MiG-29A FF: capabilities and how will it fit into the (meta)game?

[PawlaczGMD]

I was really excited when I heard that the full fidelity 29 is coming. Red is lacking a modern-ish fighter to counter F-15/16/18, which makes multiplayer balance rough. So most people just fly western planes, which makes the combat unrealistic and a bit boring due to the symmetry.  But then I realized that the 29 will not really solve these issues - at least if it is equipped similarly to the FC3 version.

Now, it will still be a great module, and I will be getting it, but I wonder how this plane will fit into the game. If it won't have a datalink or fox-3 missiles, it will have a really rough time against western opponents. The F-15/16/18 will load all AMRAAMs, and that's it for you - only niche way of attacks will be feasible, or if you want to handicap yourself to show off skill. On the other hand, earlier western fighters like the F-4, F-5, etc, will not be flying in the same era, as they are not capable enough - against the current cold war lineup, the MiG-29 is on the other hand too good.

Against an F-14, the fight will be a lot more even, and that is perhaps the only approximately on-par opponent for the MiG. 

So, was there any info released on the systems and armament that will be equipped? If it will carry a datalink, and R-77, or maybe R-77-1, that would make it fit so much better with other fighters in the game.

And I'm not trying to say that modules that don't fit into the metagame should not be made - but this is the entry that gave me some hope of bringing modern red up to par! 

[CrazyGman]

We look to be getting a 9.12 variant that was the Soviet fighter. So the one given to Russian and all the Soviet states. So that means no internal ECM unit, and it looks like we won't yet be getting lazur-m implementation (GCI Datalink) off the get go, but maybe at a later date. 

to use the R-77 we would have to be getting the 9.13 variant that had the upgraded radar (only a handful of those), so were not getting any R-77, though all flavors of R-27 that we currently have in game are up for grabs including the ER and ET varients i believe. After some responses and myself re-evaluating the info It looks more just like the R-27R and maybe the ER (which they could kinda trick the old system to use). At least on release, we'll see how things go.

in terms of Meta, the MiG-29 even a base R-27R 9.12 Fulcrum will fit right in with the M2000C, F-14, MiG-23, F-4E, Mirage F1, A7 and A6 and AV-8B night attack and F/A-18C and F-15E armed with Sparrows only, and F-16 armed with only Aim-9s. This fits right in with a cold war gone hot scenario in the late 80s and there are already servers like Enigmas cold war, and tempest that are already gearing up for these planes. If datalink sharing is disabled on the servers this puts everyone with a decent amount of stuff. that can compete pretty well together.

Edited January 8, 2024 by CrazyGman

[Gierasimov]

Up to the mission maker to decide what weapons are available. Even for MP crowd it's going to be nice. 

Completely agree with CrazyGMan.

[Tarres]

Only one thing about CrazyGman said,  in order to use the R-77, R27T and 27RE and RT we need the 9.13S (around 20 delivered to the VVS).

9.13 was the one with the Gardenya ECM, more fuel in the spin, ability to carry underwing fuel tanks (retrofitted to 9.12 so maybe we can have it) and weapons payload increased to 4000kg (tandem FAB-500 in inner and medium pylons)

[ustio]

I think we should accept that we won't be getting modern pvp blue vs red aircraft scenario anytine soon. Modern settings is only good for PvE. Specially when the typhoon is out

[Tarres]

MiG-29 9.12 is a 1983 airplane, 9.13 is a 1985/6 airplane and the 9.13S is a 1990/1 airplane 

[QuiGon]

I think it will fit in very well in Fox1 based 80s scenarios and multiplayer servers like Buddyspike Blue Flag 80s or Enigma Cold War where it will have to compete against Sparrow equipped aircraft or less (the F-16 for example only even has Sidewinders in a 80s/ early 90s scenario).

Edited January 8, 2024 by QuiGon

[addman]

F-16A would be cool in early 80's scenario.

