https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/NRYSPEzvLRZC
I have the sources there.
You can also take the easier route and google for stuff that shall not be named.
3 Likes
Somewhere in the thread. It’s not relevant. I just said let’s run with that.
You’re the report guy obsessed with the F-16 right? How many reports you got on it alone already?
btw your bias is showing.
This is another reason why many people have a hard time in taking you seriously. You lack integrity.
You know the ACM range should be higher on the F14 and commented on that. You can set ranges on the AWG9 and many other fighters. You can even set the Aim54 to go ACM and become a dogfight missile and calculate the extra lead to prosecute targets at close range. ACM ACTIVE.
I am very disappointed you are pretending not to know about one of your most favorite aircraft in game outside of the Mig23.
We are not talking about the helmet cuing system. Stop purposely conflating the two. We are simply talking about acm range.
Is that something I said? Most of my reports have nothing to do with the F-16 and those that do are focused on the same thing I’ve been reporting / trying to get fixed for some months now.
Towards the US?
My interest is towards the game as a whole, undivided and honest towards adhering a similar standard across the board.
No, it shouldn’t.
How do you set the range higher for those modes? If you can prove it here we can submit a report tonight.
I don’t see how that is related, but the AIM-54 already goes active off the rail in-game. The additional lead to prosecute targets thing I’ve never read in any official manual, it just goes away with the “trajectory shaping” portion of guidance (loft). Locks with onboard radar and prosecutes target same as it would in any other scenario. We can discuss this in the AIM-54 thread though if you wish. It’s only lacking the ability to be launched and guided solely in SARH mode.
I’m not pretending anything, I’m legitimately asking if there is a source for what you’re saying and instead of providing one… you pretend I know what you’re talking about? How is that a lack of integrity on my part?
Well, to my knowledge the ACM range on the MiG-29 and the F-14 is correct. If the F-16’s is not, I’d like to see better sources for it to be quite honest. The best we got so far in his report is cockpit footage of an F-16C variant with the ACM lock ranges shown as 10 nautical miles.
Not the US as a whole, however you prefer eastern aircraft of Russia and China. Thats totally cool.
But you despise the F16 for some reason & I never really got an answer on that when I was in your squadron. You never liked playing any of the F16s you have.
Just forget I said anything it’s a waste of time. You’re right, and its off topic.
For the same reason I’ve hardly flown the SMT. Just doesn’t seem like it’s flying as it should. Not very interesting for me to fly it when it performs like a UFO or a brick. Both sides of the fence here, I do enjoy my F-14 very much.
The MLD issue will have to wait until we have further documentation on that, but since we don’t and it does have better stability at AoA than the earlier MiG-23s* I do enjoy flying that as well. All these new F-16 pilots eating R-24R’s is entertaining.
Regarding the ACM lock modes, since you’ve got my attention in that area I’ll do some of my own research and see what I find on it. If there’s something worth adding to the report, I’ll do so but I’ll do it in the correct thread.
For the MiG-29, I’m trying to find further information on specifics as to how it performs in adverse weather conditions and scenarios to see if there is something I can report there as well but seems it is limited because they’ve modeled it’s performance for a lower alt and they do not model changes in lock range based on altitude.
1 Like
You can set the receiver to disregard return signals that come from beyond the set distance.
Radio/microwave do not simply vanish past a set distance they keep going and will bounce back off objects or other targets. Instead, you set the receiver on the radar to disregard the returns that are coming in beyond that set distance.
There is also a Korean F-16C employment manual. It describes a lot of combat procedures. There are some sections that describe what radar mode to use when you are looking for a target that you expect to be within a given range (eg: lost intercept inside MAR). It recommends the pilot use either a 10 NM scope radar scan or ACM. Meaning that the manual considers the two to be interchangeable for the target ranges.
Spoiler
and lastly, there are T.O’s (for personal use only)
3 Likes
@ZVO_12_INCH brought to my attention that a new model of the MiG-29 (called the MiG-29SM or SM+) appeared last year. Thanks to him. I added it.
2 Likes
Any FM changes today or nah?
Nothing in datamine yet
1 Like
Gorgeous. Thank you!
Well, my biggest priority flight performance. Engines? what about avionics? Fly-by wire?
There is no such detailed information yet!..Maybe the Serbian comrades will find something…
So far we know that this is an izdeliye 9-12B (see the OP if you’re not sure what it is), some were upgraded to the 9-12SD standard, but all in all brought to more modern standards, including two-seater models. It doesn’t get a PESA or AESA radar but the N019MP Topaz of the MiG-29SMT 9-17 and the KOLS-13SM IRST system. It gets export R-77s (RVV-AE), R-27ER1s and we’re unsure of which R-73 model.
The way I see it is that it’s the 9-17 but without the big spine.
It has its own section in the OP now.
1 Like
Export version 9-12
Yes, there are two. The 9-12B was the worse of all as it lacked the R-73 and other major weaponry. Yugoslavia had received this one and Serbia inherited it.
The MiG-29SM(+) gives the Yugo tree more potential.
in total, the mig has a thrust shortage of about 1500 kgf, a disgustingly tuned FM, an overestimated inductive resistance
1 Like