announced DCS MiG-29A

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, lmp said:

The Western jets also have a huge SA advantage thanks to their RWRs,

would prefer the SPO-15, and more if it would be modeled realistic manner in DCS. As well you work with GCI that guards your overall picture.

 

8 hours ago, lmp said:

TWS radars

 

Doesn't help much really without corresponding missile.

I like the M2000 radar display symbols to tell radar contacts relative altitude to your bars, but I always take Su-27S HUD display as it allows me to easily get bearings and situation well.

 

8 hours ago, lmp said:

datalinks

 

Sadly even the F-15C didn't have datalink for very long time. F-16 was as well blind to datalinks.

 

Where Su-27S had not just datalink between flight members, it as well had datalink from GCI, nearby SAM systems and all. You easily got visuals that who was targeting what targets and what were targets parameters. Much better way than western ones. Although for that you used a display instead HUD. And datalinks working with just IRST as well helped a lot in different tactics.

So even when in first radar R-27R was only guided in STT mode and not in TWS like in newer radar (two R-27R guided at two different targets) the datalink maintained situational awareness through engagement, something that wear didn't get.

 

8 hours ago, lmp said:

superior human machine interface...

 

I take gladly Soviet/Russian style over west. Clearly easier and simpler to use in heat of high stress and designed to ease group operations. 

 

One day we hopefully get Su-27 simulated and hopefully something else than S, because the model got huge upgrades very quickly since original serial variant.

It would bring wester people respect little more the innovations and designs when not limited to FC3 style from 20 years back.

 

And we need more as well older 80-90's western fighters variants.

 

[Northstar98]

On 12/31/2020 at 9:30 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Actually, with the Tomcat and Harrier we're pretty well set for a 90s scenario.

 

I personally would hardly call 2 aircraft "pretty well set". The later F-14A/Bs fit absolutely fine, as does the AJS-37. The AV-8B N/A is 1999+ and our one is 2010+, like with the other modern aircraft you just have to do your best to approximate something older where possible - but this is still a workaround.

 

Quote

Caucasus having no BLUFOR airbases is not a problem, because it has a great big chunk of the Black Sea. Naval aviation, anyone? The US Marines don't need no airbases.  

 

Meh, if you were going for likely Cold War gone hot scenarios, the Caucasus is just an odd place IMO - before the '89 revolutions 3/4 of the bordering landmasses were Warsaw pact forces, with only Turkey being BLUFOR (with no detail besides an elevation mesh). Not only that but there isn't a single BLUFOR naval asset of the appropriate period (you can sorta make the Nimitz-Roosevelt CVNs fit, though they have RIM-116, same for the Tarawa; the Oliver Hazard Perry represents a late 90s/early 2000s ship (Phalanx Block 1B installed, and worse, doesn't have its STIR - which is required for terminal guidance of the Standard missiles it fires).

 

A far better naval map for the Cold War would be a GIUK gap map, where you can pit 2 forces fighting over Iceland/North Atlantic/Norwegian Sea - similar to Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising and SF2:NA.

 

And a far better Cold War map overall (if you could do it of appropriate size and get all the areas in) is an 80s (preferably mid 80s) Germany map. Squeezing as much as possible, but focusing on the northern 3/4 (if possible).

 

If you extend it north to just over the border with Denmark, you've got plenty of water on either side of Schleswig-Holstein for some naval (mostly amphibious) operations, suitable for both sides. Plenty of historical REDFOR and BLUFOR airbases (including a decent number for aircraft we already have, and have the liveries for, such as Spangdahlem for the A-10C and F-16C, Damgarten for the MiG-29S, Preschen for the MiG-21bis).

 

If the Cold War were to go hot, this would probably be the place - the map is basically perfect in my opinion; it fits the vast majority of current assets (especially REDFOR) in DCS, basically every mission type is available, and a BLUFOR vs REDFOR scenario is much more plausible and closer to reality.

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Northstar98

[lmp]

7 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

would prefer the SPO-15, and more if it would be modeled realistic manner in DCS. As well you work with GCI that guards your overall picture.

 

 

Doesn't help much really without corresponding missile.

