announced DCS MiG-29A

[Harlikwin]

Mig 9.12 is like your bride on your wedding night...

 

9.13, a bit later, with a few more lbs...

 

9.15 etc... You know how it goes...

 

[WarbossPetross]

14 часов назад, Airhunter сказал:

 

Indeed. The sketchy part about the S is that it's still in RuAF operations and the ECM part might get tricky.

 

12 часов назад, XPACT сказал:

 

While this is true I am not really confident that they have any info on inner workings of F-16C or F/A-18C ECM yet those planes are being developed and by contrast their ECM should be much more modern and capable. EW - ECM as whole in DCS is really hard topic since currently it is so oversimplified that it's better if it wasn't even implemented in the first place, my opinion of course, actually everything based on EMR is very oversimplified and a lot of things can be done better and improved like radar and internal communications but EW-ECM will probably never get there at least not anytime soon.

 

ECM is really not a problem. EW is one of the most classified topics in any military for reasons too obvious to explain. All ECM systems, FC3 MiG-29S included, are simulated as simple white noise ECM in DCS, so that's what we would get because ED won't be able to model anything else anyway.

[draconus]

13 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

ECM is really not a problem. EW is one of the most classified topics in any military for reasons too obvious to explain. All ECM systems, FC3 MiG-29S included, are simulated as simple white noise ECM in DCS, so that's what we would get because ED won't be able to model anything else anyway.

This is a PC game and it's possible to model anything. The only question is level of accuracy with RL systems. There were many discussions on this huge topic already and in short, we don't have to know anything classified to have it modeled but to make it believable we'd have to make educated guesses on the effects it makes on the radars and their abilities to detect and track jamming targets (ECCM too) based on different types of jamming, devices types, size/power, date of manufacture and finally possible complexity and performance, so ex. say Su-27 90's external jammer would not be very effective against F/A-18C lot 20 radar but would cause troubles for the F-14.

[Cmptohocah]

29 minutes ago, draconus said:

...so ex. say Su-27 90's external jammer would not be very effective against F/A-18C lot 20 radar...

Any specific reason why it would not be effective against the Hornet's radar?

 

[draconus]

Just now, Cmptohocah said:

Any specific reason why it would not be effective against the Hornet's radar?

Just an example. Possible reason - ECCM and software on the newer radar.

[okopanja]

18 minutes ago, draconus said:

Just an example. Possible reason - ECCM and software on the newer radar.

Maybe yes and maybe no.

 

To do that you would need to get hold of one or have solid ELINT data records from a live system. Doing first is not easy, for the second you have to be on the verge of conflict already.

[draconus]

Yes, I agree, but with "do it 100% correctly or don't do it at all" stance we shouldn't even have the simplest ECM we already have and many other systems...

[Cmptohocah]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Yes, I agree, but with "do it 100% correctly or don't do it at all" stance we shouldn't even have the simplest ECM we already have and many other systems...

I don't know about ECMs for other aircraft, but the Su-27's, technically speaking, is not modeled correctly in a sense that the real one has a plethora of modes:

- active jamming

- breaking lock

- jamming missiles
But I guess this is not doable at the moment so the current implementation seems like a good compromise. Only one thing I don't agree with, is that (for Flanker and Fulcrum at least and not sure about others as I don't have available info) in the HUD when the ECM is on, we have a "pinpoint-like" ECM source where in reality it's dependent on the range: further away the jammer is the more lines should appear filling the HUD and vice versa.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[Airhunter]

Well, it's up to ED and the SME's to decide what should be possible and what shouldn't be. Afaik. the 9.12 simply had weight restrictions on said pylons and the weapons control system wasn't specifically configured for said missiles, let alone the cooling mechanism for the 27T. With its original radar it would pretty much be a case of the missile outranging its radar in a lot of cases. 

 

The 27's jammers can be quite effective especailly if it's DFRM in later models. But again, we are talking about the 29A here, with no jammer and fairly large limitations when it comes to the radar and SPO-15. And honestly, for the type of engagements the 29A was designed for "only" having the 27R and Archer is more than fine - you would not want to try and out BVR Eagles or Hornets with AMRAAM's or even late Sparrows.

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, Airhunter said:

Well, it's up to ED and the SME's to decide what should be possible and what shouldn't be. Afaik. the 9.12 simply had weight restrictions on said pylons and the weapons control system wasn't specifically configured for said missiles, let alone the cooling mechanism for the 27T. With its original radar it would pretty much be a case of the missile outranging its radar in a lot of cases. 

 

How wrong do you keep want to being?

 

Coolant bottles for the 27T are built into the pylons, they are common to the 27 and 29. 

https://kaz.km.ua/en/apu-470-470m/

 

 

 

[Seaeagle]

18 hours ago, okopanja said:

Seriously?

Do you really believe that these missiles would not be backward compatible? That is the very first requirement they would get from the military.

