announced DCS MiG-29A

[Northstar98]

5 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Oh ok, I agree with that F-4/5 definitely are outclassed.

 

All good then 

 

I mentioned those specifically because they are WVR only (alongside the F-16A, but that's more or less the direct contemporary with the MiG-29 9-12). I'll restructure the post to make it more clear.

 

The F-4M is also outclassed, but at least in can BVR with the Skyflash, I'd probably say the same about the JA 37 (which has the same missile).

 

For the others the 9-12 is much more comparable, though naturally in some aspect they'll be one superior to the other but as you said, there's much less of a gap here.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Northstar98

[kseremak]

This balance issues are exaggerated, people still kick ass in MiG-21bis. Yes F-16C block 50 from 2007 vs '80s aircrafts is obviously a big mismatch and it's not balanced, but all '80s aircrafts we have F-14A/B, F-15C, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Mirage 2000, Mi-24, Mi-8, Huey, Gazelle are quite well balanced. This are contemporary fighters from NATO and the Soviet Union bloc, some differences in approach and doctrines but still they are naturally balanced by being in active service at the same time. Other like attack Viggen, MiG-21bis, L-39, C-101, future Mirage.F1, MiG-23MLA, A-6, A-7 and others are going to fit quite well being only at some disadvantage. Which, before Fox3 BVR, can be mitigated quite easily by proper tactics. 

Nitpicking some small differences in capabilities doesn't do any good if the aircraft is proper timeline variant.

Is FW-190A-8 at some disadvantage against Spitfire IX in maneuver fight? Yes, so what?

 

I.e. '80s F-16 didn't use medium range missiles for air combat, only sidewinders and gun? Yes, but Block 30 had better performance, turn rate, acceleration, climb, energy retention than modern Block 50 and F-15A was far more maneuverable and had far longer time on afterburner with similar T/W. I don't see a problem, if this is similat timeline model you can easily overcome some weak points and use some stron points, or proper tactics.

 

There are two types of balance:

Fake balance - changing some real life capabilities of some aircraft to better fit the oposition. Luckly ED is clear they are NOT going to do that.

Natural balance - it's simply chosing proper timeline version of the aircraft. F-16C block 50 isn't balanced against all '80s aircrafts, but any '80s F-16 from block 1 to 30 is balanced with them in natural way. 

[pepin1234]

Mig-29S can still keep pushing against new modules, just the unreal implementation of ECM is making the Aim-120 much more powerful against Soviet units with ECM like Su-27S and Mig-29S 9.13. They are having fun with Soviets versions such is not real.

 

in the case of Mig-29A 9.12 it is a different level. It is the first version for export and have not ECM and weapons are short to medium range so that is a clear reason to believe will be a hard task to face new modules.

 

A fighter with ECM should not be tracked when using maneuvers and chaff countermeasures. That situation is hard because the new modules will be jammed and Aim-120 will not be so useful. In that case Su-27S and Mig-29S they both have IRST and long range IR missiles to deal with that situation. So that should be fixed and simulate ECM and the jamming radar close to real. What we get now is a 50km range with the option of lock and do all you want and that situation is making Soviets versions been shoot down constantly in multiplayers by the new modules buyers. They are having fun with Mig-29S and Su-27S Russians versions in a unrealistic manner.

 

That situation is creating a huge overpower in the simulator because on top of that they keep updating Aim-120 and Aim-7 together with the no jamming affecting F fighters.

 

50km range without jamming issue it is a situation in favor of the longer range missiles and it is exactly what they are doing improving the Aim-120 continually.

[Harlikwin]

48 minutes ago, pepin1234 said:

Mig-29S can still keep pushing against new modules, just the unreal implementation of ECM is making the Aim-120 much more powerful against Soviet units with ECM like Su-27S and Mig-29S 9.13. They are having fun with Soviets versions such is not real.

 

in the case of Mig-29A 9.12 it is a different level. It is the first version for export and have not ECM and weapons are short to medium range so that is a clear reason to believe will be a hard task to face new modules.

