announced DCS MiG-29A

[pepin1234]

Just now, Silver_Dragon said:

 

enough, continue with your attacks and your fantasy.

 

the thread is about Mig-29!

 

there is something else you want to add to misunderstand the word BALANCE in a simulator that should simulate the reality??

 

it is unbalanced because one side is not receiving the real system while the other side it is receiving more than the real version brought to the table.

[draconus]

10 minutes ago, pepin1234 said:

it is unbalanced because one side is not receiving the real system while the other side it is receiving more than the real version brought to the table

No, it is unbalanced because you put 80s aircraft against 2010s.

[Northstar98]

On 6/29/2021 at 1:58 AM, Harlikwin said:

The point  is there are NO Chinese assets, there will be NO player usable modern Chinese assets. Any "credible" scenario where the marianas are threatened by china is a decade out anyway. I mean I get it if they want to WW2 and put it some effort there. But for modern it makes 0 sense given the restrictions in place. I mean I'd love to see a FF J-15 in the game, but I'll bet good money I don't. 

 

Any credible scenario with marianas is 1000% irrelevant with a 2007 hornet or a 1990's tomcat. Its even dumber if you want to try theory craft the Soviet Navy doing it in the 80's or earlier. 

 

True, but I thought the reasoning for doing the Marianas map is that they're trialling some new terrain technology (unknown exactly what).

 

But yes, 100% of the scenarios are going to be make believe, though I'm personally very excited about it and have some scenarios for it, granted all 100% fictional.

 

Ironic in that I'm planning to use the MiG-29 for REDFOR.

 

The GIUK gap would probably have been the better choice, with only Iceland as the main landmass - only 3D mesh and textures to worry about, sparsely populated by objects (apart from Rekyjavik and Keflavik), plus a real potential theatre for Cold War gone hot missions and there's plenty of inspiration to be had from RSR (if only we could get the Kh-22NA for the Tu-22M3).

 

Personally, though, in both cases - having a flat map is a pain in the backside, especially seeing as you can make the maps huge and only need to do low-res bathymetry.

 

 

As for the 9-12 MiG-29, this is the problem when we have BLUFOR be as latest and greatest possible while completely neglecting a coherent era set.

 

In any case the direct BLUFOR competitor to the 9-12 MiG-29 is the F-16A Block 15. But at the time the 9-12 was introduced, here's what it was mostly up against on and around the main theatre where it would've seen action (western Europe and Baltic) had the Cold War gone hot in the mid 80s:

• F-4F
• F-4M
• F-5A
• F-14A
• F/A-18A
• F-15A / early F-15C
• F-16A
• JA 37
• Mirage 2000C (with Super 530F - Super 530D is basically end of the 80s)  
• Mirage F1

 

So the best BLUFOR gets in BVR is the F-14, most of the other stuff has the AIM-7M/BAe Skyflash at best. There are a few on the list though that don't have any BVR capability whatsoever, and are solely WVR  fighters with only Fox 2 and guns available; these being the F-16A Block 15, F-4F (used by West Germany at the time) and the F-5A (used by Spain at the time AFAIK). 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Northstar98

[Cmptohocah]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

It is not in the manual as it is in the SPO-15 maintenance manual and its blow-up charts. 

Do you have any resources to share? As far as I know, pilots that flew according to the flight manual I have, did not have anything else but what was explicitly stated in the manual.
 

Quote

 

Well that is the limitation of the FC3, but it is still incorrect to say that you can't have a range information without radar, or that it only gets range information using laser range finder.

I think you will get the point. 

MiG-29B manual explicitly states that ranging information to EOS is provided exclusively from the laser range finder.

 

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

Perfec balanced? LOMAC was a December 2003 game.

- F-15C has 120Cs on 2002, Mising Link-16 data links (2002), AIM-9X-1 (Aug 2003) and HMDs. The actual F-15C missing that capability.
- F-15E has 120Cs on 2001, Missing Link-16 data links (2002)
- F/A-18C missing AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR (2003)
- Missing JDAMs (2001) and JSOWs (98) on all USAF/UsNavy Aircrafts as other weapons as AGM-129 and Air Launcher Decoys.

