Seaeagle

Thats what I mean - ECM is always going to be a challenge both in terms of getting sufficient information on specific systems as well as the complexity in how they work/affect different radar systems. Agree completely. Yeah I think it would get mine as well. IMO Yak-41/141 should come with a Kiev class as well though - specifically the "Baku"/"Admiral Gorshkov" because this was designed to accomodate it(unlike the earlier vessels) :) . Yeah something like that. Well we do know a little about which radar it was meant to have - not the N019M "Topaz", but the more modern N010 "Zhuk"(same as for the MiG-29M/K, but with a smaller antenna), which was much lighter and could support radar guided anti-ship missiles as well as the R-77. I don't know about the RWS, but I very much doubt that it would have been the SPO-15 - most new/upgraded aircraft at the time(late eighties) were slated for something more modern(like the L-150).

+1 +1 +1 Only challenge would be proper implementation of the added ECM, but then I guess thats a universial one. I completely agree that something like this would only be desirable if it can be done fairly accurately. But not much need for "projected capabilities" - the MiG-29M test aircraft did have a full combat suite installed and what elements it consisted of/the general capabilities of them is known. Unfortunately it is AFAIK still classified, so the chance of getting more detailed documentation that would allow for a DCS style module is probably no better(maybe even harder) than for the new version. That could be more problematic - IIRC the two Yak-141 built were used for flight testing only, while AFAIK the combat aspect was at an earlier stage of of development(with some testing on static airframes) by the time the project was cancelled.

It depends on operating mode and range to target. In coorporative mode(with EOS as the primary sensor and radar as back-up), the radar is in stand-by(not emitting) and is just slaved to the angular target position as provided by the EOS - the laser will be used for ranging, but if the target is outside the range of the laser rangefinder, the radar can illuminate the target momentarily in order to provide the range information. If the selected weapon(R-27R) requires it(or the EOS looses the target), the radar "kicks in" and takes over the target tracking/missile support.

Yeah this is all on the mission creator - no. No you can't - you can limit specific weapons for an aircraft, but that does not make it era specific. Agreed. That does not make a 90'ies aircraft - let alone an 80'ies one. The F/A-18C is one long upgrade with significant improvements every single year from 1990 right up to the end of production in ~ 1999. Disabling JHMCS, AIM-9X, ATFLIR etc on the Hornet only removes those post-production upgrades and just takes it back to its standard Lot 20 configuration from FY 98 - i.e. still not suitable even for 90'ies scenarios. So much more reason not to deliberately widen it further. No I am sure you are right - like I said thats the "sandbox" philosophy at play. Of course - anyone can remove available assets as they see fit for whatever level of realism they want, but you cannot add something for the purpose if that something doesn't exist.

No they didn't. Its pretty much standard procedure to develop one or two prototypes followed by a test batch, that brings the number up to 8 airframes(sometimes 12 - the relative min/max number for a squadron) in order to test/tweak all aspects of the type before starting full scale production and giving it official service status. Yes both types were in actual combat. This is a general thing that also affects in-service aircraft - I have seen lots of threads on this forum, where people are pushing for a weapon, sensor pod etc that isn't part of a particular RL aircraft's arsenal, to be implemented with the argument that it should thecnically/theoretically be able to use it. Not understood - you just said yourself that both types "have seen combat", besides.. LOL what?! - that is the whole damn idea with a flight sim and if there is anything good to say about the "sandbox" principle that DCS adheres to, then its exactly that it leaves room for some higher degree of "what if" scenarios than would been the case if it had been scenario driven.

Says who - you? Bollocks! - stop trying to impose your narrow minded perception of "balance" on the rest of us. The notion that you cannot have a more balanced east/west setup without compromising realism is complete hogwash. There is no law in the universe saying that 80'ies "bluefor" aircraft *must* consistently be modelled with a 20 year offset compared to their otherwise contemporary "redfor" adversaries.

Ok I see what you mean and I don't necessarily disagree. My point was just that even if you include the above mentioned upcoming items, a 9.41 MiG-29K would only fit perfectly with a handful of other 2000+ aircraft, while the vast majority of assets in the sim are older(80'ies and 90'ies). Test aircraft are real enough. Let me be more clear what I mean then - it shouldn't be modelled if there isn't sufficient documentation available for the purpose...new or old, in-service or test aircraft. The question is not(as far as I am concerned anyway) whether ED should start doing guesswork- or fictional aircraft, but only whether service status, production number or proliferation of a particular type should be a prohibitive factor as to what is "allowable". In my opinion test aircraft are fine as long as they are modelled accurately. It also sounds like your perception of what that entails is pretty single minded - there are prototypes and one-off tech demonstrators(often of a single feature) and then there are test aircraft with full combat systems(some have even been used in combat). I am personally only interested in the latter category, but if someone manages to do a proper module of e.g. an Su-37 TVC demonstrator, then I really don't see the problem in that either. Again realism in what sense - accurately modelled aircraft or application(realistic combat scenarios with era appropriate assets)?. If its the latter then I would argue that you are playing the wrong sim(lol). Sadly(because its not my cup of tea) what DCS offers is the "sandbox" principle, where choices for aircraft modules are made on individual interest/what sells and not scenario driven or how well it fits with the rest of the sim.....although curiously enough with a different approach to the WWII stuff.