[Obic]

DCS Best timeline is 1980 to 1995

MIG-29 is perfect for the 1983 to 1992 stretch that's 9+ years ....
Who's going to like it, People that understand it's basically a glorified Mig-21Bis and use it as such 
90% of the DCS Servers are made to cater to the  JDAM and 120c7 addicts
Enigma seems to be the only one to get this timeline concept
DDCS is not too bad because the Mig-29A and Mig-21 are put in as point defence fighter on advance airfield but it could really use the whole logistics of weapons and a smarter GCI

1980 to 1990
USN/USAF/USMC
F-18C is the closest opponent we have in the game for the time period. (Aim-9L + Aim-7F) later (Aim-9M + Aim7M) up to 1992
F-14A/B with similar loadout is the same. (Does shine in that era with the AIM-54)
F-16C Aim-9L or Aim-9M that's it. Until limited number of Aim-120B 1991+
AV8B could be loaded with a period correct loadout.
F-15E Aim-9M + Aim-7M + LGB + TGP that don't work over 15 000ft (Have fun with that)
The bad reputation is basically from the 100 vs 1 ratio the Iraq Airforce had to deal with.
A-4E Can be included with a stretch depending on country etc

Mirage F-1 All versions & weapons Fits right in 
Mirage 2000c Fit's right in with all weapons.

Mig-21Bis still fit's right in depending on country
Mig-23MLA Same
 

Edited January 8, 2024 by Obic

[WinterH]

In my opinion, servers with post 2000 aircraft are doomed to remain exactly this way. Unless something super unexpected happens and a red bird from this century can be released that is. 

So far people from ED said that it'll be an 80s MiG as far as I know, and in an 80s setting it should be one of the best contenders.

I believe DCS users can be classified within 3 main (and simplified) categories:

- Those that love aircraft in general, and like to create scenarios in mission editor, complex or simple alike, and play them single player or multi with a small group 

- Those that lie aircraft, and well constructed campaigns/historical and/or fictional highly polished content 

- Those who like online PvP server experience and fly aircraft there, and are thus interested in potential match-ups and relevant tactics

Now of course a user may belong either only one, or two, or even all of these. Personally I'm pretty firmly in category 1 myself. So while I try to always look at things from multiple angles, there may be some skewing towards that. 

The MiG, I believe, will work wonders for that first group. It is an interesting aircraft, but now with limitations from FC3 systems removed.

At first I was ambivalent at best towards full fidelity early MiG-29. I was thinking the only interesting thing about it is the FM, and we already have that in FC3. But the more I think about it, the more I started to like it. I can now have a navigation system that I can program after loading into a mission and that alone is good. I also like the idea of more direct interaction with with more in depth modeled systems.

For the second group, interaction with aircraft is also at least as important especially when individual systems and/or failures are important for a particular mission. There has been some fictional campaigns that were quite well regarded. For realistic what ifs in 80s, not sure if there'll be many campaign makers who will prefer to work on one, given the current strate of affairs in the world. But there may be creative ideas, or a typical Cold War gone hot campaign maybe. 

Finally for the 3rd group, it will depend on the server. There are now options like Enigma and a few 80s SARH only servers AFAIK even if I don't fly online myself. It'll do as well as FC3 does over there, but not any better probably. But for the usual free for all scenarios, clearly it'll be waaaaaay behind the curve as others said above. 

Overall I feel like it'll be a module that fits with all of the DCS user types to some degree. 

Edited January 11, 2024 by WinterH

[CrazyGman]

3 hours ago, Tarres said:

Only one thing about CrazyGman said,  in order to use the R-77, R27T and 27RE and RT we need the 9.13S (around 20 delivered to the VVS)

IIRC R27RE and RT do not require the upgraded radar, there is no major difference in the seeker, it's just an increased rocket booster, and the original radars were built with the ability to recognize this option when the missile was put on the pylon and adjust the launch parameters shown on the HUD

Edited January 8, 2024 by CrazyGman

[lmp]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

I can now have a navigation system that I can program after loading into a mission and that alone is good.

Well... Define program. AFAIK the INS in the Fulcrum-A can store a total of 3 waypoints and 3 airfields that are preprogrammed before flight. No console in the cockpit to change them or add new ones I'm afraid. Other than that, you get RSBN/PRMG and an ADF (with preprogrammed channels as well I believe?). So unless ED gives us a knee board page for changing waypoints, there won't be much programming.

