Expectation on Air to Air missiles of the MiG-29A?

[Ramius007]

I wonder how much "mid fidelity" stuff ED can add later that plug Mig-29 biggest leak-lack of situationnal awerness. like upgrading hud reapeter to MFD on modernized Migs and ability to carry some guided A2G weapons. Can ED can add this as editor option to increase Mig-29 usefulness on modern servers? Currentl FC3 Mig-29 effectivness, even on 80/90 server is very poor according to large sample stats

[AeriaGloria]

4 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

I wonder how much "mid fidelity" stuff ED can add later that plug Mig-29 biggest leak-lack of situationnal awerness. like upgrading hud reapeter to MFD on modernized Migs and ability to carry some guided A2G weapons. Can ED can add this as editor option to increase Mig-29 usefulness on modern servers? Currentl FC3 Mig-29 effectivness, even on 80/90 server is very poor according to large sample stats

I would never count on it. MiG-29 that adds MFD also adds alot of other things 

But they did confirm modeling the GCI command Beryuza/Lazur system. You will control this with panel by right elbow, you can select 3 ciphers and 20 different targets for up to 60 different selections. 

Each selection should give you range and bearing to a target, guiding you along a proportional navigation route. The autopilot can automatically fly this route, and it will control your radar and lock automatically for you, meaning you only have to press fire. 

You can also keep radar off, just use IRST for stealth while using the data link to guide you to target, this way you have stealthy approach while knowing exactly where target is. By changing to different targets, you can build a picture of the airspace and enemies within

 It should be a very powerful tool that should give it some options to take down some advanced threats

You also have an auto mode, where the GCI operator decides what target to send you. And the whole time you will receive commands on the HUD, including when a new target is about to be sent

[Pavlin_33]

6 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

I would never count on it. MiG-29 that adds MFD also adds alot of other things 

But they did confirm modeling the GCI command Beryuza/Lazur system. You will control this with panel by right elbow, you can select 3 ciphers and 20 different targets for up to 60 different selections. 

Each selection should give you range and bearing to a target, guiding you along a proportional navigation route. The autopilot can automatically fly this route, and it will control your radar and lock automatically for you, meaning you only have to press fire. 

You can also keep radar off, just use IRST for stealth while using the data link to guide you to target, this way you have stealthy approach while knowing exactly where target is. By changing to different targets, you can build a picture of the airspace and enemies within

 It should be a very powerful tool that should give it some options to take down some advanced threats

You also have an auto mode, where the GCI operator decides what target to send you. And the whole time you will receive commands on the HUD, including when a new target is about to be sent

The picture says export "A" version. I was under the impression that export version is "B". Also I thought that the export version had more limited panel.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Pavlin_33 said:

The picture says export "A" version. I was under the impression that export version is "B". Also I thought that the export version had more limited panel.

B was also export but handicapped for outside of Warsaw Pact countries.

12 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Can ED can add this as editor option to increase Mig-29 usefulness on modern servers?

We get only MiG-29A. What's so hard to grasp? It's as useful as it was IRL.

[Ramius007]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

B was also export but handicapped for outside of Warsaw Pact countries.

We get only MiG-29A. What's so hard to grasp? It's as useful as it was IRL.

We have NS-430 that is 3rd party addon that increase older platforms performance in modern times, I dont see reason why something similar cant be made by module developer, Gazelle is Mig-29A age mate, and get tablet with GPS few months ago, I m asking, becouse NS-430 is largely abondoned, and there is plenty of modules left behind that need them and are still in use today, Mig-29A is still flying, but nearly all operators did some upgrades to original Soviet variant, we also see things like HARM's being used from one, and given limited amount of redfor really modern planes, it's one of modules that make more sense to get those, so definitely "it's hard to grasp" it will be just early 80's A variant, becouse we have precedents to thing more than this is possible. If we have NS-430 added as cockpit feature, if we can have tablet, i dont really see reason why we cant have editor option for CTD being more than HUD reapeter in GPS/GLONASS time

[lmp]

2 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

If we have NS-430 added as cockpit feature, if we can have tablet, i dont really see reason why we cant have editor option for CTD being more than HUD reapeter in GPS/GLONASS time

The NS-430 I can understand since with only a very minor modification of the jet's electric system you can have a quasi realistic solution very similar to what's actually been done. Changing the repeater into, well, not a repeater is fantasy unless you're planning to fully simulate something like the Slovak or Polish upgrade and that's no longer a small job.

[Ramius007]

15 minutes ago, lmp said:

The NS-430 I can understand since with only a very minor modification of the jet's electric system you can have a quasi realistic solution very similar to what's actually been done. Changing the repeater into, well, not a repeater is fantasy unless you're planning to fully simulate something like the Slovak or Polish upgrade and that's no longer a small job.