IIRC the 9.13 was used in the Ethiopian-Erithrean war - its true that it wasn't exported during the Soviet period, but it was afterwards(by former Soviet states such as Ukraine and Moldova). Yes but the 9.13 didn't have R-77 capability though - you are thinking of the 9.13S(MiG-29S). The 9.13 had the ECM, extra internal fuel and wing droptanks, but the WCS remained the same as that of the 9.12.....and was produced in quite large numbers as well(unlike the 9.13S).

How would it be a "perfect choice" for what we have now?. I guess you mean as a counterpiece to the DCS F-18 and F-16 from that period - the irony being that those were less than a "perfect choice" for the DCS world that "we have now". So I take it that you hate the Su-25T and Ka-50 then? Since when did the community's ability to "validate anything" have any bearing on what is being developed and how its being implemented in the sim?.

Heh yeah, but in that photo, the paint is about to come off and almost looks as if someone had put paint stripper on it . Here is another photo(from the same occassion I believe), where you can see it a little closer up: ...so yes I think its just the conditon of the paint - and the hull is obviously more exposed to the elements than the superstructure . Mind you, the dark grey scheme is interesting in that it is highly reflective of the surrounding environment, so depending on lighting conditons/angles it may appear quite light grey, sometimes with a blueish impression and sometimes almost black. Yeah why not - it already exists for aircraft and IIRC its also possible to assign different schemes to vehicles, so I guess it should be doable for ships as well. Although, to be nitpicky, there are actually also a few differences concerning antennas/domes introduced around the time it got the new paint scheme.

Its true that the ship recieved a new lighter color scheme(it was also applied to the Pyotr Velikiy and Admiral Ushakov), but the hull and superstructure have always had the same color - don't know why you think it was different(?). I personally much prefer the old dark color scheme: .... but I guess thats a matter of taste :)

Lot 20 is from fall of 1997(Fiscal Year 98). Yes it has theF404-GE-402 EPE engines - these were introduced already with Lot 15. With each new Lot came some new features, so the Lot 20(the last full Lot) is the most up-to-date "legacy Hornet" - in addition to that, the DCS Lot 20 has some newer features(like AMPCD, JHMCS and ATFLIR), which were back-fitted as upgrades in 2004-2005. Here is a list of the F/A-18C lots and new things introduced with them: Lot 10. Blocks 23, 24 and 25. Lot 11. Blocks 26, 27 and 28. Lot 12. Blocks 29, 30 and 31. The Lot XII series F/A-18, introduced in FY90, provided the F/A-18 with a night attack capability. This was accomplished by providing NVG compatible cockpit lighting and displays, a thermal imaging navigation set, digital map set, multipurpose color displays, and a raster HUD. In addition, an independent aft cockpit capability was included for the two-seat F/A-18D (USMC) version. Lot 13. Blocks 32, 33 and 34. The Lot XIII series F/A-18 was introduced in FY91. The enhancements provided by this Lot included the OBOGS, which replaced the lox converter. The NACES and SEWARS were added and armament capabilities were enhanced through the additional hardware provisions for AGM-86 Harpoon and AGM-84 Stand-off Land Attack Missile. The Inertial Navigation System (INS) was also upgraded to the AN/ASN-139 that uses ring laser gyro technology. Lot 14. Blocks 35, 36 and 37. The Lot XIV series F/A-18 was introduced in FY92. This update added full AN/ARC-210 HAVEQUICK/SINCGARS VHF FM Radio provisions to the aircraft and the AN/AAS-38A FLIR/LDT was also incorporated into the F/A-18. Additionally, the Deployable Flight Incident Recorder Set (DFIRS) provides non-volatile storage of the last 30 minutes of flight incident data in a deployable unit. Lot 15. Blocks 38, 39 and 40. Delivered in FY93, the Lot XV series F/A-18 integrated an enhanced engine into the airframe. The F404-GE-400 Power Plant was replaced by the F404- GE-402 EPE. The new engine provided increased power, coupled with reduced fuel consumption. Additionally, the XN-8 Mission Computer and the 91 series Operational Flight Program (OFP) were introduced. Lot 16. Blocks 41, 42 and 43. The enhancements provided by the Lot XVI series F/A-18, which was introduced in FY94, included the integration of the AN/APG-73 Radar Upgrade (RUG) Phase I. The primary improvements provided by the AN/APG-73 RUG Phase I were increased Electronic Counter Countermeasures capabilities, increased memory and processing speed of the signal and data processing functions, and increased receiver bandwidth combining to provide growth capabilities for incorporation of advanced radar modes. The AN/ARC-210 HAVEQUICK/SINCGARS VHF FM Radio was also installed along with the LAU-115 Launcher improvements and incorporation of the 09 (formerly 93) series OFP. Lot 17. Blocks 44, 45 and 46. In FY95, the Cockpit Video Recording System (CVRS) and the AN/AAS-38B Advanced FLIR were introduced. Additionally, there were provisions added for the GPS. Lot 18. Blocks 47, 48 and 49. Lot XVIII series F/A-18 were delivered in FY96 and included the GPS, the AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Set, and a sixth avionics multiplexer bus. Additionally, the 11 series OFP was introduced. Lot 19. Introduced in FY97, Lot XIX series F/A-18C/D Aircraft received a Stores Management System upgrade and an AN/APX-111(V) Combined InterrogatorTransponder (CIT). Lot 20. In FY98, Lot XX series F/A-18C/D Aircraft were delivered, integrating the Phase II AN/APG-73 RUG, ATARS, Joint Direct Attack Munitions, Joint Stand Off Weapon, and EGI to meet the precision navigation capability that future weapon systems require. EGI provides an all-altitude, worldwide source of navigation and attitude information.

