FC MiG-29 discussion (split)

[FLANKERATOR]

- Add radar-data link support within the same package to the F-15C.

- Tune-up regular Sidewinder to get AIM-9X and hook it up to a western version of the Russian helmet mode.

- Rename R-77 to RVV-AE with improved range, add it to both MiG-29S and Su-27.

- Add 2 targets simultaneous attack capability to the MiG-29S.

[RvETito]

Since this thread evolved in another FC wish list and before it gets eventually locked I would say that most likely ED haven't had access to the 9-13S and NO19M documentation. Simultaneous tracking is already modeled and could be copied from the F-15 I suppose but how the indication would look like we (they) could only speculate.

[Frostie]

AFAIK there is no such aircraft designated the "Mig-29C" It Does not Exist.

 

I Will Say again - it does not exist.

 

Yet, that is the version modelled in Lock On (Yep, that's right - it doesn't exist)

 

Nate

There is such an aircraft as a Mig-29S 'Fulcrum C' though which is how it's marked and presumably modeled in FC.

So your right that there is no such aircraft as a Mig-29C, but who said there was?

[GGTharos]

Correct. There has only been one short video that I have ever seen giving even a hint of what the radar representation looks like.

 

Since this thread evolved in another FC wish list and before it gets eventually locked I would say that most likely ED haven't had access to the 9-13S and NO19M documentation. Simultaneous tracking is already modeled and could be copied from the F-15 I suppose but how the indication would look like we (they) could only speculate.

[Frostie]

Speculation is rife in FC, I can't understand why anybody would be against the 29S having something resembling simultaneous tracking TWS.

Not only would this seperate it even more from the 29A but would add a new dimension to multiplay, one that could only be a bonus.

Currently fighting against Russian equipment you get a spike..wait for launch warning..turn cold, simple, with TWS you wouldn't know the situation so clearly so adding an extra bonus to the FC BVR environment. Fighting against an active carrying 29 should be this way.

[Nate--IRL--]

There is such an aircraft as a Mig-29S 'Fulcrum C' though which is how it's marked and presumably modeled in FC.

So your right that there is no such aircraft as a Mig-29C, but who said there was?

 

The Lock On website cites the aircraft modelled as the Mig-29C http://lockon.co.uk/modern_air_combat/#562. That can conveniently be interpreted to mean many different models of Mig-29 with and without the Topaz to suit either argument. Remove the R-77 and we have the 9.13, add the Topaz and we get the 9.13s.

 

So if you want realism - don't use the R-77 - the Topaz is on the wishlist but don't get your hopes up.

 

Nate

Edited March 14, 2012 by Nate--IRL--

[RvETito]

It's not only the A2A aspect that differs the 9-13S from the 9-12. Both should behave differently in flight because the 9-13S has different type of AOA limiter and flight control system in general, also it's dry weight is greater, about 250kg more of internal fuel capacity but most important it has increased payload from 2000kg to 3000kg (6x500kg bombs with 2 bombs on each of the fortified most inner stations) and high caliber rockets added to the arsenal. We've got he 1150-liter wing tanks though.

 

Also, are we sure how the TWS works and looks like on any of the 29's? Because the so called MFD in reality is nothing but a HUD replicator (IPV-31, abbreviation which would be translated as "direct visibility indicator") with slightly different indication.

 

So for the level of simulation of FC I think the current A2A model is fair enough - you get the longer Alamo sticks plus the heater, you get active radar missile. I wouldn't like something imaginary to be put in just to "make it balanced". What do you complain about? Even in FC2 the 29S is still one of the deadliest BVR platforms. May be not that much exaggerated like in FC1 but now it's even more balanced in a favor of it's opponents.

 

Lets wait for DCS: Fulcrum and discuss it again ;)

 

PS> I wouldn't mind those 6x500kg bombs available for the 29S in FC3 :D

[GGTharos]

Also, are we sure how the TWS works and looks like on any of the 29's? Because the so called MFD in reality is nothing but a HUD replicator (IPV-31, abbreviation which would be translated as "direct visibility indicator") with slightly different indication.

 

It all seems to be done on the HUD, but all I've ever seen of topaz operation is one short video. It's like asking to replicate the functionality of an A-10C's MFCD by showing a picture of the MFCD.

 

I wouldn't like something imaginary to be put in just to "make it balanced". What do you complain about? Even in FC2 the 29S is still one of the deadliest BVR platforms. May be not that much exaggerated like in FC1 but now it's even more balanced in a favor of it's opponents.

 

People are already adding 77's to SU-27's on server to balance it ... but I agree, it shouldn't be done by ED.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Lets wait for DCS: Fulcrum and discuss it again ;)

 

A nice dream for the future.

[Pilotasso]

Speculation is rife in FC, I can't understand why anybody would be against the 29S having something resembling simultaneous tracking TWS.

Not only would this seperate it even more from the 29A but would add a new dimension to multiplay, one that could only be a bonus.

