announced DCS MiG-29A

[Seaeagle]

MiG-29K - naval varian - was heavier and - to land savely on carrier - it had increased wings and drag, it had degraded performence, especially acceleration and sustained turn rate.

 

MiG-29M 'Fulcrum-E' - multirole variant - had massive mass gain of 2300 additional kilograms empty mass, most of that was heavier multirole avionics and strenghtened airframe to haul heavy bomb loads. Engines gave barely 1200kN of additional thrust which didn't compensate additional mass and it had worse acceleration, climb rate and turn rate, worse T/W and bigger wing loading than original MiG-29.

 

For a start the MiG-29K was a naval variant of the MiG-29M and as such it had the same refined airframe with redesigned FOD system and increased internal fuel capacity, new improved wing design, FBW control system, more powerful and fuel efficient RD-33K engines(with a digital control system) and the same "multirole" system's complex. The main differences between the MiG-29M and MiG-29K are that the MiG-29K had;

 

- foldable outer wingpanels, bigger trailing edge flaps and increased overall wingspan(11,99 m) leading to an increased wing area of some 42 m2.

 

- emergency thrust regime for the RD-33K engines, which temporarily gave an extra ~ 200 kgf AFB power(for a total of some 9000 kgf) for carrier take-offs.

 

- slightly decreased internal fuel capacity compared to the MiG-29M - 4490 kg vs. 4560 kg.

 

- retractable in-flight refuelling probe.

 

- More "beefy" landing gear.

 

- Arrestor hook instead of drag chutes.

 

- more sophisticated navigation system.

 

You are right that the -M and -K gained some 2 tons of empty weight compared to the "baseline" MiG-29 and that the extra wing loading caused the G-rating to drop from 9 to 8, but your impression of what this means in terms of agility and performance is just nonsense.

 

MiG-29K at MAKS 2003:

 

As far as "heavier multirole avionics" - well I don't know, but e.g. the weight of the N010 "zhuk" radar was around 250 kg versus some 380 kg of the baseline MiG-29's N019.

 

At any rate even the initial MiG-29M and K from the late eighties were completely redesigned inside out compared with the old MiG-29 and infinitely more capable and versatile.

 

Besides, I don't see what all this has to do with what I said about the looks of the different MiG-29 versions.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Seaeagle

[Seaeagle]

Unfortunately the wing in naval 29K variant needed to be enlarged which increased drag, especially drag in turn, and decreased acceleration and sustained turn rate.

 

It did not.

 

It also reduced maximum speed.

It did not - MiG-29K is rated at Mach 2.3 just like the baseline version.

 

MiG designers tried to use original high performance wing but it proved to be to small for low speed aircraft carrier approach for heavier plane with reinforced structure, corrosion protected fuselage, additional arrestor hook, enlarged wing and heavier undercarriage.

The MiG-29K is using the same improved wing design(aerofoil) as the MiG-29M - the larger cord of the outer wingpanels had more to do with improving low speed controllability than dealing with extra weight....the empty- and loaded weight of the MiG-29K is practically the same as the MiG-29M.....which didn't have the extended cord outer wing panels.

 

MiG-29K with to it's empty weight increased from 10900kg to 14000kg

It did not - the empty weight of the MiG-29K(9.31) is some 12700 kg.

 

I fly low fidelity 9.12 regularly and successfully on 1980s servers.

Good for you.

[Dragon1-1]

Nowhere near a tossup. At one mile, 50 degrees off boresight, the DCS AMRAAM will make the turn and hit the target. Hell, ive seen it loop around in memory mode and kill someone after a 360 degree turn.

Well, then perhaps it's the AMRAAM that needs to be fixed, instead of whining about not getting a plane that the Russians (and Indians) will not declassify any time soon. I'm pretty sure that AIM-120C isn't a high off-boresight weapon IRL, certainly not within one mile. We wouldn't need the Sidewinder for anything if that were the case. AIM-120D might have something like that, but it's a much newer missile, and we don't have it.

