r-73 r-60, r-27r, r-27t, r-27er, and r-27et Expectation on Air to Air missiles of the MiG-29A?

[F-2]

The only difference between N019 and N019EA 

Quote

Mode "SP" (Svobodnoye Prostranstvo) Free Search

According to Russian pilots this mode was only found on early production Russian MiG-29s. It was a search mode, and was removed on later production batches. It was not present on any export MiG-29s. The name suggests it might have been a non-lookdown mode, but this is speculation.
 

A single mode which was replaced on later production batches and not used much anyway.

[SparrowLT]

On 3/24/2024 at 2:33 AM, 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

Interesting...

 

Would the target distance , vector and altitude also show up in the HUD like if it was one of your own generated targets ? would be really helpfull to get to see wich one is the highest danger

[AeriaGloria]

6 hours ago, SparrowLT said:

Interesting...

 

Would the target distance , vector and altitude also show up in the HUD like if it was one of your own generated targets ? would be really helpfull to get to see wich one is the highest danger

Yes. Everything is shown on HUD just like radar/IRST target, you see range and target mark, steering circle, DLZ of missiles, and instructions on HUD for afterburner/dive/climb/fire/new target/left/right. IRL, it was also used for ground targets, to give good interdiction route and easily find targets. Who knows if this will work in DCS

[SparrowLT]

On 5/17/2024 at 9:23 PM, AeriaGloria said:

Yes. Everything is shown on HUD just like radar/IRST target, you see range and target mark, steering circle, DLZ of missiles, and instructions on HUD for afterburner/dive/climb/fire/new target/left/right. IRL, it was also used for ground targets, to give good interdiction route and easily find targets. Who knows if this will work in DCS

So we are gonna have a funny situation..

We have 3 Flanker cousins, all with working datalink showing contacts in the HSD , and i asume in real life they had same datalink option as the Fulcrum to display DL targets into the HUD with all the interception steering info... but being FC3 no working that besides showing on the HSD

 

Then now we are gonna have the Fulcrum-A with working datalink in the HUD with all the selection and steering info... but no working HSD....

Edited May 21, 2024 by SparrowLT

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, SparrowLT said:

So we are gonna have a funny situation..

We have 3 Flanker cousins, all with working datalink showing contacts in the HSD , and i asume in real life they had same datalink option as the Fulcrum to display DL targets into the HUD with all the interception steering info... but being FC3 no working that besides showing on the HSD

 

Then now we are gonna have the Fulcrum-A with working datalink in the HUD with all the selection and steering info... but no working HSD....

 

Fulcrum "DL" didn't work like TAKT that you have on the SU-27 variants. IF we get one in our "stripped down" variant, it will most likely be some form of Lazur which was used by various warpac countries. Which is basically GCI steering commands. Razbam had planned to have an entire GCI system for the mig-23 with Lazur with both AI and human steering, but I very much doubt ED would even consider adding something that cool. 

I'll be happy with an IRST that doesn't see through clouds and actually has the limitations of KOLS. 

 

 

[SparrowLT]

12 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

I'll be happy with an IRST that doesn't see through clouds and actually has the limitations of KOLS. 

They still need to adress the AI being godlike in terms of sensors and SA as they see everything with not just impossible angles (like engaging something 90º bellow them or +100º to one side) impossible radar ranges (like my F-5E AI wingman reporting radar contacts 120nm away) but even through mountains... so clouds go totally out of the window...

 

Edited May 22, 2024 by SparrowLT

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

2 hours ago, SparrowLT said:

AI being godlike in terms of sensors and SA

Yes, all this talk lately about the upcoming GFM is great but ED stayed silent about sensors. The silliest I have seen is an AI FC3 F-15C wingman calling out he spotted a tank (!) 160nm (!) behind him (!)

[Dragon1-1]

Yeah, they don't respect the capabilities of their sensors. This is particularly bad with older modules. MiG-19 wingmen will report being painted by a SA-2 from the front, despite the RWR in that jet being a simple tail warning system, with no ability to identify the radar. ED needs to look into AI hyper-awareness of its surroundings, right now it's pretty much impossible to bushwack them.

[Irisz]

  

Ukraine MiG-29 simulator!

Edited June 9, 2024 by Irisz

[SparrowLT]

7 hours ago, Irisz said:

  

Ukraine MiG-29 simulator!

The 27P is passive radar homing.. would that work against ground radars too or is only used against air radars?

 

EDIT: just saw that in russian R-27R is writen R-27P so yeah...no P variant here it seems

 

Edited June 9, 2024 by SparrowLT

[pepin1234]

On 6/9/2024 at 10:38 AM, SparrowLT said:

The 27P is passive radar homing.. would that work against ground radars too or is only used against air radars?

 

EDIT: just saw that in russian R-27R is writen R-27P so yeah...no P variant here it seems

 

 

The R-27P head seeker was made originally in Ukraine for export customer only as the Russian domestic version manufactured is located in Russia and they don’t share details. The Ukraine head seeker is orange color as Internet picture show. The Russian version form is unknown as they don’t share details but there is in Internet proof of Russian engineers talking about the production stock of this missile in the Russian inventory. 
 

Anyway… at least the Ukrainian version should be in this module. But to be honest don’t expect too much from ED…. when you see there is not Kuznetsov aircraft carrier in a module called supercarrier, that tell the level of expectation you should have from a developer as ED.

[okopanja]

On 6/9/2024 at 7:38 PM, SparrowLT said:

The 27P is passive radar homing.. would that work against ground radars too or is only used against air radars?

 

EDIT: just saw that in russian R-27R is writen R-27P so yeah...no P variant here it seems

I believe that Р-27П was part of official loadout specified in of the updated manual. So it's not a ghost.

