First-hand account of MiG-29 radar

[RvETito]

Yes, I'm talking about 9-12A and 9-12B. I have no idea how that is for the 9-13 and 9-13S. The last features more powerful CPU of the WCS hence the two-target simultaneous engagement ability. Perhaps this is no more an issue but we have to consider that the R-60M is a generation behind the R-73 so I assume it is not in the 9-13S arsenal. It probably can use it but what for after being R-77 and R-27ER/ET capable..

[SwingKid]

In fact, this is about the early WCS, we don't know if the upgraded WCS has the same limitations.

 

We don't actually know that the old WCS has this limitation.

It just depends which sources of data we choose to trust, and which we consider as "fairy tales."

Apparently, we can't agree about that.

 

The WCS limitation, as far as I understand, doesn't distinguish "one type of short range missile."

Rather, there is just one physical two-position switch in the cockpit for AAM selection, labeled "inboard/outboard." So, if the middle station missile is different from the outer station, the pilot has no way to select it. (Whether this makes such a loadout actually illegal, rather than simply inconvenient, is IMHO an open question.)

There exists for many years already Easy Tartar's description of the 9.13S WCS at http://www.sci.fi:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-3b.htm

According to him, this version has only one additional "SNP-1/SNP-2" switch in the WCS. Therefore, this version is also incapable of distinguishing between outer and middle pylons.

 

ED does not seem to often reply themselves in this forum about the "RVV-AE on the outboard pylon" issue. Their reason for believing in such a restriction seems to be based on a poor understanding of ARH missiles - i.e. the misconception that an ARH missile can only be carried at a station that can also carry a SARH missile, since they are both radar missiles, and require waveguide to be installed in the station to "synchronize" the AAM with the fighter radar. (i.e. ED thinks that allowing the RVV-AE on the outer pylon would open the door to allowing the R-27R there also - which is undesired.) This is (a) not having anything to do with the reasons of weight etc. that are proposed by other posters in this forum discussion, and (b) unlikely to be correct. An ARH missile likely does not need to be phase-synchronized to the fighter radar in the same way as a SARH missile. The AIM-120, for example, is carried on every station capable of carrying an AIM-9, and by aircraft, like the F-16, which can't carry SARH missiles at all.

 

The most interesting thing about this entire debate (for me) is that people have reached their strong conclusions about whether or not the RVV-AE can be carried on the outer pylon, without ever discussing SARH missiles at all - and from what I can see, ED has said nothing to bring it up. It's as if this whole years-long topic doesn't actually interest anyone, really - and yet, it continues anyway.

[Geier]

BTW, there're very few shots of the real Mig-29 9-13S in RuAir Force

This one is very rare

[Vekkinho]

That's probably because there's not too many 9.13S in RuAF!

[Alfa]

BTW, there're very few shots of the real Mig-29 9-13S in RuAir Force

This one is very rare

 

How about this one? :)

 

 

Photo was taken by G.Tonelotto in former DDR.

 

I believe that the aircraft in the photo is a 9-13S that belongs to a regiment previously stationed in DDR before being relocated to Russia(Kursk?) - the photographer writes "35 IAP"(35th fighter air regiment)....any insight to this Geier? :)

 

Anyway, both the bort # and guards badge painted on the airframe would seem to suggest that it belongs to the same unit as the aircraft in the photo you posted.

[Vekkinho]

Was stationed in Grossenheim but I'd say it was relocated to Kubinka like this one here:

 

 

and this one:

 

 

 

 

these are 9-13S!

[Dudikoff]

these are 9-13S!

 

Interesting to note that they both carry mixed launchers - the outer ones for R-60 and the middle ones for R-73 missiles.

[Geier]

I know these fotos from A-liners, Alfa. Yes those're 9-13S. But I mentioned the 9-13S in modern RuAF (as I've posted) not from the Soviet past;)

[Vekkinho]

I've talked to Maxim Buyanov (promotor) in MiG-MAPO's hangar at MAKS 2007 that some of the 9-13S models that came from East Germany were stripped down (removed weapon systems, EOS and Radar) and now being used by Strizhi!