 

A fighter with ECM should not be tracked when using maneuvers and chaff countermeasures. That situation is hard because the new modules will be jammed and Aim-120 will not be so useful. In that case Su-27S and Mig-29S they both have IRST and long range IR missiles to deal with that situation. So that should be fixed and simulate ECM and the jamming radar close to real. What we get now is a 50km range with the option of lock and do all you want and that situation is making Soviets versions been shoot down constantly in multiplayers by the new modules buyers. They are having fun with Mig-29S and Su-27S Russians versions in a unrealistic manner.

 

That situation is creating a huge overpower in the simulator because on top of that they keep updating Aim-120 and Aim-7 together with the no jamming affecting F fighters.

 

50km range without jamming issue it is a situation in favor of the longer range missiles and it is exactly what they are doing improving the Aim-120 continually.

 

Yeah, I'm cringing in anticipation of whatever ED chooses to do with actual ECM modeling. On the one hand its desperately needed in DCS, on the other hand I don't think there is enough good data to do it "right". 

 

And yeah the soviet response to the perceived EW environment was to move to IRST systems as backups. That being said it seemed like soviet EW pods were reasonably effective against western stuff during the iran iraq war as well.

[Seaeagle]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

I mean, the Hornet so far is the only thing with anything approaching real DECM implementation, but even so - RADARs being the way they are don't help either, especially with stuff that displays raw RADAR video.

Thats what I mean - ECM is always going to be a challenge both in terms of getting sufficient information on specific systems as well as the complexity in how they work/affect different radar systems.

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Agreed, I'm just putting it out there that I'm personally okay with hypotheticals or aircraft that otherwise didn't enter production - so long as they're implementation is grounded in reality.

Agree completely.

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Of course, though I only mentioned it as just something to think about with regards to hypothetical aircraft. Given the choice between it and the Yak-38/38M, the 38/38M gets my vote (though only if paired with a Kiev class).

Yeah I think it would get mine as well. IMO Yak-41/141 should come with a Kiev class as well though - specifically the "Baku"/"Admiral Gorshkov" because this was designed to accomodate it(unlike the earlier vessels) :) .

 

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

But if someone were to propose a Yak-141 (not happening any time soon for sure but just as a what-if) they would need to specify that it's hypothetical, but the weapons and sensors and whatever are based on something as concrete as you can get.

Yeah something like that. Well we do know a little about which radar it was meant to have - not the N019M "Topaz", but the more modern N010 "Zhuk"(same as for the MiG-29M/K, but with a smaller antenna), which was much lighter and could support radar guided anti-ship missiles as well as the R-77.

 

I don't know about the RWS, but I very much doubt that it would have been the SPO-15 - most new/upgraded aircraft at the time(late eighties) were slated for something more modern(like the L-150).

 

 

 

[Harlikwin]

On 6/29/2021 at 2:28 AM, Northstar98 said:

Personally, I'd rather start off with an older airframe (like the 9-12) and then when it's approaching completion then try the more upgraded versions.

 

They could've done that with the F/A-18C lot 20 and F-16CM Block 50 - start with an older variant and then work up, instead of just doing one aircraft that's the latest and greatest and leaving it at that. Hell, even if it was a pre CCIP F-16CJ Block 50D.

 

Personally, I would've preferred a set of aircraft, assets and maps that fit a particular decade, get that flushed out (at least to the level of WWII) and then move on. Given that the existing assets mostly fit the mid-to-late Cold War (barring a load of BLUFOR modules, all but one BLUFOR ship, and a few others), that would be the era I'd personally focus on.

 

But back to the MiG-29 (9-12), when/if we get it, how hard would it be to do say a 9-13 after the fact? It doesn't add a lot, sure, but if a variant should be fairly easy to do then I don't see why not, unless it's taking development resources away from more big ticket items. Ultimately it's the same situation with the Tomcats offered by HB (of which 4 are planned).

 

I'm fine with hypothetical/prototype stuff like the 9-15 MiG-29M, but only if we get something more in line with real/projected capabilities that a real MiG-29M would have had (I'd even say the same about stuff like a Yak-141). That being said, I'll prefer production aircraft any day of the week.