 

MiG-29A certainly isn't worthless. With good tactics, it can certainly beat the Viper in a dogfight. Yes, it's more limited, doesn't have fancy MFDs (it does have a datalink, though), and generally an older plane. That doesn't make it useless unless you try to ape Western tactics with an aircraft not designed for them. It's a souped-up MiG-21 and should be used pretty much the same way - with GCI or AWACS guiding you to target, and radar being turned off until you're ready to fire. They shouldn't see you on RWR until it's too late, or (in good weather) ever.

[Max1mus]

Well, then perhaps it's the AMRAAM that needs to be fixed, instead of whining about not getting a plane that the Russians (and Indians) will not declassify any time soon.

 

No need. Half the stuff in DCS isnt modelled exactly as the real thing, we just need an authentic model of the planes and weapons the capabilities of which make sense within their timeframe.

 

MiG-29A certainly isn't worthless. With good tactics, it can certainly beat the Viper in a dogfight. Yes, it's more limited, doesn't have fancy MFDs (it does have a datalink, though), and generally an older plane. That doesn't make it useless unless you try to ape Western tactics with an aircraft not designed for them.

 

I assume by dogfight you mean general air to air.

 

No, it cannot. With equal numbers, against an f-16 carrying 120C, the win rate is 0%. You hide, they fly in spread and pick you up. You mask? They fly high and pick you up. You try to take a BVR shot? F-16 see everything on Link16 and their 6x 120C outperform your measly 2 ERs, with your radar that can detect the F-16 by the time his AIM-120C is active already. Also no Jammer to make up for that problem while you can indeed be jammed. SA on F-16 is also higher even if you account for the Lazur Datalink (Which ED will not model, i guarantee you that). Now if we were talking about an 80s F-15,16,18, the SA gap would be nonexistant, if not in you/your GCIs favor.

[SovietAce]

No need. Half the stuff in DCS isnt modelled exactly as the real thing, we just need an authentic model of the planes and weapons the capabilities of which make sense within their timeframe.

 

 

 

I assume by dogfight you mean general air to air.

 

No, it cannot. With equal numbers, against an f-16 carrying 120C, the win rate is 0%. You hide, they fly in spread and pick you up. You mask? They fly high and pick you up. You try to take a BVR shot? F-16 see everything on Link16 and their 6x 120C outperform your measly 2 ERs, with your radar that can detect the F-16 by the time his AIM-120C is active already. Also no Jammer to make up for that problem while you can indeed be jammed. SA on F-16 is also higher even if you account for the Lazur Datalink (Which ED will not model, i guarantee you that). Now if we were talking about an 80s F-15,16,18, the SA gap would be nonexistant, if not in you/your GCIs favor.

If you can get into range of R-27T or R-73 then you can win against AMRAAMER. I actually managed get several kills like that, back when I could play MP. Its not that big problem, you can do it either by notching or simple barrel roll, and dont forget to keep a lock on him(its always advantageous). Problem is when your enemy manage to lock you back a fire AMRAAM in close range. Many times we killed each other this way :D. Thankfully humans are not very good at dodging Heaters like all knowing AI, so 27T can usually do the kill.

[Dragon1-1]

I assume by dogfight you mean general air to air.

By dogfight I mean dogfight. That is, a short range maneuvering engagement with IR missiles. You know, the kind of combat that's a little more involved than lobbing missiles and hoping they hit.

 

If you fly out to duel F-16s like you would in another Western aircraft, then yes, your success rate will be 0%, because that's not what the MiG-29 is for. Same if you try to fly Western-style CAP with them, that's what Su-27 is for. The MiG-29 would be scrambled from an airbase under GCI control, much like MiG-21 was in Vietnam. The enemy aircraft would be approached from the side and from below, without radar, and attack from up close after being cleared by the GCI. Of course, AWACS would throw a wrench in the gears of that plan (it is what it's there for, after all), but it could be overcome by coordinating multiple MiG flights and SAM sites, as well. This worked really well for the MiG-21 in Vietnam, as many a Thud jock can attest. Unfortunately, DCS GCI sucks quite badly (it's basically a dressed-up Western-style AWACS), in a perfect world we'd have a human acting as an air defense coordinator. I don't know if it's possible to do with CA. In Soviet air defense doctrine, a lot more depended on the GCI personnel than in Western air forces. Whereas US mostly put it all on the pilots, with AWACS being there to help them with SA, USSR relied on SA of the GCI controller, with planes essentially acting as weapons for him. This doctrinal difference informed the design of all Soviet fighters save for the Su-27, and even that one bears the mark of this philosophy.