I like the M2000 radar display symbols to tell radar contacts relative altitude to your bars, but I always take Su-27S HUD display as it allows me to easily get bearings and situation well.

 

 

Sadly even the F-15C didn't have datalink for very long time. F-16 was as well blind to datalinks.

 

Where Su-27S had not just datalink between flight members, it as well had datalink from GCI, nearby SAM systems and all. You easily got visuals that who was targeting what targets and what were targets parameters. Much better way than western ones. Although for that you used a display instead HUD. And datalinks working with just IRST as well helped a lot in different tactics.

So even when in first radar R-27R was only guided in STT mode and not in TWS like in newer radar (two R-27R guided at two different targets) the datalink maintained situational awareness through engagement, something that wear didn't get.

 

 

I take gladly Soviet/Russian style over west. Clearly easier and simpler to use in heat of high stress and designed to ease group operations. 

 

One day we hopefully get Su-27 simulated and hopefully something else than S, because the model got huge upgrades very quickly since original serial variant.

It would bring wester people respect little more the innovations and designs when not limited to FC3 style from 20 years back.

 

And we need more as well older 80-90's western fighters variants.

 

 

The SPO-15 fails when there's a lot of fighters and SAMs around. I recently finished the Hornet mini campaign and routinely I was in a situation where I had a few friendly F-14s spiking me from behind, a pair of MiG-29s in the front, maybe another pair of MiG-25s at 11 o'clock and two to three Kubs or Osas and a few EW radars. And I could figure that out just by glancing at the RWR or HUD. The SPO-15 wouldn't give me a quarter of this knowledge.

 

TWS and also RAID modes help in sorting targets. I can easily see which bandits are heading for me and which are heading for the other CAP flight 10 miles to the left. Which enemies are notching, which are still hot and thus a bigger threat. Again, this is not something that'll be tremendously visible in a 1v1 or 2v2, but once there's a lot going on, you'll be glad you have it (or you'll miss it if you don't). 

 

And as far as HMI goes, I really appreciate the options that the Hornet, and to a lesser degree the other Western jets in the game give us. I can put RWR spikes on the HUD, on the radar screen and the SA page. I can set the best radar scale, number of bars, azimuth range (in the real MiG-29 9.12 you have a lot less control over all those things). I have a lot more information, sometimes maybe even too much, and a lot more options how to present it.

 

I do like having my b scope on the HUD in the Russian jets, but for a lot of other reasons I consider the Western HMI significantly better.

 

You can get around a lot of these limitations with the help of an intercept controller, but realistically, few of us will fly with one often, or at all.

[Northstar98]

On 1/1/2021 at 12:51 PM, Fri13 said:

One day we hopefully get Su-27 simulated and hopefully something else than S, because the model got huge upgrades very quickly since original serial variant.

 

I mean, there's no harm in hoping, but in all likelihood it probably isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future. Didn't Chizh say in an interview that basically anything Sukhoi is off the table?

 

And given that this is the case...

 

Quote

And we need more as well older 80-90's western fighters variants.

 

Absolutely! Personally, they just make more sense given the current state of affairs. Some variants shouldn't even be that different than our current ones.

 

Like a late 80s/early 90s F-16CG Block 40 (MSIP III/pre CCIP) - which for the overwhelming most part would be a straight up copy and paste of our current CM Block 50:

 

• Essentially identical external model (only real difference would be the different HUD and no JHMCS sensor when looking through the canopy).
• Identical FDM (basically), the only real difference is the slightly less thrust of the F110-GE-100 compared to the F110-GE-129 that we have currently.
• Identical avionics (at least for the most part), including the APG-68(V)5 RADAR, ALE-47, RWR (I think).
• Basically identical cockpit (some switches maybe moved around - though kinda similar to the F-14A and F-14B, obviously the main difference is the different HUD (though with essentially identical symbology) and no JHMCS sensor.

 

If you wanted to stick to the early 90s at the latest and be strict about it, it wouldn't have JHMCS, MIDS, Link 16 D/L or LITENING; but would basically be feature complete with the weapons we have right now (apart from missing modes and functionality), and of course the GBU-24. Not sure if JDAM (GBU-31/32/38) was around at the time, though JSOWS wouldn't have been. For A/A it would only go as far as the AIM-9M and maybe the AIM-120A/B. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Northstar98

[lmp]

55 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

You are comparing the very first MiG-29 to late 90s - 2000s aircraft, aren't you?