Expect a lot of things to be chosen for you by the ground crew or the aircraft designers themselves. Another example would be radar display ranges tied to the PRF, no choice in the number of bars for scanning in elevation... That's just how they designed planes on that side of the curtain 

[Exorcet]

The MiG is fine. The mission determines the balance as much as the planes themselves.

Red should be on the defense. Blue on the offensive. MiG's should operate under a EWR/SAM net supported by SA-10/11. The Fulcrum can't fight the teen series head on unless AMRAAM's are restricted, but it's a potent ambush fighter. T/ET missiles are always something to watch out for. The MiG can also be paired with the JF-17 and F-14 depending on the situation. Team tactics win wars, not solo flying. In the real world MiG-21's have been useful in assisting more advanced fighters. MiG-29's can do the same.

It's also worth considering that DCS can simulate situations where the Blue side isn't US/NATO. Iran vs Iraq (29's came after, but a hypothetical expansion of the war, or early MiG delivery can be simulated) for instance eliminates F-15/16/18 and can have the MiG-29 pitted against Mirage F1, where it is superior. The Tomcat and AIM-54 will still exist, but having to pick and choose fights while watching for various opponents is interesting.

Edited January 8, 2024 by Exorcet

[WinterH]

12 minutes ago, lmp said:

AFAIK the INS in the Fulcrum-A can store a total of 3 waypoints and 3 airfields that are preprogrammed before flight. No console in the cockpit to change them or add new ones I'm afraid.

Ugh, that'd be... suboptimal if it was the case indeed, you're slowly pushing me back into "wish it was any other thing than MiG-29A, as it basically has everything interesting about it in FC3"  though I think it has something in the cockpit that does look like an INS panel? Not saying that necessarily means anything but, well AFAIK Su-17M3 and M4 had something like that, while admittedly a prototype and later, Ka-50 too.

[lmp]

It does have an INS and a panel for it. You can choose one of the previously preprogrammed waypoints or airfields (so a total of six locations stored in memory). FF Fulcrum should be less annoying to navigate - because you will actually know which waypoint you're flying towards - but not really more capable than the FC3 Fulcrum. What would make it slightly better though would be mobile RSBN stations, so go and upvote that thread ;).

[Tarres]

39 minutes ago, lmp said:

Well... Define program. AFAIK the INS in the Fulcrum-A can store a total of 3 waypoints and 3 airfields that are preprogrammed before flight. No console in the cockpit to change them or add new ones I'm afraid. Other than that, you get RSBN/PRMG and an ADF (with preprogrammed channels as well I believe?). So unless ED gives us a knee board page for changing waypoints, there won't be much programming.

 

Exactrly, 3 Waypoints and 3 airfields. RSBN and PRMG. RSBN can be used in "manual" like in the L-39. And the ARK-19 is like the ARK-15 in the Yak-52 with 3 preprogramed chanels.

Mobile RSBN stations like the portable TACAN (3D visuals are in game from the beginning) as you said.

Edited January 8, 2024 by Tarres

[Ironhand]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

Ugh, that'd be... suboptimal if it was the case indeed…

Keep in mind that it was designed to fly high and fast to intercept aircraft and, then, return home. So that’s what the avionics are designed for. It was never intended to fly long distances requiring numerous waypoints. At least, with the FF cockpit you’ll know which WP you have selected.

Hopefully, too, we’ll finally have the entire ACS (AP) system modeled.

Edited January 8, 2024 by Ironhand

[twistking]

2 hours ago, WinterH said:

Ugh, that'd be... suboptimal if it was the case indeed

When the Mig-29 arrives in DCS, we will hopefully have the mission planning feature available. It's safe to assume that this would allow us to change the preprogrammed parameters during the mission when parked on a friendly airfield.
If landing is not an option, you could use radio navigation. For me that sounds way more interesting than the newer jets, that present you everything on a digital map...

Edited January 8, 2024 by twistking

[Alfa]

3 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

IIRC R27RE and RT do not require the upgraded radar, there is no major difference in the seeker, it's just an increased rocket booster, and the original radars were built with the ability to recognize this option when the missile was put on the pylon and adjust the launch parameters shown on the HUD

 

The SUV-29 of the original 9.12(which it seems is the one we get for DCS) did not have support for the IR- and long-burn versions of the R-27 - only the R-27R.

