LO's MiG-29

[Alfa]

Well isn't that exactly what I said in post #1?!

 

Luftwaffe inherited those MiGs from GDR (Eastern Germany) but here in LO we have R-27T in MiG-29G's payload and that's something that bothers me the most. Export 9-12A and B airplanes had no provision for PTB-1150. And presence of centerline PTB-1500 blocked the use of onboard cannon.

 

However Russian (Frontal Aviation) 9-12 (Fulcrum A) is unstripped version with provision of PTB-1150 fuel tanks. Having those tanks in payload means having new weapon rails #3 and #5, rails adjusted to board R-27T and cannon can be used with PTB-1500 attached.

 

I cannot remember what you said in post #1, but if you read the above posts, you will find that the question we are debating is whether the MiG-29 "sports" the R-27T.....full stop.

 

Anyway, this has nothing to do with "rails". There are only two types of launcher racks for the R-27 range of missiles - namely the APU-470 rail launcher(for wing stations) and AKU-470 ejector rack(for fuselage stations) - the latter is only used by the Su-27(and derrivatives) and only for the radar guided versions(R-27R and R-27RE). The APU-470 rail launcher used by the MiG-29 is the same used on wing stations of the Su-27.....deploying both R-27T and R-27R missiles. So it is not a question of launcher racks but about whether the weapon (R-27T) was integrated with the SUV-29 WCS.

 

Moreover, wing tanks were not on early Soviet MiG-29s either - they were introduced later and can be "backfitted" to any variant....in fact some of the German "MiG-29G"s got them :) .

 

But in LO, degraded MiG-29G has R-27T while Russian full featured Fulcrum A doesn't!

 

Well R-27T missiles for the MiG-29G would be a mistake I agree, but I am far from convinced that Russian MiG-29s deploy that missile.

 

- JJ.

[Stealth_HR]

I cannot remember what you said in post #1, but if you read the above posts, you will find that the question we are debating is whether the MiG-29 "sports" the R-27T.....full stop.

 

Er, no, the point of the thread from the very first post was that the LO simulated MiG-29 (erroneously titled MiG-29A) should carry R-27Ts, but can't, while the MiG-29G shouldn't carry R-27T's, yet they do. Along with that, the MiG-29_ Fulcrum-A used by Russia and Ukraine in LO should have a simulated datalink (of the same variety as the MiG-29S Fulcrum-C), yet they don't. The single thing that is right is the MiG-29G's lack of datalink.

[D-Scythe]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :D

 

I would say he who has better situational awareness, and cockpit integration has the edge. Also the defensive kits onboard of each plane can be quite different. Just because in theory you can aim the missile where your head points doesnt mean you can just throw aircraft perfomance out of the window. You can be forced to optimize your shots in a furball--even with high off boresight missiles-- if you ever want the missile to go further than 2-3 miles after spending all its energy in that shot 90 degrees off. No furball has ever been decided without manuevers and like the flawed "we-dont-need-guns-today" concept, BFM matter ALOT and by no means is dead. After saying this who still has the courage to try go vertical with an F-22 in a Mig-21? ;)

 

Not exactly. SA and cockpit integration are important factors for sure, but once the fight degenerates into a furball, the aircraft is limited in its ability to supply the pilot with sensory information of multiple manuevering supersonic bandits. The bigger the furball, the worse this problem is - the pilot cannot possibly keep track of all enemy (and friendly) aircraft zipping around his cockpit at Mach 1 in anything larger than a 2 vs. 2 fight. The key is the pilot is the determining factor, not the airframe's sensors.

 

Furthermore, in a furball, you can get brief instants where there are multiple bandits in positions that can "threaten" (i.e. you're inside their MEZ) your aircraft, as your friends/wingmen can not possibly be forcing all the enemies defensive all the time. Of course, this can also be true for your side, as your team may enjoy a brief instant where multiple fighters can engage/destroy the enemy. However, in a furball, it's mostly chaos, so there's no way to control this.