Yes, talking about NATO upgrades, but Serbian or Belarussian one would be welcoem as well. Please prove me wrong, but iirc same Israeli company was doing MFD upgrade of HUD reapeter for NATO variants, of course there are more systems added to allow displaying data from those other systems, but wondering if there is non secret data about them, similar to NS-430

[Schmidtfire]

I don't really understand this discussion. We already have FC3 MiG-29A and it's quite clear what weapons it can carry.

MiG-29A is a good matchup for M-2000C, F-14 or F-4E. Not a F-16C Block 50 from ca. 2007.

It's never going to be a fair fight against Amraam/datalink capable jets.

Edited March 24 by Schmidtfire

[draconus]

4 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Mig-29A is still flying, but nearly all operators did some upgrades to original Soviet variant, we also see things like HARM's being used from one

That's the thing - these are special modifications made to the aircarft. Just like some test F-14 did fire AMRAAM but you cannot expect HB to model that into the module. Sounds like mods forum is your home.

[Seaeagle]

On 3/24/2024 at 9:35 AM, Pavlin_33 said:

The picture says export "A" version. I was under the impression that export version is "B

There were two export variants of the 9.12 - 9.12A for Warsaw pact allies and 9.12B for other nations. The former is practically identical to the Soviet 9.12, while the 9.12B " commercial" variant is somewhat "downgraded" on a few areas.

On 3/24/2024 at 9:35 AM, Pavlin_33 said:

Also I thought that the export version had more limited panel.

They did(both export variants) - and the picture shows this.

The "full spec" version looks like this:

Someone wrote "izd 9.13" caption on the photo, but I have seen this panel in a Soviet 9.12 as well.

Edited March 25 by Seaeagle

[Quetzalkoatl]

On 3/24/2024 at 5:57 PM, Schmidtfire said:

I don't really understand this discussion. We already have FC3 MiG-29A and it's quite clear what weapons it can carry.

MiG-29A is a good matchup for M-2000C, F-14 or F-4E. Not a F-16C Block 50 from ca. 2007.

It's never going to be a fair fight against Amraam/datalink capable jets.

 

The most important thing is that we're not getting something we already have in FC3.

FC3 has 9.12, we're getting 9.12A which is slightly downgraded variant when it comes to avionics.

And from what I know, countries outside the USSR that acquired it never had access to the R-27ER and ET. This naturally raises the question of whether they will be included in DCS, or if it will be limited to the R-27R and T variants, even though it probably could carry extented range variants.

[ESA_maligno]

hace 11 horas, Quetzalkoatl dijo:

The most important thing is that we're not getting something we already have in FC3.

FC3 has 9.12, we're getting 9.12A which is slightly downgraded variant when it comes to avionics.

And from what I know, countries outside the USSR that acquired it never had access to the R-27ER and ET. This naturally raises the question of whether they will be included in DCS, or if it will be limited to the R-27R and T variants, even though it probably could carry extented range variants.

I think ED has already commented on it; To date, it does not have the means or data to simulate a Soviet or Russian MiG29. The version you are going to simulate is a MiG29 for export to an "Eastern European country", a MiG29 that has not undergone any updates since the Soviet Union sold it to said country. That rules out any German, Slovak, Czech, Polish version, or any country that currently formed part of the Soviet Union. I highly doubt it is a Yugoslav MiG29 (from any country that was part of Yugoslavia). So I prefer that ED has reliable data from Romania..., or Moldova....

[okopanja]

18 minutes ago, ESA_maligno said:

I think ED has already commented on it; To date, it does not have the means or data to simulate a Soviet or Russian MiG29. The version you are going to simulate is a MiG29 for export to an "Eastern European country", a MiG29 that has not undergone any updates since the Soviet Union sold it to said country. That rules out any German, Slovak, Czech, Polish version, or any country that currently formed part of the Soviet Union. I highly doubt it is a Yugoslav MiG29 (from any country that was part of Yugoslavia). So I prefer that ED has reliable data from Romania..., or Moldova....

Presently they aim for this: "Our MiG-29A, NATO codename Fulcrum, will be the export modification of the “A” version that was supplied to Warsaw Pact countries."

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/8a53b9baafb8473116ad05970cd8a761/

As for:

Romania: they ditched their 29s in favor of upgrade Mig-21 (yes you read this correctly)

Moldova: they sold majority of their birds to the USA and kept minimal number for themselves.

[ESA_maligno]

hace 19 horas, okopanja dijo:

Presently they aim for this: "Our MiG-29A, NATO codename Fulcrum, will be the export modification of the “A” version that was supplied to Warsaw Pact countries."

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/8a53b9baafb8473116ad05970cd8a761/

As for:

Romania: they ditched their 29s in favor of upgrade Mig-21 (yes you read this correctly)

Moldova: they sold majority of their birds to the USA and kept minimal number for themselves.

