TWS for MiG29s

[GGTharos]

Not to mention Patriots. Deadly Patriots everywhere.

 

A single corridor is made up of 6-8 units. Not a good day for anything lacking an IFF signal.

[Pilotasso]

That's what i'm talking about. Too small amount of SAM sights on red side.

 

+100000000

 

Every realistic online scenario should have the GREAT EQUALIZER - S300/400 (and GCI, but that's not implemented ATM).

 

That's huge part of Russian Air Defence doctrine, so it's very unrealistic (arcadish) to have Russian birds completely detached from real life operational environment.

 

You are responsible to defend your CAP space, and never relly on SAM's shooting over your shoulders when you cant do the job. Also this isnt realistic. SAM corridors should be respected with risk of friendly fire.

 

And it also creates never ending cryies for more SAM's on both sides causing over saturated missions, bad FPS, and missile spammage walls.

 

Also recently managed to fly some MP (don't have many time for that during tests), using new missile physics, i managed take down an F-15 on a MiG-29 head on even without any amraams flying at me. The only problem for MiG-29 is to set the radar zone correctly and find the enemy in time. If you have, it doesn't matter, if it is MiG, Su or F-15.

 

I guess managing the radar isnt a problem you just found in the Mig-29, thats preciselly what makes anyone good or bad online in any plane.

[danilop]

Not to mention Patriots. Deadly Patriots everywhere.

 

A single corridor is made up of 6-8 units. Not a good day for anything lacking an IFF signal.

 

Yeah, true ... but USAF is much less operationally dependent on SAM's coverage and completely non-dependent on GCI. Design and technology of the US aircraft assure that.

 

Don't forget that Russian doctrine is mainly defensive (I know, Iknow ... That concept is probably hard to grasp, but that's the state of the matter since collapse of USSR). That's the reason for busy development of state of the art SAM systems, short range interceptors, GCI and such.

 

On the other hand, NATO side, being obviously offensive in the last couple of decades, is hugely handicapped in naval part of the equation. Every possible scenario of NATO intervening in that, or any other part of the World would include massive support of navy.

 

So we need SAM's and GCI for Russian side and naval operations for NATO

Edited January 8, 2013 by danilop

[Kuky]

So that's what we need in FC3 missions... BLUE should always get AWACS and RED should get good SAM coverage (S300's protecting large cities) and GCI/EWR... and there should not be F-15's on both sides ;) Pure BLUE vs RED scenarios

[GGTharos]

The concept isn't hard to grasp; the way they designed and deployed their stuff is pretty obvious. I don't think anyone really cares to invade to invade Russia though.

 

As for GCI and other things - the GCI role is played by AWACS for NATO to a large degree. In both cases, air combat plans are the other major player. IN an environment that may be electronically denied, everyone needs to know what they're doing ... and that is why the people selected to be military pilots tend to be the best of the best. Even the guys flying transports.

 

As far as what's needed in the game goes ... what's needed in the game is the ability to simulate the density of AD and EW as well as their integration (and in the case of NATO, link-16 sticks everyone together - don't know about an equivalent eastern system), and that might not happen for a long while. That is difficult, especially in a networked environment.

[ФрогФут]

You are responsible to defend your CAP space, and never relly on SAM's shooting over your shoulders when you cant do the job. Also this isnt realistic. SAM corridors should be respected with risk of friendly fire.

That's not, what MiG-29 was designed for. While F-15 is an excellent standalone fighter, the MiG-29 was desgined for GCI, it was not meant to look for targets, it was not meant for CAP. It has fuel to take off, when the enemy is found by EW, climb, take position for attack, intercept the target and RTB. It was ground forces long hand in intercept.Now the times have changed and the new MiGs come with new radars, not worse in capabilities, than what F-15 has, they are more standalone, but those are not the MiGs we have in game.

And it also creates never ending cryies for more SAM's on both sides causing over saturated missions, bad FPS, and missile spammage walls.

I think you will always have more sites in your home country, than you can carry to some far-far-away country. And anyway, in real war i would defend my country and not fly to your airfield to get kills.:)

I guess managing the radar isnt a problem you just found in the Mig-29, thats preciselly what makes anyone good or bad online in any plane.

With MiG-29 radar FOV is not that great. You have to set zone center well to find the targets.

