MiG-29 9.13 module

[CarbonFox]

I understand that a the initial production 9.12 is to be developed or being developed so I don't expect this in reality but still gonna put it in the wish list for ED.

The MiG-29S would be more on par with the current 4th generation Blufor fighters in DCS, especially with the Typhoon around the corner. 

[F-2]

12 minutes ago, CarbonFox said:

I understand that a the initial production 9.12 is to be developed or being developed so I don't expect this in reality but still gonna put it in the wish list for ED.

The MiG-29S would be more on par with the current 4th generation Blufor fighters in DCS, especially with the Typhoon around the corner. 

I agree, actually I’m not sure how difficult doing both would be given their similarity. Docs on the 29s might be a bit hard to come by.

[bies]

9 hours ago, CarbonFox said:

The MiG-29S would be more on par with the current 4th generation Blufor fighters in DCS, especially with the Typhoon around the corner. 

There were two main very distinct 9.13 variants.

One 9.13 was Soviet fighter produced from 1986, produced in hundreds, its only important modifications compared to 9.12 were added Gardena ECM, slightly increased fuel tank inside enlarged "hump" behind the canopy and additional 2° AoA requiring less physical force from the pilot. At the expense of slightly lower kinematic performance of a bit heavier airframe compared to 9.12.

And there was 9.13S, post Cold War variant, produced in tiny numbers in mid 1990s, this had modified radar with TWS and R-77 missile (which didn't entered service in RF), modified IRST, newer computer etc. at cost of further mass increase. This is the one we have in FC3.

The first may by possible to model in full fidelity and it was possibly used in some limited combat. The second is strictly classified, only marginally relevant and probably with 0 combat use, and a mix with prototype solutions.

[okopanja]

Actually the list is more extensive, here is the Mig-29SM+:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/serbia-showcases-modernised-combat-aircraft-debuts-armed-uav

This one will likely be off limits for at least next 10 years, and I posted it that such upgrades are feasable.

[F-2]

4 hours ago, bies said:

There were two main very distinct 9.13 variants.

One 9.13 was Soviet fighter produced from 1986, produced in hundreds, its only important modifications compared to 9.12 were added Gardena ECM, slightly increased fuel tank inside enlarged "hump" behind the canopy and additional 2° AoA requiring less physical force from the pilot. At the expense of slightly lower kinematic performance of a bit heavier airframe compared to 9.12.

And there was 9.13S, post Cold War variant, produced in tiny numbers in mid 1990s, this had modified radar with TWS and R-77 missile (which didn't entered service in RF), modified IRST, newer computer etc. at cost of further mass increase. This is the one we have in FC3.

The first may by possible to model in full fidelity and it was possibly used in some limited combat. The second is strictly classified, only marginally relevant and probably with 0 combat use, and a mix with prototype solutions.

Are the Malaysian migs of the second kind? I know they carried R-77.

[bies]

40 minutes ago, F-2 said:

Are the Malaysian migs of the second kind? I know they carried R-77.

No, they are yet another type, they are MiG-29 9.12, not 9.13 - without hump behind canopy, but with different classified avionics package, integrated with R-77 missiles and rescaled cockpits, they have been retired in 2017.

Edited August 6, 2022 by bies

[CarbonFox]

8 hours ago, bies said:

There were two main very distinct 9.13 variants.

One 9.13 was Soviet fighter produced from 1986, produced in hundreds, its only important modifications compared to 9.12 were added Gardena ECM, slightly increased fuel tank inside enlarged "hump" behind the canopy and additional 2° AoA requiring less physical force from the pilot. At the expense of slightly lower kinematic performance of a bit heavier airframe compared to 9.12.

And there was 9.13S, post Cold War variant, produced in tiny numbers in mid 1990s, this had modified radar with TWS and R-77 missile (which didn't entered service in RF), modified IRST, newer computer etc. at cost of further mass increase. This is the one we have in FC3.

