Balancing the F-14

[Andrew-76]

Without any bags the F-16 is one of the hottest fighters the US has ever fielded, and I don't believe the MiG-29 would be a match for it in a dogfight in that state - Eventhough I have read the German MiG29 vs F-16 comparison, but I'm pretty certain that was against an F-16 with either one or two bags, they rarely go up without them.

 

Not sure what "bag" is reffering to but I guess it is fuel tank. In one document I saw some video shots from this simulated dogfight with German Mig-29. Video was in terrible resolution but both aircraft looked pretty clean. For sure no bags under wings of F-16.

 

Also read about comparison of F-16 with Russian Mig-29 on one of first international airshows where Mig-29 appeard. Don't remember location and year unfortunately. Pilots were competing in turning. There was said that Mig-29 was always able to fly tighter curve when both aircrafts had no external load. Difference was not significant though. It was more matter of prestige than significant in dogfighting. Still, American pilots had not pleasent suprise their potential enemy has aircraft with comparable parameters. They lived with opinion their aircrafts are far superior to that day. Mig-29 has great aerodynamics and powerful engines. It shocked western world on mentioned air show as it was capable to make maneuvers that no other aircraft of that time (including F-16) was capable of. For example vertical stall (not sure if I call it correctly).

 

In battle F-16 was and still is farly superior though. But it is not due to it's engine or agility. It is because it's avionics and armament which are both just far better than Mig-29's. And it will probably be cheaper to run because of single engine. Or at least that was.

 

We know little about lastest Mig-29 improvements. It can carry R-77 as counterpart for AIM-120 but as far as I know it was never shot in battle. How good missile actually is we simply do not know. We also know there have been improvements in avionics, radar and engines. Primitive HUD repeater was replaced with several MFDs (Mig-35, successor of Mig-29, has 3 of them) etc. It has transformed from pure interceptor to multirole fighter and is still being improved.

[Hummingbird]

Not sure what "bag" is reffering to but I guess it is fuel tank. In one document I saw some video shots from this simulated dogfight with German Mig-29. Video was in terrible resolution but both aircraft looked pretty clean. For sure no bags under wings of F-16.

 

Also read about comparison of F-16 with Russian Mig-29 on one of first international airshows where Mig-29 appeard. Don't remember location and year unfortunately. Pilots were competing in turning. There was said that Mig-29 was always able to fly tighter curve when both aircrafts had no external load. Difference was not significant though. It was more matter of prestige than significant in dogfighting. Still, American pilots had not pleasent suprise their potential enemy has aircraft with comparable parameters. They lived with opinion their aircrafts are far superior to that day. Mig-29 has great aerodynamics and powerful engines. It shocked western world on mentioned air show as it was capable to make maneuvers that no other aircraft of that time (including F-16) was capable of. For example vertical stall (not sure if I call it correctly).

 

In battle F-16 was and still is farly superior though. But it is not due to it's engine or agility. It is because it's avionics and armament which are both just far better than Mig-29's. And it will probably be cheaper to run because of single engine. Or at least that was.

 

We know little about lastest Mig-29 improvements. It can carry R-77 as counterpart for AIM-120 but as far as I know it was never shot in battle. How good missile actually is we simply do not know. We also know there have been improvements in avionics, radar and engines. Primitive HUD repeater was replaced with several MFDs (Mig-35, successor of Mig-29, has 3 of them) etc. It has transformed from pure interceptor to multirole fighter and is still being improved.

 

The MiG-29 might very well be able to turn a tighter radius, but I doubt it will match the sustained turn rate of the F-16 which is where the Falcon shines. In other words the F-16 is probably more maneuverable at speed, whilst at low speed I could well imagine that the MiG-29 was better. But without an EM chart for the MiG-29 we can only guess.

 

As for the document with the video shots you were talking about, do you have a link?

