announced DCS MiG-29A

[Max1mus]

MiG-29A -> 1982-1983

AIM-9M/AIM-7M -> 1982-1984

 

Su-27 with ER/ET -> 1987-1990

AIM-120A -> 1991

R-77 (for export Su-27) -> 1994

AIM-120B -> 1994

 

Su-30MKK -> 1998

AIM-120C5 -> 1998-2001

AIM-9X -> 2003

Su-30MKI and Su-30MK2 -> 2003-2005

DCS: F-18C variant -> 2004

DCS: F-16C variant -> 2007

MiG-29M and MiG-29K -> 2008-2009

R-77-1 for MiG-29M and MiG-29K -> 2012-2015

 

Adding the MiG-29A to DCS will be equivalent to bringing a BF-109 against MiG-21s and F-4s. Sure, if they have a stroke mid-flight, you may be able to kill them.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Max1mus

[pepin1234]

Guys. Mig-29A still can do his job. The problem is in your tactics. We know is is a 84s technology against much modern technology then your move is go different way the enemy expect. 
 

that was the mistake of Serbians. I just don’t understand very well why they were sent that way with such avionics malfunction. What I guess they were not well informed about the weapons capability on the other side. 
 

see the Serbian pilot in that video telling that was a crazy move and other tactics could have better results (too late)

 

Min 43:34 they are declaring the bad strategy they did. The bad orders, the bad organization… they, the pilots tell you that and Also tell the way to do it right. Also there are some interviews that pilot said AWACS were not detecting them in low flight.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2021 by pepin1234

[Max1mus]

In DCS, low flight will not protect you from AWACS detection. Not that it matters anyway, given that the blue fighters have radars that are more than capable to entirely scan the airspace in front of and below them.

Send some AI MiG-29A against 2 AI Hornets with 120C and 9X. The result was: The AI MiGs need a numbers advantage of ~5:1 to win (taking heavy losses along the way).

Compare that to my previous BF-109 vs MiG-21 example. The 2 planes are also 20-25 years apart. Again, only with a numbers advantage of ~5:1 can they push the MiGs away with some hits, again with heavy losses.


It offers nothing new. Unless the target has practically no air defenses, it has no secondary roles apart from the Air to Air one. Which it will miserably fail at in DCS, mostly due to the reason described above, but also because EDs double standard with russian weapons. Dont waste your time.

Now, a package of the full fidelity, old soviet MiG, and a medium fidelity, modern MiG with good missiles would be a whole different story. 2 planes = Instant 200$ purchase from me. Sounds fair. Let the casual guys play with the switches, and the air combat guys play with the AMRAAMs.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Max1mus

[pepin1234]

Vietnam was with the same inferiority in technology and they managed to get victories using the brain. As you can see In the Yugoslavia wars and Irak the Air actions were not so smart. Not because it is only my opinion but the video above show the pilots telling that too.

 

If you are in Disadvantage the response to your enemy should be what he is not expecting and make traps to direct him to the place you want.

 

there are still some real way to direct an attack to a fake SAM site and ambush the enemy from roads take off.

 

The deal is make your own server and put your ideas in a Server. Seem that is a economic issue that only Fan boys enjoy. they want to use you as a toy to have fun with you on his way. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by pepin1234

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

It offers nothing new. Unless the target has practically no air defenses, it has no secondary roles apart from the Air to Air one. Which it will miserably fail at in DCS, mostly due to the reason described above, but also because EDs double standard with russian weapons. Dont waste your time.

Luckily aircraft in DCS are not modeled to increase your kill count. They are to simulate the aircraft. If you don't find the fun in flying current 29A you probably won't like HiFi version either.

Thinking only about throwing it against every possible aircraft in MP is a bit narrow minded.

You can make real scanarios from 80s where 29 is a new formidable weapon in its intended role. Or you can make 90s and 2000s scenarios where the red was the disadvantaged side. You can also play some fictional scenarios against inferior opponent. The options are there and that is DCS for. No one forces you to take 29A against modern Blue fighters.

[Cmptohocah]

5 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

...that was the mistake of Serbians. I just don’t understand very well why they were sent that way with such avionics malfunction. What I guess they were not well informed about the weapons capability on the other side. 