The first may by possible to model in full fidelity and it was possibly used in some limited combat. The second is strictly classified, only marginally relevant and probably with 0 combat use, and a mix with prototype solutions.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm assuming then that the Post-Cold War variant had the N019M Topaz.

[upyr1]

 

10 hours ago, bies said:

There were two main very distinct 9.13 variants.

One 9.13 was Soviet fighter produced from 1986, produced in hundreds, its only important modifications compared to 9.12 were added Gardena ECM, slightly increased fuel tank inside enlarged "hump" behind the canopy and additional 2° AoA requiring less physical force from the pilot. At the expense of slightly lower kinematic performance of a bit heavier airframe compared to 9.12.

I wonder if we could get this version? 

[Baltic Dude]

Personally, I'm happy to just keep the FC3 MiG-29's. To be honest having less buttons to remember makes me want to fly them more often.

[bies]

5 hours ago, Baltic Dude said:

Personally, I'm happy to just keep the FC3 MiG-29's. To be honest having less buttons to remember makes me want to fly them more often.

Full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 is coming to DCS. It will have far less buttons to remember than FC3 one, because it will have clickable cockpit.

I'm always reluctant to fly FC3 modules being forced to remember huge amount of buttons due to their non-clickable cockpits. If something is visually represented in cockpit, like gear handle or some cockpit button with name on it or contrast fire extinguisher i remember it just after one use, but to remember 20-30 FC3 abstract commands like next radar PRF mode or next navigation mode/waypoint, or next bomb/rocket interval etc. is pain in the ass compared to full fidelity modules - despite them being way more realistic and in depth simulation they are simply way easier and more pleasant to operate.

[Baltic Dude]

2 hours ago, bies said:

Full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 is coming to DCS. It will have far less buttons to remember than FC3 one, because it will have clickable cockpit.

I'm always reluctant to fly FC3 modules being forced to remember huge amount of buttons due to their non-clickable cockpits. If something is visually represented in cockpit, like gear handle or some cockpit button with name on it or contrast fire extinguisher i remember it just after one use, but to remember 20-30 FC3 abstract commands like next radar PRF mode or next navigation mode/waypoint, or next bomb/rocket interval etc. is pain in the ass compared to full fidelity modules - despite them being way more realistic and in depth simulation they are simply way easier and more pleasant to operate.

That doesn't really make much sense. The same buttons can be bounded for all the FC3 modules. The FF switches is ONLY for that module. It's way easier to remember the same keybinds for F-15C, Su-33, J-11, MiG-29, Su-25, etc. Once you learn the module I'm sure it would be easier but it's also easier to forget after a while. Even if I forget FC3 keybinds, I just take a look and I'm back in it. I fly exclusively REDFOR but I'm just not gonna buy the MiG-29 simply because I already own the MiG-29.

[bies]

Just now, Baltic Dude said:

That doesn't really make much sense. The same buttons can be bounded for all the FC3 modules.

If you fly FC3 regularly, you probably remember all this - next radar PRF mode, next navigation mode/waypoint, next bomb/rocket interval etc. because they are identical to all FC3 planes. I don't remember them by memory since i fly FC3 very rarely. And there is no shortcut - you just need to remember it.

In full fidelity you don't have to remember, you just see physical lever in the cockpit and you pull it, or button with A/A text - you press it.

And MiG-29, F-15, Su-27 etc. are not comparable in terms of realism or in depth modeling to DCS modules. Full fidelity simulation is the reason i'm buying just about every DCS module and i'll definitely buy any FC3 module when developed in Full Fidelity DCS standard. Developers was talkind about disconnecting FC3 from DCS a few times, idk if this was due to announced MAC game or something else or i understood this incorrectly.

[Baltic Dude]

7 hours ago, bies said:

If you fly FC3 regularly, you probably remember all this - next radar PRF mode, next navigation mode/waypoint, next bomb/rocket interval etc. because they are identical to all FC3 planes. I don't remember them by memory since i fly FC3 very rarely. And there is no shortcut - you just need to remember it.

