Xeno426

Разве вы не знаете, это инглейский форум?

The Saber has a similar problem, so it might not completely be your fault.

Where is the value for γ found? And in SnapViewsDefault.lua, which of the various snapviews should be used? The first?

Yes. Just get Flaming Cliffs 3.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=JSGME

Last page...

The poles are pitot tubes. I'm not sure about the blisters; they probably hide things like aerials and the radar altimeter.

How does it differ externally from the Su-17M4?

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not whinging at all.

Yes, the Poles did, but those were Su-22M4s. I was wondering about the Su-17M4, aka the Fitters that the USSR flew.

Well, the M5 was never purchased by anyone, while the M4 was in actual service. I'm not sure if the later Su-17M4 ever got the TVs; it would be interesting to know.

At best, the pilot might be able to put on NV goggles. Otherwise it has no other EO sensor, it only has a Klen-PS in the nosecone for laser rangefinding and designation. Later production aircraft (Seria 30 and later in Poland for the Su-22M4) installed a TV for use with EO-guided weapons like the Kh-29T. The aircraft still lacked its own EO sensor, but it could display what the missile's sensor saw (much like the display in the A-10A).

You might find these useful.

Pretty much everything there can be used by the Su-25 already, and the avionics onboard were also quite similar. It's why I'm more interested in the MiG-27K; unique avionics (Kaira), and a unique set of weapons (Kh-27PS & other ARMs, KAB-500L, GSh-6-30). Russian BRRRRRT is reason enough to pick the MiG-27 over the Su-17.

When I said "early", I was referring to the state of the model. I am very much aware of the various Fitter designations.

Given that the first image has the file path "sukhoi project" in its name, along with "fitt" before it gets cut off, I"m gonna guess its a very early Fitter of some kind, probably the Su-17M4.

Mi-28N is probably in the same boat as the likes of the Su-35S or Ka-52. For the others, yes please. Has there been any word on what Mi-24 version is going to be made? I recall years ago one of Wag's videos said there was an Mi-24 module being developed, but no information on what version. I'd hope it was at least the V.

There aren't any strategic bombers on the list.

Cool, glad to help out. The Kh-59 is one of the reasons I'd love to see the Su-24M. It's got a really nice diversity of weapons it could employ, not to mention of of its avionics (terrain-following radar system), and I'd love to get the chance to make use of them. It'd be even cooler if two people could work together in it, which is the direction DCS seems to be going. The MiG-27K would also be a really neat aircraft to fly. It has features different from the Su-25T that would make it unique, whereas the Su-17M4 is very similar to the Su-25 already available, which makes it slightly less interesting to me than the MiG-27K.

Ok, from that it seems that the TV seeker heads of the Kh-59 and Kh-59M were the same as the Kh-29T (Granit 7T-M1). It doesn't say anything about the Kh-29T having data-link, instead saying the company that made the APK-9 was the same one that made the 7T-M1 seeker.

By man-in-the-loop, I meant that I've never heard of the Kh-29 having any sort of data-link to the parent aircraft after launch. Obviously the Kh-29L is still linked to the aircraft by laser designation, but that designation doesn't strictly need to come from the parent aircraft, and my understand was that the Kh-29T was completely autonomous after launch. The Kh-59 and the M are a bit different. They have much greater range, and function similar to the AGM-130. The missile is launched to a pre-determined location (inertial guidance) where the co-pilot takes over guidance. At this point he can lock onto a target and let the missile do the rest of its guidance autonomously. Alternatively, the co-pilot can continue to manually guide the missile using the feed from the missile's camera, rather like the British AJ.168 anti-ship missile. Finally, the missile can be locked onto a target while it's still on the rail and launch it either autonomously or with a man-in-the-loop. Again, this is all rather like the AGM-130 and GBU-15. I don't know for certain, but I'm sure that if the Su-24M only ever launched the Kh-59 in autonomous mode from right off the rail, the APK-9 wouldn't even be needed, though that would make one wonder why you are bothering with the Kh-59 and not just loading up a Kh-29T. Those two sources also seem to mirror each other, so either they're working from the same source or one is basically using the other for its information.

Strange, I've never heard anything about the Kh-29T being a man-in-the-loop system, working instead rather like the AGM-65A/B. The APK-9 was a data-link pod for the Kh-59 and Kh-59M only, I thought. I find it rather impossible the Kh-58 and Kh-29T would use the same guidance and targeting system, since one is an anti-radiation missile and the other is TV-guided. The impression I got regarding the Kh-29T on the Su-22M4 from talking with some Poles was that it displayed what the seeker head saw and that was how the missile was cued to its target.

Yes, I was referring to the Polish Su-22M4 Seria 30 and later. Regarding the Kaira, I'm sure the reason was related to the size and complexity of the system; it was so heavy it necessitated the removal of the extra cockpit armor of the MiG-27, and its placement in the nose led to issues of accuracy thanks to airframe bending. The Su-24M placed its Kaira system under its center of gravity, which eliminated that issue. The system's complexity also made it difficult for the MiG-27K pilot, something that the Su-24M was again able to mitigate because there was a co-pilot. Do you happen to have any info on the VG-17 tracker? I'd be interested in where they placed that system on the Su-17; the Klen-PS was housed in the shock cone, and I'm not sure there was enough room in there for another sensor to be added. A search on my own finds that the VG-17 was installed into the Mi-24V as part of its upgrade over the Mi-24D, and it's called "баллистический вычислитель и визирная головка" or "ballistic computer and sighting head". I'm assuming "sighting head" is basically "gunsight" like the Su-25, so I don't think it's an actual EO sensor. In other news, I know jack shit when it comes to Russian acronyms.

The Su-17M4 never had the Kaira or any other EO system. Late-model Polish Su-22M4s had a TV installed to guide the Kh-29T and possibly the KAB-500KR, rather like how the A-10A has a TV display in its cockpit for the Maverick but no onboard EO sensors of its own. I don't know if any Russian Su-17M4s ever got that upgrade. There was a post-Soviet Su-22M5 upgrade proposal. I think that included an onboard EO system, but nobody purchased it. The Su-17M4/22M4 had the Klen-PS laser designation system like the regular Su-25, probably with a similar gunsight as well. The only aircraft to use the Kaira were the MiG-27K and the Su-24M (in slightly different versions).

The MiG-27 had two wing-root pylons, two forward fuselage pylons, two rear fuselage hardpoints, a centerline pylon, and two fix wing hardpoints. The two wing hardpoints did not rotate with the wing (forcing the wings to be fixed), and were only used for fuel tanks on ferry flights. The rear fuselage hardpoints could only carry bombs up to 250kg, and don't seem to have been commonly used. The centerline was mainly used for fuel tanks, leaving four pylons free for various other munition. This meant a maximum of four guided weapons on the two wing root and forward fuselage hardpoints, which includes weapons like the Kh-31, Kh-29, Kh-25, KAB-500L, and R-60. I don't think the fuselage pylons could carry the Kh-29 or Kh-31 (doesn't seem to be enough clearance), and the Soviets/Russians had no multiple-ejection rack for any guided weapons except for the R-60. Thus you'd be looking at a max of four Kh-25s, which would preclude the use of any R-60s. Additionally, if you compare images of the fuselage hardpoint location on the MiG-27 and MiG-23, you'll find that the MiG-27 has them moved under the intakes and further forward. This was to allow weapons to be loaded and used while the centerline droptank was in use. Compare MiG-27M and the MiG-23ML.