He’s been trolling this thread and the Su-27 one for months now. Makes it a pain to find the good information buried in the now 5000 comment long thread.
You have a block feature. Use it.
Still leaves the comments debunking the nonsense.
1 Like
the funny part is:
he won’t even try to make a bug report, he’s just arguing for the sake of arguing
1 Like
Because there is no guarantee GJ will fix the Mig-29 if I did. You think I want the Mig-29 to suffer?
I don’t really care if it will suffer or not, just whether or not it is accurate according to primary sources or at least some good secondary sources, tbh I care more about the flight models than the missiles and what they can or cannot do.
We can agree on something. Excellent.
Quick question what variant this applies to and what year was this printed & what publication?
Where did you get this?
The N019 & N001 has no ability to “swing around” at any speed. they are not like any other radars of Western design in the game.
Would you like proof? Or nah?
This is irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant that is a planar array radar it does not need to have “fast servos” to direct its beam. Same as the Zhuk in the Mig-29 SMT.
Do not worry about it. No one is rule breaking. Only those who are emotionally attached to models they barely play seem to resort to name calling & cursing. Are you the authority on what is pointless discussion? These models are very important to me. & I spent a very long time going over historical & technical literature on. They may be pointless to you, but not to me.
You do not see me going around the entire forum pretending to know about every single model in game though I have access to all. Do you?
I only talk about models I actually have extensive experience in WT with & have actual dedication to. I wish that was the case for everyone.
You & @_Fantom2451 barely play the models you talk about. Why is it the people who barely touch the models in WT, the most emotionally attached on the forum?
What is up with that? Do you both feel you need to control the dialogue or what? Remember, you guys are asking me questions. You both open the dialogue with me.
Do not get upset because I simply do not agree with you. I like you, but I do not agree with either of you on this subject.
Additionally, here @skilz2kil I apologize I did not mean to refer to you here. I meant to say about others. You never even had a chance to read this before. I understand you are completely objective in your approach to the Mig-29.
We are all on the same team trying to generate momentum & interest for these aircraft to become better than they currently are. My route is unconventional because again, my position is that once the R-27ER came in for the Mig-29 & its last FM update was implemented, that was it, GJ was & is not trying to hear anything else about the Mig-29. My bone to pick is more with GJ with than anything really. Because more and more fancy stuff keeps coming & things remain the same for the Mig-29.
We still have not received R73. That is the wild to me. We got ancient harriers running around with full racks of 2x Aim9Ms per pylon & Aim-120s. We have phantoms rocking Aim-9Ms & Aim-120s.
1 Like
To make it easier for others. @Ziggy1989
Spoiler
9.12B. I trust you have more than enough time to find it
Please read carefully before responding. I am not talking about scan speed. I mean how fast the dish swings while doing anything but scanning.
Example:
Spoiler
If your radar is looking at the green box and and you want to lock a target that it found at the red box, the radar in game is going to instantly swing there. There is no wait time before it starts locking.
Planar array does not imply phased array. Here is the APG-68. Top left of the pic: "The planar array antenna, gimballed in two axes … ".
As you can see, it still has servos and it is still a mechanically steered radar, just instead of it being a bent dish, it is flat with some slits. Same thing with the N010M(E) on the MiG-29SMT.
Spoiler
WTF do you mean, I don’t have enough time on the 29? I have almost 500 battles.
I don’t care whether you do or you don’t. What I care about is you being so intellectually dishonest that it is akin to trolling. Threads are full of you ramblings.
When everybody around you is saying that it is you, maybe it is time to look in the mirror for once.
2 Likes
My bad player! I treat every variant as a different aircraft.
Is that how it works add all aircraft with a 29 together?
Me dishonest??? I am many things but dishonest, not even slightly.
Rude? Only to those who have it coming. Blunt? I am working on that. Sarcastic? Absolutely. Handsome? You bet.
But dishonest? You cannot prove this whatsoever. If you genuinely took the time to go over my many points such as the radar specs, how they work, its literal breakdown & why RuF are capable, Soviet history specifically about the radars & R-27 (I explained in detail with links multiple times), Soviet design doctrine & tactics you (with links) you would understand dishonest is one thing I am not.
I even post videos of the “PD HMD” having an ability to see further than both IRST & radar can see at all. No one is trying to hear that. They pretend they did not see it. I do not need to waste time on all this if I was dishonest. I guarantee you.
Perhaps I am wrong in my calculations & interpretations somewhere? Possibly, I have been wrong once or twice before in personal affairs I can assure you. I would not be surprised if I happened to be wrong somewhere down the line regarding Soviet airborne radio detection & ranging capability & development of the Brezhnev era… but no one can even attempt to establish that conversation because it is drowned out by people who want to derail & screech “lets flag all his post REEEE!”. This is because they cannot handle any thought that is contrary to their personal beliefs. It’s as simple as that. So, I am a little harsher to these same braindead assumptions:
“The R-27ER is a high-off boresight HMD supported semi-active radar missile that can be used in dogfights & is the world’s first Mach 5.6 Hypersonic medium ranged missile that even locks on after launch for that extra spicy high-off boresight capability.”
Did I say phased array? Do you understand those are two different words correct?
Let me rephrase this…
I understand those two words look the same. But I said Planar array, Not Phased array.
Who is being dishonest here? Attempting to put words in my mouth.
Spoiler
Why does it matter what doctrine or what radar technologies they had if it is clearly outlined in the manual? HMS slaves the Radar, it locks it. Wanna fire an ER? Sure, Radar slaves the ER’s seeker to it, launch.