In full fidelity you don't have to remember, you just see physical lever in the cockpit and you pull it, or button with A/A text - you press it.

And MiG-29, F-15, Su-27 etc. are not comparable in terms of realism or in depth modeling to DCS modules. Full fidelity simulation is the reason i'm buying just about every DCS module and i'll definitely buy any FC3 module when developed in Full Fidelity DCS standard. Developers was talkind about disconnecting FC3 from DCS a few times, idk if this was due to announced MAC game or something else or i understood this incorrectly.

That is perfectly fine and understandable, but I most likely won't be, as I already have the same low-fidelity module which will be easier to use for me in singleplayer and multiplayer. If MAC comes out they will probably merge the two or give FC3 players a discount. I would have much preferred them to make a new module instead of a copy of what we already have. It's a Professional Flight Model, if they give previous MiG-29A pilots a discount then I might reconsider. If they instead made a Yak-38 module then absolutely I would purchase.

[bies]

7 hours ago, Baltic Dude said:

I would have much preferred them to make a new module instead of a copy of what we already have. It's a Professional Flight Model, if they give previous MiG-29A pilots a discount then I might reconsider. If they instead made a Yak-38 module then absolutely I would purchase.

I can understand the sentiment, but personally i'm the other way around - all FC3 modules are on my TOP full fidelity wishlist, Cold War Su-27S, F-15C, MiG-29A, Su-25A, A-10A - truth is FC3 simply took most of the sexiest airframes of 1970s/1980s. It would be a shame FC3 standard would remain for such important aircrafts. For me FC3 is totally different than DCS module, not even close to be any substitute.

Yak-38 for Soviet Aviation, together with Kiev class carrier/cruiser would be great as well. I remember operating from this ship in Apache/Havoc older sim.

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, bies said:

I can understand the sentiment, but personally i'm the other way around - all FC3 modules are on my TOP full fidelity wishlist, Cold War Su-27S, F-15C, MiG-29A, Su-25A, A-10A - truth is FC3 simply took most of the sexiest airframes of 1970s/1980s. It would be a shame FC3 standard would remain for such important aircrafts. For me FC3 is totally different than DCS module, not even close to be any substitute.

Yak-38 for Soviet Aviation, together with Kiev class carrier/cruiser would be great as well. I remember operating from this ship in Apache/Havoc older sim.

I mean, of course, to each their own, and we all have our preferences.

That said though, for me that would be below absolute bottom priority personally. As far as I'm concerned, the most interesting thing about these particular airframes in these particular versions is the flight characteristics, which we already have in FC3. I'd be quite sad to see them being made, which I'd consider low hanging fruit, instead of more full fidelity Cold War types like Su-17s, MiG-27s, MiG-25s, Century series fighters, Jaguar, Tornado, EE Lightning, more Mirages, even additional MiG-21 versions (I'd sooner buy either a MiG-21F13 or a waaay post Cold War upgrade 21 like Bison or LanceR, or a late J-7 for example). I'm already quite ambivalent about DCS: MiG-29A idea. But I'll reserve judgement until I see navigation and bombing modes etc.

1 hour ago, bies said:

Yak-38 for Soviet Aviation, together with Kiev class carrier/cruiser would be great as well.

Personally I'm always more for obscure, weird aircraft than poster children of aviation, and I tend to like Soviet planes a lot. But Yak-38 is where I draw the line I suppose, that one's too much even for me with its famously mule-like flight caharacteristics, with very little joy to provide in the way it flies, as well as its generally non extant capabilities in the missions it was supposed to perform :P. But I do see it being at least a curio to try for some people, so I guess I do somewhat understand the draw.

[Baltic Dude]

9 hours ago, WinterH said:

Personally I'm always more for obscure, weird aircraft than poster children of aviation, and I tend to like Soviet planes a lot. But Yak-38 is where I draw the line I suppose, that one's too much even for me with its famously mule-like flight caharacteristics, with very little joy to provide in the way it flies, as well as its generally non extant capabilities in the missions it was supposed to perform :P. But I do see it being at least a curio to try for some people, so I guess I do somewhat understand the draw.