Currently fighting against Russian equipment you get a spike..wait for launch warning..turn cold, simple, with TWS you wouldn't know the situation so clearly so adding an extra bonus to the FC BVR environment. Fighting against an active carrying 29 should be this way.

 

Your putting it wrong, nothing has been said bad about the mig. Simple fact the model 9-13S had very few examples ever built and nothing is known about TWS mechanization for multiple targets. And while we are it, the R-77 never entered service.

 

Stating this is NOT the same as dissing the mig. theres a clear border between dissing and facts, you seem to be fuzzing it out.

 

 

Also theres no data provided to say the contrary, except as you say, alot of speculation. its funny you even said that in the same text. :)

Edited March 14, 2012 by Pilotasso

[Presing]

Is the ED model Ka-50 because he enter mass production, do not think so.

I really do not know the state of the Russian air-force and i also think no one of you guys also know, I mean really know what you can get from mechanics or pilots, not what you read in magazine's and from the books. Do not forget American's (PENTAGON, CIA...) in the time of the cold war think USSR have a lot Bison's (more then 500 real number less then 30). And there is also way to finish this discussion, maybe, lets just call MAPO MiG and get info, if they wanna talk :). R-77 missile was canceled because factory was in Ukraine and after separation Russian's canceled the project of R-77 but they keep working on it and RVV-AE was born. The missile is in use at least in India so do not tell me the missile is not in use. Also pics of the MiG-29's and Su's carrying the R-27 and R-73 it's because they have ton's of those missiles and do not have much money to make RVV-AE and they do not need them, why, because with that much nukes in their possession why should they have active missile except for selling them.

 

What you guys think not balancing the game but just balance the time? Like make sim time before active missiles go in service. What you think about complete removal of active missiles from the game? Would F-15 guy's like that?

Edited March 14, 2012 by Presing

[Presing]

...all I've ever seen of topaz operation is one short video.

 

Can you give me the link of that video or at least just tell me the name of it?

 

Thank you

[Alfa]

Since this thread evolved in another FC wish list..

 

It didn't really - it evolved from Nate's bug-list thread where I initially responded to a post where the poster seemed to think that the MiG-29 and Su-27 don't have "datalink" for missiles in the game and, as I read it, that the lack of "multi-targeting capability" for those aircraft types can be considered a bug.

 

Then Presing started rambling about the MiG-29S, which of course is a different matter :) .

 

...and before it gets eventually locked I would say that most likely ED haven't had access to the 9-13S and NO19M documentation. Simultaneous tracking is already modeled and could be copied from the F-15 I suppose but how the indication would look like we (they) could only speculate.

 

Exactly.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Alfa

[EtherealN]

There's nothing stopping you from playing non-active scenarios with the simulator even as-is, no modification required from ED's court. In fact, several squadrons have already done this quite successfully.

[Alfa]

Also, are we sure how the TWS works and looks like on any of the 29's? Because the so called MFD in reality is nothing but a HUD replicator (IPV-31, abbreviation which would be translated as "direct visibility indicator") with slightly different indication.

 

As far as SNP(TWS) mode functionality, the new representation introduced with Lock-on FC should be quite accurate - except for the HDD, which for some reason(probably lack of time) wasn't updated.

[Pilotasso]

There's nothing stopping you from playing non-active scenarios with the simulator even as-is, no modification required from ED's court. In fact, several squadrons have already done this quite successfully.

 

...and most people still prefer actives, hence the R-77 On flanker MOD.

 

 

1980's scenarios is something only a few choose to play, and infact I´m sorry it is so, I liked them alot.

[Presing]

Ok so you guy's wont like it. Let's say this every Russian base have EWR or EWR are implemented in map, so mission makers can not delete them, and of course F-15 come with AWACS support but not working data-link (how is modeled in LOCK-ON) so F-15 have only voice support by WAX. Isn't that bodering knowing the aircraft having something but that is not modeled because they did not research enough? I am trying to say MiG-29 9.13s version is in the LOCK ON but not fully modeled, that is what annoys me.

[Cali]

No aircraft is fully modeled in FC2, we have bits and pieces for different times. There are some basic features that aren't modeled on the 15.....basic. I feel your pain, don't get me wrong. Hopefully we'll see a lot of goodies in FC3.

[GGTharos]

I'm trying to tell you that no one who could model the MiG in game knows what the actual in-aircraft interface looks like.

 

I am trying to say MiG-29 9.13s version is in the LOCK ON but not fully modeled, that is what annoys me.

[Frostie]

I don't fly the MiG too often so I have no reason other than the purpose of an added tactical aspect for my fellow pilots to enjoy in the multiplayer environment, instead of the limited Russian one we have now.

If i'm faced with Russian hardware in FC I know when they're firing on me, if I face them in Falcon it's a totally different and more enjoyable and challenging scenario.

 

The whole concept of a simultaneous engaging TWS system for the MiG seems a relatively easy fit with the tools avaliable and not too hard to work out how this system would work in RL. Obviously the HDD would show the target locks and maybe a ghost cursor in the HUD. Would that seriously feel so far detached from reality when you consider how complex the actual HDD's are in RL compared to the FC one.

