Hate the SPO15 :/

[AeriaGloria]

Just now, MAXsenna said:

Depends on how you define a luxury car. 

Exactly

[TotenDead]

2 часа назад, CrazyGman сказал:

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

I wouldn't say blasts, IMO it was the opposite and the gap was narrowed quite a bit. Anyway, it's just that the US competitor dropped the race. By the time the USSR collapsed there were Su-27Ms and MiG-29Ms 9.15 (quite advanced by any standart of that time true multirole fighters) almost ready for serial production. Well, due to the further lack of funds the outcome was that the Su-27M was dropped after 3 serial planes were built in mid 90s and the 29M stayed in pre-serial state with 6 airframes completed by the end of 1991

[Tom Kazansky]

OP brings me to the questions:

Does the radar/rwr in the FC2024 (early) version of the MiG-29 show this behaviour? Will it be updated? Or will the FC version be superior to the FF version in BVR fights?? 

 

[AeriaGloria]

2 hours ago, Tom Kazansky said:

OP brings me to the questions:

Does the radar/rwr in the FC2024 (early) version of the MiG-29 show this behaviour? Will it be updated? Or will the FC version be superior to the FF version in BVR fights?? 

 

No, and won’t be updated

[Кош]

Got an opinion from an SME - 9.12A, technician. Overspill was very rare, based on some combination of switching radar modes they could not catch, which caused blanking to start de-syncing time to time. Pilots used SPO in training.

[Temetre]

Tbh I love those kinda details being simulated. Makes planes feel much more alive and real than 'just' FC3 planes. Having to use equipment and understand its strengths and weaknesses for all theyre worth. Part of why I love the F4.

That said, the RWR experience seems somewhat painful. Apparently worse in some ways than the F4s RWR, despite 10 years later. At least it got some STT warning tho.

vor 13 Stunden schrieb TotenDead:

Just like it was planned to equip the MiG-29 with the same DL, we can even see ТАКТ switch over the HDD

Oh, is that why it has that TV screen? I always wondered why they put a full screen in the plane and just used it for HUD reprojection.

Edited 9 hours ago by Temetre

[Кош]

Только что, Temetre сказал:

Oh, is that why it has that TV screen? I always wondered why they put a full screen in the plane and just used it for HUD reprojection.

well its a bit more than hud reprojection as is but yes. Also 1991 model 9.15:null

[Temetre]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Кош:

well its a bit more than hud reprojection as is but yes. Also 1991 model 9.15:null

Oh thats interesting, like actual MFDs! Is that one of those prototypes/features that got skipped due to cost reasons?

Eg on wiki I can only find references to the .15 as 29M, which got introduced in 2005 apparently. And even in development in the late 90s has more western style MFDs with grey buttons.

Edited 9 hours ago by Temetre

[Кош]

5 минут назад, Temetre сказал:

Oh thats interesting, like actual MFDs! Is that one of those prototypes/features that got skipped due to cost reasons?

Eg on wiki I can only find references to the .15 as 29M, which got introduced in 2005 apparently. And even in development in the late 90s has more western style MFDs with grey buttons.

9.15 was developed and tested since I think 1986, in 1991 it was ready for production. Removed grill intakes and ducts and replaced with additional fuel, onboard ECM, better radar, datalink, 2 more hardpoints, Fox3, TV fire and forget bombs. After 1991 nobody wanted new aircraft, Russia cut to Su-27 for cost reduction and office drama reasons, external MiG operators either didn't have money, joined NATO and waited for second hand F-16, or often both. 

[Temetre]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb Кош:

9.15 was developed and tested since I think 1986, in 1991 it was ready for production. Removed grill intakes and ducts and replaced with additional fuel, onboard ECM, better radar, datalink, 2 more hardpoints, Fox3, TV fire and forget bombs. After 1991 nobody wanted new aircraft, Russia cut to Su-27 for cost reduction and office drama reasons, external MiG operators either didn't have money, joined NATO and waited for second hand F-16, or often both. 

Thx, I see.

