Project Reality Forums

I searched, all I found was a thread from way back from 2006.

Right now the two fighter planes on Kashan are practically the same plane, just with the MiG-29 having 400 less GS-301 ammo.

In RL the MiG-29 is much more effective in air superiority in BVR and also close up ranges (mainly due to its helmet mounted tracker), and is also more rugged and can take more punishment (Since it has two engines). Also, if a dogfight was imminent I'd bet that the MiG would have more than just 150 machine gun ammo, but I searched online and couldn't find a number.

On the otherhand, the F-16 was built as a multirole.

So what I'm suggesting is to increase the manouverability of the MiG-29 (and increase its machine gun bullets), but add two bombs or two A2G missiles to the F-16. That way, it would still be balanced, but each plane would have its respective advantages. If the F-16 was really in trouble with a MiG behind it, it could fly back to base and have friendly AA take it out, or get help from its wingman.

I don't fly much online, usually just on a local server, but I think if this was added it would add so much more fun and realism to the guys that do fly online.

You could say that the F16 in PR has an AA role, not as a multitasking house wife, with a mission to protect the A10.

Even then, the MiG-29 would still be more manouverable (sp?) and be a better dogfighter.

Just because it's a multi role aircraft doesn't mean that it flys about with anti-naval missiles and recon equipment all day. (based entirely on assumption) A multi role jet would simply be ready for a variety of roles when grounded and it can be armed according to whatever mission needs to be done.

So in this case the F16 would be armed with anti-air to protect ground support.

Your right about the MiG though.

Leo wrote:I searched, all I found was a thread from way back from 2006.

Right now the two fighter planes on Kashan are practically the same plane, just with the MiG-29 having 400 less GS-301 ammo.

In RL the MiG-29 is much more effective in air superiority in BVR and also close up ranges (mainly due to its helmet mounted tracker), and is also more rugged and can take more punishment (Since it has two engines). Also, if a dogfight was imminent I'd bet that the MiG would have more than just 150 machine gun ammo, but I searched online and couldn't find a number.

On the otherhand, the F-16 was built as a multirole.

So what I'm suggesting is to increase the manouverability of the MiG-29 (and increase its machine gun bullets), but add two bombs or two A2G missiles to the F-16. That way, it would still be balanced, but each plane would have its respective advantages. If the F-16 was really in trouble with a MiG behind it, it could fly back to base and have friendly AA take it out, or get help from its wingman.

I don't fly much online, usually just on a local server, but I think if this was added it would add so much more fun and realism to the guys that do fly online.

ok so you don't fly online, but you feel it necessary to draw all of these conclusions from speculation. I can hardly believe it. There are literally hundreds of sources where you could have checked this information and at least attempted to prove it true. the mig has 150 rounds of 30mm ammuniton because its heavier and bigger than the m61's 20mm nato rounds. hence. theres less of them. the pro of the giosh cannon is that it uses he 30mm rounds. so you need fewer of them. it was designed to use an average of six rounds to kill a target. and the f-16 has far superior avionics, information sharing and processing. and thats not speculation, that's the result on multiple mock engagements by friendly nato countries. the mig has a slightly higher angle of attack meaning a slightly higher manoeverabilty. but the main reason for the wvr sucess of the mig-29 is its hmcs. as a result, the usaf has implemented the aim-9x program along with its own hmcs system.

well according to wiki (not the most reliable source) mig-29 carries 150 rounds for it's gun.

Also don't underestimate the f-16's dogfighting capabilities, while it is a multirole fighter it is also a pretty damn good dogfighter. (from what I've heard)

G effects need to be made.

Well, its hard to catch a MiG anyways, since you can speed up to 2500 Kmph in a nose dive

mammikoura wrote:well according to wiki (not the most reliable source) mig-29 carries 150 rounds for it's gun.

Also don't underestimate the f-16's dogfighting capabilities, while it is a multirole fighter it is also a pretty damn good dogfighter. (from what I've heard)

That doesn't change the fact that in a mock dogfight, the MiG-29 got, I think it was 11 or 18, AA-11 Archers into the F-16 before the F-16 got a single Aim-9 into its opponent.

I was wrong about the 30mm ammo. I searched for MiG-29 GS-301 ammo count and got nothing.