 

Also, since the F-16 gets Link-16, the MiG should get Lazur. There's no reason to say ED won't do it, I don't think it's classified. Ka-50, the only ED-made Russian aircraft with a datalink system, does have that system modeled. FC3 birds are, presumably, not modeled well enough to include this capability, but for full-fidelity module, it'd be a must.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Dragon1-1

[Max1mus]

By dogfight I mean dogfight. That is, a short range maneuvering engagement with IR missiles. You know, the kind of combat that's a little more involved than lobbing missiles and hoping they hit.

 

A short range maneuvering engagement above 0.5 miles will be fought with all missiles. Heaters will be flared, but an AIM-120 will force you to notch, give up initiative and most likely kill you. And a MiG-29A can not win that against anything past the 90s, even from an offensive position as you suggest.

 

It doesnt matter what angle you come from. This GCI doctrine stops working when you add Link16 and active missiles to the equation, which is why post 90s russian/chinese fighters, including upgraded MiG-29, no longer rely on it.

 

And if you add a numbers advantage and SAMs, you can do it with a DCS MiG-21 and MiG-23. Im not paying for another one of those.

 

 

And as said, the 80s barely even exist in DCS in the form of campaigns or servers. So dont ask ED to waste their resources on another MiG-21. All it will do is scare the remaining redfor playerbase away from DCS. The DCS ecosphere needs a red modern, capable fighter, FC3 level if necessairy. Maybe add a new category of modules that are inbetween full and low fidelity.

[bies]

And as said, the 80s barely even exist in DCS in the form of campaigns or servers. So dont ask ED to waste their resources on another MiG-21.

 

1980s are not MiG-21.

1980s are MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Mirage 2000, Viggen.

 

1980s barely even exist in DCS? The whole FC3 flayable planes - MiG-29, Su-25, Su-27, Su-33, F-15C, A-10A - and nearly all DCS assets are from 1980s/1990s, AI planes, ground units like tanks, artilery, infantry, SAMs, ships, radars, everything. Full fidelity modules like F-14, Mirage 2000, Viggen. The whole DCS in it's core is 1980s/1990s.

 

What barely exist is mid 2000s with single modules like Viper, Hornet, A-10C without any mid 2000 assets to allow some realistic scenarios, no ground assets, no SAMs, no flayable enemy planes nor even AI enemy planes to fight against. The enemy for mid 2000s Viper are Soviet 1980s planes and Soviet 1980s SAMs, radars, ships etc.

Edited October 18, 2020 by bies

[Max1mus]

What barely exist is mid 2000s with single modules like Viper, Hornet, A-10C without any mid 2000 assets to allow some realistic scenarios, no ground assets, no SAMs, no flayable enemy planes nor even AI enemy planes to fight against. The enemy for mid 2000s Viper are Soviet 1980s planes and Soviet 1980s SAMs, radars, ships etc.

 

While our F-14 is from the 1990s and the F-15 carries the 2000s AIM-120C, i agree. And so Multiplayer sticks to NATO vs NATO 2000s, while in Singleplayer or PVE Multiplayer, people just turkey shoot these 80s systems. No one restricts weapons and avionics accordingly. As such, any MiG-29 or Su-27 module that isnt at least from after 2000, is entirely irellevant. There are no content, populated servers, missions for it.

 

As such, a MiG-29A in the current DCS environment will be exactly as relevant as a MiG-21. We need a more modern one.

[Dragon1-1]

No one restricts weapons and avionics accordingly. As such, any MiG-29 or Su-27 module that isnt at least from after 2000, is entirely irellevant. There are no content, populated servers, missions for it.

