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

[DisplayName]

13 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Why?

The MiG29A doesn't use the E variants of the R27s. At least, that is what I thought; I don't think I have ever seen an image or evidence of a MiG29(A) with E variant R27s. . I could be very wrong here, but I think that is the case.

[okopanja]

2 minutes ago, DisplayName said:

The MiG29A doesn't use the E variants of the R27s. At least, that is what I thought; I don't think I have ever seen an image or evidence of a MiG29(A) with E variant R27s. . I could be very wrong here, but I think that is the case.

I think the main reason here would probably be E variants not being exported outside of Soviet union. The R-27 was from the very beginning envisioned as modular missile family, where the guidance sections, warhead, motors and seekers (SARH, IR and passive radar) were be combined (probably to reduce costs). The only difference between R-27ER and R-27R is the larger motor. Everything else is exactly the same, including the same power supply limit of 60 seconds (IMHO: ER/ET would benefit from extra 20 seconds). The missiles even get primed the same way through radar side lobs. The only difference that would cause some issues is the RMax indication, but even if they do not update the radar to take into account this, the pilot could always launch it with launch override.

 

[DisplayName]

1 minute ago, okopanja said:

I think the main reason here would probably be E variants not being exported outside of Soviet union. The R-27 was from the very beginning envisioned as modular missile family, where the guidance sections, warhead, motors and seekers (SARH, IR and passive radar) were be combined (probably to reduce costs). The only difference between R-27ER and R-27R is the larger motor. Everything else is exactly the same, including the same power supply limit of 60 seconds (IMHO: ER/ET would benefit from extra 20 seconds). The missiles even get primed the same way through radar side lobs. The only difference that would cause some issues is the RMax indication, but even if they do not update the radar to take into account this, the pilot could always launch it with launch override.

 

Yes, I am aware of all of that, none of that has any relation to the point made. But back to the point made, I have not seen a MiG29A ever equipped with E variant missiles.

It is kind of the same argument for the AIM120 on the F14: There is evidence of them having conducted up to separation testing of the AIM120 on Tomcats, but not enough evidence to conclude that the AIM120 was fully integrated into a deployable state which is why there are no AIM120s on the DCS F14. And Reference the DCS Apache: There are AH64Ds with air-to-air missiles, but because the specific Apache that we have in DCS does not have such missiles is why it isn't an option. At the moment, it appears that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that E variant R27s were ever equipped to MiG29(A 9-12)s.

Although I hope that evidence to prove this point wrong does come out because a high fidelity module of an existing module that will have less performance is I think a self defeating venture. (I'll probably still purchase though. . maybe wait for a discount period).

[Ramius007]

Even if A used ET/ER in Russian service, still it should be definitely removed from G variant, neither Germany nor Poland had access to ER/ET, ED had this thing right,as default loadout is 2xR-27, 2xR-73 and 2xR-60M

Edited January 9 by Ramius007

[Alfa]

24 minutes ago, okopanja said:

I think the main reason here would probably be E variants not being exported outside of Soviet union.

The long-burn versions of the R-27 have been available for export for decades, so has the MiG-29B and MiG-29SE - yet only the latter is compatible with the R-27ER and IR versions(as well as RVV-AE).

24 minutes ago, okopanja said:

The R-27 was from the very beginning envisioned as modular missile family, where the guidance sections, warhead, motors and seekers (SARH, IR and passive radar) were be combined (probably to reduce costs). The only difference between R-27ER and R-27R is the larger motor. Everything else is exactly the same, including the same power supply limit of 60 seconds (IMHO: ER/ET would benefit from extra 20 seconds). The missiles even get primed the same way through radar side lobs. The only difference that would cause some issues is the RMax indication,

It was invisioned as a modular missile system common to the MiG-29 and Su-27, where the IR/extended range versions were intended as an additional option specifically for the Su-27 due to its wider mission prospect. 

24 minutes ago, okopanja said:

...but even if they do not update the radar to take into account this, the pilot could always launch it with launch override.

In DCS you mean?

[PawlaczGMD]

Thanks for giving me a better idea on what to expect from this module. While it looks like it won't fill the role I was hoping for, I can now see how it will fit into Cold War scenarios with restricted loadouts. 