At least from my limited perspective, switching to Su-27 seems to makes sense? The Mig-29 is cool, but it always had the issue of being a 'lower budget' and somewhat more of advanced version of older interceptor designs.

The 27 probably had more space for avionics upgrades. And considering how expensive avionics got, it mightve made more sense to put it in the more expensive airframe from the get go. A 29 with much more modern tech probably wouldve gotten expensive quite fast. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Temetre

[Кош]

1 минуту назад, Temetre сказал:

Thx, I see.

At least from my limited perspective, switching to Su-27 seems to makes sense? The Mig-29 is cool, but it always had the issue of being a 'lower budget' and somewhat more of advanced version of older interceptor designs.

The 27 probably had more space for avionics upgrades. And considering how expensive avionics got, it mightve made more sense to put it in the more expensive airframe from the get go. A 29 with much more modern tech probably wouldve gotten expensive quite fast. 

Thing is, the only USP of 29 over 27 is much much better support of maximum dispersion doctrine. Fits in smaller shelters, easier to operate from highways and even grass, short turnaround, easier maintenance. It's very similar to Viggen in this regard. But it's not a concern for a country that decided it's end of history and it will never go to war again.

[Temetre]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Кош:

Thing is, the only USP of 29 over 27 is much much better support of maximum dispersion doctrine. Fits in smaller shelters, easier to operate from highways and even grass, short turnaround, easier maintenance. It's very similar to Viggen in this regard.

It seems like the 29s capabilities (range/SA/multirole-potential) did lag behind the other 4th gens, even the little F-16. Maximum dispersion yes, but not great for the modern battlefield and when you go from the Soviet Union to a much 'smaller' Russia. And IIRC even the SU-27 was not as demanding as an F-15 for example.

Even western countries struggled to support their expensive fighter fleets and airport fortifications after the end of the cold war.

Zitat

But it's not a concern for a country that decided it's end of history and it will never go to war again.

Well idk about that one. I imagine it had something to do with inheriting an insanely large weapons stockpile large enough for the next 3 wars while the economy is collapsing. But thats a different topic^^

Edited 9 hours ago by Temetre

[Weta43]

18 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

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

Not in the USAF sense anyway - US aircraft are designed to operate independent of GCI because they were designed to be able to penetrate the airspace of other countries. To do that they had to be able to act autonomously.

Soviet expectations at the time the Su-27 & MiG-29 were designed was that combat would be in Soviet airspace repelling invaders, so they were designed to be integrated into the existing well developed static EWR / ground-based GCI systems.

(Same reason the USSR didn't really have carriers - their military was designed to operate in the immediate region of their homeland [GLONASS originally only covered the USSR & a small amount of territory around it], principally in a defensive mode, while the US military has always been intended for force projection)

The problem we've always had in DCS is that the radars of the RedFor aircraft modelled were designed to be supported by GCI, but the GCI has never been properly modelled - so ReFor has always fighting with its hands tied behind its back.

It's a huge 'nerfing' of RedFor aircraft, almost as if ED had said there'll be no active seekers modelled in game, but in this case no-one complained because no-one in the audience knew how active seekers were designed to be used.

Post Soviet Union the doctrine changed, and modern Russian aircraft are intended to be more autonomous (at least in part because GCI is in this day and age much more vulnerable), but we don't have those aircraft modelled.

[primus_TR]

15 minutes ago, Weta43 said:

The problem we've always had in DCS is that the radars of the RedFor aircraft modelled were designed to be supported by GCI, but the GCI has never been properly modelled - so ReFor has always fighting with its hands tied behind its back.

Fact. 

[Кош]

1 час назад, Weta43 сказал:

Not in the USAF sense anyway - US aircraft are designed to operate independent of GCI because they were designed to be able to penetrate the airspace of other countries. To do that they had to be able to act autonomously.

Soviet expectations at the time the Su-27 & MiG-29 were designed was that combat would be in Soviet airspace repelling invaders, so they were designed to be integrated into the existing well developed static EWR / ground-based GCI systems.

