Dudikoff

I think the only reason those manuals can be found as they were distributed with the export variants. But, manuals or not, ED is based in Russia and is bound by current Russian laws and apparently anything newer than Su-24M (including) is off the table. So, this is why they can make the MiG-23MLA, but not a MiG-29 9.12B or Su-27SK.

Yeah, I'd prefer the Cold War era IDS personally, though I guess the IDS/GR1 differences are small enough that both could be released in the same package. But, back on topic, I guess the release is finally close enough that I can handle the stress of waiting for it. Bought. So, this week or the next? :)

It's been posted already, but the interviewee raises an interesting point on the F-14 radar losing lock on the maneuvering targets (I presume this relates to the AWG-9, not the newer AN/APG-71).

Yeah, plus they've said they don't really have the documentation on the radar and MFD's to do it properly (I guess -1A manual, basically).

He seems to be mistaking these informative videos for trailers.

Yeah, that's an untapped market in DCSW currently. For instance, I wish they'd dumb down the Hornet to the initial F/A-18C variant from the late '80s (if not the A which would require much more work) and sell it for a similar amount.

F-14A didn't, but the F-14B got the digital bus during the F-14B Upgrade program IIRC. Perhaps it lacked a digital stores manager so you had to program some stuff via PTID or something.

Yeah, I know Atlas 3 and 5 rockets are using Russian engines, but he implied that the US were never able to develop their own in the similar thrust category which is technically a fabrication since they didn't even bother trying :) (since they burned the money on the doomed Space Shuttle concept instead after which the Russian engine was already available and much cheaper then developing something similar from scratch, plus politically it was acceptable to buy them back then). Though I fail to see how this Russian rocket engine is connected with the state of Soviet tech put in their fighters in the early 80s which was discussed. The mentioned MiG-31 radar mentioned was a success, but the similar Soyuz program inspired radars for Su-27 and MiG-29 failed as presumably because they had much less available space for the radar and its electronics which took a lot of space and weight due to the state of the Soviet technology back then. But, to make the Mig-31 project work, the Soviets had to resort to using a phased array antenna to accomplish what a decade older AWG-9 was capable of with a mechanically scanned antenna and even then, the Zaslon was still inferior in range (though it had some advantages where phased array excels, naturally, like the faster scan rate which also allows for a larger TWS field of view).

Wait, what?

RTGS In RTGS the WCS computes the bullet trajectory and displays the location the bullets will pass through at 1 000 and 2 000 feet if no target data is available from the WCS. The diamond representing bullet location at 1 000 feet and the pipper representing the bullet location at 2 000 feet. According to the image above the text (showing the ADL, followed by the pipper and then the diamond), it should be vice-versa (the pipper representing the bullet impact at 1000 feet and the diamond at 2000). Sorry, if reported already. Missile Preparation (Sparrow) It also injects CW radar video from the radar to the missiles via an emitter on the aft end of the rail to a receiver at the aft end of the missile. Is this CW signal during seeker tuning really called the "CW radar video"? That sounds rather odd. Also, AFAIK, CW would not be considered a radar technically, as it's just a transmitter with the receiver antenna being on the missile's seeker. TWS When using the AIM-54 with TWS the WCS automatically prioritises the tracked targets, giving them a firing order number indicating missile launch order. As the first target is launched at the first tracks number is removed and the other tracks numbers are decreased by one. Should be "as the first missile is launched at the first track, its number is removed" or something. Also, "prioritizes".

They're still failing? Did you check the GPU (VRM) temperatures when they're running?

Yeah, because the "an" rule is AFAIK that it goes before a vowel sound, not a vowel letter.

AN/APX-72 IFF Interrogator "The AN/APX-72 can be used both in search radar modes and in STT radar modes. To enable interrogation the IFF switch is depressed on the Detail Data Display Panel which then activates the interrogator while the button is held or for 10 seconds if held shorter than that." I guess there's something wrong here.

It's foremost a question of finding the data for the PTID as they mentioned in an interview that they don't actually have a document on it describing all its pages and options.

General Design and Systems Overview headline typos: Fire Detection and Surpression System Fire Surpression System (also, same typo in the related text) Fire Detection and Surpression System Test (also, same typo in the related text) Should be Suppression, naturally. Electrical Power System chapter should use AC and DC acronyms in capital letters.

UHF/VHF Remote Indicators chapter, for the UHF panel, the description mentions BRT, but the image shows the control labeled as DIM.

This part should be rewritten as it's confusing IMHO (e.g. one could get an impression that at supersonic, the minimum reading error is 4000 feet). E.g. to something like: Altimeter errors as much as 1,200 feet above (transonic flight) or 4000 feet below (supersonic flight) the actual aircraft altitude can occur. This is from the F-14B NATOPS: "The primary (servoed) mode altimeter readings may be erroneous below 10,000 feet. In transonic flight, these errors could be as much as 1,200 feet above the actual aircraft altitude mean sea level (i.e., the aircraft is lower than the altimeter indicates). In supersonic flight, these errors could be as much as 4,000 feet below the actual aircraft altitude mean sea level (i.e., the aircraft is higher than the altimeter indicates). Refer to servoed altimeter residual error correction chart, NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1." I guess the name should also contain a dash in between (Servo-pneumatic Altimeter as in NATOPS).

So, C-2 Greyhound anyone? On a more serious note, on its own merits, I'd prefer a Tornado over the A-6E by far (a consequence of playing DI's sim a lot), but I have to agree that it would be nicer to have the A-6E (and A-7E) simulated along with the Tomcat as soon as possible with the carriers and crews and what not. There is the Hornet, but it kind of sticks out with being overly digital and its multi-role capabilities. The A-6E being defenseless makes for a better mix with the Tomcat.