[draconus]

8 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

it would be weird if new Mig come less capable than old one

Why? It would be perfectly normal since the simplified systems gave you many advantages, ex. perfect nav system with memory for all airfields and tens of waypoints, instant IFF and radar locking, probably too powerful IRST, radio working on all frequencies (at once), 3-button startup process, unrealistic RWR... just to name a few. Of course you'll also get some new capabilities like nav systems but nothing combat related, I'm afraid.

Will it stop you from buying? It depends. If you came to DCS for simulation: no doubts here, you'll embrace the full fidelity systems with all of their limitations. If you came just to score in MP: you'll think twice and probably test how it manages in play first.

[bies]

8 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Even if A used ET/ER in Russian service, still it should be definitely removed from G variant, neither Germany nor Poland had access to ER/ET, ED had this thing right,as default loadout is 2xR-27, 2xR-73 and 2xR-60M

 

True. Plus both AIM-120A AMRAAM and R-27ER were sent in small numbers to evaluation units for testing in 1988. And both entered service only in 1991. AIM-120 and R-27ER/ET are basically a hardline dividing the previous Cold War/Desert Storm era and starting post-Soviet era with completely different world.

In Cold War 1980s scenarios MiG-29 will cary R-60. R-73, R-27, but surely not R-27ER/ET anyway.

Personally i think it will be a fantastic module, A variant with the best kinematic performance but the most rudimentary avionics, realistically recreated, with rich real life conflicts history.

[Ramius007]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Why? It would be perfectly normal since the simplified systems gave you many advantages, ex. perfect nav system with memory for all airfields and tens of waypoints, instant IFF and radar locking, probably too powerful IRST, radio working on all frequencies (at once), 3-button startup process, unrealistic RWR... just to name a few. Of course you'll also get some new capabilities like nav systems but nothing combat related, I'm afraid.

Will it stop you from buying? It depends. If you came to DCS for simulation: no doubts here, you'll embrace the full fidelity systems with all of their limitations. If you came just to score in MP: you'll think twice and probably test how it manages in play first.

I had missiles on my mind and MP settings, navigation definitely allow practical use Mig 29 for bombing, radio is handled by SRS anyway, startup? in FF modules it's actually 1 button  Another thing to consider, I see in cold war servers that alllow Flankers as well, Mig 29 is way less popular and have way worse A2A KDR than Flanker, like in RL, something to keep in mind...

[Dragon1-1]

IMO, we should have the R-27ER, complete with inaccurate DLZ readout.  That said, it most missions wouldn't be using it, anyway. The MiG-29A will ultimately belong in the Cold War ecosystem, where the regular R-27R will be perfectly adequate.

Of course, the holy grail would be the Su-27S/Su-33 (the latter is basically a navalized Su-27S, if you can make one you can make the other). Maybe we'll get DCS: Flanker 3.0 in 2025 or 2026. 

[okopanja]

9 hours ago, Alfa said:

The long-burn versions of the R-27 have been available for export for decades, so has the MiG-29B and MiG-29SE - yet only the latter is compatible with the R-27ER and IR versions(as well as RVV-AE).

9 hours ago, Alfa said:

It was invisioned as a modular missile system common to the MiG-29 and Su-27, where the IR/extended range versions were intended as an additional option specifically for the Su-27 due to its wider mission prospect. 

10 hours ago, DisplayName said:

Yes, I am aware of all of that, none of that has any relation to the point made. But back to the point made, I have not seen a MiG29A ever equipped with E variant missiles.

R-27ER on 9.12 airframe, just to ensure we do not make incorrect assumptions on missions, weight carrying capacities etc.

As I said before: the missiles get primed through side lobs of radar, so "compatibility" issue is strictly weather the avionics could display you proper R values. For R-77 I would say you need an upgrade.

10 hours ago, DisplayName said:

It is kind of the same argument for the AIM120 on the F14: There is evidence of them having conducted up to separation testing of the AIM120 on Tomcats, but not enough evidence to conclude that the AIM120 was fully integrated into a deployable state which is why there are no AIM120s on the DCS F14.

I would suggest against making such analogies. AWG-9 and AIM-54 comes from late 60s, with AMRAAMs likely being developer in 80s. That is a very long timespan with different technologies being employed causing these missiles to behave and perform radically differently. I would say you would likely need HB to do F-14D for this.