I hate how people buy into NATO propaganda like this and mistreat MiG-23 and Yak-38. Yak-38's mere existence was a deterrent to NATO in the Kola Peninsula. Its main use was to perform anti-shipping capabilities, as well as being able to carry R-60's, rockets, ATGM's, gunpods and bombs. Of course it's not a dogfighter, why does everything have to be a dogfighter for it to matter? If you want to use its full capability, use it in cold Kola, not hot Afghanistan, even though when we get Afghanistan, IT WILL BE A HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT. People draw "lines" for the most childish of reasons.

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, Baltic Dude said:

I hate how people buy into NATO propaganda like this and mistreat MiG-23 and Yak-38. Yak-38's mere existence was a deterrent to NATO in the Kola Peninsula. Its main use was to perform anti-shipping capabilities, as well as being able to carry R-60's, rockets, ATGM's, gunpods and bombs. Of course it's not a dogfighter, why does everything have to be a dogfighter for it to matter? If you want to use its full capability, use it in cold Kola, not hot Afghanistan, even though when we get Afghanistan, IT WILL BE A HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT. People draw "lines" for the most childish of reasons.

Quite honestly, only childish thing here is this silly tantrum you are throwing  Moving from many assumptions, incorrect ones at that.
First off, many of my favorite aircraft aren't necessarily dogfighters, duh! Air to air is probably one of the things I do the least in DCS. Su-25 is a dogfighter right? Or A-4. In fact, helicopters are some of my favorite things in DCS and Mi-8 is one of them I regard/enjoy the highest. "Why does everything have to be a dogfighter" question may apply to many folks around here, but I don't see myself as one of those. But, I do want them to be fun to fly regardless. As opposed to a brick that can barely lift itself.
Secondly, "buys into NATO propaganda" isn't how I tend to roll either, as I try to be as impartial as I can be, we are all fallible of course, so am I at times. That said, you don't make your airplane eject pilots automatically if you don't know it is a little doo-doo when it comes to flight characteristics with those tiny wings, two lift engines that are deadweight after takeoff, not being particularly fond of carrying ordnance under said tiny wings etc.

It will be historical in what context? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying something has to be historical for someone to like it, I love Viggen to bits, looking forward to hopefully get things like Draken and Su-15 too eventually, none of which have a great history of battles to show. That said, I'd have to ask how exactly is Yak-38 historical, aside from "having existed in history", which can be said about every aircraft. From what I know (which I am open to change improve if you can show me any significant operational use of the type), Yak-38 isn't any more historically significant than Su-25T...

Carries R-60s, yes, sure, what doesn't from its vintage though?  I don't know if I'd call Kh-23M an ATGM, good luck hitting a tank with it, especially a moving one. Anti shipping, to the degree it will give a NATO fleet pause? Ok, compared to that doing tank plinking with Kh-23M suddenly doesn't sound bad anymore

Not everything bad said about a particular aircraft have to be propaganda from other side you know...

As for the MiG-23, I am looking forward to it A LOT. But that doesn't mean I think of it as the best fighter of its generation either, nor does it have to be. I don't care for an aircraft to be the most capable thing ever, heck I love L-39 and C-101 FFS  and they ARE fun to fly, which is where I draw the "line", yes.

[bies]

On 8/9/2022 at 8:42 PM, Baltic Dude said:

I hate how people buy into NATO propaganda like this and mistreat MiG-23 and Yak-38.

What kind of propaganda? If anything NATO always gave significant benefit of doubd to all kind of Soviet equipement, even the types which later porven to be really unsuccessfull. There is multitude of examples where NATO was overestimating Soviet weapon systems and not many, if any, where NATO underestimated them.

I like Yak-38 not because of some "propaganda" of one side, but because it was distinct and unique and it had its role in Soviet naval aviation which suffered from insufficient sea/air component. But i know it was very much compromised all around due to its VTOL design. 

