announced DCS MiG-29A

[jojyrocks]

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Seaeagle is saying that the baseline MiG-29S Fulcrum C (9.13) isn't compatible with the R-77, whereas the 9.13S MiG-29S Fulcrum C had a WCS upgrade that made it compatible, but was otherwise identical to the baseline 9.13 MiG-29S.

 

Kinda like our F-16CM Block 50 isn't compatible with GBU-39 because it's a M4.3 aircraft. If it was an M5.1 aircraft it would be compatible.

 

 

So...what about the FC3 Mig 29S? Isn't it able to fire R-77? So what is that based of? 9.13?

Edited February 6, 2021 by jojyrocks

[Northstar98]

On 2/6/2021 at 5:50 PM, jojyrocks said:

 

 

So...what about the FC3 Mig 29S? Isn't it able to fire R-77?

It's a 9-13S MiG-29S

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[jojyrocks]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

 

Presumably it's a 9.13S MiG-29S

 

 

Presumably?

 

In wiki it shows...MiG-29S (Product 9.13). Now I am confused...

 

So we don't actually know what FC3 Mig 29 carries the R-77. Well...this is the version that we're hoping for and that is what I was quoting at. The one that can fire the R-77 and that was what I was originally stressing at.

[Max1mus]

Just the early 90s R-77 will not help much. Especially if the radar is so awful that you cannot multi-launch with it at all and perform sneaky launches in TWS. In DCS, soviet TWS shuts off when there are any jammers ahead, and TWS2 in MiG-29S causes a launch warning and takes way too long to lock.

 

You need either an R-77-1, or an avionics suite that is so capable that it can make the combination of R-27ER and 90s R-77 deadly enough. An example for such a suite would be SU-30MKI.

[Northstar98]

On 2/6/2021 at 5:56 PM, jojyrocks said:

 

 

Presumably?

 

In wiki it shows...MiG-29S (Product 9.13). Now I am confused...

 

So we don't actually know what FC3 Mig 29 carries the R-77. Well...this is the version that we're hoping for and that is what I was quoting at. The one that can fire the R-77 and that was what I was originally stressing at.

Try here (google should autotranslate).

Quote

• MiG-29 (9-13) is the second serial modification for the Soviet Air Force. He began to enlist in the troops in 1986. Not exported. It differs from modification 9-12 by the presence of an integrated electronic warfare station "Gardenia", an increased internal fuel reserve, as well as the possibility of suspension under the wing of two fuel tanks (in modification 9-12 there was only an under-fuselage suspended fuel tank). The combat load weight increased to 3200 kg.
• MiG-29S (9-13S) is the third serial modification for the Soviet Air Force. The armament range includes new RVV-AE medium-range guided missiles, and the radar now has a mode of simultaneous attack of two air targets. Combat load weight increased to 4000 kg. The tests were completed in September 1991. The 16 MiG-29S fighters produced in 1992-1993 were the last aircraft of this type to enter service with the Russian aviation. This was due to the termination of the purchase of MiG-29 aircraft by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

Of course there are conflicting things here, such as the 9.12 MiG-29 not being able to install external wing tanks, and referring to the MiG-29 (9.13) as just MiG-29 instead of MiG-29S etc etc.

For NATO I'm pretty sure the 9-13 and 9-13S are both referred to as Fulcrum C.

I understand it's confusing.

But in any case, you're referring to the MiG-29S (9-13S) Fulcrum C, which is most likely the FC3 version. FC3 is simplified anyways so getting particular about variants is probably going to get you nowhere.

On 2/6/2021 at 6:04 PM, Max1mus said:

Just the early 90s R-77 will not help much. Especially if the radar is so awful that you cannot multi-launch with it at all and perform sneaky launches in TWS. In DCS, soviet TWS shuts off when there are any jammers ahead, and TWS2 in MiG-29S causes a launch warning and takes way too long to lock.

 

You need either an R-77-1, or an avionics suite that is so capable that it can make the combination of R-27ER and 90s R-77 deadly enough. An example for such a suite would be SU-30MKI.

And if you're talking full-fidelity you're not doing much more than dreaming I'm afraid.

If ED could do a super modern (and still in service) aircraft (India is more GREENFOR I would've thought, though perfectly fits against the JF-17), then I'm sure they would've done so.

Like I said, BS3 got cancelled and it's basically a prototype aircraft, though most of the new features we were slated to get cross over into the Ka-52, which is a big no-no.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[rkk01]

Early 80s / Cold War would make a lot of sense...

