Hate the SPO15 :/

[primus_TR]

Kudos to ED for doing a great job with the Fulcrum. I love the module. Was totally worth the wait. 

That said,  with the now realistic modeling of the SPO15, specifically no front quadrant reception when ownship radar is illuminating, Fulcrum's survivability will be zero to nil (which is also real-to-life by the way). 

Anyhow, unfortunately, ED did a great job of providing us with a truly realistic Fulcrum lol.

I'll go practice more to git gut 

[Dača]

MiG-29 is not an air superiority aircraft. So...yeah

Edited yesterday at 09:38 AM by Dača

[bies]

Modeling real life, both, strong sides and limitations, is the beauty of full fidelity modules and DCS overall.

[primus_TR]

53 minutes ago, bies said:

Modeling real life, both, strong sides and limitations, is the beauty of full fidelity modules and DCS overall.

Indeed

[Pavlin_33]

2 hours ago, bies said:

Modeling real life, both, strong sides and limitations, is the beauty of full fidelity modules and DCS overall.

Ans yet we have no realistic IFF in any of the modules except JF-17.

[sleestak]

Probably beating a dead horse here, but understanding the context of the MiG-29s mission is vital. Moving it outside of those guardrails turns it into a sitting duck. In theory, the radar wouldn’t be on for building a situational awareness picture along with the RWR like in a modern western platform. We need the Lazur datalink and a GCI system to really see how the MiG-29 was intended to be utilized. The radar would have only come on to guide R-27s to the target in a contested environment. Given these parameters, it’s safe to say its designers didn’t see a lot of benefit to both of them working in harmony.

It’s a fun plane and working with its quirks adds a lot of character.

[AeriaGloria]

5 hours ago, Dača said:

MiG-29 is not an air superiority aircraft. So...yeah

The Su-27, an air superiority plane, is no different 

[falcon_120]

The Su-27, an air superiority plane, is no different 

Let's say it's not an air superiority fighter by USAF standards.

Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

[sylkhan]

38 minutes ago, sleestak said:

 We need the Lazur datalink and a GCI system to really see how the MiG-29 was intended to be utilized. 

^ This.

[falcon_120]

Kudos to ED for doing a great job with the Fulcrum. I love the module. Was totally worth the wait. 
That said,  with the now realistic modeling of the SPO15, specifically no front quadrant reception when ownship radar is illuminating, Fulcrum's survivability will be zero to nil (which is also real-to-life by the way). 
Anyhow, unfortunately, ED did a great job of providing us with a truly realistic Fulcrum lol.
I'll go practice more to git gut 

Now with this FF implementation is more important than ever to play the way it's meant to be used, in servers were they simulate GCI support and radar in an 80s/SARH only context

Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

[Кош]

Being blinded by own radar is listed as "Common malfunction" in SPO-15 manual for ground personnel. To make SPO-15 not blinded by own radar, technician must perform service stated in SPO-15 collection of technical cards, book 3 card 9. It explicitly states that radar bleed into display is a malfunction.

[primus_TR]

16 minutes ago, Кош said:

Being blinded by own radar is listed as "Common malfunction" in SPO-15 manual for ground personnel. To make SPO-15 not blinded by own radar, technician must perform service stated in SPO-15 collection of technical cards, book 3 card 9. It explicitly states that radar bleed into display is a malfunction.

ED's manual characterizes it as a standard 'feature.' 

Edited yesterday at 03:24 PM by primus_TR

[Кош]

20 минут назад, primus_TR сказал:

ED's manual characterizes it as a standard 'feature.' 

I noticed. I tend to beleive irl maintenance manual over it.

Edited yesterday at 03:45 PM by Кош

[AeriaGloria]

53 minutes ago, primus_TR said:

ED's manual characterizes it as a standard 'feature.' 

Not really, I’m not sure it says. When talking about same thing Su-27 manual says “possibly.” 
 

It’s in the manual as a warning near the end, which isn’t usually the standard stuff 

1 hour ago, falcon_120 said:

Let's say it's not an air superiority fighter by USAF standards.

Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk
 

why? What’s different then a F-15 with Sparrows? 

[Wizard_03]

2 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

Let's say it's not an air superiority fighter by USAF standards.

Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk
 

It's not an air superiority by anyone's standards. An air superiority fighter is meant to go to the enemies airspace and take control of the sky from them. For that role it needs robust independent search and track cabilities, lots of range and lots of weapons. It has to be able to see, fight, and survive in contested air space outnumbered and often behind enemy lines. The Flanker filled that role for the Soviet Union.

 

The Fulcrum is very much optimized for defensive counter air. As such It lacks the range, payload and most importantly the sensor suite to go establish air superiority somewhere else. It's a point defense asset and meant to be intergated into a comprehensive layered air Defense system. It was designed to be cheap and easy to mass produce, and it relies on things like GCI to provide situational awareness. Outside that environment, isolated and independent the MiG is not very survivable. 

Edited 23 hours ago by Wizard_03

[primus_TR]

46 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

Not really, I’m not sure it says. When talking about same thing Su-27 manual says “possibly.” 
 

It’s in the manual as a warning near the end, which isn’t usually the standard stuff 

why? What’s different then a F-15 with Sparrows? 

Manual page 112. So, this is the intended behavior, as modeled in DCS Fulcrum. 