 

Anyway to quote a pilot who flew both jets:

"The jet is very reliable and fairly simple to maintain. I could service the fuel, oil, hydraulics and pneumatics and had to demonstrate proficiency in these areas before I could take a jet off-station. Its handling qualities are mediocre at best. The flight control system is a little sloppy and not very responsive. This does not mean the jet isn't very maneuverable. It is. I put it between the F-15C and the F-16. The pilot just has to work harder to get the jet to respond the way he wants."

 

Source: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

Edited October 8, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Andrew-76]

Yes. Visual confirmation solves everything.

 

The passengers and crew of KAL 007 would have something to say about that, but they're all indisposed at this time.

 

It solves a lot. If you have brain. Visual confirmation is for dismissing doubts. When even after visual confirmation doubts remains what will you do? Will you shoot? Thankfuly Russia has also officers with brains. It has saved Earth from being radiactive wasteland...

[Andrew-76]

As for the document with the video shots you were talking about, do you have a link?

For sure I was watching it on YouTube. It was in one of documentary movies uploaded here about Mig-29 or Russian aicrafts. Unfortunately (or maybe thanfuly) there are a quite number of them. I don't have time to watch them all again and search for it, sorry :(

[BeastyBaiter]

I don't see a balance problem arising when it faces F-15/18's, Su-27's, MiG-29's and other F-14's. The F-14 is a little anemic in engine power, has a poor roll rate and the AIM-54 isn't going to be as amazing as some think. I expect it will end up being sort of like an R-27ER/ET. But we'll have to wait and see. It also has the massive disadvantage of being a two seater. The constant jumping back and fourth between seats will degrade its effectiveness for anyone without a human RIO. I expect having a human RIO to be relatively rare since it's always been that way in mp flight sims.

 

With that said, some eastern fighters would be nice. It's a little having to rely exclusively on FC3 for the forceable future in unrestricted servers for eastern aircraft. Even a lowly MiG-29A or MiG-23MLD would go a long ways. The MiG-21-97 is also a nice option.

[GGTharos]

And they did. 290 people died on 3 July 1988 at Persian Gulf. Accident proved risks of shooting at visualy not confirmed target.

 

No, it proved something entirely different. Would VID have prevented this? Yes, certainly - but that isn't the lesson there. VID was simply not possible considering the scenario.

I suggest reading the actual incident reports and investigation, or summaries thereof.

 

We have another example from Ukraine on 17 July 2014. Just for reminder, 300 people died who had no interest about that conflict.

 

Again, irrelevant. VID might not have stopped the shot anyway in this situation.

 

Oh but there is.

 

There really isn't. The sooner you divest yourself of this idea, the sooner you'll be able to entertain very interesting scenarios in general - not just involving F-14's :)

 

I do agree this is sim and devs should not care about balance. But MP mission developpers should. Because they are creating competetive missions for playes to play against each other. And if they want to create good missions they must create balanced ones.

 

I understand that you are looking at this through the lens of joining a random airquake server, and I'll just say that in that particular case you are technically correct, but overall ... you are patently wrong :)

 

But I can't help but wonder how will you outmaneuver missile you know so little about. You may have indication on your RWR with information about direction. But you do not know distance, you do not know altitude, you do not know speed. And you do not see the missile because on it's final approach (dive) it does not create smoke trial as it engine is dead for some time. Only thing you can do is turn away on AB, disperse chaffs, and hope it will be enough (which probably will if you are lucky to fly a plane with AB). In such case you are forced to abort your current mission. At least temporairly. Which means you have no opportunity to strike back on aircraft that shot at you (for what Phoenix missile was born).

 

You deal with it the same way you deal with F-15's using TWS. You know the threat's there, prepare and fly accordingly.

[Top Jockey]

The MiG-29 might very well be able to turn a tighter radius, but I doubt it will match the sustained turn rate of the F-16 which is where the Falcon shines. In other words the F-16 is probably more maneuverable at speed, whilst at low speed I could well imagine that the MiG-29 was better. But without an EM chart for the MiG-29 we can only guess.

 

...