Obviously not - a 1991 Hornet had the APG-65, while from 1993 onwards they got the APG-73. I don't know how steadily the technology advanced - aside from the step from APG-65 to APG-73(phase I RUG) from Lot 16, there is only one other(Phase II RUG) introduced with the Lot 20, that we got in DCS and, as Kev2go said, this specifically concerned enhanced A2G mapping(only).

Not automatically anyway . Yeah I agree completely. It was also fueled by official sources like Knaapo, who at one point stated all sorts of prospective features for the Su-33, rather than the actual ones for the in-service aircraft......I guess as part of a marketing effort for potential export orders. Fair enough - and it may well have been the case. The problem I have with it though, is that there is so little information to support it other than hazy mention of a system called "Freon" and features which might as well concern the L-150. In the following article (posted at: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/soviet-russian-rwr-sirena-beryoza-pastel.48/#post-20864 ) by an official of the company(TsKBA) that produced both the SPO-15 and L-150 "Pastel" systems, there is a brief mention of a digital version of the SPO-15, so I guess its possible that "Freon" is related to this. But as you can see nothing about functionality or any mention of it in connection with the Su-33, whereas I think you will agree that the description of the Pastel sounds more in line with the few features mentioned in connection with the "Freon". Its also worth noting that both systems(SPO-15T and L-150) were in development in the late 80'ies and that the L-150 was flight tested on the Su-25T, so I don't think its a stretch to suspect that the same company(Sukhoi) would look at the L-150 for the Su-33 being developed at the same time No I said SPO-15, as installed in the Su-27, wasn't pursued for the Su-33, that "something better was always the intention" and that this better solution only came into realisation very recently with the L-150 finally being installed. You are right that I didn't pay too much attention to the mention of "SPO-15 blocks" specifically, because this could very easily be a mistake - "SPO" is the general Russian term for "RWR". I think I have said repeately that(evidence suggests) the Su-33 had no functioning RWR through most of its service life. I never said that it wasn't supposed to have one - on the contrary I said that there clearly were steps taken along the way to install one, but that it wasn't the SPO-15(basic one like on the Su-27) as depicted in DCS, but something else. So the only real point of contest is what we believe that intended something else was - it may have been different sets at different times or it may have been the same all along.

Well its something you have to dig out, but just look a couple of posts up in this thread: I have read something very similar by someone who IIRC visited the Severomorsk-3 base(home of the Su-33s) in recent years and came away with the same impression of a W.I.P. situation - i.e. unfinished RWR installations.

Really?. All respect to CiberAlex and other forum members on the Russian side, but they are not the know-it-all experts that you seem to think. Besides, what exactly is it that you are arguing? - I said that the Su-33 never had the SPO-15 and that for most of its service life, it had no functional RWR(which you called "hyberbole"). I also said that the partial installation of an RWR didn't concern the SPO-15, but that "something better was always the intention" - "the L-150 (or something similar)". Anyway, people keep refering to this mythical "Freon" system, but have no information about it other than it apparently never worked.