 

 

 

 

Well, DCS ships are a whole other can of worms, most are too modern for CW in their current state. ED would have to downgrade a bunch of em. Not to mention they don't even really work like real ships... Thats gonna become real apparent with the Marianas map, and the falklands map.

 

I do like the idea of starting with a 9.12 and then going on from there, seems like a 9.13 wouldn't be too hard to do either. Maybe a 2fer1.

 

 

[pepin1234]

16 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah, I'm cringing in anticipation of whatever ED chooses to do with actual ECM modeling. On the one hand its desperately needed in DCS, on the other hand I don't think there is enough good data to do it "right". 

 

And yeah the soviet response to the perceived EW environment was to move to IRST systems as backups. That being said it seemed like soviet EW pods were reasonably effective against western stuff during the iran iraq war as well.

absolutely correct. Iran was a in very bad situation with the old Soviets ECM pods. intelligence unveiled the frustration on Iranian F-14 pilots on this regard. 
 

about if the implementation of ECM will be right or not… well it is a matter of make something close to a real life old school radar jamming but never close to the unrealistic current ECM that allow American fighters shoot down Russians Migs and Su like ducks. That’s not acceptable and such situation is creating a climax of Superiority super power against another Nation with extremely success in Air combat in History. That is the simulation they gave us. Fan Boys are in a Carnival Life with Russian in DCS…

Edited June 30, 2021 by pepin1234

[Seaeagle]

1 hour ago, kseremak said:

This balance issues are exaggerated, people still kick ass in MiG-21bis. Yes F-16C block 50 from 2007 vs '80s aircrafts is obviously a big mismatch and it's not balanced, but all '80s aircrafts we have F-14A/B, F-15C, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Mirage 2000, Mi-24, Mi-8, Huey, Gazelle are quite well balanced. This are contemporary fighters from NATO and the Soviet Union bloc, some differences in approach and doctrines but still they are naturally balanced by being in active service at the same time. Other like attack Viggen, MiG-21bis, L-39, C-101, future Mirage.F1, MiG-23MLA, A-6, A-7 and others are going to fit quite well being only at some disadvantage. Which, before Fox3 BVR, can be mitigated quite easily by proper tactics. 

Nitpicking some small differences in capabilities doesn't do any good if the aircraft is proper timeline variant.

Is FW-190A-8 at some disadvantage against Spitfire IX in maneuver fight? Yes, so what?

 

I.e. '80s F-16 didn't use medium range missiles for air combat, only sidewinders and gun? Yes, but Block 30 had better performance, turn rate, acceleration, climb, energy retention than modern Block 50 and F-15A was far more maneuverable and had far longer time on afterburner with similar T/W. I don't see a problem, if this is similat timeline model you can easily overcome some weak points and use some stron points, or proper tactics.

 

There are two types of balance:

Fake balance - changing some real life capabilities of some aircraft to better fit the oposition. Luckly ED is clear they are NOT going to do that.

Natural balance - it's simply chosing proper timeline version of the aircraft. F-16C block 50 isn't balanced against all '80s aircrafts, but any '80s F-16 from block 1 to 30 is balanced with them in natural way. 

Spot on!

[Northstar98]

On 6/30/2021 at 7:13 PM, Harlikwin said:

Well, DCS ships are a whole other can of worms, most are too modern for CW in their current state. ED would have to downgrade a bunch of em. Not to mention they don't even really work like real ships... Thats gonna become real apparent with the Marianas map, and the falklands map.

Ooh, don't get me started on them 

Quote

I do like the idea of starting with a 9.12 and then going on from there, seems like a 9.13 wouldn't be too hard to do either. Maybe a 2fer1.

I mean 90% of the systems, and I imagine 95% of the cockpit is a straight copy and paste. We already have a pretty decent external model (but no doubt ED will probably upgrade it further should a FF module be developed).

It's just DECM (which needs work across the board anyway) and that's it. FDM should basically be there too.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Northstar98]

On 6/30/2021 at 7:05 PM, Seaeagle said:

Thats what I mean - ECM is always going to be a challenge both in terms of getting sufficient information on specific systems as well as the complexity in how they work/affect different radar systems.