 

As for GCI and other things - the GCI role is played by AWACS for NATO to a large degree.

Yes, but we have AWACS in the game and don't have full functional ground EW stations. Probably, they can be done like stationary AWACS. I'll talk to devs, if that can be implemented.

 

and in the case of NATO, link-16 sticks everyone together - don't know about an equivalent eastern system)

MiG-31, Su-27 (i think you can find it's description in the open manual on Su-27SK) and A-50 work together by datalink. MiG-29 does not have tactical display and primary gets commands from ground stations, but often is also mentioned along the planes i named in literature.

Edited January 8, 2013 by ФрогФут

[Teknetinium]

The concept isn't hard to grasp; the way they designed and deployed their stuff is pretty obvious. I don't think anyone really cares to invade to invade Russia though.

 

As for GCI and other things - the GCI role is played by AWACS for NATO to a large degree. In both cases, air combat plans are the other major player. IN an environment that may be electronically denied, everyone needs to know what they're doing ... and that is why the people selected to be military pilots tend to be the best of the best. Even the guys flying transports.

 

As far as what's needed in the game goes ... what's needed in the game is the ability to simulate the density of AD and EW as well as their integration (and in the case of NATO, link-16 sticks everyone together - don't know about an equivalent eastern system), and that might not happen for a long while. That is difficult, especially in a networked environment.

 

They are testing similar system to link-16 at the moment, Im very happy that there is some one who is cable of doing similar things, or it would be dangerous (political:). Im happy we have Glonas as well it will make our connection even better when it is combined whit GPS.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Teknetinium

[danilop]

.... I don't think anyone really cares to invade Russia though.

....

 

Siberian riches are tempting, though :lol:

 

Anyway, every scenario placed in this region (like it is in DCSW) must include possibility of all out war between Blues and Reds.

 

So it's good that we have Combined Arms in development (future SAM and GCI simulator? ;)).

[GGTharos]

That's not, what MiG-29 was designed for. While F-15 is an excellent standalone fighter, the MiG-29 was desgined for GCI, it was not meant to look for targets, it was not meant for CAP. It has fuel to take off, when the enemy is found by EW, climb, take position for attack, intercept the target and RTB. It was ground forces long hand in intercept.Now the times have changed and the new MiGs come with new radars, not worse in capabilities, than what F-15 has, they are more standalone, but those are not the MiGs we have in game.

 

More like an F-16 or F-18 IMHO ... F-15's and Su-27's (modern enough Su-27's anyway) will beat those up in BVR.

 

Yes, but we have AWACS in the game and don't have full functional ground EW stations. Probably, they can be done like stationary AWACS. I'll talk to devs, if that can be implemented.

 

The AWACS is far from being fully functional. It does some useful things, but by and large it starts becoming useless in large online environments; it should be capable of talking on multiple frequencies and FC planes should implement a basic, common radio panel (something like the rearming dialogue) at minimum to make AWACS viable online.

The radio implementation where messages are queued is very bad when the density of aircraft increases and every AI reports 50 times how they are engaging an airborne target.

Datalink is simply superior in-game to any sort of AWACS, unless there are only a few players using AWACS and there is not much AI chatter.

Furthermore, AWACS AI is not capable of deciding if a fighter is trying to come after the AWACS or another asset, all reports are based on some very basic things. Worse, it's not just that you can very easily notch AWACS, but the thing doesn't even maintain tracks, so every time an enemy plane goes into the notch it's completely lost, and re-identified 15 seconds later as a pop-up when it becomes detectable again.

 

MiG-31, Su-27 (i think you can find it's description in the open manual on Su-27SK) and A-50 work together by datalink. MiG-29 does not have tactical display and primary gets commands from ground stations, but often is also mentioned along the planes i named in literature.

 

Yes, I saw it in that manual. I figure they have something more by now :)

[maturin]

More like an F-16 or F-18 IMHO ... F-15's and Su-27's (modern enough Su-27's anyway) will beat those up in BVR.

In the current version of DCS World, F18s and F16s do just fine against F15s and Su-27s. If anything, it's those large BVR kings that get beat up, at least when engagements start BVR and end up as dogfights. Will that behavior change once all FC3's improvements come in?

 

And in what ways do F-16s and F-18s fall down before the F-15 in BVR?