Then maybe people should start. Even just forcing people to stick with the AIM-120B instead of C would level the playing field considerably. From what ED said, DCS isn't really about multiplayer, anyway, and they've already made it clear "balance" for PvP won't be attempted. Just like with everything, if you want a decent MP experience, you have to spend some time setting it up.

 

In single player, it's easier to compensate with numbers, if you want a challenge, not to mention a "turkey shoot against outdated systems" environment is very much realistic, if we consider the real wars those planes have fought in. This also has the advantage of making the campaign easier, if you look at Steam reviews for Stone Shield, for example, you'll see that many people consider this a considerable asset. For many people, fighting MiG-29s in the F-16 is hard enough, despite the AIM-120C (then again, figuring out how to get the Slammers to launch in first place will be an achievement for someone who only flew Ace Combat beforehand). I think this approach to making campaigns is perfectly valid. Generally, you want to fight wars against your inferiors, not against your equals, because against the latter, you can lose (of course, as Vietnam showed, you can also lose to the former if you do it wrong).

It doesnt matter what angle you come from. This GCI doctrine stops working when you add Link16 and active missiles to the equation, which is why post 90s russian/chinese fighters, including upgraded MiG-29, no longer rely on it.

It might be that, but after USSR collapsed, Russia went through a phase of trying to emulate the US in everything, so it might be just a doctrine shift. In other areas this occasionally ended badly, though the Western approach is better for expeditionary warfare. I don't know about the Chinese.

 

Either way, Link 16 will only show threats that someone can see. Again, it's not a duel. As a Soviet pilot, your job is not to score kills, but to protect ground and air assets from enemy attack. We're not necessarily talking numerical superiority, but the fact that there will be more than one flight on either side. Say, blue has two flight of Vipers (strike and escort) and red two of MiG-29s. The goal of the blue side is to bomb the red, and the goal of the red is not to get bombed. One possible way would be for one MiG flight to try to bait the escorts into friendly SAM range, while the other sneaks in and forces the bombers to evade, hopefully jettisoning their bombs. GCI doctrine works best on defensive, and I don't think it's completely obsolete in that role, though obviously it has to account for AWACS and advanced datalink giving attackers comparable SA.

 

As for missiles, a fight that starts outside 0.5 miiles can rapidly move inside this distance, at least if it's not a BVR duel (which the MiG-29 has to avoid). This is why AIM-9X and R-73M exist. AIM-120 isn't the best missile to use in a dogfight, unless DCS bodged the modeling. A heater works fine for forcing enemies on evasive, especially if you're already on offensive, because dropping flares behind you doesn't do you much good if you've got a missile coming at your face. In fact, as mentioned above, people suck at dodging heaters, so it also works pretty well for shooting them down. If you're behind them and on the offensive, then they really shouldn't be able to turn around and shoot at you.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Dragon1-1

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

While yes there are lots of Cold war aircraft, what happens in MP is that usually the only slots filled are those of the most modern and capable fighters.

 

 

 

Not that its a bad thing, its rather natural that people want to use the MIDS AIM-120C5 AIM-9X JDAM JSOW and so on. What happens next is no one wants to fly the Opfor and then you get a mirror match Hornet vs Hornet

 

 

Or NATO vs NATO planes (ground units), this goes for both air quake servers and dynamic campaign ones. While aircraft like the JF-17 do somewhat alleviate the game would be best served if it had more planes like it as well as higher lethality ground units.

 

 

Even from the perspective of Blueair more modern redfor units AI or playable air or ground allows a greater variety of scenarios to sim

 

 

The redfor units don't have to be peer assets themselves since this isn't about balance, many new 2000s era chinese and russian systems were not at all, its about creating an eviornment that allows of a depiction of both 1980s 90s and 2000s Russia China and other client states

[Max1mus]

Then maybe people should start. Even just forcing people to stick with the AIM-120B instead of C would level the playing field considerably. From what ED said, DCS isn't really about multiplayer, anyway, and they've already made it clear "balance" for PvP won't be attempted. Just like with everything, if you want a decent MP experience, you have to spend some time setting it up.

