announced DCS MiG-29A

[Quid]

8 hours ago, sylkhan said:

All east german pilots agreed on the fact that no western aircraft can compete with Mig-29 in close combat, it's a fact and i trust them, all the rest is propaganda.

 

null

I suppose if that's your position, then any evidence doesn't matter and is "propaganda," including this MiG-29 pilot getting severe pipper burns from a TF-30 powered F-14A in close combat where it cannot compete with the MiG, but just won.  On the same cruise, a nugget Turkey driver "killed" the MiG-29G squadron commander in a scenario where the HMS/R73 was allowed simply by reversing his turn.  Because the Tomcat pilot did it while the MiG pilot was blind (big headrest), he lost sight.  Lose sight, lose the fight.  By the time the MiG squadron commander reacquired the Tomcat, the Turkey was nose-on and had already called a shot - the Fulcrum pilot overstressed his jet in a defensive pull, but the range had already scored the kill for the F-14A, which cannot compete with the MiG, but had just won in spite of the MiG having HMS/R73.  

Conflicts over the past 33 years have not been particularly kind to the MiG-29, but all that has already been posted here.  So, too, has the FM work.  But, that's all propaganda, correct?  I've been shot down plenty by the MiG-29 flying F/A-18s and F-16s in DCS.  Guess I'd better complain that the MiG is OP, based on all those comments and combat records, some of which are posted here, right?  No.  It's because I'm not flying the Hornet or Viper as well as the player flying the Fulcrum.  I've also shot down the MiG-29 flying either of the former, or the F-14, or F-15.  Suddenly, my Teen-Series plane is over-modeled, right?  No.  I happened to fly better that day.  I've got a bridge to sell to anyone who thinks a given aircraft is invincible against all comers.  The MiG-29 is formidable, but "no western aircraft can compete in close combat" with it is not a fact, it is utter nonsense backed both by actual and simulated combat over the decades.

[Dragon1-1]

29 minutes ago, sylkhan said:

Do you think you can beat me with Mig-29 ?

I am ok to do some dogfights with you to see how good you are with mig-29.

let me know.

I'm not claiming to be particularly good with the -29, personally (that might change after we get it in FF, but either way, I'm terribly out of shape at the moment), but I've seen people who are. Say, someone like Growling Sidewinder, it's not hard to find videos of him kicking ass in all kinds of MiGs, including on MP servers. I'm pretty sure there are even better MiG drivers out there. That said, if I ever get good in the MiG, sure.

The point was, winning on losing depends on the pilot more than the aircraft. MiG-29 is comparable to other 4th gens, it has some advantages, some disadvantages, like all of them. It's up to the pilot to exploit the former and avoid the latter. There's no magic "I win" button in air combat, not in DCS, at least (and IRL, even the 5th gens had occasionally ended up in someone's pipper).

Edited June 22, 2024 by Dragon1-1

[F-2]

6 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I'm not claiming to be particularly good with the -29, personally (that might change after we get it in FF, but either way, I'm terribly out of shape at the moment), but I've seen people who are. Say, someone like Growling Sidewinder, it's not hard to find videos of him kicking ass in all kinds of MiGs, including on MP servers. I'm pretty sure there are even better MiG drivers out there. That said, if I ever get good in the MiG, sure.

Honestly while I find the Fulcrum somewhat inferior I definitely think it holds it own. It’s performance relative to the Flanker seems right.

[Rifter]

1 hour ago, Quid said:

"no western aircraft can compete in close combat"

To be fair, this statement was neither made literally nor should it be taken literally. Of course, this was a statistical statement. And the Germans Mig-29’s win rate in dogfights amongst NATO partners was actually significantly high at that time. Of course, it was absolutely part of reality, that the Mig-29’s lost fights. But it was not a 50:50 game.
It must also be clearly seen that the successful series of Mig-29 dogfights took place in a rather narrow time period. On a larger temporal scale, the hard-to-beat Mig-29 was itself just a statistical outlier. But within that time period, defeating a Mig-29 in a dogfight was not an everyday occurrence.

