announced DCS MiG-29A

[BBCRF]

2 hours ago, TotenDead said:

В теории все возможно, конечно, но какова переделка конструкции у 35 относительно 29К - не ясно.

Планер единый что У М2,К,35. Просто 35-й из всего семейства более технологичней

[Seaeagle]

12 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Были заявления о возможности создать на базе МиГ-35 корабельный самолет

 

https://ria.ru/20170214/1487941760.html

 

О модернизации 29К в 35 пока ничего не слышно

Thanks for the link. I hadn't heard about that.

 

Anyway, what I meant was that a "MiG-35 updated" version of the MiG-29K wouldn't necessarily need to adopt the MiG-35 system complex in its entirety. The two primary tasks of the MiG-29K is to control the airspace over a naval taskforce and conduct anti-ship strike missions, for which you need a good radar - the MiG-29K/KUB's current Zhuk-ME is a very capable set for both types of missions, but the AESA part of a -35 style upgrade would boost this capability considerably in terms of increased range and versatility.

 

A missile launch and approach warning system, on the other hand, is something you typically fit to tactical aircraft with which you expect to conduct low level attack missions over terrain with lots of potential for concealed SAM threats like MANPADS - i.e. short range IR homing missiles that are hard to spot, gives you a short time to react and for which you don't have any other means of detection.

 

You could argue that a MiG-29K should be able to undertake such missions as well, but the ship on which its currently based(Admiral Kuznetsov) wasn't designed for this sort of thing and has a limited capability for supporting it. Besides, Russia has lots of other assets for such missions.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, TotenDead said:

В теории все возможно, конечно, но какова переделка конструкции у 35 относительно 29К - не ясно. Судя по всему нужно не только впихивать электронику, но и, к примеру, менять законцовки крыла, поскольку у 35 там стоит обнаружитель лазерного облучения, который ВРОДЕ как не лезет в законцовки 29К. 

I am not saying that there couldn't be challenges in backfitting the MLAWS of the MiG-35 to the MiG-29K, just that it should be doable considering that its the same basic airframe. But IMHO the question is rather whether such a system would be considered necessary for the MiG-29K - and if it is, then there are other ways of applying it. E.g. our F-16s use weapon's pylons with integrated missile warning sensors(+ ECM or CM dispenser).

 

 

12 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Тут можно еще вспомнить, что американцы на свои 18Е/F вместо нормальной ОЛС решили поставить позорище в подвесном топливном баке. Аналогично поступили с F-16, которому планируют выделить ИК обнаружитель ракет в подвесном контейнере. Это говорит о том, что, видимо, датчики по-нормальному все же расположить в истребителе не всегда возможно.

Well I don't know, but I think this has as more to do with philosophy than difficulty - with pod mounted equipment, you only need to carry it if a paricular mission requires it rather than drag it along internally at all times. I can also imagine it makes maintaining it easier.

12 hours ago, BBCRF said:

Планер единый что У М2,К,35. Просто 35-й из всего семейства более технологичней

Exactly.

[BBCRF]

16 hours ago, TotenDead said:

но и, к примеру, менять законцовки крыла

законцовки поменять 1 час времени

[TotenDead]

9 часов назад, Seaeagle сказал:

Thanks for the link. I hadn't heard about that.

 

Anyway, what I meant was that a "MiG-35 updated" version of the MiG-29K wouldn't necessarily need to adopt the MiG-35 system complex in its entirety. The two primary tasks of the MiG-29K is to control the airspace over a naval taskforce and conduct anti-ship strike missions, for which you need a good radar - the MiG-29K/KUB's current Zhuk-ME is a very capable set for both types of missions, but the AESA part of a -35 style upgrade would boost this capability considerably in terms of increased range and versatility.

 

Well, AESA is not nescessarily better than planar array in terms of range. However speed of scan, ECM resistance and other stuff is, true.

 

9 часов назад, Seaeagle сказал:

A missile launch and approach warning system, on the other hand, is something you typically fit to tactical aircraft with which you expect to conduct low level attack missions over terrain with lots of potential for concealed SAM threats like MANPADS - i.e. short range IR homing missiles that are hard to spot, gives you a short time to react and for which you don't have any other means of detection.