I am essentially responding to this:

 

"120s are the biggest threat in the game for sure but IMO are really the ONLY thing the US jets have on it."

 

If we're talking modern era jets and AMRAAMs, then we're talking 90s and beyond. However a lot of what I said in my previous post applies also to the Tomcat and Mirage 2000C to some extent.

Edited January 1, 2021 by lmp

[killkenny1]

44 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

I mean, there's no harm in hoping, but in all likelihood it probably isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future. Didn't Chizh say in an interview that basically anything Sukhoi is off the table?

 

And given that this is the case...

 

Chizh did throw this out there not too far ago:

 

On 7/13/2020 at 11:36 AM, Chizh said:

Относительно Су-27С никто не говорил что "можно не ждать".

 

Translation: regarding Su-27S no one said "forget about it"

I would still love to see something like SM, but I'm again going off-topic and wishful thinking.

[Seaeagle]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Some variants shouldn't even be that different than our current ones.

 

Like a late 80s/early 90s F-16CG Block 40 (MSIP III/pre CCIP) - which for the overwhelming most part would be a straight up copy and paste of our current CM Block 50:

 

• Essentially identical external model
• Identical FDM (basically), the only real difference is the slightly less thrust of the F110-GE-100 compared to the F110-GE-129 that we have currently.
• Identical avionics (at least for the most part), including the APG-68(V)5 RADAR, ALE-47, RWR (I think).
• Basically identical cockpit (some switches maybe moved around - though kinda similar to the F-14A and F-14B, obviously the main difference is the different HUD (though with essentially identical symbology).

 

If you wanted to stick to the early 90s at the latest and be strict about it, it wouldn't have JHMCS, MIDS, Link 16 D/L or LITENING; but would basically be feature complete with the weapons we have right now (apart from missing modes and functionality), and of course the GBU-24. Not sure if JDAM (GBU-31/32/38) was around at the time, though JSOWS wouldn't have been. For A/A it would only go as far as the AIM-9M and maybe the AIM-120A/B. 

Agreed - early 90s versions of the Viper and Hornet would be very doable on the basis of the current mid-2000s ones.

 

For the Hornet, you could do a Lot 16(from 1993) and practically retain all main features;

• same external model
• same NVG compatible cockpit(introduced from Lot 12) - except MPCD(instead of AMPCD), ALE-39 panel(instead of ALE-47) and no HMD controls.
• same Sju-17 ejection seat and OBOGS(from Lot 13)
• same F404-GE-402EPE engines(from Lot 15)
• same APG-73 radar(from Lot 16)

....while still being fully compatible with scenarios throughout the 90'ies.

 

Would need the ALE-39 CM system to be modelled and an AN/AAS-38A Nitehawk pod instead of the ATFLIR, but otherwise we already have era compatible armament. 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Seaeagle

[Northstar98]

20 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Agreed - early 90s versions of the Viper and Hornet would be very doable on the basis of the current mid-2000s ones.

 

For the Hornet, you could do a Lot 16(from 1993) and practically retain all main features;

• same external model
• same NVG compatible cockpit(introduced from Lot 12) - except MPCD(instead of AMPCD), ALE-39 panel(instead of ALE-47) and no HMD controls.
• same Sju-17 ejection seat and OBOGS(from Lot 13)
• same F404-GE-402EPE engines(from Lot 15)
• same APG-73 radar(from Lot 16)

....while still being fully compatible with scenarios throughout the 90'ies.

 

Would need the ALE-39 CM system to be modelled and an AN/AAS-38A Nitehawk pod instead of the ATFLIR, but otherwise we already have era compatible armament. 

 

 

Absolutely! When you think about it, the work to do these early 90s variants is probably less than the late A-10C that we got. The main thing just seems to be older TGPs such as Nitehawk and LANTIRN.