A kitchen knife’s doctrine is to be used in the kitchen, not running around and stabbing people, yet it can used like that.
I did look at your comments, read what you said, and then told you exactly why the HMS can slave the radar and why the ER can be used like that.
You did not say “phased array”, but what you wrote about “it does not need fast servos to direct its beam” is what describes a phased array. It does not need to steer the antennae to steer the mean, it does so electronically. Hence, why I said it is not a phased array.
That is why I said you are dishonest. Instead of admitting that you were wrong about the planar array on the 29 and 16 not needing servos to be steered, you go around pretending I put words in your mouth. If you talk about something that walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, people will say you were talking about a duck.
1 Like
I already told you that this manual is not complete and is made for a Chinese aircraft. And there are not 50 degrees, but 50 degrees per second are different things.
1 Like
50 degree/s is close to tracking rate on Aim9H
I am sorry did you just ask (correct me if I am wrong)…
What does understanding combat doctrine & how technologies involved have to do with anything if things are outlined clearly in the user manual?
EVERYTHING.
Reason
Those are open-source manuals you have… That is why I asked what you are referring to. They are filled with garbage. They are intentionally misrepresented in areas regarding critical capabilities before cleared for public distribution. This is a real thing called Military deception or information warfare. The Soviets & RuF are masters in it. Every nation does it. It is a literal military Soviet/RuF doctrine called Maskirovka. Look it up.
There is OSINT open-source intelligence & CSINT closed-source intelligence or “behind closed doors numbers.”
Understanding the technologies is critical to determining if what you are reading is total BS or not. An example of military deception? The R-27R & ER is once thought to be capable of Mach 5. Because Mach 5 is listed in a couple open sources & this speed randomly mentioned in regard to is rudder deflection on Vympel’s patent for the control unit & rocket rudders.
That is pointless & useless information The missile is never going to travel that fast ever, their motors do not burn long enough, as they both burn mere seconds. They are medium ranged missiles. even if it did, it is completely combat ineffective & still pointless information other than to generate fear. They neither have the aerodynamic shape, properties, materials & kinetic energy to break the hypersonic barrier. You would be subject to believing such nonsense had you not understood the technological capability of the Soviet Union at this time & what are the actual requirements for hypersonic flight. That missile is not going anywhere near Mach 5 I can assure you. It’s a Mach 4.5 missile.
Mach 5 is a number intentionally placed there for silly ignorant Westerners to argue back n forth not too sure if the missile is hypersonic or not. Can you imagine the kind of uncertainty, possibly fear information like that can bring during the Cold War? It is critical to understanding technologies& doctrine of your adversaries.
I am talking about some real Gangster Soviet-Russo military doctrine here. This stuff is fascinating (to me) it is literal military doctrine employed today. It is directly related to the models we research & discuss in WT.
You need to understand technology to sift through the garbage you find on the internet or to spot the garbage propaganda regurgitated over & over on the forum.
Just because we have user manuals does not mean anything. I have the Su-27 manuals English & Russian, there is always more to learn about them.
Maskirovka
The Soviets relied on the intelligence branch to generate and control deceptions. Russia has a history of operating with a more complete inclusion of elements of political power and influence as well as Operational Art that ties combined arms to campaign objectives. Russia has dramatically expanded the theory and practical application of Maskirovka, making it a qualitative advantage Russia has over NATO, now and in the future.
It is so important to Russian doctrine, they have used and continue to use the term, Maskirovka — the art of deception, from the French masquer - to make invisible — to elevate the complete set of actions and conditions that fall short of war that enables battlefield victories to be decided before tanks and infantry close in battle. It is Maskirovka, and the complementary technological changes to the character of warfare now and in the future, that make Russia the significant resurging threat.
Critical questions for the deception planner include : “Are critical signatures associated with the main course of action being suppressed?” “Are deceptive measures filling the enemy’s information gaps?” “What do we look like to the enemy?” “How is the enemy reacting to all of this?”. Maskirovka constantly requires a variety, using each time new techniques that are not yet familiar to the enemy.
Deception includes those measures designed to mislead the enemy forces by manipulation, distortion or falsification of evidence to induce them to react in a manner prejudiced to their interests. Another definition suggests that deception is the deliberate misrepresentation of reality done to gain a competitive advantage. In any event, the successful deception results in luring the enemy commander’s operation to fit the desires of the deceiver. An oversimplified summary may suggest merely concealing the real and revealing the false. Or, more appropriately, “manipulate the real, falsify as necessary”.
here is a good read I am sure you can easily find.
What are you talking about??? I showed you one page lol.
it continues on.
list any page of the Su-27 manual right now. I have professional English translated so you do not even have to rely on me for translation & interpretation. I got you guys.
You’re writing a 50 degree roll limit.Although it actually says 50 degrees per second
1 Like
Just a little note, an observation. The English translation of the manual for the Su 27SK is very poor and incomplete, better to get a Russian one with the possibility to copy the text and translate via deepl.
1800/295.069=6.1 Mach
1 Like
Just a little note, an observation.
Mine is a direct publication from Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Plant (KnAAPO).
Both in Russian & English.
Good luck trying to downplay that that company bud. Straight up just stirring up strife huh.
What exact translation are you talking about? Though? :)
You know what, I am so down for a Mach 6 medium ranged SARH all day in WT.
That has my vote any day of the week.