Seaeagle

More like 9.12 being the version, while 9.12A and 9.12B are variants of it. You are right that NATO's reporting name "Fulcrum A" covers all three and that, strictly speaking, 9.12 without any suffix would mean the original Soviet version.... provided that whoever talked about it, meant it as specific as that and not just as the general version(i.e. Fulcrum A), which I believe is what Northstar meant.

No I am talking about the old 1990 MiG-29M(9.15) and MiG-29K(9.31). Yes it did. There were two aircraft- first one(no. 311 from 1988) was a prototype, while the other(no. 312 from 1990) was a fully configured "test aircraft". But you are right that this initial variant wasn't put into production/service.

Not sure I would agree with that - if the forces acting upon the flaps are excessive, they will overcome the hydraulic pressure keeping them down - like I said they are not mechanically locked in the extended position(only in the retracted one).

Let me get this straight - you think the 1990 MiG-29K was similar technology to the baseline 9.12?! If so I can guarantee you that it was not. Look for information on the MiG-29M(9.15) from the same period and then realise that the MiG-29K was the same aircraft made "carrier capable". I.e same airframe as the -M, but with more beefy landing gear, larger foldable wings with larger flaps and an arrerstor hook instead of the -M's two-piece brake chutes. Addition of IFR probe and provision for buddy refueling pack. Same digital fly-by-wire flight control system. Same RD-33K engines as the -M, but with additional "emergency thrust" feature(similar to that of the Su-33). Same system's complex as the -M: N010 "Zhuk" radar, OLS-M optronic system, L-150 Pastel RWR, Gardeniya-1FU ECM, new advanced datalink system etc. The MiG-29K had a more sophisticated navigation system than the -M though. Same range of armament - such as R-77, R-27ER/ET - Kh-31A and Kh-35 anti-ship missiles, Kh-31P anti-radar missiles, Kh-29L/TE and KAB-500kr etc.

Not sure I understand - same as what so you mean?

You cannot really damage the flaps in the MiG-29 though - they are not locked mechanically in the deployed state(rely only on hydraulic pressure). Just like with the speed brake, there is a "blow-back" feature to protect them - i.e. if you are going too fast with them deployed, they will just retract and if you haven't deployed them at this point, they won't deploy if you try. I cannot remember the speed at which this comes into play, but generally speaking if you can deploy the flaps in a "dogfight", then you energy state is much too low anyway - speed is life :)

Also "maneuverability" - there is more to this than just the max G-limit.....just look at the Hornet. That would also be the case for the old "soviet" MiG-29K. It was never in DCS - it was in Flanker 2.5. But yes it was the original MiG-29K(the new version didn't exist back then), but it wasn't simulated particulary well - e.g. it had the cockpit of a baseline MiG-29 with the single addition of an AOA indicator on the HUD for carrier landings.

If anything its more the other way around - the pilot controls the aircraft, while the GCI controller provides him with situational awareness, selects a suitable target and issues steering cues for most efficient intercept course. The exact level of interaction depends on the aircraft in question - for the MiG-29 its pretty comprehensive. When under GCI control, the radar is in stand-by mode(slaved to angular coordiantes of the target, but not emitting) while all target data is transmitted via datalink and displayed on the HUD as if the aircraft's own radar was tracking it, with the addition of the above mentioned intercept steering cues. When within range of target, the GCI controller can apparently even switch the radar on remotely, at which point the radar employs a special scan pattern that is narrower than normal(since the target's location is already established and the radar looking in the general direction) in order to shorten the time for lock-on/weapon employment.

Correct and in addition to that: - the IR homing variant can only use rail launchers(APU-470) due to lock-on before launch requirement and therefore only these contain coolant bottles for the missile IR seeker. - rail launchers cannot be used at fuselage stations due to their proximity to the engine air-inlets , just as they obviously can't be used for the Su-27's tandem arranged centerline stations. - the R-27 missile is to large(heavy and draggy) for stations further out on the wing. So this leaves one wing station on either side compatible with the R-27T/ET. The radar guided variant can use both the rail launcher and the ejection launcher(AKU-470) since its lock-on after launch - thus can be mounted on all stations compatible with R-27 missiles(2 underwing and 4 fuselage).

Yeah I think it would be difficult to find room for more than the one there. No I don't know, but I suspect it could be a dedicated threat display. Yeah I know, but like I mentioned above, it doesn't look like there would be room for two of those in the MiG-23 cockpit.

Ok thanks. I suspected as much and it also makes sense. Oh ok - yes thats true. Yes I heard that too and IIRC the IAF operates upgraded MiG-27s with two MFDs, so perhaps the cockpit of this is an indication of what the MiG-23-98 pit would look like. Edit: this photo is apparently the cockpit of an IAF upgraded MiG-27: ...only one large MFD. Indeed.