- E-3 Sentry receive NCTR on 98, Link 4, Link 11 and Link 16 (84-88)

 

 

I was not talking about what existed at a time LOMAC came out, but rather what airplanes were included in it

Edited June 29, 2021 by Cmptohocah
forgot a word

[Haukka81]

Mig-29 is old crap, it’s just target in modern war. Nothing more.

If someone needs ”balance” > 70-80’s timeline is ok for it so no aim-120’s etc in blue side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cmptohocah]

18 minutes ago, Haukka81 said:

Mig-29 is old crap, it’s just target in modern war. Nothing more.

If someone needs ”balance” > 70-80’s timeline is ok for it so no aim-120’s etc in blue side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no problem fighting in "old crap" as you said, against AIM-120 or AIM-54. It's just harder that's all.

[bies]

9 hours ago, draconus said:

No, it is unbalanced because you put 80s aircraft against 2010s.

 

Exactly. Just F-16C block 50 CCIP, F/A-18C lot 20 and JF-17 from 2005-2010 are "unbalanced" timeframe and capability wise. All other seems to be balanced very well timeline and capabilities wise. I've checked when specific variants of some aircrafts in DCS became operational in combat units:

 

Su-27S - 1985 (when we add R-27ER/ET - 1991)

F-15C MSIPII - 1985 (when we add AMRAAM - 1991)

Mirage 2000 RDI - 1987

MiG-29A - 1983

F-14A - 1972 (when add AIM-54C - 1987)

F-14B - 1987 (when we add LANTIRN - 1996)

MiG-21bis - 1972 (with R-60M - 1982)

F-5E - 1979

A-10A - 1972

Su-25A - 1981

AJS-37 - 1996

C-101EB -1983

Mi-24P - 1981 (with Ataka - 1987)

L-39C - 1971

L-29ZA -1976

Gazelle M - 1985

Mi-8MTV2 - 1990

UH-1H - 1981

 

Modules in developement from the same 1970s/1980s timeframe Mirage F.1, A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair, MiG-23MLA, Bolkov-105, F-8J Crusader, EE Lighting, IA-58 Pucara, F-4 Phantom, Su-17M, Mirage III.

 

SAMs, Ground assets, ships, early warning radars - nearly all of that is 1980s timeframe.

 

Looks like fair balance to me, mid 1970 to late 1980s timeframe, Fox 1 and Fox 2 code missiles, short range A/G unguided weapon and some rudimentary simple short range guided A/G weapon. Analog or very early digital avionics.

 

---------------------------

What is unbalanced is fighting all this cohesive 1970s/1980s timeframe aircrafts with 2007 Viper, Hornet, 2010 A-10C and JF-17. Man technically can put MiG-15 to WW2 mission, but why?

 

MiG-29 9.12 will fit perfectly some ~20 flyable DCS modules + ~10 modules in development + whole DCS environment and nearly all assets, SAMs, radars, ships - and not to fit just ~4-6 modules. It seems like a great choice to me.

Edited June 29, 2021 by bies

[pepin1234]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

No, it is unbalanced because you put 80s aircraft against 2010s.

80 aircraft without GCI and with the weapons and sensor to use in a ECM condition but your simulation for Aim-120 it is not real. Aim-120 will not work so easily like you do now in ECM. That’s why Mig-29 have IRST sensor and IR longer range missiles. 
 

As this is a direct issue for F fighters, then they take care and remove ECM in 50km. 
 

that’s not a simulation because you are facing Russian Mig-29S with ECM and what we got right now is a duck hunting with a Aim-120 been shoot from 100km while you are able to track unrealistically a Mig-29S with ECM from 45km in flanking aspect.

 

So your argument of tell it is balanced  only because it is a 80 fighter doesn’t apply for Russian Mig-29S with ECM (no simulated) and without GCI (not implemented)

 

then you are used your super modern fighter in a biased simulator missing real simulation about what really matter for Russians Migs and Su fighters.