 

You could argue that a MiG-29K should be able to undertake such missions as well, but the ship on which its currently based(Admiral Kuznetsov) wasn't designed for this sort of thing and has a limited capability for supporting it. Besides, Russia has lots of other assets for such missions.

 

It's used to form 360 degree IR or video view, detect and track a2a missiles and aircraft i'd say that it's important for every fighter, not only tactical ones

9 часов назад, Seaeagle сказал:

 

I am not saying that there couldn't be challenges in backfitting the MLAWS of the MiG-35 to the MiG-29K, just that it should be doable considering that its the same basic airframe. But IMHO the question is rather whether such a system would be considered necessary for the MiG-29K - and if it is, then there are other ways of applying it. E.g. our F-16s use weapon's pylons with integrated missile warning sensors(+ ECM or CM dispenser).

 

Pylons worsen the flight characteristics, occupy one of the pylons and, what's more important, don't provide 360 degree view. So, for a system that should always be on a fighter pylon based missile warning sensors are a worse solution

 

9 часов назад, Seaeagle сказал:

 

Well I don't know, but I think this has as more to do with philosophy than difficulty - with pod mounted equipment, you only need to carry it if a paricular mission requires it rather than drag it along internally at all times. I can also imagine it makes maintaining it easier.

Exactly.

 

As far as i know, one of the purposes of the optical targeting system, mounted into the 18E/F fuel tanks is to detect aircraft, fighters for example.  The thing is... You'd prefer to drop your tanks when entering air to air fight, and if you drop this one you'll loose a sophisticated and costly system

7 часов назад, BBCRF сказал:

законцовки поменять 1 час времени

а воткнуть в планер проводку для ОЛО, которые там располагаются, научить самолет выводить информацию летчику?

[BBCRF]

2 hours ago, TotenDead said:

а воткнуть в планер проводку для ОЛО, которые там располагаются, научить самолет выводить информацию летчику?

Тут чуть сложнее,но можно сделать в условиях части

[Seaeagle]

14 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Well, AESA is not nescessarily better than planar array in terms of range.

 

Not necessarily, but they usually are. Partly because the electronic beam steering means that the antenna can be mounted in a fixed positon and doesn't need room around it to move - thus the entire diameter of the radome can be exploited for a larger antenna area.

 

Anyway, IIRC the comparative figures for the detection of a "figher sized target" is stated by Niir to be ~ 120 km for the Zhuk-M, while for the Zhuk-AME its some 160-180 km ......so a pretty big range advantage for the AESA.

 

Quote

It's used to form 360 degree IR or video view, detect and track a2a missiles and aircraft i'd say that it's important for every fighter, not only tactical ones.

 

Of course it provides benefits for a2a as well, but the primary reason for installing them is nevertheless short range IR SAM threats. The main source of detection is heat generated by the missile plume, which is something you will only be able to detect for a missile launched at relatively short range - like a Manpad or short range AAM.

 

Quote

Pylons worsen the flight characteristics, occupy one of the pylons..

 

No the type I was refering to has missile approach sensors, ECM or CM dispensers installed inside a weapon pylon - not hanging from  it.  So they don't worsen the flight characteristic nor do they occupy a pylon - its still available for weapons.

 

Quote

..and, what's more important, don't provide 360 degree view.

Yes they do. There are two types of pylons - one(PIDS+) with 3 missile approach sensors and a built-in CM dispenser(well two blocks actually) and another(ECIPS+) with 3 missile approach sensors and built-in ECM - carried on either side of the aircraft and thus providing 360 degree view and protection. 

 

See attached image.

 

Quote

So, for a system that should always be on a fighter pylon based missile warning sensors are a worse solution.

I disagree.

 

Quote

As far as i know, one of the purposes of the optical targeting system, mounted into the 18E/F fuel tanks is to detect aircraft, fighters for example.  The thing is... You'd prefer to drop your tanks when entering air to air fight, and if you drop this one you'll loose a sophisticated and costly system.

 

I don't know that system or the rationale behind it - I was refering to pod mounted vs. internally installed mission equipment in general.

 

PIDS+ on F-16AM:

Edited March 19, 2021 by Seaeagle

[TotenDead]

11 минут назад, Seaeagle сказал:

 

Not necessarily, but they usually are. Partly because the electronic beam steering means that the antenna can be mounted in a fixed positon and doesn't need room around it to move - thus the entire diameter of the radome can be exploited for a larger antenna area.