 

... don’t forget we should have Razbam’s 1982 assets coming along, hopefully soon.  Sea Harrier FRS1, Harrier GR3, Mirage, A4, Sea King, Cold War naval units etc...

 

would really really like a Jag and a Tonka for this era 

[jojyrocks]

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Try here (google should autotranslate).

 

 

Of course there are conflicting things here, such as the 9.12 MiG-29 not being able to install external wing tanks, and referring to the MiG-29 (9.13) as just MiG-29 instead of MiG-29S etc etc.

 

For NATO I'm pretty sure the 9.13 and 9.13S are both referred to as Fulcrum C.

 

I understand it's confusing.

 

But in any case, you're reffering to the MiG-29S (9.13S) Fulcrum C, which is most likely the FC3 version. FC3 is simplified anyways so getting particular about variants is probably going to get you nowhere.

 

 

Doesn't matter...

 

The whole topic was always about the feasibility of the Mig 29A which ED plans to do...which is mostly fit in late 80s and early 90s theaters. And to be somewhat of rough challenge threat to Blueforce in general timeline terms, the Mig 29, whichever early version of Mig 29 that can carry the R-77 can have a much better survivable and combat chance than the A version. This is what I had been originally stressing at...as a whole.

 

 

[Max1mus]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

And if you're talking full-fidelity you're not doing much more than dreaming I'm afraid.

 

Which is why i dont recommend this sim to anyone that is looking for modern 4th gen combat.

 

There is a reason why even the Su-35 testpilot on the forums will not touch the DCS Su-27. He likes modern avionics like the KA-50 offers them.

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, jojyrocks said:

Doesn't matter...

 

The whole topic was always about the feasibility of the Mig 29A which ED plans to do...which is mostly fit in late 80s and early 90s theaters. And to be somewhat of rough challenge threat to Blueforce in general timeline terms, the Mig 29, whichever early version of Mig 29 that can carry the R-77 can have a much better survivable and combat chance than the A version. This is what I had been originally stressing at...as a whole.

 

Yeah, but it's not happening though and even the 9.12 MiG-29 is still more of a hope to (going by BN's Discord comments) - it's still very early. 

 

 

[Max1mus]

2 minutes ago, jojyrocks said:

whichever early version of Mig 29 that can carry the R-77 can have a much better survivable and combat chance than the A version.

 

You overestimate the capabilities of the 29S. Even with R-77, it can only really fight AIM-120A and B carriers with no Link16, and only while close to the point they are tasked to defend, since they rely entirely on GCI Datalink for situational awareness. For a modern F-16 counter, you need AT LEAST Indian MiG-29K, and even those suffer from lack of capable missiles.

 

ED does not want capable russian equipment in its simulator.

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Yeah, but it's not happening though and even the 9.12 MiG-29 is still more of a hope to (going by BN's Discord comments) - it's still very early. 

 

 

 

ED has their internal statistics and can see that fans of russian aviation are running away in masses - the "we want to do it" are pure PR statements. and they have been feeding them to us for a decade, while delivering absolutely nothing.

 

Fortunately the rules of the market dictate that such a gap cannot exist forever. We just have to wait for competition to catch up.

[Northstar98]

5 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

ED does not want capable russian equipment in its simulator.

 

That must be why they didn't redo the Su-34!

 

Oh wait...

 

5 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

ED has their internal statistics and can see that fans of russian aviation are running away in masses - the "we want to do it" are pure PR statements. and they have been feeding them to us for a decade, while delivering absolutely nothing.

 

Right, and I'm sure you know their internal statistics, and totally aren't just making things up to push a narrative.

 

5 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Fortunately the rules of the market dictate that such a gap cannot exist forever. We just have to wait for competition to catch up.

 

The rules of the market is kinda an irrelevancy when it comes to protected documents, protected doumentation and data that would be required to build a FF module...

 

Unless you think some competitor (which?) is going to surpass DCS and somehow offer FF modern REDFOR aircraft...

[jojyrocks]

13 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

 

You overestimate the capabilities of the 29S. Even with R-77, it can only really fight AIM-120A and B carriers with no Link16, and only while close to the point they are tasked to defend, since they rely entirely on GCI Datalink for situational awareness. For a modern F-16 counter, you need AT LEAST Indian MiG-29K, and even those suffer from lack of capable missiles.

 

ED does not want capable russian equipment in its simulator.

 

 

Nope...you misunderstood what I was stressing at....

