I agree it’s kinda a general consensus that the fulcrum wasn’t the best 4th gen aircraft for BVR engagements, i wouldn’t say hot trash, maybe mediocre, but i’m sure that If the USSR didn’t fell they would further develop the aircraft and fill some holes… Anyways, INGAME rn the mig destroys the f16 bvr-wise but gets stomped when both Merge.
That is a possibility, I will have to look into it further. I also find it interesting that no use of IRST is mentioned. I would have thought it would be quite useful given the circumstances.
As for the MiG-29 being being hot garbage… It’s kinda funny, MiG pilots held the same opinion for the opposite reason with regards to the F.3. if the F.3 failed to score against the MiG in BVR, it was dead, which according to the report still happened in many of the engagements.
Indeed, really shows how the R-73 was holding the airframe up. Had the F.3 had a HOBS missile at the time I would imagine it would’ve been alot closer in the visual merge with the 29G still holding the maneuverability advantage.
3 Likes
I don’t think the IRST would be reliable enough. Under perfect conditions (clear sky, low-mid alt) the IRST can detect a MiG-21 traveling sideways and away from the MiG-29 (about 30° off the 3-9 line) at 15 km and lock at 8-10 km. Add ground clutter / clouds / sun and that distance drops. Make the enemy travel head on and you might see lock ranges below 5 km. Couple it with the limited coverage and you have yourself a sensor that is nice and stealthy, but can’t be used to ensure good SA under a lot of conditions.
Granted, if the target is afterburning the lock ranges can be multiplied 2-3 times, but how often do pilots go in AB without being sure that there is a threat?
Given the tactics manual for Tornado GR1 and F.3 using full reheat was considering to be tactically very dangerous.
I don’t quite know the terminology. Does full reheat mean full burner or full dry thrust?
Full burner.
I’ve heard of this as well but I thought it was the foxhunter jamming all of the migs systems not the on board radar jamming its own rwr.
RWR is confused by the onboard radar due to RF overspill. The Radar is also “jammed” by the Fox Hunters I-Band emissions filling the MIG-29’s radar scope with noise.
1 Like
Presumably improved MiG-29 models would not have this issue.
Funny reading this document when in-game the MiG-29 is the undisputed king of BVR with literally no competition…
1 Like
Destroys everything BVR-wise, even the F-14B with its (hot garbage as currently implemented) AIM-54C’s cant really do anything against a MiG-29 in BVR. PARTICULARLY atm with the proxy fuse issue making AIM-54C’s even worse than usual (seeing as an issue with proxy fusing affects missiles with low maneuverability, low speed and and large proxy fuse zones more than highly maneuverable high speed missiles)
1 Like
Yeah, I’d imagine the L-150 and Zhuk-M largely resolved these issues.
They completely removed it’s superior dogfight capabilities but gave it BVR which is something the mig29 isnt really known for… Funny
yes, R-27ER…
Also take into account the 29G’s had R-27R in these tests. I don’t believe R-27ER1 is at all historically correct for the 29G. Really the SMT should be the only 27ER carrier.
12 Likes
I mean, its not exactly terrible in the dogfight either, it holds its own or beats almost anything ingame barring the F-16’s, and afaik that more due to the F-16 overperforming than anything.
Afaik, irl the maneuverability advantage between the MiG-29 and F-16 wasn’t that great, the primary advantage being the HMCS and R-73, which could be accounted for via tactics but was a major issue at first.
1 Like
Well but what I’ve seen in most graphs posted here the mig29 seems to underpeform in high alpha and the f16 overperforming in every aspect. It’s not a shitbrick like the tornados thats for sure
Yeah I get that, its just an odd balancing decision imo, particularly in the case of the F-14B, which should by all accounts be crushing the MiG-29’s in BVR, but instead gets absolutely crushed because the devs have deemed the AIM-54C to be a terrible and near completely useless missile despite all sources stating otherwise.
Hell, through arguments with one of the devs, it was shown they still believe the old “the AIM-54 was only made for hitting strategic bombers at long ranges” myth, despite the majority of the AIM-54A’s kills being fighters, and the 54C getting an all new digital seeker, a directional warhead, and new system for proximity detection for ultra low altitude intercepts ( a must when dealing with AShM’s)
1 Like