Is it that poorly optimized? Oh, man.. It's probably a collusion with Nvidia to help them move some of these overpriced new cards and restore their stock value.

Well, I guess that answers my question on the AP being added primarily for low-level targets like cruise missiles then (except that it's apparently primarily aimed at anti-ship missiles and shipborne use).

I remember reading about how the original radar design for the N001 (not by the PFI requirements) was much more complex (and had a more powerful computer), but it wasn't ready at the time so they scaled up the MiG-29 radar and reused its Ts100 computer. This quote is what I can find now (it was even discussed on these forums before, but not sure if it was disproved) : Development was difficult. Originally intended to significantly outperform the AN/APG-63 of the F-15, with a 200km detection range, in reality this goal proved impossible for NIIP to achieve. It was intended to use an all new design antenna, featuring electronic scanning in elevation and mechanical scanning in azimuth. This would give excellent multitarget engagement capability, and use of the MiG-31's R-33 was envisaged. This design proved overly ambitious, and was simply unachievable for a mass production radar given the state of the Soviet electronics industry in the early eighties. In May 1982, it was decided that the NIIP designed digital computer and antenna were simply not up to scratch, nor likely to become so in the near future. Phazotron's N019 had already reverted back to an improved version of the Sapfir-23ML's twist-cassegrain antenna to replace its problematic flat-plate antenna. It was decided therefore to use major components from the N019 radar, including a scaled-up copy of its twist-cassegrain antenna and the TS100 processor. By March 1983, the redesign was complete, though the resulting radar was nowhere near as good was intended. Instead of 200km, detection range barely reached 140km even against a large bomber. I guess the MiG-29 radar was also supposed to have been fitted with a similar antenna tech originally (designed under the Soyuz program apparently). The newer radar antenna tech was finally in acceptable state by the time of the MiG-29M program, I presume.

LOL, that's very funny and right on the mark.

I mentioned this myself as part of the reason, so I'm certainly not ignoring it as a factor. What you're ignoring is the increased requirements put in front of the MiG-29 design (compared to it's predecessors) which made it more expensive compared to its MiG-23 predecessor (which was already much more expensive than the earlier MiG-21). And you can't maintain the production numbers, if the price and complexity jump by that much. Again, if they were asking only for a simple GCI point defense interceptor, why bother replacing the MiG-23 design? They could have just hung the improved missiles and radar on it. It's not like the MiG-29 is much more capable in that role; except for better radar performance due to the bigger nose, it even has a noticeably shorter range. Case in point, there was a stop-gap variant of the MiG-29 called MiG-29A (9.11A) which had MiG-23 avionics and weapons. It was deemed as capable as the full-blown MiG-29 (9.11 back then) to satisfy the original requirements, but then a new requirements directive in 1976 required the new fighters to match or even surpass F-15 and F-16 weapon and radar capabilities, so the weaker variant was canceled. So, it was required from the MiG-29 to match or overcome not only the capabilities of the F-16, but F-15 as well in BVR combat during an interception (hence the new R-27R which was designed to surpass the AIM-7F capabilities). But, they are not a Western country and they are going for superior numbers, not maintaining the technological edge. Why do they suddenly need even newer (and much better) radars, RWR systems, active radar missiles, more fuel, etc. in the MiG-29M if the MiG-29 which just entered service a few years ago matches the GCI interceptor requirements and will be fielded in the ratio of what? Three 29s against every F-16? That's just your viewpoint, which disregards the continued increased sophistication present in their requirements and designs to match Western capabilities in everything from subs, aircraft, ships and even tanks which considerably reduced the production numbers which thus do not support your theory. And, 'Zerg rush' strategy, really?

It's not that unwarranted. E.g. the Su-27 was supposed to have had a much better radar with electronical scanning in the vertical axis, but they failed to develop it at the time so it got an enlarged MiG-29 radar as a stopgap measure. And if they were satisfied with what they ended up with, they wouldn't have invested a lot of money into developing the noticeably better equipped variants as the MiG-29M and Su-27M were. The thing is that the Su-27 and MiG-29 were never produced in such overwhelming numbers (compare the numbers of 29s made vs the number of 23s) that the old story about cheaper airplanes built in large numbers to overwhelm the technologically superior airplanes would hold water here. And IMHO it's not only because the USSR collapsed, but they were also much more expensive as they were designed to be more than simple point defense interceptors (e.g. the 29 was designed to be very maneuverable which is not something required for simply a GCI-controlled point defense interceptor). In Vietnam, the problem was that the US pilots were not properly trained and the early missiles had very limited engagement envelopes (among other issues) that the pilots were not trained to use properly. Once those tactics were improved, the slow guns-only equipped fighters quickly became helpless and the only problem were the GCI guided 21s which would sneak in low from behind the large USAF attack formations and blaze through while firing off its missiles at the closest target and then quickly run away. The US side could actually track them as they cracked their IFF transponders, but didn't make the most of that in practice (besides the few Combat Tree equipped Phantoms that allowed them to shoot-down the MiGs from BVR) as it was a top secret thing so in most cases, the aircrews were more often than not left uninformed that they will be attacked, less the Soviets figure out their tech is compromised.

I wasn't a jerk (on this point, at least), but I still got suckered. Unfair, but I'll let it slide if I can get an advance copy of the manual. Or a chapter? OK, some snippets will do. ;)