 

Plus the AGM-45, AGM-62, and AGM-84E would make more sense (all of them are out of service for the mid 2000s timeframe of our current Hornet, and so probably shouldn't be present - if we're being strict about dates). 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Northstar98

[Seaeagle]

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Absolutely! When you think about it, the work to do these early 90s is probably less than the late A-10C that we got. The main thing just seems to be older TGPs such as Nitehawk and LANTIRN.

Yes and minor cockpit modifications(the ALE-39 is probably the biggest issue). I doubt it would be much of a problem to do the AAS-38A pod on the basis of the ATFLIR. For external target designation it would need the separate ASQ-173 laser spot tracking pod though.

Quote

 

Plus the AGM-45, AGM-62, and AGM-84E would make more sense (all of them are out of service for the mid 2000s timeframe of our current Hornet, and so probably shouldn't be present - if we're being strict about dates). 

Indeed - aside from the above, its mostly a question of removing stuff and restricting payload options for a "mirror" F/A-18C entry.....which, come to think of it, is already there(the old AI one).

 

But I think we are getting too off-topic now(even more so than with the MiG-29K/M)

Edited January 2, 2021 by Seaeagle

[Anduriel]

On 12/31/2020 at 10:36 AM, PE_Crni said:

Well... the overwhelming majority of the current Russian assets are late Cold war stuff, and BLUFOR majority are much newer planes. Should a real confrontation occur, the mismatch wouldn't be any worse than in game.

Um, not exactly. While numerically USAF is superior to RuAF, the discrepancy between capability closed rather rapidly (even if still persists).

Modern RuAf is quite young, actually. 

From 10-es, RuAf got ~100 Su-35, 100-120 Su30SM, 120 Su-34, 24MiG-29K, 24MiG-29SMT and 12Su-27SM3. Plus there are close to a hundred of upgraded MiG-31BM, 50 or Su-27SM and 120 or so Su-25SM.

 

[Northstar98]

 

@PE_CrniREDFOR might have some Cold War stuff still in service, sure but to say that it wouldn't be any worse than what we have it present is just inaccurate.

 

The stuff we have in DCS isn't just Cold War, it's typically the first production variant; the 9.12 Fulcrum A is the initial production variant, as is the Su-27S; the 9.13 Fulcrum C is basically the first really major upgrade and in DCS has essentially identical capabilities apart from R-77 compatibility. 

 

You're also forgetting the myriad of air defences past the ones we have right now; such as the S-300PMU1/2, S-400, S-350E, Pantsir-S1, Tor-M2E, Buk-M2E etc. 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Northstar98

[bies]

On 11.11.2020 at 12:35 AM, Harlikwin said:

Early F16A/F18A. You can kinda pretend the vastly more capable 2000's era 18/16 can stand in, but they vastly more capable than they should be, even if you nerf them in ways (DL) you currently cannot they would still be aerodynamically better than the A models, not to mention the vastly better radars/RWR/ECM etc.

 

Exactly that, Datalink, HMCS with all additional SA it gives etc. all are unfair advantage, but with one exception:

Cold War F-16 were better when it comes to kinematic performance, especially maneuverability, than our block 50. The most produced C was block 30 fighter variant, it already had GE engine being half ton lighter than our SEAD block 50CJ and according to real pilots block 30 was simply better for BFM. It had even greater P/W ratio and significantly lower wing loading than heavier block 50.

 

And lightweight F-16A were even more nimble. 

"Back in the day the Blk 30 (both big and small mouth) and Blk 40 were known as "Lead Nose Vipers" when flying against Blk 15s in similar configuration dogfighting. And yes I know they could haul more iron and had better avionics but once they hit the merge the Blk 15 had a distinct advantage."

 

-----------

 

Anyway MiG-29 9.12 is going to be the best module possible as it'll direct attention to the last period of military aviation where air combat was something more than tossing AMRAAMs/AMRAAMskis to some blip on the radar, run and RTB not seeing any enemy.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by bies

[WinterH]

On 11/5/2020 at 12:22 PM, Northstar98 said:

Given that comparable REDFOR aircraft are basically a non-starter at this point (not sure about Deka), and the best we'll probably be able to hope for are mid-80s initial production variants of the Su-27, -33 and MiG-29 (even if I would love the MiG-29M even if it was essentially a prototype aircraft (it wouldn't be the first in DCS), though I'd take any variant apart from the god awful looking SMT), I think the best option by far would be to develop older BLUFOR aircraft

Basically my exact thoughts for many years, and yet here we are with lots of 2000s+ bluefor with more coming, and the 2010s JF-17 which is... uuuhh, greenfor? greyfor?