 

Hence the "leveling" effect in a furball. This levelling effect has always existed as a technology equalizer, but has only been compounded with the introduction of high off boresight SRAAMs. It doesn't matter if you're flying an F-22 - if you're caught in between 2 MiG-21s and 4 R-73s, you better be prepared to pull those ejection handles. It also explains the shift of U.S. doctrine to avoid large furballs, though it's still practiced - nobody wants to explain how a $200 million F-22 is lost to the American public.

[nscode]

Use of G-4 Super Galeb and J-22 Jastreb in cases of CAS against Tuzla and Rinas AB are unfound, I don't think those strikes ever happened.

 

neighder do I, nor was I talking about them ;)

J-22 is the Orao, btw.. Jastreb is J-21

[Alfa]

Er, no, the point of the thread from the very first post was that the LO simulated MiG-29 (erroneously titled MiG-29A) should carry R-27Ts, but can't..

 

"The point of the thread"?. Vekkinho claims that the Soviet 9-12 can deploy the R-27T, while the 9-12A cannot. I am sorry but I am not prepared to just accept that "point" without any evidence to support it or reasonable explanation as to why this should be the case.

 

As far as evidence is concerned I have not come across any documentation for the 9-12 - Soviet or Warsaw Pact export version - mentioning the R-27T as being part of the armament.

 

The explanation that this should be due to a difference in "rails" is just plain wrong.....weapon's launcher rack are designed for the weapon and not for a particular aircraft. The closest you could come to such a diversification is the AKU-470 ejector rack used for fuselage stations on the Su-27(for obvious reasons), but the APU-470 wing mounted rail launcher is used by all MiG-29 and Su-27 versions.....and can deploy all versions of the R-27 missile "family". Which in turn means that there is no launcher rack limitation to prevent the MiG-29 from using the R-27T, R-27RE or R-27TE....yet we know that baseline MiG-29 versions cannot deploy the -RE or -TE without a WCS upgrade along the lines of the SUV-29S (of 9-13S).

 

- JJ.

[RvETito]

I doubt that there will be any changes of the MiG-29 in LO anymore. I guess we'll have to wait for the next title.

[Stealth_HR]

"The point of the thread"?. Vekkinho claims that the Soviet 9-12 can deploy the R-27T, while the 9-12A cannot. I am sorry but I am not prepared to just accept that "point" without any evidence to support it or reasonable explanation as to why this should be the case.

 

Quote from http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-1.htm :

 

Fulcrum A: MiG-29S (Variant 5, Product 9-12S) that continued with production "fat-back" fuselage, small internal fuel increase of 20 US Gal. (76 liters) to 4376 liters (7514 lbs, 3408 kg, or 1156 US Gal) and provisions for two 1150 liter (304 US Gal or 1975 lbs) wing tanks. Total max fuel capacity of 8196 liters (2165 US Gal or 14,074 lbs) with centerline tank included. Possible 4,000 kg. (8,020 lbs.) of stores. Max Takeoff Weight increased to 19,700 kg. (43,340 lbs.). Published max range of 1,565 nm (2862 km). Configured with the improved N-019M "Slot Back" Radar capable of ten TWS target files with two simultaneous engagement tracks the AVV-AE (R-77) "Adder" missile. The first prototype was flown on 3Dec80 by V.M. Gorbunov. The four-section leading edge flap was changed to a five section construction. The improved N-019M "TOPAZ" radar enabled the R-27ER radar and the R-27ET IR missiles which are larger varieties of the R-27R and R-27T original design.

 

Note that it says it "enabled the new missiles". We're talking about advanced versions of standard R-27 missiles, so it only stands to common sense that R-27R/T capability was already available for the MiG-29B Fulcrum-A - after all, the Fulcrum-A could do with the regular N-019 Slot-Back and fire an R-27R, and it definitely had the same IRST - something which should by just common sense mean it should be able to use an R-27T. Furthermore:

 

http://www.military.cz/russia/air/weapons/rockets/aam/r27/r27.htm

 

Verze R-27R R-27T R-27RE R-27TE R-27AE R-27EM Rok zavedení do služby 1986 1986 1990 1990

Both the R-27R and R-27T were formally introduced into service at the same time - even with a difference of several months it would be something that'd be prepared for.