10 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Even if A used ET/ER in Russian service, still it should be definitely removed from G variant, neither Germany nor Poland had access to ER/ET, ED had this thing right,as default loadout is 2xR-27, 2xR-73 and 2xR-60M

I do believe that matter of historical accuracy (mind not the same as technical accuracy) should be handled by mission designers. They do decide weather or not they want to stick more with timeline or put more emphasis on balancing. E.g. in some cases redfor gets non-E version so the game can be fun for e.g. Mirage 2000C pilots.

As for Germans and Polish, again a matter more for mission designers. E.g. in alternative universe if they were still part of Warsaw pact, I am pretty sure they would receive the missiles.

2 hours ago, draconus said:

unrealistic RWR

Sorry for signaling this out but I take you were tracking this for a longer time than me.

Can you tell us more about this? I did read the one of the IRL manual and noted certain inconsistency when it comes to classification and a missing feature on top of it, but I am curious to learn more on this subject.

[draconus]

6 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Sorry for signaling this out but I take you were tracking this for a longer time than me.

Can you tell us more about this? I did read the one of the IRL manual and noted certain inconsistency when it comes to classification and a missing feature on top of it, but I am curious to learn more on this subject.

Unfortunately I remember only the parts you already noted - wrong classification of received radar signals and overly precise reliable readings. RL SPO also has 2 controls.

Have a read:

[draconus]

On 1/7/2016 at 9:47 AM, Chizh said:

Если будем делать "тяжелый" модуль ЛА с Березой, то будем ее переделывать с нуля, чтобы была похожа на реальную.

Time has come

[lmp]

12 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Even if A used ET/ER in Russian service, still it should be definitely removed from G variant, neither Germany nor Poland had access to ER/ET, ED had this thing right,as default loadout is 2xR-27, 2xR-73 and 2xR-60M

 

The "two of each" loadout isn't the default - it's an airshow thing because it looks cool. A typical fighter loadout would be 2xR-27R + 4xR-73. The missiles on the outer and middle rails should be the same.

Edited January 9 by lmp

[Gierasimov]

18 minutes ago, draconus said:

Time has come

"Almost" like they knew it wasn't function of "if" but rather "when", right? 

They had plans on mind;) 

[lmp]

26 minutes ago, draconus said:

What's that?

That, sir, is a typo. I meant the R-73 that we all know and love.

I fixed it now in my original post, thanks for noticing.

Edited January 9 by lmp

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Unfortunately I remember only the parts you already noted - wrong classification of received radar signals and overly precise reliable readings. RL SPO also has 2 controls.

Have a read:

Yes this was one of the things I have noticed when reading Mig-29 manual. It will require the red pilots to relearn the indications. Pros and cons are there, with some more and some less information being available. The manuals still leave a lot for free interpretations, so I am curious how ED will implement it at the end.

When you wrote "precision" I thought you were referring to azimuth precision (which btw is ensured due to the lamps). While still in cockpit this is fine, but once you export the values you receive exact bearings (combined with signal strength and certain co-factors per source you can derive exact distance to the decimal meter precision), and this is not good. I was hoping this would indicate that general rework of RWRs of all modules will be there to avoid situations where notching becomes too easy, when RWR displays precise angle without introducing the variation inherent to the RWR designs.

Thanks for the link, I will reread and compare with my own interpretation and translation.

Edited January 9 by okopanja

[Yambo]

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

R-27ER on 9.12 airframe, just to ensure we do not make incorrect assumptions on missions, weight carrying capacities etc.

As I said before: the missiles get primed through side lobs of radar, so "compatibility" issue is strictly weather the avionics could display you proper R values. For R-77 I would say you need an upgrade.

I would suggest against making such analogies. AWG-9 and AIM-54 comes from late 60s, with AMRAAMs likely being developer in 80s. That is a very long timespan with different technologies being employed causing these missiles to behave and perform radically differently. I would say you would likely need HB to do F-14D for this.

I do believe that matter of historical accuracy (mind not the same as technical accuracy) should be handled by mission designers. They do decide weather or not they want to stick more with timeline or put more emphasis on balancing. E.g. in some cases redfor gets non-E version so the game can be fun for e.g. Mirage 2000C pilots.

As for Germans and Polish, again a matter more for mission designers. E.g. in alternative universe if they were still part of Warsaw pact, I am pretty sure they would receive the missiles.