 

I said...better or improved survivability chance compared with the Mig 29A. I know most of the current Mig 29 users barring the Indian air force and the RuAF...most of them do not have proper C4ISTAR assets like AWACS or even much data-link ability, and they are purely under GCI data-linking dependency.

 

I am quoting the current map nation users, like Syria and Iran. I am not overestimating the performance abilities of the R-77. Just capitalizing on its fire and FORGET ability like the US AIM 120 which is its counterpart.

 

I doubt we'd see the Balkans map...or any euro centric.

 

ED has issues getting clearance with modern Ru planes like Mig 29K which is still in service with both RuAF and Indian air force. The most we can hope is for a Mig 29S...It would be a miracle if we even get that LOL

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by jojyrocks

[Max1mus]

16 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Unless you think some competitor (which?) is going to surpass DCS and somehow offer FF modern REDFOR aircraft...

 

ED is not even offering us LOW-FID modern REDFOR aircraft. So that gap is easy to fill.

 

With ED, politics are not taken into account. They are mostly russian opposition and thus already have a difficult relationship with having a strong REDFOR side in their sim. On top of that of course Sukhoi and Mikoyan will never work together with them for that reason.

 

Doesnt mean they wont work together with other companies. 2000s Aircraft like Su-27SM and MiG-29K are very obsolete at this point and will start to be phased out soon. With how much they have been exported, western intelligence knows all it needs to know about them at this point.

 

It wouldnt be enough to face a frankenstein Eurofighter, that carries Meteors despite not being able to. But it would be an improvement.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Max1mus

[Northstar98]

2 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

With ED, politics are not taken into account.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

2 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

They are mostly russian opposition and thus already have a difficult relationship with having a strong REDFOR side in their sim. On top of that of course Sukhoi and Mikoyan will never work together with them for that reason.

 

Yep.

 

And it's not about having strong REDFOR, it's about the prerequisites for developing said strong REDFOR are unfeasible, ED mostly only works with publicly available documentation, unless they can get a special contract.

 

2 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Doesnt mean they wont work together with other companies. 2000s Aircraft like Su-27SM and MiG-29K are very obsolete at this point and will be getting phased out soon. With how much they have been exported, western intellige ce knows all it needs to know about them at this point.

 

Ah yes, the MiG-29K, made by Mikoyan and the Su-27SM, made by Sukhoi...

 

The only other operator of the MiG-29K is India, and it's still in service with both its operators.

 

As for western intelligence? Have fun retrieving it.

[Max1mus]

16 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

And it's not about having strong REDFOR, it's about the prerequisites for developing said strong REDFOR are unfeasible,

 

I can link you some of the things ED has been saying over just the past 1-2 years in interviews and forum posts. It definitely plays a role. Things like them "not liking the performance" of a certain aircraft in their sim show that they indeed care about balance, just not in the way politically neutral devs do. Statements like 'F-16 will beat Su-57 in a fight' are always amusing too and show EDs attitude and what type of environment they want DCS to be.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Max1mus

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

18 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Are you sure about that?

 

 

Yep.

 

And it's not about having strong REDFOR, it's about the prerequisites for developing said strong REDFOR are unfeasible, ED mostly only works with publicly available documentation, unless they can get a special contract.

 

 

Ah yes, the MiG-29K, made by Mikoyan and the Su-27SM, made by Sukhoi...

 

The only other operator of the MiG-29K is India, and it's still in service with both its operators.

 

As for western intelligence? Have fun retrieving it.

At the heart of the Su-27SM1 and Su-30MKK its mostly mid a mid to late 90s MLU to an existing plane

And info exist out there its why deka got a manual for a Su-30MKK and there are even some 29SMT ones out there

 

Could be done as a Low Fi module

[SovietAce]

I think that ED should add R-77PD. That would solve the problem with Red planes competitiveness. Right?

This is getting ridiculous. Even for low fiddelity aircrafts you need to get lots of informations that are currently classified. And for a good reason.

There were a lots of people asking for FF Soviet/Russian 4gen aircraft, hoewer when one is possibly going to be released.... I guess that some people just cant be grateful.

I wouldnt be afraid about 29s profitability. Its iconic aircraft that served in many countries, even NATO ones. Especialy Russian community is going to buy it in big numbers. Given that we already have low fidelity one, I suppose that making one is not going to eat that much resources, as for example F-16 or Eurofighter. As for competitiveness, 90% of players doesnt play MP anyway, so I wouldnt really see issue here. Of course, you must always count that Western Aircrafts are simply going to sell better.Even If we miraculously got Su-30MKI, I doubt it would outsell F/A-18.