 

If you don’t get the issue of ECM in medium short range and Mig and Su missed grouped datalink and GCI you are playing a unrealistic simulation in a biased and unbalanced way

Edited June 29, 2021 by pepin1234

[Harlikwin]

12 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Not yet there isn't yet. But in any case they are adding a WW2 version, and it is in fact realistic for training on any of those assets. Just like NTTR is for a bunch of other jets and yet has pretty much zero relevance to any of that stuff you mentioned, and however dumb the marianas is for modern or cold war naval action involving US super carriers Its double dumb for the black sea map.

 

Marianas however is free, the channel map is not, and it literally overlaps Normandy   

 

I mean you can have a realistic and credible scenario on the Cauc map... Yes using a nato carrier there is unrealistic, but thats not what I am talking about. I mean there is no "realistic" scenario outside of training I suppose for that map for the modern era, and doubly so since we won't get "modern RED" jets in DCS. And thats before we start taking a HARD look at exactly how terrible the whole "naval" systems modeling is in DCS. Again, calling it garbage is being overly nice, I mean "health bars" for ships, gimme a break. Or the fact you have like 4 different ASM's with largely the same warhead size and they all do totally different amounts of "damage".   So IMO its mostly a wasted effort IMO, sure its free, yay, but they could have done an AFG map and it would have actually been kinda relevant. 

[bies]

3 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

80 aircraft without GCI and with the weapons and sensor to use in a ECM condition but your simulation for Aim-120 it is not real. Aim-120 will not work so easily like you do now in ECM.

 

I agree GCI was extremely important factor since 1950s up until today. I hope ED making 9.12 will improve GCI API to be used for all MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29 as well as NATO aircrafts like Mirages and others.

Hornet - carrier operations overhaul, Viper - air defense overhaul, MiG-29 9.12 - why not GCI overhaul.

 

And I agree AMRAAM in not "real" and it will never be in DCS since it's strictly classified system, crucial for security of many countries, especially it's guidance algorithms, ECCM logic, real active radar modes and capabilities etc. will remain undisclosed and closely guarded secret.

Edited June 29, 2021 by bies

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, bies said:

 

 

I have my theory why things went this way.

ED probably understand sticking to some cohesive realistic timeframe like i.e. operation Desert Storm or late 1980s NATO vs. WARPAC with fairly declassified aircrafts and technology, somewhat symmetrical warfare with F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, A-10A, MiG-29, Su-27, MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-25, Tornado IDS, Mirage 2000, Viggen etc. would be way more entertaining (and realistic) and faster to make than 2000s mud hut JDAM bombing without any credible opposition.

 

But the reason they made "War on terror" A-10C, F-16C and F/A-18C variants, knowing there will be no realistic environment, some necessary systems simplifications, no timeframe Russian or Chinese opposition aircrafts or SAMs - is their military contract.

 

First USAF pilots needed some affordable training equipment to convert from analog "Desert Storm" A-10A to digital "Afghanistan" A-10C, it was mostly about memorizing HOTAS functions and basic procedures.

 

Then, even if 1980s F-16, MiG-29 or F/A-18 would be much more "enjoyable" for the statistical simulator consumer fighting symmetrical opponents in close maneuver air combat, USAF pilots prefered to have later semi-outdated ~2005 Hornet or Viper variants to train some basic stuff since it still has something in common with what they have in units.

 

Yeah you might very well be right about that. But still it wouldn't take much to "remove" systems. 

8 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

 

In DCS we get ranging information in EOS mode while the radar is off.

 

So for the mig29, and I have a detailed tech manual for the EOS on it, it uses laser to get range info for a firing solution for guns and R-73's. 

 

For the SU-27 EOS its a different model so it may have similarities to the 29 one but its not the same thing. In theory at least it might be able to do angle rate ranging to get range data with the EOS off. Or from the DL.