Pues justamente lo que comento, los únicos MiG29 que no fueron modificados eran los rumano o los moldavos. Todos los demás MiG29 a los que ED pudiera tener acceso para poderlos simular no son versiones A  ya que todos han sido modificados. Es de suponer que los MiG moldavos al acabar en Estados Unidos de Norteamérica junto con su documentación sean los que han servido de base de trabajo para ED.

 

00000000000000000000 en inglés:

 

Well, precisely what I'm saying, the only MiG29 that were not modified were the Romanian or the Moldovan ones. All the other MiG29s that ED could have access to in order to simulate them are not A versions since they have all been modified. It is assumed that the Moldovan MiGs, upon ending up in the United States of America, along with their documentation, are what have served as a work base for ED.

[Nealius]

On 1/13/2024 at 11:15 PM, Gierasimov said:

This will be coupled with a new proximity fuse model that accounts for Doppler closing speed, modified seekers, and a more realistic interaction model between the missile and the supporting radar. This will be done within the larger MiG-29 project framework. Other missile types will also be developed in the same way.

I hope these missile developments are done in parallel to all missiles, BLUFOR included, else we'll get OP MiG-29 weapons and the trashy BLUEFOR weapons we have now that are so easily defeated by wing rocking and seemingly have no CCM programming.

[lmp]

 

33 minutes ago, ESA_maligno said:

Well, precisely what I'm saying, the only MiG29 that were not modified were the Romanian or the Moldovan ones. All the other MiG29s that ED could have access to in order to simulate them are not A versions since they have all been modified.

Not all Polish MiGs were upgraded. Some are in museums, one is even in my old university. For photogrammetry, these museum pieces are probably more accessible than operational MiGs and for systems implementation, the documentation is the critical part, not access to a real, flying one. It's not like the air force will let you take one out for a spin to see how the radar works anyway.

Edited March 27 by lmp

[Ramius007]

20 hours ago, okopanja said:

Romania: they ditched their 29s in favor of upgrade Mig-21 (yes you read this correctly)

Moldova: they sold majority of their birds to the USA and kept minimal number for themselves.

Poland ditched Migs-23 for Migs-21, it has nothing to do with plane performance, just much lower running cost

[draconus]

1 hour ago, lmp said:

one is even in my old university

This one?

[okopanja]

2 hours ago, ESA_maligno said:

Well, precisely what I'm saying, the only MiG29 that were not modified were the Romanian or the Moldovan ones. All the other MiG29s that ED could have access to in order to simulate them are not A versions since they have all been modified. It is assumed that the Moldovan MiGs, upon ending up in the United States of America, along with their documentation, are what have served as a work base for ED.

Finally realized you were talking about the access to original cockpits.

[lmp]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

This one?

Yes, this exact one .

[Seaeagle]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:18 PM, okopanja said:

Presently they aim for this: "Our MiG-29A, NATO codename Fulcrum, will be the export modification of the “A” version that was supplied to Warsaw Pact countries."

Yes and I interpret that as in the original configuration, which in turn means the following country options:

- Poland. 

- East Germany

- Czechoslovakia

- Romania

- Bulgaria

Poland got an initial batch as a Warsaw Pact memeber(and later bought both the former East German ones after having been operated and modified by Luftwaffe as well as the Czech ones, while Slovakia kept theirs). 

Like you said, the Romanian ones were withdrawn from service years ago.

AFAIK the Bulgarian are the only ones still in the original 9.12A config.

Yugoslavia was never part of the Warsaw Pact and therefore got the 9.12B variant. Hungaria was a Warsaw Pact member, but didn't get their MiG-29s in that capacity, but only later as part of a debt settlement with Russia and therefore also got the 9.12B variant.

On 3/26/2024 at 8:18 PM, okopanja said:

Moldova: they sold majority of their birds to the USA and kept minimal number for themselves.

Moldova inherited a number of MiG-29s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but those were the 9.13 variant - I don't think they kept any of them(they were in bad shape anyway), but sold them all to the US except for a couple of airframes they gave to Romania as a gift.

[f15e]

On 1/13/2024 at 12:19 PM, pepin1234 said:

First red 4th gen fighter is welcome! But what about the missiles?

R-27R is just useless over sea level below 100m on the current stage. 

Today two western fighters launched on my face just keeping flight level under 100m. They already know what we got and so tactics goes in DCS, based in what ED gave us.

hopefully they give some love to the current missiles before module be launched. 

 

First red 4th gen fighter? You forgot about the JF17 

[Lyrode]

4小时前，f15e说：

You forgot about the JF17

Developed by China and in service in Pakistan. Just like the mirage F1, this is not blue nor red, or both.

[dekiplav]

What is the difference between the original Soviet one and the one we're getting? 

[AeriaGloria]

1 minute ago, dekiplav said:

What is the difference between the original Soviet one and the one we're getting? 

Practically nothing. For all intents and purposes it performs the same. Radar/IRST is an alignment different expert version (identical performance though). IFF has differences probably in codes but same unit and operation. 
 

Following from Yefim Gordon I think