 

 

[Max1mus]

Do you think an original export F-16A would have sold even nearly as well? Do you think all the NATO flyboys would have moved over from Falcon BMS?

 

Do you think the original export MiG-29A will interest fans of russian aircraft enough to come back? Even games like Arma have more versatility for russian 4th gens than DCS. You get to use TGPs, work together with ground units for CAS. In DCS you will take off, intercept some striker, die to his defensive AIM-120C since he had you on link16 and TWS the whole time, and repeat.

11 minutes ago, SovietAce said:

I think that ED should add R-77PD.

 

ED does not add weapons to aircraft when they dont carry them.

 

Unless you get 500 upvotes on hoggit or are a popular youtuber telling people to boycot the game.

[Seaeagle]

2 hours ago, jojyrocks said:

You are not making sense at all...Mig 29 cannot fire ARH missiles?! What?!

You said: "The Mig 29 9.13 or S version can carry the ARM missiles..."

 

MiG-29 (9.12) FULCRUM A - first version from 1983

MiG-29 (9.13) FULCRUM C - second version from 1986

MiG-29S (9.13S) FULCRUM C - the above with radar mod for R-77 capability from around 1990.

 

Only the MiG-29S (9.13S) can fire ARH missiles.....clear now?

Edited February 6, 2021 by Seaeagle

[Kev2go]

 

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Apart from in Cold War missions... where if modern BLUFOR jets are present, they get restricted to period weapons, no JHMCS and no D/L.

 

You can't just say that because it's not equal capabilities it'll generate poor sales... Otherwise WW2 wouldn't be a thing would it? And yet in DCS, it's easily the most comprehensive, coherent and flushed out era.

 

 I think maps we have are mostly focused around more modern era combat, looking at the scenarios, maps, and assets that have existed before DCS ww2, and the ones that have been being added since ww2. More modern era is still the focus, even if ED has invested enough into build a ww2 era. Even then its mostly late ww2 era European theatre circa 1944-45

 

 

i think  the main driving factor behind DCS ww2 has been not  player demand outdoing the numbers who  want cold war or even modern era modules, bur rather that that  one of partners of ED, Nick Grey is owner of The Fighter Collection in England ( a non profit organization that collects, maintains, and operates warbirds) , and probably pushed his ww2 aviation passions into DCS which still is more focused  gen 4 missile era jet combat, hence giving us a bigger ww2 environment than we would have otherwise had.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by Kev2go

[SovietAce]

13 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Do you think an original export F-16A would have sold even nearly as well? Do you think all the NATO flyboys would have moved over from Falcon BMS?

Yes. Simply because Viper is very famous aircraft. Falcon BMS have Its strengths over DCS. Its like If I ask why there are people that still fly IL2 1946 or X-Plane 11.  

 

20 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Do you think the original export MiG-29A will interest fans of russian aircraft enough to come back? Even games like Arma have more versatility for russian 4th gens than DCS.

Why did they leaved in the first place? Even with all Its weaknesses, DCS is still best simulation of Soviet/Russian aircrafts available. Unless you know a better one. And comparing DCS to Arma?! C´mon.

[jojyrocks]

19 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

You said: "The Mig 29 9.13 or S version can carry the ARM missiles..."

 

MiG-29 (9.12) FULCRUM A - first version from 1983

MiG-29 (9.13) FULCRUM C - second version from 1986

MiG-29S (9.13S) FULCRUM C - the above with radar mod for R-77 capability from around 1990.

 

Only the MiG-29S (9.13S) can fire ARH missiles.....clear now?

 

 

 

Yup. My bad.

Edited February 6, 2021 by jojyrocks

[Seaeagle]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Try here (google should autotranslate).

 

 

Of course there are conflicting things here, such as the 9.12 MiG-29 not being able to install external wing tanks, and referring to the MiG-29 (9.13) as just MiG-29 instead of MiG-29S etc etc.

There are no conflicting things at all - for once a wiki page is a 100% correct .

 

- The 9.12 did not have the ability to carry external wing drop tanks - only the 1500L centerline one.

- The 9.13 was just called "MiG-29" like the first version - but NATO dubbed it "FULCRUM C"

 

Quote

For NATO I'm pretty sure the 9.13 and 9.13S are both referred to as Fulcrum C.