 

Anyway, IIRC the comparative figures for the detection of a "figher sized target" is stated by Niir to be ~ 120 km for the Zhuk-M, while for the Zhuk-AME its some 160-180 km ......so a pretty big range advantage for the AESA.

 

 

Welp, those are two different generations of this radar family

 

 

11 минут назад, Seaeagle сказал:

No the type I was refering to has missile approach sensors, ECM or CM dispensers installed inside a weapon pylon - not hanging from  it.  So they don't worsen the flight characteristic nor do they occupy a pylon - its still available for weapons.

 

Yes they do. There are two types of pylons - one(PIDS+) with 3 missile approach sensors and a built-in CM dispenser(well two blocks actually) and another(ECIPS+) with 3 missile approach sensors and built-in ECM - carried on either side of the aircraft and thus providing 360 degree view and protection. 

 

See attached image.

 

Oh, okay, i see. That changes everything.

 

11 минут назад, Seaeagle сказал:

 

I don't know that system or the rationale behind it - I was refering to pod mounted vs. internally installed mission equipment in general.

Скрытый текст

22 минуты назад, Seaeagle сказал:

 

 

PIDS+ on F-16AM:

 

 

That's a two seater

[BBCRF]

[TeufelHunden]

any updates on this ?

[Harlikwin]

On 2/19/2021 at 12:07 AM, Jonne said:

It is so forgotten, that there is not even a single AI aircraft matching its era in DCS 

 

 

Not really, it fought F86's in an indo-pak war. I mean its not 100% balanced but... 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Kazansky222]

On 10/24/2020 at 11:44 AM, BIGNEWY said:

Hi

 

We have mentioned in interviews that a MiG-29 is something that we want to do, it is a long way off and permissions have to be sort, when we have more details we will share more news.

 

thank you.

So I read that the Mig-29 was design for but not with the TKS-1 DL from the flanker

 

Like thats why the Mig-29 has all the stuff in the cockpit for it, it was meant to be an emergency wartime upgrade. Or so I've read. So with that in mind do you think we could see some kind of option to have that emergency wartime upgrade installed?

[TotenDead]

22.04.2021 в 01:56, Kazansky222 сказал:

So I read that the Mig-29 was design for but not with the TKS-1 DL from the flanker

 

Like thats why the Mig-29 has all the stuff in the cockpit for it, it was meant to be an emergency wartime upgrade. Or so I've read. So with that in mind do you think we could see some kind of option to have that emergency wartime upgrade installed?

That wasnt an emergency wartyme upgrade. Just a planned one which wasn't installed before the ussr collapse after which the country had no money for any upgrades

[Zeagle]

Flying DCS is different for different people. The gamers want to spam fox 3's, land repeat (SATAL?) and never die with clean windshields and hot starts in a balanced environment to make it "fair"( everybody gets a trophy).

There are others though who actually appreciate the aircraft ,the experience of flying with friends in a realistic environment, and the challenge of completing a difficult mission. I fall into the latter group. 

 

Personally I would like to see ANY MiG-29 they can do. There are some MiG-29's in civilian hands. It shouldn't be that hard to get permissions to model things. Weapons systems are always modelled from conjecture anyway. There is a MiG-29UB in the US that could be of help. 

 

Paul Allen MiG-29UB

[Skysurfer]

30 minutes ago, Zeagle said:

Flying DCS is different for different people. The gamers want to spam fox 3's, land repeat (SATAL?) and never die with clean windshields and hot starts in a balanced environment to make it "fair"( everybody gets a trophy).

There are others though who actually appreciate the aircraft ,the experience of flying with friends in a realistic environment, and the challenge of completing a difficult mission. I fall into the latter group. 

 

Personally I would like to see ANY MiG-29 they can do. There are some MiG-29's in civilian hands. It shouldn't be that hard to get permissions to model things. Weapons systems are always modelled from conjecture anyway. There is a MiG-29UB in the US that could be of help. 