[Dragon1-1]

Also mind, that statement came from German MiG-29 drivers. Of course they'd talk up their own ship up.  Modern Polish MiG drivers will also say there's nothing wrong with their planes, at least when a journalist asks them.  Everyone wants an F-16C, but if you're stuck with a MiG-29A, you're damn well going to make the most of it.

[Ramius007]

Just a reminder how well trained was (is?) avarage NATO pilot, especially ex West German, compered to Arabic or ex Eastern Block, iirc NATO pilots had nearly 4x more flight hours per year compered to potential enemies. Also people still forget about how big numerical adventage US and alllies had over their adversaries in wars after callapse of Soviet Union. If during first Gulf War avarage coalition pilot would be as good as DCS blue player, Iraq would win

[Dragon1-1]

Iraqi MiGs were also much lower performing 3rd world export versions, like the MiG-29B, which are not like what we're getting. Notably, these didn't actually get the vaunted HMS or the R-73, being limited to R-60. The equipment Iraqis got were crap, and not just aircraft, but tanks as well.

I think East German pilots trained quite a bit, the problem was that Soviet planners did not put nearly as much thought into their aircraft tactics as NATO ones did (who did so mostly on account of the US obsession with air power). In fact, the design of the MiG-29 reflects that, it's a defensive fighter that's supposed to keep NATO aircraft off the Soviets' massed tank formations. Within that role, it's a perfect fit.

[F-2]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Iraqi MiGs were also much lower performing 3rd world export versions, like the MiG-29B, which are not like what we're getting. Notably, these didn't actually get the vaunted HMS or the R-73, being limited to R-60. The equipment Iraqis got were crap, and not just aircraft, but tanks as well.

I think East German pilots trained quite a bit, the problem was that Soviet planners did not put nearly as much thought into their aircraft tactics as NATO ones did (who did so mostly on account of the US obsession with air power). In fact, the design of the MiG-29 reflects that, it's a defensive fighter that's supposed to keep NATO aircraft off the Soviets' massed tank formations. Within that role, it's a perfect fit.

I can’t think of too many fights in the gulf war that the R-73 would have made much a difference. The only one I can think of is this but notably heaters where never used by either jet so I’m unsure.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-f-15c-pilot-explains-how-he-was-able-to-shoot-down-an-iraqi-mig-29-without-firing-a-single-shot-in-the-only-real-turning-fight-of-operation-desert-storm/amp/
 

one interesting thing is they were able to prevent the Fulcrums from using R-27.

according to page 23 of this Rand report one Serbian Fulcrum fired an R-73 at a NATO aircraft in the Kosovo war but missed

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365/RAND_MR1365.pdf

 

[Dragon1-1]

6 hours ago, F-2 said:

I can’t think of too many fights in the gulf war that the R-73 would have made much a difference.

No doubt because MiG-29B also had an utterly crappy radar, far below what the original N019 was capable of. What Iraq got had no IFF, no Lazur and I don't think it was even capable of carrying the more advanced missiles. I suspect the Soviets designed the 9.12B so that if Iraq switched sides, no important tech would be lost, and if they decided to take on the USSR, they'd get steamrolled by "full" versions of their own kit.

[Ramius007]

original 9.12 wasnt peak of aviation technology to begin with, it had it's selling points like performance and r-73/helmet combo, but overall mig-29 was rather crude design compered to western ones of the same period, it was 100% analog cockpit, visibility wasnt great for a 4th gen fighter either, a2g capabilities were very limited. It's pilot plane, even within limited interceptor role

[Ronin_Gaijin]

I strongly think we need a daily MiG-29 photo to cleanse ourselves from all the inaccuracies being said.
Enjoy!
Daily MiG-29

[Dragon1-1]

7 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

original 9.12 wasnt peak of aviation technology to begin with, it had it's selling points like performance and r-73/helmet combo, but overall mig-29 was rather crude design compered to western ones of the same period, it was 100% analog cockpit, visibility wasnt great for a 4th gen fighter either, a2g capabilities were very limited. It's pilot plane, even within limited interceptor role

Digital cockpits weren't really a thing in its time. Even the early F-16 only had that 7-segment display thing, and that was considered spiffy. Most early 4th gens looked more like Mirage 2000 or the Tomcat. Judging from the FC3 model, visibility was OK, not F-16 level, but not bad.