For effectiveness you could go by approximate decade (at least that's what C:MANO does), so EW systems will be effective against the same rough era and will get more on more effective the older the RADAR is, and less and less effective against newer RADARs.

For older RADARs and older systems (say early-mid Cold War) it shouldn't be as difficult. But yes EW is a whole other talking point in and of itself.

I guess the DECM set in the MiG-29 9-13 is probably track breaking only and working in the H, I and maybe J bands (6-10/20GHz). It's late-ish 80s technology so I'd expect it to be moderately effective against late 80s and very effective against older RADARs, but less effective to wholly ineffective against newer and newer RADARs.

Quote

Yeah I think it would get mine as well. IMO Yak-41/141 should come with a Kiev class as well though - specifically the "Baku"/"Admiral Gorshkov" because this was designed to accomodate it(unlike the earlier vessels)

Agreed.

Drifting OT, but it would be good to get all 4 of them regardless - they are the REDFOR counterpart to the Forrestal we're getting, for the era our Forrestal is supposed to be (which looks like a mid-ish 80s fit by reckoning).

Quote

Yeah something like that. Well we do know a little about which radar it was meant to have - not the N019M "Topaz", but the more modern N010 "Zhuk"(same as for the MiG-29M/K, but with a smaller antenna), which was much lighter and could support radar guided anti-ship missiles as well as the R-77.

 

I don't know about the RWS, but I very much doubt that it would have been the SPO-15 - most new/upgraded aircraft at the time(late eighties) were slated for something more modern(like the L-150).

You're probably right - it's difficult with this aircraft, though the N010 RADAR makes sense.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[F-2]

https://www.etcusa.com/etc-commends-passing-of-national-defense-act-supporting-simulator-efficacy-study-for-2013/
 

 

this company in PA built a mig-29 and su-30 simulator for Malaysia back in 2009-2013. So it should be possible with a willing partner.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, pepin1234 said:

absolutely correct. Iran was a in very bad situation with the old Soviets ECM pods. intelligence unveiled the frustration on Iranian F-14 pilots on this regard. 
 

about if the implementation of ECM will be right or not… well it is a matter of make something close to a real life old school radar jamming but never close to the unrealistic current ECM that allow American fighters shoot down Russians Migs and Su like ducks. That’s not acceptable and such situation is creating a climax of Superiority super power against another Nation with extremely success in Air combat in History. That is the simulation they gave us. Fan Boys are in a Carnival Life with Russian in DCS…

 

I hold the opinion that whole EW could be implemented very believable and acceptable manner for each system.

 

It requires that who designs it will spend effort to understand the topic from public materials and will openly explain their decisions and sources why and how things are done so community could help. And results would be very much better than we have now even when a lot of of educated guesses would be required to be made. 

 

We don't need 80% capabilities, I would estimate that 40-50% is achievable and that is alot.

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, kseremak said:

This balance issues are exaggerated, people still kick ass in MiG-21bis. Yes F-16C block 50 from 2007 vs '80s aircrafts is obviously a big mismatch and it's not balanced, but all '80s aircrafts we have F-14A/B, F-15C, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Mirage 2000, Mi-24, Mi-8, Huey, Gazelle are quite well balanced. This are contemporary fighters from NATO and the Soviet Union bloc, some differences in approach and doctrines but still they are naturally balanced by being in active service at the same time. Other like attack Viggen, MiG-21bis, L-39, C-101, future Mirage.F1, MiG-23MLA, A-6, A-7 and others are going to fit quite well being only at some disadvantage. Which, before Fox3 BVR, can be mitigated quite easily by proper tactics. 

Nitpicking some small differences in capabilities doesn't do any good if the aircraft is proper timeline variant.

Is FW-190A-8 at some disadvantage against Spitfire IX in maneuver fight? Yes, so what?