 

However, entire MiG-MAPO personell was more focused on MiG-35 during MAKS-2007 so me asking can MiG-29S REALLY use R-77 or just showing off was considered funny!

[Vekkinho]

Interesting to note that they both carry mixed launchers - the outer ones for R-60 and the middle ones for R-73 missiles.

 

Well to be honest I never heard that Fulcrum can't use both of it's IR missiles during the same sortie!

[nscode]

It was discussed here earlier..

[nscode]

Here's a web page with lots of things said about Russian avionics:

Overscan's guide to Russian Military Avionics

 

It has lot's of info on MiG-29 and Su-27 radars, and signal processors. It cites a big list of sources at the bigging of the page, but doesn't later specify which source yielded which peace of info... and that is barely better than citing no sources at all. Anyway.. lot's of data there, so knock your self out :)

[Groove]

Excellent link nscode. Thanks!

[Vekkinho]

Yeah, good one!

 

I'd rep You up but I have to spread some!

[RedTiger]

We don't actually know that the old WCS has this limitation.

It just depends which sources of data we choose to trust, and which we consider as "fairy tales."

Apparently, we can't agree about that.

 

The WCS limitation, as far as I understand, doesn't distinguish "one type of short range missile."

Rather, there is just one physical two-position switch in the cockpit for AAM selection, labeled "inboard/outboard." So, if the middle station missile is different from the outer station, the pilot has no way to select it. (Whether this makes such a loadout actually illegal, rather than simply inconvenient, is IMHO an open question.)

There exists for many years already Easy Tartar's description of the 9.13S WCS at http://www.sci.fi:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-3b.htm

According to him, this version has only one additional "SNP-1/SNP-2" switch in the WCS. Therefore, this version is also incapable of distinguishing between outer and middle pylons.

 

ED does not seem to often reply themselves in this forum about the "RVV-AE on the outboard pylon" issue. Their reason for believing in such a restriction seems to be based on a poor understanding of ARH missiles - i.e. the misconception that an ARH missile can only be carried at a station that can also carry a SARH missile, since they are both radar missiles, and require waveguide to be installed in the station to "synchronize" the AAM with the fighter radar. (i.e. ED thinks that allowing the RVV-AE on the outer pylon would open the door to allowing the R-27R there also - which is undesired.) This is (a) not having anything to do with the reasons of weight etc. that are proposed by other posters in this forum discussion, and (b) unlikely to be correct. An ARH missile likely does not need to be phase-synchronized to the fighter radar in the same way as a SARH missile. The AIM-120, for example, is carried on every station capable of carrying an AIM-9, and by aircraft, like the F-16, which can't carry SARH missiles at all.

 

The most interesting thing about this entire debate (for me) is that people have reached their strong conclusions about whether or not the RVV-AE can be carried on the outer pylon, without ever discussing SARH missiles at all - and from what I can see, ED has said nothing to bring it up. It's as if this whole years-long topic doesn't actually interest anyone, really - and yet, it continues anyway.

 

I just re-read parts of this thread again, and I also went over the thread you raised from the dead about these missiles on the outer pylons. I get a distinct feeling that the debate has less to do with accuracy and more to do with people wanting multiplayer balance. I have a feeling that people would cry foul if it became common place to see a MiG-29 with 6 ARH missiles, even if this is realistic.

[Vekkinho]

I just re-read parts of this thread again, and I also went over the thread you raised from the dead about these missiles on the outer pylons. I get a distinct feeling that the debate has less to do with accuracy and more to do with people wanting multiplayer balance. I have a feeling that people would cry foul if it became common place to see a MiG-29 with 6 ARH missiles, even if this is realistic.

 

Take a loot at F-15, you have 8 ARH missiles there!

[S77th-konkussion]

I don't want "balance" for the sake of balance. I want all of it to work as close to the real thing as is reasonably possible. If that means plane "A" is DOMINANT over another- so be it.

