Is the MF MiG-29A a Sparrow Magnet?

[+MigBuster]

What I realy miss in the TK series is the possibility to move the radar around, so you can fly on the deck and still scan the sky infront and above you... like in lomac.. this feauture is realy needed

 

Do you mean the ability to change the pitch angle of the antenna independently?

[Gunrunner]

Blackbird, IIRC in previous discussions on avionics, it came up that TK decided to simulate that by having the scanner covering the whole deflection range all the time in both planes (as in spatial planes, not aircrafts ^^).

[+Gepard]

The Sparrow is over rated in the game. Open the weapon data files and you find a hit capability of 70%. In real combat in 1991 the AIM-7M achieved only 36%.

Its a simple fact.

[+Dave]

The Sparrow is over rated in the game. Open the weapon data files and you find a hit capability of 70%. In real combat in 1991 the AIM-7M achieved only 36%.

Its a simple fact.

 

36%? You optimist....

[+Fubar512]

36%? You optimist....

 

Yet, those same sparrows (albeit a later series than was employed during the Vietnam War) achieved the most A2A kills during Desert Storm, downing 22 Iraqi aircraft.

[+MigBuster]

The Sparrow is over rated in the game. Open the weapon data files and you find a hit capability of 70%. In real combat in 1991 the AIM-7M achieved only 36%.

Its a simple fact.

 

 

Thing is the pilots seem to blame rocket motor malfunctions and there was one that didnt proximity fuse after flying right past a MiG-25 - if the rocket motor fired it almost always got to the target - so the hit capability may be about right - but rocket motor malfunction chance is maybe 60% :)

[+flying.toaster]

Weird tactic going low and popping up. That is good if you are running across a bunch of sams on a ground attack mission.That is, provided you have brought with you Exxon or Lukoil with you because you'll most probably run out of fuel flying low level.

But if you are up against a modern fighter with decent look-down/shoot-down radar you will not negate detection for that long.

And then you are low on energy if you have to engage in a dogfight.

 

Flying very high level will give you the same kind of edge. Sure enough you will be detected earlier and detect your target later. But then your opponent's missiles will have to spend a lot of energy trying to climb up to you, when yours will have extra range going downhill.

If you have to merge you will have the benefit of a higher energy, and if you have to evade, you can make a split-S and gain a lot of energy while not going low level.

 

The issue there is that Alt+N will leave you at roughly the same altitude as your target and you can hardly apply that kind of tactics

[+76.IAP-Blackbird]

Yesterdaay I had a nice mission, Intercetopion with the Mig-29C. started in the early Morning and was heading north of Berlin. The flightcontrol send me information about contacts west of our position. Two contocts were heading northeast, very low and fast. I send my wingman to intercept them, both F-111. All were shoot down. Next message was about some bandits north of us. My Radar was full of blips and I tried to see what was their mission. The strange thing was, no fighter escort in my area. A-7E on an attack run over our Airfield, and some f-16C`s on an Ironhand mission. The Corsair was a tough opponent in a Dogfight. The furbal in this area was a long and very fast dogfight.

Result... all enemy planes were shot down, we lost one Mig-29 to a AIM-9 fired from an A-7E. I got my last kill with the R-27ER.. very nice missile. Wingman on Bingofuel and I... guns dry, no missiles and 4 planes shot down.

 

And I flew it without pressing Alt-N

[Gunrunner]

The low altitude tactics makes sense in the WoX world as the missiles have a harder time tracking and following you, often crashing while tracking you, an advantage you don't get when flying high.

The idea is not to avoid detection, but to get your opponent to exhaust his supply of BVR missiles (most of them running into the ground) and then getting the advantage of a clearer shot to your target afterwards, or forcing the enemy fighters to fight at low level, where the player usually has an advantage over the AI (who still valiantly runs into the ground).

 

Well, at least that's why I often adopt the low level profile.

[+MigBuster]

Thankfully the missile coding has been vastly improved in recent patches for all missiles - a few years back an AIM-9L would have hit regardless of what you did!

[+76.IAP-Blackbird]

I like the MiG-29 FM... feels good in the air. Only when flying tide turns it starts to shake, like I would use the rudder from left to right and back .. and again...

[+kreelin]

....Only when flying tide turns it starts to shake, like I would use the rudder from left to right and back .. and again...

 

 

Hmm... You fly in HARD mode don't you ? Never get what you described in high or low speed . Unfortunately my FM is always for HARD mode only. That's why sometimes AI doesn't fly it very well.

Edited March 15, 2009 by kreelin

[+76.IAP-Blackbird]

Nope just flying in normal mode, cause some planes are only modelled for normal mode and are quiet unflyable in hard mode.

 

Maybe this is the solution

[+Fubar512]

Weird tactic going low and popping up. That is good if you are running across a bunch of sams on a ground attack mission.That is, provided you have brought with you Exxon or Lukoil with you because you'll most probably run out of fuel flying low level.

But if you are up against a modern fighter with decent look-down/shoot-down radar you will not negate detection for that long.

And then you are low on energy if you have to engage in a dogfight.

 

Flying very high level will give you the same kind of edge. Sure enough you will be detected earlier and detect your target later. But then your opponent's missiles will have to spend a lot of energy trying to climb up to you, when yours will have extra range going downhill.