Sorry for signaling this out but I take you were tracking this for a longer time than me.

Can you tell us more about this? I did read the one of the IRL manual and noted certain inconsistency when it comes to classification and a missing feature on top of it, but I am curious to learn more on this subject.

Fulcrum in picture is not 9.12b, it's upgraded and modernized variant of MiG-29, tailored for requirements of the Serbian AF. Capabilities are very similar to the MiG-29M (9.15) prototype but i might be wrong about it.

[Yambo]

Same 29 but from different angle and upgrade is described in following link

Edited January 9 by Yambo

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, Yambo said:

Fulcrum in picture is not 9.12b, it's upgraded and modernized variant of MiG-29, tailored for requirements of the Serbian AF. Capabilities are very similar to the MiG-29M (9.15) prototype but i might be wrong about it.

The point is that this is an 9.12 airframe, carrying R-27ER. I selected the image so the fetter profile of engine section of R-27ER can be properly seen in order to confirm the statement made in the original text.

Picture also demonstrates that 9.12 vs 9.13 upgrade path limitation is meaningless (this is too often quoted in this forum so majority of people believe its hard limitation). R-27ER still utilizes the same pylon as R-27R, there is no distinction between  guidance of these missiles and they work the same, and are hence compatible with radar we will get in DCS (if I have to guess this will be old export N019 with smaller number of channels).

That said the R-27ER still exceeds the range of original radar, so the benefit is not much in terms of the range (which at the end is higher), but rather in the reduced time it would need to reach the target compared to much slower R-27R and along the much better climb performance.

In other words: it will not be able to adequately challenge the dominance of AMRAAM teens in DCS, so concerned people should be satisfied (no need to nerf further something that is already limited by the radar with limited range and ECM resistance).

The R-77 on the other side did require the radar upgrade and I am not suggesting it should be there in the upcoming module.

BTW #18151 in picture was originally 9.12A and you can find the news in 2018 on the same portal you found second image about the upgrade. 

Personal view on this modernization is lukewarm and I am not impressed at all: I would have preferred if they obtained Dassault Rafale or Viper instead. Not without irony during 80s the Viper was actually evaluated and dispite pilots having very positive opinion, the 29 was selected due to political reasons as a stop-gap before never-finished NA aircraft. This along sanctions is the major reason why the number of these aircraft was small in the the airforce, even when the possibility of obtaining more was still open.

Edited January 9 by okopanja

[WinterH]

20 hours ago, twistking said:

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...

I hope this will be the case and we can invoke a mission planning screen within mission. Of course, it should be possible to disable this for the mission if it is desired for players to really and only follow a certain scenario for canned missions.

I think I should clarify myself a bit here, my slight disappointment for the possibility of not being able to assign waypoints after a mission launches isn't from a "muh capabilities, only more capable is fun" kind of outlook at DCS. That is not what I enjoy, it is much closer to the contrary. However, going with the "3 types of player profiles" idea I've presented in my first post in this thread, if an aircraft has a navigation system that can have programmable waypoints, it is of great benefit to be able to set them inside the mission for the types 1 (singlplayer sandbox lover/mission maker) and 3 (multiplayer PvP and PvE lover).

Since right now DCS does not have a dynamic mission/campaign system, we either need to create sandbox/playground type missions where different tasks can be spawned through triggers and/or lua scripts, or use lua script driven dynamic campain systems. Or even when doing the same mission multiple times, it can be an interesting approach to try different routes for different tactics etc. That's why I find it important to be able to give aircraft different flight plans after spawning into them.

Of course, in case of aircraft that can't set waypoints from cockpit like MiG-29 seems to be, we should only be able to do so when we are down on the ground, and with aircraft "cold". It is just fine that it has only 3 waypoints, so long as I can actually make use of them

[CrazyGman]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

should only be able to do so when we are down on the ground, and with aircraft "cold". It is just fine that it has only 3 waypoints, so long as I can actually make use of them

Based on previous implementaions. Like waypoints for the viggen data-cartage, and other changes you can do on the ground on your kneeboard like the laser code for weapons, i would be very surprised if this was not implemented .