 

For the Mig23 and the TP23, you can send a "ping" to get range data from the radar in that case, I'd assume its also theoretically possible to do that in the 27. Also it can get ranging data from Lazur so I'm told. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Harlikwin

[kseremak]

1 hour ago, bies said:

MiG-29 9.12 will fit perfectly some ~20 flyable modules + ~10 modules in development + whole DCS environment and nearly all assets and not to fit just ~4-6 modules. It seems like a great choice to me.

 

This. I don't understand why ED decided to make this few modules as more modern then basically all of DCS content. This is also the reason they are constantly struggle to model or ommit some classified stuff in this few '2000s modules. I would like DCS to have 1991 Desert Storm technology but with two sides.

 

NVM i hope they will add 1991 F-16 and F/A-18 in the future to fit the rest of the DCS World. I think i'm going to have even more fun doing close combat in this pure versions against Soviet Union opponents.

For me full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 and Su-27S for life.

Edited June 29, 2021 by kseremak

[Harlikwin]

14 minutes ago, kseremak said:

 

This. I don't understand why ED decided to make this few modules as more modern then basically all of DCS content. This is also the reason they are constantly struggle to model or ommit some classified stuff in this few '2000s modules. I would like DCS to have 1991 Desert Storm technology but with two sides.

 

NVM i hope they will add 1991 F-16 and F/A-18 in the future to fit the rest of the DCS World. I think i'm going to have even more fun doing close combat in this pure versions against Soviet Union opponents.

For me full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 and Su-27S for life.

 

 

Yeah, TBH I guess Bies military contract thing makes the most sense of why they did it that way. But if you take a look a few years back when the most modern jet we had was the M2k/F5/Mig21/viggy and FC3. It would have made vastly more sense to develop 80's or 90's versions of the Viper and hornet and everyone would have been happy to have them and the planeset would have been far more coherent. And then maybe do "upgrades" later. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Harlikwin

[draconus]

5 hours ago, bies said:

Su-17M

Wait, who's doing it? I only heard of Mig-17.

[Semor76]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Wait, who's doing it? I only heard of Mig-17.

Here you go:

 

[Fri13]

6 hours ago, bies said:

I've checked when specific variants of some aircrafts in DCS became operational in combat units:

 

Su-27S - 1985 (when we add R-27ER/ET - 1991)

F-15C MSIPII - 1985 (when we add AMRAAM - 1991)

Mirage 2000 RDI - 1987

MiG-29A - 1983

F-14A - 1972 (when add AIM-54C - 1987)

F-14B - 1987 (when we add LANTIRN - 1996)

MiG-21bis - 1972 (with R-60M - 1982)

F-5E - 1979

A-10A - 1972

Su-25A - 1981

AJS-37 - 1996

C-101EB -1983

Mi-24P - 1981 (with Ataka - 1987)

L-39C - 1971

L-29ZA -1976

Gazelle M - 1985

Mi-8MTV2 - 1990

UH-1H - 1981

 

Excellent summary.

 

I would have liked to see F-16A and F-18A first, then upgraded to current ones for small fee.

 

It would have made a lot more sense.

 

We can take AIM-7 for hornet and AIM-9 for viper, but it isn't exactly same, but doable. And maybe acceptable.

 

10 years is fairly long difference, but not so huge, like now is to offer one all datalinks and helmet mounted sights and all.

 

Right now I am waiting three planes.

1) MiG-23MLA. I am sucker for that.

2) A-6. It is most beautiful American made plane (most beautiful of them all is MiG-23).

3) Because amazing C-101, the Mirage F-1 planes. I can't wait to see those starting to drop in five different variants...

 

If something modern would take my attention, it would be Deka made Su-30... Something from 2005-2010 to offer step in modern two seater Flanker.

 

But give more 70-80's plane and it is more interesting.

10 years difference with a good story for mission and there is nothing so wrong. Be it a -75 plane against -85 plane and they are both interesting to fly. As long the avionics are hard to use.

 

ps. Isn't Viggen from late 80's upgrade as well?

 

 

 

[draconus]

12 minutes ago, Semor76 said:

Here you go:

 

So just a mod... pity.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Wait, who's doing it? I only heard of Mig-17.