 

I.e. '80s F-16 didn't use medium range missiles for air combat, only sidewinders and gun? Yes, but Block 30 had better performance, turn rate, acceleration, climb, energy retention than modern Block 50 and F-15A was far more maneuverable and had far longer time on afterburner with similar T/W. I don't see a problem, if this is similat timeline model you can easily overcome some weak points and use some stron points, or proper tactics.

 

There are two types of balance:

Fake balance - changing some real life capabilities of some aircraft to better fit the oposition. Luckly ED is clear they are NOT going to do that.

Natural balance - it's simply chosing proper timeline version of the aircraft. F-16C block 50 isn't balanced against all '80s aircrafts, but any '80s F-16 from block 1 to 30 is balanced with them in natural way. 

 

I don't really care about 'balance' per se. I care infinitely more about having aircraft, assets and maps that are coherent with each other - occupying the same rough timeframe.

 

For instance, take the only operational Cold War, Soviet, carrier based, fixed wing aircraft - the Yak-38/38M, which can be thought of as a faster, V/STOL, L-39ZA, just one that can fire the Kh-23, drop more types of bombs, as well as equip larger rockets, with what looks to be the same HUD as our MiG-21bis.

 

This aircraft was a contemporary to the F-14 Tomcat, which hopelessly outclasses it in every single aspect, the only thing it's got on the Tomcat is an anti-surface missile - the Kh-23 and on the -38M (which is mid 80s AFAIK) the Kh-25MR, though it's hardly an edge when both are command guided only and the Tomcat can drop LGBs (even if buddy-lased).

 

Hell it would probably struggle against a F-8 Crusader, let alone an F-4 Phantom II, and let alone the earliest F-14A.

 

It's best 'balanced' counterpart is probably the Harrier FRS.1, though at least that gets a RADAR, and a multi-mode, pulse-doppler one at that.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Northstar98

[Harlikwin]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

 

I don't really care about 'balance' per se. I care infinitely more about having aircraft, assets and maps that are coherent with each other - occupying the same rough timeframe.

 

For instance, take the only operational Soviet carrier based fixed wing aircraft - the Yak-38M, which can be thought of as a faster, V/STOL, L-39ZA, just one that can fire the Kh-23, drop more types of bombs, as well as equip larger rockets, with what looks to be the same HUD as our MiG-21bis.

 

This aircraft was introduced at about the same time as the F-14 Tomcat, which hopelessly outclasses it in every single aspect. It's best 'balanced' counterpart is probably the Harrier FRS.1 (though that at least has a RADAR).

 

1000% correct. Soviet naval aviation was well... To be kind... Crap... During the cold war... But it didn't need to be great Soviet doctrine accounted for that. DCS doesn't. 

[kseremak]

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

For instance, take the only operational Cold War, Soviet, carrier based, fixed wing aircraft - the Yak-38/38M, which can be thought of as a faster, V/STOL, L-39ZA, just one that can fire the Kh-23, drop more types of bombs, as well as equip larger rockets, with what looks to be the same HUD as our MiG-21bis.

 

This aircraft was a contemporary to the F-14 Tomcat, which hopelessly outclasses it in every single aspect, the only thing it's got on the Tomcat is an anti-surface missile - the Kh-23 and on the -38M (which is mid 80s AFAIK) the Kh-25MR, though it's hardly an edge when both are command guided only and the Tomcat can drop LGBs (even if buddy-lased).

 

Hell it would probably struggle against a F-8 Crusader, let alone an F-4 Phantom II, and let alone the earliest F-14A.

 

It's best 'balanced' counterpart is probably the Harrier FRS.1, though at least that gets a RADAR, and a multi-mode, pulse-doppler one at that.

 

Yak-38 in DCS would be nice. It was a simple yet skill requiring CAS VTOL from '70s, operating only at close proximity to it's own fleet, under M-11, S-300F surface to air missiles umbrella. To be fair it was a counterpart of British Sea Harrier GR.1 (Ground/Reconnissance) from '70s.

Sea Harrier FRS (Fighter/Reconnissance/Strike) or F-4, F-8, F-14, A-5, A-6, A-7, F-18 didn't have their counterparts in Soviet Union. Soviets ran out of time to deploy operational Aircraft Carrier with carrier air wing.

If someone remember an old Harpoon serie Soviet Fleet vs US Navy was interesting but non-symmetrical combat doctrine with completely different non-symmetrical objectives.

 

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I care infinitely more about having aircraft, assets and maps that are coherent with each other - occupying the same rough timeframe.

My opinion as well. Obviously some aircrafts were still better at something and maybe worse at something else, but it's feirly balanced in a natural timeline way.

[Cmptohocah]

21 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

It depends on operating mode and range to target.

 

In coorporative mode(with EOS as the primary sensor and radar as back-up), the radar is in stand-by(not emitting) and is just slaved to the angular target position as provided by the EOS - the laser will be used for ranging, but if the target is outside the range of the laser rangefinder, the radar can illuminate the target momentarily in order to provide the range information. If the selected weapon(R-27R) requires it(or the EOS looses the target), the radar "kicks in" and takes over the target tracking/missile support.

 

 

Just had another look at the MiG-29B manual.

So Radar and EOS can indeed work together, but only to search and track targets. This coupled mode is called "ВЗМД. ТОРМОЗ".

 

 

Ranging data is provided by the Laser Range Finder which, in air-to-air measurements, can measure targets from 200m up to 6.5km.

Couple of other points:

• manual mentions EOS use only in rear hemisphere - in DCS we can easily pick up targets from the front also
• maximum operating time of the Laser Range Finer is 12min per flight - in DCS its indefinite
• in EOS search mode ("ТП") targets can be detected from 10-25km (let's assume 25km is max.), but can only be locked up 2-3km less than that - in DCS it's instant lock
• IFF in real Mig-29B takes 5s to complete the ID cycle after which it displays the symbol "C" on the HUD and after releasing the IFF button this symbol disappears - in DCS IFF is instant and permanent
• MiG-29B's radar can't reliably detect range of less than 5km in HPRF (ППС) and in automatic mode (ABT) at ranges of less than 10km it searches only in MPRF mode (ЗПС) - we have none of the mentioned radar short comings in DCS 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Cmptohocah
corrected alphabet

[Seaeagle]

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

For effectiveness you could go by approximate decade (at least that's what C:MANO does), so EW systems will be effective against the same rough era and will get more on more effective the older the RADAR is, and less and less effective against newer RADARs.

Heh well I am really outside my "comfort zone" when it comes to ECM, but given the secrecy involved(for obvious reasons) I think  the above is probably also the best you could do.

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

For older RADARs and older systems (say early-mid Cold War) it shouldn't be as difficult. But yes EW is a whole other talking point in and of itself.

 

I guess the DECM set in the MiG-29 9-13 is probably track breaking only and working in the H, I and maybe J bands (6-10/20GHz). It's late-ish 80s technology so I'd expect it to be moderately effective against late 80s and very effective against older RADARs, but less effective to wholly ineffective against newer and newer RADARs.

Well I don't know, but another part of the general complexity is that an ECM suite like this doesn't just employ one type of jamming, but can switch between several different methods depending on the situation. I don't know about the current situation, but AFAIK until recently only one method(noise jamming) existed in DCS.

 

I had a short article on the L203B Gardeniya-1FU(the ECM system on the 9.13) with a general description of its operating modes, but I cannot find it now - I will see if I can dig it out :) .

 

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

You're probably right - it's difficult with this aircraft, though the N010 RADAR makes sense.

Yeah the N019M was just a cost effective way of improving/backfittting R-77 compatibility to an existing radar and as such really only relevant for upgrading "baseline" MiG-29s.

[Northstar98]

On 7/1/2021 at 4:57 PM, Seaeagle said:

Heh well I am really outside my "comfort zone" when it comes to ECM, but given the secrecy involved(for obvious reasons) I think  the above is probably also the best you could do.

Yeah, I mean, the main techniques are very much known, what isn't known are the specifics.

But then when you get into the realm of ECCM and effectiveness, then you run into issues. The way I described obviously isn't the best, but I don't think we can do much more than that.