It is obvious ED is going for the things that wil sell the most, as potential newcomers to sim, as well majority of long time customers buy "the most advanced popular poster-child possible". 70s-80, with some up to mid 90s at most, are the periods that make the most sense for DCS: a form of balanced and historical orders of battle would be possible, reasonable multiplayer servers could be made for people who want that, historical campaigns would be a thing for those who want that etc. And frankly, the aircraft are just interesting! They are still highly capable for their time, but they do a lot less handholding.

 

Anyway, it is not entirely doom and gloom for the idea of DCS: Cold War. We have 4 variants of Mirage F.1 coming, as well as MiG-23MLA, Mi-24P, F-8J, A-7E. Razbam has Mirage III, Sea Harrier, and EE Lightning planned/under works as well. We already have the Viggen, Mirage 2000C, most Russian FC3 aircraft, F-14A, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2 etc. Now if ED would come back to their senses and continue developing that F-4E Block 58 as soon as plausible, that would be most excellent!  But seeing how much they have to work on, it feels like it won't be plausible in near term.

 

As for the MiG-29A, the actual subject of this thread... as I have made obvious, I like 80s aircraft a lot. I also like Russian aircraft A LOT. Getting more than a little tired of deluge of post 2000s blufor. Having said all these, MiG-29A does not excite me, not one bit... I don't see it adding all that much over the FC3 MiG-29A we already have. It already has a high quality flight model, and the stores it can use. Don't really see full fidelity adding all that much to it TBH. I'd be a lot more excited for a 70s-80s unique, new Soviet aircraft like a DCS: Su-17M3, MiG-27K, even a Su-15. Or, if possible post 2000s Fulcrum or Flanker versions, just to have some modern red birds too, but we all know that ain't happening anytime soon.

Edited February 3, 2021 by WinterH

[draconus]

13 hours ago, WinterH said:

and yet here we are with lots of 2000s+ redfor with more coming

What?!

[WinterH]

Ooopsie, meant bluefor lol, fixed

[Hodo]

10 hours ago, WinterH said:

Ooopsie, meant bluefor lol, fixed

You are right we lack real redfor 70-80s model fighters.   I mean we have the Mig-23 "soon"... And the 21 Bison..  but we keep getting more 1990s or later bluefor fighters.

 

F-16 blk50.

F/A-18C lot 20.

F-15E (coming soon)

A-10C II.

AV8B (NA).

F-14B.

 

High fidelity redfor post 1990 modules.

 

JF-17/FC-1.  

 

Pre-1990 bluefor high fidelity modules.

F-14A.

F-15E.

F-86F.

Mirage 2000C.

AJS-37.

 

Pre-1990 redfor.

Mig-21.

Mig-15.

Mig-23(soon)

 

Noticing an issue.

 

 

 

 

[Gierasimov]

 

I really like that ED selected MiG-29 to showcase the new clouds on their Instagram profile. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Gierasimov

[Max1mus]

On 1/1/2021 at 7:59 PM, Seaeagle said:

Agreed - early 90s versions of the Viper and Hornet would be very doable on the basis of the current mid-2000s ones.

 

For the Hornet, you could do a Lot 16(from 1993) and practically retain all main features;

• same external model
• same NVG compatible cockpit(introduced from Lot 12) - except MPCD(instead of AMPCD), ALE-39 panel(instead of ALE-47) and no HMD controls.
• same Sju-17 ejection seat and OBOGS(from Lot 13)
• same F404-GE-402EPE engines(from Lot 15)
• same APG-73 radar(from Lot 16)

....while still being fully compatible with scenarios throughout the 90'ies.

 

Would need the ALE-39 CM system to be modelled and an AN/AAS-38A Nitehawk pod instead of the ATFLIR, but otherwise we already have era compatible armament. 