 

M3 teased it under a tarp. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Seaeagle]

On 6/29/2021 at 1:49 PM, Cmptohocah said:

MiG-29B manual explicitly states that ranging information to EOS is provided exclusively from the laser range finder.

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.

 

 

[Seaeagle]

On 6/29/2021 at 10:28 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.

+1

On 6/29/2021 at 10:28 AM, Northstar98 said:

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. 

+1

On 6/29/2021 at 10:28 AM, Northstar98 said:

 

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.

+1

On 6/29/2021 at 10:28 AM, Northstar98 said:

But back to the MiG-29 (9-12), when/if we get it, how hard would be to do say a 9-13? It doesn't add a lot, but if a variant should be fairly easy to do then I don't see why not. Ultimately it's the same situation with the Tomcats offered by HB.

Only challenge would be proper implementation of the added ECM, but then I guess thats a universial one.

On 6/29/2021 at 10:28 AM, Northstar98 said:

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 completely agree that something like this would only be desirable if it can be done fairly accurately. But not much need for "projected capabilities" - the MiG-29M test aircraft did have a full combat suite installed and what elements it consisted of/the general capabilities of them is known. Unfortunately it is AFAIK still classified, so the chance of getting more detailed documentation that would allow for a DCS style module is probably no better(maybe even harder) than for the new version.

 

On 6/29/2021 at 10:28 AM, Northstar98 said:

(I'd even say the same about stuff like a Yak-141).

That could be more problematic - IIRC the two Yak-141 built were used for flight testing only, while AFAIK the combat aspect was at an earlier stage of of development(with some testing on static airframes) by the time the project was cancelled.

[Exorcet]

21 hours ago, kseremak said:

 

This. I don't understand why ED decided to make this few modules as more modern then basically all of DCS content. This is also the reason they are constantly struggle to model or ommit some classified stuff in this few '2000s modules.

 

Part of it is probably because DCS isn't a competitive aircraft simulator. There was nothing wrong with selecting 2000+ era 4th gen fighters for the sim, and given the state of DCS I still think that semi independent fighters make the most sense. We don't have great AWACS, we don't have GCI at all. There isn't much you can do with AI wingmen in a dogfight besides let them off their leash and go at it on their own. The damage model and AI flight models also tend to handle missiles/missile combat better than guns.

 

I also want more 80's/90's aircraft in the sim. In fact I'm a proponent of having entire lineages (F-15 A/B/C/D/E, etc) in the sim rather than just one specific model, but I think that just as there are issues with 2000+ planes, there are a few with 80's/90's aircraft as well. Nothing that should keep them out of DCS, but I'm not scratching my head at the choice of teen series aircraft that ED went for.

[Northstar98]

On 6/30/2021 at 4:14 PM, Seaeagle said:

Only challenge would be proper implementation of the added ECM, but then I guess thats a universial one.

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.

Quote

I completely agree that something like this would only be desirable if it can be done fairly accurately. But not much need for "projected capabilities" - the MiG-29M test aircraft did have a full combat suite installed and what elements it consisted of/the general capabilities of them is known. Unfortunately it is AFAIK still classified, so the chance of getting more detailed documentation that would allow for a DCS style module is probably no better(maybe even harder) than for the new version.

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.

Quote

That could be more problematic - IIRC the two Yak-141 built were used for flight testing only, while AFAIK the combat aspect was at an earlier stage of of development(with some testing on static airframes) by the time the project was cancelled.

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).

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.

Spoiler

Here's what C:MANO thinks at least, but note I am not proposing a Yak-141, just sorta toying with the idea.