Many guys want even transport aircraft or non-armed helicopter, or acrobatic civilian aircraft. Yak-38 was armed, serially produced, challenging to fly.

Edited August 11, 2022 by bies

[CarbonFox]

I get the FC3 argument but a full fidelity MiG-29S would just offer alittle more of that immersion and close that disparity gap between the 4th gen Red and Blue force aircraft. The only other ideal option would be a Su-27S or P but that seems even less likely right now.

[Baltic Dude]

On 8/9/2022 at 12:35 PM, WinterH said:

Quite honestly, only childish thing here is this silly tantrum you are throwing  Moving from many assumptions, incorrect ones at that.
First off, many of my favorite aircraft aren't necessarily dogfighters, duh! Air to air is probably one of the things I do the least in DCS. Su-25 is a dogfighter right? Or A-4. In fact, helicopters are some of my favorite things in DCS and Mi-8 is one of them I regard/enjoy the highest. "Why does everything have to be a dogfighter" question may apply to many folks around here, but I don't see myself as one of those. But, I do want them to be fun to fly regardless. As opposed to a brick that can barely lift itself.
Secondly, "buys into NATO propaganda" isn't how I tend to roll either, as I try to be as impartial as I can be, we are all fallible of course, so am I at times. That said, you don't make your airplane eject pilots automatically if you don't know it is a little doo-doo when it comes to flight characteristics with those tiny wings, two lift engines that are deadweight after takeoff, not being particularly fond of carrying ordnance under said tiny wings etc.

It will be historical in what context? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying something has to be historical for someone to like it, I love Viggen to bits, looking forward to hopefully get things like Draken and Su-15 too eventually, none of which have a great history of battles to show. That said, I'd have to ask how exactly is Yak-38 historical, aside from "having existed in history", which can be said about every aircraft. From what I know (which I am open to change improve if you can show me any significant operational use of the type), Yak-38 isn't any more historically significant than Su-25T...

Carries R-60s, yes, sure, what doesn't from its vintage though?  I don't know if I'd call Kh-23M an ATGM, good luck hitting a tank with it, especially a moving one. Anti shipping, to the degree it will give a NATO fleet pause? Ok, compared to that doing tank plinking with Kh-23M suddenly doesn't sound bad anymore

Not everything bad said about a particular aircraft have to be propaganda from other side you know...

As for the MiG-23, I am looking forward to it A LOT. But that doesn't mean I think of it as the best fighter of its generation either, nor does it have to be. I don't care for an aircraft to be the most capable thing ever, heck I love L-39 and C-101 FFS  and they ARE fun to fly, which is where I draw the "line", yes.

If you seriously don't know about the Yak-38 operations in Afghanistan and its home being Kola then you're long gone. Yak-38 in cold weather environment is capable, only high altitude, hot temperature Afghanistan gave it problems which is why people like you dog on it so much. I would very much enjoy anti-shipping operations with Yak-38 and encourage either ED or a third party to give REDFOR a VTOL opportunity.

[okopanja]

Here is some propaganda:

https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/f-35-yak-141-freestyle-vtol-jet/

[Baltic Dude]

 

[Dragon1-1]

I'd fly Yak-38 for the challenge.  DCS generally gives us planes that are easy to fly, even WWII ones that we have are generally well-behaved. I don't know if all aerodynamic quirks of our modules are modeled (particularly MiG-15, which was downright docile last time I flew it), but Yak-38 would be a radical departure from this idea... and, if you're not careful, from controlled flight.  It was genuinely hard to fly, particularly in VTOL, and while good enough at what it did, it was by no means a Harrier.

[F-2]

Wasn’t Cuban Ace trying to develop a Yak-38 and was denied documentation by Yak?

[okopanja]

13 minutes ago, F-2 said:

Wasn’t Cuban Ace trying to develop a Yak-38 and was denied documentation by Yak?

Wasn't the Yak it self who sold documentation to Lockheed?