 

The decision to go up in the air was mostly political in nature. The commanders didn't really care if the pilots will come back or not (actually mentioned by one of the pilots).
Sending people into combat without functional radars and/or RWRs, just goes to show how mindless was to issue an order to go up against F-15s and F-16s. Not to mention that the GCIs had no idea which planes were friendly and which were aggressors. All in all, there were nothing more than flying targets, most of the time. 

[pepin1234]

Guys You can test this mission. North west it is a defensive side SAMs with two Mig-29 on the Air with only IR missiles and you can select a Mig-29 or a Mig-21, with R-73 the 29. you will play as scramble take off unit, just to simulate a Serbian war situation. have fun.

 

just take a look in two important things.

 

1- The retarded level of the AI Mig-29. They don't evade well the missiles, after launch a fire and forget IR missiles they stay there to be killed. Is just pure biased coding for the blue guys get to have fun. The redforce are just lost with this AI by ED.

 

2- Take a look the way I edit the South SAMs. They were activated for an ambush and work well. 

 

 

60s SAM ambush.miz

Edited June 17, 2021 by pepin1234

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

The decision to go up in the air was mostly political in nature. The commanders didn't really care if the pilots will come back or not (actually mentioned by one of the pilots).
Sending people into combat without functional radars and/or RWRs, just goes to show how mindless was to issue an order to go up against F-15s and F-16s. Not to mention that the GCIs had no idea which planes were friendly and which were aggressors. All in all, there were nothing more than flying targets, most of the time. 

 

Well said. This was 100% true. If I remember correctly the Serbs at that point had only one fully airworthy Mig29 squadron, and it was basically toothless and clawless. Even a fully functional squadron of Mig29s, with proper GCI support would be hard pressed to do much damage against the full weight of a planned NATO air-offensive. 12 planes are simply not enough, let alone 12 planes with outdated and mostly inoperable technology. 

[Max1mus]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

Luckily aircraft in DCS are not modeled to increase your kill count. They are to simulate the aircraft. If you don't find the fun in flying current 29A you probably won't like HiFi version either.

Thinking only about throwing it against every possible aircraft in MP is a bit narrow minded.

You can make real scanarios from 80s where 29 is a new formidable weapon in its intended role. Or you can make 90s and 2000s scenarios where the red was the disadvantaged side. You can also play some fictional scenarios against inferior opponent. The options are there and that is DCS for. No one forces you to take 29A against modern Blue fighters.

 

As you can see from my list, there are red fighters in the 90s and 2000s more than capable of beating the blue counterparts. The 29A is simply not the appropriate version for the current DCS environment.

[draconus]

3 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

 

As you can see from my list, there are red fighters in the 90s and 2000s more than capable of beating the blue counterparts. The 29A is simply not the appropriate version for the current DCS environment.

Any version of any aircraft is appropriate as long as devs can model it, people like it and buy the module. Problem is those "red fighters from the 90s and 2000s" are simply not happening in DCS any time soon - or do you want to discuss "why" again?

[Skysurfer]

1 hour ago, Max1mus said:

 

As you can see from my list, there are red fighters in the 90s and 2000s more than capable of beating the blue counterparts. The 29A is simply not the appropriate version for the current DCS environment.

 

Well, against a Block 50 Viper or Lot 20 Hornet it most certainly isn't. But against say a Tomcat (A) and even era-specific 18C's with 9M's and Sparrow's it's gonna be just about the biggest threat in the visual arena. Sure, if the Migs get shwacked in BVR that's it but given how easy it is to defeat missiles or stay undetected in DCS that's not really an issue. A properly flown A can still put up a great fight against a Hornet or Tomcat and especially an F-4 once that comes out. 

 

But I agree that the FC3 jets will be much easier to employ and win with since they are so dumbed down. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Skysurfer

[Max1mus]

19 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

 

But I agree that the FC3 jets will be much easier to employ and win with since they are so dumbed down. 

 

Full fidelity versions of even the soviet 29 and Su-27 would have more tools, especially on the topic of datalink.