I suggested the two bombs so that it was more balanced because it would be inevitable that if the MiG was beefed up, on the first day people would be whining that it was like the J-10 against the F-35 on Wake Island vBF2, I would be equally happy if the F-16 didn't get any bombs and the MiG-29 still got a monouverabilty boost.

Caboose, I said I don't fly much online, not that I don't fly at all, apart from the GS-301 ammo count and the possible added realism and gameplay boost, nothing else in my post was speculation.

You gotta outsmart them with what you got

Heh, all these flyboys throwing acronoyms around everywhere. I think that the planes should be modeled as close to the RL counter-parts. If this mig is better in certain areas...great. I'd love to see differenced between the planes/tanks/choppers etc. So when you get in, you have to know your strengths\limitations vs each opponent aircraft...thats what dog fights are all about. Diversity is what makes these things fun. So yuo don't just get into a "plane". You get into an F-16 and say "Ok this is what its good at...this is what I have to avoid"....kind of this Ali-Fraiser...speed vs power matchups with each person jockeying to get their desired position\situation.

what viper said.
always wished theyd kept that in mind with the j10/f35 duells in vanilla.
and just as viper said, I honestly dont give a moisty fart about RL technical jargon here and there. it is and will be a game.
leo, I dunno, but ingame the mig already is nimbler and has the more devastating gun. so if you go check again youll see you have what you want.

The jets in BF2 (vanilla or PR) are wonky anyway. For one thing, in reality, THERE IS NO REVERSE! No cornering speed limits? No modeling of energy and energy loss (speed)?!? The extreme delay in throttle response in 0.6... WTH is that!?!! Sure, most jets have a delayed increase in RPM (not a jump, but a non-linear ramp up). I'm not sure about in 0.6, but in BF2 if I go from 51% to 49% throttle, the jet immediately imitates a rock with little/no transition... Have any of you been to an Air Show? Modern jets can creep across the sky at extremely slow speeds (The Super Hornet is the low speed/altitude maneuverability master). I may tinker with my joystick settings to elimimate the negative axis for the throttle, but its ridiculous what EA/Dice did with the controls.

The point: Air planes in BF2 will probably never even approximate flying. Want to know how planes actually respond? Buy the really old "Falcon 4.0", then DL and install the mods "Super Pack", "Free Falcon", or the grey area "Red Viper" then turn on all the reality settings. Want a real carrier landing? Install Jane's F/A-18E, install the "Warfare" (I think thats the name) mod and crank of the reality settings. For helos, Microsoft Flight Simulator or X-Plane are supposedly good (Don't know the accuracy).

As for the question about bombs on the multirole... Each station, even after the ordinance was launched or jettisoned, add increased drag which reduces performance. Worse yet, when you have ground stores or fuel tanks on your wings you switch the jet to "CAT III" (or was it CAT I, I reverse those often) to greatly limit your movements so you do not overstress the frame, stations, or weapons. If you are forced into a maneuvering air engagement, you are must eject all ground stores or die (from being a sitting duck). BTW, chaff/flares are only half of the story of defeating missiles. And as far as radar guided missiles are concerned... Modern Russian missiles have US missiles beat; They shoot further, sooner, from greater angles, and are less likely to loose a lock. Some russian missiles (and SAMs) even have secondary optical tracking. Our longest range AA missile was the AIM-54C Phoenix (+100nm/184km) until it was retired. Our current best is the AIM-120C (+17.38nm/32.12km) [found on F-16, F/A-18, F-35, etc] which is not much compared to the AA-10 variants (+70km, +130km, +170km) [found on Su-27, Su-33, etc]. AA-10 are one of the missiles with secondary IR tracking (in real life, there is no warning). The US must use stealth (full stealth or reduced radar image), jamming, and strategies.

here the RL1337nessPortitOverintoSuckmySillyAssandPayforItBF2 engine starts again.
but Im kinda happy since I can follow you halfways thru the post that I honestly tell you. not bad for starting off on the forums. hi. hehe

I am for mostly quite happy with how the jets act and react right now. sure, mainly red and blackouts would be really appreciated but as said its BF2 .. ffs. ( !)
I believe the DEVs havent really told us how much the flighthandlingcoding has stressed them so far. maybe, and hopefully, theyll be able to get some grip onto it.
keep in mind that rhino posted some overwhelming pics of that large forest map with a jet flying by.

