announced DCS MiG-29A

[Northstar98]

9 minutes ago, okopanja said:

FC3 will still be present in DCS even if MAC get released.

Yeah, I'm not contesting that, but should an F-16A or any new aircraft be developed for DCS World, it should be high-fidelity.

[Dragon1-1]

On 2/24/2023 at 11:01 AM, Jojothebox said:

 to my knowledge the reason we haven’t gotten one yet is because of lack of working available airframes and system data to use as reference.

Not really. AFAIK, the problem is essentially securing the license to make it. It's not like the data are secret in most countries, but Mikoyan still holds the IP for the jet, and Russian government gets a say who they can license it to. Western companies are pretty cool with regards to putting their IP into flight sims (except Dassault, which is almost as much of a pain to work with as the Russians), but this is not the case with Russian companies.

ED has a good business relationship with Kamov, and presumably they worked out a deal with Mil, as well, possibly based on a Belsimtek-era relationship. I don't know what's stopping them from doing the same with Mikoyan and Sukhoi, but it seems this is the main issue, not classified data. That's why they're saying that a 3rd party might take them on - if ED wasn't able to get a license, that doesn't mean someone else will not, either by striking a deal of their own, or being from a country where Mikoyan can't enforce its IP claims.

[draconus]

11 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That's why they're saying that a 3rd party might take them on - if ED wasn't able to get a license, that doesn't mean someone else will not, either by striking a deal of their own, or being from a country where Mikoyan can't enforce its IP claims

Wags debunked this myth in a recent interview. DCS 3rd parties also has to abide the same laws.

[WinterH]

22 minutes ago, draconus said:

Wags debunked this myth in a recent interview. DCS 3rd parties also has to abide the same laws.

Well except that "myth" has been what ED and Wags always used to say explicitly "we are open to 3rd parties doing it" etc.

The reason ED themselves don't want to do it is many of the devs are Russian nationals or straight up living in Russia, and military secrets laws over there seem to be pretty open to interpretation if one wants to just arbitrarily decide something is not kosher and put someone in prison etc. That has been the "party line" so far at least af as I know/can recall.

Thus, even if it is VERY possible to find working airframes and documents, unless they are explicitly declassified over there, it can be risk for ED personnel. And whether due to gigantic bureucratic inertia or paranoia (possibly a combination of both) even some of the stuff from like mid-Cold War are still not legally made public in Russia afaik.

As for the full fidelity MiG-29A, I personally remain somewhat uninterested in it, but I can see how it does make a lot of sense to be in DCS. It has been in the arsenals of many countries from Cold War to more or less today, including some really available map-relevant ones like Iran, Syria, and if we stretch things a bit Iraq. Of course also obvious others like Soviet Union, and Russia. It fits well into two periods that fit DCS the best for various reasons: late Cold War and 90s.

MiG-29K, aside from being VERY unlikely to happen, would also only fit Indian and Russian navies, and being an 2010s aircraft, from two very tight-lipped nations, I can't quite fathom the argument how is it either the best choice or the most well fitting to be developed for DCS.

Would it be cool, would I like it? Yes, and yes. Do I think it is likely, and a better fit than older (even if, subjectively, less interesting) MiG-29A? No, and no.

If "India has it, so info-permissions etc can be obtained, and it is a great fit" arguments held any water, we could have been enjoying a Su-30MKI too, but alas I don't see that happening anytime soon. Though, would be quite pleasantly surprised if it did!

Honestly however, I really hope we'll get more 70s-up to mid-ish 80s aircraft, including from ED themselves. Please give us Su-17M4, MiG-27K, Su-15, MiG-25 of some description, Mirage IIIs and Vs, Jaguars, Etendards/Super Etendards, late Cold War AH-1 Cobras etc. They are a lot more likely to happen, and at the same time a lot more likely to have both historically or "balance" wise more matching opponent sets than more modern times, and also fit pretty well with seemingly very popular Cold War setting in DCS.

Despite not being particularly enthusiastic about more modern stuff personally, I'd be VERY interested in a mdoern Flanker, Ka-52, Mi-28N etc, even if just because they would be interesting from the point of view of "doing the same things differently" etc. But I also see that they aren't that likely to happen, and older birds actually fit into a lot of possibilities in DCS much better, other than the usual "free-for-all f***fest all eras PvP server" meme.

[Silver_Dragon]

27 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Well except that "myth" has been what ED and Wags always used to say explicitly "we are open to 3rd parties doing it" etc.

The reason ED themselves don't want to do it is many of the devs are Russian nationals or straight up living in Russia, and military secrets laws over there seem to be pretty open to interpretation if one wants to just arbitrarily decide something is not kosher and put someone in prison etc. That has been the "party line" so far at least af as I know/can recall.

Thus, even if it is VERY possible to find working airframes and documents, unless they are explicitly declassified over there, it can be risk for ED personnel. And whether due to gigantic bureucratic inertia or paranoia (possibly a combination of both) even some of the stuff from like mid-Cold War are still not legally made public in Russia afaik.