 

Source: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

 

I believe the maximum Sustained Turn Rate is pretty much similar for F-16C and MiG-29C fighters...

 

But then there is the MiG-29's:

- higher Instantaneous Turn Rate;

- lack of Angle Of Attack limiter, contrary to the F-16;

(and therefore can fly and maneuver at higher AOA)

- better nose point authority at low speeds.

 

The F-16 always will be a fascinating fighter, but I don't think the MiG-29 owes it anything in dogfighting.

[Buzzles]

To be honest, this stat waving is all academic anyway.

 

Pretty much no-one in DCS will ever have put themselves into a position to actually match and exploit those values, just through sheer fact of sitting infront of a PC more than anything.

[Nervod]

Easy ED may nurf the F-14 or bring in the Russian R-77 is it there long range missile? Im not sure we have to wait and see more fully Russian made modules would be nice.

 

 

 

Nerf? What is this, call of ****ing duty? Warfare isn't fair, son.

[Veritech]

Nerf? What is this' date=' call of ****ing duty? Warfare isn't fair, son.[/quote']

 

:megalol::megalol::megalol:

[Hummingbird]

I believe the maximum Sustained Turn Rate is pretty much similar for F-16C and MiG-29C fighters...

 

But then there is the MiG-29's:

- higher Instantaneous Turn Rate;

- lack of Angle Of Attack limiter, contrary to the F-16;

(and therefore can fly and maneuver at higher AOA)

- better nose point authority at low speeds.

 

The F-16 always will be a fascinating fighter, but I don't think the MiG-29 owes it anything in dogfighting.

 

Well just as is the case with STR we don't actually know wether the MiG-29 has a better ITR, but I believe the latter is possible. As for STR I really don't think the MiG-29 can match the F-16 here, and that's also the opinion of pilots who've flown both extensively it seems.

 

But again until we get an EM chart for the MiG-29 we are just guessing :)

[Brett Sinclair]

I suppose the F-14 will be a beast to fight BVR. Flying a Su-27, I have more trouble fighting an AI F-14 compared to the F-15 (could be my lack of skill anyway).

 

But, no servers (as far as I know) fly West vs East, so there will be F-14s on either side.

 

This being said, a F-15 or Su-27 is superior to any other aircraft - even the Mirage 2000 - in multiplayer anyway. The F-14 will be just another fighting machine, as will the upcoming Eurofighter. It will just be another better-not-to-be-messed-with aircraft when flying an inferior / dated aircraft.

 

Best regards,

Brett

[Xenovia]

I suppose the F-14 will be a beast to fight BVR. Flying a Su-27, I have more trouble fighting an AI F-14 compared to the F-15 (could be my lack of skill anyway).

 

But, no servers (as far as I know) fly West vs East, so there will be F-14s on either side.

 

This being said, a F-15 or Su-27 is superior to any other aircraft - even the Mirage 2000 - in multiplayer anyway. The F-14 will be just another fighting machine, as will the upcoming Eurofighter. It will just be another better-not-to-be-messed-with aircraft when flying an inferior / dated aircraft.

 

Best regards,

Brett

 

Superior to the Mirage 2000? i don't think so, thats only in BVR, at WVR, its the Mirages game, its GG for you unless you have a wing man, but even then a good mirage pilot can take 2 or even 3 at one time.

[Brett Sinclair]

Superior to the Mirage 2000? i don't think so, thats only in BVR, at WVR, its the Mirages game, its GG for you unless you have a wing man, but even then a good mirage pilot can take 2 or even 3 at one time.

 

The Mirage certainly is a big threat to (mediocre pilots like myself in) the F-15C or Su-27.

But BVR the latter have the edge, as the F-14 may have in the future.

As you said, there are strong and weak points to every aircraft. No trouble balancing them.

 

Best regards,

Brett

[lunaticfringe]

Mirage beating Su-27s, F-15Cs, and eventually F-14Bs in WVR?

 

Yeah, call us when Razbam gets around to fixing the FM.