[GGTharos]

Stealth, 'common sense' does not always apply. See R-27(E)T datalink.

 

It is entirely possible that the R-27T uses different wiring or different launch parameters or -something- that was not programmed into the WCS, though R-73 capability was there.

[Vekkinho]

Yup, but BS could correct some obvious mistakes.

 

Anyway It'd be too bold from ED simulating newer MiGs like M,K, SMT and OVT.

 

There's only few of them we know of and they're mostly demonstrators.

 

This pics might explain differecnce between export 9-12A and Frontal Aviation 9-12.

 

 

 

 

Note the launchers. Same?

[Stealth_HR]

"The point of the thread"?. Vekkinho claims that the Soviet 9-12 can deploy the R-27T, while the 9-12A cannot. I am sorry but I am not prepared to just accept that "point" without any evidence to support it or reasonable explanation as to why this should be the case.

 

Quote from http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-1.htm :

 

Fulcrum A: MiG-29S (Variant 5, Product 9-12S) that continued with production "fat-back" fuselage, small internal fuel increase of 20 US Gal. (76 liters) to 4376 liters (7514 lbs, 3408 kg, or 1156 US Gal) and provisions for two 1150 liter (304 US Gal or 1975 lbs) wing tanks. Total max fuel capacity of 8196 liters (2165 US Gal or 14,074 lbs) with centerline tank included. Possible 4,000 kg. (8,020 lbs.) of stores. Max Takeoff Weight increased to 19,700 kg. (43,340 lbs.). Published max range of 1,565 nm (2862 km). Configured with the improved N-019M "Slot Back" Radar capable of ten TWS target files with two simultaneous engagement tracks the AVV-AE (R-77) "Adder" missile. The first prototype was flown on 3Dec80 by V.M. Gorbunov. The four-section leading edge flap was changed to a five section construction. The improved N-019M "TOPAZ" radar enabled the R-27ER radar and the R-27ET IR missiles which are larger varieties of the R-27R and R-27T original design.

 

Note that it says it "enabled the new missiles". We're talking about advanced versions of standard R-27 missiles, so it only stands to common sense that R-27R/T capability was already available for the MiG-29B Fulcrum-A - after all, the Fulcrum-A could do with the regular N-019 Slot-Back and fire an R-27R, and it definitely had the same IRST - something which should by just common sense mean it should be able to use an R-27T. Furthermore:

 

http://www.military.cz/russia/air/weapons/rockets/aam/r27/r27.htm

 

Verze R-27R R-27T R-27RE R-27TE R-27AE R-27EM Rok zavedení do služby 1986 1986 1990 1990

Both the R-27R and R-27T were formally introduced into service at the same time - even with a difference of several months it would be something the plane'd very likely be prepared for.

[Vekkinho]

It is entirely possible that the R-27T uses different wiring or different launch parameters or -something- that was not programmed into the WCS, though R-73 capability was there.

 

Not programmed into WCS of export, downgraded 9-12A and further downgraded 9-12B (like NSCode said detection range of Yugoslav MiG vs MiG was cca 20 km) but featured in Frontal Aviation' s 9-12.

[Vekkinho]

Now take a look at Luftwaffe's MiG-29G. Another APU-470?

 

[nscode]

(like NSCode said detection range of Yugoslav MiG vs MiG was cca 20 km)

 

That was after 20 years of no or make-shift maintenance. They weren't like that when we got them. (pilot I was refering to that said it was like that actually stated that as a significant decrease in performance in comparison to the their performance when they were new).

 

 

Btw, could someone provide details as to how the center tank would prevent cannon fireing?