Well as I said earlier, I really don't know about this upgrade. I just remember once reading, that installing a Kopyo was planned as replacement for the original radar. But like "Zhuk", "Kopyo" is a name that covers an entire line of radars, so it wouldn't necessarily have to be the same one installed with the MiG-21-93 upgrade. Aside from the possibility of using planar slotted array antennas of different sizes(as with the Zhuk, there is also a variant with a phased array antenna(Kopyo-F). But then I am not interested in the MiG-23 as such, so I haven't bothered to look for further info about the MiG-23-98 upgrade and had in fact never heard of "Moskit" radars either : ) . Exactly - although I have never heard of a variant called "super-kopyo". Well thats the problem I have with this "Moskit-23" thing - I have looked around all the sources I usually consult and I have not been able to find much info it.....no actual technical descriptions of it other than a few lines of performance claims. I did manage to find a single small photo: ...which doesn't look anything like a Zhuk, but does resemble the Kopyo-M, so I wonder if its actually an "uptech'ed" version of this with a new name.....a "super Kopyo"? Again that sounds familiar - modernised version of Kopyo-25? Yes that would IMO also make more sense. I mean If the idea with the upgrade is to give countries who cannot afford buying new more capable fighters the ability to continiue operating their old MiG-23s, then a more modest cost effective approach involving upgrading the existing radar to use new weaponry seems more in line with the concept. No neither could I - execpt for a couple that are mislabelled as such(but are in fact the MiG-21-93 cockpit). Thats the MiG-21-93 cockpit

I don't know much about the proposed MiG-23-98 upgrade either, but IIRC the radar upgrade involved the "Kopyo" - a planar slotted array radar that is essentially a smaller more compact version of the N010 "Zhuk"(designed primarily for the MiG-29M and K). The Kopyo was also used for MiG-21 upgrades and a vesion of it was installed in a pod for the Su-25TM/Su-39.

Well as I mentioned on an earlier occassion, there is this: https://hum3d.com/3d-models/alvand-class-frigate/ British designed/built, but AFAIK exclusively for the Iranian navy. Not a bad looking ship(thinking about getting it myself) and very fast too - apparently capable of ~ 40 knots.

The Su-27SM doesn't use the SPO-15 at all - as part of the upgrade package, it got the L150 "Pastel" RWS instead.

What TotenDead said. MiG-29 (9.12) Fulcrum A MiG-29 (9.13) Fulcrum C MiG-29S (9.13S) Fulcrum C Compared with the 9.12, the 9.13 got: - built-in ECM - increased internal fuel capacity(larger tank no. 1) - modified fuel system with ability to carry two wing drop tanks(+ new fuel gauge and fuel selector panel) and other minor changes and improvements, but generally retained the WCS and radar of the 9.12. The 9.13S is the same plane, but with a radar upgrade(N019M) that made it compatible with the R-77..... that was the whole point to it.

Well they certainly need more :) . The draft of the Kuznetsov is just short of 10 m(~ 32 ft), while its around 12 m(39 ft) for the Nimitz with variations depending on load. So adding in a few meters of safety margin, its definately not unreasonable to set a dept of 50 ft as a minimum requirement for them.

No the Su-27 was the very first ED product in "Su-27 Flanker" from 1995, then updated in "Flanker 2.0"(+Su-33 added)/Flanker 2.5(MiG-29K added), then in "Lock-on", FC, FC2 and now FC3 - with gradual improvements(radar modes, external 3D model, 3D cockpit and flight model etc). The flyable MiG-29 and MiG-29S were first introduced with "Lock-on" and have had similar improvements along the way.

It looks good already - very nice work!

I cannot help you with the specific problem, but it everything else fails I guess you could always animate it the old fashioned "cartoon" way - i.e. stack multiple stages of inflation and use argument based visibility track to animate it. Not the most "sexy" way of of going about it, but it works.

What Northstar said. The Ka-27PL is by far the most interesting variant - it is basically for the Russian navy, what the Mi-24 is for the land forces. But its a highly complex helicopter stuffed with ASW sensory and armament, which would make it quite an undertaking to develop and given the current state of DCS naval warfare in general and the sub-surface aspect in particular, it would not make any sense at this point. So you would have to go either with the Ka-27PS SAR variant or, as Bravelink03 suggested, the more "niche" Ka-29 CAS modification. The former has its merits, but is arguably a little too limited in application(no combat role) to justify the development effort, while the question is what the latter actually offers, that isn't covered by the current Ka-50, Mi-8 and upcoming Mi-24P.

Yeah I guess it a universial navy issue not just affecting the Russian units. The Tunguska-M1 uses a different one althogether. The original chassis was IIRC called GM-352, while the new one for the -M1 is called GM-5975 - produced by the same company that makes the chassis for Tor and Buk. http://mmzavod.ru/category/products/

I don't know the designation - just that it uses a radar fuze instead of the original laser one. The Tunguska was developed as a replacement for the ZSU-23-4 in order to protect moving armour against the growing threat of helicopter gunships/ATGMs, which could engage them outside the reach of AAA. My understanding is that the 9M311 missiles of the original Tunguska were fitted with laser fuzes because they have a faster reaction time compared with radio fuzes - good against fuselages of helicopters and low flying CAS aircraft, but not for smaller objects like missiles - hence the reason why they were replaced by radio fuzes for the naval Kortik(since missile defence is its "raison d'etre")....and, I guess, on later Tunguska variants as well in order for them to double as AD assets for fixed installations(e.g. protecting them from cruise missile attacks). Yeah that seems to be the case for all Russian AD systems with a dual application, but as far as I can see(based on the chassis) the Tunguska in DCS is the latest -M1 version, which should be using the radio fuzed missile variant as well.

Yes and there is in fact also a version of the 9M311 with a radar fuze - used by the naval "Kortik" and IIRC also by late modfications of the Tunguska, because radar works better against small targets like missiles.

Well I read the accounts by Luftwaffe at lengths - including comparisons between the N019 to the APG-65(employed by their F4s). I distinctly remember reading that the N019 didn't have a range disadvantage compared to the APG-65 - if anything it might actually have a slight advantage in terms of pure power/range. The problem with the N019 was that it was awekward to use - involving a lot of manual settings/mode switching in ordder to locate the targets in the first place. Another complaint with the MiG-29's BVR capability, was that the range of the R-27R missile left something to be desired. That goes both ways though :)