FC3 is not a factor for combat, its about how modern the plane and its missiles are. The FC3 stuff tops out in the 90s, with the early 2000s for the F-15C.

[Silver_Dragon]

53 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Full fidelity versions of even the soviet 29 and Su-27 would have more tools, especially on the topic of datalink.

FC3 is not a factor for combat, its about how modern the plane and its missiles are. The FC3 stuff tops out in the 90s, with the early 2000s for the F-15C.

 

F-15C reveive updates on 90s and after.
- AIM-120A (Sep 91). AIM-9X-1 (Aug 2003), AIM-9X-2 (2015), AIM-120C (2002), AIM-120C-5 (2005), AIM-120C-7 (2008), AIM-120D (2015)
- (1987) 25 aircrafts receive Link 16. (2002) fitted with Link 16 data links.

- 2009-11 Fitted with ALE-58 Decoys.
- ANG receive AAQ-33 Sniper pods (2011)
- Talon HATE pods available (LPI data links with F-22A and F-25 and IRST capable) (Sep 2017)
- Legion Pod (2020)
- NVG (1999), HMD capability (Nov 2003)

[pepin1234]

I can beat the current F fighters with Mig-29A. That’s not a problem. The real problem are on SAMs and GCI. They are dumb and need better simulation.

 

For example, KUB Sam are just stupid. If you hide them, then to order get out we must move the entire battery instead a couple of unit really needed for an ambush (radar unit and a launcher unit). Then when you activate the radar on the KUB activate everything, search and Track radar. That’s is not correct with a EWR on his side.

Edited June 17, 2021 by pepin1234

[Harlikwin]

I mean the argument is full circle. A 9.12 Mig29 is relevant for the 80's. We are unlikely to get the more modern versions that were around in the 90's or early 2000's. Which is where the F-teen planeset is. If you want a relevant 80's matchup, take a mig29 vs a 14A without phoenix as they wouldn't really have been used for fighters doctrinally then. Its a matchup that is interesting and relevant and historically apropos. Our hornet/F16 are way too modern, if you could disable the DL/HMCS on them its closer to the 80's but still the radars are too good. 

 

A superior matchup will the 9.12 Mig29 vs the Mirage F1, and some other 3rd gens if/when we get those. Or maybe someday F-teen(A)'s. 

[Skysurfer]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

I mean the argument is full circle. A 9.12 Mig29 is relevant for the 80's. We are unlikely to get the more modern versions that were around in the 90's or early 2000's. Which is where the F-teen planeset is. If you want a relevant 80's matchup, take a mig29 vs a 14A without phoenix as they wouldn't really have been used for fighters doctrinally then. Its a matchup that is interesting and relevant and historically apropos. Our hornet/F16 are way too modern, if you could disable the DL/HMCS on them its closer to the 80's but still the radars are too good. 

 

A superior matchup will the 9.12 Mig29 vs the Mirage F1, and some other 3rd gens if/when we get those. Or maybe someday F-teen(A)'s. 

 

Indeed. It offers a ton of intereting options and will be the first true soviet full fidelity jet in DCS. Even the 14A's radar is "too good" but that is 70's tech.   And the Phoenix would sure as hell been used against any air targets or threats as well as cruise missiles. But depending on the ROE's you need to get VID first and so on maiking the 7M a more suited option. And once we get the F-4 it'll be even more interesting.

[Harlikwin]

19 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

 

Indeed. It offers a ton of intereting options and will be the first true soviet full fidelity jet in DCS. Even the 14A's radar is "too good" but that is 70's tech.   And the Phoenix would sure as hell been used against any air targets or threats as well as cruise missiles. But depending on the ROE's you need to get VID first and so on maiking the 7M a more suited option. And once we get the F-4 it'll be even more interesting.

 

I mean, who knows what ROE would have been. I know that for a great many reasons it wasn't really done with the 14 and phoenix for many reasons. But full on WW3 sure. Maybe one day we will get glorious "real" IFF, and then people in MP land would figure out why those ROEs existed. 

At any rate, my point was simply that with the 14/sparrows/winders you are still fairly close to other top end 80's fighters like the Eagle that the 29 was going to fight over central europe in the 80's. 

