Dudikoff

I'm not that picky, so I'd take any (and all) of these (F-111E/F, Tornado IDS, Su-24M)..

From today's weekend news post: "Next week will also see the release of the updated P-51D-25-NA and P-51D-30-NA Mustang, the C-101EB with AFM and C-101CC, and new cockpits for the Bf-109 K-4 and Fw 190 D-9. Exciting times!"

Hmm, I'm sure it's possible to do that for quite awhile as I've used that since I first flew the hornet some months ago.

That would be the latest XPG8200 drive with 3D TLC NAND, but this time with a very good controller (as the older models don't quite compare in performance). But, even with that surprisingly solid budget model, I'd like to see a practical test showing this 'huge increase in loading times compared to latest-spec SATA drives'?

Agreed, I expected some narrated video showcasing the cockpit and startup and so on. It was rather long while effectively not really showing that much more information than was seen from some cockpit shots given in the trailers.

You have to run the profile in Target after loading it and then you'll get the TM Virtual Device instead of the separate Warthog Joystick & Throttle.

Of course the R-27R/RE supports LOAL (no SEEKER lock necessary at launch), otherwise their range would make no sense since their seeker could only lock on at, I don't know, 20 km, depending on the target size. But, as I said, it does require a RADAR lock by its launching platform to determine exact range and for the WCS to set up the missile parameters and tune the seeker to the guidance channel, I guess. So, this last minute lock on that you're mentioning is not possible.

I actually meant to say that it can be launched without a missile seeker lock (LOAL). The radar lock would be required to provide the initial launch parameters to the missile (English Bias, initial waypoint, etc.). Didn't really try to replicate launching the R-27R with the IOS lock, there are probably many WCS simplifications currently compared to the RL (and I'd have to check the RL manual first). But, in theory, when you pull the trigger with a radar missile selected in TP mode (if this is supported by RL WCS, of course), the WCS might attempt to create a radar lock by slaving the radar to the IRST lock and if a lock is established (RL appears on the HUD or something), a missile could then be launched. It would take some seconds for all this to happen, though.

How exactly would the IRST be interconnected with anything else? I didn't really check the NATOPS for the F-14D regarding this, but I imagine there might be a button on the MFD to select the IRST sensor picture (kind of like the Maverick one) and you'd implement it as having no function or don't show it at all. What other systems would be affected by this? On that often shown diagram of various chin pod configurations, one of them is showing the IRST window blanked off with the comment 'temporarily' (I presume for maintenance or if the system wasn't ready from the start of the operational service, perhaps), so it might be a realistic option.

If no available data on that IRST was a problem, they could just leave it off (like, removed for maintenance), worst case. Regarding the radar, well, the AN/APG-73 in the Hornet is still in use and we have the fully-fledged module with it. Plus, the AN/APG-71 didn't have the ground mapping modes support integrated, so it shouldn't be that difficult to simulate its A2A modes.

Technically, R-27R's don't need the radar lock before launch as they are provided with a datalink and an autopilot of sorts to guide them towards the target until the seeker establishes a lock (though perhaps for such close ranges, the initial english bias might be enough I guess as the target should be within seeker range). The IR guided variants don't so they do need a lock before they can be launched at a target (unless they're launched dumb for jettison purposes).

I guess that makes sense since those arrows only go to 25 degrees.

The diagram shows roughly 27.5 degrees as a the maximum value, not 25.

That would be the PTID screen, not the Fishbowl.

They did remain the same, but AFAIK the improved processing could extend the range at which the contacts of a certain size are detected and locked on.

Well, the radar on the F-4J/S was a bigger and much more capable set (with PD) than the one on the F-4E and the VTAS HMS might be interesting. Unfortunately it didn't support guided A2G weapons IIRC, but at least it had the same bombing set as the USAF F-4's (unlike the earlier Navy variants).

It's interesting how they left the scan zone in search mode compressed to match the bottom line (which indicates the scan zone direction) even though it's fixed on the MiG-29. Probably because there's a lot of commonality between the WCS systems between it and the Su-27.

Those values should be the size of the IRST scanning zone which can be further reduced by selecting the narrow mode (then it's +/- 15 degrees in azimuth) so perhaps you misunderstood something when translating? E.g. IRST scanning head vs target selection cursor? In the Yugoslav MiG-29 manual, I've found no such reference in regards to the cursor movement limits. Besides, what would these degrees mean anyway when the scanning picture is projected on the HUD? Also, the cursor should be vertically elongated, apparently.

They are working on an MCG-TM grip variant (with an adapter) which can. Basically, they just need a physical adapter plus the electrical adapter board and I see no reason why they couldn't reuse it for the F-14 grip as well.

Was it really concluded? One guy posted that, sounded like a weird generalization thing to me.

Yes, of course, but IIRC, it wasn't mentioned in the MAC announcement so it might get scrubbed. Yeah, that makes sense. But, again, it's only pushing a 5% increase, hence why I said it's almost in a realm of 'why bother'. Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Well, for what it's they didn't opt to replace it with extra fuel. Yeah, that makes sense. They didn't sell it to the NK, but it would be interesting to know if anyone bought the export variant of the jammer with their SE's (like e.g. Peru). Yeah, and it carries a single 500 kg bomb there, so a ton is probably too much for it. Probably, as IIRC Yefim Gordon's book claimed that the factory complained about the required mods on a cost-to-benefit ratio (though I think it stated they mainly complained on the removal of the auxiliary intakes given the amount of work required and not so much fuel gained there). Yeah, hence why I said "the original MiG-29M" as there are new M1/M2 and the 35 derived from that ugliness. As a plus side, perhaps the rearward visibility is somewhat improved for the pilot, but it still looks silly and pretty ugly IMHO. Though, I dig the SMT looks with that huge tank on the back (well, two tanks to be exact), so I guess it's rather subjective. The original M/K variants were as bad ass as the MiG-29 variants can go, I think, though I remember reading that during testing of the Su-27M, they weren't really happy regarding the load on the pilot during strike missions, hence why they went with two pilots later on.

Still ongoing? The production stopped in the early 90's. There was some talk recently about developing a successor, but AFAIK nothing more than that.

Well, those are separate modules and this one is just MiG-29. It's not called "MiG-29G" which is kind of a relic from Lock On. I guess it won't be acceptable so it will simply be removed from the game when MAC comes out :) But, you're right about the community cockpit mod, they can only change textures, of course. 240 is the maximum reference I've seen and the most often quoted one, though some sources claimed less (from 75 liters to 240). Still, that's like what? 5% increase? Regarding the jammer, there were some rumors that it wasn't really that reliable, but of course, no reliable information. On the other hand, it was retained on the MiG-29M IIRC which I presume wouldn't be the case if it was useless. Not sure if any of the 9.13SE export customers bought the export version of the jammer? I'd presume these were removed from those Moldovan 9.13's (together with IFF systems and nuclear bomb panels) that were sold to US in the end. I've seen a photo with an APU-470 on the mid station, but I guess there are some issues with that location since it wasn't introduced operationally. If I had to guess, there might be stability issues with asymmetrical loadout (e.g. when one missile is fired) as the plane already doesn't handle such a situation on the inboard pylons very well. Having the fuel tanks there wouldn't present such issues, but such weight might be too much to handle for those stations. But, OK, the problem was solved with the 9.13S and R-77 missiles somewhat or the SMT modification (though, the original proposal with new wings with two extra stations was even better). It's a shame that Soviet Union didn't last somewhat longer, as some much improved variants might have had entered service even in limited numbers (the original MiG-29M, Su-27M, MiG-31M, Yak-41, etc.).

Are you answering my post? If you read carefully, you'll notice it was referring to the 9.13 changes to improve the limited range; it was not questioning the MiG-29G mods since the type was kept mainly due to its training and intelligence value.

Well, they had to make a new 3D-pit for the FC3 modules. They didn't have to make 3 variants of it for the FC3 modules since they're not in-depth. But, of course, it does feel like a bit of a waste not to have fully developed modules out of these in the end. At least the MiG-29 9.12/9.13 are no longer in Russian Air Force service so perhaps they could develop a full module, at least the 9.12B. Back to the cockpits, if it's not that hard to do, it could also be done by the community as a mod, then. Yeah, got it. But, speaking of, IMHO it's not the best way of addressing them for an interceptor since they remove its primary weapons. And the increase of the fuel capacity from the spine is like minimal at best since apparently the not so useful jammer takes most of the gained space. If the wing tanks could have been fitted to some other pair of stations, that would have been far better (though I'm not sure if there's enough clearance for the R-27's if the fuel tanks were mounted on the mid wing stations; maybe yes since they're rail launched and not catapulted, but probably too close for comfort).