 

In single player, it's easier to compensate with numbers, if you want a challenge, not to mention a "turkey shoot against outdated systems" environment is very much realistic, if we consider the real wars those planes have fought in. This also has the advantage of making the campaign easier, if you look at Steam reviews for Stone Shield, for example, you'll see that many people consider this a considerable asset. For many people, fighting MiG-29s in the F-16 is hard enough, despite the AIM-120C (then again, figuring out how to get the Slammers to launch in first place will be an achievement for someone who only flew Ace Combat beforehand :) ).

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=250456&d=1603062188

Here is an attempt to create a challenging mission. A single F-18 just kills everything, including 4 Su30 and an S300 site+SA15 escorts in one sortie. No support, no tactics.

 

I thought DCS is supposed to be a simulation. Turns out ED wants it to be a NATO fanfiction, making a fortune on the western market.

[Dragon1-1]

Try Raven One, then. I haven't yet (no Supercarrier), but I've heard what people say, and it's a great campaign, but it's properly hard, not for beginners. Evidently, it is possible, it just takes some effort to create a complex, realistic scenario.

 

Remember that thus far, singleplayer was also heavily constrained by AI, which is, to say the least, not very bright. If you substituted the Hornets for Su-30s, you'd get the same result. Time will tell if the AI overhaul fixes that (I hope it does, along with wingmen being dumb as bricks, realistic as it might be :) ). SAMs in DCS are also pretty dumb, the S300 is not supposed to be a HARM fodder that it is.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Dragon1-1

[Max1mus]

Try Raven One, then. I haven't yet (no Supercarrier), but I've heard what people say, and it's a great campaign, but it's properly hard, not for beginners. Evidently, it is possible, it just takes some effort to create a complex, realistic scenario.

 

Remember that thus far, singleplayer was also heavily constrained by AI, which is, to say the least, not very bright. If you substituted the Hornets for Su-30s, you'd get the same result. Time will tell if the AI overhaul fixes that (I hope it does, along with wingmen being dumb as bricks, realistic as it might be :) ). SAMs in DCS are also pretty dumb, the S300 is not supposed to be a HARM fodder that it is.

 

The problem here are the available russian/chinese AI units. We dont have the ones that are needed. Check the tacview. An Su-30K will not be able to destroy 4 F-18s, a patriot and roland sites all on its own. Improving the AI can only do so much, but will not solve the issue of post 2000s low RCS weapons like JSOWs and high energy, post 2000s modern actives, going through shitty 80s soviet equipment like butter.

[gavagai]

Try Raven One, then. I haven't yet (no Supercarrier), but I've heard what people say, and it's a great campaign, but it's properly hard, not for beginners. Evidently, it is possible, it just takes some effort to create a complex, realistic scenario.

 

Remember that thus far, singleplayer was also heavily constrained by AI, which is, to say the least, not very bright. If you substituted the Hornets for Su-30s, you'd get the same result. Time will tell if the AI overhaul fixes that (I hope it does, along with wingmen being dumb as bricks, realistic as it might be :) ). SAMs in DCS are also pretty dumb, the S300 is not supposed to be a HARM fodder that it is.

 

You need to set up defensive SAMs around the SA-10.

[Max1mus]

You need to set up defensive SAMs around the SA-10.

 

I did. Check track above. Single F-18 just annihalates everything, because they are all 80s crap systems.

[bies]

In order not to write back over and over again, man need to establish some fixed, unchanging framework to even start any discussion:

 

//There is no moden Russian plane and ED is stating time and time again in nearly every interview they are not able (not allowed) to make one and they do not plan to make one. Period.//

 

Only accepting this fixed point we can start considering other options. Banging a head against the wall crying childishly "but gib modern Russian rest is useless" is completely pointless. And counterproductive diluting the discussion and other options.

 

 

I proposed one clear option available and possible: 1980s F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, A-10, Su-25, Mi-24, Apache - all possible to model, even if temporarly some of them as FC3 standard only, and some like 1980s MiG-29 9.12 or Su-27S at the verge of not being possible/allowed - fighting each other in symmetric scenario like 1980s war in Europe, with realistic enviromet, AI planes, SAM systems, radars, ground assets, ships etc. ultimately in dynamic campaign.

