Seaeagle

"Ship's antiship missile ranges Kuznetsov: none" What?

Only if the code for the specific missile supports it. Missile behaviour is a separate thing and draw arguments are called by the code for the missile itself regardless of what launches it. So if you see some missiles having moving control surfaces in flight while others don't, its because they have been coded for it(and the missile 3D model animated accordingly).

Su-27K = Su-33, so there is no difference and the DCS manual figures are correct. Max take-off weight is 33 tons, but you need to use the long take-off position and good speed of the aircraft carrier(if you fly from that) to pull it off.

Ok I just remembered researching different naval guns and noticed the stated firing rate for the Mk8 - thinking that it must be a mistake, but no its pretty low.....mind you the MK-45 is even lower.

Hmm ok - I don't know then. But "high fire rate of the Mk8"?. Its something like 25 rounds a minute no? - for comparison the AK-100 does up to 60 a minute and even the AK-130 is something like 45 a minute(per barrel).

Well I don't know much about guns, but the MK8 barrel is not water cooled, so I wonder if a bore evacuator could have cooling effect?

Ah the British 4.5 inch MK8 mod 1 - on my 3D short list :) . I spent quite a bit of time watching videos of this gun firing in order to figure out how the barrel recoil is "absorbed" - I thought it was in the lump on the middle of the barrel, but it turned out that the whole barrel moves into the turret instead.

I will see if I can dig it up again - IIRC it was on a Russian site(with lots of good info). Yes thats what its meant for. The system is called RKPTZ-1 "Udav-1" and consists of the KT-153 launcher with below deck magazine/loading device for 3 types of rounds: - 111SO decoy - 111SZ mine - 111SG dept charge ...and the control system of course, which is connected to the ship's sonar system and is highly automated in order to provide a low reaction time to a torpedo attack. I have seen the "RBU-12000" designation many times, but I really don't know where it came from - its not official and frankly doesn't make any sense either - for the RBU-1000 and RBU-6000 the number indicates the approx engagement range of the launcher in meters(probably ballistic rather and operatonal), but the Udav-1 does not have anywhere near that range(something in the order of 3000 m). I guess that could have been it(floating smoke generator), but I am quite sure it said that it just pops down the ramp into the water, so it may be something different. Funny you should mention the Zif-122 launcher, because I was thinking about which existing DCS launcher logic could be used for the PK-2 system and the first one that came to mind was exactly the Zif-122 - a launcher that traverse and elevate into the direction of the incoming threat - with two ready to fire rounds and a reload sequence....I guess you could even get the missiles to detonate well ahead of the target by fiddling with the fuze distance :) . But anyway, still need the actual decoy rounds and their effect on the seeker of the incoming missiles. Indeed. Yeah it is.

Yes and its a good choice for a test - not just because its the biggest such weapon in the sim, but because the "Backfire"/Kh-22 combination was considered the single biggest threat to US CVBG during the cold war and was the kind of thing the F-14/AIM-54 was meant to deal with.

Yup and another factor is the sophistication of the system and what its set up to deal with - e.g. a Tor might not do particulary well against such a target, but the naval version(Kinzhal) probably wouldn't have any problem with it.

Cool - good job!

Thank you very much TotenDead :) . Wow how cool is that - a complete register of all MiG-29s produced!

I was thinking that too when I saw your "?" for that round, but I don't know. I came across it at one point - I cannot remember whether the round is a decoy or a mine, but apparently when loaded with such a round, its not "fired" but merely pops out of the launcher and slides over the side of the ship via the ramp. I remember this, because I had wondered about the purpose of the ramp . I don't know mate - animating traverse and elevation for such a launcher is a 5 minute job(I know because I do it every day on my own models). Besides, wouldn't it also be "required"(or desirable at least) to animate loaded/empty launchers for the fixed ones?. Anyway, the bigger work has to do with modelling the decoys themselves - i.e. their effect on the various missile homing heads, which would be the case for all types. Sure, but I only mentioned this in connection with your listing of the various rounds for the PK-2 - the entire underwater aspect is in its infancy and IMHO improving on the fidelity of surface ships should have priority - not least as we are now slowly getting flyable aircraft with actual anti-ship capability. Yes most likely. Knock yourself out - unfortunately I doubt ED has any interest in this :( Exactly.

Ok - perhaps worth asking on the Russian section if anyone knows the current status of -SMTs in Russian service. But this source... ...no thanks :D

Most yes, but not all - Russia later upgraded some(cannot remember the number) of their own 9.13 to SMT as well. Where did you read this?

Thats all good and I don't disagree that the original 9.12 should be the priority, but the discussion involving the SMT was in connection with people arguing in favour of an additional upgraded variant. There is only one prototype variant - the 9.17. The others are operational aircraft and not just exports. No the batch rejected by Algeria was the 9.19 variant and it was more than a "handful". The 9.18 is a different variant that was exported to Yemen.