You'll all have to wait for 0.7, when they will have taken another look at the planes. No the go fast but corner at high speeds. In 0.7, I guess they'll have limits on those AoAs.

Pvt_Parts wrote: And as far as radar guided missiles are concerned... Modern Russian missiles have US missiles beat; They shoot further, sooner, from greater angles, and are less likely to loose a lock. Some russian missiles (and SAMs) even have secondary optical tracking. Our longest range AA missile was the AIM-54C Phoenix (+100nm/184km) until it was retired. Our current best is the AIM-120C (+17.38nm/32.12km) [found on F-16, F/A-18, F-35, etc] which is not much compared to the AA-10 variants (+70km, +130km, +170km) [found on Su-27, Su-33, etc]. AA-10 are one of the missiles with secondary IR tracking (in real life, there is no warning). The US must use stealth (full stealth or reduced radar image), jamming, and strategies.

The real capabilities of BVR missiles are highly classified. Other sources state the ranges of the AIM-120 as over 180 km, and there are precious few cases of publicly released information. And as far as most Russian missiles having their NATO counter parts "beat", I would look very closely at the released reports of engagements between NATO and Soviet built aircraft, you may find the results typical. And you may be dissapointed to find that the AIM-54 has never been used in combat. It was quite large and had a poor turn rate. It was designed to intercept the soviet bomber fleets that threatened the USN, not for fighter intercept (once the cold war ended and the threat of long range bomer attack ended, the UNS had no reason to keep the missile as it was unsuitable as an anti-fighter weapon).

My point? The longer range a missile has, the easier it is to evade. And keep in mind that the "pit bull" range is the deciding factor in BVR engagments, not the total weapon range, as another equally equipped opponent can fire at you AFTER you've fired and guess whos missile has more energy? ie) second shot: only kill. While a 180 km range (claimed by both respective air forces but most likely a half truth in and of itself), there are significant draw backs to a long range (as opposed to medium range) missile attack. So take these numbers with a grain of salt as they don't do justice to the fact that the small number of BVR engagements by two equally equipped fighters are generally chaotic and fluid.

With radar guided missiles, one of the biggest limitations in performance is the platform radar (I know US forces are most of the way to to splitting launching and tracking between aerial platforms, I don't know if Soviet/Chinese forces have the same). The F-14 had an enormous long range radar (unlike F-16s), because, as you said it was meant for engaging incoming bomber threats (usually anti-surface against the fleet). Last I heard, Sovient/Chinese avionics fell behind US avionics. (a bit like "My sniper rifle is twice as accurate/precise as yours, but my scope is crappy compared to yours.")

While many sites conflicted, most agreed that soviet missiles (barring avionics) have further Rmax (maximum range). Again, in combat this is effected by radar quality, ECMs, ECCMs, radar cross sections, and... what was the term... whether they are head on or traveling perpendicular ("beaming"). As for "pitbull range" or Time Till Active, in the future that won't be an issue. F-22s training in Alaska have already been running successful war games using traditional jets (F-15, I think!?!) as spotters, allowing them to pop off AIM-120Cs undetected and then break away.

Air Defense Systems are the real pain for aircraft in enemy territory (especially against modern forces like US and China), but missiles are far from approximating realism in BF2.

BVR is nonexistant in PR. For dogfights, the MiG-29's dual engines offering more thrust and the off-axis designating of IR targets would make the lives of F-16 pilots... interesting. As nice as the Vipers (F-16) are, they are not a dedicated air superiority machine, that would be the F-15C (not F-15E, which is a strike jet). As for maneuverability, the jets are already too maneuverable at high speed and not enough maneuverable at low speed. In Falcon 4.0 I would usually evade outnumbering MiG-29/Su-33 squadrons until I could drag them to friendly air assets or air defenses. Real life pilots on the Falcon forums have said you never want to engage a MiG-29 in a turning fight with a F-16. There is more than one way to win an engagement. If you find yourself in a turning fight, you screwed up somewhere.

Ok... I think I've used up my allotment of typing for the month. I'll try to refrain from posting anything more as my posts seem to run quite long.

Yeah many things are classified.
But a few things we know from that/those war game(s) after German unification.