IIRC use of the R-27ER has been achieved by a "hack" that pretty much tricks the WCS to think its a R-27R, which worked because, as you said, the guidance section and thus compability with the radar is the same. But whether this also involved the proper engagement parameters for the -ER is doubtful. 

At any rate its one of those things that might look good on paper, but in reality is a rather impractical prospect. Its just too big and heavy for the MiG-29 with subsequent flight restrictions, while providing only a moderate range improvement.

[CrazyGman]

2 hours ago, Alfa said:

IIRC use of the R-27ER has been achieved by a "hack" that pretty much tricks the WCS to think its a R-27R, which worked because, as you said, the guidance section and thus compability with the radar is the same. But whether this also involved the proper engagement parameters for the -ER is doubtful. 

Yeah I wasn't quite sure about the ER, but I had conflicting information on it as operators of the the 9.12 and the 9.13 without the upgraded radar have been shown with it on the pylons and it had been referenced. Going back on my sources you do seem to be correct that none of the IR versions are available with the 9.12s base radar though

[Ramius007]

While announced is 9.12 variant I will be very supprised if FF Mig 29 come with less capabilitiy than FC3 one, so I expect S variant of some sort included, also modders can come to help. Maybe we even get variant of some westernized export models with some NATO weapons, or even SFM, but not on release date of course. I agree with earlier opinions that realistic modern NATO vs Russia/China scenarios are impossible to be played realistically and balanced, and it's not DCS future for some time, but best in DCS is cold war period anyway, most kills are close and personal even in early 90's, and 80-90's provide best balance for majority of modules, even if vipers and hornets have to be stripped in them, Mig 29 is good fit in this company

[Skyhammer]

For me there is (sadly) no selling point to buy the FF Mig 29 atm ...when we already have it in FC3 and its will be pretty much the same...only because it's FF ? definitely no

[CrazyGman]

9 hours ago, Skyhammer said:

For me there is (sadly) no selling point to buy the FF Mig 29 atm ...when we already have it in FC3 and its will be pretty much the same...only because it's FF ? definitely no

For me it's about immersion. I actually like it when tweaks are made on a module that actually make the system less effective. Like the changes to the radar in the Mirage 2000. 

Currently the FC3 radar (while good for the time it was developed) is now very behind with what DCS is currently working with. Locking up targets in the MiG-29 currently feels lacking, and the instananeous IFF.  requires a large dose of suspension of disbelief. I suspect that there will be some tweaks to the flight model, like the negative effects of having only one R-27 missile on one wing and it limiting your max AoA allowed.

IMO it going to make the module feel more alive, and closer to an actual simulator, which is the appeal fans are looking for.

Edited January 9, 2024 by CrazyGman

[Ramius007]

Mig 29 is best FC 3 module, FF Mig 29 need a lot to be hi in priority for FC3 owners, both systems modeling and capabilities, things that are not modelled in F3 are not that needed anyway in interceptor role, like nav system, except maybe point attack role that is barely used anyway. Instant IFF have no practical meaning with Mig 29 engagment ranges. First thing first, ED should fix FC3 Mig 29A and G loadout, ER and ET's should be removed, it would be weird if new Mig come less capable than old one.

[okopanja]

16 hours ago, CrazyGman said:

to use the R-77 we would have to be getting the 9.13 variant that had the upgraded radar (only a handful of those), so were not getting any R-77,

Technically speaking 9.12 were upgraded to carry R77 IRL, off course this did include both radar and new MFD. However, I agree we would need to keep expectations limitted to IR and SARH missiles.

Even present Mig 29 is not at that much of disadvantage, if it gains access to saner AWACS and/or DL.

That said Razbam will be delivering in future Mig-23, which in theory should also be candidate for Lazur(this is just my speculation, I really have no clue what they will do).

The logic is that if one gets this DL, so should the other as well.

14 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

ER and ET's should be removed

Why?

Edited January 8, 2024 by okopanja