Correct - MIG didn't change the designation from 9.12 to 9.13, while NATO didn't change their reporting name from 9.13 to 9.13S

 

Quote

But in any case, you're reffering to the MiG-29S (9.13S) Fulcrum C, which is most likely the FC3 version. FC3 is simplified anyways so getting particular about variants is probably going to get you nowhere.

There is no ambiguity in this regard - DCS has 3 versions; the original MiG-29 (9.12), the MiG-29G(Luftwaffe modified 9.12) and the MiG-29S (9.13S) with modified radar(including TWS2 mode) and R-77 compatibility.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Seaeagle

[bies]

1 hour ago, rkk01 said:

Early 80s / Cold War would make a lot of sense...

 

... don’t forget we should have Razbam’s 1982 assets coming along, hopefully soon.  Sea Harrier FRS1, Harrier GR3, Mirage, A4, Sea King, Cold War naval units etc...

 

would really really like a Jag and a Tonka for this era 

 

Exactly, i like how Razbam want to model complete coherent historical campaign.

Or i.e. Iraq - Iran war 1980-1988. We will have F-5E, F-14A, UH-1 for Iran and MiG-29 9.12A, MiG-21bis, Mirage F.1, MiG-23MLA, Mi-24, Mi-8 for Iraq. Only Iranian F-4E missing.

[Northstar98]

On 2/6/2021 at 7:41 PM, Kev2go said:

 

 

 I think maps we have are mostly focused around more modern era combat, looking at the scenarios, maps, and assets that have existed before DCS ww2, and the ones that have been being added since ww2. More modern era is still the focus, even if ED has invested enough into build a ww2 era. Even then its mostly late ww2 era European theatre circa 1944-45

Sure, but look through each decade in particular and see what you find, everything all over the place with very little in terms of contemporaries.

• 1950s - only 3 aircraft (F-86F, MiG-15bis, MiG-19P), 1 air defence unit (with another 2 on the way + an FCR) + whatever you can recycle from the WWII asset pack. Nothing else.
• 1960s - nothing apart from a few REDFOR ground units (T-55, BRDM-2, SA-9, ZSU-23-4, Ural 375 and a few others). Nothing else.
• 1970s - 2 peer modules, with 3 variants of another on the way, and possibly a couple of others. Pretty decent set of air defences (even if they're missing battery components), decent set of ground vehicles.
• 1980s - quite a few playable aircraft (the most amount, but not by much and mostly only because of FC3). Some ground vehicles and the majority of REDFOR ships. Enough ground vehicles to be doable. 1 dedicated map, though doesn't really make a whole lot of realistic sense for a NATO vs Warsaw Pact mission.
• 1990s - 2 playable aircraft with another on the way, a few more air defences (all REDFOR), a few ships.
• 2000s - most of popular FF BLUFOR modules and not much else, a few (graphically questionable) Chinese ships, the Supercarrier pack, and a few ground vehicles as well as 3 maps.  

Quote

i think  the main driving factor behind DCS ww2 has been not  player demand outdoing the numbers who  want cold war or even modern era modules, bur rather that that  one of partners of ED, Nick Grey is owner of The Fighter Collection in England ( a non profit organization that collects, maintains, and operates warbirds) , and probably pushed his ww2 aviation passions into DCS which still is more focused  gen 4 missile era jet combat, hence giving us a bigger ww2 environment than we would have otherwise had.

Regardless of whatever pushed it, WW2 is still easily the most fleshed out era in DCS, in terms of playable modules, 2 dedicated maps that mostly fit the aircraft and assets, with more to follow and most up to par with each other as far as quality goes.

On 2/6/2021 at 8:03 PM, Seaeagle said:

There are no conflicting things at all - for once a wiki page is a 100% correct .

Sorry, should've clarified that I meant with the current FC3 implementation, as the 9.12 MiG-29 in DCS FC3 can equip external wing tanks.

Quote

- The 9.12 did not have the ability to carry external wing drop tanks - only the 1500L centerline one.

- The 9.13 was just called "MiG-29" like the first version - but NATO dubbed it "FULCRUM C"

 

Correct - MIG didn't change the designation from 9.12 to 9.13, while NATO didn't change their reporting name from 9.13 to 9.13S

 

There is no ambiguity in this regard - DCS has 3 versions; the original MiG-29 (9.12), the MiG-29G(Luftwaffe modified 9.12) and the MiG-29S (9.13S) with modified radar(including TWS2 mode) and R-77 compatibility.

Awesome, thanks for clearing this up! 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling