announced DCS MiG-29A

[Wizard_03]

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

 

Sorry, if I missed something, but where did you link anything proving your point, that would need to be disproved somehow?
You just said, you heard/read somewhere about engine reliability, and you state it as a fact, that it was such an issue, that it would have impacted sortie rate seriously (of the ussr), a fact that now needs to be disproved. Please...

 

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/MG29

 

I see there 2 crashes (1978 and 1980) that are engine related, then it's only 15 accidents until the end of 1989, most of which is not said to be engine related (some might be incomplete of course, the page itself says it is incomplete info.)

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F-15_losses

 

here I see 60+ F-15 accidents between '78 and the end of '89. 

So the 29 is obviously not perfect, but I don't see a terrible record here either. 

 

(quickly before someone jumps at me for the very different number of planes in service at the given timeframe:

 

1988-89 - both types are already in service in comparable numbers - F-15 7 losses <--->- MiG29 6 losses)

 

So it is not a jumo-004

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah once again not talking about reliability from the pilot's point of view I'm talking about the service life of the engines. That is a logistics concern not a flight safety one.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Wizard_03]

7 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

 

That depends on what is your definition of "syper-hyper-winder jet".

Is it a capable airplane? - it most certainly is.

Can it be compared to any equivalent US fighter? - I don't think so, as IMHO it sits somewhere betweem F-16 and F-15.

Does it accelerate like a rocket? - Oh, yeah.

Is it a hell of a dogfighter? - You bet.

And most important of all: Does it look just awesome? - Yes!!!

 

It does look the part, and I would actually go ahead and say it is the best dogfighter. 

[Dudikoff]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

44 for the MiG-29 between 84 and 95, an equivalent 'in service' time to the F-15's 78-89 timeline, and that page doesn't say what types of losses it includes where the F-15 lists losses on the ground as well.

 

They're about equal in accident rates.  Fly a lot, get a lot of opportunities for accidents.

 

 

I highly doubt MiG-29's were flying the same number of hours as the F-15's, though. I got the impression that WP fighter pilots seemed to have had gotten a rather small number of yearly flight hours.

 

Plus, the P&W F100 was highly problematic early on IIRC, enough to force USAF to introduce an alternate engine later on for the F-16s (GE F110).

Edited September 9, 2021 by Dudikoff

[GGTharos]

14 minutes ago, Dudikoff said:

 

I highly doubt MiG-29's were flying the same number of hours as the F-15's, though. I got the impression that WP fighter pilots seemed to had gotten a rather small number of yearly flight hours.

 

Plus, the P&W F100 was highly problematic early on IIRC, enough to force USAF to introduce an alternate engine later on for the F-16s (GE F110).

 

 

The F100 had issues.  F-15Cs were built with -220s because of this, and the entire story of the -100 and how the USAF forced PW to fix it is an interesting tale of its own.

[Baltic Pirate]

1 hour ago, Dudikoff said:

 

I highly doubt MiG-29's were flying the same number of hours as the F-15's, though. I got the impression that WP fighter pilots seemed to have had gotten a rather small number of yearly flight hours.

 

Plus, the P&W F100 was highly problematic early on IIRC, enough to force USAF to introduce an alternate engine later on for the F-16s (GE F110).

 

 

Soviet and warpac pilots got  around 90-120 hours a year maximum.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, Dudikoff said:

I highly doubt MiG-29's were flying the same number of hours as the F-15's, though. I got the impression that WP fighter pilots seemed to have had gotten a rather small number of yearly flight hours.

Pilots, not airframes, mind the difference please. There are always more pilots than the airframes. In fact single airframe will easily escort father and son into pension. As far as I can tell reliability of all engines in DCS is 100%.

 

But back to the topic: we wish to have full fidelity relatively modern RED aircraft, if you do not like it you do not have to buy it.

[HWasp]

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

44 for the MiG-29 between 84 and 95, an equivalent 'in service' time to the F-15's 78-89 timeline, and that page doesn't say what types of losses it includes where the F-15 lists losses on the ground as well.

 

They're about equal in accident rates.  Fly a lot, get a lot of opportunities for accidents.

 

 

Agree, they are close. That first comparison was a bit unfair towards the F-15.

[HWasp]

2 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Yeah once again not talking about reliability from the pilot's point of view I'm talking about the service life of the engines. That is a logistics concern not a flight safety one.

 

 

Yes, service life was certainly lower, also less time between maint./overhauls

I doubt that it would have a serious impact in a 80ies ussr scenario. 

[Wizard_03]

26 minutes ago, HWasp said:

 

Yes, service life was certainly lower, also less time between maint./overhauls

I doubt that it would have a serious impact in a 80ies ussr scenario. 

Oh I think it sure does, the whole point of the 29 is low cost, and a numerical advantage. Number one it's not that low cost and number two the most expensive components, the engines need to be changed out about twice as much as it's rival the F-16 which only has a single engine. That means it takes 4 times as many engines to keep the MiGs readiness up compared to it's equivalent. Even if the engines are a lot cheaper then the PWs/GEs in the viper that's still critically higher in overall cost and resources. (Not too mention having to run two supply chains for them since the Su-27 uses a different powerplant. Compared to F-15/16 using the same one.)

 

That's a pretty significant factor, and in mind there's no way that DOESN'T affect sortie generation. So while the MiG is certainly superior the the viper in just about everyway, it comes at a higher cost. Both out of the gate and in maintaining it.

 

Now whether that higher cost is justified, I'm not making a statement on. That's more of a political question. I'm just straight comparing it too other aircraft at the time.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Wizard_03

[HWasp]

1 hour ago, Wizard_03 said:

Oh I think it sure does, the whole point of the 29 is low cost, and a numerical advantage. Number one it's not that low cost and number two the most expensive components, the engines need to be changed out about twice as much as it's rival the F-16 which only has a single engine. That means it takes 4 times as many engines to keep the MiGs readiness up compared to it's equivalent. Even if the engines are a lot cheaper then the PWs/GEs in the viper that's still critically higher in overall cost and resources. (Not too mention having to run two supply chains for them since the Su-27 uses a different powerplant. Compared to F-15/16 using the same one.)

 

That's a pretty significant factor, and in mind there's no way that DOESN'T affect sortie generation. So while the MiG is certainly superior the the viper in just about everyway, it comes at a higher cost. Both out of the gate and in maintaining it.

 

Now whether that higher cost is justified, I'm not making a statement on. That's more of a political question. I'm just straight comparing it too other aircraft at the time.

 

 

Wrong, Su-27 and MiG-29 are not all about the low costs at all. Why would you think that? These 2 planes are complex, expensive machines to soviet standards. 

 

These 2 are a clear step away from quantity over quality theory. Especially if you check the MiG-29M, that would have been the real deal.

 

Maintenance intervals are not set in stone. It is a lot more about taking responsibility, and the safety of human lives and expensive equipment.

 

In a large scale conlict they won't be stopping a 29 just because it has just run out of hours... 

 

It is obviously not a positive thing, but this is something that really would take effect on the long term in peace time.

 

In the 80ies the soviets rather stopped eating and went bankrupt, than to spend less on their military.

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by HWasp

[okopanja]

55 minutes ago, HWasp said:

Maintenance intervals are not set in stone. It is a lot more about taking responsibility, and the safety of human lives and expensive equipment.

Sorry could not resist  , but I have heard about this maintenance prayer from those that were initiated already:

Commander of the unit: Oh Lord, may this aircraft fly beyond its maintenance time frame!

Maintenance guy:  God bless you son (aircraft): you have worked reliably so far, you shall work reliable from now on for another 100 hours... (sound of signing and stamping of the service book in the background).

Commander and maintenance guy go for a drink...

Edited September 9, 2021 by okopanja

[Dudikoff]

5 hours ago, Baltic Pirate said:

Soviet and warpac pilots got  around 90-120 hours a year maximum.

 

I've read some article recently where a former Czechoslovak MiG-23 pilot said how he asked for a transfer to a MiG-21 or an L-39 unit or something because they were flying only about 30 hours max a year on the 23 at the time (due to a much higher operating cost, presumably).

Edited September 9, 2021 by Dudikoff

[Wizard_03]

4 hours ago, HWasp said:

 

It is obviously not a positive thing, but this is something that really would take effect on the long term in peace time.

 

In the 80ies the soviets rather stopped eating and went bankrupt, than to spend less on their military.

 

 

Well nothing matters if war had broke out. Air battles in western Europe certainly wouldn't have mattered either if the all of the airbases, factories, supply chains, and personal responsible for the jet get annihilated 2 hours into the conflict. 

 

But yes exactly and it did have an effect there is no more Soviet union. Excessive defense spending which the MiG-29 is apart of lead to where we are today. 

 

Obviously the MiG and other large scale projects were unsustainable which is bad. You want to be able to keep paying for your weapons so that if you need them you have them. If you overextend your resources like that you run the risk of defeating yourself.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Baltic Pirate]

7 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

 

I've read some article recently where a former Czechoslovak MiG-23 pilot said how he asked for a transfer to a MiG-21 or an L-39 unit or something because they were flying only about 30 hours max a year on the 23 at the time (due to a much higher operating cost, presumably).

 

Absolutely possible, even probable. I am working with an ex CZ AF gent. He would know. I'll ask when I see him.

 

As for the Mig-29 full fidelity model, it be a really neat addition.

[WarbossPetross]

23 часа назад, okopanja сказал:

I think the point here is to get full fidelity RED aircraft from ED or third party.

 

The more I read the forum its more hear-and-say and plain lobbying.

...

In fact on today's servers the true RED airplanes are minority. BLUE airplanes are being flown by RED pilots almost 2 to 1. Just look at the nicknames at the growling sidewinder's server 1, and you will get the idea. I would say it is pretty trivial for them to collect those stats and estimate how many potential customers they could have.

 

I've been watching a multiplayer stream of a REDFOR pilot, can't remember which server, and couldn't help but notice in the server popup message that they ban LS-6, LD-10 and basically half of the JF-17 arsenal. And yes, that includes SD-10! They've banned the only more or less REDFOR jet that's more or less equivalent to all the Hornets and Vipers loading themselves to the grills with AMRAAMS (way more of them than what JF-17 can carry BTW). Oh yes, if memory serves R-77 and R-27ET are banned as well. Absolutely no bias going on, no, of course not.

[draconus]

3 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

can't remember which server

What does it have to do with this thread that some server owner banned some redfor weaponry on his own server?! You're free to create your own that bans any bluefor weapon newer than 1980, aren't you?

[WarbossPetross]

2 минуты назад, draconus сказал:

What does it have to do with this thread that some server owner banned some redfor weaponry on his own server?! You're free to create your own that bans any bluefor weapon newer than 1980, aren't you?

Relax. Basically 95% of this thread since page 12 has nothing to do with its title.

[HWasp]

36 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

I've been watching a multiplayer stream of a REDFOR pilot, can't remember which server, and couldn't help but notice in the server popup message that they ban LS-6, LD-10 and basically half of the JF-17 arsenal. And yes, that includes SD-10! They've banned the only more or less REDFOR jet that's more or less equivalent to all the Hornets and Vipers loading themselves to the grills with AMRAAMS (way more of them than what JF-17 can carry BTW). Oh yes, if memory serves R-77 and R-27ET are banned as well. Absolutely no bias going on, no, of course not.

 

There are servers, that run a 1980s weapon restriction setup, and still have the JF-17 on. Before jumping to conclusion, maybe check again if the blue side is also restricted to Aim-7s only?

 

The best setup for the MiG-29 is a 80ies scenario, Aim-7 vs R-27.

[WarbossPetross]

5 минут назад, HWasp сказал:

 

There are servers, that run a 1980s weapon restriction setup, and still have the JF-17 on. Before jumping to conclusion, maybe check again if the blue side is also restricted to Aim-7s only?

 

The best setup for the MiG-29 is a 80ies scenario, Aim-7 vs R-27.

Nope, no AMRAAMs in the ban list. Not sure about JSOWs, maybe also legal. To be fair they did allow all aircrafts for both sides, otherwise that would be a very subtle way of saying it's a PvE server without saying it's a PvE server.

 

At this point I want a Vietnam map, the F-4, the F-8 and the MiG-17 way more than the F-15E seeing how I already have the two other planes anyway.

[Lurker]

17 hours ago, okopanja said:

But back to the topic: we wish to have full fidelity relatively modern RED aircraft, if you do not like it you do not have to buy it.

 

A full fidelity Mig29 would be nice, but I for one would wish for a new RED airframe that we do not already have in the FC3 inventory. What I really, really wish for would be Su-24. That would be a dream come true for me personally. A low level strike aircraft that could rival the Viggen or any of the upcoming Blue strikers. 

[okopanja]

2 hours ago, WarbossPetross said:

Relax. Basically 95% of this thread since page 12 has nothing to do with its title.

Nicely observed, but you will notice that requests like this usually end up with "upvoting" attempts that end in discussions on the opinion of neighbor/colleague/relative/friend on the given aircraft/missile. E.g. you can not have that weapon, or that thing does not work or famous "they did not have enough money, so it is a dumb missile". I dare to say that sizable part of the forum is exactly that kind of discussion.

 

But since obviously I am not here for a long time, does anyone know how to attract the response from ED people on the topic and get some sort of final statement/verdict?

And what about the bugs?

 

Is there any guaranteed way to get the answer to a thread in a reasonable amount of time (e.g. 1 week, then close thread for further comments)?

 

E.g. you get the template to fill in bug/feature/request, description, steps to reproduce, logs, etc...

Is there any formalized way of creating such requests to ED?

 

In short: can we please get some official standing on this thread?

 

[draconus]

9 minutes ago, okopanja said:

In short: can we please get some official standing on this thread?

No, that's not the purpose of this sub-forum. There are community managers (and beta testers) than communicate between devs and us when needed or give you straight answers.

 

Last official news were only saying about ED's plans to make a full fidelity Mig-29A (9.12) module - they're looking into it and we don't know anything more.

 

In rare cases you can get some dev answers on the english forum but some do it regularly on the Russian subforums.

 

Official statements are here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/31-official-updates/

 

on the main site:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/

 

and other media like FB, reddit... by ED stuff.

 

Some of the answers to your questions you can find here:

 

So there's no guarantee for any answer, any fix or any feature but you're free to discuss it with the community.

[WarbossPetross]

30 минут назад, okopanja сказал:

Nicely observed, but you will notice that requests like this usually end up with "upvoting" attempts that end in discussions on the opinion of neighbor/colleague/relative/friend on the given aircraft/missile. E.g. you can not have that weapon, or that thing does not work or famous "they did not have enough money, so it is a dumb missile". I dare to say that sizable part of the forum is exactly that kind of discussion.

 

But since obviously I am not here for a long time, does anyone know how to attract the response from ED people on the topic and get some sort of final statement/verdict?

And what about the bugs?

 

Is there any guaranteed way to get the answer to a thread in a reasonable amount of time (e.g. 1 week, then close thread for further comments)?

 

E.g. you get the template to fill in bug/feature/request, description, steps to reproduce, logs, etc...

Is there any formalized way of creating such requests to ED?

 

In short: can we please get some official standing on this thread?

 

If you mean MiG-29 the last we heard from them is they still want to release it after BS3.

 

[Wizard_03]

Its too bad they can't do both the MiG-29S and 29A, I'm not holding my breath but in the past ED has initially choose a early version and during the research phase to keep expectations under control and then later, assuming they found more documentation, upgraded it to a more advanced version. They did that with both the F-16 and hornet.

 

It would be nice to have the extra fuel, ECM, and at least some Fox3 capability. With a little practice you can make the current FC3 29S a pretty big threat against the teens. Sure Amraam is still flat out better then R-77 but just having a fox 3 and the ability to shoot and defend at the same time does let you at least play the game with them in BVR not too mention you have some trump cards that they don't have like T/ET. Combine that with GCI implementation and all of a sudden the shoes on the other foot.

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Its too bad they can't do both the MiG-29S and 29A, I'm not holding my breath but in the past ED has initially choose a early version and during the research phase to keep expectations under control and then later, assuming they found more documentation, upgraded it to a more advanced version. They did that with both the F-16 and hornet.

 

It would be nice to have the extra fuel, ECM, and at least some Fox3 capability. With a little practice you can make the current FC3 29S a pretty big threat against the teens. Sure Amraam is still flat out better then R-77 but just having a fox 3 and the ability to shoot and defend at the same time does let you at least play the game with them in BVR not too mention you have some trump cards that they don't have like T/ET. Combine that with GCI implementation and all of a sudden the shoes on the other foot.

 

They should nut up and just do both if they can. They aren't that dissimilar. They already have the FM done for both more or less. other than that its some differences in avionics. 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Harlikwin