If you have to merge you will have the benefit of a higher energy, and if you have to evade, you can make a split-S and gain a lot of energy while not going low level.

 

The issue there is that Alt+N will leave you at roughly the same altitude as your target and you can hardly apply that kind of tactics

 

What I'm applying, was a known Soviet tactic for evading lookdown radar, and that's flying so low that you blend in with the ground clutter, making it easier to break radar lock. Once a sparrow's launched and tracking, forcing it to break track for even a split-second will cause it to go ballistic.

 

Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5AbpZ3tcLg...feature=related

[zmatt]

I never use Alt+N. I always fly to the altitude the situation calls for and then turn on the wing leveler.

[+kreelin]

I never use Alt+N. I always fly to the altitude the situation calls for and then turn on the wing leveler.

 

+1

 

The best way to save your fuel . Very important for the Mig29

[+Brain32]

For ALT+N addicts like me:

When you prepare for quick mission, enter the MAP menu and simply adjust the last waypoint before the objective(or in simpler and probably more correct words, move the one that is shaped as a square) that way ALT+N can bring you 100-200km away from the enemy so you can prepare better for the fight without having to fly all the way...

[Atreides]

Before I begin with my query, please understand that this is not a negative critique of the MIG-29 A. However, I have noticed that with regards to the 29 I almost always am the unwitting MIG parts supplier, even when I load the IAF 29 with the two ECM pods it fares far worse than the SU-27 albeit that the SU-27 was designed as an air superiority fighter. Just curious. Interesting side note with regards to the IAF 29 is that according to World Air Power Journal the IAF outright refused delivery of "downgraded" 29's which is what delayed the delivery of their 29's. Could it be that the IAF 29's were better equipped in terms of ECM and other avionic improvements as oppossed to those delivered to Iraq and Syria etc ? Thanks in advance.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Atreides

[+column5]

Before I begin with my query, please understand that this is not a negative critique of the MIG-29 A. However, I have noticed that with regards to the 29 I almost always am the unwitting MIG parts supplier, even when I load the IAF 29 with the two ECM pods it fares far worse than the SU-27 albeit that the SU-27 was designed as an air superiority fighter. Just curious. Interesting side note with regards to the IAF 29 is that according to World Air Power Journal the IAF outright refused delivery of "downgraded" 29's which is what delayed the delivery of their 29's. Could it be that the IAF 29's were better equipped in terms of ECM and other avionic improvements as oppossed to those delivered to Iraq and Syria etc ? Thanks in advance.

 

Which Su-27 version are you using?

 

The Fulcrum (at least, versions we have modeled so far) has no onboard ECM, which is a significant vulnerability. The Flanker--I think--does have ECM since it was designed to penetrate and shoot down AWACS and other high-value assests. However I would not be surprised if the strength of its jammer has been set unrealistically high. I would estimate that a quality Soviet jammer in the mid-1980s should have a strength of 45 to 50, while the most modern equipment would be in the 60-70 range relative to their Western counterparts.

[tomcat1974]

Which Su-27 version are you using?

 

The Fulcrum (at least, versions we have modeled so far) has no onboard ECM, which is a significant vulnerability. The Flanker--I think--does have ECM since it was designed to penetrate and shoot down AWACS and other high-value assests. However I would not be surprised if the strength of its jammer has been set unrealistically high. I would estimate that a quality Soviet jammer in the mid-1980s should have a strength of 45 to 50, while the most modern equipment would be in the 60-70 range relative to their Western counterparts.

 

That and you have to know that 29 RWR was ratehr limited.. the SA is poor.

 

regarding the russian missiles ranges... pure BS.. R27 max distance was 35km in case of target closing.. and that at high altitude.

[Atreides]

Which Su-27 version are you using?

 

The Fulcrum (at least, versions we have modeled so far) has no onboard ECM, which is a significant vulnerability. The Flanker--I think--does have ECM since it was designed to penetrate and shoot down AWACS and other high-value assests. However I would not be surprised if the strength of its jammer has been set unrealistically high. I would estimate that a quality Soviet jammer in the mid-1980s should have a strength of 45 to 50, while the most modern equipment would be in the 60-70 range relative to their Western counterparts.

 

 

Thanks for the reply C5, I'm using Marcs SU-27 with the updated avionics file that was released at later on. Now with regards to the IAF 29 does anyone have any info about their avionics and ECM suite so that perhaps simple ini settings can be altered to reflected their less sanitised Arab counterparts ?

 

EDIT:- C5 yes I know the 29A has no ECM, I was referring to the Gardina (sp?) ECM pods that I load up on the outermost wing pylons and even those seem to be of little to no help, any thoughts on this ?

Edited March 20, 2009 by Atreides

[Murphy'S]

That and you have to know that 29 RWR was ratehr limited.. the SA is poor.

 

regarding the russian missiles ranges... pure BS.. R27 max distance was 35km in case of target closing.. and that at high altitude.

 

did every one notice in the MF mig-29 we have radar missile launch warning light in the center of the rwr?(i use to think this feature to exist only in sf2 )

 

quite useful when have zillion of missile launch warning in the radio chat

[+Brain32]

regarding the russian missiles ranges... pure BS.. R27 max distance was 35km in case of target closing.. and that at high altitude.

Mind if I ask you what are you basing your statement on?

[MAKO69]

What MIG isnt a sparrow magnet.