 

Paul Allen MiG-29UB

 

Doesn't even have to be civilian. There are plenty NATO 29A's still in service, even the 9.13 is flown for example by the UAF. There's maintenance and aerodynamics manuals + the GAF evaluation documents, which is more than enough to build a decent module along with some SME feedback. I'd say the original 9.12 (29A) is probably the most wide-spread version and the best choice, even though the 9.13 (29S) is slightly more capable, despite the R-77 (RVV-AE) never actually entering service or being used on said airframe. Regardless, it would be an incredible addition to DCS redfor and also open some people's eyes on what it takes to operate in and navigate in said airplane. 

[draconus]

You're conveniently forget about manufacturer's license. Yeah, the one from Russia.

[XPACT]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

You're conveniently forget about manufacturer's license. Yeah, the one from Russia.

 

If it doesn't break any domestic laws for that version of the aircraft I don't see any reason why Mikoyan wouldn't give permission/license. They would also get cut from module sales I guess?

[TobiasA]

vor 20 Stunden schrieb Zeagle:

Flying DCS is different for different people. The gamers want to spam fox 3's, land repeat (SATAL?) and never die with clean windshields and hot starts in a balanced environment to make it "fair"( everybody gets a trophy).

There are others though who actually appreciate the aircraft ,the experience of flying with friends in a realistic environment, and the challenge of completing a difficult mission. I fall into the latter group. 

 

Personally I would like to see ANY MiG-29 they can do. There are some MiG-29's in civilian hands. It shouldn't be that hard to get permissions to model things. Weapons systems are always modelled from conjecture anyway. There is a MiG-29UB in the US that could be of help. 

 

Paul Allen MiG-29UB

Germany flew the MiG 29 which we sold to Poland for a Euro each. 

It has been flying in the NATO. 

Earlier variants are most likely no problem at all. 

[Schmidtfire]

Regarding the R-77. Did all MiG-29S 9.13 have that capability?

MiG-29S 9.13 has a Phazotron N019M radar. But some sources claims the R-77 capability came later with N019M1 upgrade.
 

[XPACT]

26 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

Regarding the R-77. Did all MiG-29S 9.13 have that capability?

MiG-29S 9.13 has a Phazotron N019M radar. But some sources claims the R-77 capability came later with N019M1 upgrade.

 

As far as R-77 and radar upgrade I think that it only expanded maximum number of targets that you can engage at once with R-77 from 2 to 4, I might be wrong on that

[TotenDead]

32 минуты назад, Schmidtfire сказал:

Regarding the R-77. Did all MiG-29S 9.13 have that capability?

MiG-29S 9.13 has a Phazotron N019M radar. But some sources claims the R-77 capability came later with N019M1 upgrade.
 

All 29S have that capability. Btw, Mig-29S is 9.13S, not 9.13

[Schmidtfire]

Ok. So there are no MiG-29 "Fatbacks" without R-77 capability? 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Schmidtfire

[OpticFlow]

1 hour ago, Schmidtfire said:

Ok. So there are no MiG-29 "Fatbacks" without R-77 capability? 

 

 

More than 400 "fatback" Izd. 9-13 were delivered that didn't have R-77 capability.

Only 16 Izd. 9-13S with R-77 capability were delivered.

[Kazansky222]

23 hours ago, draconus said:

You're conveniently forget about manufacturer's license. Yeah, the one from Russia.

I don't think they ever got a license for the F-16, which is why its called the "viper" and not the "Falcon"

[Seaeagle]

10 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

Regarding the R-77. Did all MiG-29S 9.13 have that capability?

MiG-29S 9.13 has a Phazotron N019M radar. But some sources claims the R-77 capability came later with N019M1 upgrade.
 

What TotenDead said.

 

MiG-29 (9.12) Fulcrum A

MiG-29 (9.13) Fulcrum C

MiG-29S (9.13S) Fulcrum C

 

Compared with the 9.12, the 9.13 got:

- built-in ECM

- increased internal fuel capacity(larger tank no. 1)

- modified fuel system with ability to carry two wing drop tanks(+ new fuel gauge and fuel selector panel)

and other minor changes and improvements, but generally retained the WCS and radar of the 9.12.

 

The 9.13S is the same plane, but with a radar upgrade(N019M) that made it compatible with the R-77..... that was the whole point to it.

 

[Apok]

What they could have gone for is MiG-29SD. Its just A variant with radio/navigation and MFD addon. Slovak and Serbian AF have them. Tho not prolific atleast easier to get info and closer in some regards to modern variants. Nothing more modern has a chance of seeing light in DCS anyway.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Apok