Yes but thats just one decoy system(PK-2) - IIRC it can also deploy a torpedo decoy, which is what the the ramp in front of the Zif-121 launcher is for. But most Russian ships also have multiple fixed KT-216 decoy launchers for the PK-10 system. Indeed!

Heh yeah the big-hump one(9.19) is pretty ugly. But we were talking about "extensive" 9.12 modifications and the "budget" version of the SMT(9.18) is based on this and doesn't have a hump: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-Air-Force/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-29SMT-9-12/1297445/L

Thanks. I got the weight data for each rack/launcher from Vympel's website, but I guess they are just "round figures".

Well the weight for the weapon's racks/launchers are: - AKU-470 ejector rack for R-27R/ER missiles on fuselage stations: 90 kg - APU-470 rail launcher for R-27 missiles(all) on wing statins: 70 kg - P-72 rail launcher for R-73 missiles: 49 kg. So something like (4x 90) + (2x 70) + (2x 49) ~ 600 kg + the weight of the wing adaptor blocks(which I don't know).

Sure but then the N019 and N001 could be termed 60'ies technology - they aren't really. Sure but the Irbis is based on the Bars(from ~ mid 90'ies), which in turn is a N011(from the late 80'ies) fitted with a PESA antenna and even retained its hydro-mechanical drive :) . Anyway, my point was that PESA technology isn't exactly cutting edge - its been around for decades and is essentially a "normal" radar with electronic beam steering. OK but they said the same 15 years ago when Black Shark was under development - but then changed their minds and incorporated "lomac"(as "FC2") into DCS to avoid having to maintain two separate sim environments. Besides, what does it matter whether its part of DCS or standalone in this context? - its still ED developing an "entry level" simulation and, as I have mentioned before, it would IMHO be more interesting to(at least try) use it for things that are currently out of reach for FF DCS modules, instead of just "dumbing down" existing FF modules for MAC/FC3 or whatever you want to call it :) . I know the history mate - the first ED product I bought was Flanker 1.0 in 1995 :D Indeed - thats always the question with ED.

A bit of a stretch - its derived from the APG-65, which is an 80'ies design, that already incorporated a lot of new design solutions compared with the initial version of the APG-63 from the 70'ies. Simply using a planar slotted array antenna, does not make the APG-73 a "70'ies radar". You could just as well claim that the Irbis is 80'ies technology, because it uses a passive phased array antenna, which is somthing NiiP already employed on the Zaslon radar in the early 80'ies. Yes - some of them anyway. No - very little anyway. There are a lot of things DCS currently doesn't support or model until someone feels the need to change it. You yourself mentioned SAM systems that use PESA radars. Besides, who said ED is moving away from "FC3 aircraft" - if I am not mistaken they still intend to make a product("MAC") involving this level of aircraft.....is it even clear yet whether this will be stand-alone or remain part of DCS as just a renamed FC3?. Well CubanAce didn't have a choice - ED does. I am sure they wouldn't, but as mentioned above, there are other applications for properly modelled PESA radar functionality than low fidelity player controlled aircraft :) .

I agree. What has that got to do with anything? - DCS only now having "faithful representation of 70'ies radars"(not really - the APG-73 is 90'ies tech) has more to do with the need to do so in connection with modern FF figher modules. It depends on what you mean by "recreating" - an FF Su-35 module with all radar operating modes and how they are presented to the pilot, would definately involve "hefty guesswork". But a working PESA radar model itself with the specifications of an Irbis or Bars - I really don't see why that would unachieavable. IMHO it would be more a question of whether you would want to put in the effort, if it can only be applied to AI or a flyable aircraft with the above mentioned guesswork in terms of operating it - i.e. well below FC3 level of SSM. Are you seriously using a user mod as an indication of whether ED can model PESA functionality? They are what they are because they use old "abstract radar" code, which I guess is still considered sufficient for AI entities.....it doesn't mean that its impossible to model them in any other way if desired.

Yes but not to the degree of FF modules. I could be wrong, but I think he meant to say that "no radar is 100% realistic". Yes but why would they need to approximate it to a mechanical slot array? - PESA technology is not exactly a completely unknown entity and the basic specs(general design, antenna size, output power etc) of the N035 Irbis radar are not secret.

Yes a completely "slick" aircraft realistic enough. You can remove the wing adaptors as well as the weapon's racks/launchers - the only exception is the wingtip launcher, which must be in place(unless you are carrying ECM pods instead). For the weapons lauchers/racks, they probably fly with them even at airshows simply because they can't be bothered to remove them(the "Russkie Vityazi" is not just an aerobatics team, but also an actual combat unit), while they may leave the adaptors on to protect the attachment points in the wings.....I have seen them being fitted with red plugs when flying without adaptors. Yes a little.....If the DCS Su-27 PFM takes weight and drag of the pylons into consideration.