[Teknetinium]

In the current version of DCS World, F18s and F16s do just fine against F15s and Su-27s. If anything, it's those large BVR kings that get beat up, at least when engagements start BVR and end up as dogfights. Will that behavior change once all FC3's improvements come in?

 

And in what ways do F-16s and F-18s fall down before the F-15 in BVR?

 

Detection range and probably better burn thru jammers, because of larger radar.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Pilotasso]

Airframe, Radar size and output only gives you theoretical maximum range under optimum conditions. When you put noise, clutter, ECM and ECCM and modern radars VS radars of just 1 tier below, and the scenario could easely be reversed.

 

So when you Say F-18 VS Su-27 or F-15 to me it says or means little. Swap radars and equipment of different generations you can find in service anywhere in the world and upsets will happen.

 

A SU-35 puts the baseline F-16A into the museum, but an upgraded F-18 with APG-79 will render blind any older flanker of F-15 for that matter. They will see you chrystal clear, and you have an useless radar despite the bigger size, basically a sitting duck.

 

All you need is a better radar signal processor, a faster jammer pod or an AESA radar that does all this at the same time, hop frequency inside the enemies jamming signal to completely bypass it while rendering his radar utterly useless in the process. :)

Edited January 8, 2013 by Pilotasso

[Teknetinium]

Airframe, Radar size and output only gives you theoretical maximum range under optimum conditions. When you put noise, clutter, ECM and ECCM and modern radars VS radars of just 1 tier below, and the scenario could easely be reversed.

 

So when you Say F-18 VS Su-27 or F-15 to me it says or means little. Swap radars and equipment of different generations you can find in service anywhere in the world and upsets will happen.

 

A SU-35 puts the baseline F-16A into the museum, but an upgraded F-18 with APG-79 will render blind any older flanker of F-15 for that matter. They will see you chrystal clear, and you have an useless radar despite the bigger size, basically a sitting duck.

 

Assume you put as good technology in the aircraft, the bigger one will have stronger out.

[Pilotasso]

Assume you put as good technology in the aircraft, the bigger one will have stronger out.

 

Ok let me put into this into another perspective:

 

radar signal strength decreases with the square of the distance. Doubling output gives you roughly 30% more range.

 

In other words, a measurable increase of range demands a huge, MASSIVE power output augmentation.

 

let me throw in another thing I know from memory.

 

Changing the APG-66 signal processor changes it into the APG-66V2A, giving the same 30% range boost without changing power output. :)

 

The N019 radar onboard of the Mig-29 was much bigger dish than the APG-66, yet it had worse target discrimination and weak ECCM resistance resulting less usable range than the APG-66.

 

And so on so forth, I could spend half a day giving more examples about other factors that affect range, even the same radar could display different behaviours because programmable units are available today for users to program different modes in them with varying degrees of success.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Pilotasso

[Frostie]

I can assure you I wont change the stratosphere tactic, never did when facing other F-15's and wont start because of the mig. I speak for myself but I suspect alot of others would agree ;)

 

You misunderstood me, I didn't say F-15's won't fly in the stratosphere, I said they'll have more respect for 29 nails while they're up there. Its easier knowing that bandit 30nm and closing has to give you a warning when he's launching than just facing a signal getting closer, which is a little more nerving. Facing an F-15 with an F-15 is all well and good but I know the dangers of flying high against actives and not having any to loose off to cover my ass just some SARH and a cup of prayer.

Now I can fly in the stratosphere with my balls out.

[159th_Viper]

Now I can fly in the stratosphere with my balls out.

 

:megalol:

 

Quote of 2013 :thumbup: :megalol::megalol:

[Cali]

Well hopefully it will include the same zero MCUpickup/launch warning by RWR's that the F-15's enjoy with TWS, that will mean that the bandits will not know they've been launched on, this is a game changer IMO.

 

Not a game changer in the least bit. It'll just make fighting the 29 a little different, just like 15 vs 15.

 

Oh I know when a TWS launch is inbound....I think alot of F15 pilots dont however:)

 

A lot of 15 pilots know when a TWS shot is coming also, so I think you are wrong with that statement. I lot of people keep pushing in until they get the warning. Some know they still have time, while others just do the Rambo thing and keep heading in trying to barrel roll, dive down, climb up and press the print screen button :D I think a lot of people except a TWS shot inbound from around 20-25 miles.