[RedTiger]

I don't want "balance" for the sake of balance. I want all of it to work as close to the real thing as is reasonably possible. If that means plane "A" is DOMINANT over another- so be it.

 

Fair enough. Cool t made a comment about R-77s, R-73, etc on the F-15. I think I misread his post and somehow equated the reactions to as how online players would react to a MiG-29 with six R-77s. So, nevermind. :doh:

 

Back on topic, I'm at the part of "Fulcrum" where Zuyev is first seeing a test pilot show what the MiG-29 can do aerobatically. He'll be getting his training in soon. I'm sure we're all aware of what a Fulcrum can do in the way of aerobatics, so I won't bother posting that. I'll just note that he's transitioning from a MiG-23 to the 29, so the difference in power and manuverability for him is pretty extreme. If there are any more interesting tidbits about avionics or tactics, I'll post those.

[Pilotasso]

Take a loot at F-15, you have 8 ARH missiles there!

 

Yes? have you flown it?

 

8 ARH missiles does not account for nothing in LOMAC. Of all the planes in LOMAC it is the most demanding to operate, the worst missiles even if the best SA once you mastered the radar (did I mention it was the hardest to operate? :) )

 

Of all the planes, the one that gives you the easiet kills is the Mig-29, I load only 3 ARH on it and I still get more kills than in the F-15, including kills per sortie.

[RedTiger]

Yes? have you flown it?

 

8 ARH missiles does not account for nothing in LOMAC. Of all the planes in LOMAC it is the most demanding to operate, the worst missiles even if the best SA once you mastered the radar (did I mention it was the hardest to operate? :) )

 

Of all the planes, the one that gives you the easiet kills is the Mig-29, I load only 3 ARH on it and I still get more kills than in the F-15, including kills per sortie.

 

Is that so? Is that the general consensus or just what you've experienced? My guess would have been one of the Flankers. Ironic that the fighter that should have the hardest time BVR ends up being the easiest to score kills. I'll admit that, while I don't fly online, my favorite plane to actually fly is the MiG-29S. The Fulcrums are the only jets that actually feel like they have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio and actually accelerate without burner.

[Pilotasso]

My experience and online stats.

 

BTW, the mig can supercruise to mach 1.2 with a full warload indicating thats overmodeled. But I think its wing loading modeling is excessive too.

[Vekkinho]

My experience and online stats.

 

BTW, the mig can supercruise to mach 1.2 with a full warload indicating thats overmodeled. But I think its wing loading modeling is excessive too.

 

'scuse me but I was never able to reach M1.2 with this payload:2*RBK-250, 2*S-8, 2*R-60 and centerline PTB-1500 with ful mil throttle at any given altitude in MiG!

 

Roll rate is undermodeled, loaded (barrel) roll too so initiating "out of plane" maneuvers takes too much time and is pretty see thru!

 

Acceleration is pretty off, it doesn't accelerate that good but that's a downsize, isn't it?! Fulcrum's speed builds up too quickly to maintain optimal cornering speed in dogfights!

On the other hand it bleeds speed too fast during 3.5-4.0G turns so acceleration like this might be simple compensation ED made in MiG-29's Flight Model.

 

But we're going OT here so let's U turn onto radars!

[GGTharos]

I see your U-turn and raise you a ticket ;)

 

We're talking air to air payloads, and yes, the MiG-29 in LO supercruises at high altitudes in MIL power, which is er, wrong.

 

Roll rate and AoA (loaded handling) are not greatly modeled for any SFM aircraft in LO, not just the MIG.

[theGozr]

==>>> Threads in Forum : Chit-Chat

[RedTiger]

My experience and online stats.

 

BTW, the mig can supercruise to mach 1.2 with a full warload indicating thats overmodeled. But I think its wing loading modeling is excessive too.

 

 

The Su-27 can supercruise at about 10,000 meters if you are careful about how you climb, and that thing is just about the most sluggish feeling fast-mover in the sim. If you can't get it right, er on the side of the MiG, not the Sukhoi, I say! ;)