[RIPTIDE]

I'm trying to tell you that no one who could model the MiG in game knows what the actual in-aircraft interface looks like.

Surely some of them could pick up the phone and ask a few 'friends'. And fill in the gaps with a bit of imagination. There's plenty of gaps filled in with imagination already. C'mon Son. ;)

[Vekkinho]

Imaginaion, assumption...no thanks!

 

MiG-29 is yesterdays snow, it works and is modeled pretty decent with FC2. Only thing that can be done with it are cosmetic tweaks of HUD and MFD to display given symbology more accurately. HUD fonts are OK but with certain combat modes HUD displays more info than IRL. (with Vertical Scan target speed and alt should not be displayed on HUD).

 

MFD - option of HUD repeater (comes handy when backlight of the sun makes HUD useless.) No airbasea displayed on MFD, no flightroute etc.)

 

Can't really say what is realistic with MiG-29S-13 (9-13S) cause i've never seen it or talked to someone who did, however Phazotron indeed states two target track capability.

 

Yugoslav MiG-29 delivered in 1987 are MiG-29B-12 (Product 9.12A), versions made for non-Warsaw pact countries and were downgraded in terms of nulclear weapon delivery system and equipped with N019EB radar that proved no better than Sapfir-23ML radar used since 1980 with MiG-23. Iraqi MiG-23MS overhauled in ZMAJ-Zagreb in 1989 were flown by JRV pilots in mock up BVR combat and their radars outperformed N019EB installed in Yugoslav Fulcrums especially in look-down range. At taht time (late '89) VZ Moma Stanojlovic was designing a radar to be used with "Novi Avion" a study that was supposed to replace Yugoslav obsolete MiG-21MF and J-21 and during 1990 one of these radars was allegedly installed on MiG-29 #106 for airborne testing.

 

Yugoslav MiG-29 pilots say that two target tracking wasn't an option with Fulcrums they had but two target engagement was. Usual combat mix of BVR payload was R-27R+R-27T on inner stations supplemented with 4 x R-60 or R-73 for close combat. Idea behind having both SARH and IR missile is engagement of two targets independently, first one engaged with usage of S-31E2 KOLS to launch IR missile the other would be engaged with radar guided R-27R.

 

Today most of the MiG-29 fleet in Russian VVS and PVO is grounded followed by repetitive crashes in 2008. These aircraft received no upgrade since collapse of USSR as focus was moved onto MiG-31 and Su-27 as Russian primary combat aircraft. In 2009 most of airworthy Fulcrums failed inspection due to corrosion and decision was made to upgrade early MiG-29s to SMT standard.

 

If you ask me, i'd stop kicking the dead horse in FC3, I'd rather focus onto DCS:

. Edited March 15, 2012 by Vekkinho

[Dudikoff]

Usual combat mix of BVR payload was R-27R+R-27T on inner stations supplemented with 4 x R-60 or R-73 for close combat. Idea behind having both SARH and IR missile is engagement of two targets independently, first one engaged with usage of S-31E2 KOLS to launch IR missile the other would be engaged with radar guided R-27R.

 

Are you sure it could carry the R-27T? IIRC, it was only supported from 9.13 on (which includes 9.12S, I guess).

 

Imaginaion, assumption...no thanks!

If you ask me, i'd stop kicking the dead horse in FC3, I'd rather focus onto DCS:

.

 

It's funny that these statements ended up in the same post. 'If you ask me', I'd stop aiming at the latest aircraft (classified) and missiles (even more classified) and focus on the more "primitive" variants from the 80s whose abilities and systems are rather well known. They were also more specialized and thus (IMHO) more fun to fly since you had to combine the efforts of different aircraft types in each mission.

[RIPTIDE]

Imaginaion, assumption...no thanks!

 

Sure, but in fairness we're talking FC not DCS. There is a lot of stuff already abbreviated and ... gaps filled in... with all due respect to the developer.

 

My version, which might be wrong, since the USSR vanished, AFAIK about 50 were modernized to 9.13S, 10 delivered to frontline (without R-77), 10 delivered to R&D companies, and the remainder are cold stored somewhere in MiG-RSK's hangers. Or doing something else lol

[GGTharos]

It's funny that these statements ended up in the same post. 'If you ask me', I'd stop aiming at the latest aircraft (classified) and missiles (even more classified) and focus on the more "primitive" variants from the 80s whose abilities and systems are rather well known.

 

That isn't really true. Documentation may or may not be more forthcoming, and the SME's are largely gone.

 

They were also more specialized and thus (IMHO) more fun to fly since you had to combine the efforts of different aircraft types in each mission.

 

That is true even today. Just because your aircraft can be swing-role doesn't mean you get assigned to strike and CAP. You get assigned to strike OR CAP and armed and tasked accordingly. Self escort != CAP/Intercept.