Yeah.... "Wags myth"...
 

Quote

- Over problems with a module release about "sensible" info. Before release a module, ED contact with pymes to review them, if someone has not "public" or "sensible", ED remove them. On the AH-64, a number of items was no added to the module by the actual situation. The same situation with the comunity with rise "sensible" documents on the forum, has a "Not Go". Nothing as a Category B, C, official eyes only, etc, example some Grece F-16C docs on internet.
- Mig-29 version will be available, but build a Su-27 / J-11 has problems with data / aprovals / legaly available info.

 

[Seaeagle]

On 11/24/2023 at 8:39 PM, WinterH said:

Well except that "myth" has been what ED and Wags always used to say explicitly "we are open to 3rd parties doing it" etc.

I don't think they did - just that the community interpreted it that way.

 

 

[WinterH]

48 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

I don't think they did - just that the community interpreted it that way.

Can't find the individual videos/comments/posts etc now, but I'm pretty sure that ED staff, afair including Wags did say that a few times.

[Seaeagle]

6 hours ago, WinterH said:

Can't find the individual videos/comments/posts etc now, but I'm pretty sure that ED staff, afair including Wags did say that a few times.

I suspect what they meant was that they weren't able to get an agreement with MIG and don't want to risk getting into trouble without it, but if someone else with the right connections manages to get a license, then ED would be ok with them developing  a MiG-29 module for DCS.

I am pretty sure they never suggested  this as a possibility because such a third party would be out of reach of Russian legislation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Seaeagle

[draconus]

On 11/24/2023 at 8:39 PM, WinterH said:

Well except that "myth" has been what ED and Wags always used to say explicitly "we are open to 3rd parties doing it" etc.

Yes, but still abiding the law and IP licenses. How else would it work?

Some 3rd party is free to do their game with most modern MiG or Su without asking russians. But as soon as it gets to DCS it has ED name all over it and that wouldn't work out good.

[Gierasimov]

Last year I was waiting for the Fulcrum to be featured at the end of the 2023 and beyond video, instead some strange looking helo took it's place. 

In this year's video it will finally be revealed, won't it ? oh dear ... I am in for a disappointment ... again.

 

[jackill]

1 hour ago, Gierasimov said:

Last year I was waiting for the Fulcrum to be featured at the end of the 2023 and beyond video, instead some strange looking helo took it's place. 

In this year's video it will finally be revealed, won't it ? oh dear ... I am in for a disappointment ... again.

Fear no more  See end of this year's vid.

[Exorcet]

I wonder if it will come with some form of GCI enhancements.

[Lyrode]

Good. 2024 and beyond... I guess for 2024

 

[GGTharos]

On 11/21/2023 at 11:06 PM, PLAAF said:

I was thinking. MiG-29A, G, and S all have exactly the same cockpit, right? So if you have decided to make a MiG-29A module, then why not make all 3 versions of them? According to the video posted by Raven earlier, the info you have is MiG-29G from Germany anyway.

 

MiG-29A (9.12, 9.12A) is not the same as a MiG-29 9.13 or MiG-29S (9.13S).   While I don't know the difference between 9.12/9.12A, the 9.13 is physically different IIRC, and the 9.13S has a different radar and interface for it, for which there's no real documentation IIRC.   The MiG-29G maybe is doable since it's a 9.12 with documented additions, IIRC.

[Silver_Dragon]

17 hours ago, GGTharos said:

MiG-29A (9.12, 9.12A) is not the same as a MiG-29 9.13 or MiG-29S (9.13S).   While I don't know the difference between 9.12/9.12A, the 9.13 is physically different IIRC, and the 9.13S has a different radar and interface for it, for which there's no real documentation IIRC.   The MiG-29G maybe is doable since it's a 9.12 with documented additions, IIRC.

By my info:
MiG-29 [Fulcrum A] Fighter
Man Rtng: 5.0/2.5 Damage Value: 31
Size/Signature: Small/Small Bombsight: Ballistic

Sensors: N-019 Rubin radar, KOLS-29 (2nd Gen IRST, laser rf.) linked to HMS, 1st Gen RWR

Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 460 580 700
Med: 460 665 980
High: 460 750 1260
VHigh: -- -- 1260

Ceiling: 17000 meters Engine Type: TF
Cruise Range: 590 nmi Int Fuel: 3485 kg
Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add.
1150 L drop tank 930 kg 225 nmi
1520 L supersonic tank 1230 kg 300 nmi

Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 4000 kg
Off Guns: 1 GSh-30-1 30mm (2.5)
• In all loadouts optional 1520 L tank (max speed 860 knots)
• 2 R-27R, 2 R-73 (QRA)
• 2 R-27R, 4 R-73
• 2 R-27R/T or 2 R-27ER/ET, 4 R-73 (MiG-29S)
• 4 R-77, 2 R-73 (N-019M radar)
• 4 KMGU
• 2 R-73 and either:
• 4 FAB-250 or 4 FAB-500
• 4 B-8M1 or 4 S-24
• Kh-29T, 2 R-77, 2 R-73 (MiG-29SM, MiG-29SMT)
• 2 KAB-500Kr or 2 Kh-31A/P, 2 R-77, 2 R-73 (MiG-29SMT)

Remarks: In Svc: Nov 83 - 2014
Model 9-12. Cannot fire cannon if 1520 L drop tank is carried as the tank blocks the shell discharge route. Not nuclear capable. MiG-29A and MiG-29B are internal Russian Air Force designations and not used by MiG company. Aircraft with N-019M, N-019ME and N-019MPE can engage 2 targets with R-77.
• Early production: First 70 not fitted with 2nd Gen D (some fitted in 1992). Can use UB-32-57 rocket pods vice B-8M1.
• MiG-29A: Export from 1988. Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania.
• MiG-29B: Third World export from 1987 with N-019EB radar, GCI data link removed. Initially used R-60M, later R-73. Bangladesh, Eritrea, India, Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, North Korea, Syria, Yugoslavia.
• MiG-29S [Fulcrum A]: Model 9-12S. As 9-12D with N-019M radar, 4500 kg payload. Conversions from mid 1990s.
• MiG-29SD: Model 9-12S. Malaysia as MiG-29N with inflight refueling probe.
• MiG-29SM: Syrian upgrade with N-019ME radar, R-77 and Kh-29T. In service 2009.
• MiG-29SMT: Model 9.18 for Yemen with N-019MPE radar.
• 5 Nov 83: Declared operational. Low serviceability - treat as Second Rate maintenance. Restricted agility - Man Rating: 4.5/2.0.
• Jul 84: Improved agility - full Man Ratings.
• Fall 84: Fitted with 2nd Gen D. All export have decoys.
• Jan 86: Deployed to East Germany - first unit 33rd Fighter Regiment (Wittstock). Two a/c per regiment QRA Alert 5. One squadron per regiment Alert 120 to launch nuclear attacks (Fulcrum C).
• 11 Jun 87: Officially accepted into service. Standard serviceability, treat as First Rate.
• 10 Oct 89: Two regiments transferred to Black Sea Navy - 86th Guards MIAP at Markuleshty and 161st MIAP at Limanskoye. Both disbanded 1992.
• 1990: Model 9-12D upgrade with 1150 L drop tanks and ability to fire cannon with 1520 L drop tank carried. Around 40% converted by 1992.

Edited January 6 by Silver_Dragon

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

I wonder if it will come with some form of GCI enhancements.

Lazur-M. It would be call to actually add second seat for GCI operator. The guidance was done thourh HUD indication and HSI/ADI

[okopanja]

30 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

MiG-29A (9.12, 9.12A) is not the same as a MiG-29 9.13 or MiG-29S (9.13S).   While I don't know the difference between 9.12/9.12A, the 9.13 is physically different IIRC, and the 9.13S has a different radar and interface for it, for which there's no real documentation IIRC.   The MiG-29G maybe is doable since it's a 9.12 with documented additions, IIRC.

Both 9-12 and 9-13 are known to have been upgraded to the level of Mig-29SM, thus making them more capable in terms of air to air and ground to ground.

[GGTharos]

We're not getting an SM though.

[okopanja]

9 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

We're not getting an SM though.

No, we do not, but still we do not know exactly which radar and avionics

[Dragon1-1]

Who cares about the SM? I want the lean, mean 9.12 with the original small hump. Though I wouldn't mind if they modeled a variant with Gardenia ECM, it's fairly well documented. 

Honestly, I'm happy with just about any model, as long as it's the A. We need more aircraft from that era, less AMRAAM slinging and more Fox 1 duels, please.  

[Ironhand]

19 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

…Honestly, I'm happy with just about any model, as long as it's the A…

 

[Hammer1-1]

well that video answered my question...THANK GOD.

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, Lyrode said:

Good. 2024 and beyond... I guess for 2024

 

I mean, they could have low key been working on it the past few years which means it might be soon, but I'd expect more like 2025/2026 if not.

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

MiGs uh.. find a way.

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

By my info:
MiG-29 [Fulcrum A] Fighter
Man Rtng: 5.0/2.5 Damage Value: 31
Size/Signature: Small/Small Bombsight: Ballistic

Sensors: N-019 Rubin radar, KOLS-29 (2nd Gen IRST, laser rf.) linked to HMS, 1st Gen RWR
 

 

Just to pick a nit, you can hardly consider the KOLS a 2nd gen IRST. It was a  14 element line scanned PbSe sensor... Which means it had severe limitations with all aspect engagement of targets. For what it was supposed to do (lock/cue missiles in a dogfight) this is fine. But calling it a "2nd gen" IRST is a serious stretch.