[Max1mus]

2 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

Even the 14A's radar is "too good" but that is 70's tech.   And the Phoenix would sure as hell been used against any air targets or threats

 

Math question: When your carrier group has 50 AIM-54s and the enemy is planning on bringing a wave of 50 bombers every day armed with nuclear anti-ship missiles, how many fighters can you afford to waste the missiles on?

Edited June 17, 2021 by Max1mus

[Skysurfer]

53 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

 

Math question: When your carrier group has 50 AIM-54s and the enemy is planning on bringing a wave of 50 bombers every day armed with nuclear anti-ship missiles, how many fighters can you afford to waste the missiles on?

 

 

Well, no one is bringing 50 bombers every day, that's just as silly of a math question. But I get what you are saying. Since for DCS weapon stocks don't really matter this logic doesn't apply here. The point is, the 54A was very well capable gainst fighters and cruise missiles as cited from various documents, trials and SME's (not to mention the Iranian use of it against all kinds of fighters) - but in its infancy stocks were limited and primarily meant for those bombers, yes. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Skysurfer

[Max1mus]

1 minute ago, Skysurfer said:

 

Well, no one is bringing 50 bombers every day, that's just as silly of a math question. But I get what you are saying. Since for DCS weapon stocks don't really matter this logic doesn't apply here. The point is, the 54A was very well capable gainst fighters and cruise missiles as cited from various documents, trials and SME's (not to mention the Iranian use of it against all kinds of fighters) - but in its infancy stocks were limited and primarily meant for those bombers, yes. 

 

They were always going to be only for the bombers. Loosing an aircraft carrier is not worth shooting down a few cheap MiG-23s for.

[Skysurfer]

1 minute ago, Max1mus said:

They were always going to be only for the bombers. Loosing an aircraft carrier is not worth shooting down a few cheap MiG-23s for.

 

That might be true in the 70's to late 80's. Not disagreing there - but that doesn't in any way mean there weren't capable of intercepting these types of targets with a reasonable success rate. 

[Cmptohocah]

It will be much tougher to fight against the likes of F-14/F-15 and F-16 once they implement the realistic RWR as the RL one is a bit different to the one we have now. 

[Skysurfer]

On 6/18/2021 at 8:52 AM, Cmptohocah said:

It will be much tougher to fight against the likes of F-14/F-15 and F-16 once they implement the realistic RWR as the RL one is a bit different to the one we have now. 

 

That too, you'll need way more GCI for good SA. On the other hand you'll be able to differentiate types based on your RWR  readings.

[Harlikwin]

On 6/17/2021 at 4:59 PM, Skysurfer said:

 

Well, no one is bringing 50 bombers every day, that's just as silly of a math question. But I get what you are saying. Since for DCS weapon stocks don't really matter this logic doesn't apply here. The point is, the 54A was very well capable gainst fighters and cruise missiles as cited from various documents, trials and SME's (not to mention the Iranian use of it against all kinds of fighters) - but in its infancy stocks were limited and primarily meant for those bombers, yes. 

 

 

How effective it really was is totally unknown. Iranians got kills sure, but the number you never ever see is how many they shot. And from most accounts they were almost never used against maneuvering or aware targets. 

 

You do have accounts from opfor nato pilots (torando ads) that he considered the Phoenix a non-factor. 

[Skysurfer]

5 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

How effective it really was is totally unknown. Iranians got kills sure, but the number you never ever see is how many they shot. And from most accounts they were almost never used against maneuvering or aware targets. 

 

You do have accounts from opfor nato pilots (torando ads) that he considered the Phoenix a non-factor. 

 

Again, not true and I don't know where you get this idea from. The Iranian "confmed" kills are very much confirmed by the west and multiple independent sources and the unconfirmed grey area is much larger. And that Tornado guy was just a dude who knew nothing about the Tomcat nor the Phoenix (why should he as a brit and no US sec. clearence) and was probably "proud" about his fancy F3 or ADS. It is a subjective opinion not based on the facts at hand. Again, there are literally hundreds of reports, trials and accounts for both the A and C models proving this. The missiles design criteria even dicatate this. 

 

But we really are getting offtopic at this point.