okopanja

It does not need to be on that level but SNP2 launch probably should not result in i stant RWR warning.

While the description in this not too technical article could be applied both to R-27R and R-77, we can not be sure that R-77 operates precisely the same. Simply the level of details is not enough, this is informational article for someone who is not too deep into electronics. Furthermore they had to place additional installation into the radar itself.

The upgrade includes the replacement of computers I have mentioned. It just confirms that for R-77 radar had to be changed to add compatibility with R-77. With this computers also came better ECM resistance.

For 9.12a to get R-77 radar upgraded is needed. This involves replacement of C100 with C101/102 (offer to Yugoslavia from 1996, sadly never accepted), which bring new modes. In addition the radar installation itself extension so it can actually guide R-77. Is this what you meant?

Thanks, I still stand by every word there. You can fire 2xR-27(E)T or 2xR-73 in TWS2.

Well the pictures show a hump, which means this departs from 9.12a airframes...

Location near the coordinates from that photo: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ubDt8mW4G665RFSL8 Looks like hangar from 2021 pics.

@NytHawk

I would prefer first completely functional basic 9.12a. As for Mig-29MU1/MU2, I am kind of skeptical, since cockpit looks exactly the same and it appears they have used "hacked" avionics to place those missiles in place of R-27P. Over the years UKR did offer lot's of upgrade marketing material for soviet stuff (ewr radars, missile seekers, SAM upgrades), but we saw very little substance of those upgrades in reality. Given the level of corruption in ex-Soviet republics (including Russia), doubts arise over actual scope of work. All things I found so far mostly pointed out to improving reliability of avionics (e.g. radar) + adding limited multi-role capabilities, similar to Russian upgrade packages offered around 1996 minus the R-77. Around that time they may have been even collaborating together on this. Maybe the existing software got some improvements over the soviet one, but if this is MU2, then we are not talking about large functional differences, hence it may be a low hanging fruit once the 9.12a is completed. Also, ED might decide to offer this as paid upgrade to a basic module.

One brief digression question: will you also take care of the existing non-CH assets or is this something ED would need to do?

Not a bug, but rather incomplete unit. Even among ED SAMs there are many examples of missing sensors. Examples include KUB, Neva, OSA, Tor, Hawk... Along sensors goes often wrong behavior. And if we are talking human controled units you quickly arrive at conclusion that further extensions of human machine interface is needed. I hope that wit CH inclusion Combined Arms will get more love from ED in future.

This later is difficult, since pilots are entitled to their flier's supplement.

maybe we can remove the bottle since it's mass is stated in the manual...

This would indicate HOJ mode launch. Also the jammer itself could affect RWR, but not sure if either of these are modeled in DCS.

Problem: At the moment ground units placed into single group can not be moved from F10 individually. Attempt to plot the path from F10 leads to whole group being moved in pre-selected formation. Individual movement is possible only by jumping directly into the unit and then driving it manually, which is often impractical. Why: achieve better tactical usage of units. E.g. if commanding larger group the default formations will place them in sub-optimal positions, thus often causing the units to be completely useless. E.g. you do not wish to place radar in a ground hole where it can not see anything. Proposed solution: Introduce additional formation called Individual, represented as a singl3e white dot in drop down menu. When this formation is selected and specific unit is selected, plotting the route shall be applied only to selected unit. The player should be able to plot each of the units individually without affecting already moving units. I hope this would be a low hanging fruit, as long as the order of formations and their corresponding identifiers are not changed.