[Xenovia]

Mirage beating Su-27s, F-15Cs, and eventually F-14Bs in WVR?

 

Yeah, call us when Razbam gets around to fixing the FM.

 

So you want the Mirage to fly like a brick? Barely be able to turn? Because the Mirage prior to the April patch, was Alot more maneuverable than it is now. So i don't know why you're complaining.

[lunaticfringe]

No, what I want it to fly like is the EM- that is, realistically. Not M1.52 on the deck, as was recently illustrated.

 

And when it flies realistically. it's not dominating any of those. Nor the MiG-29, or the F/A-18C, or the F-16 in any variant if it ever arrives.

[Xenovia]

No, what I want it to fly like is the EM- that is, realistically. Not M1.52 on the deck, as was recently illustrated.

 

And when it flies realistically. it's not dominating any of those. Nor the MiG-29, or the F/A-18C, or the F-16 in any variant if it ever arrives.

 

Don't know what you're talking about anymore. Lost me at EM-

[MikeMikeJuliet]

 

There really isn't. The sooner you divest yourself of this idea, the sooner you'll be able to entertain very interesting scenarios in general - not just involving F-14's.

 

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand this? You say there is no "balancing" (widest sense of the word) issues with multiplayer scenariis if you leave out the F14... Yet, by leaving out the F-14 you ARE balancing the multiplayer scenario.

 

Did I miss something or did you just say "we don't have issues with force-balance if we take out the plane that imbalances the opposing forces"?

 

Confused regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

[Hummingbird]

Ok so I found some EM charts for the MiG-29S, and compared to the F-16C the ITR is pretty much identical with both pulling exactly 7.2 G's at Mach 0.5 @ SL. That having been said the MiG-29 does have the advantage of being able to pull more AoA at low speeds.

 

In terms of STR however the F-16C as expected pulls ahead being capable of 22 deg/sec @ SL whilst the MiG-29S is capable of 21.2 deg/sec.

 

 

PS: All the data is assuming both aircraft carry 2x IR missiles & 50% fuel, i.e. clean.

[Hummingbird]

Don't know what you're talking about anymore. Lost me at EM-

 

EM = Energy Maneuverability chart.

[lunaticfringe]

Did I miss something or did you just say "we don't have issues with force-balance if we take out the plane that imbalances the opposing forces"?

 

No, he stated there was no balancing issue, even when using the F-14 or other BVR types, which was the nature of the complaint.

 

When someone says a scenario can't be balanced against an aircraft, they're not really saying its OP; what they're really saying is that they don't know basics regarding the subject well enough from both sides to create operational and tactical challenges for the new threat.

[lunaticfringe]

Don't know what you're talking about anymore. Lost me at EM-

 

Then why am I talking to you?

 

No, seriously- you started with a contention that isn't borne out by RL facts, and it was outlined how clearly broken the M2000 is known to be. Even the developers know its ridiculously overpowered performance wise against its real life counterpart.

 

And when I state the part from where this confirming data is attained, you don't know what I'm talking about- something that is talked about in every thread regarding the performance model of every aircraft in this system.

[gospadin]

Maybe this has already been rehashed a thousand times, but it's not the job of ED or module developers to balance modules for game-play. They should strive for as much realism as is possible.

 

Balance ideally comes from mission designers creating a compelling balance between opposing forces.

 

ED could help this process with a dynamic campaign, but even mission script authors and mission designers can do their part. Oh, enemy is flying an F-14 into this CAP zone? Spawn 8 hostile MiG-21s instead of 2.

[gospadin]

When someone says a scenario can't be balanced against an aircraft, they're not really saying its OP; what they're really saying is that they don't know basics regarding the subject well enough from both sides to create operational and tactical challenges for the new threat.

 

Agreed.

 

Every aircraft has strengths and weaknesses relative to the situation created.

 

If you understand this, even in general terms, you (the mission designer) can give either side the opportunity to "win" an engagement.

Edited October 10, 2016 by gospadin