Amraams though.

There are some good reads of MiG versus F-15 and F-16 at the website F-16.net as one of the posters there is a lecturer for the USAF Fighter Weapons School and has a lot of flying hours in all three types. He gave a very good rundown of their comparative strengths and weaknesses, supported by Luftwaffe comments about their MiGs in comparative evaluations and dissimilar training. Some glaring conclusions were surprising, the Eagle is better at low altitude than the MiG, the MiG is better at medium altitude, I would've thought it would be the other way around but the Eagle has a much, much tougher structure for violent low alt manoeuvres. At medium altitude however the MiG can bring its nose around quicker and is just as fast. Thing is though as altitudes rise for contacts you've a higher likelihood of BVR and the Eagle reigns supreme here, even an F-16 is worlds ahead of the MiG in BVR. The main problem is the analogue set on the MiG which has processor overload and poor target discrimination. Lookdown is poor. BVR is almost non-existent for the 29A but the Topaz set is supposed to be a slight improvement. The navigation system in the MiG is also useless, with only two preprogrammable waypoints and poor radios. They're very short range, very dependent upon field ground stations. The biggest advantage it had was the Archers and helmet designator, and numbers, the Luftwaffe conclusion was they were useless as a front line NATO fighter, suitable in western inventories only for dissimilar flight training purposes. Against the vipers they were slower at low altitude and couldn't pull the same g's consistently (they started cracking around the base of the fins), they have speed limitations, they're high maintenance, the burners use fuel like it's going out of fashion and they carry a small load necessitating external tankage. They have some AoA advantages because the pilot can manually switch off the safety system whereas the later vipers always have the limiter on. The F-16 is much easier to fly well though and has better SA, BVR and speed performance, whereas the MiG forces the pilot to work very hard to match NATO contemporaries. It is dangerous to its competitors without a doubt, but the pilot has to work hard for this.

I sometimes hear interesting comments from a known fighter pilot at an aircraft forum, there are one or two around. As mentioned however these are very generalised comments you couldn't use as technical specification if you tried. I remember an Eagle pilot mentioning when the AMRAAM was first equipped the latest version of the Sparrow was more reliable so remained in loadouts (eg. 4 Sparrow, 2 Amraam, 2 AIM9 as a loadout), but it was quickly fixed, a teething thing I guess. But then I couldn't qualify the statement, I don't know the context, details weren't given, it was just a passing comment though the speaker was a known Eagle pilot at the aviation forum. I certainly couldn't picture him giving a detailed rundown on the technical specifications and use. From my impressions the team here at ED have an extremely accurate working knowledge of period armaments within the boundaries of a commercial sim/game environment. I wouldn't presume to compare it to actual military technologies but in terms of capturing a simulation feel they've done a terrific job of providing player immersion for even the hardcore militaria enthusiast. Most of my friends can't even play Lomac, they say it's too hard.

I looked up the N010 Zhuk the MiG is supposed to use and got the range values in upper/lower hemisphere for head on and tail on contacts, essentially to emulate it I wound up copy-pasting the N011 Zhuk from the Su30/34 it is based on and reduced the ground contacts ranges to compensate for the smaller antennae. The Zhuk was being developed to replace the older analogue sets with fully digitalised multimodes commonly for both Su-27 and MiG-29 derivatives, so it makes sense they're pretty much the same thing with only minor differences in wattage (possibly) and antennae. Anyway the listings for the Sukhoi N011 in sensors.lua is pretty much identical to the manufacturer claims about the N010 for the MiG.

my favourite project for a while but please tell me the burners will align to the nozzles, no offense to tomcatz because he does great work but it's something that really kills it for me that all his models have misaligned burners, I'd probably be using his su33 and su30 still if it wasn't for that and it's starting to get to me with the mig29k

I considered the idea entries must serve to orientate in game performance rather than technical specifications listings, the two aren't necessarily related obviously in the complex evolutionary diversity category of individual figures. You're right they may have nothing to do with player controlled aircraft. I'm just trying to get a feel for a subtle but slightly noticeable signal processing and target discrimination improvement that came with the Topaz over the Sapfir-29 and of course there should be a two target engagement when using R77

I was wondering if I should add the line in the N-019M entry of the db_sensors.lua with notepad? What I don't understand is the AN/APG-63 can engage two targets can't it? But it doesn't have this entry. But what I also don't understand is why the topaz is no different from the N-019 sapphire when distinct improvements to deal with processor overload were made. This improved target discrimination giving about 14% range increase on detection/track (noticeable in particular in lookdown/shootdown) and allowing a second engagement, keeping the first if using R77, with an improvement in ECCM. There is also the issue of gimbals, I noticed some other sets have no problem with a 60-70 azimuth and 50 elevation, yet the N-019/M have 30 and 40 respectively. According to the MiG-29 manual the N-019 has a +/- 60 azimuth and +56/-36 elevation. Could someone explain the disparity? I never play online as my connection can't support online gaming. Considering it's an "offline only installation" is providing some subtle definition between the two sets relatively sound in this fashion?

there are already way too many flight sims dedicated to american planes, if I wanted to fly Hornets, Vipers, Phantoms, blablabla I'd go buy one of those. And I damn sure don't want an opportunity of making a technically accurate flight sim into another complete fantasy trip by attempting to model totally classified models barely in production like the Raptor or F35. It's not that you couldn't give an educated guess as to their capabilities, it's just that you can't give one about their vulnerabilities, failings and inherent teething troubles so you still wind up with a fantastical superplane of fictional proportions. I'm actually totally sick of american planes, cold war background and american/nato overload you understand. I'm fascinated by what was previously concealed behind the Iron Curtain. I'd like to see an Su-27SM, -35 or MiG-29SMT, K or -35.

As I understand it... Magnetic north isn't axial north and it moves around relative to axial north because of a dynamic core producing the magnetic fields, when planning flight paths you're supposed to get correctional data from a meteorological authority, but Brit Radar Dude's method is more independent and surefire. Magnetic north doesn't actually move as predictably as the regular corrections used for it (there's an error margin) but it's close enough for things like flight planning, given the atmosphere is a dynamic fluid itself (so involves an inherent error margin anyway where aircraft flight planning is concerned). But for something like radar telemetry (?) or say, satellite databasing (eg. satellite communications using lasers, which need very precise target locations) you have to use astronomical corrections, and even recalibrate for relativistic effect. Also from what I know modern military aircraft navigation uses a combination of magnetic, radio and gyroscopic compasses, datalinking and satellite navigation. Even civvy types pretty much all have GPS these days and fewer wind up running out of fuel over wheat fields as a result. So a military airborne unit doesn't rely on magnetic compasses alone for navigation since about 1941 and many manufacturers before then, carrier aircraft for example. Even the Russians used a simple radio broadcast nav system and they often lacked reliable communications radios in fighters or even telephones at forward airfields (no kidding, telegraph lines built in the 19th century ergo the German invasion was such a breeze). Magnetic compass navigation persisted in civil aviation based between small airfields with basic facilities, but really flightplans are no more than a couple of hundred miles in good visibility at daytime within eyeshot of land features, with really only highly experienced pilots using better aircraft equipment flying in poor weather or at night. It's also worth considering that other WW2 technologies were still new and highly advanced in civil aviation when they hit the scene in the 70s, things such as the aeromechanical screw (one touch throttle/pitch control) which is still pretty trick even today, standard on all German fighters by 1941. By this measure military aviation standards are almost half a century ahead of civil aviation.