 

WIll never happen. Accurate matchups by time frame is not what ED or the majority of its customers want.

The main purpose of DCS MiG-29A will be as pornography material for people who enjoy NATO stuff ("look how bad this is, im going to fly it because of how bad russian planes are"). For all other purposes (including BFM) the Flaming Cliffs variant is enough. Especially given that on top of the exactly same flight model, you get 3 different variants, including the slightly superior S one.


ED is setting themselves up for failure, and the poor sales of this module will not motivate them to ever make something more modern, even if they could. I think they should cancel this instead of wasting resources.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Max1mus

[Northstar98]

On 2/5/2021 at 6:28 PM, Max1mus said:

WIll never happen. Accurate matchups by time frame is not what ED or the majority of its customers want.

The main purpose of DCS MiG-29A will be as pornography material for people who enjoy NATO stuff ("look how bad this is, im going to fly it because of how bad russian planes are"). For all other purposes (including BFM) the Flaming Cliffs variant is enough. Especially given that on top of the exactly same flight model, you get 3 different variants, including the slightly superior S one.

I freaking well hope not.

The mile-wide inch deep thing where nothing really fits together, where recreating a modern day version of The Final Countdown is the only thing going is getting pretty boring.

Oh well, there is WWII at least - by far the most coherent and fleshed out era of DCS. I'll probably forget about DCS post 90s if what you say is true.

Quote

ED is setting themselves up for failure, and the poor sales of this module will not motivate them to ever make something more modern, even if they could. I think they should cancel this instead of wasting resources.

Cancel this instead of wasting resources. What?

I take it you're someone who only cares about capabilities, I take it you own the Hornet and nothing else, correct?

As for going more modern, please tell me what ED can do that would be even more modern? Maybe they should just shut down their business after the Apache gets completed?

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[Max1mus]

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

I freaking well hope not.

 

The mile-wide inch deep thing where nothing really fits together, where recreating a modern day version of The Final Countdown is getting pretty boring.

 

Instead of this crap, they could add some alien spacecraft! The Independence Day scenario would offer NATO flyboys a challenge while allowing them to use their modern equipment.

It may just be more authentic than export MiG-29A vs Meteor-equipped Eurofighters.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Max1mus

[Northstar98]

On 2/5/2021 at 6:46 PM, Max1mus said:

Instead of this crap, they could add some alien spacecraft! The Independence Day scenario would offer NATO flyboys a challenge while allowing them to use their modern equipment.

I absolutely agree! More aircraft from the mid 90s!

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[jojyrocks]

Mig 29A is only a good fit for some Gulf war timeline scenarios where Majority of the USAF was still equipped with Sparrows SARH. The big advantage USAF plus the coalition had was AWACS aid. AWACS is the biggest contribution for the F-15 peerless record. Dating from Israeli air force using it during 1982 Lebenon wars where they also had AWACS aid.

 

Now all we need is an Iraq map.

[Northstar98]

On 2/5/2021 at 8:35 PM, jojyrocks said:

Mig 29A is only a good fit for some Gulf war timeline scenarios where Majority of the USAF was still equipped with Sparrows SARH. The big advantage USAF plus the coalition had was AWACS aid. AWACS is the biggest contribution for the F-15 peerless record. Dating from Israeli air force using it during 1982 Lebenon wars where they also had AWACS aid.

 

Now all we need is an Iraq map.

It's good for any 80s scenario. My preference are Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising scenarios, which mostly take place over northern/central Germany, which is definitely my ideal map choice (though unfortunately might be unfeasible). 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Volator]

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

It may just be more authentic than export MiG-29A vs Meteor-equipped Eurofighters.

 

People seem to be really spoiled by this multiplayer nonsense-planeset competitive thinking (looking at you Blue Flag and others!)

 

Noone forces you to go on a server where you have to fight a Meteor-equipped Eurofighter in a MiG-29A... On a good Cold War server the MiG-29A will be a blast.

[killkenny1]

12 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

 

 

I really like that ED selected MiG-29 to showcase the new clouds on their Instagram profile. 

 

 

Too bad they are showcasing a plane which we won't be getting (9.13).