Bimbac

Thank you very much. Just trying to be precise and meaningful. If I did so, it did the purpose. :thumbup: Hi, you are comparing wrong planes. Su-35 is a 4++ generation aircraft, meant to fill the gap between current Russian Air Force workhorses like Su-27/30 and the PAK-FA (true 5th generation), which unfortunately didn't even make it into prototype stage yet. You are right about Russian technology in F-35B, like the new lift-fan intake and the swiveling nozzle. I believe the pilot escape system including automatic ejection was developed with Russian know-how. There could be more, but I have no info about it. Best regards! :thumbup:

Hello, thanks for the reply. First of all, let me apologize for my fuse going off a bit. :doh: Since we are doing the same business, I assume you are a professional, so let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. Concerning the age of the ammunition, I can tell you that some AIM-9M-9 Sidewinder missiles (refurbished from older versions) we are using are almost 20 (twenty!) years old, and they still perform perfectly (live fires - not one gone a dud). Alamo missiles are indeed old by technology and standards, but definitely not by capabilities. That exactly was my point. When I was mentioning numbers of F-22s and Typhoons against Flankers, I had in mind the actual COMBAT READINESS :), meaning how many of them are currently capable of performing missions (including trained pilots, of course). Absolute numbers don't matter at all. About TVC, I seriously doubt that any aircraft manufacturer would do his business with the TVC capable aircraft, if the TVC would significantly decay the airframe. There are indeed some limitations, but the FBW system could easily handle them and take over the controls if the aircraft was put to dangerous situation. I guess you will agree with me on this. Since your brother is a fighter pilot, please ask him if he ever performed some dissimilar air combat against a fighter like Gripen or MiG. My point is that having superior airplane capabilities doesn't actually mean winning every fight you get yourself into. In WVR fight, for example, there is a rule of thumb: Lose sight, lost the fight. And Gripen, in particular, is very hard to spot by Mark I Eyeball, trust me. And your radar doesn't lock it instantly, so you have to rely on your senses. Ask Hungarians about their experience. We could spend an entire week arguing about our opinions, but please, believe me when I say that having a cutting edge aircraft and weapons makes no difference at all if you don't have pilots that can really use them to their advantage. And for that matter, Russians know their own capabilities and are proficient at using them. That's what makes them dangerous adversaries.

Pilotasso, believe me when I say that I almost never reply to something similar to what you have posted here, but this time I really couldn't help myself. With all due respect, let me ask you a question: Are you serving in the Air Force? Do you have any internal and reliable intel about recent Russian Air Force and its capabilities? As people said here before, it's very shortsighted to underestimate Russian hardware. It may be of older technology, but it works. Indeed, you are right when you talk about age of their equipment but you make a huge mistake thinking that when something is of older technology, it automatically means it's bad or inefficient compared to current hardware. Actually, Alamo missile family is still considered a very serious threat to any contemporary fighter aircraft. Speaking of which, how many of your praised Meteor "state-of-the-art" missiles are in active service in Europe? And stealth, basically, makes an aircraft harder to detect and track, but doesn't make it invisible! As I stated many times before on this forum, it's a pilot what makes a difference in combat. A well trained MiG-21 pilot using good tactics would make a bad day for an average guy in Typhoon, Rafale or whatever airplane you like. Also, technology is about money and nothing else. PESA radar certainly lacks some capabilities of the AESA array, but it's much cheaper and easier to produce and maintain. Let yourself answer this questions: How many F-22s or Typhoons are currently fully combat capable? And how many Russian Flankers? If you like to discuss this further, be my guest.

Hello, although I am quite familiar with Brno, since I grew up there, I'm afraid that I cannot help you with accommodation (no current information about hotels nearby). However since I am visiting CIAF on professional basis (Czech JAS-39 ground crew), I guess we will meet each other there :thumbup:

Guys, I guess that a lot of you are missing one important thing here. More sophisticated airplane = more bugs in the system. There is no totally reliable aircraft around the world. Anyway, from what I know the F-16 is one of the most dependable aircraft, if properly maintained. On the other hand, even the best handling and maintenance cannot save you from problems. It's just a piece of technology and as such it's susceptible to malfunctions. From my experience, current jet engines are one of the most reliable machineries made by humans. I also don't agree with some people around here, especially those from Western Europe, who still think that people from East just left their caves and trees recently. Trust me, there are many highly educated and trained people here and they know what to do with their equipment. We are equally smart, cultured, even prone to errors as you are. (Sorry, I just had to say this :cry:) I am glad that the pilot made it to a safe landing. Respect! :thumbup:

Я думаю что лучше вам спрашивать на русском форуме. Извините, пожалуйста, что я не помогал, но я ещё плохо говорю по русски.:(