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, pepin1234 said:

 

Anyway… at least the Ukrainian version should be in this module. But to be honest don’t expect too much from ED…. when you see there is not Kuznetsov aircraft carrier in a module called supercarrier, that tell the level of expectation you should have from a developer as ED.

Why would they need to model the Kuz?  Its been in port almost its whole life with very few deployments under its belt and its currently either being scrapped or overhauled IIRC? The only thing they would really need to model other than what we already have would be the dock it sits in, the tugs that accompany it everywhere it goes, and update the smoke, fire and damage effects..

Edited June 13, 2024 by Hammer1-1

[AeriaGloria]

2 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

The R-27P head seeker was made originally in Ukraine for export customer only as the Russian domestic version manufactured is located in Russia and they don’t share details. The Ukraine head seeker is orange color as Internet picture show. The Russian version form is unknown as they don’t share details but there is in Internet proof of Russian engineers talking about the production stock of this missile in the Russian inventory. 
 

Anyway… at least the Ukrainian version should be in this module. But to be honest don’t expect too much from ED…. when you see there is not Kuznetsov aircraft carrier in a module called supercarrier, that tell the level of expectation you should have from a developer as ED.

Kuznetsov updated model did come with Supercarrier? That was whole reason for Su-33 bundle

[MAXsenna]

Kuznetsov updated model did come with Supercarrier? That was whole reason for Su-33 bundle

Yes.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[okopanja]

40 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Yes.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Does it have crew?

[MAXsenna]

Does it have crew?

Nope. Only updated model/textures. No Super Carrier features at all. In my personal opinion, it would have been better to include it for free with the Su-33/FC3 bundle as well.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[aaronwhite]

On 6/13/2024 at 1:50 PM, AeriaGloria said:

Kuznetsov updated model did come with Supercarrier? That was whole reason for Su-33 bundle

Yeah, I remember them adding the updated model with it. And I can't really fault them for not jumping on the crew moving around the Kuznetsov as it's much easier to focus on one specific implementation at a time (the US Navy version) and it makes infinitely more sense to do that with the country that actually operates carriers around the world and doesn't have one that's in port pretty consistently for repairs and maintenance. 

Not to mention the lack of accompanying high fidelity naval aircraft on the Russian side as well. 

[draconus]

12 hours ago, aaronwhite said:

the crew moving around the Kuznetsov

They could at least allow the use of the already modeled static crew. Neither RL use of Kuznetsov or Su-33 being FC is good excuse for such big differences in simulation.

[Schmidtfire]

I agree. Static crew would be better than nothing. Or a static crew that only move head and twist upper body a little bit to appear alive.

Watching videos of RL Kutznetsov operations, seems like there ain’t much crew on deck anyways (unlike US carriers). But I can be wrong about that.

[okopanja]

21 hours ago, aaronwhite said:

Yeah, I remember them adding the updated model with it. And I can't really fault them for not jumping on the crew moving around the Kuznetsov as it's much easier to focus on one specific implementation at a time (the US Navy version) and it makes infinitely more sense to do that with the country that actually operates carriers around the world and doesn't have one that's in port pretty consistently for repairs and maintenance. 

Not to mention the lack of accompanying high fidelity naval aircraft on the Russian side as well. 

IMHO: just classical capitalist cost/benfit calc. Although your points are valid, and the smoke would cause FPS drop.

[Harlikwin]

On 9/25/2024 at 3:14 AM, Schmidtfire said:

I agree. Static crew would be better than nothing. Or a static crew that only move head and twist upper body a little bit to appear alive.

Watching videos of RL Kutznetsov operations, seems like there ain’t much crew on deck anyways (unlike US carriers). But I can be wrong about that.

Honestly the biggest think with the SC kuz and crew would just be having a guy guide you to the correct holdback ramp position or some "abstraction" to enable that. But I doubt ED does anything.

[aaronwhite]

On 9/26/2024 at 1:05 PM, Harlikwin said:

Honestly the biggest think with the SC kuz and crew would just be having a guy guide you to the correct holdback ramp position or some "abstraction" to enable that. But I doubt ED does anything.

I could see them adding the features potentially someday in the future. But I wouldn't expect that to happen before they are finished with the Enterprise-type carriers and getting those fully fleshed out with the Super Carrier features.

I do agree though, it would be great to have some deck crew and interaction with the Kuznetsov in the future. I know with the only carrier activity for the Russian side being the lower fidelity FC3 planes, it's probably not as popular, but it would be nice to see some deck activity added in the future.

Similarly, it would be nice to see it available on the Tarawa, but I assume the legal issues with Razbam and ED already having a full plate of their own means that's probably unlikely. I wish I know how difficult it was to do that stuff, though I assume there's a healthy bit of programming and 3D model work that I just don't have the chops for. But it would be nice to be able to modify that stuff to work with other carriers, because that Super Carrier immersion with those guys on the deck and the whole line up and attachment animations (not to mention the future marshals on the deck passing you off to each other) is just so much fun. It's stuff I find myself missing when flying from land bases and other ships. 

[Gierasimov]

On 1/13/2024 at 1:19 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. 

 

I expect that all weapons for this module will be reworked to the highest standards that DCS offers.

[AeriaGloria]

8 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

I expect that all weapons for this module will be reworked to the highest standards that DCS offers.

They have claimed as much. R-27R has like 6-7 km rear aspect range on the deck and like 16-17 km front. 
 

R-27ER does almost twice this, and to say either is useless is really something 

When moved to the new API, having motor plume drag reduction modeled will help rear aspect range considerably