Edited January 9 by CrazyGman

[Aquorys]

On 1/8/2024 at 12:10 PM, ustio said:

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

I mean... it's kinda realistic though. The Soviet union, and then Russia, had to accept that they didn't have weapons and avionics on par with the western platforms until much later. Even when they had something researched and an ability to manufacture a product, most of the operational squadrons didn't have it for a long time. Just compare the timelines of AMRAAMs vs. R-77s, or try to find operational eastern bloc jets flying around with something like JDAMs, SLAMs or SDBs, or an AESA radar (and to be fair, there are some notable exceptions, e.g. the MiG-31's radar was way ahead of its time when it was introduced; just like the R-73's seeker and rocket technology at the time of its introduction compared to the Sidewinder).

[Alfa]

4 hours ago, okopanja said:

R-27ER on 9.12 airframe, just to ensure we do not make incorrect assumptions on missions, weight carrying capacities etc.

No one said that you couldn't use an -ER on a 9.12 airframe - on the contrary I started by saying that this has been done with a "hack" . What I did say is that its an impractical weapon on the MiG-29(whether 9.12, 9.13 or 9.13S), because of its size and weight. If you read the German Luftwaffe manual on the MiG-29, you can find a section detailing the various flight limitations with different load-out options - with a standard load-out of 2x R-27R and 2x R-73, there are no limitations other than those for the aircraft itself(clean) - this would not be the case with -ERs.

Besides, as Yambo said, the aircraft in the photo is an upgraded variant for the Serbian airforce - considering the Kh-29s displayed beside it, it could well be that the "weight carrying capablities" were uprated as well.

 

4 hours ago, okopanja said:

As I said before: the missiles get primed through side lobs of radar, so "compatibility" issue is strictly weather the avionics could display you proper R values. 

That the quidance system works in the same way, does not necessarily mean that you can just hang an ER on a standard 9.12 and use it as an -R without making modifications for the purpose....you are the one making assumptions

 

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

Picture also demonstrates that 9.12 vs 9.13 upgrade path limitation is meaningless (this is too often quoted in this forum so majority of people believe its hard limitation). R-27ER still utilizes the same pylon as R-27R, there is no distinction between  guidance of these missiles and they work the same, and are hence compatible with radar we will get in DCS (if I have to guess this will be old export N019 with smaller number of channels).

It has nothing to do with "9.12 vs. 9.13 upgrade limitations" - there was a MiG-29S(9.12S), IIRC called MiG-29SD these days and  even an .SMT variant(9.18) based on the 9.12 airframe. The point is that the version we get for DCS is the original "plain vanilla" 9.12 and as such should reflect the configuration and capabilities of this and not what it could potentially be  modified to do or upgraded into.

[F-2]

7 hours ago, bies said:

True. Plus both AIM-120A AMRAAM and R-27ER were sent in small numbers to evaluation units for testing in 1988. And both entered service only in 1991. AIM-120 and R-27ER/ET are basically a hardline dividing the previous Cold War/Desert Storm era and starting post-Soviet era with completely different world.

In Cold War 1980s scenarios MiG-29 will cary R-60. R-73, R-27, but surely not R-27ER/ET anyway.

Personally i think it will be a fantastic module, A variant with the best kinematic performance but the most rudimentary avionics, realistically recreated, with rich real life conflicts history.

Correct the 33rd fighter wing was carrying AIM-120 from at least 1989 and they were delivered in 1988

https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-33rd-tactical-fighter-wing-f-15c-eagle-aircraft-makes-its-landing-approach-052343

https://picryl.com/media/a-33rd-tactical-fighter-wing-f-15c-eagle-aircraft-passes-along-the-coast-during-6e48c5

https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-33rd-tactical-fighter-wing-f-15c-eagle-aircraft-pulls-into-a-climb-during-3b7ff0
 

https://www.alamy.com/a-33rd-tactical-fighter-wing-f-15c-eagle-aircraft-banks-into-a-turn-during-a-flight-out-of-eglin-air-force-base-fla-the-aircraft-is-carrying-two-aim-9-sidewinder-missiles-on-each-wing-and-four-aim-120-advanced-medium-range-air-to-air-missiles-amraams-on-its-fuselage-weapons-stations-country-gulf-of-mexico-image504289865.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=PWMFAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA836&dq=33rd+fighter+wing+amraam+ 1989&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpqaDQ5NCDAxW-LFkFHfSjBvkQ6AF6BAgOEAM#v=onepage&q=33rd fighter wing amraam  1989&f=false