(Same reason the USSR didn't really have carriers - their military was designed to operate in the immediate region of their homeland [GLONASS originally only covered the USSR & a small amount of territory around it], principally in a defensive mode, while the US military has always been intended for force projection)

The problem we've always had in DCS is that the radars of the RedFor aircraft modelled were designed to be supported by GCI, but the GCI has never been properly modelled - so ReFor has always fighting with its hands tied behind its back.

It's a huge 'nerfing' of RedFor aircraft, almost as if ED had said there'll be no active seekers modelled in game, but in this case no-one complained because no-one in the audience knew how active seekers were designed to be used.

Post Soviet Union the doctrine changed, and modern Russian aircraft are intended to be more autonomous (at least in part because GCI is in this day and age much more vulnerable), but we don't have those aircraft modelled.

Not using GCI is a tremendous misconception in Western civilian general audience. US never had absence of GCI or AWACS in real combat. Absense of HQ outside of cockpits is not "adding flexibility", its removing tactical and operational analisis. Also what is really put into "flexibility"? It's military, not school yard. You have objective you go get it. or "Dudes I don't feel protecting 3 mechanized batallions refueling and rearming for the next 45 minutes, I see a helicopter, monke neuron activates". And then a single MiG-27 obliterates your infantry batallion with a tactical nuke. Same as when you request permission to do something it's not "dumb rigidity" it's because to do new thing you need to abandon old thing, and it should be verified if it's ok to have it unattended. Hope it explains.

[Tvrdi]

On 9/18/2025 at 11:24 AM, primus_TR said:

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 

The "problem" is the old MiG29A is still there and it rocks compared to new one in its simplicity and FC3 "cheats". And its there even on te popular servers.

Edited 7 hours ago by Tvrdi

[primus_TR]

16 minutes ago, Tvrdi said:

The "problem" is the old MiG29A is still there and it rocks compared to new one in its simplicity and FC3 "cheats". And its there even on te popular servers.

Agree completely. Online, the FC 29 is far more competitive and has higher survivability than the FF 29. With the F5E, the difference was negligible as it is a very simple aircraft.  With the 29, the difference is significant. Nevertheless,  today many folks were driving the Fulcrum on Contention SARH. Hopefully, more will join in. 

[Pavlin_33]

Why are people comparing F-15 to Su-27/MiG-29, and not MiG-31? 31's the one with all that fancy stuff like DL, plannar array radar, long range active missiles, warp speed and flying in Bozo-sphere.

Eagle was US overreaction to MiG-25, which gave birth to 31.

As Einstein once said: "Don't judge a fish by it's abilities to climb trees - it will always look dumb."

One thing I wanted to mention: 29 was designed also that it can be transported by train.

[CrazyGman]

 

56 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Why are people comparing F-15 to Su-27/MiG-29, and not MiG-31? 31's the one with all that fancy stuff like DL, plannar array radar, long range active missiles, warp speed and flying in Bozo-sphere.

Air superiorty and air interception have a fair bit of mission overlap and the lines get blurred pretty easily. But primarily because the MiG-31 is really not expected to mix it up in WVR it's considered more intercept then air superiority, although you certainly can use it to establish air superioty in reality, and an air superiority fighter can generally do air intercept pretty work, because of it's dedicated air to air role

Usually being a dedicated air superiorty fighter means killing stuff in an Air to air environment is the primary focused role of the aircraft where you need both BVR and WVR, using both medium and short range missile, and to out fly and fight any opponent in those arenas. So typically that means air to air dedicated, manuverable, fast, internal gun, short and medium range missiles both radar and IR guided. Being able to do patrols to maintain airspace control. (These don't need to be long patrols if you have close bases and quick turn around times)

 

 

[Muchocracker]

1 hour ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Eagle was US overreaction to MiG-25, which gave birth to 31.

Myth. F-X program was active before mig-25 and had solidified the requirements that would end up becoming the F-15 without it even being considered the primary threat by US intelligence. Su-17 was.