[EvilBivol-1]

IIRC, it prevented cannon ammunition shells from being expelled by blocking their ejection port. Solution? Make a hole in the tank. :)

[hitman]

IIRC, it prevented cannon ammunition shells from being expelled by blocking their ejection port. Solution? Make a hole in the tank. :)

 

Or modify the ejection port to where it will dump the loose brass somewhere else...

[Alfa]

Yup, but BS could correct some obvious mistakes.

 

Anyway It'd be too bold from ED simulating newer MiGs like M,K, SMT and OVT.

 

There's only few of them we know of and they're mostly demonstrators.

 

This pics might explain differecnce between export 9-12A and Frontal Aviation 9-12.

 

 

 

 

Note the launchers. Same?

 

I note that different launcher racks are attached for different ordinance.

 

Vekinnho - I repeat - different racks are used for different ordinance and are detachable. When you replace an R-27R with a PTB-1150, you are also replacing the corresponding rack.

 

There are only two racks for the entire line of R-27 missiles - the APU-470 and the AKU-470 amd the rack mounted on the inner station on the upper picture is not an APU-470.

 

Take a look at this chart:

 

....and see for yourself what the different racks mounted on the inner wingstations in your photos are for :) .

 

 

- JJ.

[EvilBivol-1]

Or modify the ejection port to where it will dump the loose brass somewhere else...

 

Heh, that's so American...

 

:)

 

But seriously, I think they did just that on new-built airframes.

[hitman]

Heh, that's so American...

 

I am NOT American..I'm German. I just HAPPEN to be born and live in America, lol.:)

[mikoriad]

I agree. The MiG is going at overcritical AOA pretty fast, roll rate also sucks. Only the acceleration seems correctly modelled.

 

 

It always seemed strange, looks like th Mig-29 has got a below average roll rate in real life compared to other fighters. I never thought it looked like it had crisp handling at all, at least in the roll evelope. I think it's roll rate is spot on as far as that in the game.

[Vekkinho]

....and see for yourself what the different racks mounted on the inner wingstations in your photos are for :)

 

Hm, I see...I probably got something mix up here. My bad! All apologies!

 

The guy I talked to in ICQ few years ago said he used to be a Fulcrum pilot in HunAF, based in Kecskemet but he was transferred to JAS-39 training and doesn't fly MiGs anymore. I also had doubtful opinion to R-27T in Fulcrum's payload, simply because I saw no pics of Fulcrum carrying it, but the guy did his best to reassure me. He said, if I can remember correctly something like:"...although our (Hungarian) airforce doesn't have any "live" R-27T we used to train with dummy Alamo Bs. Those dummy missiles are same in size and weight as the real ones and can collect and forward all the data to onboard Weapon Control System. Lock was possible but no missiles could be fired..." They performed trainings with NATO squadrons playing bad guys in 1997 and 1998 to make American pilots familiar with Fulcrum's performance and general appearance in combat. Those were probably preparations for facing Yugoslav Fulcrums few years later in Allid Force. And he also said that Hungarian MiGs were of type 9-12B but some were brought to 9-12A standard after engine and airframe overhaul and refurbishment in 1995. He also sent few pics of him inside MiG-29 in flight suit and pic of him and his wife getting married to make me believe he's a real pilot (not just some wannabe). And it's true, it's the same person. Last year friend of mine, FoxteR from =RvE= went to European Flight sim championship in Budapest, they were second in the end, and on the last day he and =RvE= Paploo made a visit to Kecskemet AB, hanging out and taking tour with RL pilots. Unfortunatelly, throughout the years I forgot Hungarian pilot's real name and nick so I couldn't possibly ask of him but I sure hope he climbed inside their new Gripens.

[Vekkinho]

It always seemed strange, looks like th Mig-29 has got a below average roll rate compared to other fighters. I never thought it looked like it had crisp handling at all, at least in the roll evelope. I think it's spot on as far as that in the game.

 

I having a hard time saying this but the game is called "Modern Air Combat" in general. It's not "Lock On: MiG-29" (too bad).

 

So as long as there's no MiG-29 AFM we'll have to play with what we've got.