Quote

Well I don't know, but another part of the general complexity is that an ECM suite like this doesn't just employ one type of jamming, but can switch between several different methods depending on the situation. I don't know about the current situation, but AFAIK until recently only one method(noise jamming) existed in DCS.

Oh yeah, track breaking has at least 4 different basic techniques, and even in the 60s (according to this) the jamming systems could respond to multiple RADARs simultaneously.

In general DECM in basic terms comprises track breaking, communications jamming and multiple target repetition to defeat EWR/GCI RADARs, that video above is the best resource I can find.

I imagine the L-203, can at least perform track breaking, and will be most effective against RADARs of the same era or older.

Quote

I had a short article on the L203B Gardeniya-1FU(the ECM system on the 9.13) with a general description of its operating modes, but I cannot find it now - I will see if I can dig it out :).

Awesome!

Quote

Yeah the N019M was just a cost effective way of improving/backfittting R-77 compatibility to an existing radar and as such really only relevant for upgrading "baseline" MiG-29s.

I see.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[BlackPixxel]

"manual mentions EOS use only in rear hemisphere - in DCS we can easily pick up targets from the front also"

 

lol, head on range of KOLS against non-afterburning fighters is 5 km in DCS.

[pepin1234]

IRST have nothing to do with rear hemisphere. It is all about heat source. Helicopters, missiles, ships if they are hot enough you will have them in IRST.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, BlackPixxel said:

"manual mentions EOS use only in rear hemisphere - in DCS we can easily pick up targets from the front also"

 

lol, head on range of KOLS against non-afterburning fighters is 5 km in DCS.

 

Yeah, that seems about right... Its more or less point blank unless you got some guy running away in AB. The flanker IRST is far more useful.

1 hour ago, pepin1234 said:

IRST have nothing to do with rear hemisphere. It is all about heat source. Helicopters, missiles, ships if they are hot enough you will have them in IRST.

 

Its not even about heat source. Its about IR energy, which is heavily effected by both the raw temperature, contrast and Reflectivity, Emissivity of what you are seeing.

 

Hint, that ring is the same exact temperature as the hand, yet it looks "cool" wanna guess why? Also wanna talk about why certain paints and materials are used on modern jets and how that effects their "IR" signature? 

 

 

[pepin1234]

I think you are mixing new IR image technology with something built in 70s. If it is a giant forest on fire, or a tiny matchstick then is something about how the IRST convert that heat into the HUD. I can’t not compare new IR technology with something made 40 years ago. Probably you are right or maybe not. If that concept from 70s you wanna call it energy and you feel good with that. I am glad for that. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by pepin1234

[pepin1234]

On 7/2/2021 at 3:10 AM, Harlikwin said:

removed post due to profanity

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want ask you something. Do you think all you knowledge in IR deserve a single minute of attention. While what I wanted  to said before that what really matter is the heat intensity instead of source hemisphere aspect in an air combat. If your daily meal is IR knowledge I say you again be happy with yourself. That’s what really matter.

[Cmptohocah]

12 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

"manual mentions EOS use only in rear hemisphere - in DCS we can easily pick up targets from the front also"

 

lol, head on range of KOLS against non-afterburning fighters is 5 km in DCS.

The manual (MiG-29B) doesn't mention any range of the KOLS in front hemisphere, what so ever. Any time EOS is in search mode "ТП(СТРОБ)", manual only mentions rear hemisphere (ZPS). Maybe it's because the only IRs it could carry were R-60?

Edited July 2, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[Cmptohocah]

9 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah, that seems about right... Its more or less point blank unless you got some guy running away in AB. The flanker IRST is far more useful.

 

Its not even about heat source. Its about IR energy, which is heavily effected by both the raw temperature, contrast and Reflectivity, Emissivity of what you are seeing.

 

Hint, that ring is the same exact temperature as the hand, yet it looks "cool" wanna guess why? Also wanna talk about why certain paints and materials are used on modern jets and how that effects their "IR" signature? 

 

Did some research on this.
Long story short: different materials and surfaces have different "emissivity" of IR energy, ie. they don't all emit same amount of infra-red radiation even though their temperatures might be the same.