To Alpha: You are right. I have tried to find out the current status of R-27EM missile and most of my sources, as well as those on the internet contradict each other. In my opinion the missile was either never been manufactured, or is so highly classified, that no reliable public-domain sources can be found. Personally, I would vote for the first possibility. However, since Su-33 and its avionics looks to be classified as well (at least worth of a lot of money, put in destruction of the crashed one laying deep in the ocean), maybe the missile could be part of it. But this is just my personal speculation. To Hajduk: I concur. Let's keep this thread on topic. Sorry for any inconvenience. I have just tried to answer your question the best way I could. Appearently, I couldn't do it any better. Best regards to all.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Your list of variants is completely correct, but R-27EM has been specially designed and optimized for the Su-33 and its fire control system. As you undoubtedly know, this version is optimized to intercept high-speed, low-altitude targets, such as anti-ship cruise missiles. Since the missile still uses SARH homing, the seeker had to be modified to be able to home on even low RCS targets that reflect only a fraction of the radar energy, reflected by normal sized targets. These missiles have been reported to be carried on regular basis on the Su-33, but not used for ordinary QRA or live fires, because of the increased price. Since it's a common practice that warships sail with full armament, even in peacetime, it's my guess that these missiles are currently onboard the Kuznetsov, even in limited numbers. I cannot prove it. Like I already said, it's an educated guess.

I am pretty sure that those are R-27ER. I can be wrong, of course. But: 1) R-27ER is the most common version used by Su-33. It is radar guided, which makes it a good choice for QRA mission for low-visibility or long-range intercept. 2) R-27EM is more expensive, therefore barely used. Also it's better suited for targets flying very low(not likely for QRA). 3) R-27P is limited for use against radar emitting targets, so definitely not a good choice for QRA (the potential target could be a hijacked airliner or a small private aircraft, which would make this type of missile useless against them). 4) R-27EA - can't be. This missile is not in the current VMF inventory. It's still a guess, but the educated one :smilewink:

Looks to me that those are R-27ER. By the way, those two Su-33s are most likely QRA shift, at least that's what the loadout suggests (2x Radar, 2x IR, Gun). It's a common practice for this type of mission.

Hello everyone, Personally, I think that inclusion of less serious malfunctions would add much immersion, if done in a proper way. For example: let's divide the malfunctions into 2 types: Flight safety and Mission. Flight safety could include faults like: Hydraulics leak, engine fails to start, serious avionics failure, etc. I'm sure that you can come up with more quite easily. In general, this is the type of malfunction that is a definite "NO-GO" for a flight, so you would have to switch to another aircraft (excellent for campaigns, where you could be limited by airworthy helicopters). Mission category includes malfunctions that could affect your ability to complete a mission, for example Data link failure, Radio failure, Laser malfunction or overheating, Navigation or Targeting system failure, etc. This would be left to pilot's discretion either to continue or to abort (excellent during start-up). The point is, if you are to perform a Search-and-Destroy mission, failure in WCS would seriously hamper with your effort. On the other hand, this kind of malfunction wouldn't present any problem if performing simple ferry flight. How about this? Your opinions are highly welcome. Regards!

You are absolutely right :thumbup: Besides, if any fighter from surrounding countries dares to engage a Gripen, would probably lose. Situational awareness of the Gripen pilots is much superior, especially if complemented by Erieye AWACS. Gripen is quite hard to spot, both by radar or visually. If using datalink and EWS, you wouldn't know about it, until that AMRAAM would go active (which is already too late). Regards

Hello everyone, the info you have requested for translation is related to the modernized A version of the Gripen, used by Swedish Air Force. Since I am bound by the NDA (non-disclosure agreement) with SAAB corporation, I am not able to neither disclose any data, nor to provide any translations. Anyway, this is not a Gripen version I am familiar with. All I can tell you that the posted info is pretty accurate. For all of you that understand: I guess you know what I am trying to say. For those who don't: there is nothing you can do about it.

I do ;)

Yes, sir! :thumbup: The very thing I was trying to say to most of the virtual pilots here. But I guess they just don't listen anyway :dunno:

Correct. It works in the same way as TM Cougar after force sensors upgrade ;)

However, I can tell you that the buttons around Central Display (Tactical map) are actually sub-pages, so for example, MAP button allows you to adjust various map parameters. The same logic goes with all displays, but not all the buttons. For now, I really cannot tell you more.

That's the adjustable hand support. It surrounds the front part of the stick.

To peterj: Man, you are really teasing me ;) I could help you, but then I'd have to kill you. Classified stuff, you know... Anyway, you almost got it right :thumbup:

By the way, awesome weaponry :thumbup: I guess nobody would like to mix it up with Poland in the near future :smilewink: How about this?

It was exactly the same with our Gripens :) (no thread hijack attempted ;) ) By the way, how about HARMs? Are you going to have them too? Which version?

Thanks for the answer. How about ground crews?

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for correction ;)

Hi there, is anybody interested in discussion how to avoid REAL missiles? Since GGtharos has stated (Thanks mate;)) that missile logic and behavior is likely to be improved soon, I think it could be a good time for that. Please keep in mind that we will discuss just possibilities, because it's not very common in real world to shoot live ammo on somebody just to get experience ;) But for the start: speed is the key! More speed you have, less performance difference and more time, especially if being shot from the rear.

Are there any Polish pilots already trained to fly F-16? By the way, those F-16Ds look incredible. I guess they are not planned to be used merely as trainers...;)