Its not the missile that needs to be "backward compatible", but the WCS that needs to be forward compatible with a weapon that it wasn't meant to use to begin with.

 

 

18 hours ago, okopanja said:

I suggest watching several workaround videos soviet aircraft on youtube just to get the idea on how much thought they paid to the tiny details.

 

 

Here is the video of Mig-29 UPG:

 

SMT otherwise known as 9.17

 

 

There is also an SMT variant without the hump(9.18) as well as other upgrades applied to the original 9.12 airframe.

[Seaeagle]

51 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

How wrong do you keep want to being?

 

Coolant bottles for the 27T are built into the pylons, they are common to the 27 and 29. 

https://kaz.km.ua/en/apu-470-470m/

 

 

There is more to this than coolant bottles in the APU-470 launcher. The bottom line is that the 9.12 wasn't compatible with the R-27T - just R-27R, R-73 and R-60M.

[Airhunter]

17 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

 

 

 

There is also an SMT variant without the hump(9.18) as well as other upgrades applied to the original 9.12 airframe.

 

Thanks, that's the one. 

[Seaeagle]

4 hours ago, Airhunter said:

Well, it's up to ED and the SME's to decide what should be possible and what shouldn't be. Afaik. the 9.12 simply had weight restrictions on said pylons and the weapons control system wasn't specifically configured for said missiles, let alone the cooling mechanism for the 27T. With its original radar it would pretty much be a case of the missile outranging its radar in a lot of cases. 

I don't think it was down to weight restrictions, but more a case of general considerations about practical loadout versus intended mission types. 

 

[Airhunter]

4 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

I don't think it was down to weight restrictions, but more a case of general considerations about practical loadout versus intended mission types. 

 

 

Agreed. Much more plausible. 

[Wizard_03]

Well in any case it seems ED already made the determination because we have them for the 29A now. 

[okopanja]

2 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

There is also an SMT variant without the hump(9.18) as well as other upgrades applied to the original 9.12 airframe.

I am curious if you know how the hump was actually added to the Mig-29 in the first place?

[Gierasimov]

[FoxAlfa]

HUD from the 9.12 manual... no jammer active indication on the left, for smart Aleks who are going to ask if it is not 9.13, nor it has section about using the Jammer... so plz update your information. If some army didn't field a certain weapon or the manual is before the weapon existed doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable carrying it.

Also I am pretty certain that some export version weren't capable on purpose 

Edited September 14, 2021 by FoxAlfa

[XPACT]

5 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

Also I am pretty certain that some export version weren't capable on purpose

 

Like for example Soviet ones having another radar mode probably variation of high PRF with better ECCM. Every export equipment that I know of at least of Russian origin is downgraded sometimes really significantly. Export combat vehicles, tanks, apcs etc. were always using completely different composites for armor.

[FoxAlfa]

11 minutes ago, XPACT said:

 

Like for example Soviet ones having another radar mode probably variation of high PRF with better ECCM

Exactly... per example export HUD has much less symbology also, per example also much less radar peacetime and wartime channels then the soviet ones... 

 

[Harlikwin]

47 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

HUD from the 9.12 manual... no jammer active indication on the left, for smart Aleks who are going to ask if it is not 9.13, nor it has section about using the Jammer... so plz update your information. If some army didn't field a certain weapon or the manual is before the weapon existed doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable carrying it.

Also I am pretty certain that some export version weren't capable on purpose 

 

 

Thats funny, it says R-27T right there.... Oh and ER... Geeze...

Edited September 14, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

41 minutes ago, XPACT said:

 

Like for example Soviet ones having another radar mode probably variation of high PRF with better ECCM. Every export equipment that I know of at least of Russian origin is downgraded sometimes really significantly. Export combat vehicles, tanks, apcs etc. were always using completely different composites for armor.

 

Precisely, all export models had reduced capabilities, and even in the case of very simple weapons like small arms were often obsolete or QC rejects.

 

Like it or not, the Soviets invented the term "monkey model" for export equipment. 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Harlikwin

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, XPACT said:

Export combat vehicles, tanks, apcs etc. were always using completely different composites for armor.

Digression: There are elements of truth here. I talked once with tank commander, he told me the original T-72s along the documentation were delivered by Sowiets with incorrect fuse for a turret horizontal movement. This means you move it a bit more intensively, the fuse burns, your super-modern tank becomes useless. Then the "Zastavnik" took out a sample, removed original metal, found something similar in workshop and replaced it. After some trial and error they found the correct resistance and burning temperature values. The fuses stopped burning without the real reason.

 

Another example: a certain older gentleman who was among those who went to Libya noticed they were not bothering to train the clients properly for the hardware they delivered.  Libyans were more interested in young lady interpreters than learning themselves, so one they the Sowiet came to him and ask him: "Misha, why do you bother with these XXX?"

[Cmptohocah]

10 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

HUD from the 9.12 manual...

Could you check what the number 23 represents, please? It should be the target's closure rate, but I could be also wrong.