 

The great thing now is that 29 nails on the TEWS means danger whether you're locked or not, for F-15 pilots not having enemy 15's popping up on your RWR so not fearing the active missile/TWS launch while you're in the stratosphere will soon be, thankfully, old news.

F-15 pilots are so used to that fact while Russian pilots already expect every threat to be a TWS shot. ;)

 

Same as 15 vs 15, now it just means another jet can fire without you knowing till the missile goes active. I'm sure some people will forget and get hit in the face a few times with TWS fired R-77's, but they'll learn.

 

Also, a 29 nails always meant danger, maybe he is the decoy and he has a buddy flanking low somewhere.

 

Yeah the Mig-29 TWS won't change things that much, especially for the well practiced. Head to head the F-15 radar has no problem clearly identifying the the Russian jets regardless of the RWR reading. So treat the Mig-29C like another F-15 or AI Su-30.

 

I can assure you I wont change the stratosphere tactic, never did when facing other F-15's and wont start because of the mig. I speak for myself but I suspect alot of others would agree ;)

 

Yep, I agree with both you guys also. But I fly at many different altitudes, high, med and low. It's fun and gets the adrenaline pumping when you are down low fighting those sneaky guys.

 

You misunderstood me, I didn't say F-15's won't fly in the stratosphere, I said they'll have more respect for 29 nails while they're up there. Its easier knowing that bandit 30nm and closing has to give you a warning when he's launching than just facing a signal getting closer, which is a little more nerving. Facing an F-15 with an F-15 is all well and good but I know the dangers of flying high against actives and not having any to loose off to cover my ass just some SARH and a cup of prayer.

Now I can fly in the stratosphere with my balls out.

 

I'm sure the 15 guys will treat the 29's like F-15's, expect a incoming missile at a certain range.

[159th_Falcon]

:megalol:

 

Quote of 2013 :thumbup: :megalol::megalol:

Already?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I don't think anyone really cares to invade to invade Russia though.

And, the only reason is that Russia can defend itself.

 

Russia has what no other country on a planet of earth will ever have. That is a lots of LAND!. I flew through Russia and over Russia. When you spend 10 hours in a large passenger jet, and you are still in the same country, only then you realize how big that country is. Now, add Arctic to all that land ...

 

SAM = Stealth STOP!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Not to mention Patriots. Deadly Patriots everywhere.

 

A single corridor is made up of 6-8 units. Not a good day for anything lacking an IFF signal.

Well, take a look at your signature. It say's, Patriot (SAM) is just a speed bump. :)

 

 

SAM = Stealth STOP!

[ФрогФут]

More like an F-16 or F-18 IMHO ... F-15's and Su-27's (modern enough Su-27's anyway) will beat those up in BVR.

Yes, i know 29 is still smaller and has smaller dish, but i meant modes as capabilities, rather then range.

The AWACS is far from being fully functional.

It allows me to set my scan zone right. That is the least i need from it in the game.

Edited January 9, 2013 by ФрогФут

[GGTharos]

Well yes, at this point I guess it's all software as far as radars go :)

[Alfa]

More like an F-16 or F-18 IMHO..

 

F-18 I would say. The Zhuk-M radar, which is standard issue for new and upgraded MiG-29 versions is most comparable to the AN/APG-73 - similar design, dish size, operating modes etc.

 

... F-15's and Su-27's (modern enough Su-27's anyway) will beat those up in BVR.

 

Well I think that depends on the particular variants of those - if we are talking about AESA or PESA equipped Eagles and Flankers respectively then yes they will have the upper hand in BVR.

 

But given similar technology - F-15C with the original APG-63 not to mention Flankers with upgraded N001, then all they have is extra radar power and then you also have to factor in the much lower RCS of F-18 and MiG-29(not to mention F-16) - i.e. the range advantage may be much less than the difference in "radar power" would suggest.

[GGTharos]

AFAIK, F-16 pilots hate BVR vs. F-15's as much as F-15 pilots hate BFM with F-16's. The F-16's dish may be even smaller, but so is that bird's RCS, especially since they use RCS reduction measures on it.

 

I'm not talking brand spanking new variants vs old ones, but contemporary ones.

[ФрогФут]

F-15 pilots hate BFM with F-16's.

By the way, why? From what i saw in performance data, F-15 is more maneuverable.