 

Sensors/EW:

• N019M "Topaz" ["Slot Back"]
• OLS-K (IR + LRF)
• SPO-15 RWR
• L-201 DECM

Weapons/Stores:

• GSh-30-1 w. 100 rounds
• R-27R
• R-73
• Kh-27PS ARM
• Kh-29T
• Kh-31A
• Kh-31P
• Kh-35
• FAB-100M-62
• FAB-250M-54
• FAB-250M-62
• FAB-500M-54
• FAB-500M-62
• OFAB-100-120 (what our FAB-100 actually is)
• OFAB-250-270 (what our FAB-250 actually is)
• RBK-250-PTAB
• RBK-500-PTAB
• RBK-500-ZAB
• S-5
• S-8
• S-13
• S-24
• BVP-30-26M*2 for a total of 60 countermeasure cartridges
• 1000 and 2000 litre external fuel tanks

Again, not a serious proposal.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Wizard_03]

On 6/29/2021 at 5:38 AM, Northstar98 said:

As for the 9-12 MiG-29, this is the problem when we have BLUFOR be as latest and greatest possible while completely neglecting a coherent era set.

 

In any case the direct BLUFOR competitor to the 9-12 MiG-29 is the F-16A Block 15. But at the time the 9-12 was introduced, here's what it was mostly up against on and around the main theatre where it would've seen action (western Europe and Baltic) had the Cold War gone hot in the mid 80s:

• F-4F
• F-4M
• F-5A
• F-14A
• F/A-18A
• F-15A / early F-15C
• F-16A
• JA 37
• Mirage 2000C (with Super 530F - Super 530D is basically end of the 80s)  
• Mirage F1

 

So the best BLUFOR gets in BVR is the F-14, most of the other stuff has the AIM-7M/BAe Skyflash at best, but there are a few on this list that are solely WVR fighters with only Fox 2 and guns available (F-16A, F-4F, F-5A) and apart from the F-16A, they're hopelessly outclassed by the MiG-29 and are inferior in basically every aspect. 

 

F-14A+/B is 1987 So its a contemporary as well. However I wouldn't say the F-15 A or C is hopelessly outclassed in BVR or WVR for that matter. Even a sparrow only hornet without EPEs still could be quite a handful with someone that knows what they're doing behind the wheel. It's at a disadvantage for sure, but far from HOPELESS. F-14B/F-15A are a solid match for it, in all respects. I'd even put Mirage 2000C in there as well.

 

The MiG is good, I'd even go as far as saying its the best at WVR, and its very fast so BVR is also a real threat in the 80s. But the margin is not that wide, The MiG sacrifices a lot for that performance, one of the biggest being Fuel capacity. F-15/14/18/2000C in the mid 80s all have more fuel, better radar, better IFF and therefore potentially better SA and are fully independent of any IADS But they can absolutely have AEW and fighter directing just like the MiG, and some even have onboard jamming equipment. GCI is not going correct the fact that the MiG has its radar display on the HUD and basically no capacity for BVR sorting, or independent search and it has a very limited IFF all of which are actually important in BVR.

[Northstar98]

Just now, Wizard_03 said:

F-14A+/B is 1987 So its a contemporary as well.

 

Well, technically it's mid-ish 90s given the integration of LANTIRN, but if you don't take that the difference between the 2 aren't exactly significant.

 

Just now, Wizard_03 said:

However I wouldn't say the F-15 A or C is hopelessly outclassed in BVR or WVR for that matter. Even a sparrow only hornet without EPEs still could be quite a handful with someone that knows what they're doing behind the wheel. It's at a disadvantage for sure, but far from HOPELESS. F-14B/F-15A are a solid match for it, in all respects. I'd even put Mirage 2000C in there as well.

 

I wasn't talking about any of those when I was talking about being hopelessly outmatched in WVR, and otherwise being inferior in every respect - I was talking about the F-5A and F-4F, which are WVR only.

 

The most potent adversaries to the MiG-29 in this timeframe are the F-15C, F/A-18A and F-16A in that order.

[Wizard_03]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

 

Well, technically it's mid-ish 90s given the integration of LANTIRN, but if you don't take that the difference between the 2 aren't exactly significant.

 

 

I wasn't talking about any of those when I was talking about being hopelessly outmatched in WVR, and otherwise being inferior in every respect - I was talking about the F-5A and F-4F, which are WVR only.

 

The most potent adversaries to the MiG-29 in this timeframe are the F-15C, F/A-18A and F-16A in that order.

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