No its not. How does that make not having a functional RWR "hyberbole"?. Besides, from what I can gather it wasn't the SPO-15 - never saw an Su-33 with external antennas, nor a display in the cockpit for it. The L-150 dates back to the late eighties, which coincides with the time the Su-27K/Su-33 was under development. So I think its much more likely that they are refering to the L-150(or something similar) - e.g. the bit about display options on both the HDD and a separate dedicated display(which was always a L-150 feature). I have read other accounts describing partial installation of the L-150, that sounded exactly like your quote - such as some airframes having external antennas(in the wings), but no internal components, while other had the opposite, some having items shifted around on the cockpit front panel to make room for a cutout for a dedicated display etc. This was what I was refering to(early steps to introduce it) in my above post. Says who? - clearly not the poster you quoted.

Correct. Yup...either that or a newer radar design. Back in the 90'ies there was a proposed upgrade involving the "Zhuk-27" radar(same radar as on the initial MiG-29K, but with a larger antenna) and ever since, the prospective armament this could entail(such as Kh-31A and R-77) has incorrectly been stated for the in-service Su-33 on many web sites.....but the upgrade never materialised. In the early 2000's Sukhoi developed the Su-27KUB two-seat combat trainer variant of the Su-33 - on one of the prototypes they installed the "Zhuk-MS" radar(Zhuk-M radar with a larger antenna) and reportedly later the Zhuk-MSF(Zhuk-M with a fixed phased array antenna), but again the Su-27KUB didn't enter production. Maybe the Russian MoD will flesh out the cash for an -SM style upgrade(including N001VEP radar) for the Su-33, like you mentioned, but I have my doubts :) . Yes but no Su-27K/Su-33 ever had the SPO-15 though - something better was always the intention :) Later than that - there have been steps taken to introduce it as far back as that, but it didn't really become reality until after the MiG-29K/KUB entered service. Initially the Russian navy intended to retire the Su-33s at that point, but later changed their minds and decided to retain their Su-33s in service after an extensive overhaul, during which installation of the L-150 finally became reality. Yeah - and probably the best we can hope for in terms of a "modern" counterpiece for the mid-2000s Hornet and Viper.

Of course its simplified - the point is not to let your energy state drop to a point where you become a sitting duck. You can cash it in as you say, but even if you achieve a decisive advantage against your direct opponent, you could quickly become an easy target for anyone else around.

Not really - as WinterH said, as long as we are talking AI-only, there would be no problem with either version of the MiG-29K. The MiG-29K still exists in DCS as a "dormant" entry from the days of Flanker 2.5. In regards to radar, I remember a long time ago looking through DCS's table of "abstract radars"(the ones assigned to AI aircraft) and the Zhuk-M radar already existed in the list back then, just as all the associated armament already exists and is fully functional in the sim. So provided that a new 3D model is made for it, it would be pretty straight forward to re-introduce it into DCS as an AI entry.

What does the ability to model the 9.12 have to do with the MiG-29K 9.31? It doesn't have an AESA though - it has the Zhuk-M planar slotted array radar , which in turn is an updated version of the N010 Zhuk installed in the old 9.31 MiG-29K. Besides, the old 9.31 is also still classified and, if anything, probably even harder to find information on than the new 9.41. Well the subject title did say "Russian Navy Mig-29K Ai"

Are they new though? As far as I can see, they are just the alternate entries with the proper weapon/launchers combinations(hence the weight difference), which have been there for ages. The reason for this is quite simply because some aircraft entries(like e.g. the Su-27) had 3D models with fixed weapon launchers, while other(like the Su-25T and Su-25TM) had removable launchers.

Yes the project numbers are accompanied by code names, which kind of groups them - e.g. large surface combatants have code names of predatory/sea birds, small combatants(missile ships at least) of stinging "bugs", while submarines have names of predatory fish :) . Interestingly for civilian ships, the accompanying project names are assigned in the "western way" - i.e. the actual name of the first completed ship of the class. Yeah me too.

I don't know exactly how the project numbers are assigned, but I guess there must at least be some coordination involved, so that the same number isn't applied for more than one design - the system is also used for civilian ships, so it could quickly become a mess otherwise :) .

Yes and then not quite :) . MiG-29 is the "service designation", while 9.12, 9.13 etc are MIG's internal product codes where the "9- " indicates the MiG-29 design. Sukhoi also has internal product codes - i.e. "T10-" indicates a Su-27 version, while e.g. "T8-" a Su-25 etc. But for ships, the project number is the actual service designation for the ship, which is typically accompanied by type codes(abbreviations) such as "BPK"(large antisubmarine ship) - i.e. roughly equivalent to "FFG" or "DDG" ect. Yes. Yes and in fact also the 9.13. No you are right - its an interweb thing. All correct, but my point was that "9.12" is also often used as a general term(without specifying domestic/export) in order to distinguish it from the 9.13 version since both are called "MiG-29".