Edited 23 hours ago by primus_TR

[falcon_120]

why? What’s different then a F-15 with Sparrows? 

Are we specifically talking about the SU27 now right? If yes, we now know a lot more about the real capabilities of the basic SU27 compared to the F15 of the 80s, the conclusion that can be drawn from that are:
-US had a big upper hand in SA given by much better radar; it's not a raw power or range advantage but a usability, resistance to EW and overall radar azimuth, F15 is a true search radar, whereas the flanker and fulcrum are much more reliant in GCI
-Better RWR giving incredibly more SA
-Arguably better missiles (AIM7 M vs basic R27 comparison).

Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

[CrazyGman]

4 hours ago, sleestak said:

Probably beating a dead horse here, but understanding the context of the MiG-29s mission is vital. Moving it outside of those guardrails turns it into a sitting duck. In theory, the radar wouldn’t be on for building a situational awareness picture along with the RWR like in a modern western platform. We need the Lazur datalink and a GCI system to really see how the MiG-29 was intended to be utilized. The radar would have only come on to guide R-27s to the target in a contested environment. Given these parameters, it’s safe to say its designers didn’t see a lot of benefit to both of them working in harmony.

It’s a fun plane and working with its quirks adds a lot of character.

I agree. I always think of the MiG-29 as a MiG-21 on steroids and dialed up to 11 which is what I felt they were going for. It's mission profile was basically the same. Just "upgraded" for newer times. Intercept and point defence. And light air superiorty and ground support near the front line, and move with the troops as they take NATO airfields,or work from forward operating posts, as the line moves forward.

Edited 21 hours ago by CrazyGman

[CrazyGman]

38 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

It's not an air superiority by anyone's standards. An air superiority fighter is meant to go to the enemies airspace and take control of the sky from them. For that role it needs robust independent search and track cabilities, lots of range and lots of weapons. It has to be able to see, fight, and survive in contested air space outnumbered and often behind enemy lines. The Flanker filled that role for the Soviet Union.

 

The Fulcrum is very much optimized for defensive counter air. As such It lacks the range, payload and most importantly the sensor suite to go establish air superiority somewhere else. It's a point defense asset and meant to be intergated into a comprehensive layered air Defense system. It was designed to be cheap and easy to mass produce, and it relies on things like GCI to provide situational awareness. Outside that environment, isolated and independent the MiG is not very survivable. 

Thing is the Soviets planned to achieve air superiorty the way they did in ww2, and they did it with numbers and short range aircraft, and quick turn around times. 

It's a different model, but the plan was to still control the airspace, just with overwhelming numbers, and mobile SAM support, That's why so much focus is on robustness and being able to land and take off from remote airfields, and have quick turn around times.

[Dača]

Su-27 had datalink, I believe. Helps with SA.

Edited 22 hours ago by Dača

[TotenDead]

2 часа назад, Dača сказал:

Su-27 had datalink, I believe. Helps with SA.

Well, some had, some lacked. But it was planned to be installed on every Su-27. Just like it was planned to equip the MiG-29 with the same DL, we can even see ТАКТ switch over the HDD. It's just that 1991 occured and with extreme liberties suddenly came extreme poverty which prevented that from happening

[primus_TR]

nullWell. If the SPO15 is not helping with avoiding blue missiles, one must find other ways lol

[CrazyGman]

1 hour ago, TotenDead said:

Well, some had, some lacked. But it was planned to be installed on every Su-27. Just like it was planned to equip the MiG-29 with the same DL, we can even see ТАКТ switch over the HDD. It's just that 1991 occured and with extreme liberties suddenly came extreme poverty which prevented that from happening

Yeah. Simple fact in terms of processing power and digital systems, by the time the 80s rolls around is where the west just blasts ahead. So while the MiG-29 9.12 would do great against F-4E, and could hold it's own vs the F-16A's and even to a degree the F-15A, by the time they arrive in any numbers to the Frontline units in 1986 they are basically 5 to 10 years behind compared to the latest F-15C's and handful of F-16C's block 25 stationed there

[AeriaGloria]

8 hours ago, Кош said:

Being blinded by own radar is listed as "Common malfunction" in SPO-15 manual for ground personnel. To make SPO-15 not blinded by own radar, technician must perform service stated in SPO-15 collection of technical cards, book 3 card 9. It explicitly states that radar bleed into display is a malfunction.

Do you have this manual or did someone tell you about it? We can go to dms

 

6 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

Are we specifically talking about the SU27 now right? If yes, we now know a lot more about the real capabilities of the basic SU27 compared to the F15 of the 80s, the conclusion that can be drawn from that are:
-US had a big upper hand in SA given by much better radar; it's not a raw power or range advantage but a usability, resistance to EW and overall radar azimuth, F15 is a true search radar, whereas the flanker and fulcrum are much more reliant in GCI
-Better RWR giving incredibly more SA
-Arguably better missiles (AIM7 M vs basic R27 comparison).

Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk
 

If Soviets were incapable of making F-15, does that really mean they can’t have air superiority? It was still meant to operate far from home, possibly on its own, using its datalink, with the missile count to make an impact. 
 

BMW being better then Hyundai doesn’t mean Hyundai can’t make a luxury car

[MAXsenna]

2 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

BMW being better then Hyundai doesn’t mean Hyundai can’t make a luxury car

Depends on how you define a luxury car.