Edited October 19, 2020 by bies

[Dragon1-1]

An Su-30K will not be able to destroy 4 F-18s, a patriot and roland sites all on its own.

 

A single Hornet shouldn't have been able to do this even against 80s tech, either. I definitely seen S-300 shoot down JSOWs at some point. Four Su-30s should be able to handle it, too, had the AI bothered to use actual tactics. Even a simple pincer attack would work, but it currently requires a bit of scripting to set up.

 

With the current DCS AI, even the F-22 or Su-57 wouldn't be much of a challenge. Likewise, you could kill an S-400 with a HARM if the operators were so dumb as to not use any anti-ARM tactics, which in DCS, they are.

[Max1mus]

//There is no moden Russian plane and ED is stating time and time again in nearly every interview they are not able (not allowed) to make one and they do not plan to make one [...]

 

Wrong. They cant do a full fidelity one. They HAVE to make AI variants (as my track above showed) and give us simplified FC3 ones.

 

A single Hornet shouldn't have been able to do this even against 80s tech, either. I definitely seen S-300 shoot down JSOWs at some point. Four Su-30s should be able to handle it, too, had the AI bothered to use actual tactics. Even a simple pincer attack would work, but it currently requires a bit of scripting to set up.

 

With the current DCS AI, even the F-22 or Su-57 wouldn't be much of a challenge. Likewise, you could kill an S-400 with a HARM if the operators were so dumb as to not use any anti-ARM tactics, which in DCS, they are.

 

When i replace even 2 of those planes by F-16, i suddenly am no longer able to pull this off. Because the fuel and missiles needed, assuming i somehow beat them, wouldnt allow me to even think about loading air to ground.

Same if those systems were modern and S300PMU at least. You would need many more hornets firing many JSOWs in formation at the same time to get through those defenses.

[bies]

Wrong. They cant do a full fidelity one. They HAVE to make AI variants (...)

 

Noone ever say ED will not make some AI plane. As AI plane, very simplified, they can even make Raptors, F-35s, Su-57s, J-20 without any problem. Totally unrealistic though...

[OnlyforDCS]

Oh look another thread derailed by the "we want balanced multiplayer" crowd.

 

Although I do agree that most campaigns in DCS are nowhere close to realistic, so an early type Mig29A wouldn't really make much sense anyway. I mean if you can't use it with fully functional GCI (including proper GCI tactics, not just a BRA callout) then why use it at all?

[Dragon1-1]

Wrong. They cant do a full fidelity one. They HAVE to make AI variants (as my track above showed) and give us simplified FC3 ones.

They have already stated they're not making any more FC3 aircraft. If they make anything, it'll be full fidelity.

Same if those systems were modern and S300PMU at least.

Not with DCS AI. We need better SAM modeling to prevent a single F-18 from being enough to wipe out a fully realized SAM site. Even with baseline S-300 should be able to deal with a single Hornet attacking it with JSOWs.

 

Adding more high-tech planes isn't the solution to fundamental shortcomings of the simulation. Improving the AI is what ED should spend their time on.

[Max1mus]

an early type Mig29A wouldn't really make much sense anyway. I mean if you can't use it with fully functional GCI (including proper GCI tactics, not just a BRA callout) then why use it at all?

 

This.

[FoxAlfa]

Since developing it would allow ED to work on GCI and go more into details on systems done by soviet way of thinking giving them base for outer projects.

 

You guys keep saying you want five story building, but without building the first floor.... but there are more than enough of us that just want shelter!

[bies]

Since developing it would allow ED to work on GCI and go more into details on systems done by soviet way of thinking giving them base for outer projects.

 

You guys keep saying you want five story building, but without building the first floor.... but there are more than enough of us that just want shelter!

 

Yes and it would benefit all soviet planes, not only MiG-29 but also MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23. Western planes also use GCI support, US just relegated the control to air AWACS earlier.