It was a defensive interceptor and a dogfighter, roles in which it performed admirably. It wasn't a revolutionary design like the Viper, but far from crude. Sure, it was simpler than something like the Eaglejet, but one could look at it as being no more complex than it had to be. Air to ground was perfectly adequate and on par with other Soviet fighters of the time. Generally, Soviets preferred use dedicated ground attack jets as opposed to making one airframe do everything.

[Ramius007]

I m not talking about glass cockpit, but some sort of MFD's that would give Mig 29 more purpose, original 9.12 was EA like product, given how fast Soviets made modified variant, I m not even compering 9.12 with Viper that was older, but Hornet entered service about same time as 9.12, truth to be told is that Mirage F1 for Iraq offered better multipurpose capabilities than Mig-29

[Flаnker]

In the USSR there was a clear division according to the purpose of aircraft and aviation units. There were planes designed to gain dominance in the air and strike ground targets). Aviation units were differentiated into "Fighter Regiments" (IAP), "Assault Regiments" (SHAP), and "Reconnaissance Regiments". Therefore, the USSR did not have truly multi-purpose aircraft.

Edited June 26, 2024 by Flаnker

[Ramius007]

So why mig-29 carried bombs from day 1, if it was supposed to be a fighter, why pilots were training in a2g, why it had CCIP, INS and other "useless" for interceptor gadgets? 

[Flаnker]

3 минуты назад, Ramius007 сказал:

So why mig-29 carried bombs from day 1, if it was supposed to be a fighter, why pilots were training in a2g, why it had CCIP, INS and other "useless" for interceptor gadgets? 

Yes, almost all fighters (with the exception of pure interceptors (Mig-31 and Tu-128)) have the ability to attack ground targets, but this was a secondary task.

[draconus]

1 minute ago, Flаnker said:

...with the exception of pure interceptors (Mig-31...

They are mostly tossing Kh-47s in A2G attacks now.

[Flаnker]

9 минут назад, draconus сказал:

They are mostly tossing Kh-47s in A2G attacks now.

Yes, I forgot about "Kh-47". But this is a separate modification and these aircraft are part of the Strategic Aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces. In fact, now this modification is not a multi-purpose aircraft. The Mig-31 was chosen as the carrier of this missile due to its enormous speed and high flight altitude.

[lmp]

One thing to consider when discussing the merits of multirole platforms versus dedicated fleets of interceptors, strikers etc. is whether you can train your crews (and keep them proficient) in all the roles the aircraft can perform. Even in the rich air forces there's some level of specialisation among the crews. Not everyone does everything. If you're not that rich and can't give your pilots hundreds of hours every year, you may find that your multirole capability is an illusion, despite having the hardware.

The Soviet system of having fleets of dedicated rather than multirole platforms and relying somewhat more on ground control has its problems but it also means that a pilot with a lot fewer hours can still be effective.

[Dragon1-1]

I think it's less of a matter of available resources (although Soviet air had proportionally less funding allocated to it), and more a matter of doctrine. Soviets had dedicated fighters with secondary bombing role, and hence they could focus on making them good fighters. MiG-29 is an excellent fighter and it can carry a few bombs, which is enough for tactical "frontline" aviation, where it was meant to fight. It doesn't have to be a good bomber or attack aircraft, because those are not its primary roles. Accordingly, its pilots have to be good at flying a fighter, not necessarily at bombing things (although they have to be competent at it).

In fact, the F-16 was a bit of an oddball even on the US side (though with precedent in F-4 Phantom, which grew into multirole aircraft organically). It was designed as a cheap fighter for NATO air forces, many of which are much smaller than USAF. Hence, one fighter that could do fighter jobs and be a bomb truck made sense. If anything, rich nations have more specialization than smaller ones, because they can afford to have separate aircraft for different roles.

[F-2]

 

apparently you can get AASM hammer working on the fulcrum.

[Ronin_Gaijin]

Daily MiG-29

[Ronin_Gaijin]

Daily MiG-29
Slovakian MiG-29AS

[Ronin_Gaijin]

Daily MiG-29
Iranian MiG-29UB 9.51

[Ronin_Gaijin]

Daily MiG-29
Slovakian MiG-29AS